Home› PSA Set Registry Forum

Offical Baseball HOF Rookies Thread (Future HOF Rookies too)@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭
in PSA Set Registry Forum

Given the success of the other HOF Rookie threads I figured it was time to kick the baseball one off.

When I got back into the hobby in 2003, after a 8 year layoff, I came back to a hobby I no longer recognized. This was certainly not a bad thing, but the landscape was sure different. The advent of EBay, grading, there being more versions of Topps than I could count with all my fingers and toes. After going on a quite a few buying sprees with no apparent sense of direction I decided it was time to get some focus. Besides, I got tired of acquiring things only to want to flip them so I can buy the next thing I wanted a few months later. It was around that time I found these boards. I am not a frequent poster for the amount of time I have been around, but I am an avid reader here. It was also around that time that I discovered the Set Registries. The Set Regisitries mean different things to different people, but for me it provided some much needed focus. Even though I love lists, set collecting was something I appreciated, but never really pursued. Plus I love me some variety, so seeing some of these smaller sets became intriguing to me. I had collected baseball cards since I was a little boy and a lot of the players/cards in the Post War HOF Rookie set were only something I dreamed of owning at that time. Many years later, and now those dreams are becoming reality. My set, which I hope to finally getting around to adding scans for soon, Team Longo's, is coming along nicely. I hope to finish it in the next 2-3 years, while upgrading where possible along the way.

So that is a bit about me, but let's hear from the others who love this set or anything HOF Rookie Baseball; managers, prewar, futures, etc. Scans are always welcomed; so many things to be learned from seeing other people's stuff - I am such a cardboard voyeur. If you want to discuss ebay auctions or great trades or even some raw HOF that mean more to you than a graded Mantle by all means feel free.

Looking forward to hearing from everyone

- Chris



«134567…32

Comments

  • alifaxwa2alifaxwa2 Posts: 3,102 ✭✭✭
    @. It stretches crappy monitors wide.
    Looking to have some custom cuts or plain custom cards built? PM me.

    Commissions

    Check out my Facebook page
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    Hey Chris. Bout time someone started this thread! Now all we need is an official hockey HOF rookies threead. I collect HOF rookies in all 4 sports, but baseball has been, and will always be, my baby. My focus in baseball is 1960+, and I'm only 3 short of that goal. I say "only", but the 3 I need are biggies.

    After seeing the success of the future FB HOF rookeis set, I created the one for baseball. I'm glad to see that it's attracted quite a few collectors.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DavemriDavemri Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I collect HOF rookies in all 4 sports, but baseball has been, and will always be, my baby. >>



    Traitor!!..LOL

    FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
    image
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    Andy,

    Those are certainly 3 biggies in PSA 9. What led you to cutoff the set at 1960? The desire to stay PSA 9 and up?

    The Future Baseball HOF set is catching very nicely. I am definitely going to start a set soon. I can't decide if I just want to go after the best I can afford, or if I want to do the whole set with subs to add a little twist to it. Either way, I think all of the future HOFs sets are a neat idea.

    - Chris
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    << <i>

    << <i>I collect HOF rookies in all 4 sports, but baseball has been, and will always be, my baby. >>



    Traitor!!..LOL >>



    uh-oh... image
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Those are certainly 3 biggies in PSA 9. What led you to cutoff the set at 1960? The desire to stay PSA 9 and up? >>



    I doubt I'll ever own those in PSA 9, but yes cutting off at 1960 was due to a desire to go PSA 9 up on a non-millionaire's salary image. Also, the older you get in PSA 9, the less I trust that the cards haven't been worked on...but that's a different story.

    It's kinda screwy, but I do baseball 1960+, football and basketball 1970+, and hockey 1980+. Except for baseball I dip below those marks for a few cards.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • MajorDanbyMajorDanby Posts: 1,343
    you're back posting. i remember you from like 2 years ago. we had a few discussions about HOF baseball rookies. Glad you are still pursuing the set.

    I'm also still pursuing the set. But, ive expanded to pre war rookies...until...

    about a month ago, i decided to give up on pre war rookies...there's too much fuzziness on rookie card definitions (strip cards vs exhibits vs multiple cards produced in one year) AND a lot of rookies (babe ruth and e103's, just to take two primary examples) are damn near impossible to acquire because of scarcity and thus price. Instead, I will try to get the pre war card for each pre war HOF'er that i personally like. For instance, instead of babe ruth's rookie card, i'll get ruth's 1948 leaf issue because i love that image. There is some overlap between actual rookies and my pick (for instance, R315 feller).

    Btw, here's a post of probably my favorite (or next to favorite..with the mays and aaron) post war rookie

    image
    My Auctions

  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    That's a VERY nice Mantle 1. Is there paper loss on the back or something?
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    This is one of my favorite sets to work on too. My Award Winner rookie sets grow faster, but I'm about to hit the point where the Award Winner sets and the HoF rookie set overlap, so that'll probably slow me down some.

    On the Registry, you'll see that my main sets are my SF Giants HoFer basic sets, my graded Award Winner rookie sets, and my various Will Clark and Matt Williams sets.

    Here's my current centerpiece, until I get the other Giants great named "Willie."
    image

    A while back, I had a good start on the Football HoF rookie set, but considering that I don't really care about football anymore, I decided to sell almost everything off and pour it into baseball, my #1 sport. I've got a Joe Montana set going though, because when I did care about football, he was my guy.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭

    Major Danby -

    Yes sir, I am back. I remember those conversations as well. Part of the allure of collecting any set is having people to collect them with. For me that place is here. Also, I agree about about prewar, it's very tempting, but like you, I will cherry pick what I want for the players I want.

    BTW - That Mantle is real sweet. Centering is as good as anything you'll see up through a 6.

    Digicat -

    Sharp McCovey. I am looking to upgrade mine sometime soon. It, along with my 75 Yount, are two cards I think look low for the grade that I have in this set.

    Speaking of that 'other' SF Giants card... Did you see BCCExchange's recent auction for one 51 Bowman Mays PSA 7 ? Only if right.... image

    Another thing we have in common is once embarking on the Football HOF Rookie set. I love the set, but for me I couldn't manage to do both at once. I have just recently sold off the final batch of what remained of that collection. Maybe again one day, but for now it's baseball full steam ahead.
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭

    Switching gears a bit... Andy, I have a question. What criteria are you using for adding players to the Future HOF (Baseball) set?
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Switching gears a bit... Andy, I have a question. What criteria are you using for adding players to the Future HOF (Baseball) set? >>



    I included the best/most valuable mainstream rookie (no autos, jerseys, refractors, too limited production, etc.) for each card. I did my research on each card before settling on one. There are always a few that could change though. A good example is in football where Terrell Davis' key rookie switched from Select Certified to SP.

    Chipper Jones' Bowman and Topps rookies are close in value. Same with Johan Santana's Bowman's Best and Finest. Bowman was the clear choice for Chipper for a long time, but Topps is catching up. The differentiators I used for Santana are:

    1. Bowman's Best has a higher SMR value
    2. Bowman's Best is a MUCH tougher card in high grade
    3. There was one less Bowman's Best card made, which I realize doesn't really mean a lot

    The thing I really wanted to nail down was to use the most valuable FIRST YEAR issue of a player. First instance, I have never considered Barry Bonds' '87 Fleer card to be his rookie, though many people do. To me there is no such thing as an XRC or RC. A rookie is a rookie. And that's what this set reflects.

    Hope this helps!

    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭

    Yup... Makes perfect sense to me. I was pleased to not see the 2001 Bowman Chrome Pujols, or other cards of that ilk, that would have been overkill on a few accounts.

    Now for the next question - what criteria does a player need to meet to get in the set?
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Now for the next question - what criteria does a player need to meet to get in the set? >>



    Actually the setw as designed to be slightly more inclusive than exclusive. So I tried to get all players that seemingly have a "good" chance to get in. Some I don't particularly agree with, but I did take other collectors' input as well. Additions and possible subtractions can be made once a year (after the HOF voting in January).
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • mcholkemcholke Posts: 1,000 ✭✭
    After reading this thread I went over and looked at the set and you are right with more inclusive than not. Do you know if and who any additions were requested this past January that have not yet been added by PSA?

    Collecting Tony Perez PSA and Rookie Baseball PSA

  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>After reading this thread I went over and looked at the set and you are right with more inclusive than not. Do you know if and who any additions were requested this past January that have not yet been added by PSA? >>



    There were no requests made that were not added this year. Posada and Vizquel were 2 late additions. A few names that have been kicked around to add for next year are Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker and Mike Mussina. I'd actually vote no for all 3. Martinez may get in the Hall, but Baines was very comparable and he's received barely enough votes to stay on the ballot 2 years running. Walker was largely a product of Coors Field, or at least the voters will see him as one, and Mussina needs 300 wins.

    I'm VERY much against Katt ever making it, but he garnered enough support in the last VC vote to warrant being in the set. Vizquel, Tejada (this set was requested pre Mitchell Report), McGriff, Larkin, Morris, McGwire, Palmeiro, Gonzalez and Raines are question marks. But there are always a few surprises in HOF voting, so I factored that in when leaning towards the liberal side.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • mcholkemcholke Posts: 1,000 ✭✭
    Thanks for the insight. It got my looking around the web to see who might also be getting near consideration.

    Hall of Fame Monitoring link

    I went to the Hall of Fame monitoring link that is based solely on statistics. From that list it would appear consideration might ultimately need to be given to

    Todd Helton and Nomar Garciaparra, in addition to Larry Walker and Edgar Martinez just based on their rankings to date.

    Collecting Tony Perez PSA and Rookie Baseball PSA

  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    Nomar I don't think has any shot. Helton had a very nice (Coors Field inflated) 5- or 6-year run, but he's fallen WAY down to Earth in recent years. He hasn't even hit triple digits in RBI since 2003.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    The last three years really have hurt Helton for sure. His career average is still ridiculously high at .332, but with declining slugging/power numbers I don't think he can coast as he has been and make it considering the era he is playing in. He will be 35 this summer, so I don't know if he will realistically turn it around, though a few more years equiv. to 1999 or 2002 would be a really big help.

    Yr Avg HR RBI OBP SLUG
    1999 .320 35 113 .395 .587
    2002 .329 30 109 .429 .577

    Those are arguably somewhere between his 4-6 best years.
  • GDM67GDM67 Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I'm VERY much against Katt ever making it >>

    A rare instance of us not being on the same page.
    My Sets
  • MajorDanbyMajorDanby Posts: 1,343
    i dont see walker getting in. martinez might, if the writers can get over their grudge over DHs.
    My Auctions

  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    The guy Kaat compares closest with that is in the HOF is Phil Niekro. Doing a quick glance of guys who are in the Hall and pitched during comparitive timeframes: Sutton, Niekro, Jenkins, Perry and Kaat - I think statistically Kaat is a slight cut below those guys, but like I said compares well with Niekro. Niekro does have 318 wins to Kaat's 283, yet Kaat has almost 100 less starts.

    He also compares closely to another guy not in the HOF from his era - Tommy John. Their wins, era, whip, innings, k's, etc are all very close. Kaat, obviously the superior fielder (15 or 16 straight gold gloves), and Tommy John with some better post season numbers by comparison - although TJ's postseason numbers aren't lights out. Their All Star appearences are 4-3 in favor of Tommy John.

    I do realize that numbers don't always tell the whole story. However, not being old enough to remember them in their primes (I was born in 1974), numbers are what I have to view. In this case, I guess you can make an arguement for Kaat on the low end of things, but I think if he gets in then Tommy John should come with him.

    Just my .02

  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    To me you have good players, very good players, and great players who belong in the HOF. Kaat falls between the first 2. First off, I think all the Gold Gloves are highly overrated. Pitchers just don't field that many balls. Beyond that, Kaat's lieftime ERA was 3.45 vs. a 3.71 average for his era. Not earth-shattering. He was only a 3-time All Star, finished in the top 10 in Cy Young balloting (4th) ONE TIME, top 10 in ERA 3 times, and top 3 in wins once. He gets kudos for playing forever. But IMO he was never ever a dominant pitcher. Sutton and Neikro hit that magical 300-win mark. Right or wrong, that's an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. That's also hurt deserving guys like Blyleven, but that's a different story. I wouldn't be outraged if Kaat got in. As Chris said though, Tommy John is just as deserving. It's both or none. And I vote none.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • GDM67GDM67 Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭✭
    I agree with half of that. I'd put them both in (and I'd put Bert in, too.)
    My Sets
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    Steve Garvey will be showing up on the Veterans Committee ballot soon. How well do you think the current HoFers like him? Enough to vote him in?
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Steve Garvey will be showing up on the Veterans Committee ballot soon. How well do you think the current HoFers like him? Enough to vote him in? >>



    I think he's an extreme longshot, but you never know with these things. I consider Garvey a notch or 2 below a HOF talent.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • MajorDanbyMajorDanby Posts: 1,343
    ditto. tough, hard working guy. but his numbers wont put him in.

    what about pedro? I saw an interview on ESPN that pedro might hang it up if he has to go under the knife again. Let's say he plays two more seasons, wins 12 games each season with career average numbers for all his other stats. Does he get in?
    My Auctions

  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    << <i>Steve Garvey will be showing up on the Veterans Committee ballot soon. How well do you think the current HoFers like him? Enough to vote him in? >>



    Surprisingly, when compared to some of his other contemporaries, he doesn't compare all that badly.

    Using the 162 Game Avg for their careers...

    Player A) .294 AVG, 19 HR, 91 RBI, .324 OBP, .446 SLUG
    Player B) .305 AVG, 19 HR, 95 RBI, .369 OBP, .487 SLUG
    Player C) .285 AVG, 14 HR, 80 RBI, .342 OBP, .430 SLUG

    Looking at their career numbers as a whole, the difference in hits really stands out.

    Player A) .294 AVG, 272HR, 1308 RBI, .324 OBP, .446 SLUG, 2599 Hits, 10 AllStar App, 1 MVP, 0 Batting Titles, Successful Post Season Career
    Player B) .305 AVG, 317HR, 1595 RBI, .369 OBP, .487 SLUG, 3154 Hits, 13 AllStar App, 1 MVP, 3 Batting Titles, Successful Post Season Career
    Player C) .285 AVG, 251HR, 1406 RBI, .342 OBP, .430 SLUG, 3142 Hits, 3 AllStar App, 2 MVP, 0 Batting Titles, Limited Post Season Career


    Player A is Steve Garvey, Player B is George Brett, Player C is Robin Yount. The number of hits I think really comes into play as one of those hard and fast standards (3,000) of getting into the HOF.

    Then, there is one more player to factor in and perhaps the one Garvey is most analogous to. The infamous, player D

    162 game avg...

    Player D) .303 AVG, 15 HR, 91 RBI, .344 OBP, .451 SLUG


    For the career...

    Player D) .303 AVG, 219 HR, 1326 RBI, .344 OBP, .451 SLUG, 2743 Hits, 7 All Stars App, 0 MVP, 1 Batting title

    Player D is Al Oliver.


    Long story short, I don't think he gets in.
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    The Veterans Committee is composed of HoF members. In the past, they've let some "popular" players, so I figured that former players look at the intangebles more than the writers. They haven't let anyone in for a while though, but they've re-designed the Veterans Committee a few times in the past 7 years too.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    << <i>ditto. tough, hard working guy. but his numbers wont put him in.

    what about pedro? I saw an interview on ESPN that pedro might hang it up if he has to go under the knife again. Let's say he plays two more seasons, wins 12 games each season with career average numbers for all his other stats. Does he get in? >>



    I think he absolutely does... Not many pitchers, if any, will end up with a career ERA under 3.00 (2.80 currently) in this era. If he gets 24 more wins he would have 233, which by today's standards not too bad. However, he was dominant for a large portion of his career. 3 Cy's, over 3,000 K's...

    I think he is a lock.

  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭


    << <i>what about pedro? I saw an interview on ESPN that pedro might hang it up if he has to go under the knife again. Let's say he plays two more seasons, wins 12 games each season with career average numbers for all his other stats. Does he get in? >>




    Pedro Martinez?

    209 wins, 93 losses, an awesome .692 win percentage(3rd highest of all time), 3030 k's (vs 708 walks), a career era of 2.80, and a trio of Cy Young Awards (2 of them unaimous).

    He's a shoe-in already, and will be elected in his first year of elegability with 92% or more of the vote.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    I concur. Pedro's a first ballot lock, even if he never throws another pitch. At his best, he was as dominant as dominant can be.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    So, folks, thinking ahead, if they had a great 2008 season, who do you think will warrent consideration for addition to the Future Hall of Fame set?
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    What do you think about Carlos Delgado?

    He's 35 years old, has 431 career home runs, and looks like he'll make it to 500 in the next few years.
    8 seasons with 100+ RBI, and is not on the Mitchell Report. image



    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • MajorDanbyMajorDanby Posts: 1,343
    delgado, thome, bagwell, sheffield...i seem to clump these guys together. it's likely that delgado, thome and sheff will reach 500 home runs....but all of them, with the exception of delgado, have been linked to steroids or hgh in some form or fashion. it seems like if one goes in, the others should.

    i personally like delgado. he played with some bad blue jays teams for a good part of his career...and even being on a good blue jay team woudlnt give you much attention in the US. Then he came to FLA one year too late. Now he's taking a back seat to reyes, wright, beltran, pedro and johan on the mets. He wont get nat'l pub, but his numbers alone are HOF worthy.
    My Auctions

  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭


    << <i>delgado, thome, bagwell, sheffield...i seem to clump these guys together. it's likely that delgado, thome and sheff will reach 500 home runs....but all of them, with the exception of delgado, have been linked to steroids or hgh in some form or fashion. it seems like if one goes in, the others should. >>




    How is Thome linked to steroid or hgh use?
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • MajorDanbyMajorDanby Posts: 1,343
    ok, rumored. as bagwell is rumored to be linked. as pudge is rumored to be linked.

    sheffield has a direct link because of the balco case. you're either linked/verified via BALCO, steroid testing, Grimsley and/or the Mitchell Report. Outside of that, you're not linked but rumored...based on guys like canseco...based on before and after physique or stats...or simple hearsay.

    thome's name was bandied about amongst the steroid rumors...especially when he was hurt with the phillies (when people thought he was done for). since then, his name was not been on many steroid suspicion lists..largely because guys like clemens and bonds are bigger fishes to fry.
    My Auctions

  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭
    To throw my hat in the ring, without looking up stats, I would rate them: Sheffield, Bagwell, Thome, Delgado.

    I think the first two will get in, Thome I am on the fence about, and Delgado would be no as of right now. Delgado has had some monster years for sure, but to me he is more of a bomber, a compiler of power numbers, but possibly too one dimensional to be a HOF guy. I think if you looked up the numbers that Sheff and Bags would have quite a bit more hits/runs/better avgs than these guys. Be close in RBI's, but behind on HRs (to Thome). Of course I can be completely off on the stats, but based on what comes to mind when I think of these guys, that is the impression I get.

    - Chris
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    Sheffield and Bagwell, in my mind at least, were major juicers. I like both Thome and Delgado, but if I was told one or both juiced I wouldn't bat an eyelash. Thome was pretty darn skinny when he came into the league. And Green and Delgado had their best years playing in Toronto...where Clemens' juicing supposedly began.

    As far as Dalgado for the HOF, if he finishes with 550 HR, he's in. Otherwise (right or wrong) he may get lumped in with the juicers and have his HR totals overlooked. If Mussina can win 17+ games this year (which I doubt), he'd inch closer to HOF consideration. I don't really see anyone else he can make their way into the set based on what they do this season. If Rollins goes off again you'd have to consider him. And Ryan Howard is just a monster. But they're both a few more real good years away from being in the conversation IMO. Webb? CC? These guys are on track but have a lot more to prove as well.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭

    Well, with so much rumor about jucing, unless something comes out and pins it on them directly (Canseco, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi) then I have to give them the benefit of the doubt - even if my opinion may differ.

    As for Mussina, I think of him as a stat compiler. I believe he is one of those pitchers that would need 300 wins to get in - he is 50 away. He is also 300+ K's away from 3000, plus a great career winning percentage, so he definitely has some pluses.

    Most of the other stars of today have a long way to go. Rollins, Reyes, Wright, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, have quite of a few more years of doing what they are doing before they should make the set. Even a guy like Soriano who has 7, 8 season under him, still has a ways to go... i.e. compile more stats since the mystique won't be enough.

    One guy who is worth a thought is Kenny Lofton. He will go over 2500 hits this year, he has a career avg of just under .300, scored over 1500 runs, and has over 600 bags. He was also one of the premier leadoff hitters for a long time. He was on base over 37% of the time. I think his negative would be his period of dominance, in his role, wasn't long enough. He also got kind of a later start (25 yrs old) when compared to guys like a Reyes or a Rollins. Those extra three years on his stats could have been the difference between 3000 hits and not.

  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>One guy who is worth a thought is Kenny Lofton. He will go over 2500 hits this year, he has a career avg of just under .300, scored over 1500 runs, and has over 600 bags. He was also one of the premier leadoff hitters for a long time. He was on base over 37% of the time. I think his negative would be his period of dominance, in his role, wasn't long enough. He also got kind of a later start (25 yrs old) when compared to guys like a Reyes or a Rollins. Those extra three years on his stats could have been the difference between 3000 hits and not. >>



    I think a good gauge for Lofton's chances is how the voters see Tim Raines, and thus far it's not great. I also think Raines was a more complete player with more power, so Lofton has quite an uphill battle if he is to get in.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭

    Anyone have recent pickups to share?

    Here is my latest...

    image


    These don't show up very often, and even more difficult to find with even half way decent centering - I was lucky enough to find a board member selling one. I have a few more coming - 54 Banks & Kaline. I will share those when I get them.

    Chris


  • paleocardspaleocards Posts: 933 ✭✭✭✭
    The first Bench RC that's been graded 7.5 by PSA. I bought it raw over the holidays and submitted it in early February...


    image
  • fujfuj Posts: 559 ✭✭✭
    Nice Bench RC!!
  • fujfuj Posts: 559 ✭✭✭
    Sheffield and Bagwell, in my mind at least, were major juicers. I like both Thome and Delgado, but if I was told one or both juiced I wouldn't bat an eyelash.


    I agree 100%. Sheffield has already admitted to using THG (not knowingly of course) and I've long suspected Bagwell. Having said that, I would still support both for the Hall. I always was worried when those 2 stepped in the box against my team (Giants).

    I'm borderline on Thome but it's hard to go against the 500+ HRs. Delgado I would vote no unless he can keep playing for a few more years and add to his HR totals.
  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭

    Paleo - Very nice finding the Bench raw... EBay or did you buy locally?
  • paleocardspaleocards Posts: 933 ✭✭✭✭
    Bought it at my favorite shop over the holidays, he always has some beauties waiting for me. Showed off the card below on another thread over the weekend, but since this one is devoted to baseball HOF RCs, I figured I should post it here too (bought slabbed last month from my favorite shop):


    image
  • MajorDanbyMajorDanby Posts: 1,343
    paleo...you mention that was part of your big 6. Funny...i have the other 5, but not the koufax!
    My Auctions

  • DataDriven05DataDriven05 Posts: 164 ✭


    That is a sweet Koufax as well...

    Did any see the 62 Perry that went off last night. The winner looks to be going for the set, not sure about the under bidder though. Still, while the card doesn't show up that often, that was quite a hammer price for that card.
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭
    The price for that Perry 8 was just insane. Insane I tell you! LOL.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Sign In or Register to comment.