Steve Carlton Rookie worth so little

[cgjackson222]

Does anyone know why Steve Carlton's Rookie is worth so little?

I mean a PSA 8 for well under a grand? It basically has the same value as a PSA 8 Luis Tiant Rookie from the same year.

Tiant was a great pitcher, but he's not in the hall of fame, and didn't win 4x Cy Youngs, including one of the greatest pitching seasons ever in 1972.
In '72 Carlton won the triple crown with a sub 2 ERA, 30 complete games, 310 strikeouts and 27 Wins. His WAR was 12.1 one of the highest single seasons ever.

I realize there are 4x as many PSA 8 Carlton's as Tiants, but I would assume that is because a much higher percetage of Carlton's are graded.

I guess it also has to do with the dreaded two person rookie card. Tiant was on his own card, and Carlton was not.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Does anyone know why Steve Carlton's Rookie is worth so little?

I mean a PSA 8 for well under a grand? It basically has the same value as a PSA 8 Luis Tiant Rookie from the same year.

Tiant was a great pitcher, but he's not in the hall of fame, and didn't win 4x Cy Youngs, including one of the greatest pitching seasons ever in 1972.
In '72 Carlton won the triple crown with a sub 2 ERA, 30 complete games, 310 strikeouts and 27 Wins. His WAR was 12.1 one of the highest single seasons ever.

I don't understand it.

Me, either. I'm not complaining, though. I was able to pick this up for a song.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I have discussed this with a collecting friend fairly often. It mystifies us as well. Carlton is a bargain. It seems Nolan Ryan gets nearly 100% of the hobby attention for pitchers of that era. Like you, however, I appreciate the bargains.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Cliff Bowman]

By no means the biggest reason but I always thought that Carlton, like Frank Robinson, was hurt by being known as unfriendly and unaccommodating to the fans and the media while he was playing.

[midmo]

In the mid 90's when I moved to Missouri I had a roommate that was a Cardinals fan but not a card collector. We were watching a game and the guys on tv mentioned Carlton and my roomie said he never heard of him. I was confused and asked him about some other contemporaries (like Ryan, Seaver, Brett, Bench, etc) and he knew all them but swore he didn't know Steve Carlton. I don't know if that was a weird anomaly or if Carlton doesn't quite have the same name recognition that other stars of his era have. Nolan Ryan is a name even young/new collectors know.

[ALR-bishop]

The Cardinals unfortunately thought he was worth Rick Wise

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

By no means the biggest reason but I always thought that Carlton, like Frank Robinson, was hurt by being known as unfriendly and unaccommodating to the fans and the media while he was playing.

I agree with your thoughts on Carlton, it may be a bigger reason than you first thought. FRobby's RC in PSA 8 is a $4K card and a 7 is worth more than Carlton's 8.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Does anyone know why Steve Carlton's Rookie is worth so little?

I mean a PSA 8 for well under a grand? It basically has the same value as a PSA 8 Luis Tiant Rookie from the same year.

Tiant was a great pitcher, but he's not in the hall of fame, and didn't win 4x Cy Youngs, including one of the greatest pitching seasons ever in 1972.
In '72 Carlton won the triple crown with a sub 2 ERA, 30 complete games, 310 strikeouts and 27 Wins. His WAR was 12.1 one of the highest single seasons ever.

I realize there are 4x as many PSA 8 Carlton's as Tiants, but I would assume that is because a much higher percetage of Carlton's are graded.

I guess it also has to do with the dreaded two person rookie card. Tiant was on his own card, and Carlton was not.

The last two sales on Carlton RC in PSA 7, 475 and 540. Tiant in PSA 7 is a 100.00 card.

I think Carlton pitching too long also hurts the value of his card. A lot of collectors remember the 1985-1988 Carlton and not the 1972-1982 Carlton. In the earlier days of the hobby, it was definitely priced stronger versus other superstar rookie cards. It used to be the key card in the 1965 Topps set. Now it is behind base cards of Mantle, Mays, Clemente, Koufax, Aaron and Rose as well as the Morgan RC.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by rats60

The last two sales on Carlton RC in PSA 7, 475 and 540. Tiant in PSA 7 is a 100.00 card.

I think Carlton pitching too long also hurts the value of his card. A lot of collectors remember the 1985-1988 Carlton and not the 1972-1982 Carlton. In the earlier days of the hobby, it was definitely priced stronger versus other superstar rookie cards. It used to be the key card in the 1965 Topps set. Now it is behind base cards of Mantle, Mays, Clemente, Koufax, Aaron and Rose as well as the Morgan RC.

Not sure if you noticed, but I was talking about PSA 8, not PSA 7 for the Luis Tiant vs. Steve Carlton comparison.

If you look at sold items on ebay's website (not PSA's, which lags by a few months) you will see a Luis Tiant PSA 8 sold for $796 on December 1st.

Meanwhile, a PSA 8 Carlton #477 sold for $777 on December 13th.

The fact that Tiant is remotely close to Carlton in price is surprising to me, no offense to the great Luis Tiant.

[Rad_Hazard]

I never understood why his cards were always so cheap either. One of the greatest LHP of all time.

My first introduction to him was 1994 in the throws of my newly found baseball and card addiction. It was this interview called "Thin Mountain Air"...

https://deadspin.com/thin-air-in-the...d-co-478492324

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not sure if you noticed, but I was talking about PSA 8, not PSA 7 for the Luis Tiant vs. Steve Carlton comparison.

If you look at sold items on ebay's website (not PSA's, which lags by a few months) you will see a Luis Tiant PSA 8 sold for $796 on December 1st.

Meanwhile, a PSA 8 Carlton #477 sold for $777 on December 13th.

The fact that Tiant is remotely close to Carlton in price is surprising to me, no offense to the great Luis Tiant.

I did, but one sale doesn't mean the cards are close in value. A PSA 8 Tiant sold for $305 on 10/18/2022 too. If you look at prices for other grades 5,6,7,9 & 10 the most recent sales of Carlton and Tiant have Carlton's RCs selling for multiples of Tiant's.

As far as Tiant, he has been on recent Veteran's Committee Ballots and is a possible future Hall of Famer. With Jim Kaat and Jack Morris making it, it seems like only a matter of time before Tiant does too.

[raulus]

Just be glad that you can pick it up for cheap!

It used to annoy me to high heaven that my man Willie Mays got no respect compared to Mantle.

Now that Mays' cards are closer in price to Mantle's, I'm wishing for the good old days!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by rats60

I did, but one sale doesn't mean the cards are close in value. A PSA 8 Tiant sold for $305 on 10/18/2022 too. If you look at prices for other grades 5,6,7,9 & 10 the most recent sales of Carlton and Tiant have Carlton's RCs selling for multiples of Tiant's.

As far as Tiant, he has been on recent Veteran's Committee Ballots and is a possible future Hall of Famer. With Jim Kaat and Jack Morris making it, it seems like only a matter of time before Tiant does too.

Yeah, its not just one sale. A '65 Tiant PSA sold for $756 on December 10th, and if you look on 130point.com or any other website showing best offer sales on ebay, another sold for $700 on November 25th.

As for the $305 sale you site. That was actually on 10/18/2021, not this year.
https://www.psacard.com/auctionprice...ues/185553#g=8

I agree with you Luis Tiant will be in the Hall of Fame some day. But he is not on any ballot that is being voted on any time soon. And he is not Steve Carlton good.

[jchcollins]

You can basically blame it on the rule that baseball greatness does not always equal baseball card greatness.

Vintage pitchers are at a disadvantage to start with in terms of card popularity, because the hitters are always so much more popular. Add to that the strange and unspoken rule since about the year 2000 that people don't want to celebrate pitchers so much for preventing runs and winning ballgames, but only for the sexy things like striking out a lot of batters and accumulating a record number of no-hitters. (Remember that even for Nolan Ryan, the number of no-hitters he threw in comparison to the total rest of his career represents a scant fraction of his innings on a major league mound...) The result is that the Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax cards remained valuable, and a lot of other pitchers who were top tier HOF'ers in their day are largely forgotten about - at least besides their rookie cards. I think Carlton falls into that category. As others have pointed out, his unwillingness to cooperate with the media after about 1973 probably also has something to do with his image taking a beating, and then he was the classic example of a pitcher in his 40's who hung around too long after he had pretty much lost his stuff. Still, that is no excuse to me today for a kid who wasn't even alive in the 1970's or 80's being able to quote Nolan Ryan stats to you - yet they have never heard of Carlton and his '72 season, or can't tell you anything about Tom Seaver or Jim Palmer. Just doesn't add up. But I guess that is the way society has gone now.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

You can basically blame it on the rule that baseball greatness does not always equal baseball card greatness.

Vintage pitchers are at a disadvantage to start with in terms of card popularity, because the hitters are always so much more popular. Add to that the strange and unspoken rule since about the year 2000 that people don't want to celebrate pitchers so much for preventing runs and winning ballgames, but only for the sexy things like striking out a lot of batters and accumulating a record number of no-hitters. (Remember that even for Nolan Ryan, the number of no-hitters he threw in comparison to the total rest of his career represents a scant fraction of his innings on a major league mound...) The result is that the Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax cards remained valuable, and a lot of other pitchers who were top tier HOF'ers in their day are largely forgotten about - at least besides their rookie cards. I think Carlton falls into that category. As others have pointed out, his unwillingness to cooperate with the media after about 1973 probably also has something to do with his image taking a beating, and then he was the classic example of a pitcher in his 40's who hung around too long after he had basically lost his stuff. Still, that is no excuse to me today for a kid who wasn't even alive in the 1970's or 80's being able to quote Nolan Ryan stats to you - yet they have never heard of Carlton and his '72 season, or can't tell you anything about Tom Seaver or Jim Palmer. Just doesn't add up. But I guess that is the way society has gone now.

As a kid in the early 90's I can tell you that I was obsessed with baseball stats and record books and knew all the stats, and I knew of Carlton, despite this being the early 90's and Nolan was dominating the headlines. His no-hitters and fight with Ventura were absolutely legendary. As someone who grew up in the 90's, my favorite players are by far Nolan Ryan, Bo Jackson, Ken Griffey Jr., and Frank Thomas. No one else came close. I know that Carlton was great, but to me Nolan is legendary.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

As a kid in the early 90's I can tell you that I was obsessed with baseball stats and record books and knew all the stats, and I knew of Carlton, despite this being the early 90's and Nolan was dominating the headlines. His no-hitters and fight with Ventura were absolutely legendary. As someone who grew up in the 90's, my favorite players are by far Nolan Ryan, Bo Jackson, Ken Griffey Jr., and Frank Thomas. No one else came close. I know that Carlton was great, but to me Nolan is legendary.

Don't get me wrong, Nolan was my favorite pitcher growing up too. His RC is one of my most prized possessions, having been a child of the 80's and 90's - and always will be. But look at it without the bias of your era. Carlton is only great, but Ryan is legendary? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Carlton won 4 Cy Young Awards, Ryan 0. He won 20 games 6x to Ryan's twice (Palmer did it 8 times). Who helped their team win ballgames to a greater extent in their prime? It's not even a contest.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Don't get me wrong, Nolan was my favorite pitcher growing up too. His RC is one of my most prized possessions, having been a child of the 80's and 90's - and always will be. But look at it without the bias of your era. Carlton is only great, but Ryan is legendary? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Carlton won 4 Cy Young Awards, Ryan 0. He won 20 games 6x to Ryan's twice (Palmer did it 8 times). Who helped their team win ballgames to a greater extent in their prime? It's not even a contest.

When I was a new baseball card collector, I had a friend who told me I shouldn't waste my time collecting Nolan Ryan cards because he would never be considered a great pitcher or make "The Hall" because all he did was get a lot of strikeouts. He had never been a 20 game winner, and would be considered a common by the time he retired. I stupidly listened to him.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Don't get me wrong, Nolan was my favorite pitcher growing up too. His RC is one of my most prized possessions, having been a child of the 80's and 90's - and always will be. But look at it without the bias of your era. Carlton is only great, but Ryan is legendary? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Carlton won 4 Cy Young Awards, Ryan 0. He won 20 games 6x to Ryan's twice (Palmer did it 8 times). Who helped their team win ballgames to a greater extent in their prime? It's not even a contest.

That's just my view of it in the lens of who I grew up watching. Nolan definitely has legendary status much like Bo Jackson. They are folk heroes in my eyes.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

That's just my view of it in the lens of who I grew up watching. Nolan definitely has legendary status much like Bo Jackson. They are folk heroes in my eyes.

I get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

When I was a new baseball card collector, I had a friend who told me I shouldn't waste my time collecting Nolan Ryan cards because he would never be considered a great pitcher or make "The Hall" because all he did was get a lot of strikeouts. He had never been a 20 game winner, and would be considered a common by the time he retired. I stupidly listened to him.

Damn, that's some bad advice.

There are 748 1968 Ryan/Koosman PSA 8 Rookies. They sell for $6K or so.

There are 1,136 1965 Ackley/Carlton PSA Rookies. They sell of ~$750.

That's a big premium.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

When I was a new baseball card collector, I had a friend who told me I shouldn't waste my time collecting Nolan Ryan cards because he would never be considered a great pitcher or make "The Hall" because all he did was get a lot of strikeouts. He had never been a 20 game winner, and would be considered a common by the time he retired. I stupidly listened to him.

I started collecting in 1986, buying the Topps packs at the grocery store. At the time, Ryan was of course a known commodity and a star player, but I would not have considered him a superstar, or among the very elite pitchers of the game. The speed was of course impressive, but he was inconsistent. He might pitch a one-hit shutout one night, and then give up 6 runs and lose in his next start. All that started to change for Nolan along about 1988-89, when he went to the Texas Rangers and everyone suddenly realized the precipice of all the records he was on the verge of passing - 5,000K's, 300 wins, and then of course by the time he unexpectedly added two more no-hitters for the Rangers, he was a God. His '68 Topps RC - which had been perhaps a $250 card in nice shape in 1988 - was suddenly worth well over a grand in 1992.

My point is not that Ryan is not a fantastic or even legendary pitcher, so much as it is just to point out that he's more noteworthy for how freakishly unique he is. The strikeout and no-hitter records will not ever be seriously approached, let alone equaled again. But remember at the end of the day those things alone don't win ballgames or lift teams. Ryan to me would make a super interesting study of how he was regarded over time. He may have been legendary in the 1990's on - but for the prime of his career in the 70's and early 80's you could generally make the argument that he wasn't even consistently among the top 3-4 pitchers in baseball.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I started collecting in 1986, buying the Topps packs at the grocery store. At the time, Ryan was of course a known commodity and a star player, but I would not have considered him a superstar, or among the very elite pitchers of the game. The speed was of course impressive, but he was inconsistent. He might pitch a one-hit shutout one night, and then give up 6 runs and lose in his next start. All that started to change for Nolan along about 1988-89, when he went to the Texas Rangers and everyone suddenly realized the precipice of all the records he was on the verge of passing - 5,000K's, 300 wins, and then of course by the time he unexpectedly added two more no-hitters for the Rangers, he was a God. His '68 Topps RC - which had been perhaps a $250 card in nice shape in 1988 - was suddenly worth well over a grand in 1992.

My point is not that Ryan is not a fantastic or even legendary pitcher, so much as it is just to point out that he's more noteworthy for how freakishly unique he is. The strikeout and no-hitter records will not ever be seriously approached, let alone equaled again. But remember at the end of the day those things alone don't win ballgames or lift teams. Ryan to me would make a super interesting study of how he was regarded over time. He may have been legendary in the 1990's on - but for the prime of his career in the 70's and early 80's you could generally make the argument that he wasn't even consistently among the top 3-4 pitchers in baseball.

I agree with everything you said (only difference is I started collecting in '87 not '86).

Ryan never won a Cy Young, but he did finish in the top 5 six times. He got is his first Cy Young votes when he was 25 and amazingly finished 5th when he was 42.

One thing I did not know is that he holds the all time record for fewest hits allowed per 9 innings at 6.6 He let up 3,923 hits in his career and walked 2,795 which is of course also a record.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I agree with everything you said (only difference is I started collecting in '87 not '86).

Ryan never won a Cy Young, but he did finish in the top 5 six times. He got is his first Cy Young votes when he was 25 and amazingly finished 5th when he was 42.

One thing I did not know is that he holds the all time record for fewest hits allowed per 9 innings at 6.6 He let up 3,923 hits in his career and walked 2,795 which is of course also a record.

Yeah, the fewest hits allowed stat is impressive until it dawns on you that doesn't speak to walks. If you look instead at total men allowed on base vs. men that got hits off of him, the figure quickly loses its luster.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yeah, the fewest hits allowed stat is impressive until it dawns on you that doesn't speak to walks. If you look instead at total men allowed on base vs. men that got hits off of him, the figure quickly loses its luster.

There are some interesting characters on the fewest hits per 9 innings list. I would expect Koufax at # 2 on the list, but Sid Fernandez at #4????

Also, nice to see Babe Ruth at #16 on the list.

On the all time WHIP list, Nolan Ryan ranks 307th with a 1.2473. Guess who ranks just ahead of him? Steve Carlton at 1.2467

I would have thought Carlton would have fared better.

[ALBB]

Yea, at one time that Carlton rookie was a key to the set..back then I recall Morgan rookie and Hunter rookie was valued much lower the the Carlton

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ALBB

Yea, at one time that Carlton rookie was a key to the set..back then I recall Morgan rookie and Hunter rookie was valued much lower the the Carlton

It's funny to look back - I have several old issues of "Baseball Cards" Magazine, the Krause publication when I think Bob Lemke was at the helm. One is from 1981, and the other 1985. In at least the '85 guide, the Carlton RC is valued higher than almost any card in the set - including like Mantle, Mays, Koufax etc. I think Carlton was listed at $85 and Mantle $22, or something. Boy have things changed there. It just gives you some insight into the higher regard Carlton was held in then.

Same with the '71 set - all through the 80's - the Steve Garvey RC was the money card there. While I think you could argue that card is still a key to the set, it's had quite a fall from the #1 position in the set over the last 20-30 years.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I would have thought Carlton would have fared better.

Carlton would have fared better had he hung it up when the Phillies released him instead of bopping around a few more AL teams for 2 more years. If you buy what you read, he had an agent that basically fleeced him and he needed the money.

[Kutcher55]

There are legit reasons why Ryan's RC should be worth considerably more than Carlton's. Ryan is the K king, and he did it with style. 7 no-hitters. He's also become almost an iconic symbol associated with Texas tough. He's also more handsome and personable than Carlton ever was.

Relative to his accomplishments, the Carlton RC is undervalued. I would put him in the Frank Robinson camp in terms of that. Also, it's not a particularly attractive RC despite it coming from an attractive set. I think it's possible the Fritz Ackley unibrow also has a detrimental impact on the value.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

You can basically blame it on the rule that baseball greatness does not always equal baseball card greatness.

Vintage pitchers are at a disadvantage to start with in terms of card popularity, because the hitters are always so much more popular. Add to that the strange and unspoken rule since about the year 2000 that people don't want to celebrate pitchers so much for preventing runs and winning ballgames, but only for the sexy things like striking out a lot of batters and accumulating a record number of no-hitters. (Remember that even for Nolan Ryan, the number of no-hitters he threw in comparison to the total rest of his career represents a scant fraction of his innings on a major league mound...) The result is that the Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax cards remained valuable, and a lot of other pitchers who were top tier HOF'ers in their day are largely forgotten about - at least besides their rookie cards. I think Carlton falls into that category. As others have pointed out, his unwillingness to cooperate with the media after about 1973 probably also has something to do with his image taking a beating, and then he was the classic example of a pitcher in his 40's who hung around too long after he had pretty much lost his stuff. Still, that is no excuse to me today for a kid who wasn't even alive in the 1970's or 80's being able to quote Nolan Ryan stats to you - yet they have never heard of Carlton and his '72 season, or can't tell you anything about Tom Seaver or Jim Palmer. Just doesn't add up. But I guess that is the way society has gone now.

Absolutely true about vintage pitchers being at a disadvantage. They are faced with an often extreme, modern bias, brought on a lot by modern statistics, and how the game is now played in regard to pitchers. Younger people only know starting pitchers typically going 5-6-7 innings in MLB games, and everyone worrying about pitch counts, strike outs, and the like. As statistician's and the like keep touting today, wins are not that important a factor in looking at and determining how good a pitcher really is in the modern game. But older, vintage pitchers were much more likely to be pitching in the games they started till the very end. As a result, their impact on the eventual outcome of those games was hugely increased over what it is for modern pitchers. But because the younger generation only truly know and see how the game is played today in regard to pitchers, they can't really get beyond thinking like that in terms of all MLB pitchers, regardless of when they pitched. They honestly don't know any better.

I still laugh out loud whenever I remember a comment I got on here once from a long since blocked/ignored member, claiming that Hyun-Jin Ryu is a so much better pitcher than Warren Spahn could have ever hoped to be, and that it wasn't even close how much better Ryu supposedly was. Last I looked, Ryu has now completed 9 seasons of MLB pitching, and has a 75-45 record, with a cumulative 3.27 ERA and a cumulative career WAR of 19.5, over 1003.1 innings pitched. Meanwhile, over his first nine seasons pitching in MLB, Spahn had a record of 145-98, with a cumulative ERA of approximately 2.93 to go along with a cumulative WAR of about 49.8, over 2149.2 innings pitched. And then over the last 14 years of his career, Spahn added another 218 wins, and 50.3 WAR. Ryu for the 2022 season had a 2-0 record, but with a WAR of -0.3. Something tells me to not put any money on Ryu and expect him to have anywhere near the success over the rest of his career like Spahn had. Ryu is going to be turning 36 this coming March, and I don't see him improving much more at this age.

And probably the most stunning difference between the two pitchers is that in the 174 games Ryu has started in career, he has only 4 complete games, and only 3 shutouts. Meanwhile, Spahn in his first nine seasons has 268 starts, of which 166 ended up being complete games, and 32 of those were shutouts. Oh, and Spahn also had 12 saves during his first nine seasons, to Ryu's only 1 save, so he helped his team as more than just a starter when called upon.

These modern statistician types keep saying how starting pitchers are not all that consequential when it comes to wins, which makes perfect sense for someone like Ryu who only completed about 2% of the games he ever started, and only averages about 5-6 innings pitched per start. Meanwhile, over his first nine seasons Spahn completed about 62% of the games he started, while averaging around 8 innings pitched per game. I think Warren had a little bit more to do with all those wins his teams had, and is probably worthy of a bit more credit for all his wins than someone like Ryu could ever hope for. Just saying!

[stlcardsfan]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

The Cardinals unfortunately thought he was worth Rick Wise

Al, as I’m sure you remember he ticked off Gussie Busch by asking for $60,000 a year or something to that effect. It was a shame as the Cardinals might have won a couple NL East division titles in the 70s with Carlton in the mix.

[ALBB]

Same with the '71 set - all through the 80's - the Steve Garvey RC was the money card there. While I think you could argue that card is still a key to the set, it's had quite a fall from the #1 position in the set over the last 20-30 years.
__________________

yea, those years from early 70s to late 70s were often ignited by the first wave of the ' rookie craze" ..
it seemed collectors tried to "outsmart each other/ beat others to the punch" .. with the rookies, and started relying on the monthly price guides ..and jumping on the 69 Bonds, 71 Blyleven, 73 Boone,74 Parker, etc... in hopes of getting in on the " ground floor" of some lesser know rookie cards

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by ALBB

Same with the '71 set - all through the 80's - the Steve Garvey RC was the money card there. While I think you could argue that card is still a key to the set, it's had quite a fall from the #1 position in the set over the last 20-30 years.
__________________

yea, those years from early 70s to late 70s were often ignited by the first wave of the ' rookie craze" ..
it seemed collectors tried to "outsmart each other/ beat others to the punch" .. with the rookies, and started relying on the monthly price guides ..and jumping on the 69 Bonds, 71 Blyleven, 73 Boone,74 Parker, etc... in hopes of getting in on the " ground floor" of some lesser know rookie cards

That is an interesting factoid about the '71 Garvey. At this point, the guy seems a little underrated. He falls short on numbers and WAR but he was a clutch player who rose to the occasion made the all star team 8 years in a row when it meant something to be an all-star. He might be the ultimate case for WAR being a flawed metric since his 38.0 seems to exclude him but hell the guy smells like a HOFer for anyone who followed the game back then.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

I never understood why his cards were always so cheap either. One of the greatest LHP of all time.

My first introduction to him was 1994 in the throws of my newly found baseball and card addiction. It was this interview called "Thin Mountain Air"...

https://deadspin.com/thin-air-in-the...d-co-478492324

Holy Moly, Carlton is a nutjob. While it doesn't diminish his pitching career, it certainly can't help his collectability. Wow.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Holy Moly, Carlton is a nutjob. While it doesn't diminish his pitching career, it certainly can't help his collectability. Wow.

He definitely marched to the beat of his own drummer.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

He falls short on numbers and WAR but he was a clutch player who rose to the occasion made the all star team 8 years in a row when it meant something to be an all-star. He might be the ultimate case for WAR being a flawed metric since his 38.0 seems to exclude him but hell the guy smells like a HOFer for anyone who followed the game back then.

IMO, Garvey is not in the HOF because he's a first baseman with less than 300 career home runs. The writers want all first basemen in the Hall to have numbers looking like Lou Gehrig or Willie McCovey. Then Garvey had some personal scandal in the mid-80's, which tarnished his golden boy image. I think the combination of those things killed it for the writers, and now he's not in simply because the various iterations of the VC are always so hit or miss. I think he belongs in because he was arguably the best at his position in his league for the better part of a decade. But yes, low WAR, and not a great OBP either.