Hank Aaron card values

[JoeyFarino]

Always wondered why his card values arent up there with mays, mantle or williams. Hank was such a great player it just seems like his cards after 1954 are fairly cheap compared to the other mentioned players. What factors do u think play into that?

[RaidonCollects]

I think Hank cards have room for improvement, as his '54 Topps card has only just exploded in value (in the past year or two). I think his other early cards will grow in value very soon, and his other cards will follow.

~Owen

[Vintagevault13]

I am an Aaron collector so I am glad his card values are a little lower , but I agree with Owen that this will change. Playing in smaller markets (60's & 70's Milwaukee/Atlanta) definitely contributed to this. I believe many are just now beginning to appreciate the totality of his records. Due to his HR record, many of his other feats have been largely ignored. He was an all-around excellent hitter that also hit for a consistent average.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Always wondered why his card values arent up there with mays, mantle or williams. Hank was such a great player it just seems like his cards after 1954 are fairly cheap compared to the other mentioned players. What factors do u think play into that?

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I strongly disagree with that.

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

Actually he had more home runs and base hits then any of those. Looking at Career stats Aaron's overall numbers arguably could be the best ever (Bonds and Ruth are right up there as well) Mind you he was a different type of hitter than Ty Cobb etc.

[Volod]

If Henry had played in NY, his cards would no doubt be priced above Willie's, but not Mantle's, though, for obvious, if deplorable, reasons.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by Volod

If Henry had played in NY, his cards would no doubt be priced above Willie's, but not Mantle's, though, for obvious, if deplorable, reasons.

That one's favorite player is white isn't necessarily "deplorable." I think the issue of race when pricing a Baseball card is way overblown.

1. Mantle is one of the 2 or 3 most iconic Baseball players of all-time and his cards are priced accordingly (he's certainly the most iconic in our hobby).
2. Eddie Mathews' stats are much better than Jackie Robinson's. Jackie is in great demand because he is iconic while Eddie is boring.
3. There is greater demand for Bob Gibson cards than there is for guys like Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, even Tom Seaver. Gibson wasn't better than those guys. He is more iconic. Nobody cares that he is black.
4. Satchel Paige was a journeyman Major League pitcher who's cards sell for much more than Bob Feller (an upper-tier HoFer). Why?
5. If that black/white stuff was real, there would be a greater demand for Yogi cards than for Campanella cards. There isn't.
6. Roberto Clemente cards sell for much more money than a comparible player of his accomplishments (and Roberto has the double whammy, black and hispanic). Al Kaline is an exact (white) contemporary (same stats; same years; same fielding prowess; neither played in NY...). Which cards are in greater demand? If race was an issue, Kaline cards would be through the roof while Roberto's would be priced with the mid-tier guys.

It's not like the price guide guys subtract 20% for blackness. Cards are priced based on demand. Iconic players are in more demand than non iconic players. There are pleanty of iconic black players, many of them more iconic than comparable white players.

[campyfan39]

A thought I had is that Hank isn't as beloved for whatever reason as those other guys. His personality since retirement (talking about race so much and being unfriendly at card shows) may have something to do with it.
His accomplishments are amazing regardless.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

That one's favorite player is white isn't necessarily "deplorable." I think the issue of race when pricing a Baseball card is way overblown.

1. Mantle is one of the 2 or 3 most iconic Baseball players of all-time and his cards are priced accordingly (he's certainly the most iconic in our hobby).
2. Eddie Mathews' stats are much better than Jackie Robinson's. Jackie is in great demand because he is iconic while Eddie is boring.
3. There is greater demand for Bob Gibson cards than there is for guys like Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, even Tom Seaver. Gibson wasn't better than those guys. He is more iconic. Nobody cares that he is black.
4. Satchel Paige was a journeyman Major League pitcher who's cards sell for much more than Bob Feller (an upper-tier HoFer). Why?
5. If that black/white stuff was real, there would be a greater demand for Yogi cards than for Campanella cards. There isn't.
6. Roberto Clemente cards sell for much more money than a comparible player of his accomplishments (and Roberto has the double whammy, black and hispanic). Al Kaline is an exact (white) contemporary (same stats; same years; same fielding prowess; neither played in NY...). Which cards are in greater demand? If race was an issue, Kaline cards would be through the roof while Roberto's would be priced with the mid-tier guys.

It's not like the price guide guys subtract 20% for blackness. Cards are priced based on demand. Iconic players are in more demand than non iconic players. There are pleanty of iconic black players, many of them more iconic than comparable white players.

Sorry for any confusion. My comment was strictly in reference to a comparison of Aaron's card values to those of Mantle. It was intended to be limited to that particular consideration and, of course, was not meant to be applied across sports generally, nor to any other players or their cards. What I meant was that the application of such factors as race in card value is deplorable. I think it takes more than a little twisting to suggest that I was deploring the skin color of someone's favorite player.

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by tjenkins

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

Agreed! The numbers don't lie, the 3771 Career Hits and the 755 Home Runs are HUGE!

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by jasonc

Agreed! The numbers don't lie, the 3771 Career Hits and the 755 Home Runs are HUGE!

I know right, not to mention that he is the all time RBI Leader. I really think anyone who thinks he was not as good or better than any MLB player is being ignorant.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by tjenkins

I know right, not to mention that he is the all time RBI Leader. I really think anyone who thinks he was not as good or better than any MLB player is being ignorant.

Exactly...well said!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by tjenkins

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by rats60

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

If youre really questioning Hank Aaron's ability and accomplishments then maybe you and google need to hang out..lol. Hank Aaron is one of the best hands down

[begsu1013]

hank aaron is not the cards you are looking for.

move along. move along.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by rats60

If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

What year did they do that? I was curious about ball park dimensions for Ruth, Aaron, Williams, Mays, and Clemente so I looked them up. I know they fluctuated year to year. So what year exactly did the Braves move in the fences for Aaron?

Yankee Stadium Right Field 314 Right Center 385
Atlanta Fulton County Stadium Left field – 330, Left-Center – 385
Milwaukee County Stadium Left Field – 315, left Center 392
Fenway Park Right Field: 302, Right Center 380
Candlestick Park Left Field 335, Left Center 365
Polo Grounds dimensions Left Field 279 Ft, Left-Center 450
Forbes Field Left Field 365, Left Center 406
Three Rivers Stadium dimensions Left Field — 335, Left-Center — 375

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

Jesus, seriously?

You know the Red Sox did the same thing, moving the right field wall in 23 feet so Ted Williams could hit more home runs...right?

Three years later, sweet-swinging Ted Williams, a dead-pull left-handed hitter, came to Boston. The following year, 1940, bullpens were constructed in right field to bring the fence 23 feet closer to home plate for Williams. The new bullpens appropriately became known as Williamsburg.

Welp, I guess Williams couldn't have been that great if the Red Sox had to bring the right field wall in for him. Never mind that Hank Aaron hit nearly as many home runs on the road (370) as he did at home (385), or that he actually had a higher average on the road (.306) than he did at home (.303), or that he drove in more runs on the road (1,180) than he did at home (1,117). Yup, Hank Aaron was a product of where he played his home games. Oh wait, no he wasn't.

"He was a compiler". Huh, I thought being an elite hitter for twenty plus years was an accomplishment in and of itself. "Sorry, Hank. Didn't you know? You were supposed to hit 100 home runs in two years like Maris, and then disappear from the game a few years later, instead of being an All Star 24 times, while having eight 40 home run seasons, and fifteen thirty home run seasons." Sorry, Hank, somebody isn't impressed that you averaged 100 RBI a season for nearly a quarter century. Sorry, Hank. You're a compiler. That's why you're the all-time leader in RBIs. It has nothing to do with the fact that you were a career .323 hitter with runners in scoring position (3,564 plate appearances with RISP), or that you had a career .992 OPS with RISP.

Back to WAR for just a second. A WAR of 8 + in one season is considered an MVP-caliber season. Know how many seasons Mickey Mantle had a WAR of 8 or higher? Five. Know how many seasons Ted Williams had a WAR of 8 or higher? Seven.

Know how many seasons Hank Aaron had with a WAR of 8 or higher? Eight. Hank Aaron had one more MVP caliber season than Ted Williams, and three more MVP caliber seasons than Ted Williams. Babe Ruth only had four more MVP caliber seasons than Hank Aaron. WAR is an imperfect metric. Mickey Mantle won the American League MVP in 1962 with a WAR of 5.9. Meanwhile, Hank Aaron with a WAR of 9.4 in 1961 finished eighth in the MVP vote. When he had a 9.1 WAR in 1963, he finished third in the MVP. In 1962, his WAR was 8.5, a full two and a half points higher than Mickey Mantle's total in the AL, and Mantle won the MVP while Aaron finished sixth in the MVP.

Know what Aaron's average WAR was between ages 21 and 40? Between 1955 and 1973--19 seasons. Aaron had an annual average WAR of 7.3. Remember, an 8 WAR is MVP level. Aaron played at a near MVP level for two decades. In other words, cherry picking one metric isn't the best way to prove a spurious assertion.

Break it down comparatively:

Mantle's best four seasons: 11.3, 11.2, 10.5, 9.5.

All better than any individual season from Aaron. But then look at the best seasons from either player. A pattern emerges:

9.4, Hank Aaron, 1961
9.1, Hank Aaron, 1963
8.7, Mickey Mantle, 1958
8.5, Hank Aaron, 1962
8.5, Hank Aaron, 1967
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1957
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1960
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1969
7.8, Hank Aaron, 1965
7.8, Hank Aaron, 1966
7.3, Hank Aaron, 1958
7.2, Hank Aaron, 1971
7.1, Hank Aaron, 1956
6.9, Mickey Mantle, 1954

Though Mickey Mantle has the best four seasons, of the next thirteen best individual WAR seasons, Mickey Mantle only has one of them. One. By "WAR", with 8.0 + being an MVP season, Mickey Mantle had five truly great seasons, while Aaron had eight truly great seasons. After 1962, Mantle only had one season with so much as a 4.0 WAR. Aaron had seven seasons ahead of him with a 7.0 + WAR, including a 7.2 WAR in 1971 where Aaron hit .327 with 47 home runs and 118 RBI at age 37. Mantle was already out of the game by then. Aaron would hit 34 homers the next year at age 38, and 40 the next year at age 39.


How's this for a peak:

Between 1957 and 1963, Aaron's 162 game averages:

.323 AVG, 122 runs, 207 hits, 34 doubles, 8 triples, 42 home runs, 129 RBI, 15 stolen bases, 65 walks, 69 strike outs. Slash line of .383 OBP/.593 SLG/.975 OPS. A 167 OPS +.

Only Babe Ruth (11) has more 40 home run seasons than Aaron's eight.

Hank Aaron was in the top five in the league in runs created thirteen times. He averaged 100 RBI (actual, not on a 162 game basis) for twenty-three years!

How about the actual Hall of Fame ballots go? How many ballot-holders voted for these guys to be elected to the Hall of Fame?

Mickey Mantle: 322/365 88.2%
Ted Williams: 282/302 93.4%
Willie Mays: 409/432 94.7%
Babe Ruth: 215/226 95.1%

Hank Aaron: 406/415 97.8%

If you can't see that Hank Aaron is one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game, then I'm not going to even waste any more of my time on you. But suffice to say, you are wrong.

[the 'stache]

By the way, in January, ESPN's baseball writers ranked their best baseball players of all-time.

They had Hank Aaron fifth, ahead of Cobb and Mantle, behind only Ruth, Mays, Bonds and Williams.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Break it down comparatively:

Mantle's best four seasons: 11.3, 11.2, 10.5, 9.5

All better than any individual season from Aaron.

If you can't see that Hank Aaron is one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game, then I'm not going to even waste any more of my time on you. But suffice to say, you are wrong.

So, instead of answering my question, you set up a strawman arguement and then claim I'm wrong. However, I just edited out the garbage to show I'm right. If you want a guy that played at a high level for a long time, but was never truly great, Aaron's your guy. I never said he wasn't one of the best, he's just not on the level of Mays, Mantle and Williams. No triple crowns, no .400 seasons, no 50 HR seasons.

In fact his best HR season was because the fence was moved in. Of his 47 HRs, 31 were in Atlanta, but he never benefited from a friendly home park, with fences moved in and the highest altitude in baseball at the time. There's a reason it was called the launching pad. Lol.

Nice try on Ted, but his .344 lifetime ave. laughs at you. Also, did the Red Sox move the fences back after Ted retired like the Braves did when Aaron left? It's pretty obvious when your team moves the fences in right where you like to hit the ball so you can make a run at Mays and Ruth on the all time HR list and then when you leave, they move the fences back.

In Atlanta, Aaron hit 47 more HRs at home than on the road. Want to guess how Ted did at Fenway? 25 more HRs ON THE ROAD. Some great advantage, not. By the way, Ruth also hit more road HRs than home, 20. So now tell me again how Aaron didn't get an advantage playing in Atlanta?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

i don't think he was as good as mays, mantle, williams, clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

lol

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I think you could easily make the case that he was better than each of those guys, especially if you factor consistency and longevity. You don't realize how great he was until you flip over his baseball card. I read a Bill James article about Carl Yastrzemski recently. he was discussing Yaz' legendary 1967 season. His quote was something along the lines of, "Carl's numbers that year were the same numbers Hank put up every year for 15 years."

[the 'stache]

In 1998, the Sporting News created their top 100 baseball players of all-time list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Walter Johnson
5. Hank Aaron
8. Ted Williams
17. Mickey Mantle

ESPN's top 100, done in 2013:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Barry Bonds
4. Ted Williams
5. Hank Aaron
7. Ty Cobb
9. Mickey Mantle

In 1999, SABR (the Society for American Baseball Research) did their top 100 list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Ted Williams
4. Hank Aaron
5. Stan Musial
7. Ty Cobb
8. Willie Mays
12. Mickey Mantle

Huh. Imagine that. Only two players are in the top 5 all-time on all three lists. Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron.

[tjenkins]

I started collecting baseball cards when I was four years old, back in 1967 and I never stopped. I was one of those kids who spent hours reading the back of baseball cards and never stopped doing that either. After reading and comparing all those stats I always wondered why Mickey Mantle was so highly regarded and Hank Aaron wasn't. His story has always been so amazing to me. He grew up poor, hitting cross handed and didn't get it straightened out until his early years in the minors and the grief he went through when he broke the Babe's record is well documented. I have always been impressed with what he has endured. I have really enjoyed this post because it confirms to me, why I have always liked Hammerin Hank. I will never forget jumping up in down in the living room when he hit the homer that beat the Babe off Al Downing. Hank Aaron is not my all time favorite player that would be Harmon Killebrew but he is probably my second favorite and he is in my opinion arguably the GOAT. Great post here and have enjoyed the info. I see his cards going up in the near future so pick them up why you can. His legend will continue to grow, no doubt in my mind!

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

Best yardstick for me for comparing players across different eras and conditions of play, at least from the standpoint of offensive production, is Bill James' runs created vs league runs created per 27 outs. It is much more detailed than OPS+. By that criterion, Williams was far and away the best, at 250% for his career (Ruth was at 240%, by the way), and Mantle is the only other one of those you have named over 200% (right around 215%, as I recall). Mays and Aaron were both in the 180% range, with a small advantage to Mays, with Clemente far, far, far behind at 142%. Overall, of course, Clemente would make up some of the difference with his glove and arm, but nowhere near enough to even begin to compete with the others. All of them except Williams were outstanding fielders, with Mays arguably the best CF of all time. Mays and Aaron fall significantly behind Mantle by this yardstick because they consistently made 60-70 more outs than he did to get pretty much the same production--never underestimate the value of a player who, like Williams and Mantle, draw an outstanding number of walks--plate discipline, coupled with dangerous power, makes for a lot of walks and hence runs scored. Check out Williams and Mantle's runs scored totals (with Williams, especially before he went off to Korea in 1952--120, 130, 140--and this from a guy who certainly no one would have called fast). See also Ralph Kiner--six seasons of more than 100 runs scored due to drawing tremendous amounts of walks from a guy who really had no speed to speak of--just plate discipline and tremendous power (led NL in HR's seven consecutive seasons, and major leagues in HR's 6 times, hitting over 50 HR's twice, and drawing as many as 137 walks).

Just my thoughts,

Larry

[the 'stache]

The reason his cards are undervalued, comparatively, is market. Mays and Mantle played in New York, and that's where their legends were born. The Giants did move, but Mays was already a star. Clemente played in a smaller market, obviously, but he was the first real Latin superstar.

Aaron played in Milwaukee, and then Atlanta, which is not a great sports town, comparatively. If Aaron had played in New York, his cards would be worth a lot more. I think his cards will go up in value. I know I'm going to grab a really nice '54 Topps Aaron asap.

[Mas715]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Always wondered why his card values arent up there with mays, mantle or williams. Hank was such a great player it just seems like his cards after 1954 are fairly cheap compared to the other mentioned players. What factors do u think play into that?

Always thought small market where he played. Been collecting Hank Aaron since early 70's. Please see my PSA collection on Hank Arron Master Set. I'm mas715 and my second set is mas715set2. Always looking for oddball Aaron's, would trade.
Thank you.
Mike

[RobertC]

Originally Posted by Mas715

Always thought small market where he played. Been collecting Hank Aaron since early 70's. Please see my PSA collection on Hank Arron Master Set. I'm mas715 and my second set is mas715set2. Always looking for oddball Aaron's, would trade.
Thank you.
Mike

That is a GREAT Aaron registry set. I've been using it quite often as a reference; really nice to have pictures of all the cards. There are several that I would really like to find.

[SAllen2556]

New York City population 1960: 7,781,984 (#1)
Milwauke population 1960: 741,324 (#11)
Atlanta population 1960: 487,455 (#24)

We collect the players we grew up with (and heard stories about) more than any other. Isn't it that simple? It isn't race or WAR, or RBI's. If you collect the Yankees, the demand is 10 times greater, on average, than the Braves. Prices have to reflect that don't they?

Aaron prices will never come close to Mantle because there isn't the same demand, despite the fact they were both stars of the game.

Personally, If I were building a franchise I'd take Aaron. If I were signing one of them for 3 years as a free agent, in his prime, I'd take Mantle.

[jchcollins]

You have to remember that there was no greater intersection of time, place, and baseball than New York in the 1950's. Mantle reaped the benefits of that like no player before or since him, I would argue including Ruth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hcv123]

Reason for Aaron cards being "undervalued" - imo -is because Aaron collectors have been unwilling to pay more for Aaron cards for their collections!