Value of T206 E.Collins??

[jasonc]

Maybe there is an explanation for this, but considering Eddie Collins career stats, which arguably could be some of the best stats from stars of that era. Why is his T206 card valued less than Lajoie (Can understand, but noticed it was quite a bit less), but M.Brown, Evers, Home Run Baker, Tinker, Chance, Joss, Chesbro and they list goes on. Was his portrait card printed more than some of the other HOF's ? I checked the past posts for this site and couldn't find a reason for this. It seems like Mid-Tier HOF's have higher value than Eddie Collins, who IMO could be close to a Top-Tier HOF based on the numbers he put up.

[swarmee]

Possible reasons:
1) 47 career home runs
2) Pictured on Philadelphia A's. Moved to KC then Oakland. Not a big team fan base like still existing Chicago Cubs or Boston Red Sox.
3) No name cachet. Not someone people on the street know like Tinkers/Evers/Chance.
4) How much are Paul Molitor cards worth? That would be the modern comparison.

[bbcard1]

I do think there is something to the forgettable name syndrome. Athletes like Troy Brown, Lee Smith, and Mike Scott are not remember to the degree they would have been had they had a name with more flair.

I think, though, that it is the fact that the T206 was near the beginning of Collins career. If all you want is a card with Eddie Collins on it, you can find them in issues all the way up to the Goudey's. In contrast there area relatively few Lajoie cards (as T206s were pretty near the end of his career) and many of them , outside of the T206, are very obscure and expensive.

[packs]

I think it's all about the art. The Collins card just isn't an interesting card. The Lajoie cards, particularly the with bat card, are a lot nicer to look at in my opinion.

[mechanicalman]

I think it's all about the art. The Collins card just isn't an interesting card. The Lajoie cards, particularly the with bat card, are a lot nicer to look at in my opinion.

Respectfully, I do not agree with this sentiment. I used to be of the opinion that the action cards were more visually appealing, but the portraits have really grown on me. Collin's portrait has a deep rich maroon color that you don't see with many of the others, so I believe it stands out in a positive way. (Reminds me of the '33 Gehringer.) Again, just an opinion. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't agree.

[Joshchisox08]

Possible reasons:
1) 47 career home runs
2) Pictured on Philadelphia A's. Moved to KC then Oakland. Not a big team fan base like still existing Chicago Cubs or Boston Red Sox.
3) No name cachet. Not someone people on the street know like Tinkers/Evers/Chance.
4) How much are Paul Molitor cards worth? That would be the modern comparison.

John I know you're making a comparison and I agree big time with 1-3 but I don't think Cocky Collins and Paul Molitor should be mentioned in the same sentence no offense to Molitor but Collins could easily be picked as the best Second Baseman (arguably) Molitor..... not so much.

[Sean]

I think it's all about the art. The Collins card just isn't an interesting card. The Lajoie cards, particularly the with bat card, are a lot nicer to look at in my opinion.

Too bad they never made a card of Collins with a bat. :D


245968

[mechanicalman]

John I know you're making a comparison and I agree big time with 1-3 but I don't think Cocky Collins and Paul Molitor should be mentioned in the same sentence no offense to Molitor but Collins could easily be picked as the best Second Baseman (arguably) Molitor..... not so much.

Agree with this. I think Hornsby might give Collins a run, but they are in a different class than Molitor.

That said, I think this comment reinforces the point of the OP's question. Collins does seem under-appreciated and under-valued.

[Luke]

I've had this same thought before. It doesn't make much sense to me.

[Mark]

I've noticed this, too, and I've chalked it up to how a lot of the more popular cards are of players whose careers began back in the 19th century while Collins' playing career stretched into the late 1920's. Maybe this made him seem too modern to excite the nostalgic interest that goes to "dead ball" players like Chance, Lajoie, and Brown. In addition, it might hurt that he was one of the clean Black Sox, making him even less romantic a figure.

[Yoda]

Too bad they never made a card of Collins with a bat. :D


245968

If you want an expensive t206 Collins, try the Charlie Sheen fielding proof for an unissued card. That one will set you back a tidy sum.

[brianp-beme]

I am not sure why Eddie doesn't command the collector respect (perhaps because nothing about him is exciting or 'sexy'), but being a bargain shopper, I have built up a pretty decent collection of his cards due to this lack of demand.

For the sake of my future collecting, please keep this info on the low down.

Brian

[T206Collector]

It's helpful to see that Lajoie, Speaker, and Young got into the Hall of Fame in 1937 -- voted on by people who saw them all player -- and Collins didn't make the cut that year.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_1937.shtml

The next year, Alexander got in, but no one else.

It wasn't until 1939 that Collins got in, along with Sisler and Keeler.

That gives a pretty strong impression that as great as Collins was statistically, he wasn't thought of as that ultra-top-tier great by his contemporary critics.

As an aside, I'm a pretty big Eddie Collins fan - of all the famous ballplayers who have come out of New York, none of them came from as close to where I grew up in the lower Hudson Valley. Collins came out of Tarrytown, NY!

[brianp-beme]

Another observation...since the early eighties when I began collecting vintage, Eddie Collins has always been undervalued compared to his top tier status as a HOF ballplayer. So this collector perception certainly has been around for a long time.

Brian

[bravos4evr]

IDK why this is honestly. He's probably the 2nd greatest 2b of all time after Hornsby (who is in a league of his own really at 2b), he's got good career numbers relative to his peers at all positions and is nearly one of the 10 most productive players of ALL TIME!!! (I'd put him in the 11-15 range,which is elite of the elite)

I guess the fact he played for a lot of teams and perhaps didn't have a personality that was marketable or something hurts him. I have noticed that 2b seems to be the red headed stepchild of baseball too. for some odd reason.

[swarmee]

John I know you're making a comparison and I agree big time with 1-3 but I don't think Cocky Collins and Paul Molitor should be mentioned in the same sentence no offense to Molitor but Collins could easily be picked as the best Second Baseman (arguably) Molitor..... not so much.

I wasn't going by 2B even, really. Just picked Molitor as someone who played for teams with small fan bases (MIL, MIN, TOR), compiled a lot of hits, and isn't well-known nowadays compared to his contemporaries, and therefore is regarded as a common in 90 percent of sets he's in. I personally know little about Eddie Collins and how he played, or how his fans 100 years ago thought about him. I would bet that if he was a Yankee, Red Sock, or Cub he would sell for twice what he does now.

[swarmee]

Here's a counter-intuitive reason:
Eddie Collins has only one pose, and is one of the cheapest HOFs. People who are collecting the set need only 1, and cross it off their list early. Then they don't bid on other ones, the way that the Cobbs, Mathewsons, even Hal Chases with multiple poses require people to continually demand them to build sets.

[the 'stache]

I think you guys are severely underestimating how good a player Molitor was. Rajah was clearly on his own level as second basemen in the game's history go. You will get no argument from me: Hornsby is on his own level, and nobody, really, is close. Rogers Hornsby hit over .400 multiple times, had incredible power. But Collins better than Molitor? Yes. Way better than Molitor? No way. You have to remember that Molly's early career was plagued with injuries. Before age 30, he only really had three healthy seasons - 1979, his second season, 1982, and 1983, which was a bit of a down year for him.

Look at how many games he played, season by season, before age 30:

1978: 125 of 162
1979: 140 of 162
1980: 111 of 162
1981: 64 of 109
1982: 160 of 162
1983: 152 of 162
1984: 13 of 162
1985: 140 of 162
1986: 105 of 162
1987: 118 of 162

total games played by team: 1,567
total games played by Molitor: 1,128
total games missed by Molitor: 439

That's nearly three full seasons of play, in his prime, that he missed due to injury, and that doesn't factor in when he played hurt.

1987 was his age 30 season. He was a .291 hitter before the '87 season started. Look what he did from age 30 on when he was healthy. The guy was a superstar. He hit .353 in 1987, .312 the next season, .315 in 1989. Then, he was hurt in 1990, and played in only 103 games, hitting .285. He was healthy then on, hitting .325 in 1991, .320 in 1992, .332 in 1993, .341 in 1994 (playing in all 115 games). In 1995, he missed 14 games, and hit .270, then hit .341 in 1996 with 225 hits and 113 RBI at age 39. He hit .305 at age 40.

That he was able to collect 3,300 + hits in his career, 600 doubles, and 500 + stolen bases, with as many games as he missed, and the injuries he dealt with, is simply incredible.

He didn't hit a lot of home runs for one simple reason. The majority of his career, he played at Milwaukee County Stadium. Yes, the Brewers hit an awful lot of home runs in the late 70s and early 80s, but that's because the guys they had on their team--Gorman Thomas, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie, Ted Simmons, Robin Yount in his prime, before blowing out his shoulder--these guys all had substantial power. County Stadium was an aircraft carrier, and the winds coming in from Lake Michigan didn't have quite the same effect that the bay in San Francisco had on Candlestick, but it blew a lot of balls in. Balls went to die in the outfield. Had Hank Aaron played his home games in another stadium before the move to Atlanta, he'd have hit another 100 home runs.

Molitor was a spectacular baseball player. He was the second most disruptive player in the American League behind Rickey Henderson when he wasn't hurt. No, that's not overstating it. Pitchers were constantly throwing over to first base, because he was a threat to steal at any moment. Had he been healthy, he'd have been stealing 60 + every year, instead of 40 +.

How many hitters become better later in their career? If you look at the numbers, you'd say Molitor. From age 34 on (from 1991 to 1998, when he retired at age 41), he was a .316 hitter. Only Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas and Paul O'Neil were better, and all of them were much younger than Molitor. And in the post season, there were few better hitters. He was a .368 lifetime hitter in the playoffs, including a .377 mark in two World Series. He was the first to have 5 hits in a World Series game, and only Albert Pujols has done it since.

Collins gets the nod over Molitor because he stayed healthy throughout his career, and he was better defensively. But they're a lot closer than the numbers show.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Two words for all you debaters Joe Morgan

[bravos4evr]

I think you guys are severely underestimating how good a player Molitor was. Rajah was clearly on his own level as second basemen in the game's history go. You will get no argument from me: Hornsby is on his own level, and nobody, really, is close. Rogers Hornsby hit over .400 multiple times, had incredible power. But Collins better than Molitor? Yes. Way better than Molitor? No way. You have to remember that Molly's early career was plagued with injuries. Before age 30, he only really had three healthy seasons - 1979, his second season, 1982, and 1983, which was a bit of a down year for him.

Look at how many games he played, season by season, before age 30:

1978: 125 of 162
1979: 140 of 162
1980: 111 of 162
1981: 64 of 109
1982: 160 of 162
1983: 152 of 162
1984: 13 of 162
1985: 140 of 162
1986: 105 of 162
1987: 118 of 162

total games played by team: 1,567
total games played by Molitor: 1,128
total games missed by Molitor: 439

That's nearly three full seasons of play, in his prime, that he missed due to injury, and that doesn't factor in when he played hurt.

1987 was his age 30 season. He was a .291 hitter before the '87 season started. Look what he did from age 30 on when he was healthy. The guy was a superstar. He hit .353 in 1987, .312 the next season, .315 in 1989. Then, he was hurt in 1990, and played in only 103 games, hitting .285. He was healthy then on, hitting .325 in 1991, .320 in 1992, .332 in 1993, .341 in 1994 (playing in all 115 games). In 1995, he missed 14 games, and hit .270, then hit .341 in 1996 with 225 hits and 113 RBI at age 39. He hit .305 at age 40.

That he was able to collect 3,300 + hits in his career, 600 doubles, and 500 + stolen bases, with as many games as he missed, and the injuries he dealt with, is simply incredible.

He didn't hit a lot of home runs for one simple reason. The majority of his career, he played at Milwaukee County Stadium. Yes, the Brewers hit an awful lot of home runs in the late 70s and early 80s, but that's because the guys they had on their team--Gorman Thomas, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie, Ted Simmons, Robin Yount in his prime, before blowing out his shoulder--these guys all had substantial power. County Stadium was an aircraft carrier, and the winds coming in from Lake Michigan didn't have quite the same effect that the bay in San Francisco had on Candlestick, but it blew a lot of balls in. Balls went to die in the outfield. Had Hank Aaron played his home games in another stadium before the move to Atlanta, he'd have hit another 100 home runs.

Molitor was a spectacular baseball player. He was the second most disruptive player in the American League behind Rickey Henderson when he wasn't hurt. No, that's not overstating it. Pitchers were constantly throwing over to first base, because he was a threat to steal at any moment. Had he been healthy, he'd have been stealing 60 + every year, instead of 40 +.

How many hitters become better later in their career? If you look at the numbers, you'd say Molitor. From age 34 on (from 1991 to 1998, when he retired at age 41), he was a .316 hitter. Only Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas and Paul O'Neil were better, and all of them were much younger than Molitor. And in the post season, there were few better hitters. He was a .368 lifetime hitter in the playoffs, including a .377 mark in two World Series. He was the first to have 5 hits in a World Series game, and only Albert Pujols has done it since.

Collins gets the nod over Molitor because he stayed healthy throughout his career, and he was better defensively. But they're a lot closer than the numbers show.

Molitor really gets hurt a lot by playing over 50% of his career as a DH though. Collins, by playing 2b, gathered a lot of defensive value. Also, Collins was an elite baserunner too gathering even more value. In terms of fWAR Collins sits at 120.3 (11th all time) and Molitor is 67.6 (71st all time)

In terms of hitting Collins has a career slash line of: .333/.424/.429 wOBA of .409 and a wRC+ of 144

Molitor's is .309/.369/.448 a wOBA of .361 and a wRC+ of 122


so yeah, Collins really is in an entirely different tier of player than Molitor. Now both players probably don't get the recognition they deserve because of the markets of their teams, but Collins is really one of the greatest players of all time, easily in the top 20.

[packs]

I really do think he's just cursed with a crappy looking card. His Goudey stinks too. His Cracker Jack sells for a pretty good premium though, but it's also an awesome looking card.

[TheBigRedOne]

Two words for all you debaters Joe Morgan

And jusk ask him, he will tell you how great he was...

:)

[bravos4evr]

Two words for all you debaters Joe Morgan

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

[iwantitiwinit]

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

Agreed. Wonder however if in some roundabout way he gets hurt because there is the Jimmy Collins in the same issue. I don't agree that the card isn't attractive I love the deep maroon, magenta background. I guess others don't.

[Sean]

two words for all you debaters joe morgan
+ 100

[bravos4evr]

Agreed. Wonder however if in some roundabout way he gets hurt because there is the Jimmy Collins in the same issue. I don't agree that the card isn't attractive I love the deep maroon, magenta background. I guess others don't.

I was referring to Morgan then Hornsby in my quoted post...(in case you got mixed up)

but yeah, IDK what the Collins issue is, the card looks fine to me, his career is elite and he was better than nearly everyone at 2b not named Rogers Hornsby.

I guess it was market, too much moving around and he didn't have the charisma of the others???

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

I was talking about the argument for 2nd place. I agree Hornsby is #1.

Oddly as a broadcaster (and he was as awful a broadcaster as he was great as a player) he hated sabermetrics and advanced stats even though though they greatly demonstrate his accomplishments as a player more than the traditional stats do.

[the 'stache]

Collins was an elite base runner, but Molitor wasn't? Seriously? Why, because Collins stole more bases? For one, Molitor's number of attempts was hurt by his injuries, but he's a much better stealer than Collins ever was. Look inside the numbers.

Collins: 741 stolen bases, 195 caught stealing = 936 attempts. 79.166% success rate
Molitor: 504 stolen bases, 131 caught stealing = 635 attempts. 79.370% success rate.

And, the thing is, Cocky's caught stealing records are incomplete. He was a full-time player as of 1909. There is no record of his caught stealing figures for 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, and 1919. He swiped 345 of his 741 steals in those seasons. How many times did he get caught? Look at his best base stealing seasons where full records are available: he stole 63 in 1912, and was caught 22 times. 74% success rate. In 1914, he swiped 58 bases, but got caught 30 times. That's a 66% success rate. In 1915, he swiped 46 bases, and got caught 30 times. That's a 60.5% success rate. In 1923, he stole 48 bases, leading the league. But he also led the league getting nailed 29 times. That's a 62.3% success rate. Molitor has a 79.4% career success rate, which is already slightly better than Collins' 79.2% rate without even considering all the times he got caught, for which there are no records. Take his four seasons where complete records are known, before he hit age 30: 1912, 1914, 1915 and 1916. He stole 207 bases in 310 tries. 66.7% success rate. Assume he's successful at that same rate for the seasons where no caught stealing records are available. That means he attempted to steal 517 times. So, that's another 172 times he was caught stealing. So, now he's stolen 741 bases....in 1,108 attempts. A 66.9% success rate for his career.

And that was assuming the best case scenario, by his complete seasonal records. He could have been thrown out more often, meaning his career rate dips further.

What about doubles and triples? Collins played half of his career in the dead ball era, when nobody hit home runs. Collins hit 438 doubles, and 187 triples in 2,826 games. Molitor hit 605 doubles, and 114 triples in 2,684 games. 812 extra bases for Collins by double or triple, 833 extra bases for Molitor from doubles and triples. That's a push.

In no way was Collins a better base runner than Paul Molitor. None. He stole more bases, yes. But he also got caught a hell of a lot more often, and what good is stealing if you're getting thrown out a high percentage of the time?


Molitor really gets hurt a lot by playing over 50% of his career as a DH though. Collins, by playing 2b, gathered a lot of defensive value. Also, Collins was an elite baserunner too gathering even more value. In terms of fWAR Collins sits at 120.3 (11th all time) and Molitor is 67.6 (71st all time)

In terms of hitting Collins has a career slash line of: .333/.424/.429 wOBA of .409 and a wRC+ of 144

Molitor's is .309/.369/.448 a wOBA of .361 and a wRC+ of 122


so yeah, Collins really is in an entirely different tier of player than Molitor. Now both players probably don't get the recognition they deserve because of the markets of their teams, but Collins is really one of the greatest players of all time, easily in the top 20.

[the 'stache]

I think my top 5 second basemen would be:

1.) Hornsby
.
.
.
a chasm that would swallow a small moon

2.) Napolean Lajoie
3.) Eddie Collins
4.) Joe Morgan
5.) Jackie Robinson

Right behind them, I'd probably have Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Ryne Sandberg and Robby Alomar.

[Mark]

I was referring to Morgan then Hornsby in my quoted post...(in case you got mixed up)

but yeah, IDK what the Collins issue is, the card looks fine to me, his career is elite and he was better than nearly everyone at 2b not named Rogers Hornsby.

I guess it was market, too much moving around and he didn't have the charisma of the others???

I don't get the "too much moving around" theory. He was one of the two most important hitters on a legendary dynasty in Philly for almost a decade, and for another decade he was one of the top hitters on the freakin' Blacksox / Whitesox. Then he went back to Philly to help launch another dynasty. 2 teams in 20 plus years. Very similar to Speaker and Lajoie, yet by no means the same respect. Eddie is still #13 in career WAR according to BR. Maybe it was the ears.

[david_l]

Eh. Nevermind

[bravos4evr]

Collins was an elite base runner, but Molitor wasn't? Seriously? Why, because Collins stole more bases? For one, Molitor's number of attempts was hurt by his injuries, but he's a much better stealer than Collins ever was. Look inside the numbers.

Collins: 741 stolen bases, 195 caught stealing = 936 attempts. 79.166% success rate
Molitor: 504 stolen bases, 131 caught stealing = 635 attempts. 79.370% success rate.

And, the thing is, Cocky's caught stealing records are incomplete. He was a full-time player as of 1909. There is no record of his caught stealing figures for 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, and 1919. He swiped 345 of his 741 steals in those seasons. How many times did he get caught? Look at his best base stealing seasons where full records are available: he stole 63 in 1912, and was caught 22 times. 74% success rate. In 1914, he swiped 58 bases, but got caught 30 times. That's a 66% success rate. In 1915, he swiped 46 bases, and got caught 30 times. That's a 60.5% success rate. In 1923, he stole 48 bases, leading the league. But he also led the league getting nailed 29 times. That's a 62.3% success rate. Molitor has a 79.4% career success rate, which is already slightly better than Collins' 79.2% rate without even considering all the times he got caught, for which there are no records. Take his four seasons where complete records are known, before he hit age 30: 1912, 1914, 1915 and 1916. He stole 207 bases in 310 tries. 66.7% success rate. Assume he's successful at that same rate for the seasons where no caught stealing records are available. That means he attempted to steal 517 times. So, that's another 172 times he was caught stealing. So, now he's stolen 741 bases....in 1,108 attempts. A 66.9% success rate for his career.

And that was assuming the best case scenario, by his complete seasonal records. He could have been thrown out more often, meaning his career rate dips further.

What about doubles and triples? Collins played half of his career in the dead ball era, when nobody hit home runs. Collins hit 438 doubles, and 187 triples in 2,826 games. Molitor hit 605 doubles, and 114 triples in 2,684 games. 812 extra bases for Collins by double or triple, 833 extra bases for Molitor from doubles and triples. That's a push.

In no way was Collins a better base runner than Paul Molitor. None. He stole more bases, yes. But he also got caught a hell of a lot more often, and what good is stealing if you're getting thrown out a high percentage of the time?

baserunning is more than just stolen bases it's taking extra bases...etc

for Molitor's 12,160 PA's he has a baserunning rating of 46.6 runs above avg, Collins has a 42.3 in 12,037 PA's, so really they were pretty close in total baserunning value per plate appearance.

Collins played 2b, Molitor played 1b and DH, Collins was a 22% better hitter relative to league avg than Molitor (144 for collins 122 for Molitor) for his career as well, this is why he is an elite player and Molitor is not (well ,relative to other HOF'ers anyway)

using counting stats is kind of a waste of time when comparing across eras like that. rates and peripherals give us a much better picture. Molitor was a good player, but Collins is an all time elite player. It's not even close really. 60+ more pts of OBP really matters.(and Collins is tied for 12th all time in getting on base among all players with at least 3000 PA's all time (.424) , Molitor is 281st among the same with a .369)

[TheBigRedOne]

This thread ended up inspiring me to pick up the Collins for sale over at the t206 sale forum.

Enablers!

[Yoda]

I know that some consider Collins' T206 to be his RC but even that really hasn't helped push up its' price. I suppose the Sporting Life Cabinet is his true rookie.

[TheBigRedOne]

I know that some consider Collins' T206 to be his RC but even that really hasn't helped push up its' price. I suppose the Sporting Life Cabinet is his true rookie.

He looks like he's 12 in that portrait, that's for sure.

[itjclarke]

This thread ended up inspiring me to pick up the Collins for sale over at the t206 sale forum.

Enablers!

Haha, you beat me to it

[CMIZ5290]

I think my top 5 second basemen would be:

1.) Hornsby
.
.
.
a chasm that would swallow a small moon

2.) Napolean Lajoie
3.) Eddie Collins
4.) Joe Morgan
5.) Jackie Robinson

Right behind them, I'd probably have Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Ryne Sandberg and Robby Alomar.

Lajoie had a career batting average of .340 for 21 years, I personally don't think the gap between him and Hornsby is that great, not at all.....Also, Lajoie's batting average includes the last three years of his career where he was injured a lot, and they were very sub par by his standards (.257, .280, .244)...If you exclude those 3 years, his batting average was probably around .375 for 18 years, how do you argue that?

[the 'stache]

Ok, exclude those last three years. Lajoie is then a career .350 hitter with a career OPS of .883, and a 160 OPS +.

Hornsby was a career .358 hitter. 8 points might not seem significant, but when you consider Hornsby's power, he blows Lajoie out of the water. And, that's saying something, because Lajoie was a fantastic, elite hitter in the game's history. Hornsby had a lifetime 1.010 OPS. That's a spectacular season. But for a career mark, that's ridiculous. Hornsby had a 175 OPS +. Simply put, he was, for his career, 15% better than Lajoie. That's a significant gap.

Since we're allowing the removal of the very last couple of years when age and injury caught up with Lajoie, look at Hornsby under the same light. From 1932-1937, Hornsby played a combined 132 games. 305 PAs after age 35. He was a .291 hitter, with an .826 OPS. Chop that little bit of baseball off his career, and his numbers jump up. Now, Hornsby is a .361 career hitter with a 177 career OPS +.

Let's just think about that a second. Chop off roughly 300 plate appearances from the very tail of Hornsby's career, and his lifetime OPS + is two points lower than Lou Gehrigh's 179 OPS +. Gehrig is widely considered the greatest first baseman in the game's history, playing a position known for its great power hitters. Hornsby nearly equals him, and he was a second baseman.

In the history of the game, only Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds and Lou Gehrig have had higher career OPS + marks than Hornsby. Lajoie, as great as he was, is 35th all-time. Still one of the elite players of the game, but the fact remains that Hornsby had a career batting average that was 8-10 points higher than Lajoie, depending on how much of Lajoie's career is being compared. But Lajoie doesn't come close to matching Hornsby's power. Yes, he played his entire career in the dead ball era. But OPS + is measured against peers, and simply put, Hornsby was much better than Lajoie was, on that basis. Lajoie was capable of putting up the big numbers-he had a 1.106 OPS in 1901, leading the league with 14 home runs. But, while he came close, he never topped the 1.000 OPS plateau again. Hornsby's career OPS was 1.010. And, even though Hornsby played in the live ball era, he still had more triples than Lajoie, 169 to 163, in about 1,000 fewer plate appearances.

Lajoie went over 10.0 WAR once. Hornsby did it six times.

Both are elite Hall of Famers. But Hornsby is on his own level as far as the position is concerned.

Lajoie had a career batting average of .340 for 21 years, I personally don't think the gap between him and Hornsby is that great, not at all.....Also, Lajoie's batting average includes the last three years of his career where he was injured a lot, and they were very sub par by his standards (.257, .280, .244)...If you exclude those 3 years, his batting average was probably around .375 for 18 years, how do you argue that?

[jasonc]

I do think there is something to the forgettable name syndrome. Athletes like Troy Brown, Lee Smith, and Mike Scott are not remember to the degree they would have been had they had a name with more flair.

I think, though, that it is the fact that the T206 was near the beginning of Collins career. If all you want is a card with Eddie Collins on it, you can find them in issues all the way up to the Goudey's. In contrast there area relatively few Lajoie cards (as T206s were pretty near the end of his career) and many of them , outside of the T206, are very obscure and expensive.


Some valid points brought up in this thread. The Tinker/Evers/Chance combo and being with the Chicago Cubs. But here's one, "Home Run" Baker is actually a higher priced card than the Eddie Collins. Baker is just one card in the T206 set (like Collins), also played with the A's (like Collins) (not Boston or the Cubbies) and I would say his card is just an ordinary card (the action shot) .... also his career was relatively young around the 1909 season (again like Collins)

...But the stats and the numbers on the field are just laughable when comparing to Eddie "Cocky" Collins. Is there something about Home Run Baker I am missing?

Edit:: Actually, I do indeed notice that Baker does not have too many other cards issued besides the T206, so I guess that could have something to do with it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Lajoie had a career batting average of .340 for 21 years, I personally don't think the gap between him and Hornsby is that great, not at all.....Also, Lajoie's batting average includes the last three years of his career where he was injured a lot, and they were very sub par by his standards (.257, .280, .244)...If you exclude those 3 years, his batting average was probably around .375 for 18 years, how do you argue that?

By saying that those three years don't even come close to dropping his average that far and that batting average is overrated?

[swarmee]

But here's one, "Home Run" Baker is actually a higher priced card than the Eddie Collins.

Well, he also played 6 seasons with the Yankees - whose prices always cause an increase, and was nicknamed "Home Run" for leading the league four straight seasons (at 11, 12-career high, 10, and 9!!).

[bravos4evr]

Both are elite Hall of Famers. But Hornsby is on his own level as far as the position is concerned.

hit the nail right on the head, Hornsby is easily the greatest 2b of all time and one of the 4 or 5 greatest hitters of all time. The guy was a beast.

I remember this story about Hornsby from the HOF umpire Bill Klem " a rookie pitcher was facing RH and he threw a pitch or two that Klem called balls and the pitcher barked "those were strikes" , Klem took off his mask and said "son, when you throw a strike, Mr Hornsby will let you know"

[Yoda]

I read once that Hornsby refused to read a newspaper in the off-season for fear it would impair his batting eye. That's dedication to your craft.

[CMIZ5290]

Once again, I'm not disputing Hornsby as the greatest ever, he was. I'm simply saying the gap between him and Lajoie is much closer that Bill and Nick are indicating....Lajoie was an incredible player....

[Tao_Moko]

I am not sure why Eddie doesn't command the collector respect (perhaps because nothing about him is exciting or 'sexy'), but being a bargain shopper, I have built up a pretty decent collection of his cards due to this lack of demand.

For the sake of my future collecting, please keep this info on the low down.

Brian

Sexy he was not. "Cocky" was Columbia educated and unlike Joe Jackson and many others, joined the Marine Corps during WWI. He didn't serve in combat but at least put himself out there. I'll be more excited over a fellow Devil Dog than somebody who was simply just good at baseball any day. I enjoy the lower price for his cards too. Cat may be out of the bag now. Net54 has a way of impacting the market in short spurts sometimes.

[bravos4evr]

Once again, I'm not disputing Hornsby as the greatest ever, he was. I'm simply saying the gap between him and Lajoie is much closer that Bill and Nick are indicating....Lajoie was an incredible player....



Hornsby-

career slash of .358/.434/.577 (2nd/8th/10th all time among all players)

career wOBA .459 (5th all time )

career wRC+ 173 (tied 3rd all time)

career fangraphs WAR 130.3 (9th all time in the fewest plate appearances of anyone in the top 12 other than Lou Gehrig)


Lajoie:

slash line of .338/.380/.467 (21st/164th/272nd all time)

career wOBA .401 ( 77th all time)

career wRC+ 144 (45th all time)

fangraphs WAR 102.2 (19th all time in 1015 more plate appearances and 121 more games than Hornsby)


both are all time great players, but man Hornsby is comparable to Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Williams, Mays .Speaker, Aaron. Lajoie is more in the Ott, Rickey Henderson, Schmidt, Frank Robinson, Foxx club.

Both clubs are elite, the upper club is the absolute elite of the elite!!!


P.S. this is not a criticism of Lajoie, he is the 2nd greatest 2b of all time. rather it is a celebration of how incredible of a player Hornsby was. One of the top 4 or 5 best hitters to ever play the game.(and one of the ten all around greatest players)

[CMIZ5290]

Hornsby-

career slash of .358/.434/.577 (2nd/8th/10th all time among all players)

career wOBA .459 (5th all time )

career wRC+ 173 (tied 3rd all time)

career fangraphs WAR 130.3 (9th all time in the fewest plate appearances of anyone in the top 12 other than Lou Gehrig)


Lajoie:

slash line of .338/.380/.467 (21st/164th/272nd all time)

career wOBA .401 ( 77th all time)

career wRC+ 144 (45th all time)

fangraphs WAR 102.2 (19th all time in 1015 more plate appearances and 121 more games than Hornsby)


both are all time great players, but man Hornsby is comparable to Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Williams, Mays .Speaker, Aaron. Lajoie is more in the Ott, Rickey Henderson, Schmidt, Frank Robinson, Foxx club.

Both clubs are elite, the upper club is the absolute elite of the elite!!!


P.S. this is not a criticism of Lajoie, he is the 2nd greatest 2b of all time. rather it is a celebration of how incredible of a player Hornsby was. One of the top 4 or 5 best hitters to ever play the game.(and one of the ten all around greatest players)
Speaker? really? How do you put these two guys in two different levels? And please, leave the bullshit graphics and WAR alone....TALK baseball....Speaker and Lajoie's hitting stats almost mirror each other. Also, Hornsby comparable to Ruth? I don't think so.......Also, where do you put Mantle??

[bravos4evr]

Speaker? really? How do you put these two guys in two different levels? And please, leave the bullshit graphics and WAR alone....TALK baseball....Speaker and Lajoie's hitting stats almost mirror each other.

I put them at 2 different levels because anyone who understands the game of baseball knows that Speaker is an elite of the elite player and Lajoie is only an elite player. Compare their stats (the ones that aren't worthless like avg, rbi and runs) and Speaker is on another level.


btw, you ignored the slash line that showed Hornsby as top ten or so in all three and Lajoie only near the top in the fairly worthless batting avg stat.

Speaker has a career 157 wRC+ (that is weighted runs created, that looks at the type of hits they got park and league adjusted and is probably the best "single number" hitting stat out there as far as judging individual production is concerned.) Lajoie has a 144. Speaker was 57% better hitter than average in his career for nearly 12,000 plate appearances, that's impressive stuff. (good enough for a tie for 12th all time just in hitting tied with McGwire and Johnny Mize) over 22 seasons! (hence the 130+ WAR) Lajoie is tied or 43rd all time over 21 seasons (also amazingly impressive)

but seriously tho, Speaker is in another tier.


time to learn the new metrics, evolve as the game evolves. It's not hard to understand or "made up" nor does it have anything to do with fantasy baseball as so many people say. it's just the science evolving and using the data in a more accurate way. It's just statistics, why so much hatred and anger about them?

you either evolve with the game or you end up being left behind. the choice is up to you. learning is fun!

[BBB]

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.



Where's Cobb and Shoeless on that list?

[CMIZ5290]

I put them at 2 different levels because anyone who understands the game of baseball knows that Speaker is an elite of the elite player and Lajoie is only an elite player. Compare their stats (the ones that aren't worthless like avg, rbi and runs) and Speaker is on another level.


btw, you ignored the slash line that showed Hornsby as top ten or so in all three and Lajoie only near the top in the fairly worthless batting avg stat.

Speaker has a career 157 wRC+ (that is weighted runs created, that looks at the type of hits they got park and league adjusted and is probably the best "single number" hitting stat out there as far as judging individual production is concerned.) Lajoie has a 144. Speaker was 57% better hitter than average in his career for nearly 12,000 plate appearances, that's impressive stuff. (good enough for a tie for 12th all time just in hitting tied with McGwire and Johnny Mize) over 22 seasons! (hence the 130+ WAR) Lajoie is tied or 43rd all time over 21 seasons (also amazingly impressive)

but seriously tho, Speaker is in another tier.


time to learn the new metrics, evolve as the game evolves. It's not hard to understand or "made up" nor does it have anything to do with fantasy baseball as so many people say. it's just the science evolving and using the data in a more accurate way. It's just statistics, why so much hatred and anger about them?

you either evolve with the game or you end up being left behind. the choice is up to you. learning is fun!

Is this why you're an Atlanta Brave fan? If so, it makes sense now. By the way, why didn't you mention Mantle in your previous analysis?

[CMIZ5290]

I put them at 2 different levels because anyone who understands the game of baseball knows that Speaker is an elite of the elite player and Lajoie is only an elite player. Compare their stats (the ones that aren't worthless like avg, rbi and runs) and Speaker is on another level.


btw, you ignored the slash line that showed Hornsby as top ten or so in all three and Lajoie only near the top in the fairly worthless batting avg stat.

Speaker has a career 157 wRC+ (that is weighted runs created, that looks at the type of hits they got park and league adjusted and is probably the best "single number" hitting stat out there as far as judging individual production is concerned.) Lajoie has a 144. Speaker was 57% better hitter than average in his career for nearly 12,000 plate appearances, that's impressive stuff. (good enough for a tie for 12th all time just in hitting tied with McGwire and Johnny Mize) over 22 seasons! (hence the 130+ WAR) Lajoie is tied or 43rd all time over 21 seasons (also amazingly impressive)

but seriously tho, Speaker is in another tier.


time to learn the new metrics, evolve as the game evolves. It's not hard to understand or "made up" nor does it have anything to do with fantasy baseball as so many people say. it's just the science evolving and using the data in a more accurate way. It's just statistics, why so much hatred and anger about them?

you either evolve with the game or you end up being left behind. the choice is up to you. learning is fun!

So....Based on this, Speaker and Johnny Mize are comparable in your data??

[bravos4evr]

So....Based on this, Speaker and Johnny Mize are comparable in your data??

only as hitters, and only when compared as just hitters.

Speaker maintained that level for nearly 1000 more games and 3800 more plate appearances, and played the OF rather than 1b like Mize (which gives his defensive value more of an edge. Not to mention Speaker was an elite baserunner and Mize was a below avg one.

for the first 9 years of his career Mize was an elite hitter, his last 5 seasons brought him down a good bit. (whereas Speaker had 18 years of elite hitting, which is pretty damn amazing)

Speaker was a great player for 18 years, an above avg player for 3 and an avg player for one. Mize was an elite player for 9 years an above avg player for 1 and an avg player for 4 years.


The reason their total WAR is so much different (130.6 for Speaker vs 68.6 for Mize )comes down to longevity, quality of production over time , base running and defense (tho speaker doesn't have elite defensive numbers, but by playing a harder position he gets a little more credit versus playing 1b which is the easiest position defensively after DH (which didn't exist then))


ETA: to sum up, if two guys had about equal bats but one guy did it for 19 years and the other for 9 I think you'd value the length of the production more (which is why Speaker is an elite player, production + longevity of said production)

[rats60]

I put them at 2 different levels because anyone who understands the game of baseball knows that Speaker is an elite of the elite player and Lajoie is only an elite player. Compare their stats (the ones that aren't worthless like avg, rbi and runs) and Speaker is on another level.


btw, you ignored the slash line that showed Hornsby as top ten or so in all three and Lajoie only near the top in the fairly worthless batting avg stat.

Speaker has a career 157 wRC+ (that is weighted runs created, that looks at the type of hits they got park and league adjusted and is probably the best "single number" hitting stat out there as far as judging individual production is concerned.) Lajoie has a 144. Speaker was 57% better hitter than average in his career for nearly 12,000 plate appearances, that's impressive stuff. (good enough for a tie for 12th all time just in hitting tied with McGwire and Johnny Mize) over 22 seasons! (hence the 130+ WAR) Lajoie is tied or 43rd all time over 21 seasons (also amazingly impressive)

but seriously tho, Speaker is in another tier.


time to learn the new metrics, evolve as the game evolves. It's not hard to understand or "made up" nor does it have anything to do with fantasy baseball as so many people say. it's just the science evolving and using the data in a more accurate way. It's just statistics, why so much hatred and anger about them?

you either evolve with the game or you end up being left behind. the choice is up to you. learning is fun!


Agree with Kevin. This post is exactly what is wrong with WAR. Ave, RBI and Runs Scored are 3 of the most important stats. By ignoring them, you are not evolving, you are devolving. The goal of the game is to score runs. The team that does, wins the game, not the one who gets the most walks, baserunners, etc. WAR doesn't care about what wins games, but greatly over values a truly worthless stat, walks. It is also pretty much ignores half of the equation, run prevention. And maybe one day they will truly adjust for park, instead of just claiming they do.

We all understand that raw RBI and runs numbers are flawed, but rather than throw them away and just use fantasy stats, you should look at how players perform when given the opportunity to score runs. Who cares about a guy who walks with RISP and leads to another goose egg? What is truly valuable is the guy who gets a hit and drives in runs.

WAR is not science, it is made up (by people who I wonder if they ever watch the game). It will be time to use new metrics when they actually reflect what they are supposed to. Insulting those who observe that the emperor has no clothes is never going to evolve the way we look at stats.

[bravos4evr]

Agree with Kevin. This post is exactly what is wrong with WAR. Ave, RBI and Runs Scored are 3 of the most important stats. By ignoring them, you are not evolving, you are devolving. The goal of the game is to score runs. The team that does, wins the game, not the one who gets the most walks, baserunners, etc. WAR doesn't care about what wins games, but greatly over values a truly worthless stat, walks. It is also pretty much ignores half of the equation, run prevention. And maybe one day they will truly adjust for park, instead of just claiming they do.

We all understand that raw RBI and runs numbers are flawed, but rather than throw them away and just use fantasy stats, you should look at how players perform when given the opportunity to score runs. Who cares about a guy who walks with RISP and leads to another goose egg? What is truly valuable is the guy who gets a hit and drives in runs.
.

it isn't made up, it is based on things that are actually to the credit of the individual player. runs and rbi's are determined by the quality of the surrounding players and thus have no bearing on individual production.

I only replied to an insult ,sir. You flat earthers can't yell at us and say 'stupid stats, yer stupid...blah blah blah" and expect to not be belittled in return. If you don't understand something maybe instead of hand waving it away like a child you could go and read about it . (btw I love how ALL THE OTHER EFFING DATA, I posted was ignored and instead I get the tired old anti-WAR argument. )

WAR is not science, it is made up (by people who I wonder if they ever watch the game). It will be time to use new metrics when they actually reflect what they are supposed to. Insulting those who observe that the emperor has no clothes is never going to evolve the way we look at stats

its' based on far superior stats and it applies to everyone equally, so even if there are small quibbles with it (and it isn't perfect, but neither are any other stats) the quibbles provide a ratio of performance that, magically, seems to agree on who the greatest players are.


I bet you don't even know what WAR is, how it is calculated or how to figure it out! You just get mad because it's new and you don't like change and refuse to stop believing in the flat earth of batting avg, pitcher wins and RBI'S. well, maybe instead od throwing a tantrum and putting your hands over your ears you could do a little reading.


P.S. none of these modern metrics have anything to do with fantasy baseball.zero, zilch nada. they have to do with doing the work to determine what is ACTUALLY important and not what people just assumed was important. your appeal to tradition fallacy is not an argument

[swarmee]

Maybe the WAR discussion can be moved to the Off-Topic zone, because which deadball era player scores highest in modern metrics does not affect their baseball card PRICES/demand at all. Just because a guy was better than another does not mean that his card's prices follow suit.

[rats60]

it isn't made up, it is based on things that are actually to the credit of the individual player. runs and rbi's are determined by the quality of the surrounding players and thus have no bearing on individual production.

I only replied to an insult ,sir. You flat earthers can't yell at us and say 'stupid stats, yer stupid...blah blah blah" and expect to not be belittled in return. If you don't understand something maybe instead of hand waving it away like a child you could go and read about it . (btw I love how ALL THE OTHER EFFING DATA, I posted was ignored and instead I get the tired old anti-WAR argument. )



That is absolutely false. RBI are determined by how well you perform in scoring opportunities. If you are Barry Bonds in the postseason, then you only drive in 3 runs in 20 games, despite having plenty of opportunities, it is because you hit .191. Let's just ignore what actually happens and create a theoretical system to apply to everyone. You can't do that, baseball isn't even played on a uniform field and these metrics pretty much ignore that.

These are fantasy stats, because they choose to completely ignore or seriously undervalue important parts of the game. It's funny that you use the term flat earth because that is exactly what I think people using WAR, OPS+, etc. are. It is like we are in the Dark Ages and the Catholic Church is telling us what to believe, ignoring the science of previous generations like the Greeks. Maybe one day people who understand baseball and mathematics will fix this and give credibility to WAR.