Had this one for about five years. Got tired of staring at the pack and wanted one that was broken free. Sold it, bought the nicely centered 8 above and pocketed some $
Carew was a great hitter for average but curious as to why some would say the greatest of all time. A .328 career average is great, but numerous hitters hit higher for a career, and he has no HR or RBI numbers to show for it.
i understand collecting packs what i don't understand is the high price for packs. Its still hard to get a psa 10 out of a pack....so u are really buying a pack of psa 8 (if you are lucky) that are still wrapped. Id rather have the card like Dand522612 did.
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@KendallCat said:
Carew was a great hitter for average but curious as to why some would say the greatest of all time. A .328 career average is great, but numerous hitters hit higher for a career, and he has no HR or RBI numbers to show for it.
Kendall you are comparing different eras. You need to compare that person in its own era.
Look at 1974 Top 10
Carew was not only the best hitter it was not even close to the second best hitter in his era... you dont see a player obliterate the next hitter in the league.
@grote15 said:
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Tim, I totally agree and love unopened as you know. However what is the chance of a back showing star getting a psa 9 or even possibly a 10 from a wax and or cello pack if it is opened? If the card is in the middle of the pack and not exposed to wax, corner folds ETC it should have a much better chance of good condition. I opened a 1981 basketball pack with Bird facing the back and it was a total dud. Obviously not the 1980 card, however similar dynamic
With only 6 hitters in the league hittting over .300 you can truly appreciate what a .333 average. was in 1978.
Anywho, the kid weight in at 170 pounds. He will be at least pound per pound the best hitter in my book.
@KendallCat said:
Carew was a great hitter for average but curious as to why some would say the greatest of all time. A .328 career average is great, but numerous hitters hit higher for a career, and he has no HR or RBI numbers to show for it.
Kendall you are comparing different eras. You need to compare that person in its own era.
Look at 1974 Top 10
Carew was not only the best hitter it was not even close to the second best hitter in his era... you dont see a player obliterate the next hitter in the league.
Batting average alone is one of the most misleading stats by which to gauge the effectiveness of a hitter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Tim, I totally agree and love unopened as you know. However what is the chance of a back showing star getting a psa 9 or even possibly a 10 from a wax and or cello pack if it is opened? If the card is in the middle of the pack and not exposed to wax, corner folds ETC it should have a much better chance of good condition. I opened a 1981 basketball pack with Bird facing the back and it was a total dud. Obviously not the 1980 card, however similar dynamic
The value for a pack with a star showing is a separate entity from regular unopened as there are those collectors like rtimmer who place a large premium on packs with stars showing. For those collectors, the grade of the card is not as meaningful as the fact that it is a pack with a star showing that is still intact after all these years.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I am not a baseball stat guy but how so? The hitter got on base by hit at a higher percentage than any other player in the league. This means you have a higher risk of giving up a base hit to this person than any player in the lineup and even worse in the entire league.
@grote15 said:
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Tim, I totally agree and love unopened as you know. However what is the chance of a back showing star getting a psa 9 or even possibly a 10 from a wax and or cello pack if it is opened? If the card is in the middle of the pack and not exposed to wax, corner folds ETC it should have a much better chance of good condition. I opened a 1981 basketball pack with Bird facing the back and it was a total dud. Obviously not the 1980 card, however similar dynamic
The value for a pack with a star showing is a separate entity from regular unopened as there are those collectors like rtimmer who place a large premium on packs with stars showing. For those collectors, the grade of the card is not as meaningful as the fact that it is a pack with a star showing that is still intact after all these years.
The value is only with the intent on not opening. Opening can reduce the value significantly especially with star facing the back or front of a wax or cello pack
@Dpeck100 said:
I am not a baseball stat guy but how so? The hitter got on base by hit at a higher percentage than any other player in the league. This means you have a higher risk of giving up a base hit to this person than any player in the lineup and even worse in the entire league.
The first part of your post actually illustrates my point. OBP% is a much more meaningful stat than simple batting average. OPS+ and SLG%, too, for that matter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Tim, I totally agree and love unopened as you know. However what is the chance of a back showing star getting a psa 9 or even possibly a 10 from a wax and or cello pack if it is opened? If the card is in the middle of the pack and not exposed to wax, corner folds ETC it should have a much better chance of good condition. I opened a 1981 basketball pack with Bird facing the back and it was a total dud. Obviously not the 1980 card, however similar dynamic
The value for a pack with a star showing is a separate entity from regular unopened as there are those collectors like rtimmer who place a large premium on packs with stars showing. For those collectors, the grade of the card is not as meaningful as the fact that it is a pack with a star showing that is still intact after all these years.
The value is only with the intent on not opening. Opening can reduce the value significantly especially with star facing the back or front of a wax or cello pack
Exactly, the value is lost once the pack is no longer unopened. The value is tied to the pack in its original unopened, authentic state .
Incidentally, I have gotten PSA 9s on cards on back of wax packs, too, so it is possible, with a little nylon to rub the wax stain off as long as card is face out on back.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I just looked at the MLB batting leaders and there is an extremely high correlation between a players batting average and on base percentage. It seems clear that the batting average is only one metric but still extremely important. I don't see what is misleading at all.
I can't make you believe it, but looking at batting average in a vacuum is misleading.
Of course, a high batting average will help OBP% but it only tells part of the story.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
J Turner doesn't hit for power and Bryce Harper does. That said judging a hitter based just on home runs would be a much more misleading approach than the batting average. Based on the two players stats clearly they are completely different hitters and naturally Harper's total stats are more impressive but I highly doubt anyone would compare the two as they are trying to accomplish completely different things for their teams. When I was growing up Wade Boggs was the man. No one was comparing him to Jose Canseco.
Mike Schmidt's career batting average was only .267. He must have been a much more mediocre hitter than I remember.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dissecting stats is very difficult no matter what it is. Bryce Harper has 30 walks. J Turner has 13. This increases Turner's at bats over the course of a season making it harder for him to have a higher average. It also increases Harper's on base percentage significantly. Is Harper just that good at taking pitches or are pitchers scared to face him and pitching off the plate and intentionally walking him? You can't tell without watching the game and just looking at a stat board. It would seem obvious that a more complete player will have all three of those metrics high and you would obviously take a guy who has a slightly lower batting average and more power first as that can lead to more runs batted in but once again it goes back to where the player fits in the overall strategy of the game. Rod Carew who was mentioned above wasn't a slugger but no one was comparing him to Hank Aaron.
@grote15 said:
Mike Schmidt's career batting average was only .267. He must have been a much more mediocre hitter than I remember.
That is like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter. Both can be excellent at what they do yet they are trying to accomplish totally different things.
@grote15 said:
Mike Schmidt's career batting average was only .267. He must have been a much more mediocre hitter than I remember.
That is like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter. Both can be excellent at what they do yet they are trying to accomplish totally different things.
The Schmidt example simply illustrates how misleading looking at simple batting average can be when evaluating a hitter. Your analogy above is not relevant to that assertion.
At the end of the day, the goal is to get on base. Whether that is by walk or by hit is not terribly important, as other more telling stats like SLG% and OPS and OPS+ will paint the complete picture. The best stats are not always those found on the backs of baseball cards.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Dpeck100 said:
You crack me up. I could say PSA's flip insert is red and you would say I am wrong its maroon or magenta.
LOL, nice strawman argument, Dpeck.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Dpeck100 said:
You crack me up. I could say PSA's flip insert is red and you would say I am wrong its maroon or magenta.
LOL, nice strawman argument, Dpeck.
I must have a lot of people fooled who are paying me for investment advice because in your view everything I say is wrong. I need to keep this charade going as long as I can!
@lawyer05 said:
Kendall you are comparing different eras. You need to compare that person in its own era.
Look at 1974 Top 10
Carew was not only the best hitter it was not even close to the second best hitter in his era... you dont see a player obliterate the next hitter in the league.
Batting averages aren't the best way to determine the best hitter. Mike Trout has no batting titles, BTW.
Carew's peak was 1973-1980. Over that period, he was tied for 3rd for the highest OPS+ with Reggie Smith. Reggie Jackson and Willie Stargell were tied for 1st. So, it's at least debatable as to who the best hitter was for Carew's era, and certainly not a slam dunk like you say.
DPeck and Lawyer - I am a Carew fan since my grandmother is from Panama, but I don't think any baseball fan when the subject of greatest hitter of all time comes up the first name that comes up is Rod Carew. I don't think even when the top 10 are discussed it is Rod Carew, and we could go top 15-20 and he might not make it. Great hitter for average, had a great run of 8-10 seasons compared to the mean or standard deviation.
The subject came up as greatest hitter of all time and some simply stated that no way was it Rod Carew. Changing the narrative to 1973-1978 does not help when determining the greatest hitter of all time since it excludes about 150 years of baseball history. If I was making a case for the greatest hitter of all time I would define the criteria, show the history or info to back up my statement, compare it statistically to the rest of the people in the conversation and go from there. Having said that show me what data you would use to prove Carew was the greatest hitter as you asserted in your post and we will agree with you.
@Dpeck100 said:
You crack me up. I could say PSA's flip insert is red and you would say I am wrong its maroon or magenta.
LOL, nice strawman argument, Dpeck.
I must have a lot of people fooled who are paying me for investment advice because in your view everything I say is wrong. I need to keep this charade going as long as I can!
LOL..not everything, just the things that aren't correct.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Tim, I totally agree and love unopened as you know. However what is the chance of a back showing star getting a psa 9 or even possibly a 10 from a wax and or cello pack if it is opened? If the card is in the middle of the pack and not exposed to wax, corner folds ETC it should have a much better chance of good condition. I opened a 1981 basketball pack with Bird facing the back and it was a total dud. Obviously not the 1980 card, however similar dynamic
The value for a pack with a star showing is a separate entity from regular unopened as there are those collectors like rtimmer who place a large premium on packs with stars showing. For those collectors, the grade of the card is not as meaningful as the fact that it is a pack with a star showing that is still intact after all these years.
The value is only with the intent on not opening. Opening can reduce the value significantly especially with star facing the back or front of a wax or cello pack
Exactly, the value is lost once the pack is no longer unopened. The value is tied to the pack in its original unopened, authentic state .
Incidentally, I have gotten PSA 9s on cards on back of wax packs, too, so it is possible, with a little nylon to rub the wax stain off as long as card is face out on back.
Yes very well said Tim, I couldn't agree more. The value in unopened rookie packs is similar to an exceptional wine label and vintage. In investment wine the value of each unopened bottle increases every time a bottle is opened. Eventually the bottles left actually become more scare every year and in classic supply demand fashion experience greater price as supply is always reduced.
Unopened rookie showing packs are valued for their relative scarcity. Take for example the math of a Tony Gwynn rookie at a high level. The card could appear showing on top in only 1 pack out of roughly every 400 packs. It's appealing and valued for its scarcity for showing on top and not its centering or grade if the pack was opened to grade the card.
For the Bird /Magic rookie the pack has 31 examples and PSA 10s 21 examples so both are fairly scarce. PSA 9 graded examples are over 500 so a graded pack is much less than 10% as available as a PSA 9 card and that's pretty special.
Some are even more rare like 1 example of Wilt Chamberlains rookie pack or in 1986 Charles Barkley for example has only 5 packs with his rookie showing and 180 PSA 10s graded. For me I'd much rather have that very scarce rookie showing pack than try to open it even it I knew I'd get a PSA 10.
Kendall I am not even qualified to say who the greatest hitter of all time is. That said I bet if you talk to ball players Rod Carew is held in very high esteem as a true talent in the batters box and one of the best non power hitters ever.
"One of the best non power hitters" is a fairly accurate assessment but worlds away from one of the best hitters ever. I'm pleased to see you noted the difference.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Dpeck100 said:
Kendall I am not even qualified to say who the greatest hitter of all time is. That said I bet if you talk to ball players Rod Carew is held in very high esteem as a true talent in the batters box and one of the best non power hitters ever.
No question he is held in high esteem and was a great hitter for average in his time - I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I believe the statement that was made was he was the best hitter of all time, and I don't think that is even close. Guys in his era like Gwynn and Boggs had higher lifetime averages and just as many batting titles overall.
As far as being one the best non power hitters of all time I am not sure how to follow that one, and it almost demeans him as a hitter. He was 34th in lifetime career batting average, and out of the top 50 hitters I think without looking he had the fewest home runs of all of them - maybe close with Boggs.
If someone asks me who were the greatest hitters of all time I think you would be hard pressed to beat Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Hornsby or Foxx IMO. The numbers definitely support them.
** Working on the following sets-2013 Spectra Football Hall of Fame 50th Anniversary Autograph set, 2015 Spectra Football Illustrious Legends Autograph set, 2014-15 Hall of Fame Heroes autograph set. **
Comments
That's a score of a lifetime! Amazing story.
I'd crack it and resubmit. Good luck.
The PSA 10 prices have really performed nicely but for my money I think the unopened rookie showing packs are the best place to go.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
Awesome! I am hoping for my first soon to grade out, it is in submission.
Can we see the back showing the rookie?! Thanks.
Had this one for about five years. Got tired of staring at the pack and wanted one that was broken free. Sold it, bought the nicely centered 8 above and pocketed some $
NICE!
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Carew was a great hitter for average but curious as to why some would say the greatest of all time. A .328 career average is great, but numerous hitters hit higher for a career, and he has no HR or RBI numbers to show for it.
I'm wondering if the the comment about Carew was more about the Yankees, and less about Carew.
Or one particular Yankee.....
i understand collecting packs what i don't understand is the high price for packs. Its still hard to get a psa 10 out of a pack....so u are really buying a pack of psa 8 (if you are lucky) that are still wrapped. Id rather have the card like Dand522612 did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
The pop report for cards will always increase, while packs, in authentic unopened form, can only get scarcer over time. The appeal is based on acquiring the pack in its original, unopened state. As long as the pack is unopened, every card within has the potential to be a PSA 10. It's the lure of the unknown and what may be hiding inside, as well as the original packaging from the factory, that appeals to unopened collectors.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Kendall you are comparing different eras. You need to compare that person in its own era.
Look at 1974 Top 10
Carew was not only the best hitter it was not even close to the second best hitter in his era... you dont see a player obliterate the next hitter in the league.
1. Carew • MIN .364
2. Orta • CHW .316
3. McRae • KCR .310
4. Piniella • NYY .305
5. Hargrove • TEX .323 **
6. Maddox • NYY .303
7. Randle • TEX .302
8. Burroughs • TEX .301
9. Yastrzemski • BOS .301
10. Allen • CHW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
In 1975 not even close......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
1977 SMOKED THE LEAGUE BY 50 points
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
1969 NOT A CHANCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
1973 ARE U KIDDING ME !!!!
Batting Average
1. Carew • MIN .350
2. Scott • MIL .306
3. Davis • BAL .306
4. Murcer • NYY .304
5. May • MIL .303
6. Munson • NYY .301
7. Otis • KCR .300
8. Smith • BOS .303 **
9. Yastrzemski • BOS .296
10. Alou • NYY .296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Tim, I totally agree and love unopened as you know. However what is the chance of a back showing star getting a psa 9 or even possibly a 10 from a wax and or cello pack if it is opened? If the card is in the middle of the pack and not exposed to wax, corner folds ETC it should have a much better chance of good condition. I opened a 1981 basketball pack with Bird facing the back and it was a total dud. Obviously not the 1980 card, however similar dynamic
Wow Carew was a stud.
1978
With only 6 hitters in the league hittting over .300 you can truly appreciate what a .333 average. was in 1978.
Anywho, the kid weight in at 170 pounds. He will be at least pound per pound the best hitter in my book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Batting average alone is one of the most misleading stats by which to gauge the effectiveness of a hitter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The value for a pack with a star showing is a separate entity from regular unopened as there are those collectors like rtimmer who place a large premium on packs with stars showing. For those collectors, the grade of the card is not as meaningful as the fact that it is a pack with a star showing that is still intact after all these years.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I am not a baseball stat guy but how so? The hitter got on base by hit at a higher percentage than any other player in the league. This means you have a higher risk of giving up a base hit to this person than any player in the lineup and even worse in the entire league.
The value is only with the intent on not opening. Opening can reduce the value significantly especially with star facing the back or front of a wax or cello pack
The first part of your post actually illustrates my point. OBP% is a much more meaningful stat than simple batting average. OPS+ and SLG%, too, for that matter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Exactly, the value is lost once the pack is no longer unopened. The value is tied to the pack in its original unopened, authentic state .
Incidentally, I have gotten PSA 9s on cards on back of wax packs, too, so it is possible, with a little nylon to rub the wax stain off as long as card is face out on back.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I just looked at the MLB batting leaders and there is an extremely high correlation between a players batting average and on base percentage. It seems clear that the batting average is only one metric but still extremely important. I don't see what is misleading at all.
http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#elem=[object+Object]&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2017&season_type=ANY&league_code='MLB'&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1495217074790
I can't make you believe it, but looking at batting average in a vacuum is misleading.
Of course, a high batting average will help OBP% but it only tells part of the story.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
J Turner doesn't hit for power and Bryce Harper does. That said judging a hitter based just on home runs would be a much more misleading approach than the batting average. Based on the two players stats clearly they are completely different hitters and naturally Harper's total stats are more impressive but I highly doubt anyone would compare the two as they are trying to accomplish completely different things for their teams. When I was growing up Wade Boggs was the man. No one was comparing him to Jose Canseco.
Mike Schmidt's career batting average was only .267. He must have been a much more mediocre hitter than I remember.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dissecting stats is very difficult no matter what it is. Bryce Harper has 30 walks. J Turner has 13. This increases Turner's at bats over the course of a season making it harder for him to have a higher average. It also increases Harper's on base percentage significantly. Is Harper just that good at taking pitches or are pitchers scared to face him and pitching off the plate and intentionally walking him? You can't tell without watching the game and just looking at a stat board. It would seem obvious that a more complete player will have all three of those metrics high and you would obviously take a guy who has a slightly lower batting average and more power first as that can lead to more runs batted in but once again it goes back to where the player fits in the overall strategy of the game. Rod Carew who was mentioned above wasn't a slugger but no one was comparing him to Hank Aaron.
That is like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter. Both can be excellent at what they do yet they are trying to accomplish totally different things.
The Schmidt example simply illustrates how misleading looking at simple batting average can be when evaluating a hitter. Your analogy above is not relevant to that assertion.
At the end of the day, the goal is to get on base. Whether that is by walk or by hit is not terribly important, as other more telling stats like SLG% and OPS and OPS+ will paint the complete picture. The best stats are not always those found on the backs of baseball cards.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You crack me up. I could say PSA's flip insert is red and you would say I am wrong its maroon or magenta.
LOL, nice strawman argument, Dpeck.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I must have a lot of people fooled who are paying me for investment advice because in your view everything I say is wrong. I need to keep this charade going as long as I can!
Batting averages aren't the best way to determine the best hitter. Mike Trout has no batting titles, BTW.
Carew's peak was 1973-1980. Over that period, he was tied for 3rd for the highest OPS+ with Reggie Smith. Reggie Jackson and Willie Stargell were tied for 1st. So, it's at least debatable as to who the best hitter was for Carew's era, and certainly not a slam dunk like you say.
DPeck and Lawyer - I am a Carew fan since my grandmother is from Panama, but I don't think any baseball fan when the subject of greatest hitter of all time comes up the first name that comes up is Rod Carew. I don't think even when the top 10 are discussed it is Rod Carew, and we could go top 15-20 and he might not make it. Great hitter for average, had a great run of 8-10 seasons compared to the mean or standard deviation.
The subject came up as greatest hitter of all time and some simply stated that no way was it Rod Carew. Changing the narrative to 1973-1978 does not help when determining the greatest hitter of all time since it excludes about 150 years of baseball history. If I was making a case for the greatest hitter of all time I would define the criteria, show the history or info to back up my statement, compare it statistically to the rest of the people in the conversation and go from there. Having said that show me what data you would use to prove Carew was the greatest hitter as you asserted in your post and we will agree with you.
Go.
Like I said, nice straw man argument, lol..
Also, I believe you responded to my post I this debate, not vice versa.
But I'm glad I was able to shed some light on the topic.
> @Dpeck100 said:
LOL..not everything, just the things that aren't correct.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yes very well said Tim, I couldn't agree more. The value in unopened rookie packs is similar to an exceptional wine label and vintage. In investment wine the value of each unopened bottle increases every time a bottle is opened. Eventually the bottles left actually become more scare every year and in classic supply demand fashion experience greater price as supply is always reduced.
Unopened rookie showing packs are valued for their relative scarcity. Take for example the math of a Tony Gwynn rookie at a high level. The card could appear showing on top in only 1 pack out of roughly every 400 packs. It's appealing and valued for its scarcity for showing on top and not its centering or grade if the pack was opened to grade the card.
For the Bird /Magic rookie the pack has 31 examples and PSA 10s 21 examples so both are fairly scarce. PSA 9 graded examples are over 500 so a graded pack is much less than 10% as available as a PSA 9 card and that's pretty special.
Some are even more rare like 1 example of Wilt Chamberlains rookie pack or in 1986 Charles Barkley for example has only 5 packs with his rookie showing and 180 PSA 10s graded. For me I'd much rather have that very scarce rookie showing pack than try to open it even it I knew I'd get a PSA 10.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
If you haven't read about this yet, it is an amazing and tragic story of recent events
http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/Twins-legend-Rod-Carew-opens-up-about-his-second-chance-at-life-421732133.html
Kendall I am not even qualified to say who the greatest hitter of all time is. That said I bet if you talk to ball players Rod Carew is held in very high esteem as a true talent in the batters box and one of the best non power hitters ever.
"One of the best non power hitters" is a fairly accurate assessment but worlds away from one of the best hitters ever. I'm pleased to see you noted the difference.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
No question he is held in high esteem and was a great hitter for average in his time - I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I believe the statement that was made was he was the best hitter of all time, and I don't think that is even close. Guys in his era like Gwynn and Boggs had higher lifetime averages and just as many batting titles overall.
As far as being one the best non power hitters of all time I am not sure how to follow that one, and it almost demeans him as a hitter. He was 34th in lifetime career batting average, and out of the top 50 hitters I think without looking he had the fewest home runs of all of them - maybe close with Boggs.
If someone asks me who were the greatest hitters of all time I think you would be hard pressed to beat Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Hornsby or Foxx IMO. The numbers definitely support them.
pound for pound the best ...lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
That card is damn nice!