Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Options

Adrian Beltre..

I may have posted this in the past, so sorry if I am duplicating myself. But I have the only graded example of a 1997 Bowman (no name and position on the card) of The Beltre rookie. It graded an 8.5 or 9 by beckett. Kinda of rare. I have no idea if it would be extremely valuable or not.

Work hard and you will succeed!!

Comments

  • Options
    82FootballWaxMemorys82FootballWaxMemorys Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2024 9:57AM

    prolly 'round tree fiddy

    I'm seeing very low interest in Beltre overall. Some players just don't excite collectors I guess. Perhaps if he had walked more as the always boring Mike Trout does...

    Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Oh yeah. He's not as collected as Elston Howard. LOL!! Not as much interest in him as some, but I think this could be or may be one of his best rookie cards.

    1990 no name topps frank thomas - Thomas is ranked 88th all-time WAR

    1997 no name Bowman Adrian Beltre - Beltre is ranked 40th all-time war, above JR, Trout, carlton and brett and lots more.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    FirstBeardFirstBeard Posts: 467 ✭✭✭

    Beltre and Nelson Cruz are so similar. Around .280 career avg and almost 500 hr.

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Beltre all-time rankings

    RBI #25
    Total bases #15
    Hits #18
    WAR #40

    These stats are off the charts better than Nelson Cruz. They are better than George Brett and Mike Schmidt. maybe the best third basemen stats of all-time?

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    countdouglascountdouglas Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll give you better than Schmidt, but better than Brett? No way!

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Brett stats

    WAR #48
    Total bases 21st
    Hits 19th
    RBI 38th

    Beltre beat him in all 4 categories

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @countdouglas said:
    I'll give you better than Schmidt, but better than Brett? No way!

    Statistically Beltre is probably the best 3rd basemen of all-time. Or at least in the last 100 years. Even if you think Brett and Schmidt better overall, Beltre has to be in the conversation. To say his cards are undervalued doesn't do him justice. I'm not a fan of his but the numbers speak for themselves.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    DBesse27DBesse27 Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2024 1:13PM

    Every single thread you start begins with one of these incorrect lines of thinking:

    1. Rarest card should be most valuable card.
    2. Best stats should be most collected player.

    Yaz Master Set
    #1 Gino Cappelletti master set
    #1 John Hannah master set

    Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DBesse27 said:
    Every single thread you start begins with one of these incorrect lines of thinking:

    1. Rarest card should be most valuable card.
    2. Best stats should be most collected player.

    Maybe you should pick your favorite player and the whole board just talks about that one player for the rest of eternity. Will that make you happy? One thread on all the boards just about that one person.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,543 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:

    @countdouglas said:
    I'll give you better than Schmidt, but better than Brett? No way!

    Statistically Beltre is probably the best 3rd basemen of all-time. Or at least in the last 100 years. Even if you think Brett and Schmidt better overall, Beltre has to be in the conversation. To say his cards are undervalued doesn't do him justice. I'm not a fan of his but the numbers speak for themselves.

    I think beltre doesnt have the black ink of either brett or schmidt. i assume many would call him an accumulator.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 959 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Brett and Schmidt seemed like multi-generational talents.

    Beltre sort of seems like Sutton or Kaat, etc. Great stats but never the ‘Guy’.

  • Options
    jordangretzkyfanjordangretzkyfan Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ^^^^^ This.

    The thing that holds Beltre back from stardom is he wasn’t the best of his era. He only played in 4X All-Star Games, never won MVP or a World Series. Compare that to Schmidt’s 12X AS games, 3x MVPs and a World Series title. Or Brett’s 13X AS games, 1X MVP and a World Series title. This is why Schmidt and Brett will always set themselves apart beyond just the numbers…they always played on the biggest stages of the game.

    Beltre was a very good player, but not elite.

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i think brett and schmidt were better too. but when the board talks about trout, all i hear is WAR. now i don't know much about WAR, but im told seaver is better than ryan because of it.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    DBesse27DBesse27 Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:

    @DBesse27 said:
    Every single thread you start begins with one of these incorrect lines of thinking:

    1. Rarest card should be most valuable card.
    2. Best stats should be most collected player.

    Maybe you should pick your favorite player and the whole board just talks about that one player for the rest of eternity. Will that make you happy? One thread on all the boards just about that one person.

    No, it’s much better to start 100 threads that all make the same (incorrect) point.

    Yaz Master Set
    #1 Gino Cappelletti master set
    #1 John Hannah master set

    Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DBesse27 said:

    @olb31 said:

    @DBesse27 said:
    Every single thread you start begins with one of these incorrect lines of thinking:

    1. Rarest card should be most valuable card.
    2. Best stats should be most collected player.

    Maybe you should pick your favorite player and the whole board just talks about that one player for the rest of eternity. Will that make you happy? One thread on all the boards just about that one person.

    No, it’s much better to start 100 threads that all make the same (incorrect) point.

    Thanks for your approval!!!

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:
    Beltre all-time rankings

    RBI #25
    Total bases #15
    Hits #18
    WAR #40

    These stats are off the charts better than Nelson Cruz. They are better than George Brett and Mike Schmidt. maybe the best third basemen stats of all-time?

    How about Chipper Jones?

    SLG- .529. Brett .487 (.480).
    On base + slugging- .930. Brett .857. (.819)
    At bat per HR- 19.2. Brett 32.6. (23.2).
    At bat per run scored- 5.5. Brett 6.5.(7.3).
    At bat per RBI- 5.5. Brett 6.5. (6.5).
    OBP- .401. Brett .369 (.339).
    Stolen base %- 70%. Brett 52% (65%).
    Fielding% at 3rd base- .954. Brett .950. (.960).
    Batting average- .303. Brett .305 (.286).

    HUGE advantage in the power department for Chipper above George.
    Scored runs better.
    Drove in runs better.
    MUCH better base stealer.
    Higher Fielding %.
    The only number Brett beats Chipper in is BA and that's virtually a tie.

    Beltre looks to be the best fielder of the three, but Chipper is the superior hitter and while not as good as Beltre in the field, better than Brett.

    1991 Topps and Bowman Jones rookies go for about $200.00 in PSA 10.
    1813 Bowman 10's graded, 5671 Topps!

    I'll take Jones over both of these guys!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:
    i think brett and schmidt were better too. but when the board talks about trout, all i hear is WAR. now i don't know much about WAR, but im told seaver is better than ryan because of it.

    I think Seaver is possibly the #1 pitcher in the modern era.

    Ryan was not the pitcher Seaver was, so WAR gets this one right.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DBesse27 said:
    Every single thread you start begins with one of these incorrect lines of thinking:

    1. Rarest card should be most valuable card.
    2. Best stats should be most collected player.

    I am pretty much in agreement that collectors tend to ignore those two "lines of thinking".

    LOGICALLY, the best players, with the scarcest cards SHOULD be the most valuable, but often times, they're not.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1991 chipper tiffany, opc, desert shield
    1991 tomorrow's heroes - really low psa 10 number due to cut of the card.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    WAR

    Schmidt 25
    Beltre 40
    Brett 48
    Chipper 51

    Card wise Schmidt and BRett way out in front, Chipper next then Beltre, of these four.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm a big fan of schmidt.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wade Boggs WAR is 43.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    bgrbgr Posts: 228 ✭✭✭

    From a pricing standpoint, as someone who primarily collects HOF Autos with a specific focus on Rookie issue HOF Autos, I am not rushing to find a great 1997 bowman chrome Beltre example because there are just so many out there. There are 8s, 9s, 10s all over eBay alone. With respect to Brett and Schmidt, from a collecting perspective, their issues are much more limited in general - especially when considering rookies. Both of their primary issues are very condition-sensitive. Both of those demand a premium in high grade based on the rarity.

    I think they both had great careers, but I would give Schmidt a slight edge on both sides of the ball. There are some variables which are interesting to consider with Schmidt, Beltre, and Brett as well - one is the DH position and the leagues they played in.

    WAR is useful to, at a glance, get some idea about a player's career, but it doesn't tell me everything. I don't even know what a general algorithm for determining baseball greatness would look like myself, and there's a part of me that hopes there never is one. What fun would that be? The good news is... WAR, itself, is both somewhat subjective, and also a yearly, relative, statistical assessment.

    Nolan Ryan vs. Tom Seaver is a fun debate. The fact that Ryan doesn't have at least 3 Cy Youngs is just... mind boggling.

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CardGeek said:
    Being a great baseball player has never meant that your cards will be valuable.

    Agreed, but it can't hurt.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    DBesse27DBesse27 Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DBesse27 said:
    Every single thread you start begins with one of these incorrect lines of thinking:

    1. Rarest card should be most valuable card.
    2. Best stats should be most collected player.

    I am pretty much in agreement that collectors tend to ignore those two "lines of thinking".

    LOGICALLY, the best players, with the scarcest cards SHOULD be the most valuable, but often times, they're not.

    Thank you for articulating my point better than I did. What SHOULD be and what IS, are 2 different things and there are those who refuse to accept that or to acknowledge the DEMAND part of supply and demand.

    Yaz Master Set
    #1 Gino Cappelletti master set
    #1 John Hannah master set

    Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox

  • Options
    sayheywyosayheywyo Posts: 447 ✭✭✭✭

    When I think of third basemen..... Beltre never comes to mind. Adrian who?? I'd be thinking a Rocky movie or Monk TV series.

  • Options
    BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 8,046 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CardGeek said:
    Being a great baseball player has never meant that your cards will be valuable.

    Unfortunately.

    Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
  • Options

    Beltre is overrated in WAR due to his defense. The validity of the WAR defenisve measurements is weak, very weak, and that is where Beltre makes up the ground on guys like Brett and brings him closer to Schmidt.

    George Brett 135 OPS+ to Beltre's 116 gives you 95% of the answer on who was better.

    If Beltre was better than Brett defensively, then the he has that 5% to close the gap and there simply is not enough defensive value to close that huge offensive advantage Brett has over Beltre.

    Since Brett did play a good amount of first base then maybe that 5% turns to 10% room for Beltre to close the gap via defense.

    But I do see your point. Often times many people mostly rely on career hit totals to judge who was better and Beltre has more career hits and Total Bases than Brett. Now when someone brings that against Brett, those same people will resort to more sabermetric reasonings(the same ones they scoff at that show Schmidt was superior to Brett) to show Brett was better than Beltre.

  • Options

    As for the cards, and not the play on the field, there is a big X factor that plays a huge role in determining demand and prices. Beltre is just is not sexy enough. Like pointed above, he flew under the radar and was never a consistent top five in the league MVP threat.

    I myself enjoy these threads though. Brings different players to the forefront and opens some discussions.

    We don't know how the card demand will evolve in 40 years when sentiment is removed from card demand because the people who saw the players are no longer there to buy.

    Stats could play a big role.

    Lore will play the biggest role.

    At some point, Brett, Beltre etc will be put into the same historical bin as Cobb, Ruth, Mantle....and what will be the determining factor for fans to buy more of each of those HOFers cards when they saw none. of them play?

    In my opinion it will be the scarcity of the card. Not the scarcity of the condition(to a degree). When a player like Ruth has only 110 of a card in ANY condition, it will Trump a 1970's legend where there are 20,000 examples in collectible nice looking condition, when there is no longer a sentiment factor at play that determines where a historical collector will plunk $10,000 on.

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice points Robinson

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,543 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:
    Beltre is overrated in WAR due to his defense. The validity of the WAR defenisve measurements is weak, very weak, and that is where Beltre makes up the ground on guys like Brett and brings him closer to Schmidt.

    George Brett 135 OPS+ to Beltre's 116 gives you 95% of the answer on who was better.

    If Beltre was better than Brett defensively, then the he has that 5% to close the gap and there simply is not enough defensive value to close that huge offensive advantage Brett has over Beltre.

    Since Brett did play a good amount of first base then maybe that 5% turns to 10% room for Beltre to close the gap via defense.

    But I do see your point. Often times many people mostly rely on career hit totals to judge who was better and Beltre has more career hits and Total Bases than Brett. Now when someone brings that against Brett, those same people will resort to more sabermetric reasonings(the same ones they scoff at that show Schmidt was superior to Brett) to show Brett was better than Beltre.

    I couldnt agree more with your point on the validity of defensive metrics and their impact on WAR.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:
    Beltre is overrated in WAR due to his defense. The validity of the WAR defenisve measurements is weak, very weak, and that is where Beltre makes up the ground on guys like Brett and brings him closer to Schmidt.

    George Brett 135 OPS+ to Beltre's 116 gives you 95% of the answer on who was better.

    If Beltre was better than Brett defensively, then the he has that 5% to close the gap and there simply is not enough defensive value to close that huge offensive advantage Brett has over Beltre.

    Since Brett did play a good amount of first base then maybe that 5% turns to 10% room for Beltre to close the gap via defense.

    But I do see your point. Often times many people mostly rely on career hit totals to judge who was better and Beltre has more career hits and Total Bases than Brett. Now when someone brings that against Brett, those same people will resort to more sabermetric reasonings(the same ones they scoff at that show Schmidt was superior to Brett) to show Brett was better than Beltre.

    I couldnt agree more with your point on the validity of defensive metrics and their impact on WAR.

    It messes up a good concept and I can see why it brings hate from traditional fans. But that hate from fans spills over into other measurements that are as precise there is in any sport. Advanced Baseball hitting stats have the highest measurement validity in any sport. Hitting is such an individual feat and hitting is so linear that it is really conducive to be measured accurately.

    For example, If you look at stuff like Win Probability Added you see:

    Offensively:
    Brett 52.4 Wins above average
    Beltre 18.3 Wins above

    There is no amount of defense that can make up that offensive difference among them. A very high percentage of defensive plays are of the routine variety and it is just a matter of who gets more balls hit their way. The few difference making plays are just that, "few" and don't remotely come close to closing that offensive gap.

    Run Expectancy(which accounts for men on hitting)

    Brett 539 runs above average
    Beltre 241 runs above average.

    So if looking for a more advanced measure to see how good each was, a measurement that includes all the things traditional fans craved(Hitting with men on base and hitting at important times in the game), both WPA and Run Expectancy already include all of those, but include it fairly and in the correct proportions(because the flip side is fans get carried away too much the opposite way with unsubstantiated claims).

    Defense still matters, but simply not to the same degree as offense in baseball. The pitcher is 85% of the defense in baseball anyway. The fielders are replaceable easily(especially outfielders where routine fly ball outs comprise 90% of the balls caught).

    If you take the defensive numbers and credit only 10-20% of what WAR says, since we know that pitching is the vast majority of defense, and routine plays are converted by any capable MLB player to a very high degree, then WAR could be a little more accurate.

  • Options
    FirstBeardFirstBeard Posts: 467 ✭✭✭

    This is a quality discussion.

  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    **There is no amount of defense that can make up that offensive difference among them. A very high percentage of defensive plays are of the routine variety and it is just a matter of who gets more balls hit their way. The few difference making plays are just that, "few" and don't remotely come close to closing that offensive gap. **

    We'll I coached a 12, 13,14 year old travel baseball teams the last 3 years. My son is a pretty good pitcher. He would give up 8 runs without a ball hit into in the outfield in the air. He would pick off 4 runners in one game and yet we couldn't execute the play. The score should have been 2-1 in the fifth instead it was 8 or 10 - 1 in the fifth (the other team).

    But when you're talking pro baseball you are probably correct.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • Options

    @olb31 said:

    **There is no amount of defense that can make up that offensive difference among them. A very high percentage of defensive plays are of the routine variety and it is just a matter of who gets more balls hit their way. The few difference making plays are just that, "few" and don't remotely come close to closing that offensive gap. **

    We'll I coached a 12, 13,14 year old travel baseball teams the last 3 years. My son is a pretty good pitcher. He would give up 8 runs without a ball hit into in the outfield in the air. He would pick off 4 runners in one game and yet we couldn't execute the play. The score should have been 2-1 in the fifth instead it was 8 or 10 - 1 in the fifth (the other team).

    But when you're talking pro baseball you are probably correct.

    Absolutely. Those are two different worlds.

  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 22, 2024 9:27PM

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Randy Johnson's 1989 Fleer Glossy is criminally undervalued. I bought one because it was brought up here. As far as I can see, Randy doesn't have any negatives holding his card prices down.

    Randy was perceived as being something of a jerk. Recall the video of him when he first arrived in New York, for example.

    Seattle fans still resent him for the way he left the Mariners by (they think) faking a back injury and tanking (allowing 6+ runs in 10 out of 23 starts) to force a trade before suddenly posting a 1.28 ERA for Houston.

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Fair enough, I didn't know about that.

    5 Cy Young's, 2 seconds and a 3rd are awful impressive to me.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    olb31olb31 Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Randy was awesome to watch. So people dislike Bill belichick because he isn't nice. They dislike Trump because he's gruff or says things they don't like. Ted W. wouldn't do interviews. Barry B. was a smart ass. The list goes on and on.

    Results. That's the answer. If Ted didn't want to do an interview that's his deal. Who cares. All the above have great accomplishments and their main job wasn't to make the media happy. After the last few years, I can see why no one really wants to deal with the media.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
Sign In or Register to comment.