Most undervalued HOFers

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by RayBShotz

All Pitchers.

All?! That's a preposterous, blanket statement.

Have you seen what even beat-up Leaf Paige "RCs" that aren't even really RCs have been selling for? There are countless examples, but the value of this card confounds me considering it's not even a true RC.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

All?! That's a preposterous, blanket statement.

Have you seen what even beat-up Leaf Paige "RCs" that aren't even really RCs have been selling for? There are countless examples, but the value of this card confounds me considering it's not even a true RC.

With his story and so few cards, I think Satch is in a class of his own.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

All?! That's a preposterous, blanket statement.

Have you seen what even beat-up Leaf Paige "RCs" that aren't even really RCs have been selling for? There are countless examples, but the value of this card confounds me considering it's not even a true RC.

If you are basing the value on the fact that it's a "RC", you are missing the point. It's valued the way it is because it's (supposedly) a very short print in a tough set. How short of a print it is and how rare it actually is may be debatable, but I think the fact that it's Paige's first card in a nationally issued set may be relatively down on the list. Same with the Bob Feller in that set, which is most definitely not a RC.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If you are basing the value on the fact that it's a "RC", you are missing the point. It's valued the way it is because it's (supposedly) a very short print in a tough set. How short of a print it is and how rare it actually is may be debatable, but I think the fact that it's Paige's first card in a nationally issued set may be relatively down on the list. Same with the Bob Feller in that set, which is most definitely not a RC.

I appreciate the insight and clarification. At the same time, its value assurdely still has much to do with the fact that it depicts Paige as opposed to Andy Lapihuska. Therefore, brining it back to the point that stating all (or nearly all) HOF pitchers' cards are undervalued makes no sense. Some? Sure, but the same can be said of even more non-pitchers.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I appreciate the insight and clarification. At the same time, its value assurdely still has much to do with the fact that it depicts Paige as opposed to Andy Lapihuska. Therefore, brining it back to the point that stating all (or nearly all) HOF pitchers' cards are undervalued makes no sense. Some? Sure, but the same can be said of even more non-pitchers.

Yes, I doubt the hoopla would be quite the same over a common card even if truly scarce.

I don't know that "all pitchers" was meant literally. I would agree with whoever said that however in principle that for star / HOF pitchers - the value proposition is down considerably when compared to star hitters. I don't know if more hitters just than I realize can have that claim made or not, but there are certainly notable examples of both. This is a case sometimes where "sport good" or "sport popular" doesn't translate directly to "hobby popular." It's hard to imagine a player on his career much better or with more accolades than Frank Robinson - but you can still routinely get a nice 1959 Topps card of him for like 20 bucks. Defies logic.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This is a case sometimes where "sport good" or "sport popular" doesn't translate directly to "hobby popular." It's hard to imagine a player on his career much better or with more accolades than Frank Robinson - but you can still routinely get a nice 1959 Topps card of him for like 20 bucks. Defies logic.

Very true.

We definitely know that Frank Robinson has never been "hobby popular". I have to imagine that the fact that he was never a monstrous fan favorite may have something to do with that. Same with Eddie Mathews.

But, immediately defying this logic are the aforementioned Brooks Robinson, and to a similar extent, Killebrew. There have been few in the game more beloved than Brooks, and we all know he deserved every iota of any good sentiment that came his way. Why, then, haven't his cards been shown the same love in a monetary sense? I guess we'll never know. And please, let's not use "He wasn't a Yankee" as the answer! From the autograph side (AKA my side) of matters, I can tell you that Orioles collectors are willing to spend, too. Perhaps not as much on Brooks since he was such a signing machine, but I am simply stating that O's autograph collectors aren't cheapskates. Does that not translate into the card end of things? Apparently, not in Brooks' case? That's a head-scratcher.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Very true.

We definitely know that Frank Robinson has never been "hobby popular". I have to imagine that the fact that he was never a monstrous fan favorite may have something to do with that. Same with Eddie Mathews.

But, immediately defying this logic are the aforementioned Brooks Robinson, and to a similar extent, Killebrew. There have been few in the game more beloved than Brooks, and we all know he deserved every iota of any good sentiment that came his way.

Yeah, it's definitely wonky. Ernie Banks is another example. The rookie card is pricey, but beyond that most stuff even in EX graded shape won't bust many budgets. To me he fits the universally loved / popular for a team checkbox in the same way that Brooks does for Baltimore.

BTW, finally picked up a '57 Topps Brooks Robinson earlier this year. Love it!

[bbcard1]

Someone who is well under the radar given his stats is Billy Williams. Playing mostly in a pitchers era, he had 2700 hits, 426 homers, and a .290 batting average.

[esehombre]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yeah, it's definitely wonky. Ernie Banks is another example. The rookie card is pricey, but beyond that most stuff even in EX graded shape won't bust many budgets. To me he fits the universally loved / popular for a team checkbox in the same way that Brooks does for Baltimore.

BTW, finally picked up a '57 Topps Brooks Robinson earlier this year. Love it!

Not so sure about Banks - Kaline compares favorably to him but most of his cards are considerably cheaper

[Seven]

Many names have been mentioned in the undervalued category that I agree with. Kaline, Banks, Robinson, Collins, Jimmie Foxx as well. All stellar players that can still be found for reasonable prices IMO. I'd argue Hank Aaron is found at good prices as well considering what he did for the game. His Rookie Card isn't stratospheric in price.

As for the more recent discussion. I think Nolan and Perry were both fantastic pitchers. I'd be happy with either of them. I think the numbers give the edge to Mr. Perry, but I would probably want Nolan Ryan on my team. Just something about him that I can't put my finger on. SABR had an interesting discussion on this that I will link below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...s-long-career/

[Fred]

Has anyone mentioned Rogers Hornsby?

[Balticfox]

Not yet, but I was thinking about Rogers Hornsby since he's one of my favourite early greats. The reason I didn't mention him is that I have no clue as to how expensive his cards are compared to other stars of the same era.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's an interesting discussion, my only point was don't think of these players as great investiments.

Not that all of us are here to discuss investments. My preferred sources for such discussions are the Wall Street Journal, Barron's and the Northern Miner.

I'm here to discuss cards though. And I like to hear about cheap ones!