Is collecting modern cards a sickness?

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guarantee you the numbers for his first five or six seasons will be ahead of Trout in nearly every important category. E.g. he had 250 HR after 6 seasons and was batting .330 or so.

Pujols was a monster. Just doesn't have the appeal Trout does .... in my opinion of course

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Neal

Pujols was a monster. Just doesn't have the appeal Trout does .... in my opinion of course

You sound like a guy who has already made up your mind. Let me know what you need for your 53BC Mantle.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

you sound like a guy who has already made up your mind. Let me know what you need for your 53bc mantle. :d

lol

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Neal

Pujols was a monster. Just doesn't have the appeal Trout does .... in my opinion of course

I completely agree with this at this time. The problem is as soon as Trout has a bad year or the next big thing comes up Trout will be forgotten just as fast as Pujols was. Probably even faster since Pujols had a much better start to his career.

[nat]

Where do you get this thing about Pujols having a better start to his career? Once you adjust for the context in which they were playing (i.e., Pujols got started during silly ball), and the parks in which they play, they have basically identical OPSs. (Trout leads by one point.) Trout's OPS is also weighted more heavily towards on-base percentage than is Pujols', and on-base percentage is more valuable than is slugging percentage. So as batters, Trout has a narrow lead over Pujols. But once you account for the fact that Trout is a good base runner and a center fielder, whereas Pujols was a leftfielder/first baseman (although admittedly a good one), Trout pulls into a comfortable lead.

We really should feel lucky that we get to watch Trout play. Through age 24 he is the greatest player of all time. Ruth's huge seasons came after age 24, so no guarantee that he's going to keep that title (he probably won't), but he is something special.

That said, keep the Mantles and the Aarons. Or sell them to me cheaply.


P.S. Bonus comparison: Trout vs. Mantle. Trout has a slight lead as a hitter through age 24 (a little bit larger than his lead over Pujols, but still not very big). Both were center fielders. As a fielder early in his career, Mantle was pretty much dead average for a center fielder. Trout averages out about the same (although with considerable year-to-year variation). Trout is the better base runner.

[Neal]

For the record, I am not selling Mantle and Aaron's to buy Mike Trout cards

I don't think it would be that crazy however. Mike Trout, as nat pointed out, is off to a legendary start, and I'd love to own a nice mid-level Trout card. Or cards.

Searching for them, as well as learning some tidbits regarding modern collecting, has been a pleasant diversion to the same ole cards on eBay.

Good thread

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not to take anything away from Trout who I like a lot, but he hasn't won a HR or batting title, has led the league only once in RBI and OPS, strikes out a lot, is hitting .306 lifetime so far, I am just not seeing him as the second coming yet?

[bnorth]

OK to be as fair as possible I will compare the first 5 years for Albert Pujols to 6 for Trout so the Plate Appearances and ABs are close with Trout having 130 more PA and 43 more AB.

Pujols PA 3428 in first 5 years
Trout PA 3558 in first 6 years

Pujols AB 2954
Trout AB 2997

Pujols BA 332
Trout BA 306

Pujols Runs 629
Trout Runs 600

Pujols Hits 982
Trout Hits 917

Pujols 2B 227
Trout 2B 175

Pujols 3B 11
Trout 3B 37

Pujols HR 201
Trout HR 168

Pujols RBI 621
Trout RBI 497

Pujols SB 29
Trout SB 143

Pujols BB 401
Trout BB 477

Pujols TB 1834
Trout TB 1670

So even with 130 more plate appearances and 43 more at bats he is behind in every offensive category except SB, BB and triples.. Yes i know these are old school stats but I have no faith is the new theoretical/hypothetical stats when they compare players of different positions and different years.

[ullmandds]

I don't really follow modern cards much...but I follow the hobby. The only way a trout card is a good investment is as a short term investment. If trout has a great start...or a great season...yes...I believe his "rarer" cards could potentially be a good "short term" investment assuming you sell!

Long term investment potential is very poor...as has been said. Manufactured scarcity is crap...along with the overproduction of mint condition cards being produced these days. In the future there will be way more high grade cards than low/collector grade.

And while I like jeter...this also would be a bad investment.

If u want to invest...cobb, ruth are the way to go!!!

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bnorth

OK to be as fair as possible I will compare the first 5 years for Albert Pujols to 6 for Trout so the Plate Appearances and ABs are close with Trout having 130 more PA and 43 more AB.

Pujols PA 3428 in first 5 years
Trout PA 3558 in first 6 years

Pujols AB 2954
Trout AB 2997

Pujols BA 332
Trout BA 306

Pujols Runs 629
Trout Runs 600

Pujols Hits 982
Trout Hits 917

Pujols 2B 227
Trout 2B 175

Pujols 3B 11
Trout 3B 37

Pujols HR 201
Trout HR 168

Pujols RBI 621
Trout RBI 497

Pujols SB 29
Trout SB 143

Pujols BB 401
Trout BB 477

Pujols TB 1834
Trout TB 1670

So even with 130 more plate appearances and 43 more at bats he is behind in every offensive category except SB, BB and triples.. Yes i know these are old school stats but I have no faith is the new theoretical/hypothetical stats when they compare players of different positions and different years.

That seems like you have a point looking at it like that, but your stats don't account to league nor does it account for years of play.

If you throw out Trout's 2011 (age 19) stats since he only played 40 games and just look at 2012-2016 compared to Pujols 2001-2005 stats you still have to remember that Trout is one year younger than Pujols.

On top of that Trout has a Black Ink (a stat that measures League Leading stats) of 25. Pujols' first 5 year Black Ink is only 18. On the other hand if you look at their Gray Inks (a stat that measures top 10 in league stats) Trout trails Pujols 92 to 110. So it would be hard for me to say Trout is better, but he did dominate more than Pujols whereas Pujols was consistently in the top 10 of the game during his 5 years.

For instance Pujols never led the league in RBI or SLG, but was always in the top 10. Trout has led the league in RBI and SLG once, but was only in the top 10 for RBI twice and SLG all 5 years.

[nat]

You have to remember that it was easier to put up those numbers when Pujols was playing. Just like you can't directly compare a guy who played in 1933 with one who played in 1908, you can't directly compare a guy playing in 2002 with one playing in 2016. The context of the game has changed.

Those stats also ignore fielding, and CF is a lot more demanding than 1B is, even though Pujols was a very good first baseman.

[Rookiemonster]

Ryan Braun first 6 years

AB-3477

BA-313

Runs-614

Hits-1089

2B-223

3B-29

HR- 202

RBI-643

SB-126

BB-305
He looks like the winner ! Might as well buy all his chrome autos .

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Ryan Braun first 6 years

AB-3477

BA-313

Runs-614

Hits-1089

2B-223

3B-29

HR- 202

RBI-643

SB-126

BB-305
He looks like the winner ! Might as well buy all his chrome autos .

You essentially have an extra season added in his totals. That is why there are 523 more at AB in Braun's stats.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I can't believe you guys have to argue this. Talk about arguing just to argue.

I would like buy any of your early Mantles you wish to sell..thanks

[RayBShotz]

Answer to the original question; yup!

Seriously; we should all collect what we love. That's reason enough.
This is a great hobby.
RayB

[steve B]

So Trout is better because

A) He plays centerfield
B) The league overall is worse (If he dominates with the same numbers this must be true right? )

He's a great player, but comparing any stats leaves so much out. Base stuff on base percentage, and fancy stats, and you get the As. A good team that competes without a huge budget. But also a team that won't generally win a big series like playoffs. And since it's a fairly random collection of slightly above average guys the team won't draw fans.

Base it just on power and you get a team that's exciting, fills the stands, and costs a bundle and also usually won't win it all. (78 Red Sox)


One thing that everyone forgets about baserunning stats is that they're very dependent on the general outlook of most teams at the time. For a decent part of Mantles career the AL was led with <30 stolen bases. Things changed towards the end, but when he was younger AL players didn't really do much base stealing. Very early in his career the NL wasn't stealing many bases either. The attitude of the team towards stealing counts too. in his best year Mantle stole 21. Nobody else on the team even got double digits. The team total was 45. Trouts best year he had 49. But there were three other players on the team in double digits, and the team stole 134. 59 Yankees 45sb 22cs 2012 Angels 134sb 33cs. The Angels stole twice as many bases as the 59 Yankees even attempted. There aren't a lot of good ways to compare the two eras or teams.

Steve B

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by steve B

So Trout is better because

A) He plays centerfield
B) The league overall is worse (If he dominates with the same numbers this must be true right? )

He's a great player, but comparing any stats leaves so much out. Base stuff on base percentage, and fancy stats, and you get the As. A good team that competes without a huge budget. But also a team that won't generally win a big series like playoffs. And since it's a fairly random collection of slightly above average guys the team won't draw fans.

Base it just on power and you get a team that's exciting, fills the stands, and costs a bundle and also usually won't win it all. (78 Red Sox)


One thing that everyone forgets about baserunning stats is that they're very dependent on the general outlook of most teams at the time. For a decent part of Mantles career the AL was led with <30 stolen bases. Things changed towards the end, but when he was younger AL players didn't really do much base stealing. Very early in his career the NL wasn't stealing many bases either. The attitude of the team towards stealing counts too. in his best year Mantle stole 21. Nobody else on the team even got double digits. The team total was 45. Trouts best year he had 49. But there were three other players on the team in double digits, and the team stole 134. 59 Yankees 45sb 22cs 2012 Angels 134sb 33cs. The Angels stole twice as many bases as the 59 Yankees even attempted. There aren't a lot of good ways to compare the two eras or teams.

Steve B

I have heard the argument that Trout being better because the league is worse. This disregards the pitching and defense. It is making the assumption the pitching talent and defense is always the same.

You will never be able to compare straight stats for players playing against different players, but you can compare their dominance in the league for the time they played. That is what I attempt to show.