Ridiculous

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

I am kinda starting to understand this, but not really. So because Pujols was playing at a time when there was much better players compared now he is somehow considered a worse player than a guy that put up worse #'s.

Andy(or anybody else) if you would like to PM me sometime to try to explain this stuff a little better I would greatly appreciate it. It just makes no sense to me at all. If there is a good website that explains all this stuff in a for dummies way that would be great also.

I could see how WAR and the Black Ink would work great for players playing at the same time and position but using it to compare players of different positions and years makes no sense to me.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am kinda starting to understand this, but not really. So because Pujols was playing at a time when there was much better players compared now he is somehow considered a worse player than a guy that put up worse #'s.

wasn't so much pujols was playing with better players, but everyone was juiced out of their mind. war takes into account the era you play in, the park you play at, and the position you play. if you just compare flatly ped luis gonzalez stats they would dwarf mike trout's...and that wouldn't be fair. or if you take peak-ped bret boone you'd say he's an equal player to dead era nap lajoie, which would be ludicrous.

pujols first 5 year production is measured against the average production of other 1b in the ped era...hence Win Above Replacement level....that bar is set pretty high. mike trout being a cf is measured against other weaker hitting cf'ers of today. so pujols fantastic 2001-2006 stats only translates to 8-9war. if pujols was putting up those stats today and he plays cf his war would be ruthian-like.

having said all that if the seller is getting 200k+ on the card he should take it...trout doesn't have the most dynamic personality and playing for the angels he will never have the national spotlight to drive a modern card like lebron. there's always the chance the card could fetch 500k one day, but the odds is better that it won't. but if it's my card i would keep it so i'd have a rooting interest for the greatest baseball career thus far.

[Topnotchsy]

There are definitely different things that drive people toward this hobby that we are part of. For some it is the memories of the players they watched as kids, or the players they heard about from their their parents.

For many others, it is about collecting the cards of a player while they are playing. In some ways it is a another way of being a fan. Some get season tickets, some buy jerseys and gear of their players. Some play fantasy baseball. Some like to collect cards of those players.

Regarding this specific card, Bowman Chrome has long been the premier option for Rookie cards and rookie autographs of modern players. "Long" is of course relative, but it has been so since the late 90's, so close to 20 years. When it comes to the rookie autographs, you have a simple, elegant design, a limited print run, an autograph from the player's "rookie card" season, and you have reason to be very confident the autograph is authentic.
The set has parallel versions and this is the only style that is limited to a single copy (and there is in general a big following for "superfractors".)

Would the card be a good investment at $150,000-$200,000 or more? It is speculation at best (in my opinion). Is Trout the best player (at this stage in his career) of the last 20 seasons along with a player who is very marketable? It's hard to argue against that. I believe only Barry Bonds in his steroid days has ever had a 5 season stretch with finishing in the top 2 in MVP voting. Trout did that in his 1st five seasons.

And for some, that's exactly what they want to collect.

[mattjc1983]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

wasn't so much pujols was playing with better players, but everyone was juiced out of their mind. war takes into account the era you play in, the park you play at, and the position you play. if you just compare flatly ped luis gonzalez stats they would dwarf mike trout's...and that wouldn't be fair. or if you take peak-ped bret boone you'd say he's an equal player to dead era nap lajoie, which would be ludicrous.



pujols first 5 year production is measured against the average production of other 1b in the ped era...hence Win Above Replacement level....that bar is set pretty high. mike trout being a cf is measured against other weaker hitting cf'ers of today. so pujols fantastic 2001-2006 stats only translates to 8-9war. if pujols was putting up those stats today and he plays cf his war would be ruthian-like.



having said all that if the seller is getting 200k+ on the card he should take it...trout doesn't have the most dynamic personality and playing for the angels he will never have the national spotlight to drive a modern card like lebron. there's always the chance the card could fetch 500k one day, but the odds is better that it won't. but if it's my card i would keep it so i'd have a rooting interest for the greatest baseball career thus far.

Actually I don't believe WAR is comparing to other everyday major league players at your position, but to callups isn't it (i.e. AAA)? I think WAA (Wins Above Average) is the major league comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk