@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
I see Trout as a measurable player to Stockton. Trout isn't one of the top 25 baseball players of all-time, but hes had some great seasons. Stockton has incredible stats, was a team player, made his teammates better and a great leader on and off the court. Trout is very similar.
However, i bet there are 100 or more trout card that would sale for than the 1988 Fleer Stockton PSA 10, and that makes some sense based on serialed cards, but the price difference is just too remarkable for me understand.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
Not a better career than Dimaggio. Once you account for Yankee Stadium being murder on Right Handed hitters, Dimaggio is ahead. Then account for the missing war years, Trout still has several more elite years to catch Dimaggio.
I think a good comparison for Stockton would be an all time leader in baseball from a couple of the following:
Most stolen bases
Lowest career/season errors
Most walks
Best bunter (most rbi or on-base %)
Maybe I'm not giving Stocktons defense enough credit. He was playing against elite talent and did well but I just don't believe he wanted the pressures or limelight of being a star.
Since the comparison is more about talent and card value then I would agree with many points made already made. I will list them in order and the lower ones could switch position and not have much impact compared to the ones on top.
-Base card set vs parallels
-# of other players considered better DURING their career
-Milestone achievements
-How much marketing they've done. (Shoe deals, commercials, autographed memorabilia)
-Factors beyond some of their control...Who do the ladies like? Who has a good smile? John appears short when in the NBA and shortness can be perceived as less desirable.
-How much international coverage they've received
Interesting discussion. It's possible you can predict the future value of certain players cards based on factors aside from market sales and stats alone. If the player hasn't become a household name yet, if they haven't tapped into other collecting hobbies (beer sign ads, shoes, etc), where does it end...
I applaud your response to why you posted "sale" vs "sell". It's cool to see people be civil.
If the Lakers, Celtics, or another large market team had drafted Stockton he would have been much more popular. Small market teams just don't get major coverage very often and being from out west they get very little airtime. Most people hardly ever get to see Sacramento, Utah, etc. until the playoffs.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
I see Trout as a measurable player to Stockton. Trout isn't one of the top 25 baseball players of all-time, but hes had some great seasons. Stockton has incredible stats, was a team player, made his teammates better and a great leader on and off the court. Trout is very similar.
However, i bet there are 100 or more trout card that would sale for than the 1988 Fleer Stockton PSA 10, and that makes some sense based on serialed cards, but the price difference is just too remarkable for me understand.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
kobe atomic sold for $29,000, there are dozens of lebron's that have sold for over $10,000 on ebay. tatum has many that have sold for alot. curry too. in fact basketball rookies sale for more than the other sports. so why doesn't stockton sale for $10,000. julio rodriguez does, and he's done practically nothing.
trout has many that have sold for $5,000 or more. i hope trout ends up being a top 25 player in his sport. but stockton already is. he doesn't have to do anything else. there are 2011 topps trout's selling for $5,000 or more? huh? why? you can get a psa 7 nolan ryan for $5,000 or less. that makes better dollars and sense to me.
the all-star stockton pop 113 is the one to look for. that card is a tough one.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
I see Trout as a measurable player to Stockton. Trout isn't one of the top 25 baseball players of all-time, but hes had some great seasons. Stockton has incredible stats, was a team player, made his teammates better and a great leader on and off the court. Trout is very similar.
However, i bet there are 100 or more trout card that would sale for than the 1988 Fleer Stockton PSA 10, and that makes some sense based on serialed cards, but the price difference is just too remarkable for me understand.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
kobe atomic sold for $29,000, there are dozens of lebron's that have sold for over $10,000 on ebay. tatum has many that have sold for alot. curry too. in fact basketball rookies sale for more than the other sports. so why doesn't stockton sale for $10,000. julio rodriguez does, and he's done practically nothing.
trout has many that have sold for $5,000 or more. i hope trout ends up being a top 25 player in his sport. but stockton already is. he doesn't have to do anything else. there are 2011 topps trout's selling for $5,000 or more? huh? why? you can get a psa 7 nolan ryan for $5,000 or less. that makes better dollars and sense to me.
the all-star stockton pop 113 is the one to look for. that card is a tough one.
You make a lot of fair points in regard to Stockton's stature in basketball. He sits near the very top in some of the advanced measurements they use, as well as the assist record.
The hard part is that Stockton doesn't have any 'atomic' parallels or 1 of 100 auto Rookie Cards. I would imagine if he did that he may have some good sale results as well.
The closest card Stockton may get to that limited stature is if he has a PSA 10 1984 Star Co. I would imagine that may be a 10K+ card. I don't know of any sales records on those.
Of course, player popularity is its own animal and a lot of that stuff gets thrown out the window.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
I see Trout as a measurable player to Stockton. Trout isn't one of the top 25 baseball players of all-time, but hes had some great seasons. Stockton has incredible stats, was a team player, made his teammates better and a great leader on and off the court. Trout is very similar.
However, i bet there are 100 or more trout card that would sale for than the 1988 Fleer Stockton PSA 10, and that makes some sense based on serialed cards, but the price difference is just too remarkable for me understand.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
kobe atomic sold for $29,000, there are dozens of lebron's that have sold for over $10,000 on ebay. tatum has many that have sold for alot. curry too. in fact basketball rookies sale for more than the other sports. so why doesn't stockton sale for $10,000. julio rodriguez does, and he's done practically nothing.
trout has many that have sold for $5,000 or more. i hope trout ends up being a top 25 player in his sport. but stockton already is. he doesn't have to do anything else. there are 2011 topps trout's selling for $5,000 or more? huh? why? you can get a psa 7 nolan ryan for $5,000 or less. that makes better dollars and sense to me.
the all-star stockton pop 113 is the one to look for. that card is a tough one.
You make a lot of fair points in regard to Stockton's stature in basketball. He sits near the very top in some of the advanced measurements they use, as well as the assist record.
The hard part is that Stockton doesn't have any 'atomic' parallels or 1 of 100 auto Rookie Cards. I would imagine if he did that he may have some good sale results as well.
The closest card Stockton may get to that limited stature is if he has a PSA 10 1984 Star Co. I would imagine that may be a 10K+ card. I don't know of any sales records on those.
Of course, player popularity is its own animal and a lot of that stuff gets thrown out the window.
Swell makes some great points. The base Topps Lebron and Kobe cards do not go for moon money.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
Dimaggio's batting average in the World Series dropped 54 points from the regular season and his OPS dropped 217. He reached his career OPS just once in 10 Series. I would argue he was a "contributor" not a "huge contributor".
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
I checked my ebay records and I bought a PSA Stockton RC in 2009 for $90. They sell for around $450 on ebay today. That is a decent return, it’s been at this level for at least 2 years
Like I and others have said, Stockton is fairly valued.
@steel75 said:
Personality/Media hype does factor in card prices. Or lack of that is.........
Agreed. Kinda different subject here but when I open stuff and get either a Molitor, or even worse, a Trammel card, I am instantly bored. There are other players like this that when pulling the cards, a literal sense of boredom comes in that ruins the fun of the box.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
I see Trout as a measurable player to Stockton. Trout isn't one of the top 25 baseball players of all-time, but hes had some great seasons. Stockton has incredible stats, was a team player, made his teammates better and a great leader on and off the court. Trout is very similar.
However, i bet there are 100 or more trout card that would sale for than the 1988 Fleer Stockton PSA 10, and that makes some sense based on serialed cards, but the price difference is just too remarkable for me understand.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
kobe atomic sold for $29,000, there are dozens of lebron's that have sold for over $10,000 on ebay. tatum has many that have sold for alot. curry too. in fact basketball rookies sale for more than the other sports. so why doesn't stockton sale for $10,000. julio rodriguez does, and he's done practically nothing.
trout has many that have sold for $5,000 or more. i hope trout ends up being a top 25 player in his sport. but stockton already is. he doesn't have to do anything else. there are 2011 topps trout's selling for $5,000 or more? huh? why? you can get a psa 7 nolan ryan for $5,000 or less. that makes better dollars and sense to me.
the all-star stockton pop 113 is the one to look for. that card is a tough one.
You make a lot of fair points in regard to Stockton's stature in basketball. He sits near the very top in some of the advanced measurements they use, as well as the assist record.
The hard part is that Stockton doesn't have any 'atomic' parallels or 1 of 100 auto Rookie Cards. I would imagine if he did that he may have some good sale results as well.
The closest card Stockton may get to that limited stature is if he has a PSA 10 1984 Star Co. I would imagine that may be a 10K+ card. I don't know of any sales records on those.
Of course, player popularity is its own animal and a lot of that stuff gets thrown out the window.
Swell makes some great points. The base Topps Lebron and Kobe cards do not go for moon money.
1996 Topps Kobe in PSA 9 is running around $125.
1988 Fleer Stockton in PSA 9 is running around $75.
That is really Stockton's third year card too. He has 1984/85 and 1985/86 Star Comapny cards. > @craig44 said:
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
Trout has a higher SLG% than Griffey and a higher OB% than Rickey Henderson....not too shabby at all. Considering Trout has batted first or second most of his career, those walks are extra valuable too . Add that he stole bases at such a high percentage, then even more so.
Whether that is exciting or not is up to the eyes of the beholder. Since Trout's card prices are in the stratosphere, many must behold that Trout is indeed exciting.
Considering that Trout seems to be a good all around person the amount of hate he gets amazes me. He is a little more than halfway into a HOF career and is having another MVP caliber season. If he wins a WS people will start to come around.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@steel75 said:
Personality/Media hype does factor in card prices. Or lack of that is.........
Agreed. Kinda different subject here but when I open stuff and get either a Molitor, or even worse, a Trammel card, I am instantly bored. There are other players like this that when pulling the cards, a literal sense of boredom comes in that ruins the fun of the box.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
That argument, disguised in a hundred different ways, has been a staple on this forum since I joined. It will never go away.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
Yeah, we pop-tarting get that you disagree No need to respond ad infinitum to the same exact post of mine!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
Yeah, we pop-tarting get that you disagree No need to respond ad infinitum to the same exact post of mine!
Um, the response was to @craig44 I'm sorry that many people have quoted your post.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
Very well said. It is amazing how much people like their hitters to make outs and then justify it by saying 'his out COULD move a runner up." "Could" being the key word because we know exactly how many runners their outs have moved up, and that super small positive is already included in the better measurements. Then again, so are the double plays they hit into, and ignored by those same fans.
As for the base on balls. Those misconceptions have been put to bed already...but the same people who think walks are worthless from Mike Trout are the same people who get all giddy by George Brett's 1,065 career bases empty singles which are the exact same value as a base on balls.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
It is easier to have higher rate stats when you have fewer AB's. More ABs will take a player closer to the mean. It is doubtful that Williams would have hit .406 had he had 550 or 600 AB's instead of the 450 he had in 1941. Same with Bretts .390 and Gwynns .394. both seasons were right around 400 AB.
Trout didnt get into the really elite >.600 SLG % until his AB's got down into the 400s and lower. Griffey had seasons of >.600 SLG with over 550-633 ABs. It is MUCH more difficult to keep up that level of SLG the more ABs you amass.
I think we need to see a LOT more seasons before we can say Trout is in the same area as Griffey.
Both players had about 10 superb seasons. Where Trout goes from here will make the difference imo.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I think we need to see a LOT more seasons before we can say Trout is in the same area as Griffey.
Both players had about 10 superb seasons. Where Trout goes from here will make the difference imo.
Trout hasnt played in > 150 games since 2016 I believe. I think the 2nd half of his career will look a lot like Griffeys with lots of injuries and missed time.
@olb31 said:
the last two posts typify my original analogy. Mcgriff and BW were very good players and there cards are ok, but Fred and BW will never be confused for top 25 or so players, neither holds any MLB major stat record.
OK, but Williams was a lot better than McGriff. If Trout is done today, like never plays again, he's had a better career than Griffey or DiMaggio. If he's not top 25 of all time by some longevity measures, he will be very soon. I just think your post will look very silly ten years from now.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
It is easier to have higher rate stats when you have fewer AB's. More ABs will take a player closer to the mean. It is doubtful that Williams would have hit .406 had he had 550 or 600 AB's instead of the 450 he had in 1941. Same with Bretts .390 and Gwynns .394. both seasons were right around 400 AB.
Trout didnt get into the really elite >.600 SLG % until his AB's got down into the 400s and lower. Griffey had seasons of >.600 SLG with over 550-633 ABs. It is MUCH more difficult to keep up that level of SLG the more ABs you amass.
Trout has 6,256 career plate appearances and 5,126 career at bats and and has a 176 OPS+ with a .587 SLG%.
Griffey in his Seattle years had 7,250 PA and 6,317 at bats with a 144 OPS+ and a .553 SLG%.
Trout is only 1,000 away from the times to the plate as Griffey had in his prime. So yes, he needs to sustain that big lead he has over Griffey for another 1,000 plate appearances.
Living in Chicago, there was a portion of White Sox fans that made the argument that Frank Thomas walked too much and was overrated because of it. Get to Cincy a lot and the same is said for Votto. People somehow believe that getting on base is a detriment to guys with power. I have never understood it. The only player I never heard that argued was Bonds - I guess because they blamed his walks on the pitchers.
@brad31 said:
Living in Chicago, there was a portion of White Sox fans that made the argument that Frank Thomas walked too much and was overrated because of it. Get to Cincy a lot and the same is said for Votto. People somehow believe that getting on base is a detriment to guys with power. I have never understood it. The only player I never heard that argued was Bonds - I guess because they blamed his walks on the pitchers.
I would tend to agree. Not all walks are created equal. A teams better hitters (traditionally 3 and 4) are most valuable when they are hitting the ball with power than they are when they are walking. Conversely, the walks taken by traditional numbers 7,8 and 9 hitters who have much less power are more valuable because they do not have the same slugging potential.
other than 3 of Trouts 13 seasons, he really hasnt been intentionally walked all that much. That tells me he has been very selective at the plate. He could be more valuable to his team if he increased his zone slightly and drove more balls than walking to first.
@brad31 said:
Living in Chicago, there was a portion of White Sox fans that made the argument that Frank Thomas walked too much and was overrated because of it. Get to Cincy a lot and the same is said for Votto. People somehow believe that getting on base is a detriment to guys with power. I have never understood it. The only player I never heard that argued was Bonds - I guess because they blamed his walks on the pitchers.
I would tend to agree. Not all walks are created equal. A teams better hitters (traditionally 3 and 4) are most valuable when they are hitting the ball with power than they are when they are walking. Conversely, the walks taken by traditional numbers 7,8 and 9 hitters who have much less power are more valuable because they do not have the same slugging potential.
other than 3 of Trouts 13 seasons, he really hasnt been intentionally walked all that much. That tells me he has been very selective at the plate. He could be more valuable to his team if he increased his zone slightly and drove more balls than walking to first.
Not true. Those are inaccurate assumptions. Making an out is not a good thing. The expense of making many extra outs for a few extra hits does not support what you are saying.
Making an out in front of Edgar Martinez is not a good thing.
Getting on base in front of Edgar Martinez is a good thing.
In fact, Martinez was more likely to get a hit than Griffey was in many of those years.
Trout batted first and second too for most of his career.
We went over this in the Votto thread already. Joe Morgan too.
A walk has 2/3 the value of a single. Pretty straightforward actually. The majority of the time they are the same value and in some situations(which are fewer) the single is much higher than the walk value. Overall it is 2/3
OPS treats a walk as only half the value of a single....so OPS does not over value walks. It actually under values them.
BTW, Trout led the league in intentional walks three times and he had some injury plagued years. MLB teams have lessened the amount of intentional walks they give as well. They issued .10 per game last year. In the early 90's it was .30 per game.
@brad31 said:
Living in Chicago, there was a portion of White Sox fans that made the argument that Frank Thomas walked too much and was overrated because of it. Get to Cincy a lot and the same is said for Votto. People somehow believe that getting on base is a detriment to guys with power. I have never understood it. The only player I never heard that argued was Bonds - I guess because they blamed his walks on the pitchers.
Yes, a small portion...and they were guided by inaccurate assumptions. Most others thought differently.
However, how one "feels" is irrelevant to the value of a walk.
A walk has 2/3 the value of a single. Pretty straightforward actually. The majority of the time they are the same value and in some situations(which are fewer) the single is much higher than the walk value. Overall it is 2/3
OPS treats a walk as only half the value of a single....so OPS does not over value walks. It actually under values them.
@brad31 said:
Living in Chicago, there was a portion of White Sox fans that made the argument that Frank Thomas walked too much and was overrated because of it. Get to Cincy a lot and the same is said for Votto. People somehow believe that getting on base is a detriment to guys with power. I have never understood it. The only player I never heard that argued was Bonds - I guess because they blamed his walks on the pitchers.
I would tend to agree. Not all walks are created equal. A teams better hitters (traditionally 3 and 4) are most valuable when they are hitting the ball with power than they are when they are walking. Conversely, the walks taken by traditional numbers 7,8 and 9 hitters who have much less power are more valuable because they do not have the same slugging potential.
other than 3 of Trouts 13 seasons, he really hasnt been intentionally walked all that much. That tells me he has been very selective at the plate. He could be more valuable to his team if he increased his zone slightly and drove more balls than walking to first.
Not true. Those are inaccurate assumptions. Making an out is not a good thing. The expense of making many extra outs for a few extra hits does not support what you are saying.
Making an out in front of Edgar Martinez is not a good thing.
Getting on base in front of Edgar Martinez is a good thing.
In fact, Martinez was more likely to get a hit than Griffey was in many of those years.
Trout batted first and second too for most of his career.
We went over this in the Votto thread already. Joe Morgan too.
A walk has 2/3 the value of a single. Pretty straightforward actually. The majority of the time they are the same value and in some situations(which are fewer) the single is much higher than the walk value. Overall it is 2/3
OPS treats a walk as only half the value of a single....so OPS does not over value walks. It actually under values them.
Say you are the manager for the 2001 Giants. would you consider a walk drawn by Barry Bonds and his .863 SLG% to be of the same value as a walk drawn by Calvin Murray and his .356 SLG %? I would hazard a guess that you would be aggravated that the bat was taken out of Bonds hands and happy that Murray just got on base because even if he hit the ball, chances are it would be a single. Bonds had a MUCH greater chance to cause damage to the opposing team with his bat than Murray did, so it was more valuable to the opposing team to BB Bonds and not Murray. Those 2 BBs to those 2 batters were not created equally, just as all hits are not created equally. IE. 2B > 1B, HR > 3B etc.
Yes, Edgar may have been more likely to get a hit than Griffey, but he was less likely to drive the ball than Griffey was.
This isn't new. Branch Rickey knew the value of a base on balls and the negative value of making outs. He even realized that using batting average as a measurement was lacking. He was right. OB% was the outcome.
Common sense says he is right too when you know that more than half of your at bats come with nobody on base and base on balls has the exact same value as a single.
Branch Rickey estimated back then that a walk was .75 the value of a single. He was close, as the play by play data shows it to be about .67.
So OPS is accurate. Actually less accurate the opposite way since it treats a walk as having only half the value of a single.
There is a some truth that a three or four hitter the walk value changes a little compared to a leadoff hitter or second place hitter, so I typically ignore that undervalue of a walk in OPS.
The OPS is spot on. The + part normalizes it for the era, which is also important. Ballpark adjustments can get wonky, but usually only in extreme cases.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
This isn't new. Branch Rickey knew the value of a base on balls and the negative value of making outs. He even realized that using batting average as a measurement was lacking. He was right. OB% was the outcome.
Common sense says he is right too when you know that more than half of your at bats come with nobody on base and base on balls has the exact same value as a single.
Branch Rickey estimated back then that a walk was .75 the value of a single. He was close, as the play by play data shows it to be about .67.
So OPS is accurate. Actually less accurate the opposite way since it treats a walk as having only half the value of a single.
There is a some truth that a three or four hitter the walk value changes a little compared to a leadoff hitter or second place hitter, so I typically ignore that undervalue of a walk in OPS.
The OPS is spot on. The + part normalizes it for the era, which is also important. Ballpark adjustments can get wonky, but usually only in extreme cases.
I am not talking about singles though. I am talking about the value of sluggers driving the ball and it being more valuable for them to do so than BB.
In the situations that matter most your best hitters are being pitched around (essentially walked) anyways. Apparently it is a vocal minority that thinks that a high OBP is bad or Trout cards would sell for much less, as would the Frank Thomas NNOF.
And intentional walks are way down because they lead to more runs not less.
So I'm going to indulge @craig44 for a moment. We'll assume for a moment that walks are worthless, which I think no one here believes, but I calculated slugging percentages for 1989-2000 Griffey and for Trout as though anything that happened when a player was batting other than a hit is treated the same, that is a one out bases loaded walk has the same value as a one out bases loaded double play grounder. So I've divided total bases by plate appearances.
Griffey is 3605/7319 or .493.
Trout is 3039/6250 or .486.
So, using my stupid stat which suggests that Trout hurt his team as much by walking as Griffey did by grounding into a double play, it looks as though Griffey was at least slightly better. Except that we need to compare eras. No idea how to calculate my stat for league and park effects, so I'll cheat and compare to the regular slugging percentage that we all know and love. And we see, above, that slugging was .011 higher in Griffey's era.
So even treating walks as completely non-productive events, because we should want Trout to hit into a fielders choice to end the game rather than walk and load the bases like last night, Trout is still a better slugger than Griffey.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
This isn't new. Branch Rickey knew the value of a base on balls and the negative value of making outs. He even realized that using batting average as a measurement was lacking. He was right. OB% was the outcome.
Common sense says he is right too when you know that more than half of your at bats come with nobody on base and base on balls has the exact same value as a single.
Branch Rickey estimated back then that a walk was .75 the value of a single. He was close, as the play by play data shows it to be about .67.
So OPS is accurate. Actually less accurate the opposite way since it treats a walk as having only half the value of a single.
There is a some truth that a three or four hitter the walk value changes a little compared to a leadoff hitter or second place hitter, so I typically ignore that undervalue of a walk in OPS.
The OPS is spot on. The + part normalizes it for the era, which is also important. Ballpark adjustments can get wonky, but usually only in extreme cases.
I am not talking about singles though. I am talking about the value of sluggers driving the ball and it being more valuable for them to do so than BB.
Of course HR's are more valuable than walks, but Trout isn't Bret Butler.
Trout averages 40 HR per 162 games.
Griffey averaged 38 per 162 games.
Trout hasn't seen his old man years yet so we will see...but Griffey only had three full seasons in his 30's so he wasn't exactly dragging his prime years down with full time old man years.
But, as we're in the Trading Card forum not the Sports Talk one, I'll again note that a similarly great player from the junk wax days, no matter how strictly you define them, will have his rookie be worth far less than one from before or after that era. The bottom line is if you opened a legit box of 1988 Fleer you'd expect to get three or four Stockton rookies, with nothing autoed or serial numbered or anything to make them special, and no discussion about Stockton's greatness will change that.
@brad31 said:
In the situations that matter most your best hitters are being pitched around (essentially walked) anyways. Apparently it is a vocal minority that thinks that a high OBP is bad or Trout cards would sell for much less, as would the Frank Thomas NNOF.
And intentional walks are way down because they lead to more runs not less.
Agreed.
Tim Anderson is a leadoff hitter and he has a lower career OB% than Joey Gallo. That is sickening. Luis Robert bats second and he isn't any better with that. They need to get on base.
Getting on base is a good thing.
Making an out is a bad thing.
Hitting a home run is even better.
Hitting a home run at the cost of less outs is the best....and that is Trout.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
This isn't new. Branch Rickey knew the value of a base on balls and the negative value of making outs. He even realized that using batting average as a measurement was lacking. He was right. OB% was the outcome.
Common sense says he is right too when you know that more than half of your at bats come with nobody on base and base on balls has the exact same value as a single.
Branch Rickey estimated back then that a walk was .75 the value of a single. He was close, as the play by play data shows it to be about .67.
So OPS is accurate. Actually less accurate the opposite way since it treats a walk as having only half the value of a single.
There is a some truth that a three or four hitter the walk value changes a little compared to a leadoff hitter or second place hitter, so I typically ignore that undervalue of a walk in OPS.
The OPS is spot on. The + part normalizes it for the era, which is also important. Ballpark adjustments can get wonky, but usually only in extreme cases.
I am not talking about singles though. I am talking about the value of sluggers driving the ball and it being more valuable for them to do so than BB.
A little deeper and along the lines of what @daltex is doing. Lets ignore the walks. Here is what they did per plate appearance. A walk thus counts as a 'missed chance' to hit an extra base hit. Using Griffey's SEATTLE numbers only!
Trout in his career has averaged a home run once every 17.6 times he stepped up to the dish, or 34 per 600 plate appearances.
Griffey in his SEATTLE career has averaged a home run oncer every 17.3 times up, or 34.6 per 600 plate appearances.
Trout 34 home runs per 600 plate appearances.
Griffey 34.6 home runs per 600 plate appearances(counting ONLY his Seattle years).
Trout hit 29.2 doubles per 600.
Griffey hit 28.3 doubles per 600.
Trout hit 5 triples per 600
Griffey hit 2.5 triples per 600.
Call that a tie even though Trout is up a little.
But at what cost did they do that in?
Trout made 347 outs per 600 plate appearances
Griffey made 370 outs per 600 plate appearances
Trout made an extra 64 outs by hitting into a double play.
Griffey made an extra 118 outs by hitting into a double play.
To put those outs into perspective, over a 12 year span, Griffey made about 3/4 of a season worth of outs MORE than Trout to achieve slightly less extra base hits.
Extra:
Stolen bases totals:
Trout stole 204 bases and was caught 37 times.
Griffey stole 167 bases and was caught 60 times.
Somehow people forget that Trout has 355 home runs in his career and that is with a Covid year and a few big chunks of injury years while in his prime. He also maintains a lifetime .300 average in an era where batting average isn't as easily attainable.
These Trout misconceptions are almost laughable.
For context, for his career Jim Rice averaged 25.3 home runs per 600 plate appearances...so if you think of Jim Rice as a "most feared hitter" type, then you love Mike Trout.
And we will ignore the 315 double plays that Rice hit into killing rallies.
@craig44 Jim Rice hit 382 home runs and some fans called him the "most feared" hitter in doing so. It took Rice 8,225 at bats to achieve those.
Health willing, Trout will equal Rice's HR totals in 2,500 less at bats .
Trout is a light years better home run hitter than Rice and that isn't enough...but is somehow enough to call Rice "the most feared hitter."
Oh, and Trout gets on base as good as Rickey Henderson to boot.
But, as we're in the Trading Card forum not the Sports Talk one, I'll again note that a similarly great player from the junk wax days, no matter how strictly you define them, will have his rookie be worth far less than one from before or after that era. The bottom line is if you opened a legit box of 1988 Fleer you'd expect to get three or four Stockton rookies, with nothing autoed or serial numbered or anything to make them special, and no discussion about Stockton's greatness will change that.
Nice post. Ken Griffey jr ceratinly played in the junk wax era. 1988 fleer basketball cards are very tough to find unopened and are very expensive if you so find one. About $4,500.
A 1989 Upper Deck Box costs around $350. The number 1 card ever graded is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.
Griffey jR almost 97,000 times graded with 4,074 PSA 10
1988 Fleer Stockton just 11,000 graded with 970 Psa 10's.
Griffey might be slightly higher rated as a baseball player than stockton a basketball player, but it's very close. 1989 upper deck was obviously heavily printed and the 1988 fleer was moderately printed. Nothing about this scenario says the GRiffey card should sale for twice as much as Stockton. At best it should be even.
But, as we're in the Trading Card forum not the Sports Talk one, I'll again note that a similarly great player from the junk wax days, no matter how strictly you define them, will have his rookie be worth far less than one from before or after that era. The bottom line is if you opened a legit box of 1988 Fleer you'd expect to get three or four Stockton rookies, with nothing autoed or serial numbered or anything to make them special, and no discussion about Stockton's greatness will change that.
Nice post. Ken Griffey jr ceratinly played in the junk wax era. 1988 fleer basketball cards are very tough to find unopened and are very expensive if you so find one. About $4,500.
A 1989 Upper Deck Box costs around $350. The number 1 card ever graded is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.
Griffey jR almost 97,000 times graded with 4,074 PSA 10
1988 Fleer Stockton just 11,000 graded with 970 Psa 10's.
Griffey might be slightly higher rated as a baseball player than stockton a basketball player, but it's very close. 1989 upper deck was obviously heavily printed and the 1988 fleer was moderately printed. Nothing about this scenario says the GRiffey card should sale for twice as much as Stockton. At best it should be even.
All valid points.
Going forward, which scenario is most likely to occur?
1). The Griffey Upper deck card will go down in price.
2). The '88 Fleer Stockton will go up.
Griffey is among the most popular players in sportscard history though, regardless of actual rank among the greats. I don't know how that can be measured. I don't know how long that popularity will last...I would guess as long as anyone else not named Ruth or Jackie Robinson. Griffey is extremely likeable.
Over time, I think the 1988 fleer basketball set will be enough for the Stockton to take over. Especially the All-star one, which only has 120 PSA 10's.
1) Supply - just not that many 1988 Fleer boxes left compared to the Upper Deck
2) Registry - much easier to collect the 1988 fleer set 132 to 800.
3) Collectibility - the 1988 fleer set has 2 Jordan's, two Stockton's, Pippen (R), Miller (R), Rodman (R), Curry (R), M Jackson (R), Price (R). Bogues (R), Grant (R),
4) Right now there are two cards that sale for over $100 in the Upper Deck set. Randy for $135 and Griffey for $2,050. Heck that doesn't even make sense Randy was probably as good or better as a pitcher than Griffey, it's at least equal. Thus there is just way too much hype on the Griffey.
@olb31 said:
Over time, I think the 1988 fleer basketball set will be enough for the Stockton to take over. Especially the All-star one, which only has 120 PSA 10's.
1) Supply - just not that many 1988 Fleer boxes left compared to the Upper Deck
2) Registry - much easier to collect the 1988 fleer set 132 to 800.
3) Collectibility - the 1988 fleer set has 2 Jordan's, two Stockton's, Pippen (R), Miller (R), Rodman (R), Curry (R), M Jackson (R), Price (R). Bogues (R), Grant (R),
4) Right now there are two cards that sale for over $100 in the Upper Deck set. Randy for $135 and Griffey for $2,050. Heck that doesn't even make sense Randy was probably as good or better as a pitcher than Griffey, it's at least equal. Thus there is just way too much hype on the Griffey.
Griffey backed up the hype in the first half of his career, he just couldn't stay healthy enough during his second half.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
But, as we're in the Trading Card forum not the Sports Talk one, I'll again note that a similarly great player from the junk wax days, no matter how strictly you define them, will have his rookie be worth far less than one from before or after that era. The bottom line is if you opened a legit box of 1988 Fleer you'd expect to get three or four Stockton rookies, with nothing autoed or serial numbered or anything to make them special, and no discussion about Stockton's greatness will change that.
Nice post. Ken Griffey jr ceratinly played in the junk wax era. 1988 fleer basketball cards are very tough to find unopened and are very expensive if you so find one. About $4,500.
A 1989 Upper Deck Box costs around $350. The number 1 card ever graded is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.
Griffey jR almost 97,000 times graded with 4,074 PSA 10
1988 Fleer Stockton just 11,000 graded with 970 Psa 10's.
Griffey might be slightly higher rated as a baseball player than stockton a basketball player, but it's very close. 1989 upper deck was obviously heavily printed and the 1988 fleer was moderately printed. Nothing about this scenario says the GRiffey card should sale for twice as much as Stockton. At best it should be even.
Slightly higher rated, it's not even close! Griffey Junior was instantly a megastar that became an Icon. It's rarely done and he clearly backed it up. He came into the league as a 19 year old Rookie and played like an All Star/MVP his first couple of seasons. Similar to Trout. Stockton was just average his first couple of seasons. You are comparing Ferraris to Fords.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
best OF ever - williams, ruth, aaron, mays, musial, bonds, mantle, henderson, frank robinson and then griffey. griffey is 10th
There are several more that I could argue are better than Griffey, but Tris Speaker? I don't see how there's even an argument. I'm also wondering what the argument against DiMaggio looks like.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
C
Not a better career than Dimaggio. Once you account for Yankee Stadium being murder on Right Handed hitters, Dimaggio is ahead. Then account for the missing war years, Trout still has several more elite years to catch Dimaggio.
I think a good comparison for Stockton would be an all time leader in baseball from a couple of the following:
Most stolen bases
Lowest career/season errors
Most walks
Best bunter (most rbi or on-base %)
Maybe I'm not giving Stocktons defense enough credit. He was playing against elite talent and did well but I just don't believe he wanted the pressures or limelight of being a star.
Since the comparison is more about talent and card value then I would agree with many points made already made. I will list them in order and the lower ones could switch position and not have much impact compared to the ones on top.
-Base card set vs parallels
-# of other players considered better DURING their career
-Milestone achievements
-How much marketing they've done. (Shoe deals, commercials, autographed memorabilia)
-Factors beyond some of their control...Who do the ladies like? Who has a good smile? John appears short when in the NBA and shortness can be perceived as less desirable.
-How much international coverage they've received
Interesting discussion. It's possible you can predict the future value of certain players cards based on factors aside from market sales and stats alone. If the player hasn't become a household name yet, if they haven't tapped into other collecting hobbies (beer sign ads, shoes, etc), where does it end...
I applaud your response to why you posted "sale" vs "sell". It's cool to see people be civil.
If the Lakers, Celtics, or another large market team had drafted Stockton he would have been much more popular. Small market teams just don't get major coverage very often and being from out west they get very little airtime. Most people hardly ever get to see Sacramento, Utah, etc. until the playoffs.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
kobe atomic sold for $29,000, there are dozens of lebron's that have sold for over $10,000 on ebay. tatum has many that have sold for alot. curry too. in fact basketball rookies sale for more than the other sports. so why doesn't stockton sale for $10,000. julio rodriguez does, and he's done practically nothing.
trout has many that have sold for $5,000 or more. i hope trout ends up being a top 25 player in his sport. but stockton already is. he doesn't have to do anything else. there are 2011 topps trout's selling for $5,000 or more? huh? why? you can get a psa 7 nolan ryan for $5,000 or less. that makes better dollars and sense to me.
the all-star stockton pop 113 is the one to look for. that card is a tough one.
You make a lot of fair points in regard to Stockton's stature in basketball. He sits near the very top in some of the advanced measurements they use, as well as the assist record.
The hard part is that Stockton doesn't have any 'atomic' parallels or 1 of 100 auto Rookie Cards. I would imagine if he did that he may have some good sale results as well.
The closest card Stockton may get to that limited stature is if he has a PSA 10 1984 Star Co. I would imagine that may be a 10K+ card. I don't know of any sales records on those.
Of course, player popularity is its own animal and a lot of that stuff gets thrown out the window.
On Pure numbers perhaps Trout's Career is "better", but Griffey Jr came up huge in post season even if no rings, DiMaggio lost years in his PRIME to WWII and was huge contributor in Series' which netted him and team multiple rings.
I can only to speak to the folks I've seen play; Griffey Jr. was exciting to watch be it on TV or in person, Trout although a statisticians dream is BORING! Watching Trout take a close pitch for ball 4 in the late inning of a blow out game YAWN.
Not going to argue about Trout's numbers as they are all-time impressive but pure numbers in regular season only, do not define which player is more exciting to watch nor who is "better".
BTW with critical end of September (or Post Season) with game on the line I'll take Griffey Jr. every single time over Trout. I'm a Yankees Fan and believe me i know what devastation Griffey Jr wrought in critical situations because his goal was not simply to eek out a walk to improve his WAR. BTW Trout is keenly aware of his own stats.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Swell makes some great points. The base Topps Lebron and Kobe cards do not go for moon money.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Same reason they use "dominate" when they mean "dominant"
Dimaggio's batting average in the World Series dropped 54 points from the regular season and his OPS dropped 217. He reached his career OPS just once in 10 Series. I would argue he was a "contributor" not a "huge contributor".
OK, let's assume Griffey was "more exciting" to watch play than Trout. The fact is that from 1990 to 1995, Griffey was the second best player on his team, and the Mariners did nothing. Then Alex Rodriguez came along and Griffey was the third best player on his team. And the Mariners one exactly one playoff series. Which is exactly one more, of course, than Trout has. And Griffey was terrific in the playoffs that year. And the Mariners never seriously threatened again. In 1997 they were one and done in the playoffs, and Griffey was terrible, not just by Griffey standards, but by Mario Mendoza standards. In 2008 with the White Sox he was back for one last gasp, but while better than 1997, he was barely at the Mendoza line. If your idea of exciting is to watch a 38-year-old try to play CF where hadn't been remotely competent for ten years and slug .200, then White Sox Griffey is your man.
So Griffey, surrounded by Johnson and Rodriguez, and not to forget Edgar Martinez, managed to win one playoff series.
Also, not sure how you can compare Griffey in September and October to Trout in the late innings of a blowout. Griffey (1989-2000) slugged .568 in a .418 environment, which is great. No question. Trout has slugged .587 in a .407 environment. So Trout is 20% better. At slugging, not taking a base on balls. His WPA is 50.3 compared to Griffey's 37.0. His cWPA was 23.5% compared to Griffey's 18.9%. So, take Griffey (young Griffey, because we don't want to be too embarrassing) every time you want, but Trout has the results.
Look, Griffey was great. Just not as great as his Upper Deck card announced him to be. That was Bonds. Trout is just better. And it's really hard to make a case other than "I enjoyed watching Griffey more" to show that it's not true.
Personality/Media hype does factor in card prices. Or lack of that is.........
I checked my ebay records and I bought a PSA Stockton RC in 2009 for $90. They sell for around $450 on ebay today. That is a decent return, it’s been at this level for at least 2 years
Like I and others have said, Stockton is fairly valued.
daltex hit it on head. griffey and trout are great players but card wise, overvalued.
stockton was better than rodman and miller, but the card prices don't reflect it. his allstar psa 10 is the one to have.
Agreed. Kinda different subject here but when I open stuff and get either a Molitor, or even worse, a Trammel card, I am instantly bored. There are other players like this that when pulling the cards, a literal sense of boredom comes in that ruins the fun of the box.
Griffey was a better power hitter than Trout. Far more home runs/xbh. Trouts % look good because he has taken so many walks. Trout is really good at that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
1996 Topps Kobe in PSA 9 is running around $125.
1988 Fleer Stockton in PSA 9 is running around $75.
That is really Stockton's third year card too. He has 1984/85 and 1985/86 Star Comapny cards. > @craig44 said:
Trout has a higher SLG% than Griffey and a higher OB% than Rickey Henderson....not too shabby at all. Considering Trout has batted first or second most of his career, those walks are extra valuable too
. Add that he stole bases at such a high percentage, then even more so.
Whether that is exciting or not is up to the eyes of the beholder. Since Trout's card prices are in the stratosphere, many must behold that Trout is indeed exciting.
Considering that Trout seems to be a good all around person the amount of hate he gets amazes me. He is a little more than halfway into a HOF career and is having another MVP caliber season. If he wins a WS people will start to come around.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Brutally honest and 100% true.
Not quite what I said.
close
So your argument is that young Griffey was a better slugger despite a 20% lower slugging percentage to league average because when he wasn't busy making extra base hits he was making outs, but when Trout wasn't busy making extra base hits, he was walking? I mean I completely understand that people like to pretend they aren't watching possibly the best player of all time, but this argument is just silly.
That argument, disguised in a hundred different ways, has been a staple on this forum since I joined. It will never go away.
Yeah, we pop-tarting get that you disagree No need to respond ad infinitum to the same exact post of mine!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Um, the response was to @craig44 I'm sorry that many people have quoted your post.
^ my bad, on that last response.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Very well said. It is amazing how much people like their hitters to make outs and then justify it by saying 'his out COULD move a runner up." "Could" being the key word because we know exactly how many runners their outs have moved up, and that super small positive is already included in the better measurements. Then again, so are the double plays they hit into, and ignored by those same fans.
As for the base on balls. Those misconceptions have been put to bed already...but the same people who think walks are worthless from Mike Trout are the same people who get all giddy by George Brett's 1,065 career bases empty singles which are the exact same value as a base on balls.
It is easier to have higher rate stats when you have fewer AB's. More ABs will take a player closer to the mean. It is doubtful that Williams would have hit .406 had he had 550 or 600 AB's instead of the 450 he had in 1941. Same with Bretts .390 and Gwynns .394. both seasons were right around 400 AB.
Trout didnt get into the really elite >.600 SLG % until his AB's got down into the 400s and lower. Griffey had seasons of >.600 SLG with over 550-633 ABs. It is MUCH more difficult to keep up that level of SLG the more ABs you amass.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think we need to see a LOT more seasons before we can say Trout is in the same area as Griffey.
Both players had about 10 superb seasons. Where Trout goes from here will make the difference imo.
Trout hasnt played in > 150 games since 2016 I believe. I think the 2nd half of his career will look a lot like Griffeys with lots of injuries and missed time.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Trout has 6,256 career plate appearances and 5,126 career at bats and and has a 176 OPS+ with a .587 SLG%.
Griffey in his Seattle years had 7,250 PA and 6,317 at bats with a 144 OPS+ and a .553 SLG%.
Trout is only 1,000 away from the times to the plate as Griffey had in his prime. So yes, he needs to sustain that big lead he has over Griffey for another 1,000 plate appearances.
Living in Chicago, there was a portion of White Sox fans that made the argument that Frank Thomas walked too much and was overrated because of it. Get to Cincy a lot and the same is said for Votto. People somehow believe that getting on base is a detriment to guys with power. I have never understood it. The only player I never heard that argued was Bonds - I guess because they blamed his walks on the pitchers.
I would tend to agree. Not all walks are created equal. A teams better hitters (traditionally 3 and 4) are most valuable when they are hitting the ball with power than they are when they are walking. Conversely, the walks taken by traditional numbers 7,8 and 9 hitters who have much less power are more valuable because they do not have the same slugging potential.
other than 3 of Trouts 13 seasons, he really hasnt been intentionally walked all that much. That tells me he has been very selective at the plate. He could be more valuable to his team if he increased his zone slightly and drove more balls than walking to first.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Not true. Those are inaccurate assumptions. Making an out is not a good thing. The expense of making many extra outs for a few extra hits does not support what you are saying.
Making an out in front of Edgar Martinez is not a good thing.
Getting on base in front of Edgar Martinez is a good thing.
In fact, Martinez was more likely to get a hit than Griffey was in many of those years.
Trout batted first and second too for most of his career.
We went over this in the Votto thread already. Joe Morgan too.
A walk has 2/3 the value of a single. Pretty straightforward actually. The majority of the time they are the same value and in some situations(which are fewer) the single is much higher than the walk value. Overall it is 2/3
OPS treats a walk as only half the value of a single....so OPS does not over value walks. It actually under values them.
BTW, Trout led the league in intentional walks three times and he had some injury plagued years. MLB teams have lessened the amount of intentional walks they give as well. They issued .10 per game last year. In the early 90's it was .30 per game.
Yes, a small portion...and they were guided by inaccurate assumptions. Most others thought differently.
However, how one "feels" is irrelevant to the value of a walk.
A walk has 2/3 the value of a single. Pretty straightforward actually. The majority of the time they are the same value and in some situations(which are fewer) the single is much higher than the walk value. Overall it is 2/3
OPS treats a walk as only half the value of a single....so OPS does not over value walks. It actually under values them.
Say you are the manager for the 2001 Giants. would you consider a walk drawn by Barry Bonds and his .863 SLG% to be of the same value as a walk drawn by Calvin Murray and his .356 SLG %? I would hazard a guess that you would be aggravated that the bat was taken out of Bonds hands and happy that Murray just got on base because even if he hit the ball, chances are it would be a single. Bonds had a MUCH greater chance to cause damage to the opposing team with his bat than Murray did, so it was more valuable to the opposing team to BB Bonds and not Murray. Those 2 BBs to those 2 batters were not created equally, just as all hits are not created equally. IE. 2B > 1B, HR > 3B etc.
Yes, Edgar may have been more likely to get a hit than Griffey, but he was less likely to drive the ball than Griffey was.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This isn't new. Branch Rickey knew the value of a base on balls and the negative value of making outs. He even realized that using batting average as a measurement was lacking. He was right. OB% was the outcome.
Common sense says he is right too when you know that more than half of your at bats come with nobody on base and base on balls has the exact same value as a single.
Branch Rickey estimated back then that a walk was .75 the value of a single. He was close, as the play by play data shows it to be about .67.
So OPS is accurate. Actually less accurate the opposite way since it treats a walk as having only half the value of a single.
There is a some truth that a three or four hitter the walk value changes a little compared to a leadoff hitter or second place hitter, so I typically ignore that undervalue of a walk in OPS.
The OPS is spot on. The + part normalizes it for the era, which is also important. Ballpark adjustments can get wonky, but usually only in extreme cases.
I am not talking about singles though. I am talking about the value of sluggers driving the ball and it being more valuable for them to do so than BB.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In the situations that matter most your best hitters are being pitched around (essentially walked) anyways. Apparently it is a vocal minority that thinks that a high OBP is bad or Trout cards would sell for much less, as would the Frank Thomas NNOF.
And intentional walks are way down because they lead to more runs not less.
So I'm going to indulge @craig44 for a moment. We'll assume for a moment that walks are worthless, which I think no one here believes, but I calculated slugging percentages for 1989-2000 Griffey and for Trout as though anything that happened when a player was batting other than a hit is treated the same, that is a one out bases loaded walk has the same value as a one out bases loaded double play grounder. So I've divided total bases by plate appearances.
Griffey is 3605/7319 or .493.
Trout is 3039/6250 or .486.
So, using my stupid stat which suggests that Trout hurt his team as much by walking as Griffey did by grounding into a double play, it looks as though Griffey was at least slightly better. Except that we need to compare eras. No idea how to calculate my stat for league and park effects, so I'll cheat and compare to the regular slugging percentage that we all know and love. And we see, above, that slugging was .011 higher in Griffey's era.
So even treating walks as completely non-productive events, because we should want Trout to hit into a fielders choice to end the game rather than walk and load the bases like last night, Trout is still a better slugger than Griffey.
Of course HR's are more valuable than walks, but Trout isn't Bret Butler.
Trout averages 40 HR per 162 games.
Griffey averaged 38 per 162 games.
Trout hasn't seen his old man years yet so we will see...but Griffey only had three full seasons in his 30's so he wasn't exactly dragging his prime years down with full time old man years.
But, as we're in the Trading Card forum not the Sports Talk one, I'll again note that a similarly great player from the junk wax days, no matter how strictly you define them, will have his rookie be worth far less than one from before or after that era. The bottom line is if you opened a legit box of 1988 Fleer you'd expect to get three or four Stockton rookies, with nothing autoed or serial numbered or anything to make them special, and no discussion about Stockton's greatness will change that.
Agreed.
Tim Anderson is a leadoff hitter and he has a lower career OB% than Joey Gallo. That is sickening. Luis Robert bats second and he isn't any better with that. They need to get on base.
Getting on base is a good thing.
Making an out is a bad thing.
Hitting a home run is even better.
Hitting a home run at the cost of less outs is the best....and that is Trout.
A little deeper and along the lines of what @daltex is doing. Lets ignore the walks. Here is what they did per plate appearance. A walk thus counts as a 'missed chance' to hit an extra base hit. Using Griffey's SEATTLE numbers only!
Trout in his career has averaged a home run once every 17.6 times he stepped up to the dish, or 34 per 600 plate appearances.
Griffey in his SEATTLE career has averaged a home run oncer every 17.3 times up, or 34.6 per 600 plate appearances.
Trout 34 home runs per 600 plate appearances.
Griffey 34.6 home runs per 600 plate appearances(counting ONLY his Seattle years).
Trout hit 29.2 doubles per 600.
Griffey hit 28.3 doubles per 600.
Trout hit 5 triples per 600
Griffey hit 2.5 triples per 600.
Call that a tie even though Trout is up a little.
But at what cost did they do that in?
Trout made 347 outs per 600 plate appearances
Griffey made 370 outs per 600 plate appearances
Trout made an extra 64 outs by hitting into a double play.
Griffey made an extra 118 outs by hitting into a double play.
To put those outs into perspective, over a 12 year span, Griffey made about 3/4 of a season worth of outs MORE than Trout to achieve slightly less extra base hits.
Extra:
Stolen bases totals:
Trout stole 204 bases and was caught 37 times.
Griffey stole 167 bases and was caught 60 times.
Somehow people forget that Trout has 355 home runs in his career and that is with a Covid year and a few big chunks of injury years while in his prime. He also maintains a lifetime .300 average in an era where batting average isn't as easily attainable.
These Trout misconceptions are almost laughable.
For context, for his career Jim Rice averaged 25.3 home runs per 600 plate appearances...so if you think of Jim Rice as a "most feared hitter" type, then you love Mike Trout.
And we will ignore the 315 double plays that Rice hit into killing rallies.
@craig44 Jim Rice hit 382 home runs and some fans called him the "most feared" hitter in doing so. It took Rice 8,225 at bats to achieve those.
Health willing, Trout will equal Rice's HR totals in 2,500 less at bats
.
Trout is a light years better home run hitter than Rice and that isn't enough...but is somehow enough to call Rice "the most feared hitter."
Oh, and Trout gets on base as good as Rickey Henderson to boot.
SLuggers - Kingman, Canseco, > @daltex said:
Nice post. Ken Griffey jr ceratinly played in the junk wax era. 1988 fleer basketball cards are very tough to find unopened and are very expensive if you so find one. About $4,500.
A 1989 Upper Deck Box costs around $350. The number 1 card ever graded is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.
Griffey jR almost 97,000 times graded with 4,074 PSA 10
1988 Fleer Stockton just 11,000 graded with 970 Psa 10's.
Griffey might be slightly higher rated as a baseball player than stockton a basketball player, but it's very close. 1989 upper deck was obviously heavily printed and the 1988 fleer was moderately printed. Nothing about this scenario says the GRiffey card should sale for twice as much as Stockton. At best it should be even.
All valid points.
Going forward, which scenario is most likely to occur?
1). The Griffey Upper deck card will go down in price.
2). The '88 Fleer Stockton will go up.
Griffey is among the most popular players in sportscard history though, regardless of actual rank among the greats. I don't know how that can be measured. I don't know how long that popularity will last...I would guess as long as anyone else not named Ruth or Jackie Robinson. Griffey is extremely likeable.
Over time, I think the 1988 fleer basketball set will be enough for the Stockton to take over. Especially the All-star one, which only has 120 PSA 10's.
1) Supply - just not that many 1988 Fleer boxes left compared to the Upper Deck
2) Registry - much easier to collect the 1988 fleer set 132 to 800.
3) Collectibility - the 1988 fleer set has 2 Jordan's, two Stockton's, Pippen (R), Miller (R), Rodman (R), Curry (R), M Jackson (R), Price (R). Bogues (R), Grant (R),
4) Right now there are two cards that sale for over $100 in the Upper Deck set. Randy for $135 and Griffey for $2,050. Heck that doesn't even make sense Randy was probably as good or better as a pitcher than Griffey, it's at least equal. Thus there is just way too much hype on the Griffey.
Griffey backed up the hype in the first half of his career, he just couldn't stay healthy enough during his second half.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Slightly higher rated, it's not even close! Griffey Junior was instantly a megastar that became an Icon. It's rarely done and he clearly backed it up. He came into the league as a 19 year old Rookie and played like an All Star/MVP his first couple of seasons. Similar to Trout. Stockton was just average his first couple of seasons. You are comparing Ferraris to Fords.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
cakes have you ever played sports before or are you just a griffey fan? there are 5 major statistical categories in the nba.
rebounds
blocks
points
steals
assists
stockton is number all-time in 2 of the 5. no other player in nba history including jordan and lebron that lead in 2.
griffey leads in missed games due to injuries maybe, but nothing else. no championships, never even played in one.
best OF ever - williams, ruth, aaron, mays, musial, bonds, mantle, henderson, frank robinson and then griffey. griffey is 10th
pg - curry cousy magic stockton, and maybe one other i haven't listed. maybe
There are several more that I could argue are better than Griffey, but Tris Speaker? I don't see how there's even an argument. I'm also wondering what the argument against DiMaggio looks like.