Most undervalued HOFers
 

In the last few days, a '61 Mantle SGC 6 was posted for $875 and sold within hours. It was apparently a good deal, as the last public auction sale was for $1,100.

A couple weeks back at a local show, I picked up this Frank Robinson in the same condition for $40. Frank had one helluva career, including being the first black manager, but Mantle is at least 21x more valuable.

Who are some others out there who are cheap buys compared to their career exploits?

If you can figure out the search function, we've literally had this discussion 100 times, and you'll find all the ideas people have had.

I'll toss a vote to Arky Vaughan. Baseball Reference has him ranked as the 4th best shortstop of all time, behind only Wagner, Arod and Ripken. A nine time all star, batting champion, and lifetime 300 hitter. He averaged 6.9 WAR per 162 games over his career but is largely anonymous when people talk about the best shortstops of all time.

Undervalued HOF
 

Brent- Frank R is excellent. Can I interest you in Eddie Mathews? Monster
stats and undervalued but for his RC.

Trent King

Wow ... that's a good one and sadly a name I didn't know. Looks like he's got some great inexpensive cards out there.

Obligatory Eddie Collins mention. He has a claim to the greatest 2B of all time.

Joe Morgan is really cheap too, for another guy who one could reasonably argue is the best 2B.

Al Kaline is pretty cheap for how good he was. His rookie is a lot less than Ernie Banks in the same set but he was hardly inferior.

The over election of guys in the 30's has caused a lot of the ones who are deserving HOFers but were not in the A-tier of the Hall to be priced around the same level as the guys who really don't belong. Al Simmons types, I think they are undervalued relative to performance.



As time goes on, most guys who don't make the Hall and aren't Yankees or have some other claim to fame drift into the common bin. Guys like Billy Pierce or Ken Boyer who are just on the wrong side of the Hall line who generally sell for about as much as a backup utility infielder are all 'bargains' when you compare performance, though not good investments.

Yeah that seems like one of many small-market syndrome cases, Trent.

Yeah my favorite player growing up was Dave Concepcion, who definitely fits in that category, but definitely cheap to collect an entire career in cardboard.

If the hobby has undervalued players for decades, it may well continue to do so. Undervalued should not be confused with good investment.

Frank Robinson and Warren Spahn top the list for me.

I've always thought Bill Terry was undervalued too. People sometimes know his name because he hit 400 but you're more likely to remember Ted. Aside from hitting 401 in 1930, he was a career 341 hitter and drove in 100 runs six seasons in a row.

Despite being the last NL player to hit 400 and being on a very short list of players to do it in the modern era, it still took him 15 tries to get into the HOF.

-
Stan Musial
-

I feel we have hit some of the better ones already but here are my top few that tend to not trade at levels they should...

Eddie Collins
Frank Robinson
Joe Morgan
Kid Nichols (he doesn't have a ton of cards but he is better than he gets credit for)
Charlie Gehringer

Fascinating discussion, as usual.

What about Paul Waner?

Fielding % as RF
1926 NL .975 (2nd)
1927 NL .980 (1st)
1928 NL .974 (2nd)
1929 NL .985 (1st)
1930 NL .960 (5th)
1931 NL .975 (1st)
1932 NL .971 (2nd)
1933 NL .980 (4th)
1934 NL .983 (1st)
1935 NL .981 (2nd)
1937 NL .969 (4th)
1938 NL .975 (3rd)
1939 NL .975 (2nd)

And also...
H 3152
BA .333
R 1627
RBI 1309
OBP .404
SLG .473
OPS .878
OPS+ 134

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Goudeycard.jpg

https://www.baseballhistorycomesaliv...rsz_img144.jpg

Frank Robinson cards are fairly priced. The only reason they might look undervalued is because Mickey Mantle cards fetch such ridiculously high prices.

:(

I hear you, Peter, but education through boards like this can move the needle. I didn’t know who Jack Glasscock was until 6 months ago — it’s what led me to this site, looking for an 1887 A&G. Somehow I was part of a spike in those prices.

Glad to learn about two names I’ve never heard of in this thread.

I’m surprised only one mention of Musial. His career stats top every single player mentioned here and his cards might be a little more pricey than most mentioned here but nowhere near the Mantle/Mays/Aaron/Clemente/Jackie/Williams/DiMaggio realm.

I'd go w/ Warren Spahn
all time winningest lefty w/ 363 wins

https://www.qualitycards.com/pictures/21495124.jpg

Used to be Musial. That was when the Propagandas Montiel was bringing $500 instead of $5000.

...and for my very first post:
 

1) musial
2) steve carlton
3) bob gibson

+1 for Spahn and Musial.

The Musial Propagandas is on my wish list, but I'm priced out. That said, it would probably be multiples more expensive if it were an Aaron or a Mantle rookie card of comparable rarity.

Perhaps, but in the two decades or more this Board has been going it's always the same names and nobody ever seems to move out of the undervalued category. IMO two decades from now Collins, Foxx, Musial, Spahn, Mathews, etc. will still be undervalued. It's an interesting discussion, my only point was don't think of these players as great investiments.

Glenn:

I believe that the Montiel Musial is more of a reflection on today’s moniker that rarity trumps everything else as opposed to Musial cards in general selling for big bucks. Look at his traditionally accepted 48 Bowman rookie compared to rookie cards of Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Jackie & Williams.

And that's not what the OP asked. He asked for "cheap buys compared to their career exploits"

Agree with the names mentioned above with Joe Morgan being my first choice. I'll add a couple more:

Jim 'Cakes' Palmer - 3 Cy Youngs, 6x All-Star, 4 GG, No-hitter
Yogi Berra - 3 MVPs, 13 WS rings (including as a manager), and 18 All-Star selections

George Sisler.

Just noticed recently how cheap Gibson autos are.

Jim Kaat, Luis Aparicio, Nellie Fox, Ernie Banks and Bobby Richardson are five more names that have not been mentioned. Check out their Gold Glove wins as well as their other numbers.

;)

Chuck Klein.

Most undervalued? Edgar Charles "Sam" Rice, of course!! Except for Walter Johnson, no player had a greater career with the Washington Senators than Sam Rice! Okay, I realize this isn't saying much! :D

I came here to say this, but from an autograph perspective. He passed away young, was nearly non-responsive through the mail and additionally had others signing mail requests on his behalf. Being a Phillie on some truly awful teams certainly didn't help matters any. Adding to this is how little he was appreciated post-career and how it took decades for him to be inducted. It feels like he's truly forgotten about. Finding his autograph on anything decent, even a nice index card, is actually quite the challenge. He's usually encountered on multi-signed album pages which can be had for what I feel is a pittance.

Another fellow who deserves more value is Hugh Duffy. While he was with the Red Sox for so long after his playing days and was responsive to autograph requests, it seems as though he simply wasn't flooded with as much mail as other HOFers of his era who also passed in the 1950's. It's just strange to me. Another factor to consider regarding Duffy's autograph is that there is so often some sort of condition flaw; be it a smear, a bad pen, or simply an unappealing autograph due to advancements of Duffy's age. Finding a nice signature on any medium is always more difficult.

All Pitchers.

Such an undervalued aspect of the hobby is the hitter value bias.

The pitchers are such an important part of the history of the game and one of the biggest reasons I have followed the sport all my life.
Only a very few are fairly valued.
Bu that could just be me.

Doesn't mean they are undervalued per se though. That dude signed a ton. So did Bob Feller.

This.

Especially for postwar vintage. For pitchers not named Koufax or Ryan, most cards besides rookies in nice shape are unbelievably affordable. This includes:

Ford
Feller
Spahn
Marichal
Gibson
Seaver
Palmer
Perry
Carlton
Jenkins

And doubtless others I'm failing to mention.

All?! That's a preposterous, blanket statement.

Have you seen what even beat-up Leaf Paige "RCs" that aren't even really RCs have been selling for? There are countless examples, but the value of this card confounds me considering it's not even a true RC.

With his story and so few cards, I think Satch is in a class of his own.

If you are basing the value on the fact that it's a "RC", you are missing the point. It's valued the way it is because it's (supposedly) a very short print in a tough set. How short of a print it is and how rare it actually is may be debatable, but I think the fact that it's Paige's first card in a nationally issued set may be relatively down on the list. Same with the Bob Feller in that set, which is most definitely not a RC.

That's a good one -- and what a beautiful card this is.

Peter, great point. I have seen these discussions in the past and many of these players will still be undervalued.

I like Brooks Robinson, but nothing will change in the future IRT his cards.

I've always thought Harmon Killebrew was the most undervalued of all 500 home run club members. One of his 55 Topps rookies recently sold for just over a thousand dollars in a PSA 7. Hard to find other rookie cards that old in that grade for the same price.

Catfish Hunter.

I appreciate the insight and clarification. At the same time, its value assurdely still has much to do with the fact that it depicts Paige as opposed to Andy Lapihuska. Therefore, brining it back to the point that stating all (or nearly all) HOF pitchers' cards are undervalued makes no sense. Some? Sure, but the same can be said of even more non-pitchers.

Yes, I doubt the hoopla would be quite the same over a common card even if truly scarce.

I don't know that "all pitchers" was meant literally. I would agree with whoever said that however in principle that for star / HOF pitchers - the value proposition is down considerably when compared to star hitters. I don't know if more hitters just than I realize can have that claim made or not, but there are certainly notable examples of both. This is a case sometimes where "sport good" or "sport popular" doesn't translate directly to "hobby popular." It's hard to imagine a player on his career much better or with more accolades than Frank Robinson - but you can still routinely get a nice 1959 Topps card of him for like 20 bucks. Defies logic.

Very true.

We definitely know that Frank Robinson has never been "hobby popular". I have to imagine that the fact that he was never a monstrous fan favorite may have something to do with that. Same with Eddie Mathews.

But, immediately defying this logic are the aforementioned Brooks Robinson, and to a similar extent, Killebrew. There have been few in the game more beloved than Brooks, and we all know he deserved every iota of any good sentiment that came his way. Why, then, haven't his cards been shown the same love in a monetary sense? I guess we'll never know. And please, let's not use "He wasn't a Yankee" as the answer! :rolleyes: From the autograph side (AKA my side) of matters, I can tell you that Orioles collectors are willing to spend, too. Perhaps not as much on Brooks since he was such a signing machine, but I am simply stating that O's autograph collectors aren't cheapskates. Does that not translate into the card end of things? Apparently, not in Brooks' case? That's a head-scratcher.

Has anyone mentioned Rogers Hornsby?

Not yet, but I was thinking about Rogers Hornsby since he's one of my favourite early greats. The reason I didn't mention him is that I have no clue as to how expensive his cards are compared to other stars of the same era.

:confused:

Not that all of us are here to discuss investments. My preferred sources for such discussions are the Wall Street Journal, Barron's and the Northern Miner.

I'm here to discuss cards though. And I like to hear about cheap ones!

;)

I'm actually going to go with Ted Williams. For someone who can arguably lay claim to being among the top three ballplayers of all-time, his cards are still very moderately priced.

Adam Warshaw has dealt thoughtfully with this exact topic in his blog:

Why Mantle? - Adam's Card Blog

Overall though when it comes to cards in general I'll make two points:

1. Rookie cards are tremendously overrated and thus overpriced. I'm more interested in a player's most aesthetically pleasing card than in his rookie card.

2. Unmarked checklists are tougher and thus more exciting to find than are any stars.

;)

Sure, but the reality is that there are a lot of people these days who -- if they don't view cards as outright investments -- are concerned about buying cards that will appreciate in value, or at least retain value. Just how it is.

Yeah, it's definitely wonky. Ernie Banks is another example. The rookie card is pricey, but beyond that most stuff even in EX graded shape won't bust many budgets. To me he fits the universally loved / popular for a team checkbox in the same way that Brooks does for Baltimore.

BTW, finally picked up a '57 Topps Brooks Robinson earlier this year. Love it!

True, and I'll go you one more - how about a card from a best or key year in a player's career? To me this often a more important tie-in to baseball history than something just being a player's first card.

For example, I love the '61 Clemente, which I'm guessing for some is not the most popular choice. I like how it looks, but it's also from the first season he won a batting title - and actually, his first Gold Glove.

And I reserve the right to sneer and heap scorn upon them at every opportunity.

;)

Yes, & this was great.

You seem to see more of the "Why Mantle?" still being played out over in other forums like Blowout, where the vintage audience is ostensibly younger and still learning.

I think the '52 Topps does have a lot to do with it. Much like Burdick and other super early collectors anointed the T206 Wagner, probably in the 1930's - the same kind of run up was done for the #311 in the late 70's and early 80's by people like Alan Rosen.

The other thing with Mantle plus all the contributing factors just seems to be really good timing. He was at the perfect intersection of time and sport (MLB in NY in the 50's) - and then also at the perfect intersection of time and hobby when cards went from an underground nerdy thing in the 70's to a big business retail thing by the mid-80's. Those retail dealers saw to it that he became the hobby torchbearer for their generation pretty early, and never looked back.

I don't understand that mentality at all. If you're comfortable doing it your way why do you care if others do it a different way?

That's a point my card collecting buddy from the early 1960's raised some 35-40 years ago. My reply at the time was that since a player's rookie card was his oldest card, it also tended to be his scarcest. That's how I think this whole rookie card thing started anyway but these days it's just silly.

To me the aesthetics of a sports card is a combination of three things:

1. The player's pose. Head shots I hate.
2. The design of that year's cards. For example, I much prefer the 1959, 1960 and 1963 Topps Baseball cards to the 1961 Topps Baseball cards.
3. The team for which the athlete played although that's not as strong a factor as the first two.

:)

It's not just NY -- it's the YANKEES. Plus, as we've discussed many times, the switch hitter thing, the tape measure HRs, the playing through pain, the aw shucks folk hero personality, etc.

Agreed.

Adam's blog post mentions Mays being at best indifferent and at worst rude at least during his later show circuit years, and that seems to hold up for me. Mantle is an interesting case - as he was often less than sober at such events, and has if perhaps less - at least a few similar horror stories.

But Mantle for the most part was perceived as a happy drunk, and the media and popular culture bore out that image for him during the 1980's.

We curmudgeons look at the world "our" way. But keep in mind that I also acknowledge other people's right to snarl right back at me. I'm not one of those "Kumbaya" people. I'm quite comfortable in an environment where everybody is sneering at each other.

;)

Yep. I go back and forth on head shots. Certainly when more action oriented stuff came about in the early 70's, that was a departure and I'm sure was preferable to many. I do like if posed, at least more of a profile or bat included shot - the '58 Clemente is a good example of this.

But I don't hate head shots / Topps profiles. In some cases it was cool to get a glimpse of the player close up. The '58 Ted Williams is one I just love because of that; he looks pissed at the world. It's like "wow, this is what Ted really must be like."

As a kid, with no knowledge of hobby history or set rarity or anything, I gravitated towards the idea that the older the card was, the better. Thus by this logic, a 1952 Topps Duke Snider was worth much more than a 1956 Topps Duke Snider - even if I really liked 56's and would have maybe objectively come to the conclusion on my own that it was the better card. I don't think that way anymore, lol.

Welcome to a forum that's custom designed to your own specific needs and personality.

I agree. Both timing and promotion were key elements in Mickey Mantle cards becoming "the" grail.

:(

Glad to be here then!

;)

I agree with Eddie Collins...

Bobby Richardson is probably a favorite of many because he played on some great Yankee teams, and he did win five Gold Glove awards. And I think he is the only player to win a World Series MVP while playing on a losing team (1960).

But he is not in the Hall of Fame and his offensive numbers are not good: .266/.299/.335 for old school slash numbers and .634 OPS, 77 OPS+ new school.

The other choices seems like good ways to get a HOFer from a set without paying too much (although I feel like Banks is more expensive). There are several players from different eras where you can get a HOF type card without it being too costly: Wallace, Sewell, Bancroft, Averill, Haines, Ferrell, Slaughter, etc., etc.

I don't know if that means they are undervalued...but if you want a HOFer, they will cost less than many others.

Sometimes sneering and scorning seems quite fashionable on here, but no one can top the Judge Landis look of bitter disgust seen in this great photo of him.


Brian (everyone enjoy both investing and collecting...by investing time in your collections!)

I imagine Judge Landis, Queen Victoria and Hetty Green all scowling in unison over high tea, loudly complaining how everything is wrong with everything.

It reminds me of the joke about a waiter in the Catskills serving a table of, with no offense, old Jewish ladies. He asks, was anything OK?

I always wonder if Landis was just perpetually pissed at having literally been named after a land mass / battleground.

Carew, Spahn and F Robinson.

I recall reading that his father so named him because he had been wounded in that battle. Better than Sue. Did he go by Ken?

Negro leaguers
 

I still think that most negro leaguers are cheap when you consider the market caps.... I mean think about it... if all 40 Oscar Charleston cards were 100k (which they are not), the total value of all of his (playing career) cards would be $4 million... it is a long, long list of players who are "worth more"...

I included Richardson in my list despite that detail.

;)

Rod Carew is definitely underappreciated! He had a lifetime batting average of .328 with seven batting titles, plus 112 lifetime triples and 353 stolen bases.

:cool:

Eddie Yost, Bucky Walters, Johnny Bassler, and Bobby Grich are undervalued in my opinion, to name just a few.

Also, why are we talking about Bobby Richardson in a thread about undervalued players? Ron Hansen was better than Richardson. Bobby Knoop was better than Richardson. Jim Landis was better than Richardson. Mark Belanger was way better than Richardson

If anything, Richardson is overvalued because he's a Yankee whose stats are superficially impressive because post-Stengel Yankee managers batted him leadoff for some inexplicable reason. Richardson received MVP votes six different years, including a second place finish in 1962, as a mediocre player. He was a very good fielder, but so were the others I've mentioned, and they were much better hitters than him.

On the pitching tip, I'll throw Lefty Grove's name out there. He's one of the more anonymous 300 game winners despite winning an MVP, two Triple Crowns and leading the league in ERA and ERA+ 9 times in his career.

He's hurt by having fewer cards than most but even the cards considered to be his rookies (DeLong, Goudey, Diamond Stars) are typically affordable in even mid-grade.

Bill James rated Grove the third best pitcher behind Johnson and (yep) Paige. His US Caramel is before the cards you mentioned if you buy the 1932 date, but even then he has other cards dating back to 1921 IIRC. All that said, he doesn't get much love. Maybe because his raw numbers like ERA were high due to the nature of the game at that point.

I forgot about the caramel. I thought the only card from 1921 featured him as a minor leaguer. His first professional season was 1925.

Right the Tip Top is Baltimore, but he has lots of post 1925 and pre 1932 issues, even if not mainstream. Exhibits (tempted many times to buy one myself lol), playng cards, Star Player Candy, Kashin, Novelty Leader, many more.

I'm first and foremost a Yankee hater when it comes to baseball myself. The reason though that I mentioned Bobby Richardson is that I just looked through the list of Gold Glove winners and I saw Bobby Richardson's name five times from 1961 to 1965. And haven't we all been told since we were kids that fielding is half the game?

:confused:

Bobby Richardson CAREER WAR -- 8.0.
Next undervalued player please?