Ridiculous

[djson1]

OK...can I just point out how ridiculous this BIN price is?
I don't care if there's only one in the world....nor how great Trout becomes....this just seems a bit crazy to me:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-Bowman-...AAAOSwzJ5XaGqp

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by djson1

OK...can I just point out how ridiculous this BIN price is?
I don't care if there's only one in the world....nor how great Trout becomes....this just seems a bit crazy to me:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-Bowman-...AAAOSwzJ5XaGqp

That thing has been listed for a looooooooooooong time. I have been harassing the kids over on BO about it.

[djson1]

That's just insane. I wasn't aware that it was listed for a while. The seller is holding tight at half a mill for a while then. I wonder if he lowered it any point. I just can't get over $500,000 for a modern card. Trade a home for a card.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Hilarious.

[icollectDCsports]

I don't know -- I think you shouldn't ignore the fact that its a "Superfractor." And Chrome -- can't forget about that. Both of those things make it special. Had it not been a chrome superfractor, then -- of course -- the price would be ridiculous.

[JollyElm]

Darn it. I was going to offer him $499,000 for it, but then I saw what a rip off his $500 shipping is, so I walked away.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

This card is essentially the 52 Topps Mick of modern cards. This is THE modern Holy Grail.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

This card is essentially the 52 Topps Mick of modern cards. This is THE modern Holy Grail.

For now, until the next big thing comes along.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rats60

For now, until the next big thing comes along.

^^exactly what this gentleman said^^

In the last 25 years there are several cards that people said, this is the 52 Topps Mantle of modern cards. None of them turned out to be and I highly doubt this one will either. It is way too early in his career for that talk. Yes I do understand the hype to make $ but that is all it is, hype.

I truly don't understand WAR especially when Trout has a higher WAR than Pujols. In every offensive stat besides stolen bases Pujols had way better #'s in his early years.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bnorth

^^exactly what this gentleman said^^

In the last 25 years there are several cards that people said, this is the 52 Topps Mantle of modern cards. None of them turned out to be and I highly doubt this one will either. It is way too early in his career for that talk. Yes I do understand the hype to make $ but that is all it is, hype.

I truly don't understand WAR especially when Trout has a higher WAR than Pujols. In every offensive stat besides stolen bases Pujols had way better #'s in his early years.

WAR includes defensive metrics as well. An above average defensive center fielder will be given quite a boost over even a good defensive first baseman.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

WAR includes defensive metrics as well. An above average defensive center fielder will be given quite a boost over even a good defensive first baseman.

Tom C

It over rates certain positions like CF and SS. That is my biggest problem with WAR. You can use it to compare to Centerfielders, but not 1B and CF.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bnorth

^^exactly what this gentleman said^^

In the last 25 years there are several cards that people said, this is the 52 Topps Mantle of modern cards. None of them turned out to be and I highly doubt this one will either. It is way too early in his career for that talk. Yes I do understand the hype to make $ but that is all it is, hype.

I truly don't understand WAR especially when Trout has a higher WAR than Pujols. In every offensive stat besides stolen bases Pujols had way better #'s in his early years.

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

I am kinda starting to understand this, but not really. So because Pujols was playing at a time when there was much better players compared now he is somehow considered a worse player than a guy that put up worse #'s.

Andy(or anybody else) if you would like to PM me sometime to try to explain this stuff a little better I would greatly appreciate it. It just makes no sense to me at all. If there is a good website that explains all this stuff in a for dummies way that would be great also.

I could see how WAR and the Black Ink would work great for players playing at the same time and position but using it to compare players of different positions and years makes no sense to me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

Andy, do you believe WAR one of the direct determinants of this card's value, as opposed to simply that Trout is currently considered the god of active baseball players?

I think it's very cool that you and Brent have your fingers on the pulse of the modern card market - I have no feel for it. With vintage cards, I know my Babe Ruth card may go up or down in value, but it won't be because he started playing poorly, got busted in a drug test or got traded to the Mariners.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by rats60

For now, until the next big thing comes along.

No, it won't. Not until someone comes along and performs even better than Trout to start a career. Which is far from a given.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

No, it won't. Not until someone comes along and performs even better than Trout to start a career. Which is far from a given.

I have been hearing that for 30+ years and the next thing always comes along.

Better start? Based on a made up stat that is flawed and random. It is even calculated differently by two different sites and the method of calculation has been changed by one of them. As I said before, it can't even be used to compare players at different positions.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by rats60

I have been hearing that for 30+ years and the next thing always comes along.



Better start? Based on a made up stat that is flawed and random. It is even calculated differently by two different sites and the method of calculation has been changed by one of them. As I said before, it can't even be used to compare players at different positions.

Well, good for you and those 30 years. It finally happened. I don't expect to see another start like Trout's to start an MLB career in my lifetime.

Where did I ever mention war or anything along those lines? Or even talk about stats? And, aren't all stats made up.

Edited: and I personally don't care for war