Why on earth is Mookie’s RC so cheap compared to Trout’s?

[rhettyeakley]

Probably has to do with the 77.4 WAR vs 45.2 WAR difference. Keep in mind Mike Trout is only 1 year older than Mookie Betts, so although he has played in more games they are nearly the same age.

That being said Mookie is great and could easily be in that conversation who is the better player currently but at this point right now Trout has accomplished more in his career and is thus more valued. I should also add that I have several of Mookie's RC cards and plan to hold onto them as I love him as a player.

[Steve D]

Mookie Wilson comparable to Mike Trout?

What have you been smoking and/or drinking?

All he did was hit a ground ball that should've been caught for the out.

























Oh.................................

Nevermind





Steve

[TedWill1939]

Red Sox and Betts fan here. A few years ago a commentator, ARod?, was questioning why Mookie isn't a household name? I agree. I got the impression that Mookie is lowkey and possiably didn't seek hype and branding maybe it was the Sox fault? His new home with LA will be telling. If he becomes the "new face of baseball" LA is the place to do it, if he wants it.

I would add that the Sox are a real "hometown" team being on the Dodgers may have a more national appeal. Just some thoughts

I'm glad I have my Betts rookies and happy with the price I paid!

[bxb]

Reminds me of Mantle vs Mays controversy from the 1960s.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I'm a Dodger fan and have quickly fallen in love with Mookie, but Trout has been so damn consistent at such a high level, plus, and don't underestimate this, the hype train was SO huge when he was a prospect coming up at the same time as Harper, and turning out to be clearly superior to him, that it drove his value and there's never been so much as a hiccup in his performance to derail that train.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bxb

Reminds me of Mantle vs Mays controversy from the 1960s.

Don't overlook the obvious difference:

Mantle is to Mays

as

Trout is to Betts

No controversy, it's just there.
.

[Mike D.]

With Mantle and Mays, the WAR tilt is actually significant in Mays direction.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

With Mantle and Mays, the WAR tilt is actually significant in Mays direction.

Career OPS+

1st Ruth 202
5th Trout 176
7th Mantle 172
19th Mays 156
113th Betts 135

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by TedWill1939

Red Sox and Betts fan here. A few years ago a commentator, ARod?, was questioning why Mookie isn't a household name? I agree. I got the impression that Mookie is lowkey and possiably didn't seek hype and branding maybe it was the Sox fault? His new home with LA will be telling. If he becomes the "new face of baseball" LA is the place to do it, if he wants it.

I would add that the Sox are a real "hometown" team being on the Dodgers may have a more national appeal. Just some thoughts

I'm glad I have my Betts rookies and happy with the price I paid!

Maybe he should have someone take his picture kissing himself in the mirror, that ought to do it for the branding.

[sbfinley]

Statistical comparison aside, it boils down to:

1. While similar talents, Trout is widely regarded as the player of this this generation both by the hobby and the sport at large. You could debate the two as long as you like but in almost every facet Trout is “generational” and Betts is “exceptional” by majority. I tend to fall into this camp as well, and it’s direct correlation to hobby prices is obvious.

2. The 2011 Topps Update Trout has taken a life of it own and can now be easily regarded as the most important modern baseball card in the hobby (sans manufactured scarcity) and it could be argued it has cracked the top 10 most important post war baseball cards. The 2014 Betts, while valuable and important, is not in the same standing.

[chaddurbin]

trout is babe ruth mookie is jimmie foxx, that's the more apropos comparison in term of performance. and i love mookie being a dodgers fan, he's been everything and more with the already high expectations.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Probably has to do with the 77.4 WAR vs 45.2 WAR difference. Keep in mind Mike Trout is only 1 year older than Mookie Betts, so although he has played in more games they are nearly the same age.

That's pretty much it. Mookie is a fantastic player, but just the difference in their WAR (bear in mind, I don't think that's the end all be all statistic some do), is a pretty good full career, for a lot of decent ballplayers. Trout is already the 5th ranked All-Time Centerfielder on Baseball Reference. Mookie is the 27th ranked Rightfielder.

If Trout retires or gets a career ending injury tomorrow, he's going into the HOF, first ballot. If Mookie dramatically falls off for some reason, he falls into the Don Mattingly, Doc Gooden, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen, Dick Allen, Albert Belle, Juan Gonzalez, Johan Santana, etc., etc., etc...., territory.

Dominant for a time, but not quite the consistent era defining HOF star you had predicted when you shelled out a lot of dough for their rookie cards. Not to say that Betts can't change that with a couple more MVP's and a long injury free career..............but it's far from a given.

[insidethewrapper]

Why is Trout higher priced ? Not sure ! But he did have 1 Stolen Base in 2020 and only 11 in 2019. Not the 5 star player anymore, and probably not many post season appearances in the future.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Why is Trout higher priced ? Not sure ! But he did have 1 Stolen Base in 2020 and only 11 in 2019. Not the 5 star player anymore, and probably not many post season appearances in the future.

Yeah, but did that stolen base get the whole country a free taco?

I think the Mantle/Mays comparison is appropriate. I just don't get the price difference. Whatever. I’ll take 5 Mookie RCs over one Trout any day of the week.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mantle and Mays were roughly comparable players. Trout and Betts are not. At this point in their careers, it's really not even close. Betts is a very good although somewhat inconsistent player, Trout is generational.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Mantle and Mays were roughly comparable players. Trout and Betts are not. At this point in their careers, it's really not even close. Betts is a very good although somewhat inconsistent player, Trout is generational.

I'd quibble with this as Mookie is not just a very good player, he is a generational talent. But you're right in that he's still not comparable to Trout, because Trout is beyond generational. I don't know what's the next level, or the level beyond that, but Trout is there - perhaps epochal?
Mookie won an MVP and has finished no lower than 8th in the four years prior to 2020 (he should garner good MVP consideration this year, too), pretty consistent.
Trout finished lower than 2nd once in the eight years prior to 2020 (and he should garner MVP consideration this year, too), while winning three and being the runner-up four times.
I've been a Red Sox fan for most of my life, but the trade of Mookie last winter really challenged my fandom. If a team owner wants to save a few bucks so much that he wants to trade a homegrown player like Mookie, I don't think that owner appreciates baseball, the team's fans or how special a player and person Mookie is. Seems like the Dodgers and their fans appreciate him, though, so that's a good thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess you would have to say he's one of the top handful of players the last 10 or even 15 years, but then again it feels like it hasn't been a great 10-15 years for hitters. Consider, for example, career home runs. One active player has over 500, Pujols of course. Cabrera is close, but then you drop down to Encarnacion and Cruz in the low 400s (and both are approaching 40), and from there it's another big drop to Braun at around 350. It feels like, especially with home runs being relatively plentiful, there should be more guys with higher totals?