Options
Undervalued rookies..
olb31
Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
1) 1982 topps - Butler and Bedrosian; Brett was a terrific lead off hitter and an overall great player. Bedrock was an above average closer for several years.
2) 1969 Al Oliver - HOFer???
3) 1974 Tanana
4) 1974 Madlock
5) 1979 Guerrero and Law, two above average players
6) 1985 - 1986 Vince Coleman - top 3 base stealer off all time
Work hard and you will succeed!!
1
Comments
1967 Reggie Smith?
1960 Frank Howard
1953 Topps Bill Bruton
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Like Reggie and Frank, I agree, not sure who Bill Bruton is, sorry.
1959 Topps Bill White
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
All HOF postwar pitchers except Paige and Ryan (in no way knocking Paige and Ryan - just think they are fairly valued).
Bill Bruton was an outfielder for the Braves who was a decent hitter with terrific speed. Lead the NL in stolen bases in 1953-55 and in triples in various years in the 1950s. The one stat that sticks out is career triples - 102- a d that ranks 8th in the 1942-60 time frame. He finished his career in Detroit. He is someone who is often overlooked.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
1964 tommy john. now that Kaat is in the HOF, John will have to be as well.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
1973 Topps/OPC Dwight Evans
1969 Topps Bobby Cox
1982 Topps/Fleer/Donruss Terry Francona
You say that as though there is some logic to the Committees' selections. Anyway, Moyer is a better comparison to Kaat.
This Reggie fella was a pretty good player
1981 Topps Traded Raines
Here are a few that come to mind…
1986 Donruss Fred McGriff
1982 Topps Anthony Munoz
1986 Topps Bruce Smith
1961 Oscar Robertson
This guy
1983 Topps Dave Hostetler. If there is a run up in that card, I’m set for life.
Tom Brady Rookies, Tim Duncan Rookies, Kobe Bryant Rookies, Derek Jeter Rookies, Kurt Warner Rookies, Shaq Rookies....
1958 Curt Flood
eBay Store
Greg Maddux #1 Master SetGreg Maddux #2 Basic Set
Royce Gracie will be one with the explosion of MMA around the world.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
So it's probably too late to ask this, but are we looking for cards of really, really good players that the market has for some reason left behind or for cards of players not nearly as good who might back into the Hall of Fame someday. I mean there can't be many people who would dispute that Phil Niekro was far, far better than Frank Viola, and yet they both are listed above.
1974 Dave Parker for sure.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I am going to add Pirates Manny Sanguillen- an excellent catcher and one of the most entertaining batters to play the game... at least in my lifetime. I believe his rookie card is 1968. He was a significant player in the Pirates post season- especially 1971.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Gorgeous card, rare too with less than 200 graded, very condition sensitive issue, and a year before his Leaf card. I would say quite undervalued comparatively speaking.
I was going to say Willy McGee until I looked up his rookie card on eBay. Have to admit I was very surprised to see it in the $300 range. I never thought Willy got enough credit but I guess he’s gotten a little from the collector world!
So this card is going for around $600. Pop. 225/8. What is a fair value?
i was thinking about the forgotten guys
parker is kind of one, though his card sales for a decent price. al oliver was probably just as good.
So I would nominate Kevin Brown, Andruw Jones, Rolen and Grich. Lou Whitaker is at least as good, but has serious talk about being enshrined. Not sure about the value of the cards, just of the players.
Re Numbers 1 and 5, there are an awful lot of players who are above average who will never be found outside of a "commons" box, especially if the universe of above average players includes Rudy Law.
Aside: according to Baseball Reference there are 173 position players with between 35 and 45 WAR. 22 of them are in the Hall of Fame, or will be when Hodges and Oliva are enshrined in August. Most of the people mentioned in this thread are among the 151, and most of the guys in the 22 are partly/mostly there for things that don't show up in box scores, like Campanella's time in the Negro Leagues, Maranville and Mazeroski's reputation for defense, Hughie Jennings managerial career, and many, many people's outsize influence on the various committees.
I don't believe that WAR is the be all and end all, but I do believe it's a good place to start. I'd suggest that anyone who suggests that any of those are underrated needs to make a special case why. By means of comparison, there are 116 players with over 45 WAR who, for whatever reason, are not enshrined which includes Mookie Betts who doesn't meet the ten year qualification yet.
I could name 10 players off the top of my head that are currently playing with a WAR over 45. That’s a non issue. I feel like, as a whole, the value of most player’s rookie cards is where it’s supposed to be. I can think of 2 HOF players (non pitchers) with pretty low priced PSA 10s but even that is understandable considering the time they played when cards were mass produced. 1991 Topps Chipper Jones (~$65), 1988 Topps Traded Roberto Alomar (~$40). Those two guys SHOULD be way more valuable than that but we all understand why they aren’t.
Dave Stieb, Jimmy Key, Julio Franco.
Not so sure Parker card is undervalued today, per se. it has had a decent run past 18 months. I think HE was underrated and with all the questionable HOF entrants of late, he is worthy of considerations. The NL “Jim Rice” in many ways, with a feared arm.
.
.
A contrarian view is not to just look at stats and numbers... one can trade stocks and bonds if that was all there was to it. MLB has a rich history of personalities. And it is as much about the entertainment value. There are those players that can be identified for their approach to the game and just how they played... their batting stance... how they interacted in the batters box and the match between the pitcher and the batter. We often overlook characteristics that define the players and focus on numbers and whether a player finally makes the HOF.
I liked watching Manny Sanguillen because I just can not recall a batter that could hit such miserable pitches and more often than not, make something positive happen. He will never be in the HOF but it doesn't matter because those that saw him play will not forget him.
Those that saw Frank Howard will not forget the monumental home-runs that were basically his trademark- And it seems unlikely he will end up in the HOF. Some characteristics just are not captured. And speaking of monumental home-runs, most have forgotten Luke Easter. Off hand, I can't recall what his rookie card would be... perhaps a 1950 Bowman Card? I think my point is that too much MLB history is slipping through the cracks in terms of how various rookie cards... as well as other cards... are valued.
I did not even get to the general look of cards, production issues and how that impacts the expectations of collectors and grading. Seems these are factors as well in this era of condition rarity.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I’ll also mention David Cone who will be in the hall one way or another when he’s eligible for veterans votes.
Omar Vizquel. The reported allegations against him will delay his entry into the Hall, but it doesn't seem likely that they will keep him out permanently.
I'm old enough to not care about WAR, and his 45 WAR certainly puts him in range, while his defense certainly puts him over the top. (Yes, I know WAR includes defense. I mean his defensive STYLE.)
And here's a true story: I'm apparently the one who taught Vizquel what fantasy baseball is. On 5/29/89, VERY early in his career, I was at Yankee Stadium when the Mariners were in town, being the rare New York-based Mariners fan, and saw Vizquel signing autographs before the game. I got him to sign my Mariners hat -- which I still have -- and told him he was on my rotisserie team. He asked me what that was and I tried to explain briefly, telling him that when he got two hits in Boston the other night it also helped MY team. (I just checked, and on 5/23 he did indeed get two hits and an RBI.) One of my favorite baseball memories. Here's that game: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA198905290.shtml
It should keep him out.
1) The allegations occurred in the baseball clubhouse so the ludicrous standard that off field conduct doesn’t matter doesn’t apply here.
2) He was investigated and terminated for his behavior - so an internal investigation by the White Sox found the allegations were likely to be true.
It is laughable that the morality clause is used to keep someone out for steroids or for saying the wrong things - but is ignored for someone with a history of domestic abuse (Bobby Cox).
I agree he was fun to watch, but just imagine how much better he would have been had he not swung at so many miserable pitches. Just because you can hit hit a weak ground ball on a pitch a foot outside of the strike zone does not mean you should do it. As hard as Sanguillen was to strike out - and he was very, very hard to strike out - he was even harder to walk. With the skills Sanguillen had he could have been a great hitter, and if he had ever learned the strike zone he probably would have been.
"There have been some big mistakes made in HoF selection. Parker wasn't HoF-worthy, but he fits into the group of the weakest HoFers. Parker should be considered."
Better to explain why Parker is among the best, or at least most worthy, not already enshrined.
BTW, I agree with the first two sentences, but it is hard for me to understand why Parker stands out as clearly superior to Jack Clark or Rusty Staub, to name two reasonably close contemporaries. I just can't see considering any of those when Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, or Bobby Bonds, to name just three who were vastly superior, are on the outside.
Sure. This is why Bob Uecker's card has any value above a common. Why Don Larsen and Roger Maris are consistently overrated, at least in terms of a value to performance way. Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly too, I suppose.
I don't think the argument about card aesthetics has much value. After all, the 1963 Rose is almost universally hated, but also collected. It sells for far more than the almost universally preferred 1964.
Bob Uecker's cards likely draw attention for his personality after being a player... who doesn't like Bob Uecker?
I am thinking of older players- Roy Sievers, Gus Zernial, Billy Goodman, Sid Gordon, Walt Dropo, Del Ennis, Pete Runnels, Vic Wertz, Hank Thompson just to name a few (my apologies for not taking the time to reference several other deserving players) that were solid players and most of their cards are treated as commons... granted there are some exceptions for certain years I suppose based on condition rarity. I see real opportunity in collecting cards of players that will not likely ever been in the HOF but added so much to the progress of MLB. However, there needs to be a commitment to the history of MLB. And I am not talking about the analysis of a Topps year set by the number of HOFers or rookie cards. I doubt that will ever happen.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mark Grace. Simply one of the games best leaders/hitters who was underappreciated because he played a power position in the heart of the steroid era. Granted, it was his own undoing (drinking and being a socialite) that kept him from 3000 hits and will keep him out of the Hall...
grace was very good indeed.
galarraga anyone?
>
I agree that (on these boards) many posters simply look at numbers to evaluate a player, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
>
>
I really enjoyed watching him play too! A catcher with a .300 lifetime BA is great. Yes he was impossible to walk and his power numbers were a bit low, but he was a very good catcher. Shortish career hurts him.
>
>
The "Capital Punisher"! Great hitter and played most of his career in the outfield and not at first base. Personally, I would not be too upset if he went into the HOF.
>
I have read that he had TONS of talent and most likely was better than many enshrined. Wasn't allowed to play in the majors until he was in his 30's.
>
Jeff Kent.
With just a focus on his stats = no brainer.
The stat guys are going to argue that he had his best years in hitters parks and still isn't a good enough hitter.
Anyone with a lifetime .288 BA to go along with a .500 SLG would be ok with me. Walks to sluggers are over rated in my book. He was primarily a #4 or #5 hitter in the lineup, he was there to drive in runs and not take walks.
I didn't see him play much, but heard he was a great fielder too.
Seems that he would fall a bit short of the HOF?
I get what you're saying, but there really is very little interest in that type of player and will always be treated as commons, which is great news if you like to collect that player, not so good if you want to invest in him.
To go forward a generation or two, we're talking the likes of Julio Franco, Toby Harrah, Don Baylor, Jamie Moyer. Even the players who are clearly better, and better than the lowest rung of HoFers are commons and always will be unless they get considered by a Committee with 3-5 of their former teammates. Guys like Jack Clark, Dave Concepcion, Ron Cey, Bret Saberhaen, Kevin Appier, Chuck Finley, to restrict the discussion to players not mentioned above. I think only Cey's rookie would be found outside the common box in, say, 8 and below, and we all know why.
A slightly higher peak, but ultimately a lot like Baines.
Yes, with Galarraga a much better fielder, by what I have heard. Baines didn't play much in the field after his first 7 seasons.
Galarraga and baines are a decent comaprison hitting wise. both were very good.
I suppose. It doesn't take much to be a better fielder than Baines. Galarraga was a below average fielder at the easiest position.