Most undervalued HOFers

[Brent G.]

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[ClementeFanOh]

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

Trent King

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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

Trent King

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[Mark17]

Frank Robinson and Warren Spahn top the list for me.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Hey c'mon Pete, no need to be so snarky with a newcomer! He is right though that there are a ton of threads on this.

I'm from Cincy and admittedly a homer, but really a lot of the Reds are undervalued. The fact that you can pick up a mid-grade raw Joe Morgan rookie for less than a blaster is a headscratcher to me. Frank Robinson has finally seen a little pickup with his key cards since COVID is great, but a lot of his other cards are still undervalued (e.g. that 61 you have).

The discrepancy between the Nolan Ryan and Johnny Bench rookies in the 68 set is shocking. Probably one of the greatest, albeit most overrated, pitchers of all time seems to go for 5x+ what the almost unanimously best catcher (I would actually throw Campanella and Berra in that conversation) is night and day from how breakers and wax-fiends price new product.

Perez, while not held in the same regards as the other "Franchise 4" has two very important SPs that imo are crazy cheap, his 65 RC and the 67 (which is one of the best looking cards of the 60's).

Davey Concepcion, while not a HOFer, was a very important piece of the BRM, a 9x AS, and was up to a few years ago, when he started doing a decent amount of private signings, a pretty tough signature. Yet his cards/autos are fairly cheap.

The only overvalued cards I see are with Pete Rose autos over the last few weeks since his death. The dude could probably add "most autographs ever signed" to his bio along with most AB's and Hits, yet his vintage auto cards spiked in value way more than Mays and Aaron, really wild imo. With that in mind both Mays and Aaron are undervalued outside of their rookies, and arguably those cards are undervalued too.

Some other undervalued ones... 49 Bowman Roy Campanella, 55 Killebrew, 52 Topps Doby (and really all of his cards besides the 49 Bowman), 60 Yaz rookie, and the 54 Topps Kaline and Banks.

[GeoPoto]

"Most undervalued? Edgar Charles "Sam" Rice, of course!!"

I agree Rice is undervalued after a great career, the start of which was delayed by personal tragedy and the end of which eschewed three thousand hits, which wasn't then viewed as important.

But I'd like to get an oar in the water regarding his manager/owner Clark Griffith:

Griff's SABR biography sums it up: Few individuals in the history of baseball can boast of a career to rival that of Clark Griffith’s. In terms of duration, as a player, manager, and executive, it was one of the longest ever, spanning nearly 70 years. Griffith is the only man in major league history to serve as player, manager, and owner for at least 20 years each. From his earliest days as a pitcher for money in Hoopeston, Illinois, to his last breath, the Old Fox, as he became fondly known, dedicated his life to baseball. A fiery competitor, he was outspoken, innovative, crafty and resourceful. He played with and against some of the pioneers of the game, was a star during its rowdiest era, managed for two decades, and was the face of baseball in the nation’s capital for over 40 years. Along the way he won 237 games as a major league pitcher, helped to establish the American League, brought Washington its only World Series title, and could name eight U.S. presidents among his many friends.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Hey c'mon Pete, no need to be so snarky with a newcomer! He is right though that there are a ton of threads on this.

I'm from Cincy and admittedly a homer, but really a lot of the Reds are undervalued. The fact that you can pick up a mid-grade raw Joe Morgan rookie for less than a blaster is a headscratcher to me. Frank Robinson has finally seen a little pickup with his key cards since COVID is great, but a lot of his other cards are still undervalued (e.g. that 61 you have).

The discrepancy between the Nolan Ryan and Johnny Bench rookies in the 68 set is shocking. Probably one of the greatest, albeit most overrated, pitchers of all time seems to go for 5x+ what the almost unanimously best catcher (I would actually throw Campanella and Berra in that conversation) is night and day from how breakers and wax-fiends price new product.

Perez, while not held in the same regards as the other "Franchise 4" has two very important SPs that imo are crazy cheap, his 65 RC and the 67 (which is one of the best looking cards of the 60's).

Davey Concepcion, while not a HOFer, was a very important piece of the BRM, a 9x AS, and was up to a few years ago, when he started doing a decent amount of private signings, a pretty tough signature. Yet his cards/autos are fairly cheap.

The only overvalued cards I see are with Pete Rose autos over the last few weeks since his death. The dude could probably add "most autographs ever signed" to his bio along with most AB's and Hits, yet his vintage auto cards spiked in value way more than Mays and Aaron, really wild imo. With that in mind both Mays and Aaron are undervalued outside of their rookies, and arguably those cards are undervalued too.

Some other undervalued ones... 49 Bowman Roy Campanella, 55 Killebrew, 52 Topps Doby (and really all of his cards besides the 49 Bowman), 60 Yaz rookie, and the 54 Topps Kaline and Banks.

It wasn't intended as snarky, was trying to be helpful as there are numerous threads which have many people's thoughts on this very question.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Hey c'mon Pete, no need to be so snarky with a newcomer! He is right though that there are a ton of threads on this.

I'm from Cincy and admittedly a homer, but really a lot of the Reds are undervalued. The fact that you can pick up a mid-grade raw Joe Morgan rookie for less than a blaster is a headscratcher to me. Frank Robinson has finally seen a little pickup with his key cards since COVID is great, but a lot of his other cards are still undervalued (e.g. that 61 you have).

The discrepancy between the Nolan Ryan and Johnny Bench rookies in the 68 set is shocking. Probably one of the greatest, albeit most overrated, pitchers of all time seems to go for 5x+ what the almost unanimously best catcher (I would actually throw Campanella and Berra in that conversation) is night and day from how breakers and wax-fiends price new product.

Perez, while not held in the same regards as the other "Franchise 4" has two very important SPs that imo are crazy cheap, his 65 RC and the 67 (which is one of the best looking cards of the 60's).

Davey Concepcion, while not a HOFer, was a very important piece of the BRM, a 9x AS, and was up to a few years ago, when he started doing a decent amount of private signings, a pretty tough signature. Yet his cards/autos are fairly cheap.
\

Strongly agree with all of this and would add Vada Pinson, who could easily be in the Hall IMHO. Ryan and Bench both had rookie cards in '68. Bench is widely regarded as the best catcher of all-time. But few would say that about Ryan as a pitcher (despite his obvious greatness). So how can one possibly explain the price disparity of the two cards, other than the small market factor that negatively impacts Bench?

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Strongly agree with all of this and would add Vada Pinson, who could easily be in the Hall IMHO. Ryan and Bench both had rookie cards in '68. Bench is widely regarded as the best catcher of all-time. But few would say that about Ryan as a pitcher (despite his obvious greatness). So how can one possibly explain the price disparity of the two cards, other than the small market factor that negatively impacts Bench?

The small market is definitely a factor, but I think it also probably has to do with the fact that Ryan played for so long. When the “hobby” became HUGE and seen as a viable investment from the mid-‘80s to the early ‘90s, Ryan was basking in “living legend” status while still having current cards (and, in fairness, still throwing the occasional no-hitter), whereas Bench had been retired for years.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Strongly agree with all of this and would add Vada Pinson, who could easily be in the Hall IMHO. Ryan and Bench both had rookie cards in '68. Bench is widely regarded as the best catcher of all-time. But few would say that about Ryan as a pitcher (despite his obvious greatness). So how can one possibly explain the price disparity of the two cards, other than the small market factor that negatively impacts Bench?

You are really asking why Ryan is so popular? Seriously?

[timn1]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

You are really asking why Ryan is so popular? Seriously?

292 losses, .526 PCT. Led the league in walks 8 times, ERA 2 times, Wins 0 times.

The guy had the arm to be the GOAT but not the makeup. (He had plenty of makeup all right: the makeup to try to strike out every batter and to throw a no-hitter every time out - but not to WIN any way he could.)

IOW, the poster's question is a great one. Ryan was a phenomenon, absolutely, but not head-and-shoulders above all the other greats of the era - yet his card prices are way out of scale with almost all of them.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the specific dynamics of the hobby from about 1989-1994, which is when Ryan's cards really took off.

For market and also psychological reasons I think the hobby has needed a single supersuperstar from every era to drive values. Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Mantle have been in this position for decades now, and this doesn't look to change.

With more recent eras, it's somewhat more fluid. During most of the 1980s the guy was Pete Rose, whose ugly little decapitated rookie image from 1963 Topps was going for wild money for years, way above any other post-1960 rookie. But although the hobby was still in a serious growth mode, after the 1989 Rose/Giamatti debacle someone else was needed in this role.

So Ryan was the right guy at the right time, Amazingly, he hadn't lost much if anything off his performance, and it looked like he was going to pitch forever (as Rose had looked ten years earlier, though he was no longer the player he had been). He was adopted by a large segment of the casual collecting hobby.

In the last three decades, Ryan's star has dimmed a bit, but because his cards were so pricey from so long time ago, people have a lot of money tied up in them, and don't want to let them go cheap. Hence the prices stay up there compared to his contemporaries who were not still playing when the hobby price boom came, especially Bench, who retired in '83.)

Actually, the same thing goes on with Rose, whose cards never completely collapsed in value despite the disgrace. His rookie is still far higher relative to almost everyone's in the era. ($2K for a PSA 5, while Billy Williams' 1961 Topps rookie in PSA 5 is like $75!). I think this is almost entirely a residual effect of Rose cards being so high from such a long time ago.

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

For F's sake!! Maybe some people have changed their mind on someone etc. So this adds another thread, who cares. But to reply "If you can figure out the search function", makes you sound like some kind of butt hurt Karen. Don't open the thread and don't read it.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal

For F's sake!! Maybe some people have changed their mind on someone etc. So this adds another thread, who cares. But to reply "If you can figure out the search function", makes you sound like some kind of butt hurt Karen. Don't open the thread and don't read it.

I thought about replying, "WHAT'S A SEARCH FUNCTION???" but I think Peter's a good guy who just didn't care to see Conversation 101 on the topic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

I thought about replying, "WHAT'S A SEARCH FUNCTION???" but I think Peter's a good guy who just didn't care to see Conversation 101 on the topic.

Maybe it wasn't phrased well but I was sincerely suggesting you look at all the past threads because that would give you lots of other responses to your question. The fact that I've actively participated in this thread shows I wasn't suggesting anything other than that. But whatever, some people are just assholes.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Clemente. At least in terms of his numbers. Bill James, as of 20 years ago, ranked him only 70th or so, whereas everyone else has him significantly higher.

How about Jackie Robinson? Aren't his cards quite pricey compared to even those of Yogi Berra, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

How about Jackie Robinson? Aren't his cards quite pricey compared to even those of Yogi Berra, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron?

I feel they are overpriced, too. To me, it has everything to do with Jackie as a figurehead for Civil Rights vs. his actual performance. He appeals to today's woke mentality, too, so prices just keep rising. (Boy, do I hate the term "woke". I shuddered when typing it.)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Tim,

First off, I'd politely like to take the superhuman Walter Johnson out of what I say below.

The other pitchers you used for comparison in your last post all actually had good/great teams helping them secure higher winning percentages quite often in their careers. Ryan couldn't be expected to win all the games on his own with absolutely no aid from some disgustingly terrible teams. Aside from 1969, which was so early on for him, when did he ever have any support? His W-L totals are not solely his doing. Not to mention that he was barely used in 1969; less than 90 IP.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I feel they are overpriced, too. To me, it has everything to do with Jackie as a figurehead for Civil Rights vs. his actual performance. He appeals to today's woke mentality, too, so prices just keep rising. (Boy, do I hate the term "woke". I shuddered when typing it.)

I don't think the "woke mentality" is terribly prevalent in this segment of the hobby dominated by older white men. I do think the collective respect for U.S. history elevates his status significantly, no question.

I picked up my first this year thanks to another member -- it's just a beautiful piece.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

How about Jackie Robinson? Aren't his cards quite pricey compared to even those of Yogi Berra, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron?

Every collection needs a Jackie ...

[packs]

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.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[G1911]

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.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

Arky Vaughan is one of my top 2 underrated players of all time. The other is Johnny Mize .312/.397/.562 OPS+ 158 and his numbers (and counting stats) would have been higher if he hadn't missed 3 prime years to WWII. His first full season back was his famous 51 HR / 42 strikeouts season. And Stan Musial cards are ridiculously undervalued for a top 10 all time player.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Arky Vaughan is one of my top 2 underrated players of all time. The other is Johnny Mize .312/.397/.562 OPS+ 158 and his numbers (and counting stats) would have been higher if he hadn't missed 3 prime years to WWII. His first full season back was his famous 51 HR / 42 strikeouts season. And Stan Musial cards are ridiculously undervalued for a top 10 all time player.

Mize's numbers were really crushed by losing those three prime years. Even so, it's criminal that he didn't make the HOF until 1981. Hard to figure why looking at the record.

[bobbvc]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

+1

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

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.

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

[Balticfox]

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

(Not mine.)

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

Speaking of head shots, the most appalling display of these occurred in the 1964-65 Topps Hockey which was the first sport card set to come out as "tall boys". They weren't actually very popular with kids in the schoolyard despite being the first Hockey set in a decade to include all six NHL teams. First of all, the first series was priced at a dime a pack (at least in the neighbourhood variety stores in my corner of London, Ontario). Moreover the cards were too long to easily fit in a kid's pockets.

But the tall boy format of these cards lent itself splendidly to the proportions of the human body and this was in full evidence in the first series:



Of the 53 non-Checklist first series cards, only eight were less than fantastic full body shots and four of these were coaches anyway. But an atrocious 43 out of 55 cards from the second series featured truly wretched head shots:



Because the first series didn't sell very well, O-Pee-Chee's production run for the second series was comparatively small. As a result, second series cards are a lot tougher to find these days than those from the first series. Moreover quite a few cards were shortprinted on the second series sheet. While I still need six of the shortprints from the second series to complete my set, I'm disinclined to pay the price those ugly head shots command these days. I'd rather spend my money on better looking cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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

Why Mantle? - Adam's Card Blog

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Ask yourself the question, if you had to win a single game, it's all or nothing, are you putting Nolan Ryan on the mound or Gaylord Perry? We can twist 20 years worth of statistics into anything we want them to be, but at the end of the day, greatness is a much simpler thing.

[Kutcher55]

I'd take Perry if he's allowed to have a pint of vaseline and a box cutter in his back pocket.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

I'd take Perry if he's allowed to have a pint of vaseline and a box cutter in his back pocket.

He might not need them. I have read that according to his catcher, in his Cy Young season in the AL he actually did not throw a single spitball.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ask yourself the question, if you had to win a single game, it's all or nothing, are you putting Nolan Ryan on the mound or Gaylord Perry? We can twist 20 years worth of statistics into anything we want them to be, but at the end of the day, greatness is a much simpler thing.

I don't know how many times I can say, and of course nobody can really counter the claim actually made because it is pretty obviously true, that Ryan and Perry produced "pretty similar" value over their careers, arriving there by being different types of pitchers. Of course it is twisting to look at career values (a thing we do not object to when evaluating players performance until and unless it does not suit what we demand to conclude).

Let's just pretend a single game basis is what I said, even though it's not whatsoever. I know Ryan fans believe the single game will be one of his 7 no hitters instead of a game he walks in a bunch of runs, but if I have 1) a player who performed 17% better than average and 2) a player who performed 12% better than average, over basically the exact same very large sample size, I would probably roll the dice with the guy who did 17%. As a rate, Perry was slightly more effective at not giving up runs in context, so of a single game in which I do not have special knowledge of future events or who is at the moment on a hot or cold streak, it makes sense to go with the one slightly better at not giving up runs in context.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have never really understood the "one game" question either, unless somehow the player has a statistically significant track record of exceeding their overall performance in "big" games. It seems more like a fun, feel good exercise that doesn't really yield a meaningful answer.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

It's remarkable: Ryan has 5386 career IP to Perry's 5350. Can't get any more similar than that.

In spite of all the walks, Ryan threw nearly 2200 more Ks than Perry. I'd take that any day of the week. No highlight reel needed, no no-hitter to single out; that was over his entire career. As a manager, I'd take it. As a team owner/GM, I'd take it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

It's remarkable: Ryan has 5386 career IP to Perry's 5350. Can't get any more similar than that. In spite of all the walks, Ryan threw nearly 2200 more Ks than Perry. I'd take that any day of the week. No highlight reel needed, no no-hitter to single out; that was over his entire career. As a manager, I'd take it. As a team owner/GM, I'd take it.

Yes but you have to balance that against the walks.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes but you have to balance that against the walks.

Some might be willing to accept more walks if it meant exponentially more strikeouts. Others clearly would not.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't know how many times I can say, and of course nobody can really counter the claim actually made because it is pretty obviously true, that Ryan and Perry produced "pretty similar" value over their careers, arriving there by being different types of pitchers. Of course it is twisting to look at career values (a thing we do not object to when evaluating players performance until and unless it does not suit what we demand to conclude).

Let's just pretend a single game basis is what I said, even though it's not whatsoever. I know Ryan fans believe the single game will be one of his 7 no hitters instead of a game he walks in a bunch of runs, but if I have 1) a player who performed 17% better than average and 2) a player who performed 12% better than average, over basically the exact same very large sample size, I would probably roll the dice with the guy who did 17%. As a rate, Perry was slightly more effective at not giving up runs in context, so of a single game in which I do not have special knowledge of future events or who is at the moment on a hot or cold streak, it makes sense to go with the one slightly better at not giving up runs in context.

I don't think any of your math is wrong (although I think that simplifying everything down to ERA+ is reductionist) and am pretty comfortable with the idea that Gaylord Perry's performance on the field was of similar value to Nolan Ryan's. (Although Perry had some help from substances placed on the ball...)

What I'm confused about is the assumption that value on the field (as measured using metrics that were only identified and used over a decade after both players retired) would directly correlate with card values.

Card values are tied to popularity, which builds over time and is tied to things like memorable moments, milestones etc. Ryan was in many ways, larger than life. His fanbase is as large as almost any player in the past 50 years. The strength, durability etc. captured people imaginations.

Overall statistical success (by whatever metric you consider) is just one factor. And while I'm a fan of metrics such as ERA+ as useful tools, they are one of many ways that people measure a player's career. And I imagine, quite loosely correlated with card value.

Even if you wanted to try and use statistics as the basis for valuation, you would need a more complex mechanism, as it is clear that peak pitching performance is valued over longevity. Take Steve Carlton whose ERA+ of 115 is lower than Perry's or Blyleven's. But his 4 Cy Young Awards have some people considering him as one of the best ever.