Most underappreciated/undercollected players

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by rats60

. The idea that the Seaver RC PSA pop 2456 sells for less than the Ryan RC PSA pop 8531 is a joke.

It does? I'm asking straight-faced here, I haven't spent a ton of time researching it. All I know is that the '67 Seaver in the high numbers is an incredibly difficult (ahem, at least expensive) card to find in high grade - and one that for my own set I doubt I'll be getting even in mid-grade for quite some time. Quick look and I see a PSA 10 '67 Seaver that went for close to $25K back in 2012. The most recent PSA 9 '68 Ryan / Koosman #177 went for about $20K last week. Am I missing something? Comparable maybe, but not way out of line. Ryan is the more popular player, Seaver RC is easily I think the more difficult card. I'm not sure how comparable they are in mid-range graded.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I will

Career WAR
Seaver 110.1
Ryan 81.8

162 game averages
Seaver. Ryan
W/L 16-11. 14-13
% .603. .526
ERA. 2.86. 3.19
K. 190. 246
WHIP 1.121. 1.247
FIP. 3.04. 2.97
ERA+ 127. 112

Ryan has the advantage in strike outs and no hitters. Seaver has the advantage in everything else, most importantly in run prevention and value that leads to team wins. The idea that the Seaver RC PSA pop 2456 sells for less than the Ryan RC PSA pop 8531 is a joke.

Cy Youngs. Seaver 3 Ryan 0.
JAWS metric. Seaver 8th all time Ryan 30th.

[packs]

Even if Seaver was a better pitcher it should come as no surprise why Ryan is more popular and collected. I would think that between the two, people would be more excited to see a game Ryan pitched in his prime than Seaver. When Ryan pitched anything could happen. You could see a no-hitter, 20 K's, or 20 wild pitches. You could expect a decent game with Seaver on the mound, but what else?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Even if Seaver was a better pitcher it should come as no surprise why Ryan is more popular and collected. I would think that between the two, people would be more excited to see a game Ryan pitched in his prime than Seaver. When Ryan pitched anything could happen. You could see a no-hitter, 20 K's, or 20 wild pitches. You could expect a decent game with Seaver on the mound, but what else?

A "decent" game? Good grief. As someone said, maybe Reggie, Tom Seaver was so good, blind people came to the park to hear him pitch. The man was an artist, the quintessential pitcher.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A "decent" game? Good grief. As someone said, maybe Reggie, Tom Seaver was so good, blind people came to the park to hear him pitch. The man was an artist, the quintessential pitcher.

I have no doubt that there are new stats guys out there who will patiently explain to you that Tom Seaver really sucked. I hear one coming now.

[Snapolit1]

Willie Mays.

[packs]

I don't know what else to say. Are you suggesting Tom Seaver was as exciting to watch as Nolan Ryan? I don't think many people will agree. It's like saying Beethoven was better than the Beatles.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know what else to say. Are you suggesting Tom Seaver was as exciting to watch as Nolan Ryan? I don't think many people will agree. It's like saying Beethoven was better than the Beatles.

It depends on what you're looking for. For people who appreciate sublime pitching, then absolutely. By your metric people would rather watch Dave Kingman than Hank Aaron, which is fine, it's all good I guess.

Ryan was a great pitcher no doubt. When he was on and could put the fastball on the corners he was virtually untouchable, but he never could do it consistently and frequently walked a ton of men and could be hit if you waited on him. Seaver, to me, is a very very top rank elite pitcher, Ryan a tier or two below.

[gonzo]

Agree with Grover Cleveland Alexander.

I think a lot of his underappreciation in terms of collecting just comes from the fact that his career fell after the T206 issues and before the 1933 Goudey issue. Other than the 14-15 CJs and the T222 Fatima, and a few exhibits, there aren’t really many attractive cards of him from during his career. (And the M101-2 Sporting News supplement, which is probably my favorite contemporary issue of his, though not a “card”.)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It does? I'm asking straight-faced here, I haven't spent a ton of time researching it. All I know is that the '67 Seaver in the high numbers is an incredibly difficult (ahem, at least expensive) card to find in high grade - and one that for my own set I doubt I'll be getting even in mid-grade for quite some time. Quick look and I see a PSA 10 '67 Seaver that went for close to $25K back in 2012. The most recent PSA 9 '68 Ryan / Koosman #177 went for about $20K last week. Am I missing something? Comparable maybe, but not way out of line. Ryan is the more popular player, Seaver RC is easily I think the more difficult card. I'm not sure how comparable they are in mid-range graded.

A PSA 9 Ryan did sell for 20k. The last PSA 9 Seaver sold for less than 7k. So if you think 35% is comparable then it doesn't seem out of line. However, I really don't think that a card a card with a ~30% print run should be selling at 35%, it should be selling at 3 to 4 times. And that is if they are equal players, but Ryan is not as good as Seaver.

My brother and I collected in 1967-1968. Neither of us ever got a Seaver RC. He found 1 pack of 5 67 high numbers and I never had a 67 high number until I purchased the whole series for each of us from Card Collectors Co. I had 5 Ryan Rcs and he had 10. The Ryan RC is a very common card, the Seaver is a very difficult SP high number. So, yes it is a joke that Seaver isn't worth many times the Ryan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Moreover, most Seavers are tilted, have print bubbles, etc.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Willie Mays.

+1


Bingo!


There have always been a lot of folks who considered Willie the best player ever...or, at least the second best.

However, it's been several years since I've heard his name mentioned that way.

Don't let the fact that he's not dealing with being old and deaf too well cloud your memories of exactly how great a player he was.

By finishing his career as a mere shadow of the player he was...and, doing so in New York, may have put more emphasis on the end and not the peak of his career.


You guys are comparing the value of the Seaver and Ryan RCs...well, there's a much bigger gap between Mantle's '52 non-RC and Mays's '52 Non-RC.

Most of us can afford a Willie (mine is a PSA-6), but the Mantle in that grade or even a PSA-3 is way, way out of my league!

=

[Peter_Spaeth]

Except for 66T where Mays is the #1 card, I believe in general Mantles sell for several times what Mayses sell for.

[JollyElm]

There are 9 billion Nolan Ryan rookie cards out there, but 8,999,999,999 of them are way off center.

[7nohitter]

Harmon Killebrew

[fairport4]

I have not seen a Jim Shaw autograph appear in any of the ususal sports memorabilia auctions and Ebay over the past several years of sports collecting and am enquiring if any one either possesses a Shaw autograph or cut or knows of one which another collector has. Given he lived to 1962, there should be late in his life autographs available to the sports marketplace but the supply seems limited to almost non-existent.

[Tripp Trapp]

I’m partial to the “what could have been”...
Addie Joss
Smoky Joe
Buck Weaver
Ross Youngs

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by fairport4

I have not seen a Jim Shaw autograph appear in any of the ususal sports memorabilia auctions and Ebay over the past several years of sports collecting and am enquiring if any one either possesses a Shaw autograph or cut or knows of one which another collector has. Given he lived to 1962, there should be late in his life autographs available to the sports marketplace but the supply seems limited to almost non-existent.

There was a guy who this board "outed" recently would could probably make one for you.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Frank Robinson I have always felt was underappreciated given his stats in a post-war hobby that sometimes seems to drool on Mantle, Mays, Williams, Aaron, and Clemente as if they were the only marquee names.

Another just for me personally is Roy Campanella. When I first started collecting old cards as a kid in the 1980's, you heard a lot more about him. He still routinely turns up along with Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey, Berra, Bench, Fisk, Piazza et al. in the GOAT debates for catcher - but it doesn't seem like a ton of folks out there collect him. If you consider a career that was cut short on both ends - it was actually cut shorter by his delay into the majors on the front side of his career than it was the accident at the end of it, I believe - then I think he really does qualify as one of the greatest players - even though his stats don't necessarily show it. I guess there is also the factor of Jackie Robinson - if you are going after the historical aspect of trailblazing Brooklyn Dodgers - you are probably going to lean towards Robinson over Campy.

+1

[fairport4]

anyone come across a Jim Shaw autograph (he played for the Senators from 1913 to 1921 deceased 1962).... have been looking for a while and even large scale vintage autograph collections coming to market in auction catalogues are missing this autograph

if you find one out there please contact me

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by rats60

I will

The idea that the Seaver RC PSA pop 2456 sells for less than the Ryan RC PSA pop 8531 is a joke.

This post may be obvious to many on this board, but it bears writing for those who haven't thought about what PSA populations really signal.

These arguments involving PSA populations sometimes miss a couple of important elements other than card scarcity - popularity and card value. In terms of under-appreciated things, this is something that is truly underappreciated about the PSA population numbers.

While one card may be a short print and the other one not, the relative PSA population of two cards (not total population of raw + graded) is a factor of not only the relative scarcity/supply of the card, but of other things.

The 1952 Topps #311 Mantle has about 1500 graded copies. It is a high number with lower supply than cards in the low series. The 1952 Topps #310 George Metkovich is part of the less-scarce, low number series. So there are likely more of them in the world today than the Mantle. But there are only 450 or so PSA graded copies of #310. This doesn't mean it is more scarce. It means people have submitted this card fewer times to PSA than the Mantle. Both the popularity of the player and the potential profit/gain on having a card graded drives the PSA population. So be careful in using PSA pop as a proxy for relative scarcity.


It is hard to argue from that Ryan was way more of a collectors' favorite than Seaver. Ryan had the flashier career with the strikeouts, no-hitters, being dominant into his mid-40's almost, the noogies to Ventura's head. Seaver just doesn't have those memorable events. So Ryan's RC was more desireable, which made it more valuable, which caused people to send it in for grading more frequently. While the Seaver may be more scarce in total raw + graded population, these other factors play into Ryan having a larger PSA population.

That said, my Dad was a pitcher and he watched baseball avidly. He thought that Seaver was the best of his generation.

[rats60]

Those people who have been in the hobby for a long time know that the Seaver is much rarer than Ryan. If anything the Ryan RC is under represented on the PSA site due to it being so common that kids played with them and there are a lot of them in poor grades. PSA 1 shows 174. PSA 2 347. PSA 7 1488. There are a lot more low grade Ryan's than NM ones, but they aren't worth grading.

Seaver on the other hand was issued in low numbers being a 7th series card that had limited distribution in packs. A very large percentage of these cards entered the hobby through dealers selling to collectors. A much higher percentage are in higher grades than the Ryans.

[Steve D]

Another aspect to consider in the Ryan/Seaver argument, is the effect Jerry Koosman plays. He was a pretty decent and popular pitcher himself.

Ryan has Koosman riding shotgun for him, while Seaver has someone named Bill Denehy.


Steve

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by olecow

Eddie Mathews and Warren Spahn

+1 as to post-war: the second best (only to Schmidt) third baseman of all time and a 363 game winner with 13 20-win seasons (after all, that's what a pitcher is supposed to do for his team is win, isn't it?).

Pre-war, I'd have to go with Foxx and Hornsby, although RATS 60 is right that Foxx is behind Gehrig by all rational sabermetric measures. But Hornsby--three .400 seasons with good to great power, .358 lifetime BA and two triple crowns (yes I know that NL league batting averages were .280 or better during Hornsby's rein as the NL's best hitter, but still)!!!

Best holiday wishes to all,

Larry