Who are the most "over-valued" players

[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.

[aljurgela]

Mantle... but I get that he was a Yankee, but still ... so his prices seem so disproportionate to me... and I would put Clemente as #2, even though I love him (btw, I do not collect either of these guys)

[Kevlo17]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

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.

Williams and Foxx were only on the same team for 3.5 years, and one of those Foxx wasn't half of his former self. Plus, I doubt Mantle + Foxx would have been able to do more damage then Williams + Foxx considering Williams was the better hitter in every facet.

Williams
AVG: .344
OBP: .482
SLG: 634
OPS+: 191

Mantle
BA: .298
OBP: .421
SLG: .557
OPS+: 172

Williams also had more WAR, more hits, and only 15 less home runs despite playing in almost a full season's worth of games less than Mantle in his career if counting stats are your thing.

Mick also struck out about 1000 times more than Williams in his career.

[Touch'EmAll]

Ted Williams & Mantle, similar to Wilt Chamberlain & Bill Russell. Both Williams & Chamberlain were better than Mantle & Russell. However, Mantle and Russell were helping their stacked teams win multiple Championships.

Odd how the market works. Mantle's cardboard is quite a bit more expensive then Williams. But Russell and Chamberlain don't have similar cost difference.

[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.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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 inredibly 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.

Ryan pitched in a very pitching-friendly era and environment, so his career ERA was only 12% better than league average over that time. He walked 4.7 per 9 innings for his career. He had tremendous strengths, of course, but his control was a definite weakness.

The two Gold Gloves notwithstanding, Rose was an average defensive player in his best years, and usually below that. His total offensive production was 18% better than league average - quite good, but not inner-circle great. Of course that is brought down somewhat by the fact that he hung around for several years as a mediocre-or-worse player to break the record. One can interpret that either way, I guess - that he was a better player than his career stats, or that he hurt his teams for his last several years. Or both, of course.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by ASF123

The two Gold Gloves notwithstanding, (Pete) Rose was an average defensive player in his best years, and usually below that.

His two Gold Gloves speak much louder than your unsupported opinion.

Originally Posted by ASF123

One can interpret that either way, I guess - that he was a better player than his career stats, or that he hurt his teams for his last several years. Or both, of course.

Last "several" years?! No. You're overstating your case. His last year. Looking at his batting average in his final years:

1984: .286
1985: .264
1986: .219

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

His two Gold Gloves speak much louder than your unsupported opinion.



Last "several" years?! No. You're overstating your case. His last year. Looking at his batting average in his final years:

1984: .365
1985: .264
1986: .219

I have a strong feeling that citing stats beyond batting average and ERA is going to be useless, so nevermind (although even if you’re only looking at BA, for 1984 you need to include his 314 plate appearances with the Expos along with his 107 for the Reds).

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by ASF123

...although even if you’re only looking at BA, for 1984 you need to include his 314 plate appearances with the Expos along with his 107 for the Reds.

Whoops! I'm sorry. I got my eyes crossed and goofed when pecking out his batting average for 1984. I've now corrected it.

Originally Posted by ASF123

I have a strong feeling that citing stats beyond batting average and ERA is going to be useless....

You're correct on that point as well.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

His two Gold Gloves speak much louder than your unsupported opinion.



Last "several" years?! No. You're overstating your case. His last year. Looking at his batting average in his final years:

1984: .286
1985: .264
1986: .219

Context is important too - he was a 1B who slugged .337, .319, and .270 those three years. By any definition, that's awful.

[Balticfox]

Huh?! Was he awful at first? That's not something I've heard previously.

If not, his batting stats are a separate and distinct entity from where he played in the field. And while I agree that his last year was bench worthy, his previous two years were decent enough.

Meanwhile I hated the Big Red Machine in the 1970's because I was a Pittsburgh Pirates and Montréal Expos fan when it came to the National League but I now respect Pete Rose for his all out style of play. And so now I'm defending him! A lifetime .303 batting average despite playing for 24 years until 1986 warrants high praise.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ASF123

The two Gold Gloves notwithstanding, Rose was an average defensive player in his best years, and usually below that.

However, I give Rose a lot of credit for being able to play every position except P, C, and SS. That kind of flexibility is very valuable to a team. As his teams added and lost star players, Rose moved over to fill the need.

Primarily 2B until Helms and later Morgan came along, outfield until 1975 when Perez was moved to first and Rose to 3B, and then to first when he joined the Phillies, who already had third base covered.

And during the season, Pete often filled in on a game-by-game basis, wherever needed.

[brianp-beme]

I always like to steer things to Prewar. Of course it was a hugely different pitching environment around the turn of the 20th century, and Ryan whizzed the ball in there at a very high velocity, but I have always been amazed that Cy Young completed 749 of his 815 games he started in his 22 year career, which is 91.9%! Even during his last six years when he was 40 years old and older, he completed 125 of 156 games started, a clip of 80.1%. And pitching all these innings (average of 343 per year throughout his career, which included finishing 84 games as well) and still maintaining a 2.63 career ERA. Impressive.

Brian

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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 inredibly good numbers.

[brianp-beme]

Nolan Ryan averaged 199 innings per year during his 27 year career. Even if you subtract out his first four years and his last year, which involved five of his six lowest innings pitched per year totals, his innings pitched per year is 219 during that 22 year stretch. As a reminder, Cy pitched an average of 334 innings per year during his ENTIRE 22 year career.

Brian

[jchcollins]

I'm not sure about Nolan Ryan's cards being super overvalued, but it certainly seems that for postwar HOF pitchers - his and Koufax's cards are in a different league than just about everyone else's.

I do think Ryan is overrated (unfortunately; he's one of my favorites) just in terms of how worshipped he is to this day by the garden variety modern baseball fan. At a high level, he was more unique than he was great - and great pitching is more than just strikeouts and no-hitters. Many of those touting Ryan as "the GOAT" all over social media seemingly have never heard of Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Jim Palmer, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, and the list goes on from the 1960's to the 80's. That's just not right. For most if not all of those guys, Ryan has the advantage in K's and no-no's, and they have the advantage in literally everything else that goes into winning pitching - Record, ERA, BB %age, WHIP, FIP, CYA's, etc. etc. To me that's just not right. Nolan Ryan appeared in more than 800 games in his 27 year-career and he's the "GOAT" because of what - 7, 19, 30-something of those games? The no-hitters are impressive sure, but to me they have just been vastly blown out of proportion here in the 21st century.

[Touch'EmAll]

MLB lowered the mound in 1969 because the pitchers dominated a bit too much. So, Ryan came in just after they adjusted in favor of the hitters.

Can you imagine what Ryan may have done with the higher mound pre-1969 !

[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.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. Munson’s tragic death was horrible and in many ways elevated him to a status above where he belongs. See the same thing of course with singers and other entertainers.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Agreed. Munson’s tragic death was horrible and in many ways elevated him to a status above where he belongs. See the same thing of course with singers and other entertainers.

I respectfully disagree. His value is where it should be. I don't believe he was showing signs of decline, and had he played a couple of more years there would be no doubt of his HoF eligibility. The Dodgers would have lost the 1981 Series. He probably would have managed. Just my opinion here; I don't have WAR or any other stats to try to prove a point.

[jchcollins]

As a proponent of a (limited more) "larger" Hall, I think that Maris belongs in. The record he broke in 1961 was practically bigger than the game itself, and it was a historic event that was celebrated bigly for decades afterwards.

I know that's not how the Hall traditionally works, and I know there will be plenty who disagree with me and that's fine - but I think Maris belongs in for his contributions to the game. There are many arguing the same right now for Curt Flood and his contributions to the game, which if that holds any water at all - then surely the same would be true of Maris. Clearly, neither have "traditional" HOF numbers for the positions they played.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I respectfully disagree. His value is where it should be. I don't believe he was showing signs of decline, and had he played a couple of more years there would be no doubt of his HoF eligibility. The Dodgers would have lost the 1981 Series. He probably would have managed. Just my opinion here; I don't have WAR or any other stats to try to prove a point.

In 1978 his OPS+ was 101. In 1979 his OPS+ was 95. Here is how he ranks against modern catchers.

Piazza OPS+ 143
Posey OPS+ 129
Bench OPS+ 126
Mauer OPS+ 124
Simmons OPS+ 118
Fisk OPS+ 117
Munson OPS+ 116
Carter OPS+ 115
I Rodriguez OPS+ 106

The only two guys below him as hitters were much better defensively. Munson was clearly in decline and if he had finished his career, his OPS+ would have ended up much worse and below Carter too.

Munson was not as good as any of the modern day HOF catchers. As to his HOF eligibility, if Simmons couldn't get elected by the BBWWA, I'm not sure that Munson would have either.

[ASF123]

Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan. Neither was an inner-circle all-time great player. (ducks to avoid flying projectiles)

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by rats60

In 1978 his OPS+ was 101. In 1979 his OPS+ was 95. Here is how he ranks against modern catchers.

Piazza OPS+ 143
Posey OPS+ 129
Bench OPS+ 126
Mauer OPS+ 124
Simmons OPS+ 118
Fisk OPS+ 117
Munson OPS+ 116
Carter OPS+ 115
I Rodriguez OPS+ 106

The only two guys below him as hitters were much better defensively. Munson was clearly in decline and if he had finished his career, his OPS+ would have ended up much worse and below Carter too.

Munson was not as good as any of the modern day HOF catchers. As to his HOF eligibility, if Simmons couldn't get elected by the BBWWA, I'm not sure that Munson would have either.

"He had simply fallen from an elite catcher to an above aveage one. He still had a long way to go. In 1978, Munson had accumulated 3.1 WAR. In 1979 (the year he died), Munson had earned 2.2 WAR through 97 games."

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by rats60

In 1978 his OPS+ was 101. In 1979 his OPS+ was 95. Here is how he ranks against modern catchers.

Piazza OPS+ 143
Posey OPS+ 129
Bench OPS+ 126
Mauer OPS+ 124
Simmons OPS+ 118
Fisk OPS+ 117
Munson OPS+ 116
Carter OPS+ 115
I Rodriguez OPS+ 106

Speaking of catchers I'll then nominate Yogi Berra. His cards trade as if he was the best catcher of all time and he certainly wasn't. Not even close.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I respectfully disagree. His value is where it should be. I don't believe he was showing signs of decline, and had he played a couple of more years there would be no doubt of his HoF eligibility. The Dodgers would have lost the 1981 Series. He probably would have managed. Just my opinion here; I don't have WAR or any other stats to try to prove a point.

He was absolutely declining and he was considering retiring. He was not going to stay in the game.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absolutely correct. A very good ballplayer who was on the decline and then a tragic ending.

[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

[JimC]

Speaking of WAR, Mantle's WAR 7 is top 10 all time among hitters. He had two 11 plus WAR seasons. Mays also had two. Other than Ruth and Bonds no one else has done that. Mick had 4 seasons of 9.5 or higher. Aaron's highest was 9.4. Mantle is easily one of the best players of all time. Add to that being in NY, being the biggest star during the boomer era and his post season success and of course he's one of the most widely collected. Should be.

[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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

[obcbobd]

Nolan Ryan
Joe Jackson
Smokey Joe Wood

[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.

[Snapolit1]

If you believe people on the board, the disparity between the value of Mantles' and Mays' cards is only due to the fact that Mays was grumpy and rude at card shows and Mantle was a wonderful sunny cheery friendly guy.

I always loved that explanation.

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[packs]

Mays didn't win. I really do believe it as simple as that.

Of course, I do agree there is a peppering of other factors that come into play re: the Yankees being the Yankees but Mays began his career in New York too, for an extremely popular and visible New York franchise.

[vintagerookies51]

As the question is posed, I think it is almost certainly Mantle. His value is way more based on mystique and being on the Yankees than his play, which however you look at it is similar to Mays, Williams, Aaron, Musial, etc.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by vintagerookies51

As the question is posed, I think it is almost certainly Mantle. His value is way more based on mystique and being on the Yankees than his play, which however you look at it is similar to Mays, Williams, Aaron, Musial, etc.

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

I agree with you both.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

I would tend to agree. Both were excellent ballplayers. Mantle had the peak, Mays had the longevity.

I also think somethings that gets lost in this discussion is the fact that Mantle was truly never healthy. I feel like the added context of him playing on one good knee for his entire career, has to count for something. The man was a triple crown winner and won 3 MVP's. I certainly think he was as talented as a player as the game had ever seen.

[packs]

I find it hard to take critics of Mantle seriously.

Of the players with WARs over 100, only three players have a WAR over 100 with fewer plate appearances than Mantle had. They are: Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, and Ted Williams.

That's it. He is in the elite of elite company. It is impossible to suggest he wasn't the all time great he was. It's also impossible to suggest that because Mantle was on the Yankees, he's given accolades he doesn't deserve.

The guy won three MVPs and the Triple Crown. He won 7 championships and played in 12 of them. There is no 50s Yankees dynasty without him, so to say that because he played on the Yankees XYZ, is really only saying because Mickey Mantle existed the Yankees were good.

[raulus]

I don’t think anyone is actually criticizing Mantle as a player. At least I don’t think so.

I think the whole premise of the thread is whether the premium for his cards, particularly the 52 Topps, is warranted based solely on his play, while ignoring all other elements.

And clearly there is a serious premium that exists due to circumstances that are unconnected to his on-field performance.

So it’s really not intended to be a knock on the player. Or even an attempt to suggest that his cards should be worth less. But rather that the prices for his cards are based on other factors that go well beyond his performance on the field.

As a Mays guy, the big premium that Mantle has always received relative to Mays always irked me. With the recent big jumps in prices for Mays stuff, some of that premium has shrunk. But now that it has shrunk, it pisses me off even more, because I have to pay so much more now. So if I could have it my way, I’d much rather prefer to go back to Mantle having his massive premium, and the market undervaluing my man, so that I can buy more great stuff.

[packs]

What circumstances do you mean, though? Mantle made himself a legend by being an otherworldly player. I don't think that can be disputed.

You talk about his 52 Topps, but the price for his card is not really all that out of whack for the rest of the hi-series cards when you consider he is also Mickey Mantle.

Bill Dickey appears in the hi-series as a coach and you'll have to pay somewhere around $400 for even a poor conditioned example. Mantle was the biggest star of his time. It's only natural his card's price will be significantly compounded over a similar card of a coach.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by raulus

I don’t think anyone is actually criticizing Mantle as a player. At least I don’t think so.

I think the whole premise of the thread is whether the premium for his cards, particularly the 52 Topps, is warranted based solely on his play, while ignoring all other elements.

And clearly there is a serious premium that exists due to circumstances that are unconnected to his on-field performance.

So it’s really not intended to be a knock on the player. Or even an attempt to suggest that his cards should be worth less. But rather that the prices for his cards are based on other factors that go well beyond his performance on the field.

As a Mays guy, the big premium that Mantle has always received relative to Mays always irked me. With the recent big jumps in prices for Mays stuff, some of that premium has shrunk. But now that it has shrunk, it pisses me off even more, because I have to pay so much more now. So if I could have it my way, I’d much rather prefer to go back to Mantle having his massive premium, and the market undervaluing my man, so that I can buy more great stuff.

Not always. In the early days of the hobby, they were equal. Even in the 80s, there was a small, ~10%, premium for Mantle. In some years, for example 1953 Topps, Mays was more. The premium started in the mid-eighties when New York dealers bought up Mantle cards and drove the prices up. Until the recent spike in Mays cards with the death of Aaron, the gap just kept expanding for ~35 years.

If stories are to be believed, a lot of the value of the 1952 Topps Mantle was due to Woody Gelman hoarding them. So, saying Mickey Mantle is "over-valued" really doesn't have anything to do with his ability, but due to dealers driving prices up to escalated levels.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by raulus

I don’t think anyone is actually criticizing Mantle as a player. At least I don’t think so.

I think the whole premise of the thread is whether the premium for his cards, particularly the 52 Topps, is warranted based solely on his play, while ignoring all other elements.

And clearly there is a serious premium that exists due to circumstances that are unconnected to his on-field performance.

So it’s really not intended to be a knock on the player. Or even an attempt to suggest that his cards should be worth less. But rather that the prices for his cards are based on other factors that go well beyond his performance on the field.

I agree. This thread is not about denigrating the talent of legendary HOF players. It's about the relative price of their cards compared to those of other HOFers.