Who are the most "over-valued" players

[darkhorse9]

Over-priced would have been a wrong word since price is determined by demand. But in that vein, what pre-war players generally come with a higher value than their actual accomplishments on the field.

Not saying they're bad player, but they cost more to acquire than similar talent players. I'm not talking about a single card either. This applies to all cards of that player.

My first thought is Hank Greenberg. He brings a significant premium over players like Charlie Gehringer or even Mel Ott. He legend as a Jewish player certainly aids demand. But based on skills alone he shouldn't be that much higher.

Notoriety always helps too. Moe Berg is valued high because of his "off the playing field" notoriety.

What other players bring an excess of premium to their cards?

[BobbyStrawberry]

The Black Sox players come to mind.

[packs]

Personally I think Greenberg is extremely undervalued. He has a career OPS over 1.000 and a career OPS+ of 159 while missing his monster prime years.

I think the 19th century HOFers in the Old Judge set are over valued. The OJ set will always have a wow factor because of its age and size, but the players just weren't very good all things considered. I can believe that Hoss Radbourn was the elite pitcher of his time, but anyone winning 60 games in a season isn't playing a game we would recognize.

[raulus]

The obvious answer has to start with the 2 most notorious and expensive cards in the hobby:

Wagner
Mantle

Allow me to run away now while everyone starts throwing stuff at me.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by raulus

The obvious answer has to start with the 2 most notorious and expensive cards in the hobby:

Wagner
Mantle

But are Honus Wagner cards that much more expensive across the board? Because there are very real scarcity issues when it comes to his infamous T206 card so that dramatically skews the average price comparison.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

But are Honus Wagner cards that much more expensive across the board? Because there are very real scarcity issues when it comes to his infamous T206 card so that dramatically skews the average price comparison.

Sure seems like it, particularly for Wagner’s portrait cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

But are Honus Wagner cards that much more expensive across the board? Because there are very real scarcity issues when it comes to his infamous T206 card so that dramatically skews the average price comparison.

Yes, and it's a decent argument that is also why even common T206's in decent shape are as expensive as they are today.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Roger Maris.
Tinker Evers Chance.
George Sisler.

[parkplace33]

Prewar HOFers who shouldn't be in the HOF. Lyons and Maranville come to mind.

[Balticfox]

Mickey Mantle. His cards are multiples the price of those of his contemporaries yet his talent was not.

[Snapolit1]

Sherry Mcgee.

Name means absolutely nothing to any baseball fan who is not on this board or a member the SABR Sherry Mcgee subcommittee, assuming there is such a thing.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Mickey Mantle. His cards are multiples the price of those of his contemporaries yet his talent was not.

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

The rest is history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[alywa]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Roger Maris.
Tinker Evers Chance.
George Sisler.

I agree on the first four, but for Sisler I think the market is probably right. There just aren't many Sislers, falling between the T & CJ eras and the Goudey cards. I only have one (below)

IMG_0747.jpg

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Tinker Evers Chance.

Agreed, and from a Cubs fan.

They are in because of the Franklin Adams poem. I mean Chance probably deserves it; good career and then was a manager as well - but the other two guys didn’t help turn more double plays necessarily than anyone else of their era. Tinker’s career batting average is .260 something?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Agreed, and from a Cubs fan.

They are in because of the Franklin Adams poem. I mean Chance probably deserves it; good career and then was a manager as well - but the other two guys didn’t help turn more double plays necessarily than anyone else of their era. Tinker’s career batting average is .260 something?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know this runs counter to the prevailing wisdom on this, but I actually think Bill James made a very interesting argument about this. Essentially he said that the point of playing baseball is to win the game. Which team won the most games in a season? The 1906 Chicago Cubs. Two seasons? 06-07 Cubs. Three seasons? 06-08 Cubs. All the way out to ten seasons, it's the 1904-1913 Chicago Cubs (I actually checked this - they won one more regular season game than the 1934-1943 Yankees). So no team in baseball history was better at winning games (in the regular season, at least). If you don't put in Tinker, Evers, and Chance, then the only HOFer from that team is Three Finger Brown. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So who do you put in? Tinker, Evers, and Chance were actually all really good players, both offensively and defensively. Maybe even better than the numbers show, because so much of their value was defensive. Their peak was at a time where the league ERA was about 3 and teams averaged about 1 unearned run per game. So if the Cubs only averaged .5 unearned runs per game, that is an enormous difference - far bigger than the impact defense has as a differentiator in today's game. And yes, they didn't turn an exceptional number of double plays, but with steals, bunts, and hit-and-runs, double plays just weren't as important a part of defense as they became later. So Tinker, Evers, and Chance may not be Tier 1 HOFers, but they are far from the weakest candidates, and they are not just in because of a poem.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Roger Maris.
Tinker Evers Chance.
George Sisler.

Are Roger Maris cards that much more expensive than those of comparable stars? Keep in mind that it did take 61 years for his single season home run mark to be legitimately broken.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Are Roger Maris cards that much more expensive than those of comparable stars? Keep in mind that it did take 61 years for his single season home run mark to be legitimately broken.

Absolutely. Look at his rookie card, for example. Compare his cards to Hank Sauer and Bob Allison, whose stats are similar to his according to Baseball Reference. He's basically valued as a high mid tier hall of famer, if not higher.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

The Black Sox players come to mind.

Harry Heilmann was at least as good as Joe Jackson. Basically, same average, but Harry had better power numbers. Both hit over .400 once. Harry played longer, compiled 2,499 hits, and had a noteworthy career as an announcer once his playing days were over.

Relative to each other, Jackson is way over-valued, and/or Heilmann is way undervalued.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Harry Heilmann was at least as good as Joe Jackson. Basically, same average, but Harry had better power numbers. Both hit over .400 once. Harry played longer, compiled 2,499 hits, and had a noteworthy career as an announcer once his playing days were over.

Relative to each other, Jackson is way over-valued, and/or Heilmann is way undervalued.

You wonder if he'd just been just Joe Jackson, and not Shoeless Joe Jackson, if he would have been quite so wildly popular in the hobby. I don't want to say he's overrated, but on the other hand,for whatever reason Heilmann never seems to have captured anyone's imagination.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You wonder if he'd just been just Joe Jackson, and not Shoeless Joe Jackson, if he would have been quite so wildly popular in the hobby. I don't want to say he's overrated, but on the other hand,for whatever reason Heilmann never seems to have captured anyone's imagination.

With a nickname of "Fully Outfitted", Harry "Fully Outfitted" Heilmann never had a chance against "Barefooted" Joe Jackson when it came to popularity.


Brian (not Harry's nickname, and I believe Joe Jackson might have been wearing socks in that one game that ended up making him "Shoeless")

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Harry Heilmann was at least as good as Joe Jackson. Basically, same average, but Harry had better power numbers. Both hit over .400 once. Harry played longer, compiled 2,499 hits, and had a noteworthy career as an announcer once his playing days were over.

Relative to each other, Jackson is way over-valued, and/or Heilmann is way undervalued.

Joe Jackson .356/.423/.517 OPS+ 170
Harry Heilmann .342/.410/.520 OPS+ 148

Those numbers aren't close. Heilmann having 3 points more in slugging doesn't mean he had more power than Jackson, he didn't. It means he played 10 years (1921-1930) in the "live ball era" after Jackson was banned from baseball.

Heilmann is undervalued, but Jackson is properly valued in my opinion.