Keep them coming guys!! I suspect that the "900s" might be one of the fastest group of cards to come in, I have at least the next 50 cards ready to be scanned and displayed for your viewing pleasure (if you could call it that).
5 more coming at you...
Card # 901: Detroit Tigers team card
Serial Number: 536
Team: Detroit Tigers, card # 23 out of 50
This is another team that I"m surprised I don't have more of already. No matter, I do like this particular card showing their ALDS celebration. It's a good thing the Tigers didn't have more days off in September 2011, because they went 20-6 for the month, including a 12 game winning streak, and they didn't lose twice in a row for the entire month. Sounds like a playoff team to me..
Card # 902: Jose Iglesias
Serial Number: 1115
Team: Boston Red Sox, card # 30 out of 50
Got traded to the Tigers just in time as Miguel Cabrera appears to be injured. Wonder if he'll be able to replace Miggy's production?
Card # 903: Mike Leake
Serial Number: 1240
Team: Cincinnati Reds, card # 29 out of 50
How about this for a weird correlation...in the seasons that Mike's WHIP is over 1.3, his batting average is .295 or higher. In the seasons that his WHIP is 1.175 or lower, his batting average is .200 or lower. Guess he feels that if he's letting his opponents get on base, he has to make up for it at the plate, and vice versa.
Card # 904: Rick Ankiel
Serial Number: 239
Team: Washington Nationals, card # 41 out of 50
The Nats become the 4th team to hit the 41 card plateau. While I would have loved to see Rick Ankiel's career turn out a little better than it has, I will give a great deal of credit to the man for having persevered the way he did.
Card # 905: David Price
Serial Number: 1054
Team: Tampa Bay Rays, card # 33 out of 50
2013 so far has netted David the most complete games in a season during his career (3). Price is also leading the AL in SO/BB ratio (5.93) and BB/9 (1.2). Those numbers unfortunately don't translate into wins for him so far, as his record is only 6-5. Maybe wins is an antiquated stat after all....??
Thanks for reading, Robert