Which card will sell for more

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Trout’s numbers are even with Puljos’ first 8 years. Would you pay big money for a Puljos card at this point? Exactly. His numbers have the ability to drop just like Puljos.

The Cobb value is set in stone. The Trout card’s downside is greater than the card’s upside. An all-time great v. a player who still has the ability to sustain multiple injuries and risking hundreds of thousands? It’s not even close. Hindsight is 20/20, but Cobb is the correct investment here. Buying that Trout is not really investing but more of like a casino play. It’s gambling.

Pujols is an all-time great and one of the 25 best players in baseball history, but I don't think he was as good as Trout to this point in his career, was never a 5-tool player, was never as marketable, and represents close to the worst-case scenario for Trout going forward.

Not saying the price on the Trout should be more than Cobb or anything like that, but his all-around performance and marketability is unlike anything we have seen probably since Mantle.

[darwinbulldog]

If they both retire today, I'd say Trout has had about the 30th best career in MLB history (including 8 pitchers) and Pujols about the 40th best. More to the point, Trout has done more in his first 8 seasons than Pujols had done in his astonishingly strong first 10 seasons. Statistically he's at least the best player since Barry Bonds and arguably the best since Ruth.

Pointing out that Trout won't keep up the same pace is not insightful. It's just a straw man since neither did Cobb or Ruth.

[midmo]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

More to the point, Trout has done more in his first 8 seasons than Pujols had done in his astonishingly strong first 10 seasons.

Not to make this thread about Trout vs Pujols, but here's the stats...

first 9 years:

Mike Trout - ROY, MVP-1 (3), MVP-2 (4), MVP-4 (1), SS (7)
AB=4340, R=903, H=1324, 2B=251, HR=285, RBI=752, SB=200, AVG=.305
postseason game wins=0

Albert Pujols - ROY, MVP-1 (3), MVP-2 (3), MVP-3 (1), MVP-4 (1), SS (5), GG (1)
AB=5146, R=1071, H=1717, 2B=387, HR=366, RBI=1112, SB=61, AVG=.334
2006 World Series Champion

or if you want to take out Albert's 9th year to make the ABs more similar here's his first 8 years:
AB=4578, R=947, H=1531, 2B=342, HR=319, RBI=977, SB=45, AVG=.334

[bounce]

Originally Posted by midmo

Not to make this thread about Trout vs Pujols, but here's the stats...

first 9 years:

Mike Trout - ROY, MVP-1 (3), MVP-2 (4), MVP-4 (1), SS (7)
AB=4340, R=903, H=1324, 2B=251, HR=285, RBI=752, SB=200, AVG=.305
postseason game wins=0

Albert Pujols - ROY, MVP-1 (3), MVP-2 (3), MVP-3 (1), MVP-4 (1), SS (5), GG (1)
or if you want to take out Albert's 9th year to make the ABs more similar here's his first 8 years:
AB=4578, R=947, H=1531, 2B=342, HR=319, RBI=977, SB=45, AVG=.334

Frank Thomas was another that I thought might be interesting, first 9 seasons - 2 MVPs, 5 AS
AB=4406, R=894, H=1416, 2B=281, HR=286, RBI=963

Then there's Griffey, probably a better comparison considering they both play the same position? First 9 seasons - 1 MVP (really he only won it once?!?!), 8 AS
AB=4593, R=820, H=1389, 2B=261, HR=294, RBI=872

I think these stats tend to show these other guys hit for better average than Trout, and may have had better teams around them (?) when looking at the RBI differentials. The BB totals aren't hugely different, so that doesn't seem to be a factor. I didn't bother to look at Ks, but again I doubt there's a substantial impact from that which would change this analysis.

I can't believe I'm saying this, because Trout is really good, but is it just possible he's not as good as we want him to be?

Or, does it possibly say anything about the elite caliber of other players in MLB during this era? I don't know - it's fun to think about though, especially the impacts of collecting.

Anyway, I voted Trout on this and it won't even be close.

[RCMcKenzie]

As an Astros fan, if there is a runner on 2nd and 2 outs, I don't want them to walk Trout to get to Pujols, even now. Pujols has always destroyed Astros' pitching. Trout swings and misses at high fastballs a lot.

I think my vote for Trout was wrong, I think the Cobb sold for more than the Trout will go for. Last I saw, the Trout was still at 200K.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If they both retire today, I'd say Trout has had about the 30th best career in MLB history (including 8 pitchers) and Pujols about the 40th best. More to the point, Trout has done more in his first 8 seasons than Pujols had done in his astonishingly strong first 10 seasons. Statistically he's at least the best player since Barry Bonds and arguably the best since Ruth.

Pointing out that Trout won't keep up the same pace is not insightful. It's just a straw man since neither did Cobb or Ruth.

Really? At age 36 Ruth led the majors with 10.5 WAR as well as HR, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ with 218. Age 37 OPS+ 201. Age 38 OPS+ 176. Age 39 OPS+ 160.

At age 35, Cobb hit .401 with an OPS of 1.026 despite only hitting 4 home runs and was 2nd in oWAR. At age 38 Cobb hit .378 and led the league in OPS and OPS+ and hit a career high 12 home runs. That season, upset about all the talk of Ruth's Home Runs, Cobb told writers he could hit home runs if he wanted to and went out and hit 3 home runs along with a double and 2 singles going 6 for 6. The next day he hit 2 more setting a MLB record for most HRs in back to back games that still stands. Then Cobb went back to playing his "dead ball era" style.

[JunkyJoe]

None of these prices for modern cards makes any sense, without there being an underhanded catalyst involved. Here's my take: a card dealer owns multiples of a very low production serial#'d card of a "hot" player. The dealer consigns one of these super-rare super-hot cards through a major auction house and, either by himself or with the help of his associates/employees/family members, shills up the auction from multiple bidder accounts and then essentially buys the card from himself. After the smoke and mirrors show is produced for the collecting/investing public, no money has actually traded hands. The market is now primed for the next auction of this super-rare super-hot card from a different seller (or, so we're led to believe). The same dealer has another one of his super-rare super-hot cards consigned, this time by a family member, friend, or possibly even a fellow shady dealer who takes a pre-negotiated cut of the final sale price. And yes, unfortunately, there are plenty of trust fund dimwits out there foaming at the mouth to be the next high roller / "baller" who spends record bucks on that card.

[mouschi]

Originally Posted by rats60

Really? At age 36 Ruth led the majors with 10.5 WAR as well as HR, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ with 218. Age 37 OPS+ 201. Age 38 OPS+ 176. Age 39 OPS+ 160.

At age 35, Cobb hit .401 with an OPS of 1.026 despite only hitting 4 home runs and was 2nd in oWAR. At age 38 Cobb hit .378 and led the league in OPS and OPS+ and hit a career high 12 home runs. That season, upset about all the talk of Ruth's Home Runs, Cobb told writers he could hit home runs if he wanted to and went out and hit 3 home runs along with a double and 2 singles going 6 for 6. The next day he hit 2 more setting a MLB record for most HRs in back to back games that still stands. Then Cobb went back to playing his "dead ball era" style.

I **LOVE** This.

[nat]

Trout is a little bit less than halfway to Cobb's career WAR, but he's beating everyone in history for his various ages up until now. (This will almost certainly not continue after we lose this season.) Any detailed Cobb/Ruth comparisons are premature, but we are definitely watching one of the all-time greats.

Pujols more or less matched Trout's yearly production in his 20s, but Trout started a year younger than Pujols did, which accounts for his higher totals at each age. At his established level of production, Trout's career will equal Pujols' in value in 3+ years. He could, of course, crater like Pujols did, but that's pretty much a worst-case scenario. (Sort of like rivaling Ruth is a best-case scenario. Neither one is likely.)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Pujols is an all-time great and one of the 25 best players in baseball history, but I don't think he was as good as Trout to this point in his career, was never a 5-tool player, was never as marketable, and represents close to the worst-case scenario for Trout going forward.

Not saying the price on the Trout should be more than Cobb or anything like that, but his all-around performance and marketability is unlike anything we have seen probably since Mantle.

Trout was never a 5 tool player either. He is average defensively and has an average arm. He even played quite a bit of left field earlier in his career, not where you would stick a good fielder with a strong arm. Albert Pujols and Frank Thomas were significantly better offensively than Trout at his peak, that makes up for Trout's speed and base running. At one time Thomas and Pujols were hot and cooled off when their performance dropped. Unless Trout can play at a high level through his 30s like Cobb, Ruth, Clemente, Mays, Aaron, Williams, etc. he will too.

If Trout is at or passing his peak, then this card is also and has little upside. The Cobb will continue to rise and some think it actually sold low, even at 300k.