Most undervalued HOFers

[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

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Historically, Cubs fans have always shown more love with their wallets than Tigers fans, so that could have a bit to do with it.

[Balticfox]

To use the words "Baseball cards" and undervalued" together is an oxymoron anyway. I mean who would have anticipated that these cheap pieces of cardboard inserted as a premium to sell cigars and cigarettes, bread, bubble gum, breakfast cereal, etc. would some day fetch not just pouches but bags of silver (and even gold!) coins? Who would have predicted that such widespread daftness would take hold among baby boomers?

So let's turn the question around. Limiting ourselves to post-WWII cards since just about all of these are still in plentiful supply, which players are the most grotesquely overpriced? Should any names be added to those of Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron? Sandy Koufax maybe?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

To use the words "Baseball cards" and undervalued" together is an oxymoron. I mean who would have anticipated that these cheap pieces of cardboard inserted as a premium to sell cigars and cigarettes, bread, bubble gum, breakfast cereal, etc. would some day fetch not just pouches but bags of silver (and even gold!) coins? Who would have predicted that such widespread daftness would take hold among baby boomers?

So let's turn the question around. Limiting ourselves to post-WWII cards since just about all of these are still in plentiful supply, which players are the most grotesquely overpriced? Should any names be added to those of Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron? Sandy Koufax maybe?

Clemente. At least in terms of his numbers. Bill James, as of 20 years ago, ranked him only 70th or so, whereas everyone else has him significantly higher. We have had this discussion before and I suppose we may have it again. Only 240 HR, and he wasn't much of a HR hitter on the road either, so I think Forbes Field only gets one so far in downplaying his lack of HR power. Yes, incredible arm, but James makes a cogent argument that that whole thing is not as important overall as some make it out to be. There was a very interesting (and of course contentious) discussion about Clemente and Kaline being roughly equal not that long ago here.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only 240 HR, and he wasn't much of a HR hitter on the road either, so I think Forbes Field only gets one so far in downplaying his lack of HR power.

Home park makes a huge difference. From 1955-69 when Clemente played in Forbes, there were an average of 86 HR per season hit. Compare that to Hank Aaron's home field advantage. From 1966-68 there were an average of 151 HR per season hit in the "Launching Pad." After the 1968 season, the Braves moved the fences in to help Aaron hit more HRs. From 1969-73, that number jumped to 187 per season. 1n 1974 with Aaron at 713 HRs, the Braves moved the fences back. If Aaron hadn't played in Atlanta, he would be fifth all time in home runs and his cards would be priced similar to Frank Robinson's. Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron are the most overpriced post-war vintage players.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

To use the words "Baseball cards" and undervalued" together is an oxymoron anyway. I mean who would have anticipated that these cheap pieces of cardboard inserted as a premium to sell cigars and cigarettes, bread, bubble gum, breakfast cereal, etc. would some day fetch not just pouches but bags of silver (and even gold!) coins? Who would have predicted that such widespread daftness would take hold among baby boomers?

So let's turn the question around. Limiting ourselves to post-WWII cards since just about all of these are still in plentiful supply, which players are the most grotesquely overpriced? Should any names be added to those of Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron? Sandy Koufax maybe?

I guess to me -- what started this thread -- is Mantle rules that top spot. But, like anything, he's worth whatever someone is willing to pay ... and apparently, that's a lot.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by esehombre

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

That's true; Kaline is even cheaper. My point was that if someone wants a 1959 Topps Ernie Banks in nice shape, most of the time it's not going to break the bank. He doesn't have the pull of Aaron, Clemente, Mays or Koufax in that set.

[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/

[packs]

Baseball Reference has Rick Reuschel ranked as the 32nd best starting pitcher of all time. I can accept that whatever mathematical parameters BR used to come to that conclusion. Parameters have to be applied the same way to everyone and the results are the results.

Jim Palmer is ranked 43rd by BR. Personally, I feel as though there is plenty of room to say I’d choose Palmer over him every time. But I guess you can’t if the rankings are rankings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball Reference has Rick Reuschel ranked as the 32nd best starting pitcher of all time. I can accept that whatever mathematical parameters BR used to come to that conclusion. Parameters have to be applied the same way to everyone and the results are the results.

Jim Palmer is ranked 43rd by BR. Personally, I feel as though there is plenty of room to say I’d choose Palmer over him every time. But I guess you can’t if the rankings are rankings.

Not at all. One can absolutely disagree with the rankings. There is certainly nothing sacred about Bill James' rankings. That was not at all my point.

[packs]

Do you think that the people who developed the parameters for BR’s ranking also believe that Palmer was an inferior pitcher because the ranking has him where it does compared to Reuschel?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you think that the people who developed the parameters for BR’s ranking also believe that Palmer was an inferior pitcher because the ranking has him where it does compared to Reuschel?

I would assume so, as they obviously think their methodology captures who really were the best pitchers in what order. The whole point of this type of metric -- and of course you are free to disagree with it -- is to reexamine traditional assumptions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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/

Yes I posted that before and quoted from it.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes I posted that before and quoted from it.

Peter,

Sorry I must have missed that, when working my way through the pages of discussion.

Statistically speaking I believe the advantage is Perry. Could I fault someone for taking Nolan Ryan though? No. Both were extremely dominant pitchers, Ryan from a pure power standpoint is tough to beat, but, I think you give it to Perry though for the consistency that he managed over the course of his career though. I think Ryan would fair better in todays game with how velocity has trended and his durability, but this is a moot point since we can't plop players from one era to another.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Seven

Peter,

Sorry I must have missed that, when working my way through the pages of discussion.

Statistically speaking I believe the advantage is Perry. Could I fault someone for taking Nolan Ryan though? No. Both were extremely dominant pitchers, Ryan from a pure power standpoint is tough to beat, but, I think you give it to Perry though for the consistency that he managed over the course of his career though. I think Ryan would fair better in todays game with how velocity has trended and his durability, but this is a moot point since we can't plop players from one era to another.

Agree. I could see it going either way, but I certainly don't think it's self-evident that Ryan was better and it's certainly not true that no one would think otherwise. People do think otherwise!!

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agree. I could see it going either way, but I certainly don't think it's self-evident that Ryan was better and it's certainly not true that no one would think otherwise. People do think otherwise!!

Agreed! I think another pitcher we could easily throw into this discussion, both in terms of comparability and being undervalued, is Phil Neikro.