Hank Aaron card values

[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.

[MattyC]

Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.

Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.

For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.

I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.

Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.

For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.

I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.

Me too.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.

Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.

For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.

I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.

I guess it depends on the number of consecutive years ( even going head to head ) you consider to be " peak performance ". For Mantle, is that 5 years, 7 years, 10 years? It certainly will not be more than 10 years. Mantle may hold a slight edge at 5 years, but after that, I'll take Aaron. What makes this so fun is it's all personal preference.

[MattyC]

Agreed on all subjective personal preference, and how one synthesizes and parses the numbers.

I like to look at league leading performance, and I gravitate to how The Mick led his league in OPS+ a whopping eight times. Aaron stood atop his peers in OPS+ three times.

In terms of MVP of their respective leagues, The Mick had three MVPs, with another three 2nd place finishes. Aaron won one MVP award, and never finished 2nd in another year, his best finishes coming 3rd after that one win.

Mantle also had 50 HR power, whereas despite playing healthy for many years, Aaron never did touch that rarefied benchmark.

I'm also a big on-base guy, and in terms of peak OBP performance, Aaron reached the lofty .400 mark three times, whereas Mantle hit the .400 OBP mark an incredible nine times, with a peak of a mind-boggling .512. And that's not counting a .399 year. Of Aaron's three years where he reached base at a 40% clip, his peak was .410. Mantle had years of .512, .486, .464, and .448. Basically Mantle's 10th best year of getting on base would have been Aaron's 4th best year.

One thing I have always admired about Mantle's game was that even at the very end, with a lowly .245 batting average, the man was getting on base at a .391 clip.

Somehow The Mick slugged .705 in '56, whereas Aaron's peak slugging year clocked in at .669. The Mick had two additional years at .687 and .665. So those four thousandths notwithstanding between .669 and .665, The Mick's 3rd best slugging year was roughly equal to the best Aaron ever put up.

End of the day, though,winding up with either player for a hypothetical team is an amazing thing to contemplate. One of the reasons I am in awe of Hank Aaron is his durability. And also the way he stood up to the very harsh spotlight of his run at Ruth's record. To do anything at such a great level for so long is no doubt as impressive as doing something better than anyone else for a shorter time period. As was said, it comes down to personal preference, and what entertains, what endears a player to each fan. It's always fascinating and enlightening to hear why a fan loves his favorite player.

[MCoxon]

I agree with Matty C's point that we need to agree on what we're solving for when we say "best." I also think we may sometimes overly focus on stats and that we should take into account non-statistical evidence as well (and I'm an economist and businessman). For instance:

1) Number of championships. Even this can be hard to use because great teammates can make one player look great (e.g., Mantle).

Did Ted Williams never win a WS because he didn't have "it"? Or because his teammates weren't good enough? Or because Mantle and the Yanks were too good and kept the Red Sox out of the WS altogether for 12 of Williams' seasons?

Mays and Aaron each only won 1 WS. They had HOFers all over the place as teammates. Spahn, Mathews, McCovey, Cepeda, Marichal. These aren't nobodies. 1 WS each, both when they were in their early- to mid-20s. Why?

2) Club house leadership. I always see someone traded 5-6 times and wonder, was that random, or was he a club house cancer? If someone gets traded every few years, you have to wonder if he just can't get along with teammates, coaches, GMs. That should be considered, as it also influences the ability to get the best out of teammates and ultimately the team. Rico Carty got in fights with Aaron and Santo and had to get traded from the Braves and Cubs because of it, in spite of being a great player on the field (e.g., 1970 Batting Championship with a .360+ avg.)

Point #1 and 2 can be summed up by Barry Bonds - I lived in SF for a lot of his time there. His stats (forget PEDs for the moment) say, at his peak, he was a top 2-3 best hitters ever. On dimensions #1 and 2 - not so great.

3) Play under pressure. Sabrematricians laugh at ERA, but I always feel like advanced stats (especially pitching stats) can mislead on whether a pitcher performs in the clutch. There's a difference between winning a 2-1 game against the other team's #1 on the road in a September pennant race game vs. putting up WHIP numbers in the 5th inning of a meaningless game, when you know you're going to get pulled after 100 pitches, against Tampa in August.

I cringe when I see "greatest game ever pitched" -- as happened sometime earlier this year -- and it was some Tuesday game in April when a guy gave up 2 hits but had the best index of god knows what. No - "the greatest game ever pitched" is throwing 10 innings of shut out ball in a 7th game of a WS (Jack Morris), or throwing perfect game in a pivotal 5th (or 6th, can't remember) game of a WS (Larsen), etc.

So this is a great discussion on statistics (and I love, love, love statistics), but I think there are many non-stats ways to gauge performance, too.

Using the above criteria, it's still a toss up to me. Mantle won tons of championships, was universally beloved by teammates, and played amazing under pressure (18 WS home runs). Aaron also played under pressure - maybe better than anyone in baseball history. I think for that alone, he deserves a lot of credit

[KCRfan1]

I'm pretty old school guys. Regarding the number of championships, Aaron can't help the fact he played on the Braves and Mantle played on the Yankees. MVP Awards are very subjective, even now.

I'm all about the basics: Hits, Runs, Home Runs, Batting Average, Stolen Bases, OBP, Slugging

If I look at these numbers, I still want Aaron.

It's all a matter of perspective, and we can't really go wrong with either guy! The numbers Mick could have put up if he would have remained healthy..........now that's a discussion!

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

Best yardstick for me for comparing players across different eras and conditions of play, at least from the standpoint of offensive production, is Bill James' runs created vs league runs created per 27 outs. It is much more detailed than OPS+. By that criterion, Williams was far and away the best, at 250% for his career (Ruth was at 240%, by the way), and Mantle is the only other one of those you have named over 200% (right around 215%, as I recall). Mays and Aaron were both in the 180% range, with a small advantage to Mays, with Clemente far, far, far behind at 142%. Overall, of course, Clemente would make up some of the difference with his glove and arm, but nowhere near enough to even begin to compete with the others. All of them except Williams were outstanding fielders, with Mays arguably the best CF of all time. Mays and Aaron fall significantly behind Mantle by this yardstick because they consistently made 60-70 more outs than he did to get pretty much the same production--never underestimate the value of a player who, like Williams and Mantle, draw an outstanding number of walks--plate discipline, coupled with dangerous power, makes for a lot of walks and hence runs scored. Check out Williams and Mantle's runs scored totals (with Williams, especially before he went off to Korea in 1952--120, 130, 140--and this from a guy who certainly no one would have called fast). See also Ralph Kiner--six seasons of more than 100 runs scored due to drawing tremendous amounts of walks from a guy who really had no speed to speak of--just plate discipline and tremendous power (led NL in HR's seven consecutive seasons, and major leagues in HR's 6 times, hitting over 50 HR's twice, and drawing as many as 137 walks).

Just my thoughts,

Larry

[Mas715]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Always wondered why his card values arent up there with mays, mantle or williams. Hank was such a great player it just seems like his cards after 1954 are fairly cheap compared to the other mentioned players. What factors do u think play into that?

Always thought small market where he played. Been collecting Hank Aaron since early 70's. Please see my PSA collection on Hank Arron Master Set. I'm mas715 and my second set is mas715set2. Always looking for oddball Aaron's, would trade.
Thank you.
Mike

[RobertC]

Originally Posted by Mas715

Always thought small market where he played. Been collecting Hank Aaron since early 70's. Please see my PSA collection on Hank Arron Master Set. I'm mas715 and my second set is mas715set2. Always looking for oddball Aaron's, would trade.
Thank you.
Mike

That is a GREAT Aaron registry set. I've been using it quite often as a reference; really nice to have pictures of all the cards. There are several that I would really like to find.

[SAllen2556]

New York City population 1960: 7,781,984 (#1)
Milwauke population 1960: 741,324 (#11)
Atlanta population 1960: 487,455 (#24)

We collect the players we grew up with (and heard stories about) more than any other. Isn't it that simple? It isn't race or WAR, or RBI's. If you collect the Yankees, the demand is 10 times greater, on average, than the Braves. Prices have to reflect that don't they?

Aaron prices will never come close to Mantle because there isn't the same demand, despite the fact they were both stars of the game.

Personally, If I were building a franchise I'd take Aaron. If I were signing one of them for 3 years as a free agent, in his prime, I'd take Mantle.

[jchcollins]

You have to remember that there was no greater intersection of time, place, and baseball than New York in the 1950's. Mantle reaped the benefits of that like no player before or since him, I would argue including Ruth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hcv123]

Reason for Aaron cards being "undervalued" - imo -is because Aaron collectors have been unwilling to pay more for Aaron cards for their collections!