Cobb vs. Wagner

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Most of the sets that I collect are top-heavy with Tyrus and Hans being the most expensive cards. I have found Wagner cards, in many instance, to be almost as expensive as Cobb cards. The priceguides, however, do not reflect this. Here are SMR prices for PSA 5 cards from a few vintage sets:

E94 Cobb $5500
E94 Wagner $2200

E95 Cobb $2000
E95 Wagner $1200

E106 Cobb $2500
E106 Wagner $1250

M116 Blue Cobb $1750
M116 Blue Wagner $1100

It seems that the SMR have prices for Cobb cards dwarfing the prices for Wagner cards. In some cases more than double. The Lemke Standard Catalog shows almost the same disparity. In real life, however, I don't think this is the case.

Recently a E95 Wagner PSA 4 sold in Mastro for $3042.90. Can a PSA 4 Cobb be almost double that? I doubt it. The SMR has Cobb more than double Wagner for the E94. I doubt that too. In both cases, I would imagine the prices for these two players to be much closer. The question is how much closer.

Is Cobb that much more popular and his cards that much more expensive than Wagner? What does everyone think the price differentials should be for similar cards for these two players?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The Cobb in this set is one of the nicest Cobb images available in a T or E set, and pulls interest from collectors who don't normally want E cards, like me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Rousseau

I agree- Cobb's E95 is one of his best images (I also like the bat off shoulder T206). On the other hand, Wagner's E95 is a beaut, as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I am finding that in comparable condition, wagner is about 65-80% of cobb, not the 50% as found in the guides.

When comparing cobb and wagner vs. everyone else, think that it is more that cobb sells for less rather than wagner selling for more, if that makes sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

The prestige of Wagner goes beyond the ballpark. His T206, the scarcity of his other issues, etc. drives his vintage cards. Across all makes, there are probably 100 Cobbs to every one vintage card of Wagner.(Vintage in this text refers to cards issued while a player is active)

Cobb was a better player, but Wagner was also GREAT. The price disparity is and IMO should be narrow for vintage cards of these two legends.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

But Richard!,no cards even from your in laws on your birthday last week???
what kind if loving family is that!




Richard
(Login rman444)
Cobb vs. WagnerJune 29 2005, 1:55 PM

I am finding that in comparable condition, wagner is about 65-80% of cobb, not the 50% as found in the guides.

When comparing cobb and wagner vs. everyone else, think that it is more that cobb sells for less rather than wagner selling for more, if that makes sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Uncle Brian,

Perhaps if you would adopt me into your loving and caring family, you can lead by example.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I do not think that Cobb and Wagner are equivalent players, and I do not think that their card prices should be close, based on field performance alone.

Heck - going out on a limb here - I think Sisler was a closer a performer to Wagner, and Speaker was better than him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark McCleary

Speaker definitely had better numbers than Wagner. Higher lifetime batting avergage, slugging percentage, (slightly) higher lifetime home runs. In Wagner's best year, he hit .354 with 10 home runs. Speaker averaged about .354 either (8) different seasons.

But they played at different times and I wonder if the National League pitching was perhaps more difficult in Wagner's era than was American League pitching during Speaker's playing years. Wagner does have 8 batting crowns as compared to just one by Speaker. Then again, Speaker lost the AL crown to guys like Cobb, Sisler and Heilmann.

I guess when viewing Wagner's numbers, it should also be taken into consideration that he is the greatest player ever at his position.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Ty Cobb had 200 more RBI in his career than Wagner (which surprised me)...

and had a career batting average that was FORTY points higher than Wagner's!!!

.366 vs. .327

Ty Cobb was clearly one of the BEST players to EVER play the game. Wagner was a great player, but NOT one of the Best 5 of ALL TIME like Cobb was.

Cobb
Ruth
Mays
Aaron

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Hal, that is only four.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

Cobb IS "The Greatest ballplayer of All-time".

Best Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

We Giants fans could have had two players in the Top 5 if it wasn't for the loose lips about Balco.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

adam,

I think your forgetting about a little guy named babe

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Josh,

No doubt Adam forgot about Babe, because Babe was a 3

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

A little later on, there was a guy name Hornsby who wasn't half bad either.

I agree with the previous post about the stories and prestige surrounding Wagner and the T206. In reality, there are many scarcer issues out there but they don't get the hype.

How many Breisch Williams Lajoies do you think are out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I can verify the existance of at least 5 Type 1 E107 Lajoie's, but I would guess that the actual number is closer to 10, since there are a few other large holdings that probably include a Lajoie. There are 2 Type 2 E107 Lajoie's known.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

There was also a pretty good player in Boston by the name of Ted Williams who deserves serious consideration for any Top 5 list. How has he not been mentioned?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

You guys are finding out why I only named FOUR of the TOP FIVE!!



I wanted to leave the last spot open for debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

and lets not forget pitchers - do any of the greats (Johnson, matty, young, alexander, etc.) break into the top five?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

It's a bit hard to compare pitchers to position players. But, yes those guys were pretty amazing. Also, pitchers like Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux have to be considered as the live-ball era puts a different slant on things.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Rousseau

but a great pitcher when he did it, before he was stuck out in the outfield. And that does notch him pretty high up. No doubt, Cobb was a master- I don't know that I'd call him THE master.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

Greatest pitcher??? Hard as heck to call, but here it goes, my list.

1.Mathewson
2.Johnson
3.Young
4.Ryan
5.Koufax

Best Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I would certainly include the top three. Koufax is certainly right there. However, people tend to discount today's pitchers for some reason. It's a very different game today than it was back before 1965. Clemens, Pedro Martinez, and Greg Maddux have all been amazing considering the way baseball is played today. When Matty, Johnson, and Young were pitching, the HR leaders were hitting 8-10 out per season. These guys also didn't have the travel, long schedules, and international talent that the current guys do. On the other hand, the guys of the past didn't have the relievers and 5-man rotations either.

Cases can be made either way but You have to at least look at some of the players of today.

BTW Adam, Don't forget Feller! He missed some valuable time with the war but he was awfully good.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Top 5 pitchers:

Matty, Johnson, Alexander, Grove and Clemens

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

He should be right there ABOVE Matty on Adam's list of the all-time greatest pitchers! Adam was correct in that Cobb is the greatest player of all time however.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

There is no debate as to the greatest player, it's Ruth, who was a great pitcher and hitter. Who the greatest hitter of all-time is, well that is debatable.

I'll take Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams and Bonds.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

I believe this is only through 2003. Clemens has since surpassed Young; and Bonds has since surpassed Mays.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hof_monitor.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

This guy's website is pretty interesting - he put a lot of time into ranking the top 140 all-time players, adjusting the rankings for the 2004 season, and writing detailed bios. I have seen other rankings that I feel are more correct, but I find this website more interesting:

http://baseballsgreatest.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_baseballsgreatest_archive.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

How can Ryan (career .526 winner, +20 only twice) and Koufax (6 great years, out of 12, 165 wins total) make a vintage board top 5?
JMHO - Will

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

One of them most likely WASN'T juiced. The juice of that era was in distilled form

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Some of these guys may have an unfair advantage because of the way I've broken the years down, but I'd say:

1880-1904: Jesse Burkett, Tim Keefe
1905-1929: Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson
1930-1954: Ted Williams, Bob Feller
1955-1980: Hank Aaron, Bob Gibson
1981-2004: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens

Best hitter ever: Ted Williams
Best pitcher ever: Roger Clemens
Best player ever: Babe Ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J Duet

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Rousseau

yep, those two are beauts, alright.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J Duet

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J Duet

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Buck O'Neil who saw Josh Gibson, Satchell Page, all the stars of the Negro Leagues plus Ruth, Gehrig, etc. said that had he not been hurt throughout his career that Mickey Mantle would have been the greatest player who ever lived.
I concur. Since he WAS hurt so often and paid through so much pain, he was merely a helluva ballplayer.
Ruth remains the greatest player of all time. If you think Cobb was better, consider this: The Babe hit more homeruns in one year than almost every single TEAM in the major leagues; he set a record for most consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series that lasted until around 1960-61; he was regarded by many as the best left handed pitcher in the league; he, not Judge Landis, saved baseball after the 1919 scandal. It isn't even close. He was the greatest.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J Duet

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

You can consider a lot of "ifs" and it changes the whole picture. What if Teddy didn't go to war twice? What if Tony Gwynn wasn't hurt so much......or Griffey? Regardless, you can only go off of what was not what might have been.

Mantle isn't even in my top 10 list. Sorry, I think he's overrated if anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: pete

tell Buck that mickey wasn't so great to his face!!! I dare ya!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

This is an AWESOME thread, guys. Dr.Duet, thank-you, for sharing your cards. I am a HUGE fan of Cobb and Wagner, and I much appreciated seeing your cards. Feller did lose four years to the war, but I did not want to mention him due to fact, I would have been accused of showing biased favortism towards Feller. However, feller is a hell of a player, and an individual, as well. All around class, he IS the primary reason why baseball has a players union.(interesting tidbit)

Best regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

I don't think it makes sense to estimate how a player (Mantle, Mattingly, McGwire, etc.) would have performed if not for injuries and to give him credit for these projected stats in figuring where he ranks among the greats of the game. The reason is that being in good physical condition is the sine qua non of being a decent athlete, and if you can't even get that part down, you have no claim to being a great athlete.

I would treat differently Clemente or any other player whose failure to play at some point was not a function of his phenotypic quality. That Ted Williams, Bob Feller, Willie Mays and others lost time to military service does not reflect on their physical abilities, not negatively at least; and I think it is fair and conservative, particularly in the case of Williams, to assume that he would have had some good (.340, 30, 110) seasons in his mid-twenties and mid-thirties. Indeed, if one wants to compare him directly to Cobb, Ruth, or anyone else, I think it would be proper to delete the corresponding seasons' hits from the other for a more objective comparison of who was the better player.

[edited to correct typographical error]

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I disagree with the downing of The Mick. We aren't talking Herb Score here, that he WOULD have been great if not injured, we are talking about Mantle who carried the Yanks to all those world championships playing with injuries that today would have ended careers early. Mickey was a great player. Easy for some of you guys to watch a few film clips of Mantle and decide he wasn't a Top 10 player, but how about a player and coach who saw him play in person during his career and played with and who coached against the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, Gibson, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Williams et al. I'll take Buck O'Neil's opinion over some twenty-something kid from this board who never saw a single one of these guys play in person. Comparing Mantle to Mattingly is just plain stupid. Sorry. Now if you compare him to Mays, I'd understand, but Don Frigging Mattingly, give me a break.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

I agree with tbob 100%, you had to see Mantle play, and how he was pitched around. Yes, the Yankees had a lot of good players, but Mantle had something to do with all those World Series wins.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Whatever. I don't know how many here watched Cobb play, and I don't know how my comments were construed as equating Don Mattingly with Mantle, but I stand by my point that Mantle was just as good as is indicated by his statistics, whereas Ted Williams was better than indicated by his.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

There's no doubt that Mickey Mantle was a great player. But, I get the feeling that there's a lot of personal bias involved with your assessment. I've heard many respected managers quoted saying some pretty outrageous things. While the Mick had nothing to apologize for and most certainly had a lot to do with the Yankees success, I still believe that he benefits from being a part of the biggest market team in the game. Statistics can be manipulated but you would be hard pressed to make a case for Mantle being better than Ted Williams, or even Musial for that matter. I would take either in my lineup before Mantle.

Although I'm not a twenty-something, I think that age really doesn't bring anything to help support your point. If you've seen Mantle play but haven't seen Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, etc...play, does that mean that you can't make a fair assessment?

Mantle is a top-20 talent for sure but even the top-10 is a stretch. My opinion, of course.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

This was not written by me, but I agree with it.

The Mick. Number 7. A country boy with a big smile and an easygoing manner, and a taste for the good life. He was also perhaps the most talented baseball player ever. His combination of speed and power was breathtaking, as he could hit a ball 500 feet, then outrun a fly in Yankee Stadium's spacious outfield for an incredible catch. But Mantle inherited bad knees, a problem made worse when he twisted his knee on an outfield drain during his rookie year.

Given different circumstances, and a greater drive to play the game, he might have been the greatest of them all. As it was, injuries, and rumor has it too much alcohol, kept him a bit behind the greatest of them all. But, he was one of the great "peak" players and had a run of some 10 years when he could have been the AL MVP every year. To break up the monotony, the voters picked a number of others as well, but the Mick was the best in the league from 1954-63, year in and year out. He was an amazing World Series performer as well, in an era when the Yankees went to the Series almost every year.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Hmmmm...sounds like Will Clark without speed. Sweetest swing in the game since Ted Williams by all accounts. That still doesn't get you to be the greatest. You have to perform and perserver. This is a HUGE reason I will never consider Koufax among the all-time great pitchers.

We can also start playing the what-if game with Barry Bonds now that it looks like this season is lost. Or how about Ellis Valintine. Possibly the greatest outfield arm ever in the game. When assessing the greatest, you cannot consider the what-if. You only what the actualities of their career to work with and this what leaves players like Koufax and other with abreviated careers out of the discussion for all-time greatest.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I don't think there is a "what if" game for Bonds because of this lost year. If he never played a game again, he would still go down as one of the top 5 hitters ever. He has the stats, the MVP's, the gold gloves, the years.

The only "what if" game for Bonds is related to Balco.