Throwback Thursday Review: 1992 Fantasy League Baseball

December 17, 2015

1992FBOutsideAs previously mentioned, I have given away a lot of the books from my baseball library. That’s freed up a lot of room in the attic, but there’s still lots to sift through as I shift things around, still discarding some items while moving others to my main office in the basement.

As anyone who de-clutters can tell you, it’s easy to get lost when you find something you haven’t seen in years, whether it’s a photo, a latter, or, in this case, a book.

In retrospect, you sometimes ask, “What was I thinking? Why did I get this?” either because you can’t believe you did or you’ve truly forgotten.

In the case of 1992 Fantasy League Baseball, published by Publications International Ltd./Signet, I guess I really though I would get into FB. I didn’t then and still haven’t.

thickbookThis 672-page — yet surprisingly lightweight — paperback, which had an MSRP of $5.99 (I saved a whopping 59 cents at the store), is pretty bare-bones, compared with today’s glossier products that combine the old-style baseball annuals with FB data; there are no illustrations other than a few diamond grids. The cover boasts “1,000 players evaluated,” which was pretty extensive given that this was a year before MLB expanded to 28 teams, meaning there were only 600 players on rosters, not counting September call-ups.

GriffeyThe first chapter is your basic set-up, the whys and how-tos of FB. The main section, as you would expect, consists of player records and ratings, including rankings set to the criteria of the writers, which include Gary Gillette, Pete Palmer, Stuart Shea, Bruce Herman, and Welford McCaffrey.

The third chapter focuses on the 100 “top prospects,” which includes such future stars as Chipper Jones, Pedro Martinez, Raul Mondesi, and Tim Salmon, as well as busts like Brien Taylor and Todd Van Poppel. In fact there are more names that I had not heard of than those who made careers in of the game of any note. So much for scouting.

The final chapter consists of rankings and stats, which is probably where a lot of readers might go first, bypassing the bulk of the book.

So now that I’ve looked it over and written about it, the question is — and will continue to be for these “Throwback Reviews” — should I keep it? What’s the nostalgia factor? What makes it Bookshelf-worthy?

In this case, the answer is no.

0Shares

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post:

script type="text/javascript"> var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-5496371-4']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();