Field of Dreams = Shoeless Joe Overrated?

[MattyC]

No effing way are his card values due primarily to that movie. Rather I think the fact that some movies feature him is just reflective of his alluring, iconic stature. I'm sure those movies do in turn help sustain popularity to some unquantifiable degree, but I'd bet they aren't the largest part of the Jackson card value equation. Not everyone has seen the movies, and Field of Dreams is quite removed from the zeitgeist of today. In Shoeless we are talking about a player who...

1. Had one of the top career BA's of all time. A stat which many still value. A swing that Ruth admittedly modeled his own after-- a swing Cobb held in highest regard. So we are talking about an elite player.

2. A figure that transcends the game and enters the realm of iconic-- Shoeless is a character in movies. How many players are on that level? Ruth? Gehrig? "Say it ain't so, Joe," and the Black Sox scandal are part of American popular culture and history-- and few players have attained that mythic status, even if Shoeless' is a bit tragic as well.

3. A player with precious few playing-days issued cards, and the few he has are HIGHLY sought after by collectors.

These three points make the case for Shoeless Joe being a major subject of baseball card collections and a subject whose cards are highly prized and valued.

What makes one man an icon and legend and another with comparable stats not possessing of equal status? It is hard to say. But we know it happens. In all professions. Some men have the right stage, the right story, the right look or name or timing. Imagine Reggie without that one game.

Also-- baseball reference cannot be the barometer by which we try to establish values. Mantle is almost identical to Mays in many statistical ways, but his cards are in much higher demand. Eddie Murray has 3000 hits and 500 HR-- and his RC is a beast in good condition, and incongruously sells for a fraction of Schmidt or even Yount. Same with Carlton-- look at his Ks, and yet Ryan cards dominate Carlton cards. So mystique, personality, and prominence on the national stage play a huge part in a player's place among collectors-- aside from sheer stats. Musial and Hornsby also come to mind-- great players whose cards just don't get the respect as others. And as far as the film goes, I'll admit I've never seen it-- and yet I highly covet Shoeless cards because of the aforementioned three criteria.

With respect to the initial post-- statements like "that average would have dropped," "he wasn't Cobb," and "I know his cards are tough," are kind of problematic. He ended on like a .382. Cobb revered him. And if Cobb (and Ruth) did, then we should, because one's peers are a major respectable source. And yes, his cards are prett tough-- and that counts for a lot. No baseball reference stat-by-age-similarity can create equivalency between an Eddie Collins or relatively easy to find Goudey Gehrig and a Shoeless RC or Boston or CJ. One can be found on eBay every day and one surfaces so infrequently and the ask is insane.

Bottom line, I gotta agree with much of this article:

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...its-collect-it