Who are the most "over-valued" players

[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.

[raulus]

I think the biggest circumstance with 52T is just the mystique, the allure, and the legend within the industry, and even broader nationwide culture. Throw in some stories about a barge, and it takes on a life of its own.

As we all know, price is a function of supply and demand. In this case, demand is driven by much more than just what happened on the field.

[packs]

The 52 set was also the first real flagship set and will always be one of those sets that are hobby standards, like the T206.

I don't think that's in Mantle's control though or a product of Mantle. If he wasn't a high number, for example, I think he'd be trading for a premium over Mays but how much I'm not sure.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

Why in your view did the gap keep expanding? There are too many Mantle cards, I would think, for anyone to buy up enough cards to meaningfully influence prices long term.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why in your view did the gap keep expanding? There are too many Mantle cards, I would think, for anyone to buy up enough cards to meaningfully influence prices long term.

Fear of missing out. New collectors look at the price guide and they see Mantle priced higher than others, so they want his cards. When prices are low, it is easy to buy something up, then demand takes over.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Seven

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.

And he did all of this while suffering from a serious disease: alcoholism. He was hitting all those homers while hungover. Just raw talent.

Now, I am not sayin' this to justify his 52T prices cause' I'm not. I think 25 - 30K Usd for a freaking PSA 1 is insane. However, his cards in general should be above everybody else's based on his accomplishments.

[oldjudge]

Overvalued: Harry Wright, Galvin, Mantle, Clemente, Jackie Robinson
Undervalued: DiMaggio, Williams

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

And he did all of this while suffering from a serious disease: alcoholism. He was hitting all those homers while hungover. Just raw talent.

Now, I am not sayin' this to justify his 52T prices cause' I'm not. I think 25 - 30K Usd for a freaking PSA 1 is insane. However, his cards in general should be above everybody else's based on his accomplishments.

This is not really a discussion of the player... even if you decided that Mantle was THE best player of all time, I would think that he is overvalued... According to my calcs the value (market cap) of all of the PSA graded Mantles out there is close to $300 million (assuming $15 million for each of the PSA 10s and using the Cardladder current valuations)... $293.5 million of JUST the 1952 Topps...

Check the 1916 Sporting News Ruth's ... the pop is like 40 and sure they are valuable, but this is not even close.

I, for one, collect Negro League cards and many (most) historians would say that Oscar Charleston was a better, more important player than Mantle and if you could buy ALL of his cards, I bet that those would less than 3% of Mantle's 52 Topps. Of course he has more fans, more visibility, etc., but this is why I think that Mantle is so over-priced.

But the market is the market and I would hesitate to "do" anything on this analysis as the market has always "overvalued" Mantle as far as I can tell and I would not expect that to change. I have thought that it would for years (which is why I sold my 52 Mantle), but I have been wrong.

[aljurgela]

Grade PSA Pop CL Value Market Cap
10 3 15,000,000 45,000,000
9.5 -
9 6 10,010,000 60,060,000
8.5 5 2,380,000 11,900,000
8 35 1,330,000 46,550,000
7.5 7 438,220 3,067,540
7 77 244,010 18,788,770
6.5 5 208,960 1,044,800
6 122 136,110 16,605,420
5.5 21 163,340 3,430,140
5 181 109,550 19,828,550
4.5 35 75,600 2,646,000
4 216 79,680 17,210,880
3.5 47 85,940 4,039,180
3 203 55,230 11,211,690
2.5 88 40,500 3,564,000
2 230 44,430 10,218,900
1.5 90 36,370 3,273,300
1 364 35,860 13,053,040
A 206 10,000 2,060,000
293,552,210

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

Grade PSA Pop CL Value Market Cap
10 3 15,000,000 45,000,000
9.5 -
9 6 10,010,000 60,060,000
8.5 5 2,380,000 11,900,000
8 35 1,330,000 46,550,000
7.5 7 438,220 3,067,540
7 77 244,010 18,788,770
6.5 5 208,960 1,044,800
6 122 136,110 16,605,420
5.5 21 163,340 3,430,140
5 181 109,550 19,828,550
4.5 35 75,600 2,646,000
4 216 79,680 17,210,880
3.5 47 85,940 4,039,180
3 203 55,230 11,211,690
2.5 88 40,500 3,564,000
2 230 44,430 10,218,900
1.5 90 36,370 3,273,300
1 364 35,860 13,053,040
A 206 10,000 2,060,000
293,552,210

Add in SGC and Beckett graded ones and it comes out to approximately $350MM…

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by aljurgela

This is not really a discussion of the player... even if you decided that Mantle was THE best player of all time, I would think that he is overvalued... According to my calcs the value (market cap) of all of the PSA graded Mantles out there is close to $300 million (assuming $15 million for each of the PSA 10s and using the Cardladder current valuations)... $293.5 million of JUST the 1952 Topps...

Check the 1916 Sporting News Ruth's ... the pop is like 40 and sure they are valuable, but this is not even close.

I, for one, collect Negro League cards and many (most) historians would say that Oscar Charleston was a better, more important player than Mantle and if you could buy ALL of his cards, I bet that those would less than 3% of Mantle's 52 Topps. Of course he has more fans, more visibility, etc., but this is why I think that Mantle is so over-priced.

But the market is the market and I would hesitate to "do" anything on this analysis as the market has always "overvalued" Mantle as far as I can tell and I would not expect that to change. I have thought that it would for years (which is why I sold my 52 Mantle), but I have been wrong.

So, Al ... do you have some Cuban Winter Leagues to show us??

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

So, Al ... do you have some Cuban Winter Leagues to show us??

But how about.... this rare Willard Brown?

[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.

That's it precisely. It's not a case that Mickey Mantle wasn't as good (or better) than many of the other legendary superstars of his era. It's just that his on-field performance doesn't justify the large premium at which his cards trade and that's the precise subject of this thread.