Most undervalued HOFers

[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.

[packs]

I've always thought Bill Terry was undervalued too. People sometimes know his name because he hit 400 but you're more likely to remember Ted. Aside from hitting 401 in 1930, he was a career 341 hitter and drove in 100 runs six seasons in a row.

Despite being the last NL player to hit 400 and being on a very short list of players to do it in the modern era, it still took him 15 tries to get into the HOF.

[Casey2296]

-
Stan Musial
-

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by packs

I've always thought Bill Terry was undervalued too. People sometimes know his name because he hit 400 but you're more likely to remember Ted. Aside from hitting 401 in 1930, he was a career 341 hitter and drove in 100 runs six seasons in a row.

Despite being the last NL player to hit 400 and being on a very short list of players to do it in the modern era, it still took him 15 tries to get into the HOF.

That's a good one -- and what a beautiful card this is.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by packs

I've always thought Bill Terry was undervalued too. People sometimes know his name because he hit 400 but you're more likely to remember Ted. Aside from hitting 401 in 1930, he was a career 341 hitter and drove in 100 runs six seasons in a row.

Despite being the last NL player to hit 400 and being on a very short list of players to do it in the modern era, it still took him 15 tries to get into the HOF.

I'm actually going to go with Ted Williams. For someone who can arguably lay claim to being among the top three ballplayers of all-time, his cards are still very moderately priced.

[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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I’m surprised only one mention of Musial. His career stats top every single player mentioned here and his cards might be a little more pricey than most mentioned here but nowhere near the Mantle/Mays/Aaron/Clemente/Jackie/Williams/DiMaggio realm.

[Jay Wolt]

I'd go w/ Warren Spahn
all time winningest lefty w/ 363 wins

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I’m surprised only one mention of Musial. His career stats top every single player mentioned here and his cards might be a little more pricey than most mentioned here but nowhere near the Mantle/Mays/Aaron/Clemente/Jackie/Williams/DiMaggio realm.

Used to be Musial. That was when the Propagandas Montiel was bringing $500 instead of $5000.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

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.

Perhaps, but in the two decades or more this Board has been going it's always the same names and nobody ever seems to move out of the undervalued category. IMO two decades from now Collins, Foxx, Musial, Spahn, Mathews, etc. will still be undervalued. It's an interesting discussion, my only point was don't think of these players as great investiments.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Glenn:

I believe that the Montiel Musial is more of a reflection on today’s moniker that rarity trumps everything else as opposed to Musial cards in general selling for big bucks. Look at his traditionally accepted 48 Bowman rookie compared to rookie cards of Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Jackie & Williams.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but in the two decades or more this Board has been going it's always the same names and nobody ever seems to move out of the undervalued category. IMO two decades from now Collins, Foxx, Musial, Spahn, Mathews, etc. will still be undervalued. It's an interesting discussion, my only point was don't think of these players as great investiments.

Peter, great point. I have seen these discussions in the past and many of these players will still be undervalued.

I like Brooks Robinson, but nothing will change in the future IRT his cards.

[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

[Yoda]

George Sisler.

[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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

There is far too much dislike for Ryan on this forum, in addition to the constant poo-pooing of his ability and stats.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by timn1

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' rookie in PSA 5 is like $75!). I think this is almost entirely a residual effect of his cards being so high from such a long time ago.

I'd like to think his accomplishments might have a wee bit to do with the value.

[packs]

I don't understand that perspective on Ryan at all. It is not uncommon for someone with a freakish arm like his to walk batters. It comes with the territory. You're asking for too much if you want a guy with an iron arm cannon and pinpoint control.

Look at Feller. He was Nolan Ryan before Nolan Ryan. Feller led the league in walks and strikeouts in the same season four times. Twice he led the league in wins, strikeouts, walks and hits surrendered.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I'd like to think his accomplishments might have a wee bit to do with the value.

Yes, his accomplishments had everything to do with the INITIAL rise in his cards' prices in the 1980s. But those accomplishments were all there before and during that initial rise. My point is that the values have stayed surprisingly high after his disgrace because of the residual effect.

(Just FYI, I am a lifelong Rose fan and I think MLB should now relent and let him in the HOF.)

[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.

[timn1]

But were Ryan's teams really THAT much worse than those of others? We're talking about a 20+ plus year stretch, after all. There were some good ones in there too - and Seaver, Carlton, Blyleven, etc. (everybody but Yankees) endured some bad teams.

You may be right, but it just seems to me it would even out over long careers- maybe not completely, but to a great extent.

We're talking about some huge disparities in pitcher WL PCT - Ryan's .526 vs. Seaver's .603, for example. Even Carlton's .574, which doesn't sound that great, represents 5 more wins and 48 fewer losses than Ryan.

I'm doing some research on this question just because it interests me - preliminary results are interesting!

WL Records of Ryan's teams (1968-1992 and half of 1993): 2062 Wins, 2010 Losses .506

Team Records without Ryan's decisions (1968-1992 and half of 1993): 1738 wins, 1718 Losses .502

Doesn't look like he played for that many horrible teams...

Originally Posted by 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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

There are lots of new collectors who are younger. Yes, most may be into modern material, but if they make the jump into vintage, as some have and more will continue to do, they will undoubtedly be drawn to Jackie, thereby keeping the values rising. That's who I was referring to.

[packs]

I would think you would want future generations to be drawn to someone like Jackie Robinson.

[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 ...