Trout v. Legendary cards

[Tyruscobb]

Trout’s superfractor rookie, which has artificially created scarcity, just sold for almost $4M. It is now the highest auctioned sports card ever.

This is more than: 5.5 times Babe Ruth’s 1916 Sporting News card (PSA 7); 1.3 times Mickey Mantle’s 1952 Topps card (PSA 9); and 1.2 times Honus Wagner’s 1909 T-206 card (PSA 5). All these cards survived kids playing with them and no specialty storage cases. Time created their scarcity.

Their careers are also over and statistics set in stone. How much upside is there in a $4M card? One ACL tear a poof. If a genie granted me one card to have, but was conditioned on never selling it, I don’t know if that Trout card would even crack my top 20. Crazy.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29723239/mike-trout-rookie-card-becomes-highest-selling-sports-card-all

[oldeboo]

Yeah, just imagine all of the amazing cards $4M would buy. I wouldn't have much interested in that Trout card if it was offered for $50. A slew of manufactured 1/1 cards that have different types of sparkle and glitter just doesn't do much for me, but to each their own.

[Bored5000]

The Trout card is not what I would buy if I had unlimited funds, but the "artificially created scarcity" argument for why it should not be a valuable card never makes sense to me. There are lots of "artificially created scarcity" pre-war cards that are valuable simply because of their artificial scarcity.

[chriskim]

I couldn't waited to see who bought the Trout card and what company he is trying to promote this time.

[Delray Vintage]

This is a case of bubble mania. Yes, the card is worth $4 mill to someone out there. The card was worth $400k 2 years ago. It was worth a million earlier this year. Does anyone think it will be worth more a year from now? Maybe some hedge fund billionaire will want it for more. As a collector of vintage cards for decades I see marketing hype here and this created rarity will plummet over the years. I see the same hype with Jordan stuff.

I will take the Honus Wagner, 52 Mantle, Ruth Rookie in a second over the Trout. Each to his own, but this is a classic case of Tulipmania. Hope the Trout collector enjoys his one of a kind card. Even if Trout becomes the GOAT that card is the beanie baby of 2020. Rare because someone hyped it. Not that vintage cards don’t get hyped but anytime a modern card company decides to produce a rarity I get skeptical.

[Tyruscobb]

There are lots of "artificially created scarcity" pre-war cards that are valuable simply because of their artificial scarcity.

Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.

Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

[Jim65]

Artificial scarcity is still scarcity, the reason is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Its still a 1/1.

[Tomi]

Lets say Trout has a career ending injury in a few years and career is over. What is the future of this card?
Or lets say Trout tests positive for PED's. What is the future of this card. Will there be a difference in the value with the two possibilities.
Not wanting any of those things to happen, but these are reasons why modern is such a huge gamble with cards like this. Almost $4 million for something that might be worth $100K years from now is a scary investment.
Thoughts?

[Delray Vintage]

Agree with you Tyruscobb and Tomi . There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

[insidethewrapper]

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Jim65]

Agree with you. There is a big difference in this created scarcity with the unintended scarcity by card companies. Yes by definition scarcity is real if it is 1 of 1 but that will not be the same as vintage scarcity over the long haul. Each collector is making their own determination but quality has a way of enduring. Trout refractor has little chance of meeting that enduring quality. Hey, it’s not my $4 mill so good luck to the buyer.

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

[benjulmag]

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

[Tyruscobb]

Artificial scarcity is still scarcity, the reason is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Its still a 1/1.

You are correct at the end of the - scarcity is scarcity. However, at least to me, not all scarce cards are equal. Some cards are created scare. They have low print runs and go straight from packs to hard protective cases. They never see the sunlight or kid’s hands.

Other cards are scarce, because they have survived the tests of time. Survived: kid’s hands, moms cleaning out rooms, rubber bands, moves, fires, being passed down from generation to generation, etc.

My point is that it surprises me that the Trout card, whose scarcity was artificially created for value purposes, sold for many times more than “survivor” cards of absolute legends.

To each his own.

[Jim65]

While the card may have been hammered down at $3.2M, we have no idea how deep the market is, or even if there was more than one bidder above $1M. Here is how the auction rules read:

Minimum Bids and Reserves: Every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A reserve price is a minimum bid below which the lot will not be sold. Accordingly, if the reserve price is not met at the conclusion of the auction, the lot will not be sold. Reserve bid prices are not publicly available and will not be published, except that two days prior to the auction close, any item with an unmet reserve will be annotated with “Reserve Not Met” in the online bidding. Reserve bids are available to the House and the House may, at its discretion, confidentially place reserve bids and set "up to" bids where the next bid in succession would hit the reserve price. No reserve price bids placed by the House will be executed at a level greater than one bid below the actual reserve. Any lot that had an unmet reserve at the conclusion of the auction will show as a "pass" in the online catalog.[/B][/B]

For all we know the reserve was the next bid above $3M and the auction house put in the $3M bid.

The card is a 1/1 based on a contrived scarcity. The next version of this card, which has twenty-five known copies, is identical in all material respects except for the color/type of border. So that adds over $3M in value?

Let's just say I'm a bit skeptical about what is going on here.

Whats the difference in price between a T206 Magie and a Magee? Its just one letter.

[commishbob]

<strike>Buyer could be this guy:</strike> Apparently he's the seller

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards

LINK FIXED

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

[Tyruscobb]

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards (http://https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards)

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

I hope everyone has Vegas Dave’s attitude! Sure my collection’s value would significantly increase if new money flooded into vintage, but the flood would also probably price me out of the market. I’m not done collecting (not investing).

[Seven]

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards (http://https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards)

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

If more people take that approach then we could see the vintage market go down, but it's unlikely. I feel the majority of the card collectors do it so they can connect with the history of the game. Because in the case of many of the players that are long dead, Cards are one of the last connections to them. As someone who (for the most part) collects strictly vintage, I feel the exact opposite way that this guy does.

[rats60]

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards (http://https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards)

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

It could be, but he was the seller of the card. He has definitely come out good putting his money in Trout. The buyer of this card could also be someone that has Wagner, Ruth and Mantle and was looking to add one of the best modern cards to his collection. There are people in this hobby that are playing at a different level than most on here.

[Rhotchkiss]

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards (http://https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards)

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

The link is not working. I don’t know who this guy is, but I don’t really care, and I am happy I don’t compete against him in auctions (because I buy the guys who are so old their children are probably underground). But I respectfully disagree with his logic - by that token, an official White House document from Trump is better than something from George Washington’s hand; a modern artist is better than Monet, a Colin Kapernick BLM piece is a better investment than a letter by MLK; and a first print Harry Potter book is better than a first print edition of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. I do not believe any of these and do not agree with the guy’s quote (although I do think a first print Harry Potter is probably a pretty good investment).

To me, being alive, let alone not being retired, presents only downside (e.g. OJ Simpson). And, as one moves further from their playing days, their relevance wanes and the public‘s interest tends to diminish- does anyone care about Rod Carew, Dave Winfield, or Steve Carlton the way people loved them in the 80’s and 90’s? Anyway, I just don’t agree with this guy, but I am a vintage guy and this is a vintage Board. All I know for sure is what is good for cards is good for cards, and it’s his money to spend how he chooses. And, he must be doing something right if he is spending 7 figures on cards each year.

Opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one

[benjulmag]

Whats the difference in price between a T206 Magie and a Magee? Its just one letter.

The Magie is a genuine error card not created for the purpose of creating value by intentionally misspelling the player's name. With the Trout card, it is akin to the beanie baby phenomena of created scarcity. More and more "scarcities" were created, which had the effect of devaluing the scarcity they were creating. So instead of being looked at as 1/1s, collectors began to lump all such prototypes into the same category.

With regard to the Trout card, what the card companies might take from this is from this point on, for each new player that enters the league, to create for him the same thing as was done for Trout. Some of those players will pan out, some spectacularly so, and in time there will be a whole new class of 1/1 cards of this category. If that were to happen, then maybe the Trout card might be viewed as a something less than a true 1/1.

[maniac_73]

Buyer could be this guy:

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards (http://https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/cards/collector-invests-in-mike-trout-baseball-cards)

One quote from his interview:

“To me, those players are dead,” Oancea said. “I would rather invest in someone like Trout or someone that’s playing because his numbers could go up. For me, I’ve never been a fan of vintage, because they’re underground. If Trout has a season where he hits 50 home runs and 150 RBI, he has the ability to go up more. I don’t want to base my cards – especially the money I invest, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars – on someone that’s buried under a tombstone.”

If he has an Picasso's, Davincis or Michaelangelos laying around I'll take those. I mean they are long dead why would anyone buy them?

[doug.goodman]

It could be, but he was the seller of the card. He has definitely come out good putting his money in Trout. The buyer of this card could also be someone that has Wagner, Ruth and Mantle and was looking to add one of the best modern cards to his collection. There are people in this hobby that are playing at a different level than most on here.

He's not in our hobby, he's an investor, gambling on a (so far) solid bet.

(cough, Fiydrich, cough)

[drcy]

The post arguing against the "invalidity" of artificially rare cards is correct. Rare is rare and a number is a number.

However, rarity should be looked more broad based and not myopocially. 1000 different one-of-ones is not the same as three one-of-100.

And sales prices is just sales price, and indicates only sales price. Quality cannot be quantified.

Also, the sales price at a particular moment is indicitive of the sales price at that particular moment. McGuire's 70th home run ball once sold for over $3million and a Tiger Woods SI rookie once for $100,000. Those "values" are nothing more that historical curiosities (and sometimes jokes) now.

Hobby fixation on financial financial value doesn't interest me.

[Delray Vintage]

All vintage cards were collected as a hobby, no one got a baseball card as an investment. No card company even thought of their cards or premiums as valuable things. Yes, when I was a kid we were unlikely to put a Mantle on our bicycle spokes or intentionally mishandle it. That was because he was valuable as a trade for many cards not because we expected it to be worth a lot years later. There is no comparison to what any card company did through the 1970’s to what is being done today creating scarce cards.

[rdwyer]

Even rarer. Mike Trout Debut & 1st hit panel tickets. Most season ticket holders tore each ticket out and took to the game. Then they would take the ticket back home. Most likely, the person who had these for some reason didn't go to either game. Only one other in PSA pop report and it's not signed. (Graded a 9 for the ticket). I searched PSA pop report from 2011-2020 and found only 4 panels. Two for BB, and 2 for Hockey.

Mine are both signed & inscripted. MLB cert. Gonna send to PSA and get auto grades. :)

[samosa4u]

Number of championships: Zero

Number of postseason appearances: One

$4 million? Really?

[chriskim]

It is so funny that I have been searching who is VegasDave but I have no idea and no intention to find out who Mike Trout is.

[Exhibitman]

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Mike-Trout-2009-Bowman-Chrome-Draft-Superfractor.jpg

I have concerns with the modern cards from a long term perspective and it doesn't relate to the player. Anyone who collects Kelloggs 3D, 1970 Topps FB Super, early Topps Refractors, and many other UV and plastic 1990s cards is familiar with the deterioration of the base materials. Finding uncracked Kelloggs is becoming tougher and tougher as the plastic ages and contracts. Early refractors are already discoloring, in some cases inside high end slabs. 1990s cards with plastic coatings are sticking and curling due to the materials. And sharpie can fade. I doubt that this Trout card was made to archival standards. By the time Trout is inducted into the HOF his early cards may be showing physical deterioration.

Setting that aside, I too do not get the modern collecting mindset as respects 1/1 manufactured rarities, only because there will be a new, better manufactured rarity next year. I've even heard some modern collectors who do not consider this the best Trout card because it is a pre-rookie. Those collectors prefer the 2011 card.

[commishbob]

The link is not working.

I fixed it. I should never try this on my iPad :rolleyes:

[Topnotchsy]

Collectors here may debate artificial/manufactured scarcity vs scarcity that developed organically, but it's hard to know whether those are legitimate distinctions (diamonds are super valuable and we know that the scarcity there is largely manufactured).

Taking a step further back, we have to acknowledge that for many people, spending any real amount on any collectible, whether current of vintage, is kind of laughable.

For most collectors though, collectibles connect us to something. Whether it is the game we love, the players we followed as kids, the stories we heard from our parents/grandparents or something else, it is about more than the item itself. Collecting vintage allows you to connect to the past that way, but collecting modern cards allows you to connect to game as it is being played, and many find great enjoyment in that.

The price of the card is hard to fathom for me, but it is arguably the single most significant baseball rookie card of the last 40 years. Unlike the 1989 UD Griffey rookie or 2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols Auto rookie, this is the first transcendent player who has a 1/1, and Bowman Chrome is viewed by most as the marquee rookie card a player can have.

Of course an injury etc. would mean the price would drop, but the price could also go up. The reality is that the market or vintage can also swing. The fact that vintage players don't play doesn't make their cards impervious to market swings or conditions. Who knows whether over time interest will increase and grow for vintage, or if the next generation will not take to it.

I seem to recall the previous owner heard similar comments (about overpaying) when he paid $400K a couple of years back. Time will tell whether this ownetr does similarly well.

[mrmopar]

i have to believe that there are people out there that fit that description.
i don't follow the vintage market, but surely there are millionaires buying old baseball cards. If not mega millionaires, plain old regular millionaires are.

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Republicaninmass]

The lower the pop, the easier it is to "set" a price

[Joshwesley]

The question begs to be asked:


Is there anyone on here that would take the Trout over a T206 Wagner (if given the chance)?

I think that number is gonna be low...

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.

While very unlikely: What if Trout went
OJ Simpson or Joe Paterno later in life?

What if he shreds his knee chasing a fly ball later on this week and is never the same?

If you’ve got 4mm to put in a baseball card, I guess it doesn’t matter anyhow

[wdwfan]

I'm not sure it ever will. I think people buy what they see. They see Trout. They see/saw players from the last 2-3 decades. They never saw Babe, Cobb, etc. So they have no interest in them because they can't connect with them.

Just think if that big money starts collecting Ruth, Cobb, 19th Century etc instead of Trout etc

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

.

[Tyruscobb]

Even rarer. Mike Trout Debut & 1st hit panel tickets. Most season ticket holders tore each ticket out and took to the game. Then they would take the ticket back home. Most likely, the person who had these for some reason didn't go to either game. Only one other in PSA pop report and it's not signed. (Graded a 9 for the ticket). I searched PSA pop report from 2011-2020 and found only 4 panels. Two for BB, and 2 for Hockey.

Mine are both signed & inscripted. MLB cert. Gonna send to PSA and get auto grades. :)

Those are amazing. Exemplifies exactly what I’ve said throughout this post. Sure there were 45,050 (stadium’s capacity) printed, but those are scarce from non-attendance and survival; not due to a one of one printing.

They survived the trash can (discarding non-used tickets) and from being ripped by not attending the game. Even if most stadiums don’t rip anymore, because they use scanners, it’s still hard to preserve pristine tickets when you go to the game. They are usually bent.

It’s a different market, but, at least to me, those are cooler than that $4M card. Congratulations. Now, you just have to hope that there aren’t many others that survived and, if there are, the owners don’t get them signed. :p

[Jim65]

Number of championships: Zero

Number of postseason appearances: One


Same as Ted Williams. And Trout has roughly 10 more years to play.

[Jim65]

They never saw Babe, Cobb, etc.

Neither has anyone here.

I like collecting players I've never seen and I like collecting players I watch every day, both give me enjoyment.

[Bill77]

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Mike-Trout-2009-Bowman-Chrome-Draft-Superfractor.jpg

I have concerns with the modern cards from a long term perspective and it doesn't relate to the player. Anyone who collects Kelloggs 3D, 1970 Topps FB Super, early Topps Refractors, and many other UV and plastic 1990s cards is familiar with the deterioration of the base materials. Finding uncracked Kelloggs is becoming tougher and tougher as the plastic ages and contracts. Early refractors are already discoloring, in some cases inside high end slabs. 1990s cards with plastic coatings are sticking and curling due to the materials. And sharpie can fade. I doubt that this Trout card was made to archival standards. By the time Trout is inducted into the HOF his early cards may be showing physical deterioration.

Setting that aside, I too do not get the modern collecting mindset as respects 1/1 manufactured rarities, only because there will be a new, better manufactured rarity next year. I've even heard some modern collectors who do not consider this the best Trout card because it is a pre-rookie. Those collectors prefer the 2011 card.

4 million and it's not even a 10. And the signature looks more like Mr 7up than Mike Trout. Not that my signature is anything to be proud of either.

[CJinPA]

He's not in our hobby, he's an investor, gambling on a (so far) solid bet.

(cough, Fiydrich, cough)

STOP - please! completely off topic but Trout is one of the best of all time. I'm a new vintage collector and love all the things that make vintage attractive.

But Trout plays baseball at a different level than his peers and has for the past 7 years. He is no Fydrich (I think you were just doing a tongue-in-cheeck there, btw). The guy has the single best mechanical swing in baseball - only Barry Bonds was as efficient in his mechanics.

Just for moment, imagine the greatest and our favorite heros of the past facing #2 and #3 starters who are sitting 97mph in the 4 and 5th innings. Not the ace of the staff, but your mid-level starters? It's crazy, and a conversation for another thread.

Sorry to get off-topic - I'm just a huge Trout fanboy. I don't own a single card of his and have no desire. But as a result of coaching and training high level high school players, there's just nobody better over the past several years and there looks to be at least another 5-7 years left - kids got it all!

[puckpaul]

I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.

I doubt anyone collects the set that Trout is in. Or even knows if there is a set!

I have the T206 “set” minus the big 4. It feels somewhat empty. Given enough $$, i would love to finish it.

Given the passage of time, there seems a lot more inherent risk in paying up for a Trout.

Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.
Let me clarify what I meant. Intent is the focus. Artificially created scarcity with the sole purpose of creating value. This purpose did not exist during the pre-war years. The reason is cards had little, if any, value or market. No one knew that years later the cards would be worth a small fortune. Thus, the manufactures had no incentive to create scarcity like Bowman did with Trout. Bowman knew the one of one cards would have huge value if the player panned out.

Even the 1934 Lajoie doesn’t count. The reason is it was never supposed to exist. Goudey only created it, because people wrote and complained. Goudey created that card just to satisfy customers. It never intended on creating a holy grail card that people would highly collect 40 years later. Bowman did.

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

[Gary Dunaier]

Also, the sales price at a particular moment is indicitive of the sales price at that particular moment. McGuire's 70th home run ball once sold for over $3million and a Tiger Woods SI rookie once for $100,000. Those "values" are nothing more that historical curiosities (and sometimes jokes) now.

I remember when the 1990 Score Eric Lindros "Future Superstar" card was the hottest thing in the hockey card world and was going for top dollar. A few years ago I found one in a screwdown holder with a $1.00 price sticker. Normally when I buy a card in this kind of a holder I would get rid of the screwdown and put it in a top loader, but I kept this one as is. The reason I bought it in the first place was as a tangible example of, as drcy describes it, a historical curiosity.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50260548517_d3e6a9c215.jpg

[Tyruscobb]

Pretty happy that i own a W600 Cobb, though... I anticipate that the umbrella of these prices keeps that one going.

If my memory serves me well, even a different color Trout reactor recently sold for more than the W600 Cobb in the same auction.

Congrats on owning one!

[Bored5000]

I think the difference is that many of the vintage scarcities, even if contrived, were done to sell the set, and demand often comes from collectors competing for a scarce few cards to finish the set. Not that those scarcities haven’t developed a following from there scarcity, which is similar to the Trout.

To me, that is some pretty generous logic to say that manufactured rarities from 100 years were more pure because manufacturers were just trying to scam collectors with cards that were impossible (or virtually impossible) to attain.

The lack of set collecting today isn't better or worse; it is just how the hobby has evolved.

Manufactured rarity is manufactured rarity, be it in 2020 or 1920.

[MikeGarcia]

[QUOTE=Bored5000;2011166]To me, that is some pretty generous logic to say that manufactured rarities from 100 years were more pure because manufacturers were just trying to scam collectors with cards that were impossible (or virtually impossible) to attain.

The lack of set collecting today isn't better or worse; it is just how the hobby has evolved.

Manufactured rarity is manufactured rarity, be it in 2020 or 1920.



..http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/DIXIEFOXXBIGSCAN_NEW.JPG

it is time for a pre-war card to make an appearance.... soooo...how good are your eyes ??

.....I was unaware of the term " manufactured rarity" until this post , but now at least I know what to call this Dixie Premium of Old Double X --- the story I got from the New Jersey seller , about thirty years ago ? , was that the grandfather had worked for the printers who had had the Dixie Ice Cream contract and that this 1938 printers'proof/office copy set of four color premiums was just sort of gathered up and walked out the door when Gramps got his "Greetings" draft board letter in December of '41 ; he was originally from Boston and was a fan of Jimmie Foxx and figured it was being wasted sitting in the back of a filing cabinet. .....it is the only one I've ever seen without the two punched holes.. A borrowed "manufacturing rarity" ; I'm hoping that the New Jersey statute of limitations for receiving stolen property has run out.

..

..

[Santo10Fan]

Trout’s superfractor rookie, which has artificially created scarcity, just sold for almost $4M. It is now the highest auctioned sports card ever.

This is more than: 5.5 times Babe Ruth’s 1916 Sporting News card (PSA 7); 1.3 times Mickey Mantle’s 1952 Topps card (PSA 9); and 1.2 times Honus Wagner’s 1909 T-206 card (PSA 5). All these cards survived kids playing with them and no specialty storage cases. Time created their scarcity.

Their careers are also over and statistics set in stone. How much upside is there in a $4M card? One ACL tear a poof. If a genie granted me one card to have, but was conditioned on never selling it, I don’t know if that Trout card would even crack my top 20. Crazy.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29723239/mike-trout-rookie-card-becomes-highest-selling-sports-card-allI don't dispute your artificial scarcity hypothesis, but the superfractors are unarguably unique cards and the 1/1 craze ensures those buyers won't see it your way. Yes it was manufactured that way and, just to be sure, stamped as unique. The high end collectors will see it no differently than a gem mint from the 1950s that is the only one known. It's about being the only one to own a certain thing and some people will pay anything to prove they do.

[Neal]

All I know for sure is what is good for cards is good for cards, and it’s his money to spend how he chooses. And, he must be doing something right if he is spending 7 figures on cards each year.

Opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one

exactly!

[todeen]

The question begs to be asked:

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.




I would disagree. The time to buy in is when the price is low. Disregard that the market is hot right now, I think many people are believing that Trout is the next Derek Jeter. Jeter is one of the few players I can remember that never saw his RC reduce in value. If that ends up being true about Trout, then buying now would be a good investment.

Personally, I don't chase scarcity - I buy the Cincinnati Reds! LOL

[highgradelegends]

I wonder if Vegas Dave pumped his own auction

[Directly]

These type of headlines mega sales and all the media hype are feeding the fire, we haven't seen anything yet - past buyers are returning plus thousands of new collectors, investors are jumping on the band wagon! (buying vintage and modern, especially basketball )

[GasHouseGang]

I think The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" may apply in this case. The hype surrounding this card sale may help raise the prices in the short term of other Mike Trout cards. Whether it can be sustained is the question.

[JeremyW]

These type of headlines mega sales and all the media hype are feeding the fire, we haven't seen anything yet - past buyers are returning plus thousands of new collectors, investors are jumping on the band wagon! (buying vintage and modern, especially basketball )

I agree. All large sales are good for the hobby, in general. Nothing goes up forever, but cards have been overlooked for some time now & the people that think that they're toys & not investments should reconsider.

[rdwyer]

Another rare item. Just picked up today. Practice ball.

[Tao_Moko]

Same as Ted Williams. And Trout has roughly 10 more years to play.

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

[Goldin Auctions]

Here is. Great read. Everyone trying to understand what is going on in the business , and any vintage collector should read
And look at quote about Wagner and what it would sell for today....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/23/mike-trout-trading-card-sells-almost-4-million-breaks-record-set-by-honus-wagner-card/?fbclid=IwAR1qxHVKWmqGRA-4GScRVD0Mg3TbXuv0bH5CJ6Ebeid6ldg7DX-0L68fCr0

[Dpeck100]

The 1993 SP Derek Jeter PSA 10 was under a pop 10 and $6,500 when I got serious about buying cards in 2009. Considered the most over valued card in the hobby on every message board. At $15,000 it was insane and there was no where to go but down.

There is one of these and only one person can say they own the Super Refractor.

In 1986 the Donruss Jose Canseco was the card. Peaked at $120 in the Beckett. Anyone with enough money could get one. No matter how deep your pockets are only one person can say they own this card.

I don’t pretend to know if this is a good buy or a bad one but the price is a function of our current reality. How much would a Jordan rookie 1/1 be? There are 313 PSA 10’s at an average of $75,000 so it has a market cap of nearly 23.5 million just in that grade from PSA alone.

The closest substitute is a numbered to five card. The artificial scarcity has worked year after year with sports cards and this guy just happens to be the best player in the league at the moment.

If someone put a gun to my head and said you have to pick a direction my bet would be up.

[Jim65]

If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

Not comparing them. Just pointing that they have the same amount of playoff experience. Judging players by postseason appearances is silly, is Ernie Banks not a great player?

[steve B]

I’m not counting broken printing plates, small print runs, plates getting pulled, a 1934 Lajoie situation, etc. Again, these companies had no clue the card market would explode 50 years later. The cards weren’t the product like they are now. The product was gum, candy, tobacco, bread, etc.

Bowman purposely created a one of one card simply to make it valuable. When did this occur during the pre-war years?

The Wagner was pulled from production, one of those things not counted.
The 1916 Sporting news Ruth is by far the most graded card in that set.
The Mantle is a double print.
All more common than hundreds of other cards even before the whole 1/1 thing began.

Many of the prewar cards had really small print runs by modern standards. So I'm not sure just what you count. Both George C Miller and US Caramel deliberately made very few of one card in a set, and Goudey trying to be sly and simply not making a card to push more sales is well known. (The first 0/0?)

Would I spend 4 million on a Trout card? No. But not because it's rarity is somehow fake.

[steve B]

The question begs to be asked:


Is there anyone on here that would take the Trout over a T206 Wagner (if given the chance)?

I think that number is gonna be low...

You don’t invest in players that are still active/still alive.

While very unlikely: What if Trout went
OJ Simpson or Joe Paterno later in life?

What if he shreds his knee chasing a fly ball later on this week and is never the same?

If you’ve got 4mm to put in a baseball card, I guess it doesn’t matter anyhow

Would I be paying for it or do you walk up to me with one card in each hand and tell me one but only one is free?

If I'm not paying, I take the Trout.
Then I can flip it and buy a couple Wagners. If I'm not fussy about condition, I might even be able to get all three backs.

[sbfinley]

It's funny to me the disdain and annoyance that some vintage collectors (my primary focus) have towards modern cards and to some extent the prices they command. One is old, one is new. At the end of the day it's all pictures of dudes from a sport we love or like, and to 99.99% of the world spending even $500 on a baseball card is absurd. The current excitement in modern collecting world is great for the hobby because A) it cements the next generation of hobby members and B) the majority of "vintage" collectors start with current issues and begin working backwards.

Personally, I have no shock this card reached this value. If you even minimally follow the game on a daily basis it's clear he the best all-around player in the game and a multi-generational talent. Other members have mentioned names like Fidrych and Lindros and questioned his hobby future should he be injured tomorrow. It makes me wonder if they even currently follow the game. He's not a hyped prospect or the latest sensation. He is universally recognized as the best player in the game without question. In 8 full seasons (on primarily a losing team) he has finished 2,2,1,2,1,4,2,1 in MVP voting. He will be top 50 in career WAR for position players after 8.5 seasons following the abbreviated 2020 year. That stated, this is his singular most important card and given the current state of economic investments this price doesn't shock me. It might not be your cup of tea but be happy the hobby is rolling forward.


If comparisons are going to be made then they should probably be relative. Maybe compare Trout to Pucket? Ted was a Marine aviator and combat veteran. He was also one of the purest hitters in the game and followed an amazing, shortened, career as a manager and mentor. Little Mikey Trout can't fit in those britches. Ten more years of playing won't compare him to a Marine who happened to also play baseball.

As someone who taught history (including the story of Ted Williams and his service during both WW2 and Korea) I completely understand both his importance to game and his contributions to our nation. But the comparison provided between Trout and Williams is about as relative as it gets in the context this of this entire thread and the comment the reply was referencing. The entire context of the comparison was their seminal greatness in the game of baseball and the comparative lack of team success. We can praise and celebrate Ted Williams' service to his country without belittling someone who lived in an entirely different time and circumstances. Also.... "Puckett" is a terrible analogy because A) he won 2 World Series Rings in 12 years and B) Trout is much much better statistically speaking.

[Republicaninmass]

What about all my stuff from the home shopping network in the 80s that was guanrarees to go up and I could retire with the proceeds? Just didnt say when I could retire, where, or how long!

[samosa4u]

Same as Ted Williams. And Trout has roughly 10 more years to play.

And Ted Williams sells for how much? Yeah, Trout has ten more years to play ... with the Angels. :D

Judging players by postseason appearances is silly, is Ernie Banks not a great player?

Not silly at all. I think when it comes to determining the value of any player, the most important criteria is how many championships he won. Why do people spend crazy money on Mantle, Ruth, Jordan, Gretzky, Brady and Pele? Because these guys were all winners, and they did it many times. Yes, Ernie Banks was a really gifted player, but he never won, and this is why his cards sell for peanuts compared to the other guys.

[Tao_Moko]

It's funny to me the disdain and annoyance that some vintage collectors (my primary focus) have towards modern cards and to some extent the prices they command. One is old, one is new. At the end of the day it's all pictures of dudes from a sport we love or like, and to 99.99% of the world spending even $500 on a baseball card is absurd. The current excitement in modern collecting world is great for the hobby because A) it cements the next generation of hobby members and B) the majority of "vintage" collectors start with current issues and begin working backwards.

Personally, I have no shock this card reached this value. If you even minimally follow the game on a daily basis it's clear he the best all-around player in the game and a multi-generational talent. Other members have mentioned names like Fidrych and Lindros and questioned his hobby future should he be injured tomorrow. It makes me wonder if they even currently follow the game. He's not a hyped prospect or the latest sensation. He is universally recognized as the best player in the game without question. In 8 full seasons (on primarily a losing team) he has finished 2,2,1,2,1,4,2,1 in MVP voting. He will be top 50 in career WAR for position players after 8.5 seasons following the abbreviated 2020 year. That stated, this is his singular most important card and given the current state of economic investments this price doesn't shock me. It might not be your cup of tea but be happy the hobby is rolling forward.




As someone who taught history (including the story of Ted Williams and his service during both WW2 and Korea) I completely understand both his importance to game and his contributions to our nation. But the comparison provided between Trout and Williams is about as relative as it gets in the context this of this entire thread and the comment the reply was referencing. The entire context of the comparison was their seminal greatness in the game of baseball and the comparative lack of team success. We can praise and celebrate Ted Williams' service to his country without belittling someone who lived in an entirely different time and circumstances. Also.... "Puckett" is a terrible analogy because A) he won 2 World Series Rings in 12 years and B) Trout is much much better statistically speaking.

You're correct. Comparing him to Puckett was a huge mistake. Trout has 1351 hits and a .304 so it's unlikely he improves his BA over the next three seasons and gets a thousand hits to match Puckett. He may with longevity do it, but doesn't seem on track at present. I wish Trout the best, but he's got a long ways to go to be in the same breath of the greats. Relative to card value - they are only worth what someone will pay so apparently Trout is worth it to some. Can't argue when there's no right answer. I'm not much older than Trout and I fought in two theaters as a Marine so he could have too but sports and money were more important. He probably would have been great to have on my team. It's a good reminder that these are just athletes playing a game and none of their pictures should be worth millions. To think what I could do with $3.2 million. Wouldn't be buy baseball cards.

[Shoeless Moe]

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

[Tomi]

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

Pujols was a better hitter than all those guys. Power and average.
3 of those guys needed help (PED's) with their numbers so Cabrera would be the only one without PED ties.

[sbfinley]

Arod
Bonds
Cabrera
Manny

all better hitters.........that "could" change in 10 years, but as of now.

All absolutely amazing hitters. And here is how they stack up roughly through their first 8.7 seasons. "Better" is a loose term.

Bonds - .281/.388/.914 --- 222HR --- 679RBI --- 801Runs --- 71.9WAR
Arod - .301/.368/.935 --- 298HR --- 872RBI --- 881Runs --- 55.9WAR
Miggy - .311/.384/.931 --- 247HR --- 879RBI --- 741 Runs --- 39.7WAR
Manny - .312/.406/1.003 --- 275HR --- 924RBI --- 753Runs --- 36.0WAR
Trout - .305/.417/1.097 --- 295HR --- 777RBI --- 920RUNS --- 73.5WAR


Pujols was a better hitter than all those guys. Power and average.
3 of those guys needed help (PED's) with their numbers so Cabrera would be the only one without PED ties.

Agree. Pujols is the most feared hitter of the modern generation. He would probably be bold across the board save for WAR if I added him to above.

[puckpaul]

Hard to know if any of them are clean, especially Pujols... but wouldn’t surprise me if Cabrera and Trout juiced as well.

All absolutely amazing hitters. And here is how they stack up roughly through their first 8.7 seasons. "Better" is a loose term.

Bonds - .281/.388/.914 --- 222HR --- 679RBI --- 801Runs --- 71.9WAR
Arod - .301/.368/.935 --- 298HR --- 872RBI --- 881Runs --- 55.9WAR
Miggy - .311/.384/.931 --- 247HR --- 879RBI --- 741 Runs --- 39.7WAR
Manny - .312/.406/1.003 --- 275HR --- 924RBI --- 753Runs --- 36.0WAR
Trout - .305/.417/1.097 --- 295HR --- 777RBI --- 920RUNS --- 73.5WAR




Agree. Pujols is the most feared hitter of the modern generation. He would probably be bold across the board save for WAR if I added him to above.

[vthobby]

I can't tell a lie......I bought a BGS 9.5 Signed Trout RC Refractor (the one that there are 500 of) about a year ago for a tidy sum but it still rocketed over 100% in the last year.......

Literally sold the Trout RC this week to a private collector. It paid entirely for my new REA win of a 1952 Topps Mantle (my 1st one ever) which by the way set a world record for a PSA 1! Undergraded IMO! :)

The "swap" was not planned but after my Mantle "coup" I was offered an insane amount for my Trout. I pulled the trigger and still had enough left over for a nice dinner or two! :)

Crazy world indeed! :)

Peace, Mike

415216

[todeen]

I can't tell a lie......I bought a BGS 9.5 Signed Trout RC Refractor (the one that there are 500 of) about a year ago for a tidy sum but it still rocketed over 100% in the last year.......

Literally sold the Trout RC this week to a private collector. It paid entirely for my new REA win of a 1952 Topps Mantle (my 1st one ever) which by the way set a world record for a PSA 1! Undergraded IMO! :)

The "swap" was not planned but after my Mantle "coup" I was offered an insane amount for my Trout. I pulled the trigger and still had enough left over for a nice dinner or two! :)

Crazy world indeed! :)

Peace, Mike

415216Congrats! Buy what you like.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[vthobby]

Thanks Tim......been doing that since 1976.......it has treated me very well!

Buy what you want and/or buy the card not the grade!

Words to live by and pay your mortgage by! :)

Peace, Mike

[toledo_mudhen]

I would suggest that this entire discussion - on this forum - is like "preachin to the choir" as I would think that given the choice - 99.99% of the members on this forum would opt to own either the Wagner or the Mantle without hesitation over the Trout card.

Other forums (CU?) maybe not so much -

The cards that we all collect are much more than some uber investment - they connect us with our past. They bring back memories of bicycle spokes and card flipping, and mowing grass or shoveling snow in order to purchase a couple packs of the unknown at our local neighborhood market.

These 2 mindsets are light years apart and I doubt if they will ever merge. I'm good with that.

[glynparson]

You're correct. Comparing him to Puckett was a huge mistake. Trout has 1351 hits and a .304 so it's unlikely he improves his BA over the next three seasons and gets a thousand hits to match Puckett. He may with longevity do it, but doesn't seem on track at present. I wish Trout the best, but he's got a long ways to go to be in the same breath of the greats. Relative to card value - they are only worth what someone will pay so apparently Trout is worth it to some. Can't argue when there's no right answer. I'm not much older than Trout and I fought in two theaters as a Marine so he could have too but sports and money were more important. He probably would have been great to have on my team. It's a good reminder that these are just athletes playing a game and none of their pictures should be worth millions. To think what I could do with $3.2 million. Wouldn't be buy baseball cards.
As someone who comes from
A gold star marine family I thank you for your service but this attack on mike trout is beyond ignorant. And yes ted was a great patriot but he was also an asshole to many of his fans. They didn’t call him the spitter because he was a nice guy. And he was very arrogant wouldn’t even recognize the crowds appreciation after his final hr. Yes was an amazing person in many ways but also an asshole in many. I have never heard anything but compliments on Mr. trout and his interactions with fans. Military service is honorable but that doesn’t mean you are a better person simply for having done it. And I hate to break it but very few people collect cards of military heroes compared to those of athletic heroes.

[MattyC]

This hobby is in a very bad place. Shady pump and dump groups no different than slimeball boiler room hucksters. A veritable cottage industry of chop shops supplying TPGs with trimmed submissions by the boatload. The selfish shaking pom poms at the ever rising fake sales of doctored cards because they like the value of their collections going up. Then the marks believing the hype who go and buy into a market fueled on so much shade, thereby contributing real sales after the fake. It has nothing anymore to do with the games or their legends or the cards— it’s just some guys out there trying to 2x or 10x their money in a fast way.

[puckpaul]

Well, when you print $7 trillion, stuff happens. Stock market is like this too. See TSLA!

But many cards were undervalued if demand increased a little. We’ll see what happens. World is fragile, perhaps, but as we continue to print money and dollars get more worthless, this stuff will continue.

[vintagewhitesox]

I would suggest that this entire discussion - on this forum - is like "preachin to the choir" as I would think that given the choice - 99.99% of the members on this forum would opt to own either the Wagner or the Mantle without hesitation over the Trout card.

Other forums (CU?) maybe not so much -

The cards that we all collect are much more than some uber investment - they connect us with our past. They bring back memories of bicycle spokes and card flipping, and mowing grass or shoveling snow in order to purchase a couple packs of the unknown at our local neighborhood market.

These 2 mindsets are light years apart and I doubt if they will ever merge. I'm good with that.


great point. I am going to play devils advocate . I think I'd take the Trout over the Wagner.
I have seen Trout play in person, seen him his entire career. Seen the videos of him playing catch with a kid in the stands.
I feel a much more personal connection to a player I can watch hit tonight. Collecting is very personal. There's one thing we all can agree on though, buy what you like!

[Yoda]

Having lived through a few vintage card booms and busts, I would only offer one piece of advise during uncertain times, which we are certainly experiencing at the moment, and that is to buy value players and hold them when shocks come. Given their records and life stories, Mantle Cobb, Ruth and Gehrig cards will always hold value in tough times, but so will Matty, Wojo and Hornsby, Foxx, Clemente, Koufax, Mays etc.
As far as the Trout card is concerned, I just don't know, but the 4m price tag certainly represents a paradigm shift in the new card market.

[Delray Vintage]

Trout card going for $4 mill is like a high flying tech stock rising on momentum. No one can really say why it has risen so fast. There are speculators willing to bet on continued rise. It does not really matter to those speculators why it rises as long as there is someone willing to pay more. They will say it is unstoppable and a sure thing.

Cobb, Ruth and Mantle are the AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway like cards. They will rise in time and have strong fundamentals. Buyers want to own these cards for a long time and don’t think of their collection as a way to make a quick buck.

Young card buyers love Trout. He is a great player who will make the Hall of a Fame. That does not mean his $4 mil card or any of these created rarities will survive the test of time. Maybe I am wrong but fundamentals matter. History matters. I would take Honus Wagner and sleep well knowing it will appreciate over time. Trout is a Vegas Dave card. Vegas and betting are the key words.

[packs]

Trout is the greatest player any of us will ever see, unless one of us was lucky enough to be around to see Ruth and is still alive today.

Do I think this card is worth the sale price? No. But I'm also very surprised at the cavalier attitudes people have toward Trout. You will never see another player like him as long as you live, and there has only really been two players in history before him (Ruth and Mantle) who you might have seen.

Why not sit back and enjoy it?

https://live.staticflickr.com/4640/27422520769_3ecc83f41b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50010381821_de74834329_c.jpg

[Exhibitman]

I think the analysis is a little bit off here, guys. Comparing this player to that player misses the mark. We should be comparing this card to that card. Trout cards in general (not the superfractor 1/1 type cards) represent a combination of things that simply were not present 75 years ago:

--Massive exposure through multiple forms of media that were not available to earlier generations: look at the media coverage of this card...there was never any news on baseball cards when we were kids.

--Very intelligent marketing by companies that have far more data about consumer preference than ever before: the cards are carefully calibrated to deliver precisely what consumer feedback, which is nearly instantaneous with the various forms of social media, indicates. An example is the shift from sticker to on-card autographs in higher end limited cards, because the companies learned that collectors view the stickers with less regard than an on card signature, and they view a cut signature with some disdain, especially if it is miscut.

--The purposeful creation of product that is meant for a wealthy adult population, not for kids popping packs at the corner candy store: if anyone has purchased higher end product in bulk from 'whole-tailers' like DA Card World, you can see that this is not something for kids. A case of 2020 Topps Heritage cost nearly $100 a box on pre-order. For my birthday in 1975 my parents bought me a complete box of cards, at a cost of $10. Modern premium cards are not kid's toys.

--24/7/365 collecting opportunities: eBay, 10,000 auction houses, etc. In other words, constant trading and feedback on modern cards from pre-orders of new products to instantaneous markets on significant pulls, prized rookies and prospects, etc.

--The recognition and acceptance of cards as an alternative form of investment: since the 1989 Upper Deck gold rush new cards have been the penny stocks for people who don't participate in the Wall Street casino. I do not know good stock from livestock, but I know and can understand where the value is in sports cards. Buying and breaking down a case of higher end product is a calculated investment/gamble given how good the manufacturers have gotten at sorting/collating the hits into the products. Bust a box and you will find that you nearly always get the number of hits you are supposed to; the quality of the hits varies. Pull a very low print run card of a superstar or prized prospect and you can pay for the entire box with a hefty profit, instantly. I've actually busted a box at the National, had a hit, and sold the card right to the dealer who sold me the box, at a profit.

What I am saying, in short, is that viewing modern card purchasing and investing through a vintage collecting lens is a mistake. How a modern product purchaser/investor looks at things will never make sense to a vintage collector. These guys are about flipping and profiting, not loving a rare card.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Another great discussion!

Obviously, as this is a discussion board about vintage baseball cards, the majority of us (myself included) would prefer a rare Wagner, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, etc. to a Mike Trout card.

However, in no way do I dismiss this recent Trout sale (as well as any future sale of that card) as any crazier than prices paid for blue chip vintage.

I think a lot of current vintage collectors probably went through a time in our lives as younger collectors when we used to look longingly at those expensive vintage cards and couldn't imagine a day that we could someday own them. Fast forward to our current and future selves when we are lucky enough to be in a position in our lives to have some disposable income that we actually CAN have cards of Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays! And that is what has been driving the increased price/value in vintage over the last 20 years.

Right now there are probably a lot of modern collectors/baseball fans in their twenties, teens, or younger that read about the sale of an almost $4 million dollar 1 of 1 Mike Trout card...and they can't imagine ever owning it. However, it will only take TWO of those kids to become wealthy in their future years to get into a bidding war for what, to them, is the ultimate baseball card.

It's unlikely for that card to sell for more than 4 million in any auction coming up in the next year or so....but I wouldn't be shocked to see that card sell for 10 million, 50 million, 100+ million in 15 to 20 years.

The same nostalgia that we feel for vintage cards is the same nostalgia that current collectors will feel when they hit that stage in their life/careers where they can collect/invest in things that make them happy and bring them back to their childhood. While a lot of us have a hard time understanding the allure of new, shiny, 1 of 1 cards, there is whole generation of collectors growing up with it. And in their lifetime, that Mike Trout card may come to be known as the pinnacle of collecting. Who knows how much that card might auction for in the future.

[benjulmag]

The issue to me isn't that Trout is not a great baseball player, or not a great ambassador for the game. Nor is the issue that a person doesn't have the right to spend his/her money how he/she pleases. And if the individual who spent $4M for this card feels it is worth every penny of that based on how he/she values collectibles, who am I too judge?

Rather the issue to me is that the value derives from an intentionally created scarcity manufactured for the sole purpose of generating value.

So, one might ask, what is wrong with that if what in the end is created is a true 1/1 card of a once-in-generation player? Nothing, except what is to prevent a whole slew of newly-designed 1/1 cards for each new player to enter the league? And in addition to that do the same for all existing star players. Certainty the economic incentive will be there for the card manufacturers to do precisely that. It will be akin to a marketing strategy made in heaven.... at least short term. But isn't there a risk that if this were to happen collectors in time might begin to look at such 1/1s as representing not a 1/1, but instead view each 1/1 to be part of the same group? So, say, if in 20 years this has been done to all new players that entered the league in that period, and each player had four 1/1s created for him, and for all existing star players until they retired they too each year had four 1/1s created for them, instead of the Trout card being a 1/1, it instead might be viewed as more akin to 1/few thousand? And if so, maybe a lot of the luster of (i.e., demand for) the card will dissipate.

I can't predict the future any better than the next person, other than to opine that whatever it holds, the economic incentive that was placed on card manufacturers will play a significant role. And if what I have described in fact takes place, and what is to stop it, then for the Trout card to hold (or increase) its value it will need to be perceived as a different kind of 1/1 prototype. Again, maybe it will, but from the purely investment perspective (in contrast to the collecting perspective), IMO it is a very risky investment.

[packs]

The model you're talking about has existed for a very long time. Every modern Bowman product produces a 1/1 for every card in the set. Trout just happens to be Trout, but the same card already exists for every player in every set.

[MattyC]

How a modern product purchaser/investor looks at things will never make sense to a vintage collector. These guys are about flipping and profiting, not loving a rare card.

Very true. There is a big schism and culture war within the sportscard world these days. Perhaps not as much between vintage vs modern collector as it is between collectors and profiteers (be they flippers, an AH that shills, the chop shops, etc.).

[Shoeless Moe]

Trout is the greatest player any of us will ever see, unless one of us was lucky enough to be around to see Ruth and is still alive today.

Do I think this card is worth the sale price? No. But I'm also very surprised at the cavalier attitudes people have toward Trout. You will never see another player like him as long as you live, and there has only really been two players in history before him (Ruth and Mantle) who you might have seen.

Why not sit back and enjoy it?


Greatest player (after Bonds) who will NEVER win a World Series, yah I'd agree with that.

And a guy who's career BA when it's all said and done may very well be under .300

That's not the greatest player I've seen.

[maniac_73]

Trout is the greatest player any of us will ever see, unless one of us was lucky enough to be around to see Ruth and is still alive today.

Do I think this card is worth the sale price? No. But I'm also very surprised at the cavalier attitudes people have toward Trout. You will never see another player like him as long as you live, and there has only really been two players in history before him (Ruth and Mantle) who you might have seen.

Why not sit back and enjoy it?



Trout is a great player no doubt but he's no Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.

[Delray Vintage]

I applaud the marketing behind these 1 of 1 cards. It certainly helps sell regular cards to people hoping to find gold in a pack. That is fine. Smart. Win the card lottery and retire off the proceeds.

However, as a collector and investor it is not a positive. Forget how great Trout is or what will happen in his future. That is not the issue. If card companies can create marketing “rarities” that feed a speculative frenzy, that fever will likely lead to dissapointment. Why, because speculation almost always leads to collapse. I am not concerned about the buyer of a $4 mill Trout. What about the kids thinking they cannot lose by buying hyped up refractors with their savings?

I accept the dichotomy of card collecting and speculation. The Vegas component unfortunately seems to be where the industry is heading. The vintage world will still do well but without the enormous speculative fever. My 52 Mantle has done well albeit more gradually. Vegas Dave made a big bet and won. Different goals and I accept not everyone cares to patiently collect, hold and enjoy. I want to make money too but my horizon is decades not months.

[packs]

Trout is a great player no doubt but he's no Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.

Why not? He's ranked 5th all time in center on baseball reference, one spot ahead of Griffey. And why not Bonds? He's finished second in MVP four times in addition to winning three of them. He's also not cheating.

[clydepepper]

I got this 1-of-1 for a whole lot cheaper.


Even though its condition is further away from a 10 than the Trout, I prefer it.


It's modern, geologically speaking.


415297

[maniac_73]

Why not? He's ranked 5th all time in center on baseball reference, one spot ahead of Griffey. And why not Bonds? He's finished second in MVP four times in addition to winning three of them. He's also not cheating.

Through 28 years old him and Griffey are neck and neck with Griffey getting the edge on power. We all know the 2nd part of Griffeys career were derailed by injuries so we'll have to see whats in store for the 2nd half of Trouts career.

As for Bonds I don't really have an issue with his PED use as the pitchers used it too which imo just leveled the playing field. Also PED don't make you into the greatest hitter of all time or else everyone would have his Stats. I know others don't agree and that's their opinion which is just as valid as mine. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one :)

[timzcardz]

I think that I know where the 1 of 1 craze is headed.


The next step is to produce a 1 of 1 card, and then cut it in half and seed the halves into separate packs.

This then provides two (2) halves of 1.

The key would be two acquire both halves to possess the 1 of 1 card, which would make it twice as difficult and therefor even more valuable! :D




I started out typing this as a joke, but now think there might actually be something to this! :eek:

[packs]

Through 28 years old him and Griffey are neck and neck with Griffey getting the edge on power. We all know the 2nd part of Griffeys career were derailed by injuries so we'll have to see whats in store for the 2nd half of Trouts career.

As for Bonds I don't really have an issue with his PED use as the pitchers used it too which imo just leveled the playing field. Also PED don't make you into the greatest hitter of all time or else everyone would have his Stats. I know others don't agree and that's their opinion which is just as valid as mine. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one :)

The way I feel about Bonds is that (due to his own doing) you'll never really know how good he was. He won 3 MVP awards and then decided to cheat to win 4 more. I know that PEDs won't turn me into Barry Bonds, but you can clearly see what it turned Barry into and I don't think he gets there without them.

[bigfanNY]

About a year ago we were discussing another Modern superfractor sale. Luis Robert his card sold for $56,000.00. Not in the same leauge as the Four Million Dollar Mike Trout. (Damm thats alot of money). But many including me were asking who is Luis Robert? I read up and bought a couple of his cards. ( kinda like at racetrack following the money) Now I would have to say that the person who bought that card would probably turn a profit!!! Who knew....

[maniac_73]

I think that I know where the 1 of 1 craze is headed.


The next step is to produce a 1 of 1 card, and then cut it in half and seed the halves into separate packs.

This then provides two (2) halves of 1.

The key would be two acquire both halves to possess the 1 of 1 card, which would make it twice as difficult and therefor even more valuable! :D




I started out typing this as a joke, but now think there might actually be something to this! :eek:


Delete your post before Topps gets the bright idea to cut up 52 mantles and create memorabilia cards from them!

[chriskim]

Delete your post before Topps gets the bright idea to cut up 52 mantles and create memorabilia cards from them!


They haven't done that to 52 Mantles yet but have done that to T206 Wagners but they do preserve some part of the actual card. You never wonder why there are a few Wagners missing their borders and not the Mantles? :)

[Exhibitman]

This is a good summary of what is happening:

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/numbers-game-modern-cards-keep-crushing-it/

[Ben Yourg]

Is an 11 year old piece of cardboard,with a picture on the front,
worth $4,000,000? 11 years old?A PIECE OF CARDBOARD?
Sorry,this is just my opinion.

[iwantitiwinit]

Someone paying 4 million for that card is nonsense.

[Shoeless Moe]

How do you ship.....or hand deliver, a 4 million dollar card?

And does he give you a big briefcase filled with 4 Mil.

With the Buyers permission you need to video that. Would love to see the exchange, and then where the new owner puts it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

And a guy who's career BA when it's all said and done may very well be under .300



Like Bonds?

[Tao_Moko]

What "attack" are you talking about? Ignorant? Way to go man, really nice and professional response. Re-read what I wrote. Trout is just not there yet as a player compared to those on the cards mentioned in this thread. He is not even tracking to match a mid-tier HOFer. Otherwise, I just responded to you and stated a fact. Wasn't looking for gratitude. He too was of fighting age during war time. So, that was not a fair comparison to Williams because Williams fought. I could likely bet my farm that Trout never hits .400 and unlikely to end up with comparable career stats. Doesn't mean I think he sucks. This conversation cannot really be had for another ten years or so. Lastly, I agreed that the card was worth what it brought. Simply because it sold for that amount. May not be worth that later, but for now it is. Signing off.

As someone who comes from
A gold star marine family I thank you for your service but this attack on mike trout is beyond ignorant. And yes ted was a great patriot but he was also an asshole to many of his fans. They didn’t call him the spitter because he was a nice guy. And he was very arrogant wouldn’t even recognize the crowds appreciation after his final hr. Yes was an amazing person in many ways but also an asshole in many. I have never heard anything but compliments on Mr. trout and his interactions with fans. Military service is honorable but that doesn’t mean you are a better person simply for having done it. And I hate to break it but very few people collect cards of military heroes compared to those of athletic heroes.

[Shoeless Moe]

Like Bonds?

haha touche', yes .298.

BUT will Trout also have 762 home runs?

[Throttlesteer]

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

[Tabe]

He is not even tracking to match a mid-tier HOFer.
Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

haha touche', yes .298.

BUT will Trout also have 762 home runs?

If he roids to the eyeballs around age 32 I all but guarantee it...

[Orioles1954]

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

[maniac_73]

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

Frank Thomas was not a 5 tool player

[Orioles1954]

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

Most comparable by age is Mickey Mantle. I know, according to some here Mantle is way better because he single-handedly took crappy Yankees teams and led them to the promised land. On the other hand, Trout has lost with some loaded teams. Oh, wait...

[rats60]

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

[maniac_73]

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

And we don't even know what we missed in Ted's prime years when he was in the war

[drcy]

Mike Trout is a poor man's Ron Kittle, and that is just stating undisputible fact.

. . . . That should keep this discussion continuing for a while.

[Rhotchkiss]

I got this 1-of-1 for a whole lot cheaper.


Even though its condition is further away from a 10 than the Trout, I prefer it.


It's modern, geologically speaking.


415297

This card is a total beast! Great card.

[Shoeless Moe]

Frank Thomas was not a 5 tool player

Obviously you've never seen his Nugenix commercials.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

[icollectDCsports]

If Frank Thomas's stats hadn't tailed off toward the last 1/3 of his career . . .

[Tabe]

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

[CJinPA]

great point. I am going to play devils advocate . I think I'd take the Trout over the Wagner.
I have seen Trout play in person, seen him his entire career. Seen the videos of him playing catch with a kid in the stands.
I feel a much more personal connection to a player I can watch hit tonight. Collecting is very personal. There's one thing we all can agree on though, buy what you like!

I'll go back to my post yesterday - Mike Trout is the best player today and the last 50 years and perhaps. EVER!!! Only Bonds can compare w/ efficiency of swing mechanics. Just listen to the 'real' baseball community, the D1 - D3 coaches, the professional htting coaches in the US. Bonds and Trout are the very best they've ever seen!! Bonds never had to juice, but he did because of ego.... so sad....

Mike Trout is the best. Forget injuries, strikes, pandemics. Mantle dealt with knee blowouts and constant hangovers from his alcholism and is still beloved and AWESOME!!!.... Trout is Mantle X2 - believe it and watch! The dude faces 95+ mph fastballs and UNGODLY offspeed pitches every single AB..... the MLB in the 50's and 60's don't even compare to the Double A these days guys. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays 1st round pick this year.... at 17 year old out of PA, Nick Bitsko - SITS 97 MPH!!! good luck after a late night bender!

[Orioles1954]

Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

Not in my view at least.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I know, shouldn't have quote you, sorry.

[Tao_Moko]

I don't think this. It was an extra accomplishment/challenge that some had and took on which separates them from the pack. Trout is an amazing player and seemingly good guy. He may turn out to be the best. But even statistics won't categorize him with with the likes of Ted and Yogi in my eyes. My only reason for bringing it up was because it was used as an unfair comparison. There are the rare birds like Tillman, but I don't expect entertainers to follow suit.


Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

[rats60]

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

[Bored5000]

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

That assertion gets made every single time on here when a modern card sells for a staggering figure. Did you foresee the card rising 10 fold when it was a $400,000 card?

Maybe the value will go up and maybe it will go down, but these assertions that modern cards will automatically go down in value have been proven wrong a whole lot in recent years.

[Shoeless Moe]

I'll go back to my post yesterday - Mike Trout is the best player today and the last 50 years and perhaps. EVER!!! Only Bonds can compare w/ efficiency of swing mechanics. Just listen to the 'real' baseball community, the D1 - D3 coaches, the professional htting coaches in the US. Bonds and Trout are the very best they've ever seen!! Bonds never had to juice, but he did because of ego.... so sad....

Mike Trout is the best. Forget injuries, strikes, pandemics. Mantle dealt with knee blowouts and constant hangovers from his alcholism and is still beloved and AWESOME!!!.... Trout is Mantle X2 - believe it and watch! The dude faces 95+ mph fastballs and UNGODLY offspeed pitches every single AB..... the MLB in the 50's and 60's don't even compare to the Double A these days guys. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays 1st round pick this year.... at 17 year old out of PA, Nick Bitsko - SITS 97 MPH!!! good luck after a late night bender!


Best player ever and hitting .262 C'mon.

[Snapolit1]

Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax don't mean shit to anyone under 40. Just sayin'.

Why do people look at is as a bad thing when contemporary cards take off. It's a great thing. Keeps hobby vibrant. Kids today don't listen to Crosby Stills and Nash or the Doors or the Byrds They have their own musical heroes. Exactly as it should be. That's what keeps things moving.

[maniac_73]

Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax don't mean shit to anyone under 40. Just sayin'.

Why do people look at is as a bad thing when contemporary cards take off. It's a great thing. Keeps hobby vibrant. Kids today don't listen to Crosby Stills and Nash or the Doors or the Byrds They have their own musical heroes. Exactly as it should be. That's what keeps things moving.

I would agree if it was actually kids in the hobby but I don't know any kids collecting baseball cards. This hobby is geared to people 25 and over with disposable income right now. If there are kids they are probably collecting basketball but even that's priced out of their range.

[Huysmans]

What about older cards that have intended rarity because trading in a complete set got the winner a prize?

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

[honus94566]

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

Literally the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying something.

Trout is one of the best to every play the game.

That being said, what is the likelihood this card is still in the same league as a T206 Wagner 5 years from now? 10? 20? 40? Very, very low. Maybe the buyer doesn't care, though. So there's that...

[irishdenny]

I would agree if it was actually kids in the hobby but I don't know any kids collecting baseball cards. This hobby is geared to people 25 and over with disposable income right now. If there are kids they are probably collecting basketball but even that's priced out of their range.

You are Correct... jus maybe not so on how ole' the "Kids in the Hobby' are taday!? In this era's time, the 'Kid in the Hobby' are 25+ years ole'...

The Hobby Card Industry of taday have Re Focus'd on that Money's Age Group!
Guys like 'Vegas Dave', are in trusted by these 25 year ole's as sumwhat of a mentor! This is hard to swallow fir guy who grew up wit CSN, Marshall Tucker, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc... Howevar it's True!

[honus94566]

I would agree if it was actually kids in the hobby but I don't know any kids collecting baseball cards. This hobby is geared to people 25 and over with disposable income right now. If there are kids they are probably collecting basketball but even that's priced out of their range.

True. I am 40. Younger than probably most on this site. I have literally no interest in cards from the 50s-70s. Mickey Mantle? Bob Gibson? Tom Seaver? Ted Williams? Greats, sure. But I don't have any interest in collecting them.

I think as the boomer generation ages and slowly passes on, prices/demand for Pre-war cards will stay high, while the market will soften on the midcentury greats.

[Jim65]

You answered your own question... the point was to limit the amount of prizes obtained, hence, there was NEVER monetary value associated with these cards, so it is completely different.

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

[Seven]

Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax don't mean shit to anyone under 40. Just sayin'.

Why do people look at is as a bad thing when contemporary cards take off. It's a great thing. Keeps hobby vibrant. Kids today don't listen to Crosby Stills and Nash or the Doors or the Byrds They have their own musical heroes. Exactly as it should be. That's what keeps things moving.

Strongly disagree. Mantle was, is and will continue to be one of the strongest draws for me to collect. The Mick is iconic, there will always be people that want to collect him. I was barely a year old when he died, and the cards of his that I own, are my favorites in my small collection. It might be the minority but there's a good amount of people who grew up hearing stories about him from their fathers and grandfathers, and names like him and Koufax were the names thrown around when we were introduced to the Hobby.


Concerning your second point, I'll have you know that Crosby Stills Nash and Young is a hell of a group! :)

I could be wrong though. A good portion of the people I meet though are firmly convinced I'm a 75 year old man at heart, but I don't see anything wrong with that! :D

[rats60]

Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax don't mean shit to anyone under 40. Just sayin'.

Why do people look at is as a bad thing when contemporary cards take off. It's a great thing. Keeps hobby vibrant. Kids today don't listen to Crosby Stills and Nash or the Doors or the Byrds They have their own musical heroes. Exactly as it should be. That's what keeps things moving.

Not true. There is a guy on here doing a Koufax run because he was his dad's favorite player. There are lots of guys collecting Mantle who are under 40. The 52 T Mantle keeps Mickey relevant. I have no issue with people collecting Trout because he is the best player in the game. However, MLB didn't start in 2010 or 2000 or 1990, etc. People need to stop acting like it did and older players were no good or are irrelevant. There are also lots of young people who listen to the Beatles, Doors, Byrd's, CSNY etc. and prefer their music to newer bands. The Rolling Stones made more money than any other band last year. It's not just old people spending money on them, it is younger people too.

It seems kind of odd to see a post like this on a board of people collecting prewar cards of players they never saw like Wagner, Cobb, Ruth and Gehrig.

[Orioles1954]

Literally the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying something.

Trout is one of the best to every play the game.

That being said, what is the likelihood this card is still in the same league as a T206 Wagner 5 years from now? 10? 20? 40? Very, very low. Maybe the buyer doesn't care, though. So there's that...

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

[rats60]

True. I am 40. Younger than probably most on this site. I have literally no interest in cards from the 50s-70s. Mickey Mantle? Bob Gibson? Tom Seaver? Ted Williams? Greats, sure. But I don't have any interest in collecting them.

I think as the boomer generation ages and slowly passes on, prices/demand for Pre-war cards will stay high, while the market will soften on the midcentury greats.

I think the issue is more can demand for postwar vintages stay up with supply. I think people will always be after Mantle, Jackie, Clemente, Mays, Aaron, Koufax, etc. Just will there be thousands with desire to own those cards.

[maniac_73]

Not true. There is a guy on here doing a Koufax run because he was his dad's favorite player. There are lots of guys collecting Mantle who are under 40. The 52 T Mantle keeps Mickey relevant. I have no issue with people collecting Trout because he is the best player in the game. However, MLB didn't start in 2010 or 2000 or 1990, etc. People need to stop acting like it did and older players were no good or are irrelevant. There are also lots of young people who listen to the Beatles, Doors, Byrd's, CSNY etc. and prefer their music to newer bands. The Rolling Stones made more money than any other band last year. It's not just old people spending money on them, it is younger people too.

It seems kind of odd to see a post like this on a board of people collecting prewar cards of players they never saw like Wagner, Cobb, Ruth and Gehrig.

I just turned 40 and my interests have always been in the history and greats of the game. Yes, I do watch the new players but I'm a history buff and the older I get the more I appreciate these guys who built the game and trailblazed.

[packs]

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.


Why does your argument that Ted would be a star in any era discount the same fact about Trout? I'm not sure why anyone would think that the best player in the game by far (Trout) who is playing the game at the highest level at a time when the game is at its most complex, would not be a star if he were playing a simpler version of the same game.

[cardsagain74]

True. I am 40. Younger than probably most on this site. I have literally no interest in cards from the 50s-70s. Mickey Mantle? Bob Gibson? Tom Seaver? Ted Williams? Greats, sure. But I don't have any interest in collecting them.

I think as the boomer generation ages and slowly passes on, prices/demand for Pre-war cards will stay high, while the market will soften on the midcentury greats.

I'm 45 and I love collecting post-war vintage. And I imagine I'm far from alone in feeling some nostalgia for that era's players (even though I wasn't alive to see many of them play).

And most people who love the T206 and other older cards are in the same boat, even if they're from my parents' generation.

If plenty of people are still buying up Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson now, the same could easily be true for Mantle and Mays in 30 years

[Snapolit1]

For the new generation of investor driven mega refractor cards, it's clear the allure is not all about skills, but pizazz and style as well. Hottest new cards on the market now are Tatis and Vlad Jr. Also Yankee prospect Dominquez. (Imagine paying $20,000 for a kid years away from the majors?) Hottest basketball player by far is Zion, followed by Ja Morant. Funny how a great player like DeGrom commands basically no interest in the high end market. Follow who the kids want to be next. There's you next mega refractor card star. Sounds absurd but isn't that how the Mickey Mantle card became what it is today. Seemed larger than life, doing stuff kids of the day were wowed by.

[cardsagain74]

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

I think he was referring to the guy who did say those things (and criticized "Little Mikey Trout's" character and life decisions because he didn't join the military instead of using his baseball skills to make a living).

[cardsagain74]

For the new generation of investor driven mega refractor cards, it's clear the allure is not all about skills, but pizazz and style as well. Hottest new cards on the market now are Tatis and Vlad Jr. Also Yankee prospect Dominquez. (Imagine paying $20,000 for a kid years away from the majors?) Hottest basketball player by far is Zion, followed by Ja Morant. Funny how a great player like DeGrom commands basically no interest in the high end market. Follow who the kids want to be next. There's you next mega refractor card star. Sounds absurd but isn't that how the Mickey Mantle card became what it is today. Seemed larger than life, doing stuff kids of the day were wowed by.

The few card investors who put big $ into unproven prospects did the same thing during the junk wax boom, but it was just done in a different way. Instead of spending 20 k on a Dominguez card, they'd try to get a few thousand Gregg Jefferies '88 Fleer or John Olerud '90 Upper Deck

[honus94566]

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

Haha yeah sorry. I had read some of this thread a few days ago, but today just clicked on the most recent page. So I thought you were being serious and was like...woooooowww...

[Huysmans]

The point is one card is just as rare as the other and both have intended rarity, the reason is irrelevant. Rarity is rarity.

The reasons are never irrelevant. Cards of the past never had original monetary value, while modern cards have inflated monetary value. This isn't rocket science... there is a HUGE difference.

[nolemmings]

Pujols is the most feared hitter of the modern generation. He would probably be bold across the board save for WAR if I added him to above.

Seriously? Barry Bonds was walked 232 times in a season-- more than 1 1/2 times a game. He was INTENTIONALLY walked 120 times that year--and Pujols has never walked 120 times a season period. Bonds is the all-time leader in walks and IBB- more than twice as many IBB as Pujols, and he led the league in IBB a dozen times. Sure he had a good eye, but no way pitchers wanted anything to do with him. He was intentionally walked with the bases loaded.

Whatever you think of the man, the player Barry Bonds was the best I have ever seen and ever will see. Let's revisit this when Trout gets to 750 HRs.

[packs]

Seriously? Barry Bonds was walked 232 times in a season-- more than 1 1/2 times a game. He was INTENTIONALLY walked 120 times that year--and Pujols has never walked 120 times a season period. Bonds is the all-time leader in walks and IBB- more than twice as many IBB as Pujols, and he led the league in IBB a dozen times. Sure he had a good eye, but no way pitchers wanted anything to do with him. He was intentionally walked with the bases loaded.

Whatever you think of the man, the player Barry Bonds was the best I have ever seen and ever will see. Let's revisit this when Trout gets to 750 HRs.

That argument doesn't hold any water to me though. If Trout hits 750 homers it won't be because he cheated to do it. You simply can't be the best at anything if you cheated. The best at anything doesn't need to cheat. Therefore, Bonds can not possibly be the best player of all time. If he was, he wouldn't have cheated.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Trout’s superfractor rookie, which has artificially created scarcity, just sold for almost $4M. It is now the highest auctioned sports card ever.

This is more than: 5.5 times Babe Ruth’s 1916 Sporting News card (PSA 7); 1.3 times Mickey Mantle’s 1952 Topps card (PSA 9); and 1.2 times Honus Wagner’s 1909 T-206 card (PSA 5). All these cards survived kids playing with them and no specialty storage cases. Time created their scarcity.

Their careers are also over and statistics set in stone. How much upside is there in a $4M card? One ACL tear a poof. If a genie granted me one card to have, but was conditioned on never selling it, I don’t know if that Trout card would even crack my top 20. Crazy.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29723239/mike-trout-rookie-card-becomes-highest-selling-sports-card-all


I agree. I have not been able to get into ultra-modern. Way too many sets and subsets. The new wave of kids collecting cards in the 2000s don't care a lot about the vintage stuff is my guess - only related to the current players.

[GeoPoto]

The argument that Bonds walking a lot makes him the best is hard to swallow since most of that came after he started cheating. The better argument, it seems to me, is that in 1998 Bonds became the first player in history to have 400 home runs and 400 stolen bases (it might be 300, I'm not looking it up). But, instead of being celebrated for it, McGwire and Sosa got all the attention.

That was also the year that a St. Louis reporter wrote about seeing PEDs in McGwire's locker, kicking off a storm of protest not about PEDs, but about breached locker room privacy. LaRussa said the reporter should be banned from the club house, etc. It was an understandable, though not admirable, reaction by Bonds to feel that PEDs were an acceptable approach to becoming the most celebrated (and highest paid) player in the game. The rest is history and I am not condoning Bonds' behavior, but saying that his position as the best player of his era (at least) was arguably well in hand before he "got dirty".

Whether Bonds would have aged well without PEDs seems likely, but admittedly, is clouded by the drug use. At the same time, we don't yet know how well Trout will age.

[Snapolit1]

John Olerud. Wow. Good hitter, but I'm hard pressed to think of a player in my life time who was more boring. Guy hardly spoke.




The few card investors who put big $ into unproven prospects did the same thing during the junk wax boom, but it was just done in a different way. Instead of spending 20 k on a Dominguez card, they'd try to get a few thousand Gregg Jefferies '88 Fleer or John Olerud '90 Upper Deck

[samosa4u]

Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax don't mean shit to anyone under 40. Just sayin'.

Why do people look at is as a bad thing when contemporary cards take off. It's a great thing. Keeps hobby vibrant. Kids today don't listen to Crosby Stills and Nash or the Doors or the Byrds They have their own musical heroes. Exactly as it should be. That's what keeps things moving.

I'm 36 here and I love Mantle. Why? Cause' all you boomers passed on the Mantle love to us! I own a few of his cards too, including his Bowman rookie.

I'm a huge fan of the Doors and my favorite track is "Riders on the Storm." This was the last song Morrison recorded and then he died in Paris.

[Snapolit1]

I'm 36 here and I love Mantle. Why? Cause' all you boomers passed on the Mantle love to us! I own a few of his cards too, including his Bowman rookie.

I'm a huge fan of the Doors and my favorite track is "Riders on the Storm." This was the last song Morrison recorded and then he died in Paris.

That's cool. And you are not representative of 36 year olds. I love Glenn Miller. That doesn't mean he has a huge following of 57 year olds.

[Touch'EmAll]

Long term, I feel most safe, investment wise, with T206 major HOF'ers. You can't buy everything (at least not me) so I have passed on the Mantle cards, rookie cards, high dollar modern cards. I totally get buying Mantle/rookies/modern - people really like these cards. This is what is so nice about our hobby - something for everyone.

[packs]

Long term, I feel most safe, investment wise, with T206 major HOF'ers. You can't buy everything (at least not me) so I have passed on the Mantle cards, rookie cards, high dollar modern cards. I totally get buying Mantle/rookies/modern - people really like these cards. This is what is so nice about our hobby - something for everyone.

But doesn't a sale of a modern card like this one upset that vision of the hobby? We don't know who bought the Trout. If it's a young collector, the future may be modern.

[Tao_Moko]

This is a pretty fun argument. Would be very interesting to hear Mike Trout defend himself as a player and if he would recommend spending millions on his card. I wonder what he thinks when he hears comparisons to the past greats.

On another note - I never intend on shedding a negative light on my Marine Corps. I look at it through a different set of lenses. All my brothers in all branches are my heroes, not an athlete. So I give cred to those who did both. I've earned the distinction of being "ignorant" and being responsible for "the stupidest thing" ever heard/read on this site. I've spent my life ensuring the safety of civilians so my apologies for any discredit I've brought upon the Corps with my idiot thoughts and clear annoyance to a few card collectors with my opinion on probably one of the most privileged of all communities. Suggesting a lifelong ball player might fall short overall in a comparison to Ted Williams. Roberto Clemente probably falls short too since he was also a humanitarian and Marine and had better stats because those don't matter. I just can't believe I ever considered an entire impact beyond on field. I'm just a stupid, ignorant fool. I'm going off to apologise to my kids for what they have as a father. If only their dad could be a more passionate and intelligent baseball card collector.

[Orioles1954]

But doesn't a sale of a modern card like this one upset that vision of the hobby? We don't know who bought the Trout. If it's a young collector, the future may be modern.

The future has always been modern. It dwarfs vintage by a large margin.

[puckpaul]

I would agree if it was actually kids in the hobby but I don't know any kids collecting baseball cards. This hobby is geared to people 25 and over with disposable income right now. If there are kids they are probably collecting basketball but even that's priced out of their range.

But, today’s kids will grow up and become those 25 and over card collectors.

[perezfan]

John Olerud. Wow. Good hitter, but I'm hard pressed to think of a player in my life time who was more boring. Guy hardly spoke.

Yeah... just like Trout. :rolleyes:

[Tabe]

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.
Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.

[mechanicalman]

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?


Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.

I have no real interest in this debate, but you should know that the shift you mentioned was actually deployed to defend against Ted Williams in 1941, so that part of your argument is not accurate. It was literally called the Ted Williams shift.

[rats60]

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?


Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?




Um, you do realize that radical shifts were practically invented for Ted Williams. He also stubbornly refused to hit to the opposite field even though he was completely capable.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F 1763af79-a747-4a67-bc7e-d2b64dc313ec_300x213.jpeg

[RCMcKenzie]

If a T206 Wagner is the Mona Lisa of baseball cards, the Trout refractors are the Jeff Koons' giant colored balloon animals.

baseball -reference has Trout trending as a batter with Wally Joyner and Tommy Henrich.

[GasHouseGang]

Rob that's a great and hilarious comparison. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it. :D

[Tabe]

I have no real interest in this debate, but you should know that the shift you mentioned was actually deployed to defend against Ted Williams in 1941, so that part of your argument is not accurate. It was literally called the Ted Williams shift.

I'm aware of the shift but it's applied different and more thoroughly and often today.

[Tabe]

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.

So baseball is the one sport where training, conditioning, information, and skill level have NOT improved over the last 70 years? C'mon.

Trout has finished top 2 in MVP 7 times in 8 years and only an injury kept him from 8 for 8. It's simply factually incorrect to say he doesn't dominate now.

Fastest I can find for Feller is 98.6 and he was said to be A LOT faster than everybody else at the time. A guy throwing 98 isn't even remotely unusual today. And doesn't change the fact that I proved guys throw A LOT harder than they did in the 40s.

[Jim65]

So baseball is the one sport where training, conditioning, information, and skill level have NOT improved over the last 70 years? C'mon.

Trout has finished top 2 in MVP 7 times in 8 years and only an injury kept him from 8 for 8. It's simply factually incorrect to say he doesn't dominate now.

Fastest I can find for Feller is 98.6 and he was said to be A LOT faster than everybody else at the time. A guy throwing 98 isn't even remotely unusual today. And doesn't change the fact that I proved guys throw A LOT harder than they did in the 40s.

Agree. The athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster, but baseball is the one sport where some people think the modern player is actually worse than the older players. The argument makes no sense.

[Snapolit1]

Impossible argument.

No one would possibly argue that a doctor in 2020 is not significantly better informed about medicine, cures, progression of disease, etc., than a doctor in 1920, but I could probably make the argument that a local town doctor (think Burt Lancaster in Field of Dreams) was actually a better doctor all things considered than many doctors today. Similarly, could probably argue Abraham Lincoln was a better lawyer than many lawyers today despite the vast differences in technology available to lawyers. Could Lincoln write a 50 page brief in an afternoon. Probably not. Yet a first year lawyer probably could today. How good would Jack Johnson be at boxing or some golfer from 1910. Answer is always pretty much the same: who the hell knows.

[tschock]

So baseball is the one sport where training, conditioning, information, and skill level have NOT improved over the last 70 years? C'mon.

So you are implying that Williams would be even better with modern training, conditioning, and information available, are you not?

You can't just drop a player from one era into another without applying all the factors that got that player to the major leagues and what kept him there. If you want to drop Trout into the 1940s (or any era), they you need to consider how much less of the modern advantage that players now have. Does Trout have the time and the ability to hone his skills if he has to work when he's 14? Or during the off season? Or get stuck in the minors for a few years? Similarly dropping Williams into today's game. Are you applying those same advantages and disadvantages to Williams (or anyone)?

Bottom line... trying to prove player A from one era is better than player B from another era isn't foolproof.

[todeen]

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?


Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.Personally, I think today's players might not be as good if they played 70+ years ago. I'm not saying that necessarily about Trout, but most players then didn't train as hard, or didn't train exclusively for one sport. They really did take the winters off. Ted Kluszewski was muscular, but he wasn't a chiseled body like some of today's players. Think of the winter Babe Ruth trained and lost weight by working around his farm. That isn't the same as going to a gym for training with experts standing around instructing what to do. There wasn't the same data or video for players to evaluate themselves. If you wanted scouting reports they were much different and taught differently. Ted Williams excelled because he was ahead of his time. He saw hitting as a science and was a precursor of today's science driven baseball training. Tony Gwynn was interviewed by Bob Costas about Teddy Ballgame, and Tony said the way Williams spoke about hitting was beyond anything most people were saying even in the 90s (still before StatCast). Personally, I think Ted Williams would still be able to hit .400 today, but not many players today could replicate their success if they played with Ted, or Hornsby, or Speaker, or Anson.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[HistoricNewspapers]

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?


Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.


....and with command in regard to Chapman, and he is six foot four inches tall and a muscular 218 pounds. Wait. Ryne Duren? He couldn't even throw a strike.

Even as late as the 1970's, there were only a handful of pitchers that could hit 95 MPH, now it is only a handful who can't...and they have command too, with elite breaking pitches to match, and of course taller now too.

So you have to imagine Ryne Duren being two inches taller, 28 more pounds of muscle on his body, three more MPH, with an elite breaking pitch...and command. Then you are onto something.

The guys today are physically bigger, run faster, throw the ball better, and catch it better...yet somehow not as good as guys from 1950?


Every shortstop in the league today makes the throw from the hole look routine...throws that only the very few elite shortstops could make even as late as the 1970's.

The baseball world has millions and BILLIONS more athletes to draw from inside the United States AND worldwide in the last 20 years, far more than at any other time in history when(the US population was miniscule compared to now). Accounting for expansion of MLB(or other options. Options that also existed back then BTW) does not even put a dent in the fact that there are more elite athletes to draw from and are playing in MLB now than there ever were.

It is a joke whenever someone says "expansion dilluted talent," when comparing players from now to guys from 1960's and earlier. If the talent got worse...then how are they now bigger, stronger, throwing the ball harder, running faster, and catching it better?? If talent got worse, then those concrete measurements should be getting worse NOT BETTER.

One of the reasons pitchers do not throw complete games anymore is because EVERY GUY in the bullpen throws 95+ with command and breaking stuff....because the world produces far more elite athletes now compared to back then, and it has minimally to do with "evolution." It shouldn't be that hard to deduce that if 100 million men produces 20 guys who throw 95 MPH, then 200 million men will get you 40. Even more when you realize that people are actually training more now to do that exact thing and that money is such a motivator! (Except we are talking in BILLIONS when comparing the elite athlete talent pool of now compared to 1940).

It is like Titans squaring off against Titans now. Back in yesteryear it was more like Man vs. Boys...which is what produced those gaudy statistical achievements (players hitting .424 for a full season or Babe Ruth out homering every team in the league) for the elite, of which are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve when competing against AN ENTIRE LEAGUE full of titans.

[packs]

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.


What does dominance look like to you? Trout has won 3 MVP's, he's finished second in 4 more seasons (7 seasons in the top 2 during his first 9 seasons). He is second among active players when it comes to WAR and he's second to Albert Pujols, whose played twice the career. He's already top 100 all time in WAR and he's only 28 years old. He is universally seen as the best player in the game.

Who is dominating if not Trout?

[MikeGarcia]

If a T206 Wagner is the Mona Lisa of baseball cards, the Trout refractors are the Jeff Koons' giant colored balloon animals.

baseball -reference has Trout trending as a batter with Wally Joyner and Tommy Henrich.
.....ANY EXCUSE TO SHOW AN UNDER-RATED PLAYER


..http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/1939BGSHENRICH.JPG


A pre-war rookie sooooo overshadowed by Joe and Ted and .......

..

[Shoeless Moe]

Don't look now, but the BEST player EVER is now hitting .255 and 86th in BA.


might be time for a little juice

[Touch'EmAll]

Comparing fastest pitches of today vs. way back - be careful as the measuring has changed. I have heard a pitch loses up to 8 mph from release to plate. I do not know how/where Feller was timed, but Nolan Ryan was timed when pitch went over the plate. Today, pitches are clocked when released. Big Difference. Todays 100mph is Ryans 92 mph.

[Orioles1954]

....and with command in regard to Chapman, and he is six foot four inches tall and a muscular 218 pounds. Wait. Ryne Duren? He couldn't even throw a strike.

Even as late as the 1970's, there were only a handful of pitchers that could hit 95 MPH, now it is only a handful who can't...and they have command too, with elite breaking pitches to match, and of course taller now too.

So you have to imagine Ryne Duren being two inches taller, 28 more pounds of muscle on his body, three more MPH, with an elite breaking pitch...and command. Then you are onto something.

The guys today are physically bigger, run faster, throw the ball better, and catch it better...yet somehow not as good as guys from 1950?


Every shortstop in the league today makes the throw from the hole look routine...throws that only the very few elite shortstops could make even as late as the 1970's.

The baseball world has millions and BILLIONS more athletes to draw from inside the United States AND worldwide in the last 20 years, far more than at any other time in history when(the US population was miniscule compared to now). Accounting for expansion of MLB(or other options. Options that also existed back then BTW) does not even put a dent in the fact that there are more elite athletes to draw from and are playing in MLB now than there ever were.

It is a joke whenever someone says "expansion dilluted talent," when comparing players from now to guys from 1960's and earlier. If the talent got worse...then how are they now bigger, stronger, throwing the ball harder, running faster, and catching it better?? If talent got worse, then those concrete measurements should be getting worse NOT BETTER.

One of the reasons pitchers do not throw complete games anymore is because EVERY GUY in the bullpen throws 95+ with command and breaking stuff....because the world produces far more elite athletes now compared to back then, and it has minimally to do with "evolution." It shouldn't be that hard to deduce that if 100 million men produces 20 guys who throw 95 MPH, then 200 million men will get you 40. Even more when you realize that people are actually training more now to do that exact thing and that money is such a motivator! (Except we are talking in BILLIONS when comparing the elite athlete talent pool of now compared to 1940).

It is like Titans squaring off against Titans now. Back in yesteryear it was more like Man vs. Boys...which is what produced those gaudy statistical achievements (players hitting .424 for a full season or Babe Ruth out homering every team in the league) for the elite, of which are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve when competing against AN ENTIRE LEAGUE full of titans.

+1 and that difference is even more drastic in football and basketball and pretty much every other professional/amateur sport. It's not disrespecting our predecessors, just a stone cold fact.

[packs]

The discussion about fastballs from yesteryear and who would be a star in today's game takes place on this board all the time. In almost every other instance the board's consensus opinion is that players today are more physically gifted than players in the past, except in this thread where people want to make weird arguments against Mike Trout.

[todeen]

.

The guys today are physically bigger, run faster, throw the ball better, and catch it better...yet somehow not as good as guys from 1950?

.

You have to factor in being a product of the time. The elite talent today would still probably be elite 70+ years ago. But every other player is a crap shoot. They weren't surrounded by trainers, physicians, tech geeks with statcast, nutritionists, etc. Back then, think about how many team-paid doctors told players to play thru possible career ending arm injuries? How many of today's average players would be able to survive in a different era? A lot of retired players make comments that today's players are babied. If they aren't being babied, would they be as good?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Seems to me that the advantages run both ways, hitters and pitchers, and have more to do with things done to the game itself than with the athletes.

You cannot assume that a person born in 1920 would come out the same if he was born in 1990. That applies to hitters and pitchers. In other words, Ted Williams today isn't the same physical specimen as Ted Williams in 1939 because of a lifetime of proper training, medical and nutrition. I mean, the voodoo medical and training of the prewar era was laughable. Players were told not to work with weights because it would make them "musclebound". Players were denied water during spring training because of an erroneous belief that drinking water caused cramps.

The conditions of play were vastly different as well. Stadiums were constructed with poor sight lines for batters. Fields were tailored for the home team. For example, by the late 1960s pitchers' mounds were so tailored to a Koufax or Gibson that hitters barely hit. The rules were changed to limit the customization of mounds and the game rebalanced. New balls were not substituted as often. Players routinely played double-headers. Travel was horrible. Today players go from car to plane to bus to first-class hotel, all with appropriate heating and AC. Prewar players had to ride trains with no HVAC to hotels in sweatboxes like St. Louis in August with no AC. I took a no-AC train in Europe when I did my student trip. It was miserable. You don't sleep all night because it is so hot and stuffy, and the sweat just pours off you.

The team composition goes both ways. Sure, black players were excluded, reducing the pool of possible players by about 20%, but there were also 50% fewer MLB slots for the whites who were allowed to play. Unless you believe that a higher % of black players would have made the majors than was the norm with white players, you cannot argue that losing 20% of the pool overrides having 50% fewer slots for the applicants. That just doesn't make mathematical sense.

I kind of like the WAR concept because it negates much of these effects. WAR over 100:

1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 182.5 L
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 164.5 R
3. Cy Young+ (22) 163.8 R
4. Barry Bonds (22) 162.8 L
5. Willie Mays+ (22) 156.2 R
6. Ty Cobb+ (24) 151.0 L
7. Hank Aaron+ (23) 143.1 R
8. Roger Clemens (24) 139.2 R
9. Tris Speaker+ (22) 134.2 L
10. Honus Wagner+ (21) 130.8 R
11. Stan Musial+ (22) 128.3 L
12. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 127.1 R
13. Eddie Collins+ (25) 123.9 L
14. Ted Williams+ (19) 121.9 L
15. Pete Alexander+ (20) 119.0 R
16. Alex Rodriguez (22) 117.5 R
17. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.3 B
18. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 114.1 L
19. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 111.2 R
20. Mel Ott+ (22) 110.7 L
21. Mickey Mantle+ (18) 110.2 B
22. Tom Seaver+ (20) 109.9 R
23. Nap Lajoie+ (21) 107.3 R
24. Frank Robinson+ (21) 107.2 R
25. Mike Schmidt+ (18) 106.9 R
26. Lefty Grove+ (17) 106.7 L
27. Greg Maddux+ (23) 106.6 R
28. Christy Mathewson+ (17) 106.0 R
29. Randy Johnson+ (22) 101.1 R
30. Albert Pujols (20, 40) 100.6 R
31. Joe Morgan+ (22) 100.5 L
32. Warren Spahn+ (21) 100.1 L

[ls7plus]

Adam hit the nail squarely on the head with his post re comparing modern players to those playing in past eras. Sabermetrics have devised multiple tools to compare players across eras, WAR among them. Others include Bill James' win shares, and for offensive abilities, runs created compared to league average. OPS+ is also popular for quick reference, as it is readily obtainable thru BaseballReference.com. The later, incidently, bears an approximate 93% or better correlation to runs produced, despite its shorthand character. At the heart of all such stats is the premise that comparing players across eras must be based on the relationship of their performance to that of the average MLB player, and that the latter, while shifting perhaps over time, is flexible enough to serve as a baseline because old time players would improve if magically transported to today's game upon implementation of modern training methods. If a modern player could be transported back into the days of old, i.e., was born in that time and played in that era, he would not have the benefit of those training methods. It is interesting to note in this regard in relation to Ted Williams that based on extrapolation of the Bill James' runs created stat and phrasing it as a % increase over the average player of the day, Ted comes in a very solid, absolute number one of all time, at 250% runs created over the average player during the course of his long career. Ruth is actually second, at 240%.

It is also interesting to note the reference above to Bob Feller's best fastball being clocked at 98.6 mph. Bob quite candidly, if perhaps somewhat immodestly, stated that in order to have his pitch register on the timing device, he had to throw it through a relatively small opening. Hardly having been known for his control (I believe he had 153 walks in his 1946 348K season), Mr. Feller indicated he had to slow his fastball down to get it through the opening. It is certainly quite likely, if not absolutely ascertainable, that Feller threw significantly over 100 mph in the late '30's through the mid-to late forties. Note should also be taken that Nolan Ryan in his prime was clocked at 102 mph in the ninth inning, after throwing more than 150 pitches.

I think it is naive to suggest that old timers could not adjust to the conditions of today's game. Babe Ruth was tested by Columbia University in the '20's, and found to have 20/10 vision, as well as what were termed nearly super-human reflexes and hand-to-eye coordination. He would likely be quite good at detecting the very tight spin on the slider quite early in its journey to the plate (Ted stated he was able to see it and react to it as soon as it left the pitcher's hand). Babe would simply trade in his legendary 48 oz. club for something more like the 32 or 33 ouncer today's sluggers use. In addition, if your big screen, high-def TV has a remote which allows you to slo-mo one of today's hitters going up against a pitcher with an ultra-high velocity fastball, what you will see is that the hitter starts earlier. Rather than starting his stride when the pitcher's arm and hand comes up into a little box above his shoulder, just as he is about to release the ball, today's batter going up against a 100 mph fastball actually starts his hip-cock and stride WHILE THE PITCHER'S ARM IS STILL GOING BACK. Yesterday's hitters would adjust, no question about it.

Sorry to be this verbose, but insofar as the OP in this thread is concerned, IMHO, "Trout's Clout" will markedly diminish over time, starting with the time he hits his down years (at 29, he is in the heart of his prime, yet his OPS+ is 176 to Mantle's 172. Mantle ended up at that figure--one of the best of all time, by the way--after three very bad seasons, 1965, 1967, and 1968). Trout has yet to experience the deterioration of his skills with age, yet the length and lucrative character of his contract all but ensures that he will. My prediction is that he will end up in the low 160's if he is fortunate enough to avoid a career-impairing injury.

And who is to say that Trout will not be like Vern Stephens (7 all-star appearances, multiple top ten MVP vote years), Ted Kluzewski, Rocky Colavito, Dale Murphy, or Cecil or Prince Fielder, among many others, who were top-notch stars only to peter out in their very early thirties?

In any event. Trout will eventually fade from the spotlight and join the ranks of other great, but long-gone players. I politely suggest it would be absurd to suggest that after a generation or two, his star will shine as bright as the Babe's, Ted's, Ty Cobb's, or a number of others. The value of this card will be measured against theirs then, and not be bolstered by the benefit of the grandiose spotlight it enjoys now. And then we have interesting comments from Adam to consider with regard to whether this type of card will weather the ravages of time well (kudos also to Bill Avery's comment that the signature itself looks a lot more like "Mr. 7-up" than "Mike Trout").

Boy, I sure can get really verbose when I get wound up on a topic! Congratulations to those who have made it through all of the above, and especially to puckpaul for his acquisition of the W600 Cobb--great card!.

With great regard,

Larry

[Tabe]

Comparing fastest pitches of today vs. way back - be careful as the measuring has changed. I have heard a pitch loses up to 8 mph from release to plate. I do not know how/where Feller was timed, but Nolan Ryan was timed when pitch went over the plate. Today, pitches are clocked when released. Big Difference. Todays 100mph is Ryans 92 mph.

Ryan's was measured 10 feet in front of the plate.

And that point is immaterial - they've been measuring the same way for at least a couple decades now. And the average fastball has gone up significantly in that time (2.5mph from 2008 to 2019 alone). Regardless of any adjustments you make, guys are throwing harder now than they did 12 years ago. And harder than 70 years ago.

The "dilution" of talent was mentioned earlier because of expansion. That's an argument that holds no water. The US has roughly 220% of the population (150m - 328m) now that it had in 1950. Meanwhile, MLB has 188% of the teams. AND MLB now draws players from around the world, which it did not do in 1950. In other words, not only has the talent not been diluted by expansion, it's actually been concentrated. Expansion hasn't kept up with population growth.

[Tabe]

So you are implying that Williams would be even better with modern training, conditioning, and information available, are you not?
No, what I said was that baseball today is harder than it was in 1940 or 1950. That's an undeniable fact. The overall skill level of all involved is waaay higher than it was in 1950. That means that the game itself is more difficult.

Put another way: In the 1960s, Ray Oyler managed to play several years while hitting .175 for his career in over 1200 ABs with zero power. There is absolutely zero chance of a guy doing that today. Not a chance. Despite there being 14 more teams, there's no room for a guy that simply can't hit. He hit .135 playing full-time for a world champion in 1968. Would that happen today? Not a chance. Why? Because the requirements and skill level for modern MLB are that much higher.

So, again, we're not talking training or whatever, we're talking the end results of that training. And that is that the game today is much harder than it was in 1940 or 1950.

And, no, there's not a chance in the world Ted hits .400 today. If he could today, how come he never did it again after 1941?

[Touch'EmAll]

Correction taken, thank you. Ryan's pitch was timed at 10 ft. in front of home plate instead of at home plate (I was off by 10 ft. in prior post). However, today's clockings are taken when the pitch leaves the pitchers hand. Remember there is about 60 ft. between pitchers mound and home plate. Two articles I just read says Ryan's pitch would calculate out to 108.5 mph if based on today's clocking measurements - still good enough to be best ever, and remain in Guiness Book records.

[mechanicalman]

And, no, there's not a chance in the world Ted hits .400 today. If he could today, how come he never did it again after 1941?


Dude, do your research. Williams missed 5 years of baseball, 3 in his prime, due to military service. Possibly one reason he didn’t hit .400 after ‘41. I don’t know for certain if he’d hit that mark again, but I do know it’s hard to hit a fastball from the cockpit of a plane.

[steve B]

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?


Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.

Your second point makes my argument against the first.

Would Ted Williams bat better today? Of course. Fewer double headers, quicker travel, more rest, better physical Training, and not least.... Massive data that the hitters can study about what pitches a pitcher tends to throw when, both historically and recently. And all with video so if a pitcher has a tell about a particular pitch the batter might pick up on it.
(never mind shifts, when one was tried Williams hit the other way. )

Would Trout do as well without the training and data about pitchers? He'd probably be ok, maybe not as good as he is now.
Part of the power of a HR comes from the pitch, some of his HR might fall short.

[Exhibitman]

Ted's .388 in 1957 at the age of 38 is insane.

Re the talent pool, don't forget player choice. Hundreds of the best athletes now end up playing football, basketball, soccer, hockey and even tennis.

One more thing on the art of batting that has been touched on but is really important is inside pitching. The way these guys today dig in, prep and take time in the box...never happened in the old days. As Dizzy Dean once yelled to a batter digging his spikes in the batter's box: “Dig yourself a nice hole, son – cuz ole Diz is gonna BURY you in it!” You come into LA you are going to get Drysdale, St. Louis you get Gibson. And so on. Lots of inside pitching that just doesn't happen today. Joe Kelly throws at a few of the cheating Astros and he gets a major suspension.

[steve B]

You are Correct... jus maybe not so on how ole' the "Kids in the Hobby' are taday!? In this era's time, the 'Kid in the Hobby' are 25+ years ole'...

The Hobby Card Industry of taday have Re Focus'd on that Money's Age Group!
Guys like 'Vegas Dave', are in trusted by these 25 year ole's as sumwhat of a mentor! This is hard to swallow fir guy who grew up wit CSN, Marshall Tucker, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc... Howevar it's True!

They actually trust a guy who calls himself "Vegas Dave" ?

Back in the day the only way a guy called that would go near baseball cards is if he hijacked a truckfull.

[Kenny Cole]

The "dilution" of talent was mentioned earlier because of expansion. That's an argument that holds no water. The US has roughly 220% of the population (150m - 328m) now that it had in 1950. Meanwhile, MLB has 188% of the teams. AND MLB now draws players from around the world, which it did not do in 1950. In other words, not only has the talent not been diluted by expansion, it's actually been concentrated. Expansion hasn't kept up with population growth.

Except that a huge percentage of that population is no longer playing baseball in favor of basketball, football and soccer. That used not to be the case.

[Tabe]

Dude, do your research. Williams missed 5 years of baseball, 3 in his prime, due to military service. Possibly one reason he didn’t hit .400 after ‘41. I don’t know for certain if he’d hit that mark again, but I do know it’s hard to hit a fastball from the cockpit of a plane.

He had 13 more seasons after ww2 in which he played yet never really came close to .400 (by close, I mean was at like .395 the last week of the year).

He played 17 full seasons, hit .400 once, but you're certain he would hit over .400 when no one who played 120 games has come close (see above) to doing since? Yeah, I'm joy buying it.

Now, just so there's no doubt, I think Ted was an INCREDIBLE player, probably top 10 all-time. But, yeah, his yearly numbers for average would go down in this era.

[Tabe]

Except that a huge percentage of that population is no longer playing baseball in favor of basketball, football and soccer. That used not to be the case.

More than offset by the millions outside the US that are playing.

[guy3050]

Your second point makes my argument against the first.

Would Ted Williams bat better today? Of course. Fewer double headers, quicker travel, more rest, better physical Training, and not least.... Massive data that the hitters can study about what pitches a pitcher tends to throw when, both historically and recently. And all with video so if a pitcher has a tell about a particular pitch the batter might pick up on it.
(never mind shifts, when one was tried Williams hit the other way. )

Would Trout do as well without the training and data about pitchers? He'd probably be ok, maybe not as good as he is now.
Part of the power of a HR comes from the pitch, some of his HR might fall short.

Plus hitting a juiced up ball!

[rats60]

What does dominance look like to you? Trout has won 3 MVP's, he's finished second in 4 more seasons (7 seasons in the top 2 during his first 9 seasons). He is second among active players when it comes to WAR and he's second to Albert Pujols, whose played twice the career. He's already top 100 all time in WAR and he's only 28 years old. He is universally seen as the best player in the game.

Who is dominating if not Trout?

Honus Wagner in 1908 finishing first or second in every major offensive category. WAR is a made up stat that is pretty meaningless. MVP voting is a popularity contest. Ted Williams won 2 Triple Crowns and wasn’t named MVP either year.

Trout is the best player, but he isn’t dominating the league. He has very little black ink. He is a power hitter that has never led the league in HRs. He has never led the league in BA. Ted Williams Black Ink 122= dominating. Mike Trout Black Ink (mostly from getting pitched around and walking) 33= not dominating.

[rats60]

Ryan's was measured 10 feet in front of the plate.

And that point is immaterial - they've been measuring the same way for at least a couple decades now. And the average fastball has gone up significantly in that time (2.5mph from 2008 to 2019 alone). Regardless of any adjustments you make, guys are throwing harder now than they did 12 years ago. And harder than 70 years ago.

The "dilution" of talent was mentioned earlier because of expansion. That's an argument that holds no water. The US has roughly 220% of the population (150m - 328m) now that it had in 1950. Meanwhile, MLB has 188% of the teams. AND MLB now draws players from around the world, which it did not do in 1950. In other words, not only has the talent not been diluted by expansion, it's actually been concentrated. Expansion hasn't kept up with population growth.

You have 32 NFL teams, 30 NBA teams and 30 MLB teams. The US population increase doesn’t come close to covering that and that doesn’t account for other sports. Baseball was pretty much the only major sport for a long time. The NBA didn’t even exist until after WW2. The NFL was an after thought. Jackie Robinson was a much better football player, in fact baseball was his worst sport at UCLA. Yet he ended up in the BBHOF.

The best athletes are not playing baseball. Athletes may be better, but if the second tier athletes are now the ones playing the game, they are not better than the first tier athletes from a previous era. I remember an interview with Darryl Strawberry and Eric Davis about the Crenshaw HS baseball program in the 80s. They said that it was completely different than when they played a decade earlier. Baseball was no longer cool, the guys who would have played with them were now just playing football or basketball due to specialization.

You are throwing out absolutes like they are facts, they are not. They are your opinion. I disagree with them and that is my opinion. If you want to think Trout is great, fine, but I am not convinced. I have been watching the game for over 50 years and he isn’t close to the best player I have seen. He isn’t close to a 5 tool player. Maybe he can improve and convince me or maybe he declines like the other would be “greats.”

[todeen]

He had 13 more seasons after ww2 in which he played yet never really came close to .400 (by close, I mean was at like .395 the last week of the year).



He played 17 full seasons, hit .400 once, but you're certain he would hit over .400 when no one who played 120 games has come close (see above) to doing since? era.

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

To me, hitting .400 is still possible. Miggy's Triple Crown a few years back is evidence that some of these rare achievements are still possible. Today's players have traded average for power. It's what managers and general managers are asking of them. If a good hitter today wanted to pursue 400, I believe it's possible.

This reminds me of the Ty Cobb fanatics on this board that talk about how Ty Cobb could have hit more home runs if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Players have to choose a style, and that style allows them to pursue certain accolades. It also stops them from pursuing others.

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/tony-gwynn-and-the-400-batting-average-chase

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

To me, hitting .400 is still possible. Miggy's Triple Crown a few years back is evidence that some of these rare achievements are still possible. Today's players have traded average for power. It's what managers and general managers are asking of them. If a good hitter today wanted to pursue 400, I believe it's possible.

This reminds me of the Ty Cobb fanatics on this board that talk about how Ty Cobb could have hit more home runs if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Players have to choose a style, and that style allows them to pursue certain accolades. It also stops them from pursuing others.

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/tony-gwynn-and-the-400-batting-average-chase

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I don't doubt that "someone" will hit .400 again...someday...BUT...ICHIRO would have been my pick to do over anyone in recent times...and he couldn't!

[todeen]

I don't doubt that "someone" will hit .400 again...someday...BUT...ICHIRO would have been my pick to do over anyone in recent times...and he couldn't!I'm from WA State, love Ichiro. At what point does playing for a crappy team like Seattle suck away some of your talent? I'm thinking of Joey Votto too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

I'm from WA State, love Ichiro. At what point does playing for a crappy team like Seattle suck away some of your talent? I'm thinking of Joey Votto too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Dunno? So if Trout were on a winner...he'd have better stats?

[Throttlesteer]

I'm from WA State, love Ichiro. At what point does playing for a crappy team like Seattle suck away some of your talent? I'm thinking of Joey Votto too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Holds true for Gwynn for most of his career.

[todeen]

Dunno? So if Trout were on a winner...he'd have better stats?

I think so. I think the same could be said for Ted Williams, too.

A lot of baseball is mental. When you personally disagree with choices of the general manager and manager to call it a season and bring up younger players, or to sell at the deadline to "reap rewards for next year," it all plays on one's psyche....whether they will say it or not. And in today's game of REBUILDING, that has to hinder offensive production. The Reds have been rebuilding forever, and they were tied to some pretty big names this offseason in an effort to win. Many signed elsewhere. How many of those players said, "I don't want to play in Cincinnati because they can't win"?

[ullmandds]

I think so. I think the same could be said for Ted Williams, too.

A lot of baseball is mental. When you personally disagree with choices of the general manager and manager to call it a season and bring up younger players, or to sell at the deadline to "reap rewards for next year," it all plays on one's psyche....whether they will say it or not. And in today's game of REBUILDING, that has to hinder offensive production. The Reds have been rebuilding forever, and they were tied to some pretty big names this offseason in an effort to win. Many signed elsewhere. How many of those players said, "I don't want to play in Cincinnati because they can't win"?

if one is on a better team I'd surmise the concept of being pitched around might be greater?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I don't doubt that "someone" will hit .400 again...someday...BUT...ICHIRO would have been my pick to do over anyone in recent times...and he couldn't!

Believe it or not walks are an enormous help in hitting .400. Ichiro didn't walk nearly enough.

[packs]

Honus Wagner in 1908 finishing first or second in every major offensive category. WAR is a made up stat that is pretty meaningless. MVP voting is a popularity contest. Ted Williams won 2 Triple Crowns and wasn’t named MVP either year.

Trout is the best player, but he isn’t dominating the league. He has very little black ink. He is a power hitter that has never led the league in HRs. He has never led the league in BA. Ted Williams Black Ink 122= dominating. Mike Trout Black Ink (mostly from getting pitched around and walking) 33= not dominating.

I still don't really buy that. If Trout is the best player, he is dominating the league. You can't be the best player without dominating the league. He's led the league in OPS+ 5 years in a row. If you don't like WAR, what don't you like about OPS+? You don't have to lead the league in home runs to be the best player. I don't think there is any argument to make for Ralph Kiner being the best player of his time, is there?

How important is batting average when you're leading the league in on base four seasons in a row? He's led the league in runs four times as well. You can't do either without being on base.

[todeen]

if one is on a better team I'd surmise the concept of being pitched around might be greater?Maybe, I can only think of Barry Bonds. It turned out alright for him.

And taking a walk doesn't count toward total at bats, and doesn't hurt batting average.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

good points re. walks...I agree!

[Bored5000]

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

To me, hitting .400 is still possible. Miggy's Triple Crown a few years back is evidence that some of these rare achievements are still possible. Today's players have traded average for power. It's what managers and general managers are asking of them. If a good hitter today wanted to pursue 400, I believe it's possible.

This reminds me of the Ty Cobb fanatics on this board that talk about how Ty Cobb could have hit more home runs if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Players have to choose a style, and that style allows them to pursue certain accolades. It also stops them from pursuing others.

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/tony-gwynn-and-the-400-batting-average-chase

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I loved listening to Tony Gwynn talk about hitting, but his .394 year was two-thirds of a season.

[Exhibitman]

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/modernbaseball/websize/1981%20Donruss%20Best%20Hitters.jpg

Brett hit .390 in 1980, but everyone seems to forget it. No one will forget this though:

https://youtu.be/i-TMV8Yz9wo

[Tabe]

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

How many games did Gwynn play in 1994? I said no one who played 120 games. I also said hitting .395 or above in the last week. Gwynn never got to .395 at all after his 31st game and only played 110 games.

[todeen]

How many games did Gwynn play in 1994? I said no one who played 120 games. I also said hitting .395 or above in the last week. Gwynn never got to .395 at all after his 31st game and only played 110 games.

You made so many exceptions to exclude Gwynn to prove your point. He should be pointed out as having a legitimate shot in the strike shortened season. My argument is simply that these achievements of yesteryear are still achievable if that's what a player's style allows. Miggy won the Triple Crown, which many people thought would be extremely difficult. Not many HR leaders in today's game are also the BA leaders. But Cabrera did it. And Gwynn was hitting .394 in AUGUST! WOW! It deserves to be pointed out.

[HistoricNewspapers]

You have 32 NFL teams, 30 NBA teams and 30 MLB teams. The US population increase doesn’t come close to covering that and that doesn’t account for other sports. Baseball was pretty much the only major sport for a long time. The NBA didn’t even exist until after WW2. The NFL was an after thought. Jackie Robinson was a much better football player, in fact baseball was his worst sport at UCLA. Yet he ended up in the BBHOF.

The best athletes are not playing baseball. Athletes may be better, but if the second tier athletes are now the ones playing the game, they are not better than the first tier athletes from a previous era. I remember an interview with Darryl Strawberry and Eric Davis about the Crenshaw HS baseball program in the 80s. They said that it was completely different than when they played a decade earlier. Baseball was no longer cool, the guys who would have played with them were now just playing football or basketball due to specialization.

You are throwing out absolutes like they are facts, they are not. They are your opinion. I disagree with them and that is my opinion. If you want to think Trout is great, fine, but I am not convinced. I have been watching the game for over 50 years and he isn’t close to the best player I have seen. He isn’t close to a 5 tool player. Maybe he can improve and convince me or maybe he declines like the other would be “greats.”


You may want to look again.

1950...94.5% of the league was white. 1.7% black. 3% Latino.

2016..63.7% white. 6.7% black. 27.4% Latino.

Where did the talent pool come from:
1950 United States population 150 million people to draw from
2016 7.6 Billion.....players are drawn from all over the world now.

Again, if the baseball players are worse now, then why are they taller, running faster, throwing harder, and catching the ball better?

Baseball could expand to three times the amount of teams right now and still be more talented overall than the lore of yesteryear.

Japan itself can add an entire league of teams now as good as 1900-1950 MLB leagues. So could Cuba.

The 1980's is a little different story. That competitive level is closer to today's level. Their talent pool draw is impressively high amount of players as well, but still not as much as now.

You also mentioned that humans haven't evolved, but in 1870 the average height and weight of a MLB player was 68.9 inches and weighed 163 pounds.

The average height now is 74 inches and 207 pounds. And these guys throw better, run faster, and catch it better...they are bigger and MORE athletic.

Like I said before, it isn't really about evolving, although there clearly has been an increase in human size in a short period of time. It is about the vastly higher numbers of population to draw from that dwarfs the players of yesteryear...we are talking billions of more people to draw from.

We could have three MLB leagues, two NBA, and two NFL RIGHT NOW and STILL have a higher overall level of MLB talent now compared to the pre war times.

There a lot of people I know who picked their wives based on size so they could grow a bigger athlete...so you have the selective aspect too.

The WORLD POPULATION in 1900 was 1.6 billion. Baseball only chose from white America.
The WORLD POPULATION in 1950 was 2.5 billion. Baseball only chose from America, and white America 95% of the time.
The WORLD POPULATION in 1980 was 4.43 billion.
The WOLRD POPULATION in 2020 is now 7.8 billion. Baseball chooses from a world wide population from which athletes are bred and trained in their craft so they can make millions of dollars.

Not that hard to see the difference.

[todeen]

I loved listening to Tony Gwynn talk about hitting, but his .394 year was two-thirds of a season.

+1 some people understand something so well, it's energetic to watch them talk about it.

[Tao_Moko]

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/modernbaseball/websize/1981%20Donruss%20Best%20Hitters.jpg

Brett hit .390 in 1980, but everyone seems to forget it. No one will forget this though:

https://youtu.be/i-TMV8Yz9wo

Since Brett is pictured with Marine, Rod Carew, you had better be careful not to offend anyone as I have. Just don't mention that Carew thought that his service in the Marines gave him the discipline to be the player he was. He obviously fails in comparison to Trout. He was only a 3000 hit club member and has a batting title named after him. Fire it up boys! Let's hear how Trout is better than Brett and Carew too.

[todeen]

There a lot of people I know who picked their wives based on size so they could grow a bigger athlete...so you have the selective aspect too.



I didn't pick my wife because she is 5'11.5". I picked her because she stood out among the crowd!

[todeen]

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/modernbaseball/websize/1981%20Donruss%20Best%20Hitters.jpg

Brett hit .390 in 1980, but everyone seems to forget it. No one will forget this though:

https://youtu.be/i-TMV8Yz9wo

Sorry, I was born in 1986. But thanks for supporting my point that modern players can come close to .400!

[Tabe]

You made so many exceptions to exclude Gwynn to prove your point. He should be pointed out as having a legitimate shot in the strike shortened season. My argument is simply that these achievements of yesteryear are still achievable if that's what a player's style allows. Miggy won the Triple Crown, which many people thought would be extremely difficult. Not many HR leaders in today's game are also the BA leaders. But Cabrera did it. And Gwynn was hitting .394 in AUGUST! WOW! It deserves to be pointed out.
Gwynn failed under both criteria. He played 110 games. If we're going off partial seasons, that means Matt Williams tied the home run record in 1994. Or if Charlie Blackmon somehow gets back over .400 this year then he'll be the first since Williams. C'mon. Gwynn wasn't close to .400 any more than a guy who hits in 35 straight is "close" to Dimaggio.

[Tabe]

Since Brett is pictured with Marine, Rod Carew, you had better be careful not to offend anyone as I have. Just don't mention that Carew thought that his service in the Marines gave him the discipline to be the player he was. He obviously fails in comparison to Trout. He was only a 3000 hit club member and has a batting title named after him. Fire it up boys! Let's hear how Trout is better than Brett and Carew too.

Hmm...the guy who gets on base 41.7% of the time - with power - while playing a premium defensive position or the guy who gets on base on base 39.3% of the time with no power while playing the easiest defensive position...

[etsmith]

It's impossible to compare hitters across such a wide span of time. Baseball in 1900 was completely different than 1950, and baseball in 1950 was completely different than in 2019. It's a great discussion to have but impossible to come to any kind of real agreement.
I don't think it's at all surprising that more people are moving to football and basketball, same type salaries or higher and much shorter schedules. Playing fewer games for the same money or more money seems like the smart thing to do I imagine.

[Shoeless Moe]

Anybody know the most paid for an Ohtani card a few years ago, and what that same card is going for these days, now that he may be a bust? Or at least not the Babe Ruth "they" were saying he was going to be?