Value of T206 E.Collins??

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Possible reasons:
1) 47 career home runs
2) Pictured on Philadelphia A's. Moved to KC then Oakland. Not a big team fan base like still existing Chicago Cubs or Boston Red Sox.
3) No name cachet. Not someone people on the street know like Tinkers/Evers/Chance.
4) How much are Paul Molitor cards worth? That would be the modern comparison.

John I know you're making a comparison and I agree big time with 1-3 but I don't think Cocky Collins and Paul Molitor should be mentioned in the same sentence no offense to Molitor but Collins could easily be picked as the best Second Baseman (arguably) Molitor..... not so much.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

John I know you're making a comparison and I agree big time with 1-3 but I don't think Cocky Collins and Paul Molitor should be mentioned in the same sentence no offense to Molitor but Collins could easily be picked as the best Second Baseman (arguably) Molitor..... not so much.

Agree with this. I think Hornsby might give Collins a run, but they are in a different class than Molitor.

That said, I think this comment reinforces the point of the OP's question. Collins does seem under-appreciated and under-valued.

[Luke]

I've had this same thought before. It doesn't make much sense to me.

[Mark]

I've noticed this, too, and I've chalked it up to how a lot of the more popular cards are of players whose careers began back in the 19th century while Collins' playing career stretched into the late 1920's. Maybe this made him seem too modern to excite the nostalgic interest that goes to "dead ball" players like Chance, Lajoie, and Brown. In addition, it might hurt that he was one of the clean Black Sox, making him even less romantic a figure.

[brianp-beme]

I am not sure why Eddie doesn't command the collector respect (perhaps because nothing about him is exciting or 'sexy'), but being a bargain shopper, I have built up a pretty decent collection of his cards due to this lack of demand.

For the sake of my future collecting, please keep this info on the low down.

Brian

[T206Collector]

It's helpful to see that Lajoie, Speaker, and Young got into the Hall of Fame in 1937 -- voted on by people who saw them all player -- and Collins didn't make the cut that year.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_1937.shtml

The next year, Alexander got in, but no one else.

It wasn't until 1939 that Collins got in, along with Sisler and Keeler.

That gives a pretty strong impression that as great as Collins was statistically, he wasn't thought of as that ultra-top-tier great by his contemporary critics.

As an aside, I'm a pretty big Eddie Collins fan - of all the famous ballplayers who have come out of New York, none of them came from as close to where I grew up in the lower Hudson Valley. Collins came out of Tarrytown, NY!

[brianp-beme]

Another observation...since the early eighties when I began collecting vintage, Eddie Collins has always been undervalued compared to his top tier status as a HOF ballplayer. So this collector perception certainly has been around for a long time.

Brian

[bravos4evr]

IDK why this is honestly. He's probably the 2nd greatest 2b of all time after Hornsby (who is in a league of his own really at 2b), he's got good career numbers relative to his peers at all positions and is nearly one of the 10 most productive players of ALL TIME!!! (I'd put him in the 11-15 range,which is elite of the elite)

I guess the fact he played for a lot of teams and perhaps didn't have a personality that was marketable or something hurts him. I have noticed that 2b seems to be the red headed stepchild of baseball too. for some odd reason.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I am not sure why Eddie doesn't command the collector respect (perhaps because nothing about him is exciting or 'sexy'), but being a bargain shopper, I have built up a pretty decent collection of his cards due to this lack of demand.

For the sake of my future collecting, please keep this info on the low down.

Brian

Sexy he was not. "Cocky" was Columbia educated and unlike Joe Jackson and many others, joined the Marine Corps during WWI. He didn't serve in combat but at least put himself out there. I'll be more excited over a fellow Devil Dog than somebody who was simply just good at baseball any day. I enjoy the lower price for his cards too. Cat may be out of the bag now. Net54 has a way of impacting the market in short spurts sometimes.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

John I know you're making a comparison and I agree big time with 1-3 but I don't think Cocky Collins and Paul Molitor should be mentioned in the same sentence no offense to Molitor but Collins could easily be picked as the best Second Baseman (arguably) Molitor..... not so much.

I wasn't going by 2B even, really. Just picked Molitor as someone who played for teams with small fan bases (MIL, MIN, TOR), compiled a lot of hits, and isn't well-known nowadays compared to his contemporaries, and therefore is regarded as a common in 90 percent of sets he's in. I personally know little about Eddie Collins and how he played, or how his fans 100 years ago thought about him. I would bet that if he was a Yankee, Red Sock, or Cub he would sell for twice what he does now.

[swarmee]

Here's a counter-intuitive reason:
Eddie Collins has only one pose, and is one of the cheapest HOFs. People who are collecting the set need only 1, and cross it off their list early. Then they don't bid on other ones, the way that the Cobbs, Mathewsons, even Hal Chases with multiple poses require people to continually demand them to build sets.

[the 'stache]

I think you guys are severely underestimating how good a player Molitor was. Rajah was clearly on his own level as second basemen in the game's history go. You will get no argument from me: Hornsby is on his own level, and nobody, really, is close. Rogers Hornsby hit over .400 multiple times, had incredible power. But Collins better than Molitor? Yes. Way better than Molitor? No way. You have to remember that Molly's early career was plagued with injuries. Before age 30, he only really had three healthy seasons - 1979, his second season, 1982, and 1983, which was a bit of a down year for him.

Look at how many games he played, season by season, before age 30:

1978: 125 of 162
1979: 140 of 162
1980: 111 of 162
1981: 64 of 109
1982: 160 of 162
1983: 152 of 162
1984: 13 of 162
1985: 140 of 162
1986: 105 of 162
1987: 118 of 162

total games played by team: 1,567
total games played by Molitor: 1,128
total games missed by Molitor: 439

That's nearly three full seasons of play, in his prime, that he missed due to injury, and that doesn't factor in when he played hurt.

1987 was his age 30 season. He was a .291 hitter before the '87 season started. Look what he did from age 30 on when he was healthy. The guy was a superstar. He hit .353 in 1987, .312 the next season, .315 in 1989. Then, he was hurt in 1990, and played in only 103 games, hitting .285. He was healthy then on, hitting .325 in 1991, .320 in 1992, .332 in 1993, .341 in 1994 (playing in all 115 games). In 1995, he missed 14 games, and hit .270, then hit .341 in 1996 with 225 hits and 113 RBI at age 39. He hit .305 at age 40.

That he was able to collect 3,300 + hits in his career, 600 doubles, and 500 + stolen bases, with as many games as he missed, and the injuries he dealt with, is simply incredible.

He didn't hit a lot of home runs for one simple reason. The majority of his career, he played at Milwaukee County Stadium. Yes, the Brewers hit an awful lot of home runs in the late 70s and early 80s, but that's because the guys they had on their team--Gorman Thomas, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie, Ted Simmons, Robin Yount in his prime, before blowing out his shoulder--these guys all had substantial power. County Stadium was an aircraft carrier, and the winds coming in from Lake Michigan didn't have quite the same effect that the bay in San Francisco had on Candlestick, but it blew a lot of balls in. Balls went to die in the outfield. Had Hank Aaron played his home games in another stadium before the move to Atlanta, he'd have hit another 100 home runs.

Molitor was a spectacular baseball player. He was the second most disruptive player in the American League behind Rickey Henderson when he wasn't hurt. No, that's not overstating it. Pitchers were constantly throwing over to first base, because he was a threat to steal at any moment. Had he been healthy, he'd have been stealing 60 + every year, instead of 40 +.

How many hitters become better later in their career? If you look at the numbers, you'd say Molitor. From age 34 on (from 1991 to 1998, when he retired at age 41), he was a .316 hitter. Only Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas and Paul O'Neil were better, and all of them were much younger than Molitor. And in the post season, there were few better hitters. He was a .368 lifetime hitter in the playoffs, including a .377 mark in two World Series. He was the first to have 5 hits in a World Series game, and only Albert Pujols has done it since.

Collins gets the nod over Molitor because he stayed healthy throughout his career, and he was better defensively. But they're a lot closer than the numbers show.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Two words for all you debaters Joe Morgan

[TheBigRedOne]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Two words for all you debaters Joe Morgan

And jusk ask him, he will tell you how great he was...

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Two words for all you debaters Joe Morgan

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

Agreed. Wonder however if in some roundabout way he gets hurt because there is the Jimmy Collins in the same issue. I don't agree that the card isn't attractive I love the deep maroon, magenta background. I guess others don't.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

I was talking about the argument for 2nd place. I agree Hornsby is #1.

Oddly as a broadcaster (and he was as awful a broadcaster as he was great as a player) he hated sabermetrics and advanced stats even though though they greatly demonstrate his accomplishments as a player more than the traditional stats do.

[BBB]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

great player, top 5 2b easily, but man, he isn't in the ballpark of Hornsby. There are only 3 people in the history of baseball who hit better than he: Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

Where's Cobb and Shoeless on that list?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by aquarian sports cards

two words for all you debaters joe morgan

+ 100

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think you guys are severely underestimating how good a player Molitor was. Rajah was clearly on his own level as second basemen in the game's history go. You will get no argument from me: Hornsby is on his own level, and nobody, really, is close. Rogers Hornsby hit over .400 multiple times, had incredible power. But Collins better than Molitor? Yes. Way better than Molitor? No way. You have to remember that Molly's early career was plagued with injuries. Before age 30, he only really had three healthy seasons - 1979, his second season, 1982, and 1983, which was a bit of a down year for him.

Look at how many games he played, season by season, before age 30:

1978: 125 of 162
1979: 140 of 162
1980: 111 of 162
1981: 64 of 109
1982: 160 of 162
1983: 152 of 162
1984: 13 of 162
1985: 140 of 162
1986: 105 of 162
1987: 118 of 162

total games played by team: 1,567
total games played by Molitor: 1,128
total games missed by Molitor: 439

That's nearly three full seasons of play, in his prime, that he missed due to injury, and that doesn't factor in when he played hurt.

1987 was his age 30 season. He was a .291 hitter before the '87 season started. Look what he did from age 30 on when he was healthy. The guy was a superstar. He hit .353 in 1987, .312 the next season, .315 in 1989. Then, he was hurt in 1990, and played in only 103 games, hitting .285. He was healthy then on, hitting .325 in 1991, .320 in 1992, .332 in 1993, .341 in 1994 (playing in all 115 games). In 1995, he missed 14 games, and hit .270, then hit .341 in 1996 with 225 hits and 113 RBI at age 39. He hit .305 at age 40.

That he was able to collect 3,300 + hits in his career, 600 doubles, and 500 + stolen bases, with as many games as he missed, and the injuries he dealt with, is simply incredible.

He didn't hit a lot of home runs for one simple reason. The majority of his career, he played at Milwaukee County Stadium. Yes, the Brewers hit an awful lot of home runs in the late 70s and early 80s, but that's because the guys they had on their team--Gorman Thomas, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie, Ted Simmons, Robin Yount in his prime, before blowing out his shoulder--these guys all had substantial power. County Stadium was an aircraft carrier, and the winds coming in from Lake Michigan didn't have quite the same effect that the bay in San Francisco had on Candlestick, but it blew a lot of balls in. Balls went to die in the outfield. Had Hank Aaron played his home games in another stadium before the move to Atlanta, he'd have hit another 100 home runs.

Molitor was a spectacular baseball player. He was the second most disruptive player in the American League behind Rickey Henderson when he wasn't hurt. No, that's not overstating it. Pitchers were constantly throwing over to first base, because he was a threat to steal at any moment. Had he been healthy, he'd have been stealing 60 + every year, instead of 40 +.

How many hitters become better later in their career? If you look at the numbers, you'd say Molitor. From age 34 on (from 1991 to 1998, when he retired at age 41), he was a .316 hitter. Only Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas and Paul O'Neil were better, and all of them were much younger than Molitor. And in the post season, there were few better hitters. He was a .368 lifetime hitter in the playoffs, including a .377 mark in two World Series. He was the first to have 5 hits in a World Series game, and only Albert Pujols has done it since.

Collins gets the nod over Molitor because he stayed healthy throughout his career, and he was better defensively. But they're a lot closer than the numbers show.

Molitor really gets hurt a lot by playing over 50% of his career as a DH though. Collins, by playing 2b, gathered a lot of defensive value. Also, Collins was an elite baserunner too gathering even more value. In terms of fWAR Collins sits at 120.3 (11th all time) and Molitor is 67.6 (71st all time)

In terms of hitting Collins has a career slash line of: .333/.424/.429 wOBA of .409 and a wRC+ of 144

Molitor's is .309/.369/.448 a wOBA of .361 and a wRC+ of 122


so yeah, Collins really is in an entirely different tier of player than Molitor. Now both players probably don't get the recognition they deserve because of the markets of their teams, but Collins is really one of the greatest players of all time, easily in the top 20.

[packs]

I really do think he's just cursed with a crappy looking card. His Goudey stinks too. His Cracker Jack sells for a pretty good premium though, but it's also an awesome looking card.

[the 'stache]

Collins was an elite base runner, but Molitor wasn't? Seriously? Why, because Collins stole more bases? For one, Molitor's number of attempts was hurt by his injuries, but he's a much better stealer than Collins ever was. Look inside the numbers.

Collins: 741 stolen bases, 195 caught stealing = 936 attempts. 79.166% success rate
Molitor: 504 stolen bases, 131 caught stealing = 635 attempts. 79.370% success rate.

And, the thing is, Cocky's caught stealing records are incomplete. He was a full-time player as of 1909. There is no record of his caught stealing figures for 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, and 1919. He swiped 345 of his 741 steals in those seasons. How many times did he get caught? Look at his best base stealing seasons where full records are available: he stole 63 in 1912, and was caught 22 times. 74% success rate. In 1914, he swiped 58 bases, but got caught 30 times. That's a 66% success rate. In 1915, he swiped 46 bases, and got caught 30 times. That's a 60.5% success rate. In 1923, he stole 48 bases, leading the league. But he also led the league getting nailed 29 times. That's a 62.3% success rate. Molitor has a 79.4% career success rate, which is already slightly better than Collins' 79.2% rate without even considering all the times he got caught, for which there are no records. Take his four seasons where complete records are known, before he hit age 30: 1912, 1914, 1915 and 1916. He stole 207 bases in 310 tries. 66.7% success rate. Assume he's successful at that same rate for the seasons where no caught stealing records are available. That means he attempted to steal 517 times. So, that's another 172 times he was caught stealing. So, now he's stolen 741 bases....in 1,108 attempts. A 66.9% success rate for his career.

And that was assuming the best case scenario, by his complete seasonal records. He could have been thrown out more often, meaning his career rate dips further.

What about doubles and triples? Collins played half of his career in the dead ball era, when nobody hit home runs. Collins hit 438 doubles, and 187 triples in 2,826 games. Molitor hit 605 doubles, and 114 triples in 2,684 games. 812 extra bases for Collins by double or triple, 833 extra bases for Molitor from doubles and triples. That's a push.

In no way was Collins a better base runner than Paul Molitor. None. He stole more bases, yes. But he also got caught a hell of a lot more often, and what good is stealing if you're getting thrown out a high percentage of the time?

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Molitor really gets hurt a lot by playing over 50% of his career as a DH though. Collins, by playing 2b, gathered a lot of defensive value. Also, Collins was an elite baserunner too gathering even more value. In terms of fWAR Collins sits at 120.3 (11th all time) and Molitor is 67.6 (71st all time)

In terms of hitting Collins has a career slash line of: .333/.424/.429 wOBA of .409 and a wRC+ of 144

Molitor's is .309/.369/.448 a wOBA of .361 and a wRC+ of 122


so yeah, Collins really is in an entirely different tier of player than Molitor. Now both players probably don't get the recognition they deserve because of the markets of their teams, but Collins is really one of the greatest players of all time, easily in the top 20.

[the 'stache]

I think my top 5 second basemen would be:

1.) Hornsby
.
.
.
a chasm that would swallow a small moon

2.) Napolean Lajoie
3.) Eddie Collins
4.) Joe Morgan
5.) Jackie Robinson

Right behind them, I'd probably have Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Ryne Sandberg and Robby Alomar.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Collins was an elite base runner, but Molitor wasn't? Seriously? Why, because Collins stole more bases? For one, Molitor's number of attempts was hurt by his injuries, but he's a much better stealer than Collins ever was. Look inside the numbers.

Collins: 741 stolen bases, 195 caught stealing = 936 attempts. 79.166% success rate
Molitor: 504 stolen bases, 131 caught stealing = 635 attempts. 79.370% success rate.

And, the thing is, Cocky's caught stealing records are incomplete. He was a full-time player as of 1909. There is no record of his caught stealing figures for 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, and 1919. He swiped 345 of his 741 steals in those seasons. How many times did he get caught? Look at his best base stealing seasons where full records are available: he stole 63 in 1912, and was caught 22 times. 74% success rate. In 1914, he swiped 58 bases, but got caught 30 times. That's a 66% success rate. In 1915, he swiped 46 bases, and got caught 30 times. That's a 60.5% success rate. In 1923, he stole 48 bases, leading the league. But he also led the league getting nailed 29 times. That's a 62.3% success rate. Molitor has a 79.4% career success rate, which is already slightly better than Collins' 79.2% rate without even considering all the times he got caught, for which there are no records. Take his four seasons where complete records are known, before he hit age 30: 1912, 1914, 1915 and 1916. He stole 207 bases in 310 tries. 66.7% success rate. Assume he's successful at that same rate for the seasons where no caught stealing records are available. That means he attempted to steal 517 times. So, that's another 172 times he was caught stealing. So, now he's stolen 741 bases....in 1,108 attempts. A 66.9% success rate for his career.

And that was assuming the best case scenario, by his complete seasonal records. He could have been thrown out more often, meaning his career rate dips further.

What about doubles and triples? Collins played half of his career in the dead ball era, when nobody hit home runs. Collins hit 438 doubles, and 187 triples in 2,826 games. Molitor hit 605 doubles, and 114 triples in 2,684 games. 812 extra bases for Collins by double or triple, 833 extra bases for Molitor from doubles and triples. That's a push.

In no way was Collins a better base runner than Paul Molitor. None. He stole more bases, yes. But he also got caught a hell of a lot more often, and what good is stealing if you're getting thrown out a high percentage of the time?

baserunning is more than just stolen bases it's taking extra bases...etc

for Molitor's 12,160 PA's he has a baserunning rating of 46.6 runs above avg, Collins has a 42.3 in 12,037 PA's, so really they were pretty close in total baserunning value per plate appearance.

Collins played 2b, Molitor played 1b and DH, Collins was a 22% better hitter relative to league avg than Molitor (144 for collins 122 for Molitor) for his career as well, this is why he is an elite player and Molitor is not (well ,relative to other HOF'ers anyway)

using counting stats is kind of a waste of time when comparing across eras like that. rates and peripherals give us a much better picture. Molitor was a good player, but Collins is an all time elite player. It's not even close really. 60+ more pts of OBP really matters.(and Collins is tied for 12th all time in getting on base among all players with at least 3000 PA's all time (.424) , Molitor is 281st among the same with a .369)