I think the most iconic card of the ‘70s is the ‘74 Aaron- marks the greatest moment in baseball of the decade in a unique way. I kind of think of the #1 card or ‘73, ‘74 and ‘75 as a group together telling the story of Ruth’s record falling as the best of the ‘70s.
Sold my reg size 9 for over 6k via Probstein a little ways back. I will always trade out a high-condition card for one that is rare due to the sheer passage of time or rare due to the athlete himself having signed it. So when I saw there were half as many signed Brett RCs as there were 9s, I decided I'd prefer a nice signed example. Given how often a signed vintage card lacks eye appeal due to poor centering or a faded signature, I figured a signed Brett RC with good eye appeal is even more than twice as rare as a 9— and also a great value with more upside due to what they each cost at the moment.
@brad31 said:
I think the most iconic card of the ‘70s is the ‘74 Aaron- marks the greatest moment in baseball of the decade in a unique way. I kind of think of the #1 card or ‘73, ‘74 and ‘75 as a group together telling the story of Ruth’s record falling as the best of the ‘70s.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Well, only five players have ever hit like that, and Foxx and Gehrig played in an era in which offense was far easier. Of course it's hard for me to take your comment at face value as I had no idea what you thought his stats were.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Well, only five players have ever hit like that, and Foxx and Gehrig played in an era in which offense was far easier. Of course it's hard for me to take your comment at face value as I had no idea what you thought his stats were.
Crazy stat is how many triples he had for a guy who was nit known as a burner like Henderson or Willie Wilson - season and career wise he had a ton.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
I can't see 1976 with only 7 homeruns and 67 RBI's from a power position with 705 plate appearances. Plus he was a disaster in the field.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@countdouglas said:
I don't know about a reasonable dollar value, but I do know that it is only logical that the price for a George Brett rookie card should actually start around the equivalent of 50-100 Mike Trout rookie cards.
hey not to be that guy - but to defend Trout - he's 100% on pace to be a better player than Brett.
Now he's had a lot of injuries lately which is the big question mark and he's been on generally bad team, but i'd suggest caution as Trout is not some fly by night star anymore.
He's a 3 time MVP with as many home runs as Brett in 40% as many at bats, and literally the same batting average.
With that said, the prices of his cards absolutely justify Brett's 9 being a $6K card now - also b/c Trout has more rookies (though no where near as many as the rookies from the last few years)
hey not to be that guy - but to defend Trout - he's 100% on pace to be a better player than Brett.
He was, but now he' s 30 years old and injury prone. He's missed 231 games over the last five seasons or 46 games a season. He won't be setting any records by missing that much time every season. A player usually peaks around age 27, so he's long past his prime any way. My take is stick a fork in him because he's done. Only a fool would buy any of his cards now as an investment.
hey not to be that guy - but to defend Trout - he's 100% on pace to be a better player than Brett.
He was, but now he' s 30 years old and injury prone. He's missed 231 games over the last five seasons or 46 games a season. He won't be setting any records by missing that much time every season. A player usually peaks around age 27, so he's long past his prime any way. My take is stick a fork in him because he's done. Only a fool would buy any of his cards now as an investment.
Brett missed 124 games between 1977-1981 and was still able to play well until the age of 37 and then play full time until the age of 40. George had 4 of his best years after the age of 30.
Schmidt, Killebrew and even Mantle all played very well until the age of 36 (Schmidt until 37), so putting too much importance on the age of 30 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
He didn't miss that many games in 2020 because of the short season, he had over 600 AB in 2018 and 2019, his OPS those years were his best ever. He also was MVP in 2019, although I would have given it to Bregman. The key is last year when Trout missed virtually the entire season.
Trout is at a major point in his career injury wise, calf injuries can be very difficult to fully recover from.
If he continues to get hurt, he has the option of both 1B or DH, so that should extend his career. Unless he retires because he has 200 million in the bank and just gets tired of nagging injuries, I think he's going to get at the very least 500 HR and a ton of walks.
His career has quite a few similarities to Mantle. Big run scorers who evolved into sluggers who had great OPS numbers.
"Put a fork in him?" I think it's a bit early to say that, but we'll see.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You hit the nail on the head. The players you mentioned played through pain because they were making 100k a year or so. They had to keep playing because they had very little in the bank. But with Trout, it's hard to keep taking punishment when you have 200 million in the bank. Unless he really loves to play the game, I don't see him playing more than three more years if he continues to get injured on a regular basis.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
I can't see 1976 with only 7 homeruns and 67 RBI's from a power position with 705 plate appearances. Plus he was a disaster in the field.
m
The MVP Winner that year had a 769 OPS. Brett's OPS was 839. Brett was the best player in the NL that year.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
I can't see 1976 with only 7 homeruns and 67 RBI's from a power position with 705 plate appearances. Plus he was a disaster in the field.
m
The MVP Winner that year had a 769 OPS. Brett's OPS was 839. Brett was the best player in the NL that year.
Maybe in the NL I'll give you that
The winner in the AL that year was a catcher. One that had a very good offensive year as well as a great one behind the plate
When you hit one home run in every 100 plate appearances and make almost 4X as many errors as homers hit from 3B forgive me if I don't agree. No way Jose .
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
I can't see 1976 with only 7 homeruns and 67 RBI's from a power position with 705 plate appearances. Plus he was a disaster in the field.
m
The MVP Winner that year had a 769 OPS. Brett's OPS was 839. Brett was the best player in the NL that year.
Brett was about the 5th best player in the AL that year, behind Munson, Carew, McCrae, and Jackson. Maybe even Nettles,
How his WAR is so high is incomprehensible.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
When you hit one home run in every 100 plate appearances and make almost 4X as many errors as homers hit from 3B forgive me if I don't agree. No way Jose .
m
This is the first time I've ever seen players evaluated on the basis of errors per home run.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
Don't agree with '85, '76 , I don't agree at all. Let me guess u are anti-Yankee. For 1979 however a solid case can be made.
If Brett had not played his last 2 years his lifetime BA woudl be even more impressive. although as I understand it BA means nothing in today's game SMH....
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
It's hard to make a case for anyone other than Henderson in 1985. You could make a case for 1979, though. It's a question of how important team contention is to decide between Brett and Lynn. Even though defensive metrics were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today, it must have been obvious that Baylor was a disaster in the field, and, indeed, over the last nine years he only played the field 86 games, fewer than he did in 1979.
@MisterTim1962 said:
I'm surprised that less than 11,000 have been graded. That means there are potentially another 489,000 that could be graded. There has to be thousands of future 9's (and even 10's) in those 489,000 cards. Something to consider before you plunk down 6k for a mass produced card...
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
It's hard to make a case for anyone other than Henderson in 1985. You could make a case for 1979, though. It's a question of how important team contention is to decide between Brett and Lynn. Even though defensive metrics were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today, it must have been obvious that Baylor was a disaster in the field, and, indeed, over the last nine years he only played the field 86 games, fewer than he did in 1979.
Willie Wilson was better in 1980 if you take into account that Brett missed 45 games nearly ONE THIRD of the season.
Henderson was more valuable too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
It's hard to make a case for anyone other than Henderson in 1985. You could make a case for 1979, though. It's a question of how important team contention is to decide between Brett and Lynn. Even though defensive metrics were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today, it must have been obvious that Baylor was a disaster in the field, and, indeed, over the last nine years he only played the field 86 games, fewer than he did in 1979.
Willie Wilson was better in 1980 if you take into account that Brett missed 45 games nearly ONE THIRD of the season.
Henderson was more valuable too.
It doesn't work like that, and I think you know that. For instance, Wilson gets no credit for hitting 3 home runs in 161 games compared to Brett hitting 24 in 117. No matter who you replace Brett with for those other 44 games, me for instance, Brett + Other Guy will have vastly more home runs.
It's difficult to compare the two because Brett was a great hitter, competent baserunner and fielder (really his last good fielding season), at a neutral position. Wilson was a pretty good hitter, elite baserunner and fielder, albeit at a less valuable position.
Even taking into account time missed, what Brett did when he was there was more valuable than Wilson and Hederson.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
It's hard to make a case for anyone other than Henderson in 1985. You could make a case for 1979, though. It's a question of how important team contention is to decide between Brett and Lynn. Even though defensive metrics were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today, it must have been obvious that Baylor was a disaster in the field, and, indeed, over the last nine years he only played the field 86 games, fewer than he did in 1979.
Willie Wilson was better in 1980 if you take into account that Brett missed 45 games nearly ONE THIRD of the season.
Henderson was more valuable too.
It doesn't work like that, and I think you know that. For instance, Wilson gets no credit for hitting 3 home runs in 161 games compared to Brett hitting 24 in 117. No matter who you replace Brett with for those other 44 games, me for instance, Brett + Other Guy will have vastly more home runs.
It's difficult to compare the two because Brett was a great hitter, competent baserunner and fielder (really his last good fielding season), at a neutral position. Wilson was a pretty good hitter, elite baserunner and fielder, albeit at a less valuable position.
Even taking into account time missed, what Brett did when he was there was more valuable than Wilson and Hederson.
Actually it does not. When a teams best player misses 30% of the games he gets replaced with a bench player, in this case either Dave Chalk or Jamie Quirk.
In the 112 games Brett played at 3rd that year he was certainly the best hitter, not only in the AL, but all of baseball. When you take into account that when he was out of the lineup his position produced at a .685 OPS amount, that can't be ignored.
If you like OPS+ you really see the drop off. Brett had a 203 number the average of the other two guys was 88.
MVP is not simply a "who was the best hitter" award, but a who was the most "valuable". When you are unable to play your position for 50 out of 162 games your value needs to be adjusted,
Henderson, Wilson, Oglivlie, Jackson and Cooper were all more deserving when you realize they helped their teams win just about every game that year. Brett was supreme in the 112 games he played at 3rd, but non existent 30% of the time.
If you want to give a guy credit for what he does, you also have to take some away when he does nothing. In a case like this you need to go to the numbers not taken from an average but "real" numbers. Brett did not lead the league in any of those categories. He was 8th in Total Bases, 9th in Home Runs,10th in Doubles and 6th in Triples. He did drive in a lot of runs, but as I pointed out, he drove in zero in the 45 games he missed.
He sure was great when he played though, no argument who wins the MVP for 120 games.
Leaving out Brett's rookie year when he appeared in just 13 games, he averaged playing in 135 games a season, just 2 more a year than Mickey Mantle.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If you are having conversations about who else could have been considered for 1980 MVP Cecil Cooper had an incredible season and would have received my 2nd place vote.
Year▲ Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos Awards
1980 30 MIL AL 153 678 622 96 219 33 4 25 122 17 6 39 42 0.352 0.387 0.539 0.926 155 335 16 2 7 8 15 *3D/H AS,MVP-5,GG,SS
Batting .352 with a .926 OPS with almost 700 PA is an incredible year. He finished 5th in the voting.
I think the voters got it right - Brett was the MVP.
When you hit one home run in every 100 plate appearances and make almost 4X as many errors as homers hit from 3B forgive me if I don't agree. No way Jose .
m
This is the first time I've ever seen players evaluated on the basis of errors per home run.
Super advanced metric
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I really have no horse in this race. But Brett’s career OPS is seriously impressive and shouldn’t be overlooked when evaluating his overall stats. Walks, Doubles and triples really add up. As a kid, I just always remember him as someone I hated to see come to the plate against the Yanks. I also remember watching the pine tar game and thinking how great Billy Martin was (all the grown ups were saying the same thing in the room) that he called him on it.
John
Conundrum - Loving my unopened baseball card collection....but really like ripping too
Right back at you, dude. I'm a mathematical person. Like it or not, there are still at least 489,000 Brett rookies that haven't been graded. Even if only 1% eventually come back as a PSA 9, that's another 4,890 more in the market.
I'm guessing that you're sitting on a PSA 9 Brett thinking you will sell it in the future to send your kids through college. Don't bet on it. The graded card market is headed for a big crash. I've seen this hype "investing" in sports cards before and this one about ready to burst.
Right back at you, dude. I'm a mathematical person. Like it or not, there are still at least 489,000 Brett rookies that haven't been graded. Even if only 1% eventually come back as a PSA 9, that's another 4,890 more in the market.
It takes 60 $100 bills to buy a Brett PSA 9. There are 11.5 billion $100 bills in circulation. Seems like those are destined to be worthless for sure. 1975 Brett cards are made of cardboard which is worth more than paper. 1975 George Brett cards are orders of magnitude rarer than $100 bills. Better get rid of that cash before everyone figures out how plentiful currency is! A 1975 Brett may be a smart upgrade before it is too late.
Right back at you, dude. I'm a mathematical person. Like it or not, there are still at least 489,000 Brett rookies that haven't been graded. Even if only 1% eventually come back as a PSA 9, that's another 4,890 more in the market.
I'm guessing that you're sitting on a PSA 9 Brett thinking you will sell it in the future to send your kids through college. Don't bet on it. The graded card market is headed for a big crash. I've seen this hype "investing" in sports cards before and this one about ready to burst.
I guess I better go back to the drawing board. You got me.
See my avatar pic. That's me when I realize how you nailed my financial goals and aspirations.
@Shamvette5 said: @daltex That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sounds personal.
No, sarcastic. I thought it was in the same vein as saying Brett's lifetime stats were underwhelming. It's hard to make a case that Brett's not a top five all-time third baseman, with Boggs, Beltre, Matthews, and Schmidt. And yet @KendallCat appeared to say that he wasn't close.
You are seeing things you want to see rather than taking my comments for face value. Brett is an all time great at 3b and his rookie card along with Schmidt, Ozzie, Murray… is one of the keys to the 70’s. I looked up his stats for his career and was shocked at what I saw. I honestly thought he had better overall stats for his career. My comments about underwhelming were in relation to what I thought he had done his career average and HR wise. Thought he was a .320 lifetime average with about 400 HR’s.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
It's hard to make a case for anyone other than Henderson in 1985. You could make a case for 1979, though. It's a question of how important team contention is to decide between Brett and Lynn. Even though defensive metrics were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today, it must have been obvious that Baylor was a disaster in the field, and, indeed, over the last nine years he only played the field 86 games, fewer than he did in 1979.
Willie Wilson was better in 1980 if you take into account that Brett missed 45 games nearly ONE THIRD of the season.
Henderson was more valuable too.
It doesn't work like that, and I think you know that. For instance, Wilson gets no credit for hitting 3 home runs in 161 games compared to Brett hitting 24 in 117. No matter who you replace Brett with for those other 44 games, me for instance, Brett + Other Guy will have vastly more home runs.
It's difficult to compare the two because Brett was a great hitter, competent baserunner and fielder (really his last good fielding season), at a neutral position. Wilson was a pretty good hitter, elite baserunner and fielder, albeit at a less valuable position.
Even taking into account time missed, what Brett did when he was there was more valuable than Wilson and Henderson.
Actually it does not. When a teams best player misses 30% of the games he gets replaced with a bench player, in this case either Dave Chalk or Jamie Quirk.
In the 112 games Brett played at 3rd that year he was certainly the best hitter, not only in the AL, but all of baseball. When you take into account that when he was out of the lineup his position produced at a .685 OPS amount, that can't be ignored.
If you like OPS+ you really see the drop off. Brett had a 203 number the average of the other two guys was 88.
MVP is not simply a "who was the best hitter" award, but a who was the most "valuable". When you are unable to play your position for 50 out of 162 games your value needs to be adjusted,
Henderson, Wilson, Oglivlie, Jackson and Cooper were all more deserving when you realize they helped their teams win just about every game that year. Brett was supreme in the 112 games he played at 3rd, but non existent 30% of the time.
If you want to give a guy credit for what he does, you also have to take some away when he does nothing. In a case like this you need to go to the numbers not taken from an average but "real" numbers. Brett did not lead the league in any of those categories. He was 8th in Total Bases, 9th in Home Runs,10th in Doubles and 6th in Triples. He did drive in a lot of runs, but as I pointed out, he drove in zero in the 45 games he missed.
He sure was great when he played though, no argument who wins the MVP for 120 games.
Leaving out Brett's rookie year when he appeared in just 13 games, he averaged playing in 135 games a season, just 2 more a year than Mickey Mantle.
No. I don't take anything away when he does nothing, I just don't give him credit for it. If you notice, I didn't cite any rate stats in favor of Brett. What you're missing is that when Brett had to be replaced by Chalk or Quirk (or whoever) he wasn't being replaced by me or you. I'll take your word on the numbers, but 88 OPS+ sounds reasonable for a replacement level third baseman. That is if [insert your favorite team here] had [team's starting third baseman] go down, I'd expect an OPS+ from the replacement somewhere near 88 with, of course, 0.0 WAR. Brett + Replacement player is more valuable than any of the players you name, in 1980.
My point is that if you use counting stats, any counting stats, Brett's time off is automatically counted. Also, baseball has a way to deal with Rate Stats so that the likes of John Paciorek don't win the batting/slugging/obp titles every year. There is a minimum of 502 plate appearances before you get penalized (Brett had 515) by adding enough outs to bring you up to 502 and then calculating where you rank.
I agree that MVP is not the "who was the best hitter" award. I thought I explained that. I've already covered Wilson and Henderson, but Jackson was a very good hitter (maybe even great, but not close to the elite level of Brett), indifferent baserunner, and a horrible fielder at a low value position. Cooper essentially the same except he was a pretty good fielder. Oglivie a significantly worse hitter but even better than Cooper fielding.
I don't have a detailed breakdown by position of Quirk and Chalk in 1980 nor do I know if anyone else played a few innings there because it simply doesn't matter. Chalk and Quirk combine for 0.3 WAR. I'll use that as a proxy for "Royals Third Basemen not named Brett". As it happens, my assumption was correct that whenever Jim Frey couldn't run Brett out to third he could run out a replacement level player. Therefore all the innings Brett missed should be treated neutrally. As such, considering the Royals won the division, he deserves the MVP strongly.
A 1975 Brett in PSA 9 won't get a kid through college— but there are so many cards that could, and they ain't bursting anytime soon. And I say this as a collector who personally roots hard for prices to come down to the levels of years ago. Whether it's T206 Wagners, Balt News Ruths, Old Mill Jacksons, early Ruth cards, any of many premium Mantle pieces, Lou Gehrigs, Cracker Jack Mathewsons, Cobbs, Shoeless Joes, e107s, signed Jordan Star 101s or even scarcer signed 86 Fleers, unopened 52T packs or other extremely old wax, there are lots and lots of cards whose desirability far outstrips the supply, and so the competition for them when they hit the open market will keep them steadily ascending or at least holding their values. It is a major bummer for collectors who want to add to their collections, especially without having to subtract and sell to finance new additions. I wish prices would drop for the great stuff (happily would let my stuff decline in value, as I don't want to sell so that value is moot; what is real is the money we need to spend on our want lists) but I just don't see it happening. Now pure condition rarities, where the value is all in the grading sticker— totally different story. A card that is only valuable in high grade doesn't really have the intrinsic value of say a card that is still valuable in low grade. And the absence of that intrinsic value makes such pure condition rarities most susceptible and exposed to decline.
@brad31 said:
If you are having conversations about who else could have been considered for 1980 MVP Cecil Cooper had an incredible season and would have received my 2nd place vote.
Year▲ Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos Awards
1980 30 MIL AL 153 678 622 96 219 33 4 25 122 17 6 39 42 0.352 0.387 0.539 0.926 155 335 16 2 7 8 15 *3D/H AS,MVP-5,GG,SS
Batting .352 with a .926 OPS with almost 700 PA is an incredible year. He finished 5th in the voting.
I think the voters got it right - Brett was the MVP.
I did mention cooper, however not in depth. He had a great year.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Four
WOW, I didn't expect such a huge margin between the regular and the mini.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Here's a picture of one of my Brett PSA 8's, I think this one is in my registry set.
I think the most iconic card of the ‘70s is the ‘74 Aaron- marks the greatest moment in baseball of the decade in a unique way. I kind of think of the #1 card or ‘73, ‘74 and ‘75 as a group together telling the story of Ruth’s record falling as the best of the ‘70s.
Sold my reg size 9 for over 6k via Probstein a little ways back. I will always trade out a high-condition card for one that is rare due to the sheer passage of time or rare due to the athlete himself having signed it. So when I saw there were half as many signed Brett RCs as there were 9s, I decided I'd prefer a nice signed example. Given how often a signed vintage card lacks eye appeal due to poor centering or a faded signature, I figured a signed Brett RC with good eye appeal is even more than twice as rare as a 9— and also a great value with more upside due to what they each cost at the moment.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
oh boy, that is a thing of beauty. so rare.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
that is a good call too. a huge milestone.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@grote15 I think I've already told you, but I think you should really re-submit that one. It is stunning.
Great rack.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
-
Well, only five players have ever hit like that, and Foxx and Gehrig played in an era in which offense was far easier. Of course it's hard for me to take your comment at face value as I had no idea what you thought his stats were.
Man Tim the centering on that one is sweet!
Crazy stat is how many triples he had for a guy who was nit known as a burner like Henderson or Willie Wilson - season and career wise he had a ton.
Brett should have won 3 MVPs - 1980 - 1976 and 1985. He played in a down offensive era in a tough ballpark.
I can't see 1976 with only 7 homeruns and 67 RBI's from a power position with 705 plate appearances. Plus he was a disaster in the field.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
1980 Brett:
HR = 24
K’s = 20
Outrageous.
More HRs than K's is one of my favorite stats— Yogi Berra did it seven times if I am not mistaken! Amazing achievement.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Berra did it 4 times and was a tie once. It was Joe DiMaggio who did it 7 times. Career totals 361 HR 369 SO.
I would say that 79 was a better season than 76 for sure. 85 XBH is huge. the guy had 20 triples.
20 triples. unreal.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That is a Willie Wilson type stat!
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
hey not to be that guy - but to defend Trout - he's 100% on pace to be a better player than Brett.
Now he's had a lot of injuries lately which is the big question mark and he's been on generally bad team, but i'd suggest caution as Trout is not some fly by night star anymore.
He's a 3 time MVP with as many home runs as Brett in 40% as many at bats, and literally the same batting average.
With that said, the prices of his cards absolutely justify Brett's 9 being a $6K card now - also b/c Trout has more rookies (though no where near as many as the rookies from the last few years)
He was, but now he' s 30 years old and injury prone. He's missed 231 games over the last five seasons or 46 games a season. He won't be setting any records by missing that much time every season. A player usually peaks around age 27, so he's long past his prime any way. My take is stick a fork in him because he's done. Only a fool would buy any of his cards now as an investment.
Brett missed 124 games between 1977-1981 and was still able to play well until the age of 37 and then play full time until the age of 40. George had 4 of his best years after the age of 30.
Schmidt, Killebrew and even Mantle all played very well until the age of 36 (Schmidt until 37), so putting too much importance on the age of 30 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
He didn't miss that many games in 2020 because of the short season, he had over 600 AB in 2018 and 2019, his OPS those years were his best ever. He also was MVP in 2019, although I would have given it to Bregman. The key is last year when Trout missed virtually the entire season.
Trout is at a major point in his career injury wise, calf injuries can be very difficult to fully recover from.
If he continues to get hurt, he has the option of both 1B or DH, so that should extend his career. Unless he retires because he has 200 million in the bank and just gets tired of nagging injuries, I think he's going to get at the very least 500 HR and a ton of walks.
His career has quite a few similarities to Mantle. Big run scorers who evolved into sluggers who had great OPS numbers.
"Put a fork in him?" I think it's a bit early to say that, but we'll see.
You hit the nail on the head. The players you mentioned played through pain because they were making 100k a year or so. They had to keep playing because they had very little in the bank. But with Trout, it's hard to keep taking punishment when you have 200 million in the bank. Unless he really loves to play the game, I don't see him playing more than three more years if he continues to get injured on a regular basis.
The MVP Winner that year had a 769 OPS. Brett's OPS was 839. Brett was the best player in the NL that year.
AL of course.
Maybe in the NL I'll give you that
The winner in the AL that year was a catcher. One that had a very good offensive year as well as a great one behind the plate
When you hit one home run in every 100 plate appearances and make almost 4X as many errors as homers hit from 3B forgive me if I don't agree. No way Jose .
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Brett was about the 5th best player in the AL that year, behind Munson, Carew, McCrae, and Jackson. Maybe even Nettles,
How his WAR is so high is incomprehensible.
He went the Mickey Mantle route. Hopefully it's not due to getting trashed before every game.
I think part of it is that Pujols is probably about 47 years old at this point
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Oops!
Live long, and prosper.
This is the first time I've ever seen players evaluated on the basis of errors per home run.
Don't agree with '85, '76 , I don't agree at all. Let me guess u are anti-Yankee. For 1979 however a solid case can be made.
If Brett had not played his last 2 years his lifetime BA woudl be even more impressive. although as I understand it BA means nothing in today's game SMH....
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
It's hard to make a case for anyone other than Henderson in 1985. You could make a case for 1979, though. It's a question of how important team contention is to decide between Brett and Lynn. Even though defensive metrics were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today, it must have been obvious that Baylor was a disaster in the field, and, indeed, over the last nine years he only played the field 86 games, fewer than he did in 1979.
Your posts are beyond parody.
Willie Wilson was better in 1980 if you take into account that Brett missed 45 games nearly ONE THIRD of the season.
Henderson was more valuable too.
It doesn't work like that, and I think you know that. For instance, Wilson gets no credit for hitting 3 home runs in 161 games compared to Brett hitting 24 in 117. No matter who you replace Brett with for those other 44 games, me for instance, Brett + Other Guy will have vastly more home runs.
It's difficult to compare the two because Brett was a great hitter, competent baserunner and fielder (really his last good fielding season), at a neutral position. Wilson was a pretty good hitter, elite baserunner and fielder, albeit at a less valuable position.
Even taking into account time missed, what Brett did when he was there was more valuable than Wilson and Hederson.
Actually it does not. When a teams best player misses 30% of the games he gets replaced with a bench player, in this case either Dave Chalk or Jamie Quirk.
In the 112 games Brett played at 3rd that year he was certainly the best hitter, not only in the AL, but all of baseball. When you take into account that when he was out of the lineup his position produced at a .685 OPS amount, that can't be ignored.
If you like OPS+ you really see the drop off. Brett had a 203 number the average of the other two guys was 88.
MVP is not simply a "who was the best hitter" award, but a who was the most "valuable". When you are unable to play your position for 50 out of 162 games your value needs to be adjusted,
Henderson, Wilson, Oglivlie, Jackson and Cooper were all more deserving when you realize they helped their teams win just about every game that year. Brett was supreme in the 112 games he played at 3rd, but non existent 30% of the time.
If you want to give a guy credit for what he does, you also have to take some away when he does nothing. In a case like this you need to go to the numbers not taken from an average but "real" numbers. Brett did not lead the league in any of those categories. He was 8th in Total Bases, 9th in Home Runs,10th in Doubles and 6th in Triples. He did drive in a lot of runs, but as I pointed out, he drove in zero in the 45 games he missed.
He sure was great when he played though, no argument who wins the MVP for 120 games.
Leaving out Brett's rookie year when he appeared in just 13 games, he averaged playing in 135 games a season, just 2 more a year than Mickey Mantle.
If you are having conversations about who else could have been considered for 1980 MVP Cecil Cooper had an incredible season and would have received my 2nd place vote.
Year▲ Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos Awards
1980 30 MIL AL 153 678 622 96 219 33 4 25 122 17 6 39 42 0.352 0.387 0.539 0.926 155 335 16 2 7 8 15 *3D/H AS,MVP-5,GG,SS
Batting .352 with a .926 OPS with almost 700 PA is an incredible year. He finished 5th in the voting.
I think the voters got it right - Brett was the MVP.
Super advanced metric
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I really have no horse in this race. But Brett’s career OPS is seriously impressive and shouldn’t be overlooked when evaluating his overall stats. Walks, Doubles and triples really add up. As a kid, I just always remember him as someone I hated to see come to the plate against the Yanks. I also remember watching the pine tar game and thinking how great Billy Martin was (all the grown ups were saying the same thing in the room) that he called him on it.
John
Right back at you, dude. I'm a mathematical person. Like it or not, there are still at least 489,000 Brett rookies that haven't been graded. Even if only 1% eventually come back as a PSA 9, that's another 4,890 more in the market.
I'm guessing that you're sitting on a PSA 9 Brett thinking you will sell it in the future to send your kids through college. Don't bet on it. The graded card market is headed for a big crash. I've seen this hype "investing" in sports cards before and this one about ready to burst.
It takes 60 $100 bills to buy a Brett PSA 9. There are 11.5 billion $100 bills in circulation. Seems like those are destined to be worthless for sure. 1975 Brett cards are made of cardboard which is worth more than paper. 1975 George Brett cards are orders of magnitude rarer than $100 bills. Better get rid of that cash before everyone figures out how plentiful currency is! A 1975 Brett may be a smart upgrade before it is too late.
I guess I better go back to the drawing board. You got me.
See my avatar pic. That's me when I realize how you nailed my financial goals and aspirations.
No. I don't take anything away when he does nothing, I just don't give him credit for it. If you notice, I didn't cite any rate stats in favor of Brett. What you're missing is that when Brett had to be replaced by Chalk or Quirk (or whoever) he wasn't being replaced by me or you. I'll take your word on the numbers, but 88 OPS+ sounds reasonable for a replacement level third baseman. That is if [insert your favorite team here] had [team's starting third baseman] go down, I'd expect an OPS+ from the replacement somewhere near 88 with, of course, 0.0 WAR. Brett + Replacement player is more valuable than any of the players you name, in 1980.
My point is that if you use counting stats, any counting stats, Brett's time off is automatically counted. Also, baseball has a way to deal with Rate Stats so that the likes of John Paciorek don't win the batting/slugging/obp titles every year. There is a minimum of 502 plate appearances before you get penalized (Brett had 515) by adding enough outs to bring you up to 502 and then calculating where you rank.
I agree that MVP is not the "who was the best hitter" award. I thought I explained that. I've already covered Wilson and Henderson, but Jackson was a very good hitter (maybe even great, but not close to the elite level of Brett), indifferent baserunner, and a horrible fielder at a low value position. Cooper essentially the same except he was a pretty good fielder. Oglivie a significantly worse hitter but even better than Cooper fielding.
I don't have a detailed breakdown by position of Quirk and Chalk in 1980 nor do I know if anyone else played a few innings there because it simply doesn't matter. Chalk and Quirk combine for 0.3 WAR. I'll use that as a proxy for "Royals Third Basemen not named Brett". As it happens, my assumption was correct that whenever Jim Frey couldn't run Brett out to third he could run out a replacement level player. Therefore all the innings Brett missed should be treated neutrally. As such, considering the Royals won the division, he deserves the MVP strongly.
A 1975 Brett in PSA 9 won't get a kid through college— but there are so many cards that could, and they ain't bursting anytime soon. And I say this as a collector who personally roots hard for prices to come down to the levels of years ago. Whether it's T206 Wagners, Balt News Ruths, Old Mill Jacksons, early Ruth cards, any of many premium Mantle pieces, Lou Gehrigs, Cracker Jack Mathewsons, Cobbs, Shoeless Joes, e107s, signed Jordan Star 101s or even scarcer signed 86 Fleers, unopened 52T packs or other extremely old wax, there are lots and lots of cards whose desirability far outstrips the supply, and so the competition for them when they hit the open market will keep them steadily ascending or at least holding their values. It is a major bummer for collectors who want to add to their collections, especially without having to subtract and sell to finance new additions. I wish prices would drop for the great stuff (happily would let my stuff decline in value, as I don't want to sell so that value is moot; what is real is the money we need to spend on our want lists) but I just don't see it happening. Now pure condition rarities, where the value is all in the grading sticker— totally different story. A card that is only valuable in high grade doesn't really have the intrinsic value of say a card that is still valuable in low grade. And the absence of that intrinsic value makes such pure condition rarities most susceptible and exposed to decline.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
I did mention cooper, however not in depth. He had a great year.