@craig44 said:
Mantle was better than both Clemente and Aaron, a case can be made he was better (slightly) than Mays, and most likely a top 4 or 5 all time player. A truly transcendent athlete who missed time due to injuries. He does not have the career totals of Aaron because Hank played significantly longer.
U smoking crack
how so? In what universe were Clemente and Aaron better than Mantle? counting stats? If you want to make a statistical case, the floor is yours. A hint though, it will be very difficult for you to prevail using statistics. unless you are one who likes compiled counting stats. Mays is much closer. He was not the offensive force Mantle was. Fielding statistics are vague at best, though the majority see Mays as a superior fielder. How much superior is probably not a number that can be derived with much certainty. It seems you just want to up your post count though.
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mantle (Majority)
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mays if you were African American.
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Clemente if you are Latin
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mike
If you were a receiver everyone wanted to be like Jerry Rice
@craig44 said:
Mantle was better than both Clemente and Aaron, a case can be made he was better (slightly) than Mays, and most likely a top 4 or 5 all time player. A truly transcendent athlete who missed time due to injuries. He does not have the career totals of Aaron because Hank played significantly longer.
U smoking crack
how so? In what universe were Clemente and Aaron better than Mantle? counting stats? If you want to make a statistical case, the floor is yours. A hint though, it will be very difficult for you to prevail using statistics. unless you are one who likes compiled counting stats. Mays is much closer. He was not the offensive force Mantle was. Fielding statistics are vague at best, though the majority see Mays as a superior fielder. How much superior is probably not a number that can be derived with much certainty. It seems you just want to up your post count though.
Mantle was never slightly better than Mays.
so you are saying Mantle was considerably better than Mays?
@craig44 said:
Mantle was better than both Clemente and Aaron, a case can be made he was better (slightly) than Mays, and most likely a top 4 or 5 all time player. A truly transcendent athlete who missed time due to injuries. He does not have the career totals of Aaron because Hank played significantly longer.
U smoking crack
how so? In what universe were Clemente and Aaron better than Mantle? counting stats? If you want to make a statistical case, the floor is yours. A hint though, it will be very difficult for you to prevail using statistics. unless you are one who likes compiled counting stats. Mays is much closer. He was not the offensive force Mantle was. Fielding statistics are vague at best, though the majority see Mays as a superior fielder. How much superior is probably not a number that can be derived with much certainty. It seems you just want to up your post count though.
Mantle was never slightly better than Mays.
so you are saying Mantle was considerably better than Mays?
@brad31 said:
I do think Clemente would be higher than the other ‘55 rookies if they were all in the same series. His untimely death while doing humanitarian work transends baseball.
All you have to do is compare Clemente and Killebrew's card values year by year and you will see that Clemente is CLEARLY much more collected than Killer.
Mantle himself said it best when he said "people are always asking me who was better. When we were both going good, I was better, but Willie just went right by me later on, he was better" (not an exact quote, but close).
Mantle was in the World Series almost every year and as the "marquee" player on the best team was the focus of the media. Along with that, he stood out with being both the fastest and most powerful player in baseball (not necessarily the best) he also had a great smile and an "aw shucks" quality about him. Top that off was his playing through a seemingly endless series of injuries. That adds the sympathy factor.
As fielders Willie was superior, as hitters, both ended up with identical SLG, almost identical numbers in BA and HR per 162 games. Mantle walked more.
Regarding Mantle's (lack of) RBI; look at his runs scored totals up until 1962 he led the league in this category 5 times. He was NOT the RBI "guy". Berra was batting behind him for a lot of those years and getting the opportunities, and rightly so. Maris came in for a couple of years too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
Mantle was better than both Clemente and Aaron, a case can be made he was better (slightly) than Mays, and most likely a top 4 or 5 all time player. A truly transcendent athlete who missed time due to injuries. He does not have the career totals of Aaron because Hank played significantly longer.
Did you really mean all time or post ww 2?
If all time how does he make top 4 or 5?
Ruth
Gehrig
Foxx
Musial
Hornsby
Mays
Williams
Cobb
4 or 5 of these guys would have to dissapear from the list
Im guessing you would pick Cobb gehrig ruth mantle. I like these discussions and hearing different viewpoints
I'll try to keep my inherent bias in check given my avatar and handle lol.
The reason for the premium for Mantle cards is really pretty simple and I think Matt nailed it, some guys just have "it". To look at career numbers and be confused as to why Mantle's cards sell for huge premiums over the likes of Mays, Aaron, Clemente etc is to only look at a small part of the picture. I could understand the argument if these guys were way better but Mantle was no slouch. At his peak he was one of the handful of best players to ever do it. He had the look, the charisma, the market, the cult following... he had it all. He was baseball for so many of his generation and he was/is baseball cards for them and more.
One thing that I think gets little mention but plays a big role, despite the amazing career he had there is still a very real "what if" factor that powers his legacy. What if he never got injured so early in his career. What if he was able to slay his personal demons? Typically that kind of question is reserved for players that had all the talent in the world and just never reached their potential and had that HOF worthy career (I'm looking at you Daryll Strawberry). Mantle was a transcendent player that was at the very top of the game and you can still get lost in wondering just how much better he could have been if he ever played at 100%. The fact that he was able to look back at the end and grasp the mistakes he made, leaving us all with such powerful words only adds to the aura.
From a hobby perspective, Mantle is and always will be the draw. He has commanded massive premiums for as long as I can remember. As a kid my brother and I would look up his cards in Beckett and fantasize about what it wold be like to own one. The gap has only grown as a second generation of hobbyists have gravitated toward his cards. It's not my father and his generation paying record numbers auction after auction. It's those of us that grew up on Becketts and Saturday morning shows at the Knights of Columbus hoping to get a glance at that 52 Topps #311 with the huge price tag. I don't see that changing in 10 years.
Mays had longevity. Mantle didn't. For some obvious reasons. So in that sense at least, Mays had a superior career. Mays had 868 more base hits. That's a number that can't be ignored and just one example.
@lawyer05 said:
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mantle (Majority)
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mays if you were African American.
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Clemente if you are Latin
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mike
If you were a receiver everyone wanted to be like Jerry Rice
we collect what we like. we don't collect stats
of course people collect because of stats. that is why the most collected players are the greatest players. Why are Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Mantle and the like some of the most widely collected players even when they are deceased or a large amount of collectors never saw them play? Its because they are some of the players with the best stats. Why do people collect Walter Johnson more widely than Jim Shaw? Its because Walter had better stats.
Yes, there are some collected players that are lesser known, but they are not widely collected, more of a niche type group. and their values reflect that niche status.
In ‘68 Mantle is way more than the Bench rookie. - that just does not add up for me.
>
Same can be said for the 69 Mantle yellow letters (cheaper version) being more than the Reggie Jackson rookie and Ryan 2nd year card (his first "solo" card).
To say being white is a factor in Mantle’s popularity is not a commentary on racism. It’s simply a reflection of the reality that children tended to identify (certainly in that era) with someone who looked like them. The idea is “I could be him.” The majority of black kids of that era likely idolized Mays and Aaron in a similar way.
This reality is tacitly acknowledged all the time when people talk about the importance of black role models in various fields.
I long for a day when race will be a complete non issue, but we’re not quite there yet, and we certainly weren’t in the fifties.
Not sure I would say the other cards are undervalued compared to Mantle's. I think they are simply cheaper because they are less desired. I have nothing against Mays, Aaron, Clemente etc and some of their cards are great but there isn't some mysterious force conspiring to keep their card values down and Mantle's up. There are more than enough data points over decades of sales out there showing what these cards sell for. End of the day more people are after Mantle and willing to spend more money on them than any of his peers, stats be damned. The price gap has been discussed for as long as I can remember but the gap has only widened over time.
@han_soto said:
Maybe it’s better to burn out than fade away?
Classic:
From a card collector prospective, Mantle goes out with a classic pose, on a classic error card dawning the same classic emblem on his cap that he started with.
And Willie?
Well, Willie doesnt.
Not so classic:
Same could be said on the 1976 Aaron card.
It just doesnt look or feel right.
Sort of. Mays did go out with an action pose in 1974 as opposed to the profile in 1973:
It is really too bad that Topps omitted cards that truly should have been made for 1974 Willie Mays and 1977 Hank Aaron.
It is really too bad that Topps omitted cards that truly should have been made for 1974 Willie Mays and 1977 Hank Aaron.
Agreed. Koufax never had a 1967 card either. Mantle had a 1969 card with his full career stats from 51-68 while the other guys never got that "career capper" card
@CenteredMantles said:
Not sure I would say the other cards are undervalued compared to Mantle's. I think they are simply cheaper because they are less desired. I have nothing against Mays, Aaron, Clemente etc and some of their cards are great but there isn't some mysterious force conspiring to keep their card values down and Mantle's up. There are more than enough data points over decades of sales out there showing what these cards sell for. End of the day more people are after Mantle and willing to spend more money on them than any of his peers, stats be damned. The price gap has been discussed for as long as I can remember but the gap has only widened over time.
Totally agree. The demand for Mantle transcends the baseball card market period. That explains the widening gap in prices.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
Baseball card collectors = 50 and over
Football and basketball = 30 and over,
could these items explain some of the differences? Baseball was the big ticket item through 1994, after the strike things have changed drastically. Baseball enthusiasts are waning, basketball is thriving and football is holding it's own. Just a thought.
It is really too bad that Topps omitted cards that truly should have been made for 1974 Willie Mays and 1977 Hank Aaron.
Agreed. Koufax never had a 1967 card either. Mantle had a 1969 card with his full career stats from 51-68 while the other guys never got that "career capper" card
Yes. I know this isn't what you had in mind, but I've been a fan of this card for a long time:
It is really too bad that Topps omitted cards that truly should have been made for 1974 Willie Mays and 1977 Hank Aaron.
Agreed. Koufax never had a 1967 card either. Mantle had a 1969 card with his full career stats from 51-68 while the other guys never got that "career capper" card
Yes. I know this isn't what you had in mind, but I've been a fan of this card for a long time:
It is really too bad that Topps omitted cards that truly should have been made for 1974 Willie Mays and 1977 Hank Aaron.
Agreed. Koufax never had a 1967 card either. Mantle had a 1969 card with his full career stats from 51-68 while the other guys never got that "career capper" card
Yes. I know this isn't what you had in mind, but I've been a fan of this card for a long time:
Wow! A Venezuelan card in PSA 7. Usually these are 1 or 2 at best. Great card, thanks for sharing.
Mays and Aaron outsell Musial and Ted Williams. > @brad31 said:
If you look at my list best player on best team is essentially first. Played for Yankees and the championships that go with it. Race is one of many factors that account for the price difference but it is a factor.
I do believe if Mantle had served during the Korean War it would have been written about all the time what his numbers would have been had he not served his county. I bet many on here do not even realize Mays would have hit 700 home runs had he not missed most of ‘52 and all of ‘53 serving his country. His first year back ‘54 he hit 41 home runs.
It's common for Mays and Aaron Topps cards to sell for more than Ted Williams and Stan Musial's. Those four have a lot more in common with each other than Mantle. Mantle is more compared to the Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio crowd because of the half dozen rings.
@MLBdays said:
Mantle underachieved big time...HE was loaded with regrets ~ 4 -100 RBI seasons ~ 4. ... BA .298 for career (I can hear all the excuses coming).... he had all the mystique and WS wins but he was a sad man..... Casey Stengel~his manager ~ was like a father to him and Casey did NOT include Mantle on his All Time All-Star team while Mickey was still playing and that affected Mickey..... MYSTIQUE for the '56 season triple crown and he was a Yankee multiple WS winner... a fallible Yankee everyone could and did love...HE was everyman.. a shooting star and a legend. His numbers are what they say they are behind many, many others. I'm a Mantle admirer, buyer and a lover of all of his stories. Nothing can change that. And his cards sell a lot faster than most if not all. But don't ride off into the sunset with his knee injury in that dreadful sprinkler head in the outfield so you can add fictitious numbers that never happened. HE earned what he got ~a fabulous HOF career and adulation of a gazillion fans .... Mays is undervalued, as is Aaron compared to the chosen one. So buy em up!
RBI and BA are two very poor metrics to base a player evaluation on.
If batting average is such a poor metric, why is it used in computing OBP , and OBP is then used in computing OPS?
If BA is such a very poor metric, it wouldn't be the basis of these two very important stats, OBP and OPS, correct?
Those metrics would simply not exist without batting average.
Mantles' .298 career average tells us he was a very good hitter, OBP and OPS goes further and tells us he
was great at getting on base and had exceptional power.
So it seems BA is actually a great metric for evaluation, as without it we wouldn't have much to go on
to evaluate how good a player is at the plate.
@MLBdays said:
Mantle underachieved big time...HE was loaded with regrets ~ 4 -100 RBI seasons ~ 4. ... BA .298 for career (I can hear all the excuses coming).... he had all the mystique and WS wins but he was a sad man..... Casey Stengel~his manager ~ was like a father to him and Casey did NOT include Mantle on his All Time All-Star team while Mickey was still playing and that affected Mickey..... MYSTIQUE for the '56 season triple crown and he was a Yankee multiple WS winner... a fallible Yankee everyone could and did love...HE was everyman.. a shooting star and a legend. His numbers are what they say they are behind many, many others. I'm a Mantle admirer, buyer and a lover of all of his stories. Nothing can change that. And his cards sell a lot faster than most if not all. But don't ride off into the sunset with his knee injury in that dreadful sprinkler head in the outfield so you can add fictitious numbers that never happened. HE earned what he got ~a fabulous HOF career and adulation of a gazillion fans .... Mays is undervalued, as is Aaron compared to the chosen one. So buy em up!
RBI and BA are two very poor metrics to base a player evaluation on.
If batting average is such a poor metric, why is it used in computing OBP , and OBP is then used in computing OPS?
If BA is such a very poor metric, it wouldn't be the basis of these two very important stats, OBP and OPS, correct?
Those metrics would simply not exist without batting average.
Mantles' .298 career average tells us he was a very good hitter, OBP and OPS goes further and tells us he
was great at getting on base and had exceptional power.
So it seems BA is actually a great metric for evaluation, as without it we wouldn't have much to go on
to evaluate how good a player is at the plate.
You are assuming obp and ops are also great metrics. not necessarily. OBP does not differentiate between the way a batter gets on base. here is an example. say hitter A in 10 AB gets 2 walks, a single and a triple. he has a obp of .400 hitter B has 2 home runs, a triple and a double in his 10 AB for a .400 obp. if you look at obp, they seem to be exactly the same player, but player B has contributed much more to the run scoring process. OPS also weighs OPS and SLG. exactly the same. we can quantify the value of B, 1B, 2B, 3B and home runs by how many runs each creates on average. these values are derived from run expectancy. If you look at wOBA (weighted on base average), it gives us a better view of the value a player is adding by placing a value on the ways a batter gets on base. If you want to go deeper, wRC+ (weighted runs created +) weighs wOBA for both park factors and league factors to make that view even more clear. think of it as wRC+ is to wOBA as OPS+ is to OPS. all this to say that the poor old BA stat is left behind by all four of the previous metrics. It really doesnt tell us anything OBP doesnt. and it is further limited as it doesnt figure walks.
All that really matters in offensive baseball is scoring runs. walks play a major role in that, as does driving the ball. In fact, those are the two most important things a player can do. get on base (in any way: walk, hit) and driving the ball. BA does not help us to understand either of those things, it is just too limited. yes, it is a component to derive OBP, but why should we use a stat that is only a component to finding another, more useful stat. I like ketchup on my hamburgers, but I certainly do not want to sit down and drink a glass full of ketchup.
@olb31 said:
It just blows me away that Mantle's cards sell for so much more than Aaron, Mays, Clemente, etc. I understand he is a Yankee Icon, but for example, a nice 1961 mantle psa 8 sells for upwards $2,800. I real nice mays sells for about $400. 7X higher. WOW. Mantle probably wasn't as good as Mays or Aaron or Clemente. He's probably not even one of the top 20 players of all-time. Just don't get it. Does the cost difference narrow or broaden over the next 10 years?
Mantle was every bit as good, and better in some ways, as his superstar peers. Haters gonna hate.
@MLBdays said:
Mantle underachieved big time...HE was loaded with regrets ~ 4 -100 RBI seasons ~ 4. ... BA .298 for career (I can hear all the excuses coming).... he had all the mystique and WS wins but he was a sad man..... Casey Stengel~his manager ~ was like a father to him and Casey did NOT include Mantle on his All Time All-Star team while Mickey was still playing and that affected Mickey..... MYSTIQUE for the '56 season triple crown and he was a Yankee multiple WS winner... a fallible Yankee everyone could and did love...HE was everyman.. a shooting star and a legend. His numbers are what they say they are behind many, many others. I'm a Mantle admirer, buyer and a lover of all of his stories. Nothing can change that. And his cards sell a lot faster than most if not all. But don't ride off into the sunset with his knee injury in that dreadful sprinkler head in the outfield so you can add fictitious numbers that never happened. HE earned what he got ~a fabulous HOF career and adulation of a gazillion fans .... Mays is undervalued, as is Aaron compared to the chosen one. So buy em up!
RBI and BA are two very poor metrics to base a player evaluation on.
If batting average is such a poor metric, why is it used in computing OBP , and OBP is then used in computing OPS?
If BA is such a very poor metric, it wouldn't be the basis of these two very important stats, OBP and OPS, correct?
Those metrics would simply not exist without batting average.
Mantles' .298 career average tells us he was a very good hitter, OBP and OPS goes further and tells us he
was great at getting on base and had exceptional power.
So it seems BA is actually a great metric for evaluation, as without it we wouldn't have much to go on
to evaluate how good a player is at the plate.
You are assuming obp and ops are also great metrics. not necessarily. OBP does not differentiate between the way a batter gets on base. here is an example. say hitter A in 10 AB gets 2 walks, a single and a triple. he has a obp of .400 hitter B has 2 home runs, a triple and a double in his 10 AB for a .400 obp. if you look at obp, they seem to be exactly the same player, but player B has contributed much more to the run scoring process. OPS also weighs OPS and SLG. exactly the same. we can quantify the value of B, 1B, 2B, 3B and home runs by how many runs each creates on average. these values are derived from run expectancy. If you look at wOBA (weighted on base average), it gives us a better view of the value a player is adding by placing a value on the ways a batter gets on base. If you want to go deeper, wRC+ (weighted runs created +) weighs wOBA for both park factors and league factors to make that view even more clear. think of it as wRC+ is to wOBA as OPS+ is to OPS. all this to say that the poor old BA stat is left behind by all four of the previous metrics. It really doesnt tell us anything OBP doesnt. and it is further limited as it doesnt figure walks.
All that really matters in offensive baseball is scoring runs. walks play a major role in that, as does driving the ball. In fact, those are the two most important things a player can do. get on base (in any way: walk, hit) and driving the ball. BA does not help us to understand either of those things, it is just too limited. yes, it is a component to derive OBP, but why should we use a stat that is only a component to finding another, more useful stat. I like ketchup on my hamburgers, but I certainly do not want to sit down and drink a glass full of ketchup.
I would say the main value of OBP is to tell us how often the batter FAILS to get on base. Same with BA.
@MLBdays said:
Mantle underachieved big time...HE was loaded with regrets ~ 4 -100 RBI seasons ~ 4. ... BA .298 for career (I can hear all the excuses coming).... he had all the mystique and WS wins but he was a sad man..... Casey Stengel~his manager ~ was like a father to him and Casey did NOT include Mantle on his All Time All-Star team while Mickey was still playing and that affected Mickey..... MYSTIQUE for the '56 season triple crown and he was a Yankee multiple WS winner... a fallible Yankee everyone could and did love...HE was everyman.. a shooting star and a legend. His numbers are what they say they are behind many, many others. I'm a Mantle admirer, buyer and a lover of all of his stories. Nothing can change that. And his cards sell a lot faster than most if not all. But don't ride off into the sunset with his knee injury in that dreadful sprinkler head in the outfield so you can add fictitious numbers that never happened. HE earned what he got ~a fabulous HOF career and adulation of a gazillion fans .... Mays is undervalued, as is Aaron compared to the chosen one. So buy em up!
RBI and BA are two very poor metrics to base a player evaluation on.
If batting average is such a poor metric, why is it used in computing OBP , and OBP is then used in computing OPS?
If BA is such a very poor metric, it wouldn't be the basis of these two very important stats, OBP and OPS, correct?
Those metrics would simply not exist without batting average.
Mantles' .298 career average tells us he was a very good hitter, OBP and OPS goes further and tells us he
was great at getting on base and had exceptional power.
So it seems BA is actually a great metric for evaluation, as without it we wouldn't have much to go on
to evaluate how good a player is at the plate.
You are assuming obp and ops are also great metrics. not necessarily. OBP does not differentiate between the way a batter gets on base. here is an example. say hitter A in 10 AB gets 2 walks, a single and a triple. he has a obp of .400 hitter B has 2 home runs, a triple and a double in his 10 AB for a .400 obp. if you look at obp, they seem to be exactly the same player, but player B has contributed much more to the run scoring process. OPS also weighs OPS and SLG. exactly the same. we can quantify the value of B, 1B, 2B, 3B and home runs by how many runs each creates on average. these values are derived from run expectancy. If you look at wOBA (weighted on base average), it gives us a better view of the value a player is adding by placing a value on the ways a batter gets on base. If you want to go deeper, wRC+ (weighted runs created +) weighs wOBA for both park factors and league factors to make that view even more clear. think of it as wRC+ is to wOBA as OPS+ is to OPS. all this to say that the poor old BA stat is left behind by all four of the previous metrics. It really doesnt tell us anything OBP doesnt. and it is further limited as it doesnt figure walks.
All that really matters in offensive baseball is scoring runs. walks play a major role in that, as does driving the ball. In fact, those are the two most important things a player can do. get on base (in any way: walk, hit) and driving the ball. BA does not help us to understand either of those things, it is just too limited. yes, it is a component to derive OBP, but why should we use a stat that is only a component to finding another, more useful stat. I like ketchup on my hamburgers, but I certainly do not want to sit down and drink a glass full of ketchup.
I would say the main value of OBP is to tell us how often the batter FAILS to get on base. Same with BA.
If that were the case, in the examples above, the players FTGOB percentages would have been .600
@MLBdays said:
Mantle underachieved big time...HE was loaded with regrets ~ 4 -100 RBI seasons ~ 4. ... BA .298 for career (I can hear all the excuses coming).... he had all the mystique and WS wins but he was a sad man..... Casey Stengel~his manager ~ was like a father to him and Casey did NOT include Mantle on his All Time All-Star team while Mickey was still playing and that affected Mickey..... MYSTIQUE for the '56 season triple crown and he was a Yankee multiple WS winner... a fallible Yankee everyone could and did love...HE was everyman.. a shooting star and a legend. His numbers are what they say they are behind many, many others. I'm a Mantle admirer, buyer and a lover of all of his stories. Nothing can change that. And his cards sell a lot faster than most if not all. But don't ride off into the sunset with his knee injury in that dreadful sprinkler head in the outfield so you can add fictitious numbers that never happened. HE earned what he got ~a fabulous HOF career and adulation of a gazillion fans .... Mays is undervalued, as is Aaron compared to the chosen one. So buy em up!
RBI and BA are two very poor metrics to base a player evaluation on.
If batting average is such a poor metric, why is it used in computing OBP , and OBP is then used in computing OPS?
If BA is such a very poor metric, it wouldn't be the basis of these two very important stats, OBP and OPS, correct?
Those metrics would simply not exist without batting average.
Mantles' .298 career average tells us he was a very good hitter, OBP and OPS goes further and tells us he
was great at getting on base and had exceptional power.
So it seems BA is actually a great metric for evaluation, as without it we wouldn't have much to go on
to evaluate how good a player is at the plate.
You are assuming obp and ops are also great metrics. not necessarily. OBP does not differentiate between the way a batter gets on base. here is an example. say hitter A in 10 AB gets 2 walks, a single and a triple. he has a obp of .400 hitter B has 2 home runs, a triple and a double in his 10 AB for a .400 obp. if you look at obp, they seem to be exactly the same player, but player B has contributed much more to the run scoring process. OPS also weighs OPS and SLG. exactly the same. we can quantify the value of B, 1B, 2B, 3B and home runs by how many runs each creates on average. these values are derived from run expectancy. If you look at wOBA (weighted on base average), it gives us a better view of the value a player is adding by placing a value on the ways a batter gets on base. If you want to go deeper, wRC+ (weighted runs created +) weighs wOBA for both park factors and league factors to make that view even more clear. think of it as wRC+ is to wOBA as OPS+ is to OPS. all this to say that the poor old BA stat is left behind by all four of the previous metrics. It really doesnt tell us anything OBP doesnt. and it is further limited as it doesnt figure walks.
All that really matters in offensive baseball is scoring runs. walks play a major role in that, as does driving the ball. In fact, those are the two most important things a player can do. get on base (in any way: walk, hit) and driving the ball. BA does not help us to understand either of those things, it is just too limited. yes, it is a component to derive OBP, but why should we use a stat that is only a component to finding another, more useful stat. I like ketchup on my hamburgers, but I certainly do not want to sit down and drink a glass full of ketchup.
I would say the main value of OBP is to tell us how often the batter FAILS to get on base. Same with BA.
If that were the case, in the examples above, the players FTGOB percentages would have been .600
I don't think anyone's saying OBP gives a complete picture of a hitter. It just gives one piece of the puzzle. That way, if you think failing to get on base is an important flaw, you have a way to check that.
I was replying to a post Darin made to me where he opined that BA is a "great metric for evaluation" which, of course it is not. in fact at is a really limited statistic as I tried to explain in my above post. I understand that BA, OBP, RBI, pitcher wins etc. are popular stats and have been an integral part of the game for over 100 years. What I dont understand is why some cling to those traditional statistics which are either extremely limited or even useless (in the case of pitcher wins) when much much much better options are widely available. It just seems like an author using a quill and ink to write a novel instead of a computer.
All great points but bottom line is card values are what they are based on simple economic principles -supply and demand. Can’t tell people what they should like, and while Mays might be better than Mantle or Aaron better than Clemente what makes them worth more? Andy Pafko and Benny Bengough are not household names, but try to finish a 33 Goudey or 52 Topps set in high grade without one.
Mantle might not have the greatest overall numbers,, highest BA, highest OPS, most Hr’s.... but try to put together a set from 1951-1969 and you will find his card(s) to be the most expensive or second most in almost every set. If you are wanting cards that are popular and appreciate in value tremendously he is not a bad one to pick.
@KendallCat said:
try to put together a set from 1951-1969 and you will find his card(s) to be the most expensive or second most in almost every set
I think Mantle's card is the most expensive in the set for all years except 67 and 68. It takes a Seaver RC and a Ryan RC to out-price a 16th & 17th year Mantle. That's eye-opening right there.
@KendallCat said:
try to put together a set from 1951-1969 and you will find his card(s) to be the most expensive or second most in almost every set
I think Mantle's card is the most expensive in the set for all years except 67 and 68. It takes a Seaver RC and a Ryan RC to out-price a 16th & 17th year Mantle. That's eye-opening right there.
Agree a list of HOF rookies that cannot top the Mantle for their year include:
The only ones that beat him are Seaver - only because it is a high number - even that is not enough for Carew in the same year, Ryan and possibly Jackson.
This list is off the top of my head so apologies for any omissions.
The only ones that beat him are Seaver - only because it is a high number - even that is not enough for Carew in the same year, Ryan and possibly Jackson.
This list is off the top of my head so apologies for any omissions.
Rose RC out-prices Mantle in the 63 set (high number, plus it's Pete Rose).
Mantle is the king of the 1969 set in my opinion, even with the "cheaper" yellow letters version.
Interesting that even though the 1967 Carew is a rookie and a high number, it still has a tough time competing with Mantle from the more common series 2.
craig44- There's a reason batting average has stayed around for 150+ years of baseball.
I kind of like knowing how skilled a player is at safely putting the ball in play, very useful stat for me
and always will be.
For instance Clemente, love how he started out with a sub .300 career average after two or three seasons
but gradually as his skill at hitting safely improved, his career average just kept climbing and climbing until
he finished with a .317 career average.
For several years I had a P.O. box in my small town, I just had to remember Clemente's career average
and that was my box number. Now trying to remember my combination was a different matter. LOL.
After his first 5 seasons Roberto Clemente was hitting .282
During his next 13 seasons he hit .329 and as I mentioned finished at .317 career.
Now as you age aren't you supposed to hit for a lower average? LOL.
His last 4 seasons- aged 34-37 was maybe the best 4 year stretch of his career. He got better with age.
Just some numbers to show how enjoyable batting average can be. Personally my favorite stat despite
others saying its worthless.
BA is a great stat. It's pure. How many times per 100 at bats does the player strike the ball and get on base.
It's beautiful.
It doesn't give you the total value of a batter, but it certainly is a great start. You REALLY lose me with the "+" numbers they're just trying to get to one number to rate something and most of them fail.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
BA is a great stat. It's pure. How many times per 100 at bats does the player strike the ball and get on base.
It's beautiful.
It doesn't give you the total value of a batter, but it certainly is a great start. You REALLY lose me with the "+" numbers they're just trying to get to one number to rate something and most of them fail.
I agree, there is not one statistic that can rate players completely (yet) but we do have some really good ones. Don't let the plus's scare you away. They are just there to show you that the metric has been adjusted for league and park factors.
@JoeBanzai said:
BA is a great stat. It's pure. How many times per 100 at bats does the player strike the ball and get on base.
It's beautiful.
It doesn't give you the total value of a batter, but it certainly is a great start. You REALLY lose me with the "+" numbers they're just trying to get to one number to rate something and most of them fail.
I agree, there is not one statistic that can rate players completely (yet) but we do have some really good ones. Don't let the plus's scare you away. They are just there to show you that the metric has been adjusted for league and park factors.
Not scared, those numbers do as much harm as good. I know what they TRY to do.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
BA is a great stat. It's pure. How many times per 100 at bats does the player strike the ball and get on base.
It's beautiful.
It doesn't give you the total value of a batter, but it certainly is a great start. You REALLY lose me with the "+" numbers they're just trying to get to one number to rate something and most of them fail.
I agree, there is not one statistic that can rate players completely (yet) but we do have some really good ones. Don't let the plus's scare you away. They are just there to show you that the metric has been adjusted for league and park factors.
Not scared, those numbers do as much harm as good. I know what they TRY to do.
Curious, what kind of harm can baseball metrics do?
I think everyone's mind is made up about the player they like the most, and no one is going to change their mind. Fine. Collect who makes you happy, makes your heart flutter, and if you grudgingly have to shell out boo coo 'cause the one card you need is Mickey Mantle, and you hate 'em---that's life. Supply and demand.
A personal story from my first major convention, the huge Midwest Sports Collectors Convention in Troy, Michigan, in July 1972. I had just turned 18. I met a kindly collector - dealer there by the name of Bill Haber. He worked for Topps, and his job was drawing the cartoons on the backside of the cards. Nice guy. Anyway, he must have had access to some of the company's exotic test issue cards that Topps still had around. He had a satchel with perhaps a dozen mint sets of the 1969 Topps Super Baseball. The sets were each bundled with a strip of paper that was taped to hold them together. I later found out the "super" title referred to the high glossy sheen put on the cards. I had never seen them before. Intriguing cards, and simply gorgeous.
Bill's asking price was thirty dollars, a whopping sum in my mind, because that figure came to what two complete Topps regular issue sets cost from a dealer! However, I had never heard of, nor seen, these cards before. So, I asked if I could see a set.
If you're curious, you can look up the impressive array of Hall-of Fame stars that comprise this set. I carefully shuffled through the 66 cards. As soon as I came to number 24, Mickey Mantle, I stopped, my eyes bulged, and I silently gasped----sold.
The purchase was one of the many highlights of the convention for me.
I still have the Mantle, and that beauty was eventually graded---MINT condition.
Aconte said it best, there's Mickey Mantle, and after him everyone else.
Comments
Mantle was never slightly better than Mays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mantle (Majority)
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mays if you were African American.
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Clemente if you are Latin
It boils down to everyone wanted to be like Mike
If you were a receiver everyone wanted to be like Jerry Rice
we collect what we like. we don't collect stats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
so you are saying Mantle was considerably better than Mays?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
funny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
All you have to do is compare Clemente and Killebrew's card values year by year and you will see that Clemente is CLEARLY much more collected than Killer.
Mantle himself said it best when he said "people are always asking me who was better. When we were both going good, I was better, but Willie just went right by me later on, he was better" (not an exact quote, but close).
Mantle was in the World Series almost every year and as the "marquee" player on the best team was the focus of the media. Along with that, he stood out with being both the fastest and most powerful player in baseball (not necessarily the best) he also had a great smile and an "aw shucks" quality about him. Top that off was his playing through a seemingly endless series of injuries. That adds the sympathy factor.
As fielders Willie was superior, as hitters, both ended up with identical SLG, almost identical numbers in BA and HR per 162 games. Mantle walked more.
Regarding Mantle's (lack of) RBI; look at his runs scored totals up until 1962 he led the league in this category 5 times. He was NOT the RBI "guy". Berra was batting behind him for a lot of those years and getting the opportunities, and rightly so. Maris came in for a couple of years too.
Did you really mean all time or post ww 2?
If all time how does he make top 4 or 5?
Ruth
Gehrig
Foxx
Musial
Hornsby
Mays
Williams
Cobb
4 or 5 of these guys would have to dissapear from the list
Im guessing you would pick Cobb gehrig ruth mantle. I like these discussions and hearing different viewpoints
A very good case could be made that Mantle was superior to Mays in the 56, 57, 58, 60 and 61 seasons. I wouldnt say that was never.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'll try to keep my inherent bias in check given my avatar and handle lol.
The reason for the premium for Mantle cards is really pretty simple and I think Matt nailed it, some guys just have "it". To look at career numbers and be confused as to why Mantle's cards sell for huge premiums over the likes of Mays, Aaron, Clemente etc is to only look at a small part of the picture. I could understand the argument if these guys were way better but Mantle was no slouch. At his peak he was one of the handful of best players to ever do it. He had the look, the charisma, the market, the cult following... he had it all. He was baseball for so many of his generation and he was/is baseball cards for them and more.
One thing that I think gets little mention but plays a big role, despite the amazing career he had there is still a very real "what if" factor that powers his legacy. What if he never got injured so early in his career. What if he was able to slay his personal demons? Typically that kind of question is reserved for players that had all the talent in the world and just never reached their potential and had that HOF worthy career (I'm looking at you Daryll Strawberry). Mantle was a transcendent player that was at the very top of the game and you can still get lost in wondering just how much better he could have been if he ever played at 100%. The fact that he was able to look back at the end and grasp the mistakes he made, leaving us all with such powerful words only adds to the aura.
From a hobby perspective, Mantle is and always will be the draw. He has commanded massive premiums for as long as I can remember. As a kid my brother and I would look up his cards in Beckett and fantasize about what it wold be like to own one. The gap has only grown as a second generation of hobbyists have gravitated toward his cards. It's not my father and his generation paying record numbers auction after auction. It's those of us that grew up on Becketts and Saturday morning shows at the Knights of Columbus hoping to get a glance at that 52 Topps #311 with the huge price tag. I don't see that changing in 10 years.
Mays had longevity. Mantle didn't. For some obvious reasons. So in that sense at least, Mays had a superior career. Mays had 868 more base hits. That's a number that can't be ignored and just one example.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
of course people collect because of stats. that is why the most collected players are the greatest players. Why are Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Mantle and the like some of the most widely collected players even when they are deceased or a large amount of collectors never saw them play? Its because they are some of the players with the best stats. Why do people collect Walter Johnson more widely than Jim Shaw? Its because Walter had better stats.
Yes, there are some collected players that are lesser known, but they are not widely collected, more of a niche type group. and their values reflect that niche status.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
Same can be said for the 69 Mantle yellow letters (cheaper version) being more than the Reggie Jackson rookie and Ryan 2nd year card (his first "solo" card).
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
To say being white is a factor in Mantle’s popularity is not a commentary on racism. It’s simply a reflection of the reality that children tended to identify (certainly in that era) with someone who looked like them. The idea is “I could be him.” The majority of black kids of that era likely idolized Mays and Aaron in a similar way.
This reality is tacitly acknowledged all the time when people talk about the importance of black role models in various fields.
I long for a day when race will be a complete non issue, but we’re not quite there yet, and we certainly weren’t in the fifties.
It’s a free country. Go for it.
Not sure I would say the other cards are undervalued compared to Mantle's. I think they are simply cheaper because they are less desired. I have nothing against Mays, Aaron, Clemente etc and some of their cards are great but there isn't some mysterious force conspiring to keep their card values down and Mantle's up. There are more than enough data points over decades of sales out there showing what these cards sell for. End of the day more people are after Mantle and willing to spend more money on them than any of his peers, stats be damned. The price gap has been discussed for as long as I can remember but the gap has only widened over time.
at one point with tv cable and satellites,
Jose Canseco was more popular than Mickey Mantle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Sort of. Mays did go out with an action pose in 1974 as opposed to the profile in 1973:
It is really too bad that Topps omitted cards that truly should have been made for 1974 Willie Mays and 1977 Hank Aaron.
Agreed. Koufax never had a 1967 card either. Mantle had a 1969 card with his full career stats from 51-68 while the other guys never got that "career capper" card
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Totally agree. The demand for Mantle transcends the baseball card market period. That explains the widening gap in prices.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
Baseball card collectors = 50 and over
Football and basketball = 30 and over,
could these items explain some of the differences? Baseball was the big ticket item through 1994, after the strike things have changed drastically. Baseball enthusiasts are waning, basketball is thriving and football is holding it's own. Just a thought.
Yes. I know this isn't what you had in mind, but I've been a fan of this card for a long time:
That is a bad-ass card.
Andy
Wow! A Venezuelan card in PSA 7. Usually these are 1 or 2 at best. Great card, thanks for sharing.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Curious what does the back look like on that ‘67 Koufax. Does it have his stats?
I wish that one was mine but it is just an image I grabbed off of Google. My copy is in terrible shape.
Mays and Aaron outsell Musial and Ted Williams. > @brad31 said:
It's common for Mays and Aaron Topps cards to sell for more than Ted Williams and Stan Musial's. Those four have a lot more in common with each other than Mantle. Mantle is more compared to the Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio crowd because of the half dozen rings.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
If batting average is such a poor metric, why is it used in computing OBP , and OBP is then used in computing OPS?
If BA is such a very poor metric, it wouldn't be the basis of these two very important stats, OBP and OPS, correct?
Those metrics would simply not exist without batting average.
Mantles' .298 career average tells us he was a very good hitter, OBP and OPS goes further and tells us he
was great at getting on base and had exceptional power.
So it seems BA is actually a great metric for evaluation, as without it we wouldn't have much to go on
to evaluate how good a player is at the plate.
Thanks for posting. Really like that card.
I'd say Mantle was pretty dominant considering his physical and mental obstacles (injuries and alcohol abuse).
For a white guy, the man could straight ball out.
You are assuming obp and ops are also great metrics. not necessarily. OBP does not differentiate between the way a batter gets on base. here is an example. say hitter A in 10 AB gets 2 walks, a single and a triple. he has a obp of .400 hitter B has 2 home runs, a triple and a double in his 10 AB for a .400 obp. if you look at obp, they seem to be exactly the same player, but player B has contributed much more to the run scoring process. OPS also weighs OPS and SLG. exactly the same. we can quantify the value of B, 1B, 2B, 3B and home runs by how many runs each creates on average. these values are derived from run expectancy. If you look at wOBA (weighted on base average), it gives us a better view of the value a player is adding by placing a value on the ways a batter gets on base. If you want to go deeper, wRC+ (weighted runs created +) weighs wOBA for both park factors and league factors to make that view even more clear. think of it as wRC+ is to wOBA as OPS+ is to OPS. all this to say that the poor old BA stat is left behind by all four of the previous metrics. It really doesnt tell us anything OBP doesnt. and it is further limited as it doesnt figure walks.
All that really matters in offensive baseball is scoring runs. walks play a major role in that, as does driving the ball. In fact, those are the two most important things a player can do. get on base (in any way: walk, hit) and driving the ball. BA does not help us to understand either of those things, it is just too limited. yes, it is a component to derive OBP, but why should we use a stat that is only a component to finding another, more useful stat. I like ketchup on my hamburgers, but I certainly do not want to sit down and drink a glass full of ketchup.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Mantle was every bit as good, and better in some ways, as his superstar peers. Haters gonna hate.
I would say the main value of OBP is to tell us how often the batter FAILS to get on base. Same with BA.
If that were the case, in the examples above, the players FTGOB percentages would have been .600
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't think anyone's saying OBP gives a complete picture of a hitter. It just gives one piece of the puzzle. That way, if you think failing to get on base is an important flaw, you have a way to check that.
I was replying to a post Darin made to me where he opined that BA is a "great metric for evaluation" which, of course it is not. in fact at is a really limited statistic as I tried to explain in my above post. I understand that BA, OBP, RBI, pitcher wins etc. are popular stats and have been an integral part of the game for over 100 years. What I dont understand is why some cling to those traditional statistics which are either extremely limited or even useless (in the case of pitcher wins) when much much much better options are widely available. It just seems like an author using a quill and ink to write a novel instead of a computer.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All great points but bottom line is card values are what they are based on simple economic principles -supply and demand. Can’t tell people what they should like, and while Mays might be better than Mantle or Aaron better than Clemente what makes them worth more? Andy Pafko and Benny Bengough are not household names, but try to finish a 33 Goudey or 52 Topps set in high grade without one.
Mantle might not have the greatest overall numbers,, highest BA, highest OPS, most Hr’s.... but try to put together a set from 1951-1969 and you will find his card(s) to be the most expensive or second most in almost every set. If you are wanting cards that are popular and appreciate in value tremendously he is not a bad one to pick.
KC
I think Mantle's card is the most expensive in the set for all years except 67 and 68. It takes a Seaver RC and a Ryan RC to out-price a 16th & 17th year Mantle. That's eye-opening right there.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Agree a list of HOF rookies that cannot top the Mantle for their year include:
Wilhelm, Aparicio, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Cepeda, Gibson, Yaz, McCovey, Santo, Billy Williams, Marichal, Perry, Brock, Torre, Stargell, Carlton, Morgan, Perez, Palmer, Carew, Bench.
The only ones that beat him are Seaver - only because it is a high number - even that is not enough for Carew in the same year, Ryan and possibly Jackson.
This list is off the top of my head so apologies for any omissions.
Rose RC out-prices Mantle in the 63 set (high number, plus it's Pete Rose).
Mantle is the king of the 1969 set in my opinion, even with the "cheaper" yellow letters version.
Interesting that even though the 1967 Carew is a rookie and a high number, it still has a tough time competing with Mantle from the more common series 2.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
True on Rose - was thinking of HOF rookies so he slipped my mind.
craig44- There's a reason batting average has stayed around for 150+ years of baseball.
I kind of like knowing how skilled a player is at safely putting the ball in play, very useful stat for me
and always will be.
For instance Clemente, love how he started out with a sub .300 career average after two or three seasons
but gradually as his skill at hitting safely improved, his career average just kept climbing and climbing until
he finished with a .317 career average.
For several years I had a P.O. box in my small town, I just had to remember Clemente's career average
and that was my box number. Now trying to remember my combination was a different matter. LOL.
After his first 5 seasons Roberto Clemente was hitting .282
During his next 13 seasons he hit .329 and as I mentioned finished at .317 career.
Now as you age aren't you supposed to hit for a lower average? LOL.
His last 4 seasons- aged 34-37 was maybe the best 4 year stretch of his career. He got better with age.
Just some numbers to show how enjoyable batting average can be. Personally my favorite stat despite
others saying its worthless.
BA is a great stat. It's pure. How many times per 100 at bats does the player strike the ball and get on base.
It's beautiful.
It doesn't give you the total value of a batter, but it certainly is a great start. You REALLY lose me with the "+" numbers they're just trying to get to one number to rate something and most of them fail.
I agree, there is not one statistic that can rate players completely (yet) but we do have some really good ones. Don't let the plus's scare you away. They are just there to show you that the metric has been adjusted for league and park factors.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Not scared, those numbers do as much harm as good. I know what they TRY to do.
Curious, what kind of harm can baseball metrics do?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think everyone's mind is made up about the player they like the most, and no one is going to change their mind. Fine. Collect who makes you happy, makes your heart flutter, and if you grudgingly have to shell out boo coo 'cause the one card you need is Mickey Mantle, and you hate 'em---that's life. Supply and demand.
A personal story from my first major convention, the huge Midwest Sports Collectors Convention in Troy, Michigan, in July 1972. I had just turned 18. I met a kindly collector - dealer there by the name of Bill Haber. He worked for Topps, and his job was drawing the cartoons on the backside of the cards. Nice guy. Anyway, he must have had access to some of the company's exotic test issue cards that Topps still had around. He had a satchel with perhaps a dozen mint sets of the 1969 Topps Super Baseball. The sets were each bundled with a strip of paper that was taped to hold them together. I later found out the "super" title referred to the high glossy sheen put on the cards. I had never seen them before. Intriguing cards, and simply gorgeous.
Bill's asking price was thirty dollars, a whopping sum in my mind, because that figure came to what two complete Topps regular issue sets cost from a dealer! However, I had never heard of, nor seen, these cards before. So, I asked if I could see a set.
If you're curious, you can look up the impressive array of Hall-of Fame stars that comprise this set. I carefully shuffled through the 66 cards. As soon as I came to number 24, Mickey Mantle, I stopped, my eyes bulged, and I silently gasped----sold.
The purchase was one of the many highlights of the convention for me.
I still have the Mantle, and that beauty was eventually graded---MINT condition.
Aconte said it best, there's Mickey Mantle, and after him everyone else.