Who are the most "over-valued" players

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Mickey Mantle. His cards are multiples the price of those of his contemporaries yet his talent was not.

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

The rest is history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

The rest is history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Being a Yankee gave him a huge leg up over anyone else in terms of popularity. Playing hurt added to his mystique. The tape measure home runs did too, and the switch hitting power. The folk hero personality, the blond crewcut, the muscular build. All the World Series. And, especially if you count the astonishing on base percentage, a very great player too. If PURELY as a player he is overrated, it isn't by much.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being a Yankee gave him a huge leg up over anyone else in terms of popularity. Playing hurt added to his mystique. The tape measure home runs did too, and the switch hitting power. The folk hero personality, the blond crewcut, the muscular build. All the World Series. And, especially if you count the astonishing on base percentage, a very great player too. If PURELY as a player he is overrated, it isn't by much.

Agreed. In the career OPS+ rankings for non-juicers with at least 7,500 plate appearances, he is 5th, behind only Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, and Hornsby.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

All correct and I agree. But I was answering the precise question posted:

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

...what pre-war players generally come with a higher value than their actual accomplishments on the field.

Not saying they're bad player, but they cost more to acquire than similar talent players. I'm not talking about a single card either. This applies to all cards of that player.

For one, Mickey Mantle wasn't as good as Willie Mays. And arguably Mantle wasn't as good as Ted Williams and Hank Aaron or even Roberto Clemente and Stan Musial.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

All correct and I agree. But I was answering the precise question posted:

As the original question was posed, yes I would agree with you.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

For one, Mickey Mantle wasn't as good as Willie Mays. And arguably Mantle wasn't as good as Ted Williams and Hank Aaron or even Roberto Clemente and Stan Musial.

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

That Mays was a real terror in the World Series he was in. People just love to drool and slobber over the catch which was about the only thing he did in 3 of them.
Exactly zero homers.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

I go back and forth arguing with myself about how important rings are for a baseball player's legacy. Baseball is, at once, both more individualistic and more team-dependent than, say, football and basketball. Someone needs to come up with an advanced statistic for "World Series or playoff wins above replacement value".

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To me rings mean less than nothing. Look at all the nobodies on the Yankees with many rings, are they somehow better than Ted Williams because they have some silly rings?

Better to have the "silly rings" than NO rings! Ha! The whole purpose of competing is to win, no ?? When people tell me that "baseball is mostly about the stats," then I tell them "why not get rid of the World Series then?" Why even have a championship ?? Oh wait, that's my point!! You play to win and Mantle did that better than anybody else !!

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

That Mays was a real terror in the World Series he was in. People just love to drool and slobber over the catch which was about the only thing he did in 3 of them.
Exactly zero homers.

Zero you say ?? Ouch !! Imagine if that had been the Mick in his spot ??

[ValKehl]

If you replaced Ted Williams with Mantle on all the Red Sox teams Williams was on, how many rings would Mantle have gotten? My guess is, maybe one, in 1946 when the WS went 7 games and Williams didn't hit for much.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

If you replaced Ted Williams with Mantle on all the Red Sox teams Williams was on, how many rings would Mantle have gotten? My guess is, maybe one, in 1946 when the WS went 7 games and Williams didn't hit for much.

Maybe one ?? Mantle would've played with Jimmie Foxx !! They would've destroyed their opponents. Think about it: Mantle won all those rings playing with ... Yogi Berra.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by ASF123

They(Nolan Ryan and Pete Rose) both were great at one thing for a very long time, but had significant weaknesses that prevented them from providing the overall value of some of their contemporaries.

Well I suppose one could nitpick and "fault" Nolan Ryan for not having either a screwball or a knuckleball, but in his defence (and I'm not exactly one of his big fans) he still threw a whopping 222 complete games in 773 starts with an ERA of only 3.19 over his 27 seasons. Those are incredibly good numbers.

Meanwhile Pete Rose won two Gold Gloves in addition to batting .303 over 24 seasons. The only "deficiency" I can find in his game is that his highest stolen base total in any one season was only 20.

[G1911]

If we're ranking by rings, Mickey was not even the best player on his team.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Better to have the "silly rings" than NO rings! Ha! The whole purpose of competing is to win, no ?? When people tell me that "baseball is mostly about the stats," then I tell them "why not get rid of the World Series then?" Why even have a championship ?? Oh wait, that's my point!! You play to win and Mantle did that better than anybody else !!



Zero you say ?? Ouch !! Imagine if that had been the Mick in his spot ??

Put #7 on the Senators and how many rings does he win?

[paul]

Isn't Thurman Munson a bit overrated by card collectors? I'm someone who thinks he probably belongs in the Hall of Fame, but his card values seem to equate to the upper echelon of the Hall of Fame. And I don't think he belongs there.

[Chris-Counts]

There are some seriously overvalued players in the Hall of Fame, But I agree with another poster that Hank Greenberg is undervalued. In my view, the most overvalued players are hitters who played between 1920 and 1930, when batting averages were at their highest point. The ball was seriously juiced in 1929-20. The list includes George Sisler, Ross Youngs, Fred Lindstrom, Bill Terry, George Kelly, Travis Jackson, Chick Haley, Chuck Klein and a couple others. Lefty O'Doul would be on the list if he was inducted. A lot of these guys would have all hit .260 or .270 in 1914, or 1944, or 1964. Most were teammates of Frankie Frisch, who helped elect them.

[MR RAREBACK]

I would say
greenberg
gehringer
ott
Hornsby
Foxx
all undervalued

[Fred]

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would.

You're saying that most players would turn into stars compared with Mays or Aaron. I disagree.

[Bigdaddy]

I'd nominate everyone who has donned a Yankee uniform - they carry a premium for The Pinstripes that is above and beyond their statistical value.

I've been slowly working on a '53T set and believe you me, all the Yankee players have a ++$$ on their cards. In general, I'd guess double what any comparable player on another team would bring. There also seems to be a somewhat lesser plus up on Red Sox and Brooklyn Dodger players.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

Yeah the 25th edition of that will likely look like the first 24 editions lol.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

I think Mantle and Mays are as close to equals as you can get between two contemporaries and even in the all time discussion. They dominated their leagues in very similar ways, with Mays having a longer career and higher counting stats.

Mantle and Mays both led their leagues in WAR five seasons in a row. Aaron only led the league in WAR once, and that's because he was contending with Mays, who was far superior.

While I agree Mays has his place in a discussion with Mantle, I don't think Hank Aaron was of equal caliber to either player.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Mantle was a great player but when you compare him to Mays or Aaron, he turns into a star, but most players would. I think Mantle was one of the best and interesting personalities from baseball, but that doesn't mean the value of his cards should overshadow some of his contemporaries. I can understand, he was a Yankee, a New York player that was adored by America.

Looking forward to the thread that asks for opinions on players that are felt to be undervalued.

LOL, That has to be poor Eddie Mathews. He was a beast but played on the same team as the greatest player of the era and also had Willie and Mickey playing at the same time.

[Vintagedeputy]

Sandy Koufax

[rjackson44]

Jimmy foxx love him

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Moonlight Graham.

If W.P. Kinsella had picked another name from the Baseball Encyclopedia when writing his book, then that player's items would be commanding nonsensical premiums instead, and Graham would have continued to be practically forgotten about outside of a small number of baseball historians. This explains just how ridiculous it all is. End of story.

Moonlight Graham as a romanticized notion is fine and dandy, but aside from a couple of factual biographical tidbits included in the novel and the film, what people are truly captivated by are the performances of the actors who portrayed him, most notably Burt Lancaster. In that case, it always made more sense to me to direct the spending towards Lancaster and Kinsella, as they are more closely related to this semi-fictional version of Moonlight Graham that has raised the prices of the actual Graham's material.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

To me rings mean less than nothing. Look at all the nobodies on the Yankees with many rings, are they somehow better than Ted Williams because they have some silly rings?

Besides guys with error cards like Bill Ripken or Randy Johnson in my opinion Mickey Mantle is in a league of his own for cards being overvalued.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To me rings mean less than nothing. Look at all the nobodies on the Yankees with many rings, are they somehow better than Ted Williams because they have some silly rings?

Besides guys with error cards like Bill Ripken or Randy Johnson in my opinion Mickey Mantle is in a league of his own for cards being overvalued.

Agree, but if a player appears in enough post season games, I think their performance can make a bit of a difference in how you assess their career, in either direction. For example Kershaw's post-season horror show clearly has some downward impact on his overall rating. Mantle's WS Home Run records obviously added a bit to his status.
s

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

And Frankie Crosetti has 8 rings as a player and 9 more as a coach, so I suppose his cards should be ranked as most UNDER valued?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

And Frankie Crosetti has 8 rings, so I suppose his cards should be ranked as most UNDER valued?

Uhhh...Make that 17 rings, as a player and a coach. He was in 23 World Series, total. He had so many rings, they started giving him engraved shotguns instead.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

How many rings would they have won if they swapped places with Mantle—my guess is the same number.

[Balticfox]

The same number they already have, or the same number as Mantle has?

[oldjudge]

Same as Mantle has

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

All we can do is speculate, but I'd venture that at least a couple of them would have had more rings than Mantle if they had been afforded the luxury of having the Yankees on their side! Especially Williams, in my mind, but certainly some of the others. The only reason I singled out Williams is that his name really popped off that list for me. Thinking even more about it, wow ... Mays with a powerhouse team behind him?! Wow. The others all deserve consideration for the question, that's for sure.

Regardless, none would have as many rings as Crosetti!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

How many rings would they have won if they swapped places with Mantle—my guess is the same number.

Strongly disagree. Some of them definitely would have had more.