Who are the most "over-valued" players

[ValKehl]

If you replaced Ted Williams with Mantle on all the Red Sox teams Williams was on, how many rings would Mantle have gotten? My guess is, maybe one, in 1946 when the WS went 7 games and Williams didn't hit for much.

[G1911]

If we're ranking by rings, Mickey was not even the best player on his team.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Better to have the "silly rings" than NO rings! Ha! The whole purpose of competing is to win, no ?? When people tell me that "baseball is mostly about the stats," then I tell them "why not get rid of the World Series then?" Why even have a championship ?? Oh wait, that's my point!! You play to win and Mantle did that better than anybody else !!



Zero you say ?? Ouch !! Imagine if that had been the Mick in his spot ??

Put #7 on the Senators and how many rings does he win?

[paul]

Isn't Thurman Munson a bit overrated by card collectors? I'm someone who thinks he probably belongs in the Hall of Fame, but his card values seem to equate to the upper echelon of the Hall of Fame. And I don't think he belongs there.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by paul

Isn't Thurman Munson a bit overrated by card collectors? I'm someone who thinks he probably belongs in the Hall of Fame, but his card values seem to equate to the upper echelon of the Hall of Fame. And I don't think he belongs there.

Agreed. Munson’s tragic death was horrible and in many ways elevated him to a status above where he belongs. See the same thing of course with singers and other entertainers.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Agreed. Munson’s tragic death was horrible and in many ways elevated him to a status above where he belongs. See the same thing of course with singers and other entertainers.

I respectfully disagree. His value is where it should be. I don't believe he was showing signs of decline, and had he played a couple of more years there would be no doubt of his HoF eligibility. The Dodgers would have lost the 1981 Series. He probably would have managed. Just my opinion here; I don't have WAR or any other stats to try to prove a point.

[jchcollins]

As a proponent of a (limited more) "larger" Hall, I think that Maris belongs in. The record he broke in 1961 was practically bigger than the game itself, and it was a historic event that was celebrated bigly for decades afterwards.

I know that's not how the Hall traditionally works, and I know there will be plenty who disagree with me and that's fine - but I think Maris belongs in for his contributions to the game. There are many arguing the same right now for Curt Flood and his contributions to the game, which if that holds any water at all - then surely the same would be true of Maris. Clearly, neither have "traditional" HOF numbers for the positions they played.

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Agreed, and from a Cubs fan.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

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

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

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

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

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

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

Valid viewpoint. They probably aren't in solely because of the poem, but the poem certainly didn't hurt. I've been a Cubs fan for 35+ years - it doesn't bother me in the least that they are in, LOL.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I respectfully disagree. His value is where it should be. I don't believe he was showing signs of decline, and had he played a couple of more years there would be no doubt of his HoF eligibility. The Dodgers would have lost the 1981 Series. He probably would have managed. Just my opinion here; I don't have WAR or any other stats to try to prove a point.

In 1978 his OPS+ was 101. In 1979 his OPS+ was 95. Here is how he ranks against modern catchers.

Piazza OPS+ 143
Posey OPS+ 129
Bench OPS+ 126
Mauer OPS+ 124
Simmons OPS+ 118
Fisk OPS+ 117
Munson OPS+ 116
Carter OPS+ 115
I Rodriguez OPS+ 106

The only two guys below him as hitters were much better defensively. Munson was clearly in decline and if he had finished his career, his OPS+ would have ended up much worse and below Carter too.

Munson was not as good as any of the modern day HOF catchers. As to his HOF eligibility, if Simmons couldn't get elected by the BBWWA, I'm not sure that Munson would have either.

[ASF123]

Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan. Neither was an inner-circle all-time great player. (ducks to avoid flying projectiles)

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan. Neither was an inner-circle all-time great player. (ducks to avoid flying projectiles)

agree 🙂 .. Not enough hits or no hitters to be inner circle

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan. Neither was an inner-circle all-time great player. (ducks to avoid flying projectiles)

While the projectiles are already flying anyway, I'll add one more: Derek Jeter

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by rats60

In 1978 his OPS+ was 101. In 1979 his OPS+ was 95. Here is how he ranks against modern catchers.

Piazza OPS+ 143
Posey OPS+ 129
Bench OPS+ 126
Mauer OPS+ 124
Simmons OPS+ 118
Fisk OPS+ 117
Munson OPS+ 116
Carter OPS+ 115
I Rodriguez OPS+ 106

The only two guys below him as hitters were much better defensively. Munson was clearly in decline and if he had finished his career, his OPS+ would have ended up much worse and below Carter too.

Munson was not as good as any of the modern day HOF catchers. As to his HOF eligibility, if Simmons couldn't get elected by the BBWWA, I'm not sure that Munson would have either.

"He had simply fallen from an elite catcher to an above aveage one. He still had a long way to go. In 1978, Munson had accumulated 3.1 WAR. In 1979 (the year he died), Munson had earned 2.2 WAR through 97 games."

[perezfan]

Greenberg- NOT overrated. Remember he lost his prime years to WW2 and still posted crazy numbers in a relatively short career.

Jeter and Henderson get my votes as most overrated. Especially Henderson's ultra-common rookie card. Many of the 7s look as good/better than the 9s and 10s. People are paying stupid money for a random number on a flip, and not the very common card itself.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

agree 🙂 .. Not enough hits or no hitters to be inner circle

They both were great at one thing for a very long time, but had significant weaknesses that prevented them from providing the overall value of some of their contemporaries.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ASF123

They both were great at one thing for a very long time, but had significant weaknesses that prevented them from providing the overall value of some of their contemporaries.

It depends on who you ask.

Fangraphs WAR leaders
1. Clemens 133.7
2. Cy Young 131.5
3. Maddux 116.7
4. Walter Johnson 116.4
5. Randy Johnson 110.5
6. Nolan Ryan 106.7
10. Alexander 95.7
11. Seaver 92.4
12. Mathewson 90.0
13. Grove 87.4

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by rats60

It depends on who you ask.

Fangraphs WAR leaders
1. Clemens 133.7
2. Cy Young 131.5
3. Maddux 116.7
4. Walter Johnson 116.4
5. Randy Johnson 110.5
6. Nolan Ryan 106.7
10. Alexander 95.7
11. Seaver 92.4
12. Mathewson 90.0
13. Grove 87.4

Huh. Interesting - I didn't know there was such a discrepancy between FG and BBRef on him.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan. Neither was an inner-circle all-time great player. (ducks to avoid flying projectiles)

One could observe Ryan was pretty similar in value to Gaylord Perry.

[Chris-Counts]

There are some seriously overvalued players in the Hall of Fame, But I agree with another poster that Hank Greenberg is undervalued. In my view, the most overvalued players are hitters who played between 1920 and 1930, when batting averages were at their highest point. The ball was seriously juiced in 1929-20. The list includes George Sisler, Ross Youngs, Fred Lindstrom, Bill Terry, George Kelly, Travis Jackson, Chick Haley, Chuck Klein and a couple others. Lefty O'Doul would be on the list if he was inducted. A lot of these guys would have all hit .260 or .270 in 1914, or 1944, or 1964. Most were teammates of Frankie Frisch, who helped elect them.

[MR RAREBACK]

I would say
greenberg
gehringer
ott
Hornsby
Foxx
all undervalued

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by rats60

In 1978 his OPS+ was 101. In 1979 his OPS+ was 95. Here is how he ranks against modern catchers.

Piazza OPS+ 143
Posey OPS+ 129
Bench OPS+ 126
Mauer OPS+ 124
Simmons OPS+ 118
Fisk OPS+ 117
Munson OPS+ 116
Carter OPS+ 115
I Rodriguez OPS+ 106

Speaking of catchers I'll then nominate Yogi Berra. His cards trade as if he was the best catcher of all time and he certainly wasn't. Not even close.

[packs]

I don't think you can take anything away from Yogi. He won three MVPs and is in pretty rare company. Only three other catchers have more home runs than he does, no catchers have more RBIs, and only six catchers have more hits.

Maybe not the greatest all time but hard to say he doesn't have a seat at the table.

[Touch'EmAll]

Heads Up ! Projectiles thrown !

The knocks on both Berra & Ryan, not gonna say much, just shake my head.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Heads Up ! Projectiles thrown !

The knocks on both Berra & Ryan, not gonna say much, just shake my head.

Agreed.

Are Yogi cards overvalued? Compared to what?

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...ription-071515

[Fred]

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would.

You're saying that most players would turn into stars compared with Mays or Aaron. I disagree.

[JimC]

Speaking of WAR, Mantle's WAR 7 is top 10 all time among hitters. He had two 11 plus WAR seasons. Mays also had two. Other than Ruth and Bonds no one else has done that. Mick had 4 seasons of 9.5 or higher. Aaron's highest was 9.4. Mantle is easily one of the best players of all time. Add to that being in NY, being the biggest star during the boomer era and his post season success and of course he's one of the most widely collected. Should be.

[Bigdaddy]

I'd nominate everyone who has donned a Yankee uniform - they carry a premium for The Pinstripes that is above and beyond their statistical value.

I've been slowly working on a '53T set and believe you me, all the Yankee players have a ++$$ on their cards. In general, I'd guess double what any comparable player on another team would bring. There also seems to be a somewhat lesser plus up on Red Sox and Brooklyn Dodger players.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

Yeah the 25th edition of that will likely look like the first 24 editions lol.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by bigdaddy

i'd nominate everyone who has donned a yankee uniform - they carry a premium for the pinstripes that is above and beyond their statistical value.

I've been slowly working on a '53t set and believe you me, all the yankee players have a ++$$ on their cards. In general, i'd guess double what any comparable player on another team would bring. There also seems to be a somewhat lesser plus up on red sox and brooklyn dodger players.

+1

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Every thread needs a card.
-

It is truly remarkable how much standards have changed in grading. If I were sending this card to PSA today, I would be crossing my fingers hoping for a 3 and expecting a 2 a good percentage of the time.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

I think Mantle and Mays are as close to equals as you can get between two contemporaries and even in the all time discussion. They dominated their leagues in very similar ways, with Mays having a longer career and higher counting stats.

Mantle and Mays both led their leagues in WAR five seasons in a row. Aaron only led the league in WAR once, and that's because he was contending with Mays, who was far superior.

While I agree Mays has his place in a discussion with Mantle, I don't think Hank Aaron was of equal caliber to either player.

[Snapolit1]

If you believe people on the board, the disparity between the value of Mantles' and Mays' cards is only due to the fact that Mays was grumpy and rude at card shows and Mantle was a wonderful sunny cheery friendly guy.

I always loved that explanation.

Originally Posted by packs

I think Mantle and Mays are as close to equals as you can get between two contemporaries and even in the all time discussion. They dominated their leagues in very similar ways, with Mays having a longer career and higher counting stats.

Mantle and Mays both led their leagues in WAR five seasons in a row. Aaron only led the league in WAR once, and that's because he was contending with Mays, who was far superior.

While I agree Mays has his place in a discussion with Mantle, I don't think Hank Aaron was of equal caliber to either player.

[packs]

Mays didn't win. I really do believe it as simple as that.

Of course, I do agree there is a peppering of other factors that come into play re: the Yankees being the Yankees but Mays began his career in New York too, for an extremely popular and visible New York franchise.

[vintagerookies51]

As the question is posed, I think it is almost certainly Mantle. His value is way more based on mystique and being on the Yankees than his play, which however you look at it is similar to Mays, Williams, Aaron, Musial, etc.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

LOL, That has to be poor Eddie Mathews. He was a beast but played on the same team as the greatest player of the era and also had Willie and Mickey playing at the same time.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by vintagerookies51

As the question is posed, I think it is almost certainly Mantle. His value is way more based on mystique and being on the Yankees than his play, which however you look at it is similar to Mays, Williams, Aaron, Musial, etc.

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, That has to be poor Eddie Mathews. He was a beast but played on the same team as the greatest player of the era and also had Willie and Mickey playing at the same time.

I agree with you both.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

If you replaced Ted Williams with Mantle on all the Red Sox teams Williams was on, how many rings would Mantle have gotten? My guess is, maybe one, in 1946 when the WS went 7 games and Williams didn't hit for much.

Maybe one ?? Mantle would've played with Jimmie Foxx !! They would've destroyed their opponents. Think about it: Mantle won all those rings playing with ... Yogi Berra.

[aljurgela]

Mantle... but I get that he was a Yankee, but still ... so his prices seem so disproportionate to me... and I would put Clemente as #2, even though I love him (btw, I do not collect either of these guys)

[Seven]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Mantle and Mays are as close to equals as you can get between two contemporaries and even in the all time discussion. They dominated their leagues in very similar ways, with Mays having a longer career and higher counting stats.

Mantle and Mays both led their leagues in WAR five seasons in a row. Aaron only led the league in WAR once, and that's because he was contending with Mays, who was far superior.

While I agree Mays has his place in a discussion with Mantle, I don't think Hank Aaron was of equal caliber to either player.

I would tend to agree. Both were excellent ballplayers. Mantle had the peak, Mays had the longevity.

I also think somethings that gets lost in this discussion is the fact that Mantle was truly never healthy. I feel like the added context of him playing on one good knee for his entire career, has to count for something. The man was a triple crown winner and won 3 MVP's. I certainly think he was as talented as a player as the game had ever seen.

[packs]

I find it hard to take critics of Mantle seriously.

Of the players with WARs over 100, only three players have a WAR over 100 with fewer plate appearances than Mantle had. They are: Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, and Ted Williams.

That's it. He is in the elite of elite company. It is impossible to suggest he wasn't the all time great he was. It's also impossible to suggest that because Mantle was on the Yankees, he's given accolades he doesn't deserve.

The guy won three MVPs and the Triple Crown. He won 7 championships and played in 12 of them. There is no 50s Yankees dynasty without him, so to say that because he played on the Yankees XYZ, is really only saying because Mickey Mantle existed the Yankees were good.

[raulus]

I don’t think anyone is actually criticizing Mantle as a player. At least I don’t think so.

I think the whole premise of the thread is whether the premium for his cards, particularly the 52 Topps, is warranted based solely on his play, while ignoring all other elements.

And clearly there is a serious premium that exists due to circumstances that are unconnected to his on-field performance.

So it’s really not intended to be a knock on the player. Or even an attempt to suggest that his cards should be worth less. But rather that the prices for his cards are based on other factors that go well beyond his performance on the field.

As a Mays guy, the big premium that Mantle has always received relative to Mays always irked me. With the recent big jumps in prices for Mays stuff, some of that premium has shrunk. But now that it has shrunk, it pisses me off even more, because I have to pay so much more now. So if I could have it my way, I’d much rather prefer to go back to Mantle having his massive premium, and the market undervaluing my man, so that I can buy more great stuff.

[packs]

What circumstances do you mean, though? Mantle made himself a legend by being an otherworldly player. I don't think that can be disputed.

You talk about his 52 Topps, but the price for his card is not really all that out of whack for the rest of the hi-series cards when you consider he is also Mickey Mantle.

Bill Dickey appears in the hi-series as a coach and you'll have to pay somewhere around $400 for even a poor conditioned example. Mantle was the biggest star of his time. It's only natural his card's price will be significantly compounded over a similar card of a coach.

[raulus]

I think the biggest circumstance with 52T is just the mystique, the allure, and the legend within the industry, and even broader nationwide culture. Throw in some stories about a barge, and it takes on a life of its own.

As we all know, price is a function of supply and demand. In this case, demand is driven by much more than just what happened on the field.

[packs]

The 52 set was also the first real flagship set and will always be one of those sets that are hobby standards, like the T206.

I don't think that's in Mantle's control though or a product of Mantle. If he wasn't a high number, for example, I think he'd be trading for a premium over Mays but how much I'm not sure.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Seven

I also think somethings that gets lost in this discussion is the fact that Mantle was truly never healthy. I feel like the added context of him playing on one good knee for his entire career, has to count for something. The man was a triple crown winner and won 3 MVP's. I certainly think he was as talented as a player as the game had ever seen.

And he did all of this while suffering from a serious disease: alcoholism. He was hitting all those homers while hungover. Just raw talent.

Now, I am not sayin' this to justify his 52T prices cause' I'm not. I think 25 - 30K Usd for a freaking PSA 1 is insane. However, his cards in general should be above everybody else's based on his accomplishments.

[oldjudge]

Overvalued: Harry Wright, Galvin, Mantle, Clemente, Jackie Robinson
Undervalued: DiMaggio, Williams

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

As a player perhaps, but he's only just now starting to realize the value he should have been accorded as an American historical figure.

Because of that historical significance, I have to think there's much more room for growth in Jackie's prices over the next 10, 20, 50 years when compared to Mantle or about anyone else. If the day ever comes when there are a lot more non-white collectors in the market, it should really take off.