OT: Trout vs. Mantle

[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.

[chaddurbin]

a pre-war board not getting modern cards...what a suprise! having a thorough understanding of prewars and dabbling in the speculative nature of modern card collecting, i can say i enjoy both spectrums.

trout early in his career is already producing peak-year rate of many hof heavyweights and it's hard to think he's going to continue at his 10war rate every year...but he has the potential to! even if he settles into the 7-8war for the next 10 years which is totally plausible he'd still be an all-time great. living in socal i get to experience possibly 2 of the all-time greats in their primes, and it's NIRVANA for a baseball fan like me.

...and harper, nothing's wrong with him! he's still younger than most of the top 100 prospects list they put out every year. he'll be fine if matt williams would stop jerking him around (baseball is seemingly in decline because nobody relates to these hard-ass white guys with their unwritten rules...give it a rest brian mccann-types).

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

...and harper, nothing's wrong with him! he's still younger than most of the top 100 prospects list they put out every year.

+1

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi, Scott. The "logic" behind it is that if you get a hot card, preferably with a very low print run, of a player who seems at a very early stage to have top flight HOF potential, pick a number to sell it for immediately, then put 4 zeros behind that number before the player sustains a serious injury, simply loses it overnight as the pitchers adjust to him and he fails to return the favor, or he is exposed as a PED user! Prices are based upon speculation (with an overly large % of buyers intending not to keep the card for a collection, but to flip it for profit asap), or transient demand which is quick to depart for the next latest and greatest thing! IMHO, if you're going to buy current players, buy them when they are in their downslide in their late 30's (assuming they are good enough to still be around by then), when most of the above transient demand has departed the scene.

Best of luck,

Larry

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hi, Scott. The "logic" behind it is that if you get a hot card, preferably with a very low print run, of a player who seems at a very early stage to have top flight HOF potential, pick a number to sell it for immediately, then put 4 zeros behind that number before the player sustains a serious injury, simply loses it overnight as the pitchers adjust to him and he fails to return the favor, or he is exposed as a PED user! Prices are based upon speculation (with an overly large % of buyers intending not to keep the card for a collection, but to flip it for profit asap), or transient demand which is quick to depart for the next latest and greatest thing! IMHO, if you're going to buy current players, buy them when they are in their downslide in their late 30's (assuming they are good enough to still be around by then), when most of the above transient demand has departed the scene.

Best of luck,

Larry

Thanks Larry - I didn't realize it was so simple!

Originally Posted by tedzan

A huge DITTO to what Bob says here.


Fortunately, I'm old enough to have seen Mickey play when I was growing up (1951-1968).

Does anyone here believe Ted stopped growing up in 1968?

Mantle was already LEGENDARY when I was a kid in the early '60s, as was Willie Mays. Even at the tail-end of his career, the word 'Mantle' or 'Mays' meant something other-worldly to kids my age. Of course, 'Maris' had almost-similar status until he got traded to the Cardinals, as it took quite a long time for the '61' thing to wear off. 'BABE RUTH' was the other legendary baseball name, but you could still get a Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays baseball card when I was a kid, which made them even more special. As far as comparing Trout to Mantle, versus Mays, I think Mays would also be a valid comparison. I really don't understand how a lot of people put Mays and Mantle in different categories as far as 'legendariness' (coined term - one nickel to me if you decide to use it). Kids my age were awed by both equally, but maybe that was only in Texas since we had no particular affinity for things from either coast. And race really played no part in it - the pitchers who inspired us were Marichal, Gibson, Drysdale and Koufax, and Denny McLain for the one big year.

I've said this before, and I don't think anyone really gets it - if the kids weren't all that excited about pulling a player's card from a wax pack, then he shouldn't even be considered for the HOF. I know, it's not based on statistics, but believe me - kids took their statistics very seriously, so that also played into it. I can't remember a kid ever saying, "But Niekro for Drysdale is a great deal - look at how steady Niekro is performing over a long period with a team that no one cares about", or "Oh boy! I pulled a Blyleven!!!" Didn't happen.

I digress, but my point is that Mantle was the man (as was Mays). If Trout is 'the man' 10 years from now, and his name is mentioned in the same sentence as either Mantle or Mays, then you've got your answer. Hopefully we won't be hearing it mentioned with Bobby Murcer.

[ctownboy]

I have told this story before but it seems worth telling again. When I was first out of college, had a job and had some money to spend on baseball cards, I put advertisements in small town local papers looking to buy.

I bought two different collections of cards from two different guys. Both had collected the cards as boys and both had collected from the late 1950's until the early 1960's. Both were selling to raise money for one thing or another.

Both collections had star cards and high number cards. Both guys didn't mind selling the star cards and high numbers. However, both guys wanted to keep the cards of one player - Mickey Mantle.

So, even though the Mantle cards were some of the highest value cards and the guys were selling to make money for other things, they just couldn't part with their Mantle's.

David

[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.

[clydepepper]

I never saw Mantle in person and only on TV in the last few years, so I never really saw his true physical gifts. There is moment in the Ken Burns special that provides a hint. He is shown being thrown out at first base, but MAN, o MAN is he ever fast down that line. He was a great athlete before his knees gave way.

As far as impact on the BBC hobby, no one comes close to Mantle. He was the first TV superstar and therefore, had fans throughout the nation...even if they were not Yankees fans.

Willie Mays was actually better in almost all measurable ways, but suffers from the side of the hobby that no one likes to talk about. It is difficult for us to admit it, but it is true. We (at least a lot of us) like to say that we collect a certain player because, we (at least on the inside) can identify with him more...but, is that all it is...I wonder.

Trout is a great young player, but let's not forget the many 'bridges' between Mays & Mantle and Trout...like Ken Griffey, Jr.- certainly one of the best I have ever seen.

Speaking of short memories, it seems like every few years the title of 'best pitcher in baseball' bounces to a new owner...I remember Halliday and Verlander being praised exactly the way Kershaw is being now...how very fleeting fame is, huh?

[the 'stache]

Forget the current population reports. There are far fewer Mike Trout 2009 Bowman Chrome autos than there are 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles. Assuming Topps has the same tiers, there are 2,676 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout autos-1,695 base autos, 500 refractor autos, 250 x-fractor autos, 150 blue refractor autos, 50 gold refractor autos, 25 orange refractor autos, 5 red refractor autos, and a superfractor. And of those, Beckett graded 9s or higher will command a premium.

[chris6net]

When I was a kid Roger Repoz was supposed to be the next Mickey Mantle!

[tbob]

I think a better comparison would be to compare Trout to Griffey Jr.

There was only one Mickey Mantle. Period.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Forget the current population reports. There are far fewer Mike Trout 2009 Bowman Chrome autos than there are 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles. Assuming Topps has the same tiers, there are 2,676 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout autos-1,695 base autos, 500 refractor autos, 250 x-fractor autos, 150 blue refractor autos, 50 gold refractor autos, 25 orange refractor autos, 5 red refractor autos, and a superfractor. And of those, Beckett graded 9s or higher will command a premium.

say WHAT?????