2011 Topps Update Mike Trout Question?

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

The demand for Trout is still comprised of too large a portion of speculation and transience, the latter meaning it will depart and "pledge allegiance" to another player when the next, latest and greatest hottest thing comes along. Trout has yet to match even Mantle's third best season (1961--check the OPS+ stats, if you doubt me), let alone his peaks in 1956 and '57, at a time when Trout should be in his absolute prime. I understand the urge to buy now and thereby pick up a "piece of the action," but I think that his prices will come down when he hits his 30's downslide, a la Albert Pujols. Or he might suffer a shoulder or other injury as Eddie Matthews did in '62, taking him down from being a great player to simply a good one. A lot of people were talking about Matthews, not Aaron, breaking the Babe's career HR record before that (Eddie had 370 by the time he was 30, as I recall, but hit just 142 more in the next 6 seasons combined).

I just wouldn't consider him a real investment vehicle at this point. IMHO, there is going to be a severe correction in the newer card market, just as there was in the early to mid-'90's, as prices such as $35K+ for a one of 50 Trout refractor rookie in just NMt-MT+ and $99,000 for a PSA 10 '93 SP Jeter, of which literally thousands exist in the higher grades, simply don't make sense.

Good luck to you either way you choose,

Larry

Those Mantle seasons are truly epic, and it's amazing to think that despite the heights Trout has achieved, Mantle owns a few seasons that are arguably quite a bit better. And yet, even with that, I believe Trout now owns the most WAR for a player through his age-26 season. Regardless of the side of the Trout/Mantle argument one falls, we are talking about the absolute best of the best in the history of the game.

As for the 2011 Topps Update Trout, there is certainly downside to investing in one, but I think the real danger would be in the lack of upside. Obviously, it will retain SOME value regardless of what Trout does from this point on (Trout is already a first-ballot HOFer), but how much higher could it realistically go? For the near- and medium-term, I would hazard that it must be near it's peak.

When it comes to the correction on the newer card market, the $99k on the 1993 Jeter SP is an interesting one, and another example sold for $76k since then. When the first auction happened, I theorized that the PSA 10 population was likely to increase substantially from the 22 at the time thanks to reviews, crossovers and new submissions - but here we are six months later and there are still just the 22 PSA 10 examples. I wouldn't invest in one of those Jeter PSA 10s, but I was definitely wrong about their numbers increasing. And for what it's worth, I noted at the time that there were 567 examples of the Jeter in PSA 9, now there are 582.

Final thought and back to the 2011 Topps Update Trout - it does seem a little sad to me that the raw examples even sell at a few hundred dollars, as I'm sure there must be some younger collectors who have only recently gotten into the hobby and have Trout as their favorite player, but can't afford to get one of these cards. Even for a card that was mass produced and sold it packs, they might be priced out for some kids. Maybe a correction will help them!

Oops, one more note: just looked on eBay and there are REPRINTS of the 2011 Topps Update Trout selling for $5 or even more. That's crazy - and where are these reprints coming from (the ones I saw have a 2011 copyright date)? Topps can't be churning these out, right?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Those Mantle seasons are truly epic, and it's amazing to think that despite the heights Trout has achieved, Mantle owns a few seasons that are arguably quite a bit better. And yet, even with that, I believe Trout now owns the most WAR for a player through his age-26 season. Regardless of the side of the Trout/Mantle argument one falls, we are talking about the absolute best of the best in the history of the game.

As for the 2011 Topps Update Trout, there is certainly downside to investing in one, but I think the real danger would be in the lack of upside. Obviously, it will retain SOME value regardless of what Trout does from this point on (Trout is already a first-ballot HOFer), but how much higher could it realistically go? For the near- and medium-term, I would hazard that it must be near it's peak.

When it comes to the correction on the newer card market, the $99k on the 1993 Jeter SP is an interesting one, and another example sold for $76k since then. When the first auction happened, I theorized that the PSA 10 population was likely to increase substantially from the 22 at the time thanks to reviews, crossovers and new submissions - but here we are six months later and there are still just the 22 PSA 10 examples. I wouldn't invest in one of those Jeter PSA 10s, but I was definitely wrong about their numbers increasing. And for what it's worth, I noted at the time that there were 567 examples of the Jeter in PSA 9, now there are 582.

Final thought and back to the 2011 Topps Update Trout - it does seem a little sad to me that the raw examples even sell at a few hundred dollars, as I'm sure there must be some younger collectors who have only recently gotten into the hobby and have Trout as their favorite player, but can't afford to get one of these cards. Even for a card that was mass produced and sold it packs, they might be priced out for some kids. Maybe a correction will help them!

Oops, one more note: just looked on eBay and there are REPRINTS of the 2011 Topps Update Trout selling for $5 or even more. That's crazy - and where are these reprints coming from (the ones I saw have a 2011 copyright date)? Topps can't be churning these out, right?

Hi, Garth. I agree with most of your points, although I don't put much stock in WAR. MLB Now had the person in charge of calculating defensive runs saved on the show, and when questioned by Ken Rosenthal, he freely admitted that a defensive run saved is not actually a defensive run saved, because the context in which the exceptional defensive play was made is ignored. One full defensive run saved is credited, for example, when a spectacular diving grab of a ball about to go through the hole between short and third is made with two outs and a runner at third, with a successful putout at first, as it should be, but a full defensive run save is also credited when the same play is made with a runner on first and nobody out. Obviously, the defensive component of WAR is thereby over-weighted. A comparison of defensive runs saved is valid between players of the same position in isolation who have played a similar number of innings at that position, because it reflects the greater and lesser number of great plays made by each.

Plus, WAR, as it is computed, over-weights baserunning. Bill James introduced an equation to accurately compute the number of runs a team would score from the various possible isolated events, which was consistently quite accurate within 2-3% (thus giving it a far better correlation to actual runs scored than batting average, OBP and even OBPS), and the only baserunning component it took under consideration was stolen bases versus number of times caught stealing.

Brian Kenny, who is the regular host of MLB now, has been told by expert guest after guest that WAR is just one thing to look at, and not the be-all and end-all of player evaluation, but he refuses to get it because he's tied his ego to it, even writing a book that is based almost entirely upon it.

There are also some very significant difficulties in computing defensive ratings for players of the past, as some of the total zone ratings come up with truly absurd results. I personally don't believe you can place a single number on a player to accurately evaluate his total worth, but to each his own. My problem is that WAR too often leads to obviously absurd results. Two years ago in June, Andrelton Simmons, was, by WAR, the best player in the American League. I doubt you could get even a single team GM to buy into that! As another example, Trout, before he was injured this past season, was supposedly on pace to establish the best season of all time, based on WAR. In fact, given the fact that Mantle was easily his equal as a defensive centerfielder and on the bases, he was on pace to essentially match Mantle's third best season, 1961, as their OPS+ numbers were at that point essentially identical (Trout subsequently dipped 7 points below Mantle by the end of his season). And I could easily name a half-dozen or more seasons that were clearly better off the top of my head: Ruth's 1921 and 1923 seasons; Williams' 1941 year (and probably several other of Ted's seasons as well, as he had a number of them where he created more than 300% of the league average runs created); Hornsby's triple crown years; Musial's 1948 season, etc., etc.

When your methodology yields questionable and even absurd results, the intelligent, objective person questions his methodology.

Just my opinion, but I think that the majority of fans are not buying into WAR as the ultimate total rating of a player. That being said, I do agree that Trout is getting very, very close to being voted into the HOF based on his existing achievements. Whether he is a first ballot guy or not will depend on the rest of his career--He could still be like Kiner, who is the only player to have led his league in HR's for 7 consecutive seasons (and the major leagues for six), together with 6 seasons of 100+ runs scored, plus a .398 career OBP, an incredible figure considering his lifetime .279 batting average), whose lifetime totals were curtailed by significant back problems. Kiner had the second best HR frequency to the Babe before the steroid era, and was often named as one of the three best outfielders in baseball by the Sporting News before injury caused his decline after those seven years. Or Mathews, who as noted, was derailed by a shoulder injury which he never fully overcame.

Wow, that's a long post! But if you like WAR, more power to you. It is, however, true that it has its' drawbacks.

Enjoy your collecting,

Larry

[Bretsky]

I think it will retain value but it is very plentiful. Personally I'm partial to the 2010 Pro Debut of Trout which has a much lower pop and is a great looking card.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hi, Garth. I agree with most of your points, although I don't put much stock in WAR. MLB Now had the person in charge of calculating defensive runs saved on the show, and when questioned by Ken Rosenthal, he freely admitted that a defensive run saved is not actually a defensive run saved, because the context in which the exceptional defensive play was made is ignored. One full defensive run saved is credited, for example, when a spectacular diving grab of a ball about to go through the hole between short and third is made with two outs and a runner at third, with a successful putout at first, as it should be, but a full defensive run save is also credited when the same play is made with a runner on first and nobody out. Obviously, the defensive component of WAR is thereby over-weighted. A comparison of defensive runs saved is valid between players of the same position in isolation who have played a similar number of innings at that position, because it reflects the greater and lesser number of great plays made by each.

Plus, WAR, as it is computed, over-weights baserunning. Bill James introduced an equation to accurately compute the number of runs a team would score from the various possible isolated events, which was consistently quite accurate within 2-3% (thus giving it a far better correlation to actual runs scored than batting average, OBP and even OBPS), and the only baserunning component it took under consideration was stolen bases versus number of times caught stealing.

Brian Kenny, who is the regular host of MLB now, has been told by expert guest after guest that WAR is just one thing to look at, and not the be-all and end-all of player evaluation, but he refuses to get it because he's tied his ego to it, even writing a book that is based almost entirely upon it.

There are also some very significant difficulties in computing defensive ratings for players of the past, as some of the total zone ratings come up with truly absurd results. I personally don't believe you can place a single number on a player to accurately evaluate his total worth, but to each his own. My problem is that WAR too often leads to obviously absurd results. Two years ago in June, Andrelton Simmons, was, by WAR, the best player in the American League. I doubt you could get even a single team GM to buy into that! As another example, Trout, before he was injured this past season, was supposedly on pace to establish the best season of all time, based on WAR. In fact, given the fact that Mantle was easily his equal as a defensive centerfielder and on the bases, he was on pace to essentially match Mantle's third best season, 1961, as their OPS+ numbers were at that point essentially identical (Trout subsequently dipped 7 points below Mantle by the end of his season). And I could easily name a half-dozen or more seasons that were clearly better off the top of my head: Ruth's 1921 and 1923 seasons; Williams' 1941 year (and probably several other of Ted's seasons as well, as he had a number of them where he created more than 300% of the league average runs created); Hornsby's triple crown years; Musial's 1948 season, etc., etc.

When your methodology yields questionable and even absurd results, the intelligent, objective person questions his methodology.

Just my opinion, but I think that the majority of fans are not buying into WAR as the ultimate total rating of a player. That being said, I do agree that Trout is getting very, very close to being voted into the HOF based on his existing achievements. Whether he is a first ballot guy or not will depend on the rest of his career--He could still be like Kiner, who is the only player to have led his league in HR's for 7 consecutive seasons (and the major leagues for six), together with 6 seasons of 100+ runs scored, plus a .398 career OBP, an incredible figure considering his lifetime .279 batting average), whose lifetime totals were curtailed by significant back problems. Kiner had the second best HR frequency to the Babe before the steroid era, and was often named as one of the three best outfielders in baseball by the Sporting News before injury caused his decline after those seven years. Or Mathews, who as noted, was derailed by a shoulder injury which he never fully overcame.

Wow, that's a long post! But if you like WAR, more power to you. It is, however, true that it has its' drawbacks.

Enjoy your collecting,

Larry

Hey Larry,

Long post, indeed, and a good one. Thanks for all the thoughts. I've been wanting to continue the conversation, but was on deadline at work. But that's done!

I don't watch MLB Now/Brian Kenny, but he sounds like someone I would turn the TV off for. I think anyone who claims any stat as the end-all-be-all should be tuned out. And the baseball entertainment sources I enjoy are clear that they consider WAR (or any stat) as one part of the puzzle, similarly that traditional scouting and modern sabermetrics can work together in creating a more rounded profile of a player. That's the camp that I'm in.

As for the methodology, I'd rather look at why questionable/absurd results, outliers as it were, occur. Questionable results naturally happen in poorly constructed methods, but don't let outliers spoil the soup, as it were. I think WAR does more good than harm in capturing a broad-stroke picture of a player, even if at times it does over/under rate some. And it seems as if pinpointing value on defense continues to be a great challenge in baseball (perhaps all sports), and all defensive metrics should be taken with a grain of salt.

WAR, in my view, is like ABV for beer. People tend to take it as a specific measurement down to the number after the decimal, when it isn't like that. Both WAR and ABV can be off, sometimes by a decent amount, and they are both not as specific as they appear. Comparisons should be made based on similar tiers of players or beers (5.0 ABV or WAR really might be about the same as 6.0 ABV or WAR). Same would go with career WAR - one player might have 85, but that isn't definitive that he was "better" than another with 78. WAR is more of an entry point, in a way, into the finer discussion of how they each got there, etc.

And when it comes to those half-season discussions about being on pace for record WAR or what not, that is just a topic to fill time on sports shows more than anything else. It's in the same boat as talking about how the guy who hits 3 HR on Opening Day is on pace to hit 486 HR that season...

Any which way it's sliced, I hope people enjoy Trout and what he is accomplishing. There are no guarantees that we'll ever see a run like it again in our lifetime. And I write this fully acknowledging that I have not taken advantage of watching Trout play as I should. I'll blame it on getting to watch Mookie Betts, who's certainly a fantastic player even if he isn't quite Mike Trout.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, Larry!

Was mainly focusing on the 2011 Topps Update Mike Trout. In terms of comparison to Mantle, Trout needs win somewhere close to 7 World Series and play in somewhere near 12 World Series to have an accurate comparison. Not sure about "WAR" but I do know about "World Series".

[packs]

I think Trout will go to be everything Ken Griffey Jr. was supposed to be but without the flair. He's simply incredible. I think his Topps rookie is definitely a safe investment long term but maybe not in the short term if you're only interest is flipping. He is likely to be the greatest player of the 21st century.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see that much upside. His likely career trajectory is already priced in I think. And the card is common as dirt. I think his harder to find cards are a better buy. That said, my only Trout is a Topps Update lol.

[Neal]

The Trout card that still has meat left is the 2011 Finest auto. Numbered and his only RC auto card.

Update is very cool, and very common.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Trout . . . . . is likely to be the greatest player of the 21st century.

Wow, considering 80% if this century hasn't happened yet, that's a pretty bold statement! For all we know some kid whose parents aren't even born yet will become so great that he'll make Trout look like a dollar box common.

But then again, Babe Ruth played in the first half of the 20th century, and nobody disputes that he was the greatest player of the 1900s... so who knows...

[packs]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Wow, considering 80% if this century hasn't happened yet, that's a pretty bold statement! For all we know some kid whose parents aren't even born yet will become so great that he'll make Trout look like a dollar box common.

But then again, Babe Ruth played in the first half of the 20th century, and nobody disputes that he was the greatest player of the 1900s... so who knows...

You'd have to be Babe Ruth to unseat Trout. I don't see much wiggle room for being even better than he is.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by sfh24

Was mainly focusing on the 2011 Topps Update Mike Trout. In terms of comparison to Mantle, Trout needs win somewhere close to 7 World Series and play in somewhere near 12 World Series to have an accurate comparison. Not sure about "WAR" but I do know about "World Series".

Well, if that's the logic, then instead of considering investing in Trout, then put your money in modern players like Luis Sojo (5 World Series rings), Paul O'Neil (5), David Cone (5), Mike Timlin (4) and Javier Lopez (3). Way underrated by that metric!

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Well, if that's the logic, then instead of considering investing in Trout, then put your money in modern players like Luis Sojo (5 World Series rings), Paul O'Neil (5), David Cone (5), Mike Timlin (4) and Javier Lopez (3). Way underrated by that metric!

Interesting correlation. 5=7? 5=12? Are any of them the All time HR leader for the WS? Any of them the All-time leader in WS RBIs? WS walks? WS total bases?

[AGuinness]

I just find it confusing that a person would ask about the long term viability of a Mike Trout card and yet not be interested in how the accomplishments of, you know, the player depicted on that card and how he compares to some of the all-time greats.
If the only lens you'd like to view players or cards through is by way of World Series accomplishments, then have it. Seems like you can answer your first post pretty well on your own then.