Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapolit1
Seriously. There was this mythology about the 52 card being printed late and scads of them buried at sea. Now all sorts of other Mantle cards seem to be steadily increasing in value. What’s the obsession with Mantle? Are there a few hundred thousand Billy Crystal clones out there. Babe Ruth sure. Jackie sure. I get those. They are part of the fabric of American history. But Mantle was a big strong galoot who hit some amazing dingers. Not denigrating his stats, but don’t understand the collecting obsession around him.
|
I think I would do a little sabermetric research, Steve. Mantle is one of just 7 players in the history of the game to produce more than 200% of league average runs created (credit to Bill James, who ranks Mantle as the 5th best major league player of all time). His 215% in that category, going by recollection, is tied for third with Lou Gehrig, behind only Ruth, at 240%, and Williams, at 250%. His OBPS+ of 172 is fifth best of all time, I believe (behind, going by memory, only Ruth at 204; Williams at 190; Hornsby at 175; and Gehrig at 174), considerably ahead of Mays (156) and Aaron (155). His on base percentage alone--.421--is among the very best of all time, far beyond Mays and Aaron, who were each in the .380 range. Per James in the early 2000's, his 1961 season--54 HR's, 128 RBI, .317 BA, 126 walks, .448 OBP--although great stats, and ranked by James as the 15th best season of all time, is MERELY MANTLE'S THIRD BEST SEASON (both his 1956 triple crown year and his 1957 season were better)!. Add in 12 pennants in his first 14 seasons to go with 7 world championships = Mantle don't give up nothin' to nobody (or at least very, very little!). In short, objectively, there is absolutely no OBJECTIVE dispute that he does indeed rank with the greatest to ever play the game.
James also wrote that although Mantle and Mays appeared to have similar production in their peak years, Mays was actually making about 60 or more outs per year than Mantle, based on the fact that the Mick walked, much, much more often (hence the higher OBP) and grounded into roughly just half as many double plays.
I haven't read through every previous post at this somewhat late hour, but if your first post was in jest, as the objective stats indicate that it might well have been, please excuse the above dissertation. I do agree, however, that his '52 Topps, although iconic, is overpriced. A near mint example, for instance, was priced at around $30,000 in 1991, and hence has only increased in value in the 5 to 6% compounded annually range, having had its ups and downs, as one would expect, considering its' ready availability. A really good collectible should be at least 10% or better compounded annually through the last 25 years or so if purchased for investment purposes.
Best wishes,
Larry