Yogi was a catcher. It doesn't make sense to compare his popularity with Mantle, a switch-hitting centerfielder and ultra hyped prospect. It's like saying Pudge should have gotten more attention than Griffey.

A switch hitting CF who hit tape measure home runs and won triple crowns.

At least Heilmann did attain the elusive .400 average for a season. Al Simmons never did, despite hitting .381 and .390 over full seasons.

I would say both players are under-appreciated, but I think it will remain that way.

Heinie Manush will forever be the most anonymous 330 career hitter too.

1925 Heilmann leads the league with a .393 batting average and ties for the lead with 134 RBIs and led the league in good old WAR 7.0 ,
World Series winner Roger Pekingpaugh wins MVP with 64 RBIs and the batting average .294 - Heilmann finished fourth in the voting

And Peckinpaugh only appeared in 126 games and had 422 at bats. Its like like they put all the names of the players on the pennant winning team in a hat, and picked the winner at random.

Maybe he had those intangible leadership qualities that don't show up in the stats? :)
Forerunner to 1965 when Zoilo Versalles was MVP and Yaz whose OPS was like 150 points higher wasn't even in the top 5 I don't think.

Whatever you want to say about Mantle, he certainly did not exceed the hype. In his own words in the Ken Burns documentary, "Casey bragged on me so much saying I was going to be the next Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Joe DiMaggio all rolled into one, and it just never happened." As great as Mantle was, he certainly fell far short of people's expectations of him, partly because of his injuries, partly because of his alcoholism, and partly just because of his dedication to baseball, or lack thereof. As Mantle once told Bob Costas about Stan Musial, "He was a better player than I was because he was a better man than I was."

Mantle is as much about the Americana as it is the baseball. People who don't know or even really care about Baseball still know EXACTLY who Mickey Mantle is. He's of the same legendary status level as Ruth, and is literally the prototype of "All American" for all the reasons others have pointed out.

As for the best investment guys:

Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mathewson, Wagner, Walter Johnson, Gehrig. Any rare or very tough pre-war HOFers. Guys like GC Alexander, Cy Young, Mordecai Brown, Cap Anson and so on are also in heavy demand and always will be.

The next bucket is the Clemente & Jackie duo. Always desirable, and value maintains really well. Koufax, Mays & Aaron fall into this camp as well. All Blue Chip names.

The last bucket is the Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams trio. While plentiful examples of all are easily found on the market, the demand is evergreen. Additional value for these guys skyrockets for inscriptions and tough equipment and item types.

See the "Trend in Wagner cards" thread. Part of it is that there was an irrational or even a suspicious run up, but I cannot imagine Ruth, Cobb or Mantle ever falling off a cliff the way Wagner just did.

As my dad loved to say about Berra's propensity to swing at bad pitches, "Yogi never saw a pitch out of the strike zone he didn't like." :D

People seem to be mixing up the terms "appreciated" and "valuable."

Yogi is greatly appreciated by baseball fans, it just doesn't happen to translate into bigger prices for his cards, which is quite nice for us buyers, but not so much for sellers.
There has always been a huuuuuuuuge amount of appreciation for him as a player and a highly-engaging person.

He's not underappreciated, his cards just happen to be undervaluable. :rolleyes:

When found in sets of roughly equal rarity, King Kelly is similar to Mantle in that his cards cost more than statistically "better" players in the same sets (such as Brouthers, Keefe, and Clarkson).

Rarity plays a large role in N172 and N173 pricing, so it's harder to gauge. But Kelly is probably the most common N173 HOFer (or close to it) and it has not hurt the price of his cards.

What's interesting is that the pricing seems to be because of Kelly's popularity at the time he played, due to his personality, nickname, book, stage performances, etc...but while many people saw Mantle play (or heard about him from their parents), we are many generations removed from Kelly playing, and his popularity seems to persist (at least as reflected by pricing).

Players who are "bad boys" or those who have "big" personalities seem to often sell for higher prices than other great players of their time. Kelly is an excellent example. Cobb, J. Jackson, Ruth, Mantle, and, to some extent, T. Williams also fit the bill. Unfortunately, being a nice guy is usually not a positive in regards to card pricing. For example, Musial was one of the nicest people in baseball and was also one of the greatest of all time, but his card prices don't reflect this. He wasn't flashy enough.

Hi, Michael.

Was a bad word ever written about Gehrig, Mathewson or Walter Johnson? Their prices are very strong. And Jackson I think sells not because he was bad, but because most feel he was wronged.

I think we can find examples of players commanding higher prices than expected for a number of different reasons. The Black Sox and Hal Chase because they were infamous/bad boys, Titus because he had a moustache when others did not, Ten Million because he had a cool name, Moonlight Graham because he was in a book and movie, Halla because he had a cool pose, Whitney because he had a dog, Zernial because he had six balls, Mossi because he had big ears, various mascot poses, etc.

Yaz for sure. He is the Mickey Mantle of the Red Sox, although not reflected at all in the pricing of his cards. His cards should spike for a week or so when he passes away as the nostalgia runs deep up here in New England. Of course I'm biased. He was the favorite player of my childhood.

Some earlier Ted cards have held strong, particularly '48 Leaf, although that might be a product of that set's popularity. It seems like it has been a good year for this set, despite us being well past Covid peak.

The 1975 Topps set is another. 50 year anniversary of that set and of the 1975 World Series coming up next year. Plus you've got those beautiful minis. Of course, this set is already popular and I'm biased.

Over the longer haul, Jackie Robinson will endure. As boomers continue to hit the nursing homes in ever increasing #s and 50s-70s vintage begins to decline further over the next ten years, Jackie will remain strong. As will Peewee Reese.

Curt Flood cards will get a bump at some point when he makes the HOF.

Of course this could all be conventional wisdom.

Curt Flood is a good one. I also hope he gets his due in time:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4e64e32f2f.jpg

I would pretty much go with this list....

It's interesting only one person mentioned Aaron. If future generations reject Bonds' record, the all time HR leader is going to be Aaron, as the likelihood of anyone surpassing him has to be pretty low.

Ruth 1st Mantle 2nd ,
Good grief ,
Five years after we save the world we get the All American boy that’s a switchhitting freak like no one‘s ever seen playing for the largest fan base in baseball , like Ruth he wins seven World Series with them while hitting more World Series home runs than anyone .. ever .
Mantle is near the top of the Hobby Where he belongs

Or if MLB decides the Indianapolis Clowns were a major league team and they add his 8 Negro League HRs to his 755 giving him 763 total.

Why did they not get counted when all of Josh Gibson's stats were merged?

Because Aaron's were after December 31, 1948.

So once MLB was nominally integrated, the Negro Leagues were minor leagues.

So, from January 1, 1949 until the end of the Negro Leagues no stats are recognized officially toward a players true lifetime accumulated stats and averages. Doesn't seem quite right and fair. Like the powers that be are doing their own picking and choosing what counts and what doesn't count.

Rewriting/denying history to suit an obvious contemporary political purpose is not usually concerned with consistency or logic or sensibility. That was not on the agenda.

I liked, "The Last Boy" by Jane Levy.

Listen to Bob Shepard announce him coming to the plate. The way the name rolls off the tongue.

Watch his highlights, pour over his stats. Let's not forget his TORN ACL in his rookie season that never was operated on he played through his entire career. Players today are babies compared to back in the day. They simply PLAYED. Listen to his simple country drawl. We tried to imitate it. He was such a flawed person, but in the end he seeked and found redemption I think? Kinda a great human interest story really. Watch his Eulogy by Bob Costas.

What about Trout, the guy they compared him with? He wouldn't even DH with a sore knee this year. Hit .220 and that was considered HOT before the sprain. Blew off his teammates to have a "6 week" surgery, when they said he could DH. They despise him whereas the Mick's teammates LOVED him. Anyone who has followed the CHY NA Doll knew he wouldn't come back. Bam! a second knee surgery. Shocker. No, very predictable. 5 years missed in his prime. Yea he was great for a very short period, but I choose to forget the Splashing Trout and his 10,478 rookie cards, PSA 10 1 of 1's.

I don't see Trout on anyone's "investment list" but Mantle is on everyone's. While I had the pleasure to watch trout play in person dozens of time, sure he was great when he was in the lineup. Still I have never owned a Trout card. I have 99% of every Mantle card. That's just me I guess? I buy what I liked. :)

Trout is an extreme example, but even so, it seems that despite all the advances in surgical techniques, diagnostics, and training/conditioning, today's players are hurt more often, and more easily.

Are there articles somewhere about teammates hating Trout? Where does that come from?

Roger was Yankee Captain, to underscore your point.

Let's just say a little birdie told me...

A little birdie told me you made up a slander and can't source it or back it up because you made it up.

A frog once told me if it had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.

Libel, not slander.

I am not speaking in the legal sense. If this is what we want to pick about instead of the lies, here:

It’s still libel, not slander.

LOL, He should have clicked on the link in his copy paste of the definition of slander.:D

I would be happy to be corrected on this tiny point if anyone can show how fuddjcal's accusation does not meet the terms of the non-legal definition I highlighted. How did he not make a "false and damaging statement about (someone)", the sense I used it in?

He potentially did. In a libelous statement.

This is the stupidest conversation ever on Net54. And that is a very high bar.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Okay. I'm just going to keep using what my dictionary says and you can write them a letter to correct the non-legal rendition if you think this is a sensible use of your time.

Not that I was asked but libel pertains to false statements through written words whereas slander pertains to false statements through spoken word. Legally there are hurdles for both but will leave that to someone who has actually been to law school to explain.

I know how very important it is for you to be accurate about things so I just wanted to correct you. You’re welcome.

Well, I'll take a crack at it.

In this case, the narrow and semantic question about whether potential defamatory speech is libel or slander is less relevant than whether Mike Trout could win a lawsuit because someone claimed that his teammates hate him.

Basically, the question hinges on whether (1) Mike Trout is considered a public figure (and how "public" he is) and, if so, (2) whether the speaker knew his statement was false or was reckless with regard to the statement's veracity.

I am not a defamation law expert, but in this case, I suspect it is very unlikely that Mike Trout would win a defamation case. As a very high profile professional athlete, he is a public figure in a layman's sense. And even though he is not a public official (the Supreme Court was most concerned with the freedom of the press to write liberally about public officials), he has broad access to the press, which is viewed as important because it means that he is likely to have a platform with which to defend himself against or refute the claim that his teammates hate him. This makes it extremely likely (perhaps even legally settled -- a defamation law expert could tell us) that a court would find that Mike Trout is a public figure with respect to comments regarding his role as a baseball player (and perhaps even comments that are unrelated to his role as a baseball player).

If Mike Trout is deemed a public figure, then you'd have to prove that the speaker's comment that Mike Trout's teammates hate him was made with reckless disregard for its veracity. And this would practically be an impossible standard to reach as any fan or talking head can have an opinion about how a star player is viewed by his teammates. See, for instance, all the people who claim that Aaron Rodgers is hated by his Jets teammates.

Happy to have my summary challenged by a currently practicing attorney.

I don't think Greg meant to opine that Trout had a case, per se. The question for a lawyer here (focusing on the semantics) would appear to be whether typing verbiage into a public "chat room" like Net54 is considered written or spoken "speech".

If chat rooms have displaced town gatherings as common forums for public discourse, it seems logical that laws regarding spoken speech might be deemed applicable in lieu of laws regarding written speech, such as newspapers and other "published" material.

Libel = written and Slander = spoken, at least in the state where I have since retired from the practice of law.

Damages awarded under successful defamation claims are often a function of the number of people exposed to the defamatory speech. Whether that speech is libelous (written) or slanderous (spoken) is less important than how many people read or heard that speech -- and whether that speech is permanent.

To that end, messages posted in a chat forum such as this one (which appear to be searchable on the internet forever) would likely be considered written speech. But I defer to someone whose legal experience is more recent than my own.

It's self evidently written speech so any legal claim would be for libel. That said, and I don't know this to be the case, but it would not surprise me if there is informal usage that some sources recognize where slander is also a more generic term for defamation and not limited to oral speech.

Hmm. dictionary.com definition 2

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
The writer is spewing a despicable slander against an 87-year-old man, and without a shred of proof.

We have 2 different dictionaries now directly put into this thread showing it was used correctly. The legal context is not the only accepted meaning in the English language (and very obviously not the one used in the statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the law), which is not chosen by calvindog or myself. Nor is this a particularly rare, obtuse or antiquated usage.



I know I have a mob of readers who hang on my every single word and utterance like a cardboard Delphi. They are excited to try and get me on absolutely anything, but maybe, just maybe one should make sure they are actually correct first. I am an idiot who knows nothing, it cannot be that hard to find something I have said in ~7,000 posts over ten years (all of which contain words and most of which contain a claim to fact of some kind) to correct with something that actually checks out as true.

Let's see how long it is before the next late night out of left field attack that is provably false by the usage of a dictionary yet again. This is such a wonderful use of my impassioned followers time and lives.

I've seen examples of this before, where usage that might be technically incorrect becomes sufficiently widespread that it is recognized as accepted.

Don’t flatter yourself, I actually agree with your politics and most of what you say out here and have never once tried to get you on anything you’ve said. Libel is written defamation. Slander is spoken defamation. We would never tolerate a colloquial, incorrect word usage. We are paragons of pedantic exactitude. You’re welcome.

Oh hardly flattery, for to be a cardboard Delphi is to be a false prophet. I flatter myself by calling myself an idiot who knows nothing, albeit a liberal idiot. In the case of calvindog vs. the dictionary with the question of what a word means, I am going to use the dictionary. As a paragon of pedantic exactitude, I am cognizant that dictionaries are the proper resource for the question and not your opinion of what should be struck from the dictionaries.

Greg, I’m going to watch football now and try to end this debate which seems to have become your raison d’etre. Libel is written defamation. Slander is spoken defamation. This is true in the dictionary and in real life as I’ve handled both slander and libel cases. No need to go to the library and write a research paper on this. We’re not idiots and we don’t run down the list of dictionary definitions until we find one that supports our position in hindsight. We’re educated men. I simply said libel, not slander. I didn’t write a thesis or review all of your 7000 posts. If you want to use the uneducated, colloquial definition of a word I won’t stop you. I’m going to let you live. Now go watch football, this isn’t the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Remember who picked this dumbass argument (and now is too good for it when it turns out he is factually wrong!). Enjoy your football game, I hope you find it more fulfilling than fighting the dictionary.

I get slandered
Libeled
I hear words I never heard in the Bible

I just removed what I wrote as I feel I’ll be trapped for the rest of time arguing with you unless I did. Good luck!

thread needs a card break...

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0Zernial_1.jpg

GUS SAYS RELAX

JUST IN CASE you wish to know the meaning behind this unusual photo Topps used in 1952, Gus Zernial had just hit 2 home runs in 3 consecutive games, from May 13-16, 1951. With this achievement, a photographer came up with the idea of attaching 6 balls to a bat, and having Gus hold it. flashing A-OK! As Gus's SABR article reported, Ozark Ike hit another home run in the next game; thus, Gus crushed 7 homers in 4 consecutive games! WOW!:D

--- Brian Powell

I would have thought that Hank Aaron has value for these reasons as well. I always wondered why he seemed undervalued. His numbers are awesome. He also played against a Jackie Robinson-esque social backdrop, which should heighten his historical value to the game. This said, his Topps rookie doesn't seem that rare. The 54 Johnston rookie is much rarer, but that one doesn't seem to get a lot of hobby love relative to its scarcity.

my 79 year old father and i agree with you on this topic. race was 100% part of the problem then. not calling anyone racist but times were quite diff then.
many people who pushed mantle to his current prices were / are baby boomers. mays and aaron never received the PR they deserved then and still today.

i do think mantle playing in NY and the yanks playing on all those WS def helped since that meant more tv footage was saved.

I don't feel confident in calling anybody but the household names investments. There are plenty of people who are probably undervalued that are just too niche to reach anybody that doesn't get deep into the history of baseball - John Ward, Ed Delahanty, Frank Robinson.

Even the names we think are household ballplayers aren't as well known as we think - it's insane to me over the years how many people couldn't tell me who Mickey Mantle is. But they're known well enough to the public that anybody who gets into collecting old baseball cards usually jumps to the legends - Ruth, Mantle, Robinson, Cobb, Wagner, DiMaggio, Gehrig, Young, Mays, Aaron are guys I would put in the top 10 in no particular order. Players who are arguably just as good or better but aren't as well known I would throw in the next tier - WaJo, Mathewson, Ted Williams, Yogi Berra, Stan Musial, Clemente, Koufax

Huge announcements like the MLB including Negro Leagues stats has possibly inserted guys like Josh Gibson into the mix as well

👍 .. Cy Young t206 portrait will probably always float ..
with the Cy Young Award and what not .. And it’s a good looking card

Good list. I'd put Joe Jackson in and take Berra out. And I probably would add Rose and Ryan from the 60s.

Very sorry I derailed the discussion. I didn't mean to slander poor Mike Trout, the ChyNA doll. Can we forget that bum now and talk about Mickey again?
Trout has packs to rip so he can add to his 37 M salary for doing absolutely nothing again this year. I can't see where that would cause any animosity.:cool:

I'm just curious if it's libel or slander if it's true?:rolleyes:

It was a great derailment as we got to see someone be wrong and then argue they were correct. That is always fun. As someone who may or may not have gotten a letter from a lawyer for something they posted on here. I can guarantee the letter from the lawyer used libel and not slander.:D

I was never clear on the merits of the actual accusation. Writing that Trout's teammates hate him - what's the legal threshold? Would 2 hateful teammates satisfy the claim? Or would it require a higher percentage?

No, truth is a defense, but it would be tough to establish here.

Here's my list. I call them the Top Tier 1 "Burrito". In no particular order...

1. Jackie Robinson
2. Babe Ruth
3. Ty Cobb
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Mickey Mantle
6. Honus Wagner
7. Joe Jackson
8. Willie Mays
9. Hank Aaron
10. Sandy Koufax
11. Walter Johnson
12. Cy Young
13. Joe Dimaggio
14. Ted Williams
15. Roberto Clemente

Top 2 Burrito

16. Yogi Berra
17. Roy Campanella
18. Christy Mathewson
19. Rogers Hornsby
20. Satchel Paige

etc

I have 4 tiers to my personal Burrito Principle....I'm pretty laser focused on the top tier at present and have filled out tiers 3 & 4 already.

Happy Collecting.:)

C’mon Musials at least a burrito 2 😐

Wow, this thread went off the rails a little bit. It's hard to get a handle on all of his early cards and their relative values, but I think Sadaharu Oh is a pretty good investment right now. Legendary career, all with one team, all-time global HR leader, and then a long post-playing career as well. Maybe Ohtani's wild success in MLB will create some uplift for other less recognized (in the US) Japanese players.

Clark wasn't so much hated by players as just found annoying, and it had nothing to do with her skin color or sexual orientation. The issue with her was that she is a whiner and she was getting all the press at the beginning of the year while established stars were getting very little. I believe most felt that she had to earn the attention at the professional level not just be bestowed it for what she did in college. She is one of the top 10 players in the league which is great for a rookie, but it's a little premature to be starting the bust on Mount Rushmore.

I hope this was a typo and you meant "winner":D

But I agree, Clark got huge amounts of attention that no previous WNBA player had, so there was some bitterness, but none of it was "racism" (or "sexism" which doesn't make any sense in this context).

Believe that any bitterness from current players will fade quickly as league revenues and visibility continue to soar.

It's natural any player who comes in on a pedestal like that is going to absorb some hard fouls and trash talk as other teams try to intimidate her a bit and make her earn her place. I would not characterize that as "hate."

Or in another way of saying this. The best conditioned card of the best player (s) at the best price point you can afford.

That was the investment advice I got back in the day and still holds true today.

IMHO everything else is noise

Rich

you have to draw the line somewhere. I always liked Stan but he's in the third tier of the Burrito Principle;):D:D or 2nd tier!

I actually love the guy.

Always sage advice Rich