OT: Trout vs. Mantle

[the 'stache]

Although, I will give you that at least when Mantle signed his card, it was a legible signature. If it were up to me, Topps would cut the number of signed cards down to about 1/5 so the person signing would take their time so you could actually read who it is signing. Trout's not even the worst signature out there, as sad as that may be.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The difference speaks volumes, to me. A 21 year old being paid megamilions can't even bother to sign his 9 letter name. Pathetic.

[ctownboy]

IMHO, steroids killed the bunt. Yes, managers are still stupid enough too call for position players to lay down a sac bunt but most of them can't even do that.

In the pre-steroid era, guys knew the strengths and weaknesses and also their place on the team. Little guys with no power were supposed to make contact and either get on base or move guys over for the power guys. The power guys were supposed to swing for the fences and not take marginal pitches that may or may not be called balls.

Then the Steroid Era happened.

After that, EVERYBODY was swinging for the fences. They didn't care about fundamentals only get extra base hits. Why? MONEY!!!!!

The more power you displayed, the bigger your arbitration raises were, the bigger your free agent contracts were, the bigger your contract extensions were and the more likely you were to be able to stick around a few years after you normally would have retired.

So, for almost 20 years, guys got into the habit of swinging away and NOT caring about striking out or doing things fundamentally right. Why should they? Doing things the fundamentally RIGHT way took real work and practice. Not much work or practice needed to take steroids, lift weights and then swing from the heels EVERY plate appearance.

Because of that, the same attitude has trickled down to the lowest levels of baseball. Young kids now don't want to work at things. They just want to swing away.

This is why if I were an owner of a MLB team, I would MAKE guys at the lowest level learn how to bunt, at least for hits. If they didn't or couldn't, I would either trade them away or ORDER the managers to NOT have them try and bunt.

David

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Seems like your referencing Stairs or Brady Anderson . I pretty much disagree with everything you have said, literally everything.

Have you ever been to a professional practice? Have you ever seen these coaches teach these kids on the field? I have and you're way off. Saying they don't learn to bunt is absurd, and bunting is a huge part of the game still today. How do you think the smaller market teams have success, playing the right way with fundamentals and small ball strategy. My Twins have been doing it for over a decade.

Guys still know their rolls, it's not like you have a Willie Mays Hays lead off hitter swinging out if his britches. Look at the reinvention of Dee Gordon, that has been fun to watch. This was his make or break season. Kid literally can't hit, but because of proper COACHING and the teaching of FUNDAMENTALS he is running mad, and getting on base. I believe he has over 50 infield hits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

Brent, everything you say is of course true;however, the smaller market teams also have MUCH lower payrolls, meaning a lot of guys who know basic small-ball skills that don't translate to HR's and thus high salaries. The big-market teams like the Yankmees have the more popular HR-hitters that cost a lot of money. They can afford them and they can afford to lose to your small-ball Twins (or similar), because they are big market and bring in the associated bucks. If bunting and other small-ball skills (and actual team play) were rewarded with $$$, then the Yankees would be going that route, but unlike the Twins, they don't have to. Funny how all that money doesn't translate directly to championships anymore. That should tell us something.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Brent, everything you say is of course true;however, the smaller market teams also have MUCH lower payrolls, meaning a lot of guys who know basic small-ball skills that don't translate to HR's and thus high salaries. The big-market teams like the Yankmees have the more popular HR-hitters that cost a lot of money. They can afford them and they can afford to lose to your small-ball Twins (or similar), because they are big market and bring in the associated bucks. If bunting and other small-ball skills (and actual team play) were rewarded with $$$, then the Yankees would be going that route, but unlike the Twins, they don't have to. Funny how all that money doesn't translate directly to championships anymore. That should tell us something.

I think it's that players are playing for individual accomplishments rather than focusing on winning. That's just what I've taken from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lgarza99]

I remember Miguel Tejada a few years back when he was with the SF Giants and he was asked to bunt. You could see on his face the displeasure and insult he felt being asked to bunt. Like it was below a former MVP. I think he failed on purpose to swing away. He was released by the Giants soon after.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The difference speaks volumes, to me. A 21 year old being paid megamilions can't even bother to sign his 9 letter name. Pathetic.

You know I was just giving you a hard time. We're on the same page. Though, I don't know how much of the fault I'd lay at Trout's feet. When they had him come in to sign, he likely did the nearly 3,000 Bowman Chrome cards in one sitting. Then he had to do the Bowman Sterling and Platinum stickers, though they were probably done at a different time.

I think the most blame should be laid at the feet of the card companies. Autos sell their ridiculously expensive boxes. Something like Topps Museum, or Topps Tier 1, will cost upwards of $200 a box. And you get like 8 cards per box.

Topps owns Bowman. They are the only company with the MLB license agreement. The other card companies cannot use team logos. So Topps can print as many different sets as they want every year, and they're out of control. Per my count (and I may be missing something), Topps will have released a total of 25 different baseball lines by the end of the season. Think I'm kidding?

Sports Card Radio release calendar 2014

Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman Draft Picks & Prospects
Bowman Sterling
Bowman Platinum
Topps Chrome
Topps Series 1 & 2
Topps Elite
Topps Museum
Topps Tier 1
Topps Heritage
Allen & Ginter
Topps Tribute
Topps Turkey Red
Gypsy Queen
Topps Opening Day
Topps MLB Chipz
Topps Pro Debut Baseball
Topps Archives Baseball
Topps Finest Baseball
Topps Heritage Minor League
Topps Supreme Baseball
Topps Update Baseball
Topps Stadium Club Baseball
Topps Dynasty Baseball
Topps High Tek Baseball
Topps Five Star Baseball

And almost all these lines will want Trout to sign. Yes, Trout signs the contract, but think of how many stupid autos he has to sign. It's ridiculous.

Remember when you collected as a kid, Peter? Remember when it was possible to do a master collection of your favorite player? You may have had only Topps. You may have had Topps, Donruss and Fleer. You may have also had Upper Deck. But each released one set. It wasn't hard to get the 4 cards for your favorite player.

Now it's next to impossible to get all the players, or even anywhere near all the players. Trout is in his third season. Know how many cards are listed on his Beckett checklist?

2,282
The number of Mike Trout cards in Beckett's database.

Good luck trying to get those, kid.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I have a few close friends in MLB and the NFL, and how the card signings goes are that they literally give them stacks of whatever that set is, all of the cards. Then, the company gives them a deadline for them ALL to be signed by. So they can do this at their own leisure. That is why you see late additions in sets, also if cards "run out" from a company that you had a redemption for, it is because that player did not sign the quantities needed.

Then, off the to next cards or stickers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You know I was just giving you a hard time. We're on the same page. Though, I don't know how much of the fault I'd lay at Trout's feet. When they had him come in to sign, he likely did the nearly 3,000 Bowman Chrome cards in one sitting. Then he had to do the Bowman Sterling and Platinum stickers, though they were probably done at a different time.

I think the most blame should be laid at the feet of the card companies. Autos sell their ridiculously expensive boxes. Something like Topps Museum, or Topps Tier 1, will cost upwards of $200 a box. And you get like 8 cards per box.

Topps owns Bowman. They are the only company with the MLB license agreement. The other card companies cannot use team logos. So Topps can print as many different sets as they want every year, and they're out of control. Per my count (and I may be missing something), Topps will have released a total of 25 different baseball lines by the end of the season. Think I'm kidding?

Sports Card Radio release calendar 2014

Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman Draft Picks & Prospects
Bowman Sterling
Bowman Platinum
Topps Chrome
Topps Series 1 & 2
Topps Elite
Topps Museum
Topps Tier 1
Topps Heritage
Allen & Ginter
Topps Tribute
Topps Turkey Red
Gypsy Queen
Topps Opening Day
Topps MLB Chipz
Topps Pro Debut Baseball
Topps Archives Baseball
Topps Finest Baseball
Topps Heritage Minor League
Topps Supreme Baseball
Topps Update Baseball
Topps Stadium Club Baseball
Topps Dynasty Baseball
Topps High Tek Baseball
Topps Five Star Baseball

And almost all these lines will want Trout to sign. Yes, Trout signs the contract, but think of how many stupid autos he has to sign. It's ridiculous.

Remember when you collected as a kid, Peter? Remember when it was possible to do a master collection of your favorite player? You may have had only Topps. You may have had Topps, Donruss and Fleer. You may have also had Upper Deck. But each released one set. It wasn't hard to get the 4 cards for your favorite player.

Now it's next to impossible to get all the players, or even anywhere near all the players. Trout is in his third season. Know how many cards are listed on his Beckett checklist?

2,282
The number of Mike Trout cards in Beckett's database.

Good luck trying to get those, kid.

True Hobby Bliss ended with the 1981 issues...how appropriate there was also a players strike that year.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill, that is startling, truly. And I thought 2001 and the number of Pujols cards was out of control -- last time I paid any attention to the shiny stuff.

[DixieBaseball]

I have not read through all the posts, so if the facts/comparison have been posted on their careers thus far, then please pardon me if this is repeat info... I am very curious regarding the OP's post, so I went to BR for a comparison.

Trout & Mantle both started at 19 years old, so we have 4 years to look at, with Mantle having 100 more AB's at this point. (The AB's should be about even by end of season, so we can update these stats, as Trout will accrue more stats over the next 100 AB's) :

Mantle (5 ft 11 - 195 lbs):

AB's 1,894
Hits 561
Home Runs 84
RBI's 346
Runs 389
SB 25
OBP. .387
BA. .267, .311, .295, .300
SLG .443, .530, .497, .525
OPS .792, .924, .895, .933
K's 382

Trout (6'1 - 210 lbs) :

AB's 1781
Hits 547
Home Runs 92
RBI's 290
Runs 349
SB 99
OBP .372
BA. .220, .326, .323, .290
SLG .390, .564, .557, .559
OPS .672, .963, .988, .934
K's 453

- My opinion after comparing stats is these 2 players are mirrors of each other after 4 years of play. One bloated category that Trout has over Mantle is Stolen Bases, but Mantle makes up for the SB's with less K's by a reasonable margin. The remaining stat categories are about the same. Obviously Mantles legend is incredible, and we know that Trout is the best overall player in the game at present, and I have been watching ball for 35 years and have not seen a better all around player in their first 4 years. (I would put Pre-PED Bonds right behind Trout) With that being said, I will have to defer to the guys who saw Mantle play the OF on a regular basis for comparisons in the field. I know Trout is an absurd athlete who is incredible in the field, so I am guessing they are either a push in the OF or Trout is slightly better. (You weigh in...)

Final Conclusioin = We are witnessing a modern day Mickey Mantle. Both are tit for tat through 4 years. The only question for me, is can Trout do it for 10 more years?

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball

Final Conclusioin = We are witnessing a modern day Mickey Mantle. Both are tit for tat through 4 years. The only question for me, is can Trout do it for 10 more years?

thru 4 years there is no comparison, trout has been the better player ainec. it's like comparing pre-juicing bonds to a ped-bonds (and bonds was pretty great pre-juice!)

[tbob]

I think a better comparison would be to compare Trout to Griffey Jr.

There was only one Mickey Mantle. Period.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by tbob

I think a better comparison would be to compare Trout to Griffey Jr.

There was only one Mickey Mantle. Period.

+1....

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Larry, watching all the sales of modern cards at nearby booths in Cleveland this year, I would love to get in on that money. But trying to figure out the logic behind these prices is so much more difficult than pre-war. I'd rather live on food stamps and enjoy my collecting/dealing than tie my brain in a knot by getting involved in modern stuff. I nearly had a seizure when I finally figured out what 'refractor' meant.

Hi, Scott. The "logic" behind it is that if you get a hot card, preferably with a very low print run, of a player who seems at a very early stage to have top flight HOF potential, pick a number to sell it for immediately, then put 4 zeros behind that number before the player sustains a serious injury, simply loses it overnight as the pitchers adjust to him and he fails to return the favor, or he is exposed as a PED user! Prices are based upon speculation (with an overly large % of buyers intending not to keep the card for a collection, but to flip it for profit asap), or transient demand which is quick to depart for the next latest and greatest thing! IMHO, if you're going to buy current players, buy them when they are in their downslide in their late 30's (assuming they are good enough to still be around by then), when most of the above transient demand has departed the scene.

Best of luck,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When there are 96 versions of a player's rookie card, it's hard for me to get excited because the player puts some chicken scratch illegible "autograph "on a sticker that gets attached to the card and the manufacturer decides to print only 10 of a particular color.

A collecting friend of mine had a discussion similar to this back in the early to mid-nineties. One problem with Trout cards is that there are so many of them, which unavoidably fragments demand. You can't look at a gold refractor rookie and say, "well, there's only 50 of them" and have that fact be meaningful, when he may have 89 other "rookies," which will satisfy the demand for many collectors. Our conclusion was that it essentially does not matter if you produce a million of the same card for the player's rookie, or a million different cards, one of each. The value will be the same.

Sincerely,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

A collecting friend of mine had a discussion similar to this back in the early to mid-nineties. One problem with Trout cards is that there are so many of them, which unavoidably fragments demand. You can't look at a gold refractor rookie and say, "well, there's only 50 of them" and have that fact be meaningful, when he may have 89 other "rookies," which will satisfy the demand for many collectors. Our conclusion was that it essentially does not matter if you produce a million of the same card for the player's rookie, or a million different cards, one of each. The value will be the same.

Sincerely,

Larry

Well put. The manufacturers seem to have done a good job of creating artificial demand for cards artificially limited in supply, but I have my doubts whether those values will really persist. For example, there's nothing particularly valuable about a Mike Trout autograph, I am sure by the time he's done he will have signed countless times, if he has not already. And there's nothing inherently meaningful about a gold versus silver versus blue card; one could create the same artificial scarcity by putting out a regular version of a card and a few with a red dot. So what?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tbob

I think a better comparison would be to compare Trout to Griffey Jr.

There was only one Mickey Mantle. Period.

A huge DITTO to what Bob says here.


Fortunately, I'm old enough to have seen Mickey play when I was growing up (1951-1968). He generated a lot of excitement when he came to bat (Lefty or Righty).

Like Babe Ruth....Mantle hit some of the longest HR's ever hit in the game. For example, I recall this tremendous drive (shown in this photo) that Mantle hit in the bottom of the 11th
inning of a 7-7 game (May 22, 1963). As the ball soared into the night sky, we thought it was going out of the park. But, it hit the RF roof facade in Yankee Stadium. It was projected
that it would have traveled 700+ feet if it had cleared Yankee Stadium.







Here's another "monster HR" at old Griffith Stadium (April 12, 1953) that traveled 565 feet.




For sheer excitement......it just doesn't get any better than these events. .


Look guys, comparing "stats numbers" just doesn't do it......you had to see Mickey play in order to appreciate this man......and, what he brought to the game.
And, it's irrelevant whether you are a Yankees fan, or not.

As far as I am concerned....for now, this debate is over....and DONE ! Only time will tell us if Trout was as good as Mantle.



TED Z
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted -- sorry to throw a little cold water on the Paul Bunyan story but here is SABR's analysis of that home run.

One other aspect of misrepresentation should be explored. Again, the vast talents of Herculean Mickey Mantle have been comprised by individuals who have unwittingly perpetrated a hoax. Let it be emphasized that the mighty Mick was undoubtedly one of baseball's all time longest hitters. He was an honest, sometimes even self-effacing individual, who was never known to overstate his accomplishments. It is due to his immense popularity and constant involvement in the tape measure process that he is often thrust into the muddle of misrepresentation. By his own account he hit the longest home run of his career on May 22, 1963 at Yankee Stadium. The ball struck the facade on the right-field roof approximately 370 feet from home plate and 115 feet above field level. Almost everyone in attendance believed that the ball was still rising when it was interrupted in midflight by the roof structure. Based upon that belief, this drive has commonly been estimated at about 620 feet if left unimpeded. However, the reality is that the ball was already on its way down, and those reporting the trajectory were victimized by a common optical illusion. It is a scientific fact that if Mantle, or anyone else, had sufficient strength to hit a ball that was still traveling upward when it met the towering facade, he would also have enough strength to clear that same facade by a distance of at least 100 feet. In order for the ball to be rising at roof level, it would have to have been traveling at a lower angle than that which produces maximum distance. If Mantle had provided the same power or velocity, but had launched the ball at a higher and more efficient angle, it would have passed out of Yankee Stadium at a height of over 200 feet! Mantle hit the facade on two or perhaps three occasions, but never cleared it. By his own admission, during his 18-year career at Yankee Stadium, which included thousands of swing variables, he hit several balls to right field in an optimum manner. If he had the power to clear the roof by over 100 feet, he surely would have cleared it marginally on many occasions.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ted -- sorry to throw a little cold water on the Paul Bunyan story but here is SABR's analysis of that home run.

By his own account he hit the longest home run of his career on May 22, 1963 at Yankee Stadium. The ball struck the facade on the right-field roof approximately 370 feet from home plate and 115 feet above field level. Almost everyone in attendance believed that the ball was still rising when it was interrupted in midflight by the roof structure. Based upon that belief, this drive has commonly been estimated at about 620 feet if left unimpeded.

Hey guy, don't be sorry to" throw a little cold water"....with the high humidity this week, I would appreciate it

I recall that tremendous blast; and, I thought at its highest point that it had leveled off. Against the dark nite sky this was quite easy to see. So, I'm not sure of
the reports that the trajectory of the ball was starting to drop.

In any event, it was one of the most extraordinary prodigious drives of a baseball ever seen. And, what made it more exciting was that it was (using the current
popular expression) a "walk-off" HR to finalize a long night at Yankee Stadium.

620 feet was the projected distance back in May 1963. However, over the years its been extended to "700+ feet" by some who have embellished this event.

So, whatever the number is, one thing is for certain, it was one of the most dramatic HR's ever hit in BaseBall history.


TED Z
.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hi, Scott. The "logic" behind it is that if you get a hot card, preferably with a very low print run, of a player who seems at a very early stage to have top flight HOF potential, pick a number to sell it for immediately, then put 4 zeros behind that number before the player sustains a serious injury, simply loses it overnight as the pitchers adjust to him and he fails to return the favor, or he is exposed as a PED user! Prices are based upon speculation (with an overly large % of buyers intending not to keep the card for a collection, but to flip it for profit asap), or transient demand which is quick to depart for the next latest and greatest thing! IMHO, if you're going to buy current players, buy them when they are in their downslide in their late 30's (assuming they are good enough to still be around by then), when most of the above transient demand has departed the scene.

Best of luck,

Larry

Thanks Larry - I didn't realize it was so simple!

Originally Posted by tedzan

A huge DITTO to what Bob says here.


Fortunately, I'm old enough to have seen Mickey play when I was growing up (1951-1968).

Does anyone here believe Ted stopped growing up in 1968?

Mantle was already LEGENDARY when I was a kid in the early '60s, as was Willie Mays. Even at the tail-end of his career, the word 'Mantle' or 'Mays' meant something other-worldly to kids my age. Of course, 'Maris' had almost-similar status until he got traded to the Cardinals, as it took quite a long time for the '61' thing to wear off. 'BABE RUTH' was the other legendary baseball name, but you could still get a Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays baseball card when I was a kid, which made them even more special. As far as comparing Trout to Mantle, versus Mays, I think Mays would also be a valid comparison. I really don't understand how a lot of people put Mays and Mantle in different categories as far as 'legendariness' (coined term - one nickel to me if you decide to use it). Kids my age were awed by both equally, but maybe that was only in Texas since we had no particular affinity for things from either coast. And race really played no part in it - the pitchers who inspired us were Marichal, Gibson, Drysdale and Koufax, and Denny McLain for the one big year.

I've said this before, and I don't think anyone really gets it - if the kids weren't all that excited about pulling a player's card from a wax pack, then he shouldn't even be considered for the HOF. I know, it's not based on statistics, but believe me - kids took their statistics very seriously, so that also played into it. I can't remember a kid ever saying, "But Niekro for Drysdale is a great deal - look at how steady Niekro is performing over a long period with a team that no one cares about", or "Oh boy! I pulled a Blyleven!!!" Didn't happen.

I digress, but my point is that Mantle was the man (as was Mays). If Trout is 'the man' 10 years from now, and his name is mentioned in the same sentence as either Mantle or Mays, then you've got your answer. Hopefully we won't be hearing it mentioned with Bobby Murcer.

[ctownboy]

I have told this story before but it seems worth telling again. When I was first out of college, had a job and had some money to spend on baseball cards, I put advertisements in small town local papers looking to buy.

I bought two different collections of cards from two different guys. Both had collected the cards as boys and both had collected from the late 1950's until the early 1960's. Both were selling to raise money for one thing or another.

Both collections had star cards and high number cards. Both guys didn't mind selling the star cards and high numbers. However, both guys wanted to keep the cards of one player - Mickey Mantle.

So, even though the Mantle cards were some of the highest value cards and the guys were selling to make money for other things, they just couldn't part with their Mantle's.

David

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

So, even though the Mantle cards were some of the highest value cards and the guys were selling to make money for other things, they just couldn't part with their Mantle's.

David

There was always something magical about pulling a Mantle from a pack. I don't think finding a chunk of gold would have been any more satisfying for a kid back then.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As has been often discussed, Mays of course was just as wondrous a player, and eventually his numbers were better. And he played a number of years in New York. Yet his cards in a typical year sell for a fraction of a Mantle. I suppose one could say race is the difference, but I think (and hope) that it's not that simple.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As has been often discussed, Mays of course was just as wondrous a player, and eventually his numbers were better. And he played a number of years in New York. Yet his cards in a typical year sell for a fraction of a Mantle. I suppose one could say race is the difference, but I think (and hope) that it's not that simple.

Peter, 'race' is often the card played when logic eludes. I think 'Yankee' is a more likely explanation. Regarding the card price comparison, it's the same for autographs.

[tedzan]

Peter

Those of us who followed the three New York teams back in the 1940's and 1950's rooted for our teams. Regardless, of which team you favored back then......
everyone in our neighborhood rooted for Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe, Willie Mays, Monte Irvin, Elston Howard, etc, etc.

Furthermore, I'll never forget when (as an 11-year old) in the Fall of 1949 when we were in the schoolyard opening up fresh packs of 1949 Bowman cards; and,
one kid shouted out...."I got a Satchell Paige card" !



This was exciting, as all of us gathered around him to see Paige's rookie card, and hold it, and read his bio. Also, when these Hi #'s were more available, we got
excited to get a Larry Doby card (since he was a local Jersey boy).


As much as he was a fan favorite, the problem with Mays is that he has become quite a bitter person in recent years. And, he is turning off a lot of his fans. I see
Mays in Cooperstown every Summer on HOF weekend, and he is not a "friendly" guy.


TED Z

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

As much as he was a fan favorite, the problem with Mays is that he has become quite a bitter person in recent years. And, he is turning off a lot of his fans. I see
Mays in Cooperstown every Summer on HOF weekend, and he is not a "friendly" guy.


TED Z

Ted, I think you are correct, but why did attitude not affect the value of Ted Williams' stuff? (you know - the 'other' Ted )

Like Mays, I think Hank Aaron has also been the victim of his own attitude. As a kid, his card was just a notch below Mays and Mantle, but when, in later life, I read his negative comments toward Texas, expressed because of the racism he had to endure when playing there, I lost a lot of respect for him. I lived in East Texas, where racism was as bad as anywhere in Texas, and Aaron was just a great baseball player - plain and simple. Perhaps the adults were as bad as he portrayed them, but kids loved him - we didn't realize that to him we were just little racists who hadn't yet grown up to be losers. Guys like Aaron and Mays make you appreciate Jackie Robinson that much more.

Note to Hank and Willie: Old and bitter is no way to spend your golden years.

[packs]

If the Giants had stayed in New York I have no doubt Willie Mays cards would be valued the same as Mantle.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by packs

If the Giants had stayed in New York I have no doubt Willie Mays cards would be valued the same as Mantle.

I disagree. While I do think you have a point that it may have made some difference, still not equal to Mantle...

[packs]

Maybe not exactly equal but I would think as close as you could get. For example, whenever you look through a price guide throughout the early 1950s issues the guide values common Yankees, Dodgers and Giants higher than other commons. But I seem to remember it stops making that distinction after the Dodgers and Giants move from New York.

Although I haven't looked at a guide in a while.

[tedzan]

Most likely the most memorable BB card experience from my youth occurred in the Fall of 1952. I remember this event as if it happened just yesterday.
I opened 1952 Topps 5-cent waxpack and I was very excited to find these 5 cards. They have been in my collection for exactly 62 years.



TED Z
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I disagree. While I do think you have a point that it may have made some difference, still not equal to Mantle...

I too disagree. I think Mantle was just the perfect storm and Mays was not, great though he was -- white, NY, Yankees, Paul Bunyanesque strength, the aw shucks Oklahoma mines personality, the mystique of playing hurt, and a team that won almost every year. Or to put it another way, he had more "duende" than Mays.

[packs]

Man, it has been a long time since I heard duende.

Kudos to you my friend. Have you ever read Pedro Paramo? Juan Rulfo was one of my favorite authors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I haven't read it, but it's a great word, one of those words that can't quite be translated, like some Yiddish words.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And there's nothing inherently meaningful about a gold versus silver versus blue card; one could create the same artificial scarcity by putting out a regular version of a card and a few with a red dot. So what?

Funny you mention that, because I read countless threads all the time on here about dots on T206's and if they are errors and what not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tjb1952tjb]

Originally Posted by chris6net

When I was a kid Roger Repoz was supposed to be the next Mickey Mantle!

Yes..........I remember Roger Repoz. A name from the past.........I went to many California Angels games in my youth (rode my bike to the "Big A").

IMO, Mantle’s greatness went beyond basic stats – for a time, he was regarded as the fastest man in baseball (Trout isn’t, although he’s close); he hit some of the longest home runs in MLB history (Trout hasn’t, and probably won’t); he was the greatest switch-hitter in history (Trout bats RH only); and his teams won the WS three times in his first 4 seasons, with the Mick blasting 4 WS HRs (Trout still hasn’t made it to the postseason).

Also, while I don’t recall Mantle having an outstanding throwing arm, from what I’ve seen Trout’s isn’t even average. Mantle had an impressive 49 outfield assists in his first 4 years, while Trout thus far has 10 (and Trout, amazingly, went all of 2013 without a single assist).

While most stats favor Trout to date, Mantle’s career really took off in seasons 5 thru 12. I don’t see Trout winning a triple crown, 4 HR titles, compiling a 1.062 OPS, or challenging the single season HR record over his next 8 years, but maybe he’ll surprise me. Right now, despite having an excellent overall season and contending for the MVP, Trout’s only hitting in the .280s while striking out like crazy (he’ll likely top 180 this year). Since the AS break, he’s only hitting .248/.322/.460, and IMO he would be a strange choice for MVP given he batted .311/.405/.609 while the Angels were only 47-36, but then only .258/.329/.484 with 76 SO over the last 60 games when the Angels went 41-19 to become MLB’s winningest team.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Karl Mattson

IMO, Mantle’s greatness went beyond basic stats – for a time, he was regarded as the fastest man in baseball (Trout isn’t, although he’s close); he hit some of the longest home runs in MLB history (Trout hasn’t, and probably won’t); he was the greatest switch-hitter in history (Trout bats RH only); and his teams won the WS three times in his first 4 seasons, with the Mick blasting 4 WS HRs (Trout still hasn’t made it to the postseason).

Also, while I don’t recall Mantle having an outstanding throwing arm, from what I’ve seen Trout’s isn’t even average. Mantle had an impressive 49 outfield assists in his first 4 years, while Trout thus far has 10 (and Trout, amazingly, went all of 2013 without a single assist).

While most stats favor Trout to date, Mantle’s career really took off in seasons 5 thru 12. I don’t see Trout winning a triple crown, 4 HR titles, compiling a 1.062 OPS, or challenging the single season HR record over his next 8 years, but maybe he’ll surprise me. Right now, despite having an excellent overall season and contending for the MVP, Trout’s only hitting in the .280s while striking out like crazy (he’ll likely top 180 this year). Since the AS break, he’s only hitting .248/.322/.460, and IMO he would be a strange choice for MVP given he batted .311/.405/.609 while the Angels were only 47-36, but then only .258/.329/.484 with 76 SO over the last 60 games when the Angels went 41-19 to become MLB’s winningest team.

Karl- Well done....Exactly right IMO....There was only one Mantle....

[Baseball Rarities]

While Trout may not be the next Mickey Mantle, his first three full seasons have been nothing short of remarkable. Two second place MVP finishes and a likely first this year. Has anyone else ever had such success in their first three years?

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Forget the current population reports. There are far fewer Mike Trout 2009 Bowman Chrome autos than there are 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles. Assuming Topps has the same tiers, there are 2,676 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout autos-1,695 base autos, 500 refractor autos, 250 x-fractor autos, 150 blue refractor autos, 50 gold refractor autos, 25 orange refractor autos, 5 red refractor autos, and a superfractor. And of those, Beckett graded 9s or higher will command a premium.

say WHAT?????

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Karl Mattson

IMO, Mantle’s greatness went beyond basic stats – for a time, he was regarded as the fastest man in baseball (Trout isn’t, although he’s close); he hit some of the longest home runs in MLB history (Trout hasn’t, and probably won’t); he was the greatest switch-hitter in history (Trout bats RH only); and his teams won the WS three times in his first 4 seasons, with the Mick blasting 4 WS HRs (Trout still hasn’t made it to the postseason).



Also, while I don’t recall Mantle having an outstanding throwing arm, from what I’ve seen Trout’s isn’t even average. Mantle had an impressive 49 outfield assists in his first 4 years, while Trout thus far has 10 (and Trout, amazingly, went all of 2013 without a single assist).



While most stats favor Trout to date, Mantle’s career really took off in seasons 5 thru 12. I don’t see Trout winning a triple crown, 4 HR titles, compiling a 1.062 OPS, or challenging the single season HR record over his next 8 years, but maybe he’ll surprise me. Right now, despite having an excellent overall season and contending for the MVP, Trout’s only hitting in the .280s while striking out like crazy (he’ll likely top 180 this year). Since the AS break, he’s only hitting .248/.322/.460, and IMO he would be a strange choice for MVP given he batted .311/.405/.609 while the Angels were only 47-36, but then only .258/.329/.484 with 76 SO over the last 60 games when the Angels went 41-19 to become MLB’s winningest team.

Wow, what a post! I cannot argue with anything other than his MVP case this year, which may actually go to King Felix if he keeps this up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

While Trout may not be the next Mickey Mantle, his first three full seasons have been nothing short of remarkable. Two second place MVP finishes and a likely first this year. Has anyone else ever had such success in their first three years?

Can you imagine if he started off winning three straight to start his career...wow. I don't even want to think about his card prices lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

While Trout may not be the next Mickey Mantle, his first three full seasons have been nothing short of remarkable. Two second place MVP finishes and a likely first this year. Has anyone else ever had such success in their first three years?

Pujols perhaps?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pujols perhaps?

Yeah you are right, I forgot how dominant Pujols was right out of the gate.

[Runscott]

Looking forward to Mike Trout on the Keith Olberman show tomorrow (Wednesday). I've been really enjoying this show lately.

[Davino]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

IMHO, I think the Angels are mismanaging Trout.

One study that was done (a Saber study?) showed that most players best years were between the ages of 26 - 28 or 27 - 29. That is when everything seemed to jell especially the power numbers.

To me, guys with speed usually are best when they are younger and then the speed goes and they have to adapt as a player. If Trout is already not running as much (by choice or by orders from above) then he/they are limiting his skills and wasting the speed years while trying to force him into the power years which he might be ready for and which the strikeouts show.

No, if Pujols doesn't want Trout running because it distracts him when he is in the box, my suggestion has always been to have Trout lead off, with Hamilton batting second and Pujols third. That way, Trout can run if he wants to and Hamilton has the hole between first and second to try and pull a ball through.

This also makes it harder for opposing defenses to put a shift on. I say this because if nobody is covering third and Trout is successful at stealing second then he can just get up and run to third.

So, to wrap it up, I would let Trout steal as much as possible early in his career to get those numbers up and then let him grow into his power. He could easily be stealing 50 bags a year in his youth and then hitting 40 to 50 home runs a year in his peak years.

David

great analysis!!

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Looking forward to Mike Trout on the Keith Olberman show tomorrow (Wednesday). I've been really enjoying this show lately.

you've only started enjoying KO's show recently?

i think it's wise if trout's power is up then to limit his running. he doesn't need the wear n tear and freak injury that could occur. he's still one of the fastest runners in the league so i think it's the front office call and not a natural decline in speed. i'd rather he goes off for 35-40 hrs and 20 steals than 20-25hrs and 60 sbs.