OT: Trout vs. Mantle

[FourStrikes]

helluva player - I've watched him plenty of times on TV and I think IF he keeps it up he's got a helluva future...MY opinion is that IF he doesn't buy all into all of the (perhaps deserved???) media hype, he'll be amazing. he appears - thus far - to be fairly grounded, but only time will tell...

4/5 tool player - Yes, but only 3+ years isn't necessarily a fair measuring stick for "next Mantle" comparisons, IMHO.

SB's are down, strike outs climbing each year, BUT his overall numbers are solid. his TWO seasons (in his first two years) as runner-up MVP show genuine promise, but let's just give him the time to grow as a player and a person and see how it plays out rather than calling him "The Next" - insert name here - (see Strawberry, Murcer, et al, as reference).

disclaimer: as to your appeal for "anybody who has seen BOTH", I'm way too young to have seen Mantle play, but I'd be thrilled IF we're seeing the "second coming" of the Mick...

that said, I'm a believer in his abilities, and I think he just MAY be the one to one day fulfill your / our expectations as a player...

again, JMHO.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by FourStrikes

helluva player - I've watched him plenty of times on TV and I think IF he keeps it up he's got a helluva future...MY opinion is that IF he doesn't buy all into all of the (perhaps deserved???) media hype, he'll be amazing. he appears - thus far - to be fairly grounded, but only time will tell...

4/5 tool player - Yes, but only 3+ years isn't necessarily a fair measuring stick for "next Mantle" comparisons, IMHO.

SB's are down, strike outs climbing each year, BUT his overall numbers are solid. his TWO seasons (in his first two years) as runner-up MVP show genuine promise, but let's just give him the time to grow as a player and a person and see how it plays out rather than calling him "The Next" - insert name here - (see Strawberry, Murcer, et al, as reference).

disclaimer: as to your appeal for "anybody who has seen BOTH", I'm way too young to have seen Mantle play, but I'd be thrilled IF we're seeing the "second coming" of the Mick...

that said, I'm a believer in his abilities, and I think he just MAY be the one to one day fulfill your / our expectations as a player...

again, JMHO.

Curious which of the 5 tools he's lacking to only be a 4 tool player?

[BradH]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Curious which of the 5 tools he's lacking to only be a 4 tool player?

He does not have a great throwing arm.

Although he’s had an admittedly small sample size so far (three years), he is probably the single best overall player I’ve ever seen play in person – and that’s from a pretty large sample of greats that I’ve watched. Just an amazing talent and a nice guy. I hope he stays healthy and we can watch him doing what he does for another 12-15 years.

[t206blogcom]

I've seen him play a couple of times and he's off to a great start to his career. If he continues at this pace, he'll definitely remain an all-star.

Way too early to compare him to anyone else, HOF or not. I don't understand why the media today feel compelled to always pump up rookies, compare them to past players and put that added pressure on these guys. Being on the east coast I don't hear as much about Trout as I do another player, Bryce Harper.

I cannot count the number of times I hear Harper being compared to Pete Rose. I see Harper play a few times a week at Nats Park. He hustles, can hit towering HRs and make great catches (when he's not running into walls). He's a two-time All Star. He has the potential to be a long term star if he remains healthy. But the constant expectations from him I find ridiculous. So what happens when he doesn't hit a million HRs in a season or when he strikes out when a base hit is needed? People start saying 'oh, he sucks. I thought this kid was supposed to be good.' I hear it all the time while at a game.

Harper has had a couple of injuries this year and missed a good deal of time. People don't understand that if you're on the DL for a month, it's like day one of spring training when you come off the DL. It takes time to find your swing again, get your timing down. And that's what Harper is doing. During a game a couple of weeks ago there was this annoying, know-it-all fan a few seats down from me. The kind of guy who constantly talks throughout the entire game, sometimes about baseball, sometimes about other topics I care not to share. He was a self-proclaimed baseball 'expert' and knows 'everything about everyone'. So when Harper got into the box for the first time, he was shocked at his then .250 batting average. He started a rant about 'how much he sucks, he's no Pete Rose.' I politely leaned over and suggested his average might be down a bit since he's coming off the DL and is working his way back to where he was before. His response? "If he wants to be the next Pete Rose, he needs to be hitting .350." Sigh.

Perhaps it's too easy to pump up a rookie and make millions off of the potential rather than grow fans through long term success. Perhaps we want too much 'now' and lack any sort of patience.

Going back to Trout and not to derail this thread, I hope he continues to play well and earn the money the Angels have decided to pay him. And I hope he is and remains drug-free.

I'm too young to have seen Mantle play in person. Will Trout be the next Mantle? Nobody knows and in my opinion a bit ridiculous to already be making the comparison. Let's see where we are in 10 years. That's when comparisons can start to be made, for Trout, Harper and anyone else.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

I've seen him play a couple of times and he's off to a great start to his career. If he continues at this pace, he'll definitely remain an all-star.

Way too early to compare him to anyone else, HOF or not. I don't understand why the media today feel compelled to always pump up rookies, compare them to past players and put that added pressure on these guys. Being on the east coast I don't hear as much about Trout as I do another player, Bryce Harper.

I cannot count the number of times I hear Harper being compared to Pete Rose. I see Harper play a few times a week at Nats Park. He hustles, can hit towering HRs and make great catches (when he's not running into walls). He's a two-time All Star. He has the potential to be a long term star if he remains healthy. But the constant expectations from him I find ridiculous. So what happens when he doesn't hit a million HRs in a season or when he strikes out when a base hit is needed? People start saying 'oh, he sucks. I thought this kid was supposed to be good.' I hear it all the time while at a game.

Harper has had a couple of injuries this year and missed a good deal of time. People don't understand that if you're on the DL for a month, it's like day one of spring training when you come off the DL. It takes time to find your swing again, get your timing down. And that's what Harper is doing. During a game a couple of weeks ago there was this annoying, know-it-all fan a few seats down from me. The kind of guy who constantly talks throughout the entire game, sometimes about baseball, sometimes about other topics I care not to share. He was a self-proclaimed baseball 'expert' and knows 'everything about everyone'. So when Harper got into the box for the first time, he was shocked at his then .250 batting average. He started a rant about 'how much he sucks, he's no Pete Rose.' I politely leaned over and suggested his average might be down a bit since he's coming off the DL and is working his way back to where he was before. His response? "If he wants to be the next Pete Rose, he needs to be hitting .350." Sigh.

Perhaps it's too easy to pump up a rookie and make millions off of the potential rather than grow fans through long term success. Perhaps we want too much 'now' and lack any sort of patience.

Going back to Trout and not to derail this thread, I hope he continues to play well and earn the money the Angels have decided to pay him. And I hope he is and remains drug-free.

I'm too young to have seen Mantle play in person. Will Trout be the next Mantle? Nobody knows and in my opinion a bit ridiculous to already be making the comparison. Let's see where we are in 10 years. That's when comparisons can start to be made, for Trout, Harper and anyone else.

Mike Trout is the worst thing to happen to Bryce Harper.

[ls7plus]

I've seen both (Mantle while still in his prime in the early '60's), and to this point, Trout is the closest thing to a young Mantle I've seen in the intervening 50+ years. Watching him brings back the memories of how truly dominant Mantle actually was! He's got a long way to go, however, and lots of things can happen to derail him. Nothing will tell but time, which is why some of the asking prices for Trout border on the absurd, being supported by demand that is either highly speculative, transient (later to move on to the latest and greatest new thing!), or both: $50K for a one of three refractor rookie? $14,999 for a gold refractor rookie? Those cards won't be actually worth that based on true collector demand in your grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes!

Great thread!

Larry

[Runscott]

Larry, watching all the sales of modern cards at nearby booths in Cleveland this year, I would love to get in on that money. But trying to figure out the logic behind these prices is so much more difficult than pre-war. I'd rather live on food stamps and enjoy my collecting/dealing than tie my brain in a knot by getting involved in modern stuff. I nearly had a seizure when I finally figured out what 'refractor' meant.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

$50K for a one of three refractor rookie? $14,999 for a gold refractor rookie? Those cards won't be actually worth that based on true collector demand in your grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes!

I was having this discussion with a friend just the other day. He is huge into the modern card market. (I dabble, but mostly just raw base RC's to keep.) He "prospects" which is basically the same thing everyone did in the late 80's, except he unloads immediately. He argued that certain cards, in particular the 2009 Mike Trout Bowman Chrome AU run will hold near current prices barring the unforeseen cutting his career short. I called him crazy and we debated for awhile. He walked away thinking he was right, and I did the same for myself - except that later I thought about it and.... he could be right.

For starters, the kid has talent (crazy talent) and he's exceptionally marketable for MLB. The fact that a Mantle vs. Trout debate can spring up and not be considered absurd speaks highly for the kid. It highly conceivable for him to go down as the best of his generation. So lets look at his most coveted card/cards (the 2009 Bowman Chrome Auto RC) and compare it to the 1952 Topps Mantle (the most important card of the post-war vintage market.)

Personally I've always argued against manufactured scarcity when compared to authentic scarcity, but after this debate I looked at the issue from a different prospective. For example, the two major variables for vintage cards are scarcity and condition. With the consideration of a vintage card this condition variable can easily range from 0 (Authentic) to 8/9/10 (Mint). With modern cards, however, this range usually shortens from 0-10 to ~8-10. This leaves little in the way of comparison, but if we substitute manufactured scarcity for condition with modern cards a more fair argument can be made.

With the 1952 Topps Mantle, PSA and SGC have combined to grade ~1,500 specimens.
With the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout Auto PSA and BGS have combined to grade ~1,100 copies.
So they're in the same ballpark with the number of copies on the market. (Copies available on eBay are also similar - ~20 for Mantle ~30 for Trout.)
However, the average grade assigned to the 1952 Topps Mantle by PSA (the card's leading grader) is ~3.7, while the average grade assigned to the 2009 Bowman Chrome Trout by BGS (the card's leading grader) is a much higher 9.2. With condition as point of discussion there is absolutely no way to discuss the cards together. Modern cards simply grade higher because the hobby has become about collecting and preserving.

So lets look at substituting manufactured scarcity for condition for the Trout and comparing the two. As of now the market for the 1952 Topps Mantle is ~$10k - $14k for a PSA 4 depending on the presentation which puts it in the same current market range as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout Orange Refractor. The Trout Orange Refractor, however, is limited to just 25 copies while to date PSA has assigned a grade of "4" to 159 Mantles. With this considered, I believe that yes, it is possible for this certain card maintain current levels and even possibly grow. It is highly possible that in the future hobbyist collecting modern cards will chase manufactured scarcity much in the same manner we currently chase high grade vintage cards. If Trout maintains his current production on the field and remains the hobby darling this card will become the "must have" card of this era much like the Mantle is for 1950's-1960's.