Hank Aaron card values

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

This post is so full of errors and half truths, but I'll take on a few of them. First, Cobb is not the only player to recieve a higher percentage of HOF votes. The top 4 vote getters are Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Cal Ripken and George Brett. I guess you think Ryan and Seaver are the greatest pitchers of all time. Ripken and Brett are better than Cobb, Aaron , etc. See that is a pretty worthless metric to use.

I'm going to reply to the individual elements of your post, so I can get more laughs out of it.

There are no errors, or half-truths. Perhaps you just misread what I said?

Here is what I said, verbatim:

97.8% of Hall of Fame voters thought Aaron was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. When he was elected in 1982, only Ty Cobb was ever elected by a higher percentage of voters at 98.23%.

I should have said "only Ty Cobb had been elected by a higher percentage of voters." That was poorly edited on my part. But it should be clear that I was referring to the players who had already been elected when Aaron went in. Cal Ripken Jr, George Brett, Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver were all still playing in 1982. They would get a higher percentage than Aaron when elected, absolutely, but the first from that group to do so wouldn't get in for ten more years. Aaron got what was at the time the second highest vote percentage in the game's history, and it took a decade until another player bumped him down to third place. I referenced this list on baseball reference when making that post. I knew that the above named players surpassed him. I wouldn't have known Ty Cobb was elected with a higher percentage without that list. Aaron currently has the sixth-highest vote percentage of all the men enshrined in Cooperstown. And it's still now, and will always be higher a higher percentage than Mays, Mantle or Williams received. It's not a worthless metric at all. You think it's worthless because it's a fly in the ointment where your argument is concerned. The BBWAA tend to know something about the game, and more of them thought Aaron was deserving of induction on the first ballot than Mays, Williams or Mantle. Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing the merits of their voting, only stating the facts. I happen to think that Aaron, Mays, Mantle and Williams were all superstars, and can't think of a logical explanation as to why any of them would get less than 100%. But they did. Nonetheless, their voting record supports my assertion that Aaron is one of the all-time greats to ever play the game.

Originally Posted by rats60

So, it take it by OPS+ you are saying Mays was the better hitter of the two. So much for Aaron being the best hitter ever, lol. Mays was way better in the field, on the base paths and in every other phase of the game. I guess that is why Mays led in WAR 10 times, Aaron once.

Where did I say that Aaron was the best hitter ever? Please don't put words in my mouth. I think Ted Williams is the best hitter to ever play the game, and I have said so for a long time:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Of the four players, I must admit that Ted Williams intrigued me the most. He's considered by many (myself included) the best pure hitter to ever play the game. He combined a spectacular natural ability with a tireless work ethic. He studied opposing pitchers, and memorized what they threw in different situations. He took a scientific approach to the art of hitting, perfecting his swing, making sure that his bats were made to his exact specifications.

You made the argument that Mays was an all-time great, and Aaron was not. OPS + shows that after nearly a quarter century of baseball, their offensive production was nearly identical. Was Mays a better player than Aaron? When their whole game is considered, I think he was marginally better because of his defensive prowess. On the base paths, Mays was not better. He had more steal attempts, but their stolen base percentages are nearly identical, Mays stealing 338 bases in 441 attempts (a 76.64% success rate), while Aaron stole 240 bases in 313 attempts (a 76.68% success rate). The only place where I'd give Mays the edge was in the field. Aaron was no slouch in right field, but Mays played at a high level defensively for a longer period of time, and did it at a more demanding position. I'm happy to acknowledge that Mays had a little bit higher WAR than Aaron. But then again, the argument has never been that Aaron was better than Mays, only that Aaron was an all-time great like Mays. If Mays was a 10 talent on a 1 to 10 scale, Aaron was a 9.50. It's like saying "Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all-time". Fine. But Lou Gehrig was an all-time great, too. Ruth might have had a better WAR than Gehrig (I haven't looked). But does that exclude Gehrig from the pantheon of baseball immortals? Not at all.

Originally Posted by rats60

Mays is an all time great but Aaron is not. Who said that? Not me.

Originally Posted by rats60

If you want a guy that played at a high level for a long time, but was never truly great, Aaron's your guy.

Originally Posted by rats60

You claim the Giants moved the fences in for Mays, but that is incorrect. The first two years in SF, the Giants played in Seals Stadium. Only the first year at Candlestick where the fences back, they were adjusted after one season to the place where they stayed until the Giants moved to a new stadium. Somehow you think that this is the equivalent on moving the fences in when Aaron is approaching Mays and Ruth and then moving them back when he passes. Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.

You're really going back to this? The Giants moved the fences in, and Willie Mays was the primary beneficiary. It doesn't matter if they did it in the first year, the second, or the third. They moved them in, and Mays home run totals at home jumped dramatically once that happened. So what if, after the Giants moved, he played his first two season's home games at Seals Stadium? His last four years in New York, Mays hit 41, 51, 36 and 35 home runs, including 20, 22, 20 and 17 at home. An average of 20 homers a season at his home ballpark. Then, the Giants moved. He hit 16 home runs at Seals in both 1958 and 1959. Then, in 1960, now at the 'stick, he hit 12 home runs. His first three seasons after the move, he hit 44 home runs at home, an average of 15 per year, down an average of 5 home runs at home a season, or a 25% drop. Then, the fences got moved. In 1961, the first with the left-center field fence moved in by more than 30 feet, Mays hit 21 of his 40 homers at home. In 1962, he hit 28 of his 49 bombs at home. In 1963, 1964 and 1965, he hit 137 home runs in total (38, 47 and 52), of which 20, 25 and 24 were at Candlestick. While his home-road splits normalized, it is clear that he gained home runs by the move in. He went from 20 home runs at home his last four seasons at the Polo Grounds to 15 at Seals (two years) and one at the new 'stick, up to 23 home runs a season at home. That's a better than 50% increase in homers at home Mays gained by moving the walls in. The point? This whole sub-discussion is pointless. And the whole "the Braves moved the fences in for Aaron as he approached Mays and Ruth." Um, didn't the Giants move the fences in, and help Mays get closer to Ruth?

The Braves and Giants both had all-time great home run hitters on their rosters. Both moved the fences in, primarily to benefit those all-time home run hitters. Guess what? Doing so helps them both sell more tickets.

Originally Posted by rats60

You talk about the angry letters that Aaron recieved. I will always believe that it was because of the above, not because of skin color. I remember at the time this issue with the fence and "the launching pad" was very controversial as Aaron passed Mays and Ruth. It caused a lot of bitterness similar to Bonds PED use. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mays was getting ready to hit 715, it wouldn't have been an issue.

Well, I will always believe Jennifer Lawrence might one day knock on my door, and ask me to fly to Paris with her for the weekend. But believing something doesn't make it true. Not in the slightest.

You seem oblivious to the fact that Mays played in San Francisco. Hank Aaron, as he approached Ruth, played in Atlanta. He was a black man in the deep south, about to break the most hallowed record in sports, held by the most popular athlete in American professional sports history. That Aaron benefited from some "launching pad" to do so may have generated some bitterness. But that was hardly the basis for the despicable hate mail he received. The color of his skin....was. People threatened his life, they said "we're going to shoot him as he rounds the bases" because he was a black man. And no, there really is no similarity between Bonds taking PEDs and the Braves moving the fences in. In one case, a Major League franchise moved the fences in, with the tacit approval of Major League Baseball, and not only Hank Aaron benefited. In the other, a player took performance enhancing drugs (which he alone benefited from), which, as of 2003, was a rules violation in Major League Baseball. That distinction is reflected in the Hall of Fame voting record for the two players: Aaron got inducted into the Hall by nearly 98% of the voters on his first try. Bonds has had three cracks at Cooperstown, and hasn't surpassed 37% of the vote.

Baseball scholars place Aaron in the top five all-time greats to play the game. This is not me saying it. These are men that have studied the game. And when one considers the thousands of men that have played Major League Baseball, when you are listed as one of the ten best to ever play the game, you are, indisputably, an all-time great.

You said Aaron was "never truly great." He clearly was.

Now, I'm done discussing this.

[KCRfan1]

RATS, I been enjoying the post made by you and others, but your are naive if you do not believe the " angry " letters Aaron received were not based on race and skin color. You believe what you wish, but it is well documented that is exactly what the letters were.

[ALR-bishop]

I think Rats is enjoying all this immensely, and I do not think he is naive. A little devious maybe, but not naive

[KCRfan1]

Maybe a little trolling, and poking the bear a bit. LOL

[71buc]

I was curious what people here thought about the 1954 Johnston Cookie Aaron rookie card's current value and if it would also enjoy a similar increase in value? I think that as the Topps version climbs others may see it as an attractive if not more affordable option. Thankfully I have both but have little knowledge of the value of more scarce regional issues versus the mainstream versions. There certainly seem to be fewer of the Johnston Cookies rookie Aaron's out there.

[MCoxon]

Great question on Johnston's Cookies - I'll bet regional and non-mainstream Topps issues will rise, relative to their Topps counterparts, especially in cases where there prices are lower even though they are more scarce.

I recently picked up a '57 Sohio Maris and love it. I think it must be much rarer than his '58 Topps, and like it for that reason.

Others will say Topps (and early Bowman, Goudey, Playball, etc.) will always hold sway among collectors and command premiums to non-mainstream cards, but I'm not so sure. I think there's a chance collectors will move their desires to regionals as they seek out "scarcity".

Even within mainstream cards, there's been a shift to buying on condition - a form of scarcity. Collectors today spend multiples on a PSA 8 or 9 cards compared to a PSA 7. I don't think that the price difference was so high for a Nr-Mt vs. a NM-MT card vs. a Mint card in the 1970s and 1980s (admittedly, due to the objectivity that TPGs bring).

I suspect people are bidding up prices on cards with low PSA pop numbers. For instance, I'll bet there are roughly the same number of 1959 Mantles in Nr-MT or better condition today as compared to 1985 (maybe more, as hidden stacks of cards are found). Let's say 5,000 1959 Mantle cards exist today at "Nr-MT or better" -- using Beckett's 1987 condition guides, and regardless of whether they're slabbed or not.

But there are now only 308 1959 Mantles in PSA 8 or above, as of this morning, per the PSA pop report. Thus, a shift in tastes (to a PSA 8+ slab) has artificially constrained demand of a card that had 5,000 down to 308. That's a form of scarcity, just not one that appeals to me

So long story short - I'd bet the 1954 Johnston's Cookies, the Sohios, the Bazookas, the Exhibits, the Red Mans (with tabs - scarce), the 1971 Topps Greatest Moments, etc., will continue to appreciate relative to their mainstream Topps counterparts

[71buc]

Thanks for the informative well written response. I tend to agree with ypur thoughts.

[Volod]

I believe Aaron's 1954 Johnston Cookies card was somewhat scarce even within that set, itself. Maybe even as scarce as the Thomson card. I recall that i had a tough time finding one when i was working on the set back in the late '80's. Could be that young Hank signed an exclusive with Topps, since he wasn't in the '54 Bowman set, and the Cookie card may have been pulled during the season.