Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio

[Snapolit1]

Has always seemed to me that they are underappreciated in the hobby. They may not be in the upper upper tier of important baseball players in the 20th century, but they are certainly extrordarily important figures. Maybe they are too close to recent memory to have that aura of the 27 Yankees and other great players? Or they lived recently enough that many of us remember them and their personalities, warts and all. Or maybe people disagree. Just feels to me that, as Rodney used to say, they get no respect. Or not enough respect.

[gonzo]

I think a lot of it is that they missed key sets. DiMaggio’s career fell right between the Goudeys and 1952 Topps. And Williams missed 1952 Topps and a couple of the other 50s Topps sets. So they don’t have what would have been headline cards in ‘52 Topps. And as cool as some of the ‘40s and late ‘30s issues are to us, they don’t have the mass appeal of ‘52 Topps.

[packs]

It really is a shame DiMaggio wasn't in the 49, 50 or 51 Bowman sets. Imagine the cards.

[DeanH3]

I've wondered if Williams would have stuck around if he had not missed all that time. He could have been close enough to the all-time home run record that maybe he sticks it out a year or two more. He wasn't really struggling when retired.

[Fred]

I look at Ted Williams and think, wow, what he could have done if the military service didn't interrupt his career. He'd have had 3K hits, 2K runs and RBIs. Who knows if he'd had a third or fourth triple crown.

Not saying Joe was a slouch. But he was a Yankee and received a lot of props for a career on great Yankee teams and all those WS championships. Now, here's where people are going to say I'm just stupid. I think Joe was a better overall offensive player than (get ready for this), the Mick.

Good points about both missing the 52T set, but I've never looked at players based on what sets they were in. Joe did make the 38 Goudey set, but ok, it's not the prettiest set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Both upper tier in my mind.

Mandatory reading.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1...-bid-kid-adieu

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Both upper tier in my mind.

Mandatory reading.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1...-bid-kid-adieu

Agree. Both are absolutely top-tier. Ted missed so much time to military service (prime years) that he likely would've reached 700 HRs in addition to the other incredible milestones listed above.

[Rhotchkiss]

The OP says “under appreciated in the hobby.” I take this to mean value. Assuming that’s the topic, I agree that they are (certainly) a tier below the ultimates. I also agree that’s partly bc of the timing of their careers and their non-inclusion in one or more of the hobby’s ultimate sets.

That said, between the two, I would put my money on Joe D over Ted because (1) he was a Yankee, (2) he has the consecutive hit game record that will never be beat, (3) he is a prominent lyric in a major Simon and Garfunkel song, and (4) he was married to Marilyn Monroe. In other words, there are real and meaningful reasons greater than their baseball career to remember Joe over Ted.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Both upper tier in my mind.

Mandatory reading.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1...-bid-kid-adieu

I agree. I value my 1941 Play Ball set with Williams and DiMaggio as much as my t206 and 1933 Goudey sets.

I think DiMaggio is hurt more than Williams by missing the 3 seasons due to WWII. Williams gets credit for the time he missed because he played longer than DiMaggio (17 seasons + 2 partial seasons to Joe's 13) and came close to milestones (521 HRs, 2654 hits, 1798 runs, 1839 RBIs). However, what is Joe's legacy if he plays those season and ends up with 11 Championships (most all time) and 4 or 5 MVPs? Joe was considered to better player at the time because he excelled in all phases of the game while Ted was clearly the better hitter. Today it seems like Joe is forgotten by a lot of people.

DiMaggio is also treated poorly by advanced metrics. DiMaggio hit . 325/.398/.579/.977 vs Mantle . 298/.421/.557/.977. You would think that the guy who hit for more power with a higher average would be more valued, but Mantle is credited with an OPS+ of 172 while DiMaggio only 155. So while Mantle took advantage of the short porch in RF at Yankee Stadium, DiMaggio lost hits and HRs in Yankee Stadium's spacious LF. That is ignored by OPS+ and WAR.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Richard Ben Cramer biography of DiMaggio did his reputation no favors either.

Then again, no one was singing Ted, Ted Williams, we want you on our side. Or, where have you gone, Ted Williams?

[REG1976]

1941 56 Game Hitting Streak

[Schlesinj]

Talked to a dealer today at Philly Show and he was wearing this:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brunswickreeves]

I’ve had this conversation with several in the hobby at shows over the years. Mantle had a way bigger market he payed in and won many World Series with NY, not to mention the dynasty he was a part of (in past and present), so his cards naturally followed in desirability with collectors. That said, I think William’s ‘48 Leaf is one of the single best and bad ass cards in the hobby.

[Leon]

Probably the rarest catalogued Dimaggio card (uniquely known) and possibly the ugliest too.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

DiMaggio and Williams were rather inaccessible to the public for different reasons. Sure, you could fork out your C-note and meet them at a show, but those few seconds weren't much in the way of accessibility.

DiMaggio was private and not a people person. This was true of him his entire life. While his caliber of play was endearing, his personality could never be.

Williams was crass, outspoken, and so ridiculously egotistical (DiMaggio had his own ego battles, but not in the same way). The press didn't really care for him and I'm sure a lot of that negative coverage seeped in to public perception.

Then, we compare to the popular guys:

Mantle could be crass, rude, grouchy and cantankerous, but his Jekyll and Hyde demeanor might also make him kind, hilarious, endearing and lovable. Yes, the later fans usually had to pay for the experience, but we have heard so many positive Mick stories as compared to Williams and Joe D. His injuries, pain and battle with the bottle made his mythos all that more human and relatable. While people could be impressed by Joe being married to Marylin, they could hardly relate to that on a personal level. Many could understand being hung over on a Sunday morning, doing something they might not really be wanting to do, be it playing 9 innings or hawking autographs to pay the bills.

Babe Ruth...no explanation needed. We all understand why, in spite of the fact that practically none of us were around to witness this ball of contradiction! Also, see the last sentence for Mantle above, then couple it with signing who knows how many autographs day in and day out, mostly for no pay at all! I was fortunate to know many who played with and against Babe; not a single one ever tired of talking about him, even decades after the fact. There has never been, nor will ever be, a more beloved player in history.

Lou Gehrig. He was kind, humble, and oh so human. The same players I knew who would go on at length about Babe didn't usually offer too much on Gehrig, other than he was a nice man to talk to and easy to be around. They weren't in awe of him, seemingly. My guess would be that it was due to his humility. Couple that genuine and decent personality with his career, then the disease which felled him, and you have a perpetual winner both in the hobby and the world at large. We all suffer tragedies; even the strongest and seemingly most unstoppable of us. This man's story will never fade away and is so sadly made personally relatable every time someone else is diagnosed with ALS.

I feel like accessibility and being relatable to the masses are the key takeaways. If you're so high on your mountain that you forget to pat the heads of the little people, they tend to turn to those that did.

[Jobu]

Ted, Joe, and Jimmie.

[Lucas00]

A snapshot I own. Definitely well loved by whoever took it.