Packs, you are dropping some solid points here-- never saw it that way prior to your posts. An example that there is quality, insightful user content on the internet after all!

To me there is a big difference between being scarce as a result of the way history unfolded and being scarce by design to create demand. Just my two cents, even if it doesn't qualify for Matt's praise. :)

How do you feel about high numbers then? Or SP's? Wouldn't a 52 high number or a 48 Leaf SP be an example of a manufactured scarcity? What about the 33 Goudey Lajoie?

The Lajoie I think is the closest. 52T I don't think was short printed in order to create demand, I think they just dumped product because they couldn't sell it. High numbers in general I think it's the same, late in the season the demand just wasn't there. I am not that familiar with the story behind the Leaf SPs. If they were short printed to sell more product with set builders chasing them, then yeah that's similar.

Today it is a business and back then it was as well. If you think they wouldn't have used refractor technology if they had it then I would point you to the t204. When new technology came about they used it.

If you don't believe there was "manufactured" scarcity I would just point you to the 1933/34 Goudey Lajoie as a prime example that there was. (I see this was pointed out before I got back to finishing this comment)

Well, although it seems moot to you, the fact remains that people are drawn to rarity/scarcity of HOF's who's card/pictures are hard to come by.
Judge has a ton of RC's. If he only had one or 2, then you would see those prices going through the roof, but, unlike Cobb, for example, people have a ton of other choices, especially if they cannot afford to obtain a true RC.

Also, Cobb is famous for various reasons, while Judge, for example is new and is just starting out. People have him in the hall already, lol, and many are speculating and the prices reflect that, but have him get injured and have a non HOF shortened career and he will be forgotten about as will his cards and what people once paid for them.

My point was that Cobb also has a ton of cards issued of him at the same time in various sets, just as Judge does. I pointed out that Cobb has about 20 different cards in any three year stretch from 1909 to 1912, many of which are the same card put out by a different manufacturer. I was making a connection between how cards were issued in the past and how they continue to be issued the same way today.

Irv— perhaps I'm misreading your point, but who here is comparing Aaron Judge to Ty Cobb? The sheer premise is ludicrous.

Also, your logic— that someone who has a "non HOF" career will be "forgotten"— is pretty harsh and deeply flawed. There are plenty of players who did not make the hall and are beloved by their fans, plenty of numbers retired by teams that aren't in the HOF. It is not HOF or bust for the players, and it's not that way for their fans, either. Maybe for card value speculators, yet that's its own realm.

I bet there are 500-1000 Mike Trout cards on this planet for every vintage Cobb, already. And that may be low. No way of knowing that, just a guess.

Agreed. Look at how many cards Mantle had. Ruth wasn't too shabby either in that department; I remember first learning of all his Goudeys, then the M101. Then the Oxford. The Frederick Foto. The Boston Store. Collins McCarthy. The different Caramels. Baltimore News. Strip cards. Headin' Home cards...

I got dizzy, yet then waded in, learned about the issues, decided what I liked and why, over time appreciating ones I slept on, and it's all good. So I don't look at a player having a plethora of issues as a pejorative thing. No one is forcing us to buy them all. As you said, the company can print what they want, yet the collectors ultimately set the demand.

Would I as one random collector prefer the streamlined era when there was one 1975 Brett from Topps and that was it? Personally, yeah, I am a minimalist by nature and abhor clutter. That said, I also like to collect/complete checklists, so that aspect of the modern landscape appeals to me and is fun.

758 Trout cards in PSA Master Set, 242 Mantle, and Trout of course is early in his career.

Well, because the original poster was wondering if Judge was a good investment, I figure it was a good choice to use his name as a comparison.

My other words were tongue in cheek so to speak as this is also a possibility whether it is Judge or another player. I know other players, such as Minoso, who is not in the HOF, is also popular, but his card prices pale in value compared to if he was.

Like Peter just said, Trout likely has 500-1000 cards for everyone available of Cobb.
That is how the market is, like it or not. 1 of 1's, refractors, etc, will never, imo, reach the levels price wise of Cobb, or anyone else for that matter, who is a HOF, whos cards/picture/memorabilia are rare and hard to come by.
Here is one article of many: http://www.cardboardconnection.com/w...-90s-worthless

Irv, gotcha; I think we are therefore talking apples and oranges here, or more like apples and cars.

It seems you were talking about monetary value/investment, while I was talking about the sheer number of cards not being something inherently pejorative. In my opinion, so what if Trout has 758 cards? How is that something negative? Variety is the spice of life, LOL. Some guys settle down with one woman, some prefer many, no one's right or wrong. Just different styles. Back in the day there were fewer choices in the make of your car, or your phone carrier, where you got your news, what channel to watch on TV, etc. In this day and age, choice has exploded. That's neither good nor bad.

Yeah I'm just not understanding why having so many cards is such an issue.

It is not an issue, but if I understood you correctly, you were wondering why some of the newer cards weren't as valuable as others like Cobb?

I had about 4 hrs sleep last night, so it won't be surprising to hear I might have everything backwards, but that is what I thought you were saying? :confused:

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

I don't understand the autograph thing either. As you point out, the signature itself has almost no intrinsic value, so it's just another way to artificially distinguish one group of a player's million plus rookie cards from another group. And what drives it home for me is that they now have different color signatures, some of which apparently are worth more. The RED autographs, on some issues anyhow, are far more valuable than the BLUE autographs. Uh, ok, sure, whatever. I am sure some marketing guru will come up with even further differentiation of autographs. How about an ultra super rare version where the player actually writes out his full name instead of a chicken scratch of his initials? Or maybe they could add the date and call it the ultra super rare "with date" version? It all seems artificial to me.

And yeah, baseball prospects are notoriously unpredictable. And a few good months, or even a few good years, doesn't mean anything either in this most difficult of sports.

Very well said! :)

Hey Orly, why don't you let modern collectors or people like myself who will buy a modern player's cards decide how to spend our hard-earned money.

I could buy pieces like your Cobb postcard, but it doesn't interest me or appeal to me in the least. Do I enter your sandbox and verbally piss on your choices? No.

On the money topic, not everyone is in this for future investment, some people want to collect modern players they root for. And for those who are after a monetary return, people have done fine on the great current players, too.

You say modern Trout collectors will "learn the hard way." Ooh. What harsh lesson will this be? You think the kid or guy who paid a few hundred for a Trout will, in decades from now, walk around rueing the choice because the card dropped in value?

In 2027, will you walk the National with schadenfreude, hoping to hear the words: "Oh my God, my Trout was once worth $800. Now it's worth $200! My life is over! What a hard life lesson! If only I listened to that guy and bought a Cobb instead of the player I rooted for in my present life!"

Or what about the guy who can afford to drop a few grand or even ten grand on a Trout or Judge or Seager or Bellinger now? Will he learn the hard way if it drops to half its value in fifteen years? I don't think so.

- If he dropped 10k on a card and it loses nearly all its value, it's a loss the guy can shrug at. That's not a life-changing sum for someone with that cash to spend on a card.
- If he dropped 10k because he loves the player, he still loves the card, it's likely his favorite card or among them.

And if you think Judge is Kevin Maas, you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know the game of baseball. Their approaches at the plate are different. Their ability to make adjustments is different. Their ability to hit for average and contact is different. As a cautionary anecdote about purchasing the cards of hot rookies that may not develop into bona fide stars, then yes, there's a comparison to be drawn— for now.

MC

Yes, it is enormously difficult.

But you really think a few good "years" doesn't mean anything?

To whom— certainly not the players. Real baseball players take it game to game, at bat to at bat, pitch to pitch. They don't live their lives thinking, "Gee, I have to make the HOF." So the players certainly wouldn't agree with that.

The fans? I think fans of a team or player don't live in a "HOF or bust" space either. Fans will love lots of non HOF worthy players.

So how does a few good months or years mean nothing? The game is enormously hard. If anything, in such an environment having a great season is something a player or fan would love and value.

The only realm where that statement could apply is the realm of selling a baseball card for money.

Of course we don't know what the future holds in store for Judge, but the analogy to Maas as a "cautionary tale" is fairly apt.

https://www.baseballessential.com/ne...ee-kevin-maas/

Yes, of course, but that's the context we are discussing, namely the values we are seeing on some of the modern cards. Or at least that was the context in which I made the statement.

Gotcha, Peter, makes sense in that context. Wasn't sure since a prior post was referencing price-performances of guys who had relatively brief flashes of greatness.

I think it's all related. What I see, from a limited vantage point anyhow, is that hype tends to drive a player's values sky high based on relatively brief periods of success, as though the market is already pricing in that the guy is going to be an all time great. How else can we explain prices way in excess of 1K (and I have no idea how high it goes) for a guy such a Judge who has had two months of success?

Trout, I get, he has five outstanding years in, and it's a relatively strong assumption that he will continue (but see recent injury). Relatively strong, because you have guys who fall way off even after 10 years. Griffey is an example of that, his second half was nowhere near his first. But two months -- in this context -- is way too soon IMO to be paying thousands for his cards. Unless money is no object.

Take a look back at what some Strasburg cards were selling for during his rookie year, when people already had him in the HOF.

I completely agree with all of that. Future greatness is totally priced in by the modern collectors, and it kind of forces a fan who wants to collect a current player to choose when to hop on the train, so to speak, and buy.

As a huge pure fan of some modern guys, I'm forced to think, "OK, I want to collect this guy, so do I pony up now and hope he doesn't continue to soar? Or do I wait?"

For me, my love of a player or card will always trump any remote sense of fiscal responsibility, and so I'll splurge when the itch to collect hits. I've got my zone of comfort in terms of how high I can go for a Judge or Sanchez card and not care a lick if it tanks; for others that price tag can be a 10k superfractor or the like.

What I've found with collecting present guys is there's a thrill unique to it, an aspect that's nice to feel— in terms of the unknown; we're on the fan's journey with a player in the active present; we don't know how his career will turn out; so we root. And rooting is a blast. That's not to say it's better than what we get with our much older cards, it's just different and cool in its own way. I think too many times on here collecting is treated as some zero sum game, where it's this card or collecting ethos VERSUS that one. Doesn't have to be that way. Especially among people who all ostensibly love the same sport and the collecting of cards.

A modern collector of his favorite young player may be buying a fairly expensive ticket on a fun ride that will end— like any rollercoaster or hand of blackjack, LOL— or he may wind up with some cards he loves that also sustain or grow their value. Cool either way.

I didn't say TROUT collectors will rue the day, I said guys who chase prospects THINKING THEY WILL ALL BECOME TROUT will rue the day. Trout is a beast. But the more cards and autos they release of him, the more they will become devalued.

You don't like my comparison to Maas because of their differing approach at the plate. Way to miss the point. Buy whatever you want. I honestly don't care. If you can't take advice with a grain of salt, and feel you need to go into attack mode, then you aren't worth my time or advice. I will grab my cane and head back to the pre-war section where I belong.

I can certainly take someone's words with a grain of salt. In fact that's the very first time I went off like that in years in this community.

Because you didn't dispense them with a grain of salt.

You used the words and phrases:

"I've been screaming this from the rooftops... I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really?... So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea... absurd. ...They will learn the hard way."

We only have our chosen words in a setting like this, and those chosen words certainly land hard— at least to the point where they wouldn't engender being taken with a grain of salt.

You seem like an EXTREMELY educated person. You must grant me two things: 1. Mike trouts are one in a million. Collectors will spend way too much money chasing prospects that simply will not pan out. As Peter stated, a guy dropped a million bucks on a Strasbourg! It was cute when I chased Brien Taylor and Todd Van Poppel for 10 or 20 bucks, but it's dangerous to chase them in the five-figure range.
2. If the same card is printed with a minor difference in color, and they stamp 1/1000, 1/100, 1/50, 1/10, 1/5, and 1/1 on them, there are 1,166 of that card. The different color or stamp used by the card company to entice and trick people doesn't change that fact. This is nothing but a marketing ploy used to fool people into the illusion of rarity.

If you like modern players, by all means collect them. This hobby is meant to collect what we love. My anger is directed at the card companies and Beckett for propelling this fraud. Collect what you love. I'm just trying to share my experience from 31 years of collecting cards and watching can't-miss prospects fail. New generations always tell older generations that their experience is different, and we just don't understand. But the reality is that things don't change much, they just come in different packages.

I think this thread is getting way out of hand and it's original theme has been lost along the way?

My replies, to Packs, and I think others like Orly's were written to show/tell that "investing" in players such as Judge is not necessarily a wise investment, especially with the prices it currently costs to jump in.

No one is saying you're stupid to purchase these cards if you want them, but are saying, if you are purchasing for investment purposes, then it is not a wise investment at this point in their careers.

Like I mentioned earlier, I could care less what people collect nor how many cards are out there, but when someone can't understand when modern, newer cards of players who's amount of cards go on forever, aren't as valuable as some older, much harder to find, a legend if you will, player who is already in the HOF, then I don't know what else to say. :confused:

Orly,

I'd grant you all of that, and certainly agree with all of that.

All I took umbrage with was the perceived sentiment that anyone collecting the likes of an emerging talent is somehow making a big mistake, or being duped like a child or a fool.

I find that when intelligent people discuss things, they agree more than they initially thought. Here is a good example of things coming in different packages. 1991 Wildcard football. This Favre 20 was supposed to be worth 20x the value of a standard Favre. The 1000 was 1,000 times more valuable. Scammers don't re-invent the wheel, they just modify the scam. Sure, a Favre collector will pay more for the rarity of the 1000 card, but Not because of some magic multiplier. It's an ultra-rare Favre rookie. Favre is an all-time great hall of famer. It's only a 2k card. So if a player the status of Favre has an ultra rare rookie going for 2k, what is the upside on guys who don't have HOF careers?

Here's my $20 Favre rookie. None graded higher lol.

Frank Howard was 6-7, he had a decent career, 1960 AL ROY, and won a ring with the 63 Dodgers.

Simplest Judge investment advice:

Short term, sure fine go for it and flip those cards

Long term: doubtful based on baseball history. Probably too late of a start (age 25) for the HOF.

This would all change is somehow he hit 71 homers in a season without steroids or the Yankees win a couple of World Series with him as the key player.

To me, he's a better Dave Kingman or as noted Frank Howard.

Rich

I beg to differ. Judge is hitting 332 right now. Kingman never sniffed anywhere close to 300. Howard I think is closer, but again he never dominated the league in the types of categories Judge is. He leads the AL in runs, home runs, rbi's, total bases, on base, slugging, OPS, and walks.

I think I just heard Babe Ruth roll over in his grave.:rolleyes:

Frank Howard is a decent comparison. He won ROY at age 23, but had his real breakout year at age 25. Judge walks more (and also strikes out more), at this point in his career, but Howard built his Walk numbers up as his career went on.

I would guess Judges batting average will eventually fall in line to around Howards levels as his career goes on. I have a feeling he's having a Norm Cash like outlier year, as far as his B.A. goes.. I think Frank Howard is a much more realistic goal for him then Miguel Cabrera.

No shame in that. Frank had some fantastic years.

if yankees make playoffs i'd keep your judges until october, if not sell by september. could just be a huge outlier year, his age and minor league track record suggest a solid OF with power, not barry bonds with the cream and clear. but he is playing in NY, for the yankees, so of course he's the second coming and better than slice bread. i expect him to settle down just like betts and lindor...fine solid players but probably not the superstars and #1 prospects. unless you're a freak like trout, some you just see coming for awhile and hear the hype like harper and correa.

we got our own "judge" out here in cody bellinger, and he plays late at night so doesn't get the same hype...but he's 4 years younger with a sweet swing. of course my concern is he gets homer-happy and goes the way of joc pederson, or he can learn and adjust and be corey seager with massive power.

In terms of long term investing, 21 is a good age to give a shot for. 25 not so much

Again, I have to disagree.

Jim Thome was 24 before his first full season.

Mariano Rivera was 25 and 26 before he recorded his first save.

Trevor Hoffman was 25 and missed induction by 1 percent last year.

Edgar Martinez was 27 when he entered his first full season. He got almost 60 % of the vote last year and has been climbing every year he's been eligible.

David Ortiz was 27 too before his first season on the Red Sox. A lot of people see him as a HOFer.

Ichiro was 27.

I don't think age really is an indicator.

.288 in 1979. Some would call that close.

Boggs was 24. The brilliant Red Sox management kept him in the minors for years lol.

Rich, with all due respect, I think the PED genie is one you never, ever get back in the bottle with the current salary levels. Does anyone really think Starling Marte was the only one taking Nandrolone? My bet is that an effective masking agent was developed, which Marte thought he was getting, but someone sold him a bill of goods instead. I don't think we will ever know for certain who is or has been using PED's. I separate baseball history into two eras in this regard: pre-1985 and post-1985, but without any real prejudice--the PED era simply represents the conditions under which the game has and IMHO IS being played. I, for one, really enjoyed seeing Mark McGwire play. Just don't try to directly compare the two or players from different eras. That's simply apples and oranges.

Regards,

Larry

Rocky Colavito, Cesar Cedeno, Ted Kluzewski, and on and on. Initial demand is speculative and transient. The real time to buy, when such demand has moved on to the latest and greatest phenoms, is when these guys have established a real HOF resume and are in their 30's downslide. Barring injury, though, I do like Judge and believe he will last--love the way he drives the ball from left center to right center, like Mantle did, and stays inside the pitch, with that lead shoulder following, not leading, his hands, so he doesn't open up too soon (unlike Harper, who violently yanks the lead shoulder open to start the swing, which is why he can serve it to but has no real power to left--once that shoulder is open and long gone, the only way to get the bat to the outside pitch is let it linger behind and drag it through the zone). Time alone will tell.


Hi, Pete,

Larry

How are all those guys' rookie cards doing these days? I know, I know, cards weren't "limited" back then. I am sure that an Edgar Martinez 1/1 blue, triple refractor, auto-patch would be worth hundreds of thousands.
Of all the guys mentioned, I would grant that if Mariano had one of those 1/1 cards, it would be worth big bucks. But Mariano is an all time great. He's a once in a lifetime talent. Talk about chasing a needle in a haystack.

"If" a rookie wins MVP and ROY in the same season, while setting the rookie HR record, and chasing a triple crown— that's sounds like one heck of a talent to me.

It would be one season, yes— yet every player starts with just one season.

If the needle/haystack is in reference to how some are looking at Judge, I would respectfully offer that instead of raining on the Aaron Judge parade, why not smile and enjoy a kid who is playing the right way, providing enormous entertainment and excitement— and creating positive energy for both baseball and the card hobby. Not to mention he's showcasing all the physical and mental skills a player needs to keep on raking.

There's a whole journey that is a player's career; fans and collectors can enjoy that journey without worrying what the player's rookie cards will be valued at when their careers are over. And if Mr. Judge can average 33.3 HRs from 25-40, while winning a WS or three along the way, for the biggest market team on earth, all the better. Time will tell. And for many collectors and collector-investors of current/modern players, watching that time play out in the present is something of value in and of itself.

There are movies and books that one has seen and read, and the outcome is known. Those can always be picked up and enjoyed again. Then there is the thrill of watching a story unfold, where you don't know the outcome. That's also enjoyable. These two types of entertainment are not mutually exclusive.

It seems that when we have great young players performing in the present, we're in such a rush to know or determine what their final career counting stats will be. I guess what I am talking about is living in and enjoying the moment. There was a time when Shoeless or Hornsby or Cobb or Ruth or Mantle were young, and people loved collecting them at that time; imagine someone coming along and going, "Man, that Mantle just got terribly injured and ripped his knee apart, and he K's a ton, and they already sent him down once, and I heard he almost quit, why are you wasting your time with him? He won't get 3000 hits. What's his rookie gonna be worth when his career's over?"

* I will add this, since the value topic was brought up: my Aaron Judge cards have thus far gained more value percentage-wise, and at a faster pace, than any vintage piece I've ever owned. That said, as a collector I love all my cards the same.

My post was only in reference to another poster who said a guy who begins his career at 25 doesn't have much of a shot at making the HOF.

As far as "values" go, look at Manny Machado. He's hitting 225 right now. His auto rookie is still selling for a few hundred bucks a piece. So you can't really talk about Thome or Edgar Martinez's rookie cards in respect to the modern rookie card. They were manufactured in the millions vs thousands and then hundreds and then dozens. It's apples to oranges.

Values are really fickle. Just for kicks I bought a couple of Bellingers and literally within a week before I even had them (a few HR later I guess) the same cards were selling for double and even more. Crazy.

Of course the prices of current players will go up quicker than the images of the dead guys. They have one or two big weeks and their cards are buzzing on eBay like the NY stock exchange. The issue is whether or not that young player can sustain that pace over a long period of time. High-risk stocks always give higher yields than lower-risk blue-chips.
And Matty, no one is rooting against Aaron Judge (except Red Sox fans). His sample-size keeps growing and he keeps performing like a stud.

I know this is a tangent of a tangent, but why does anyone think this about Mariano? He was just a great closer when that position started becoming more integral in the game. He wasn't a once in a lifetime, he was just the first great closer. You look at Craig Kimbrel, a pitcher that was groomed for the position, and he is better than Mariano was.

Seriously? He is perhaps the greatest inning by inning pitcher of all time. Craig Kimbrel doesn't sniff him at all. First off, Kimbrel has only been pitching for 8 seasons. Mariano pitched for 19. Everyone knows that closers burn out bright, which is what made Mariano's career remarkable. Kimbrel could easily be Papelbon two seasons from now.

Secondly, Mariano will always be a legend for what he did in the post season. In the World Series, the penultimate moments of any season and career, Rivera has a 0.99 ERA over 24 games. Over 96 career post season games Rivera's ERA is 0.70. No one will ever be as clutch or automatic as Rivera was.

Yeah, when he got beaten in a big game -- as he did by the Sox in 04 of course -- it was an event. He should be in the HOF for his nickname alone.

Ok so because Kimbrel's career isn't over we can't compare them? That has become the root of this entire thread. I understand that Mariano played 19 seasons.

Let me compare Kimbrel's first full seasons (2011 to 2016) to Mariano's equivalent (1997 to 2002). Also keep in mind that Kimbrel's first full season as closer came at age 23 compared to Mariano age 27.

Kimbrel:
391 Games / 380.2 IP
255SV/280SVO = 91.07%
WHIP: .935
ERA: 1.94
SO 606
SO9 14.3


Rivera:
368 Games / 404.1 IP
238SV / 272SVO = 87.5%
WHIP: 1.021
ERA: 2.25
SO 338
SO9 7.5


This isn't to say that Rivera wasn't great, but there is nothing in these stats that would merit someone stating "Craig Kimbrel doesn't sniff him at all". I will state it again, Mariano appeared to be the greatest because he came into the position when it was still in its inception. Now, though, player's are groomed for the position. Kimbrel was groomed as are others that will follow him in. I do understand that Kimbrel would have to play 11 more seasons to match Rivera's career but he may be able to accumulate the stats quicker with the pace he is on., but that doesn't change the fact that inning for inning, Kimbrel is starting out on pace or better than Rivera did.

His losses became a story, but Kimbrel giving up a hit was considered a bad outing in an ESPN article today:

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/p...s-of-home-runs

How do account for the difference in WAR over 8 seasons? Mariano's is 26 and Kimbrel's is 16.5. Kimbrel's highest single season total was 3.3. Mariano eclipsed 3.3 WAR 9 times in his career. That's a pretty big difference for two pitchers you say are similar.

Innings pretty much. Mariano faced more batters and likely did it against better opposition, in tougher ballparks, and also did it right in the heart of the steroid era.

Even then, as a reliever, most weren't running out and buying up Mariano rookie cards. He started old and most expected him to peter out. It wasn't until many years later when people realized what a generational talent he was.

I think we're a couple of years away from fairly comparing Kimbrel. I am rooting for him.

Yea that's the thing. Longevity is key for closers. You see tons of guys have a great 4-8 year stretch maybe but then fall apart. It's hard to remain dominant in the later years. Also, so much of Mariano is his stellar playoff performance.

Kimbrels been great but, It a bit like saying Mike Trout is as good as Ted Williams, just too soon to make any comparison. Not saying it can't happen either though.

This thread needs a little shiny eye candy...

I've been less and less into newer cards over the years and am mostly all vintage but must admit that Aaron Judge has caught my fascination and just "had to have" some of his stuff! As a Yankee fan, this has been awesome to watch, at least for Judge. The crippling recent injuries and rough stretch is another issue altogether! I realize the ride could stop at any time or at least slow down with Judge, and don't advocate buying into Judge right now as any great sure fire long term investment, but sometimes you just need to have fun!

Thankfully I got these early enough in the real crazy run up, think all are probably going for 2x or more what I paid.

Nice cards erick. It does look like he put more effort into signing that ball than he did into signing the cards though. He actually has a real nice signature on that ball.
I have been meaning to ask new-card guys this for a while. Why is it that in modern collecting so many guys have "rookies" in various years. Like Yoan Moncada, for example, has Leaf and Pannini issues in 2015, but also has "rookie" cards from 2016. I've noticed this with quite a few players.

Yea, that's why I wanted and paid more for that baseball. He signed some baseballs earlier (mine is from 2015) with a full name signature. However, the vast majority are just the A J version, or more recently he's been doing sort of an Aarn J-- version on some but very few are real full name signatures.

I completely don't get the whole RC card definition for new cards. It seems to be different for whoever you talk to. I was just discussing the issue in this thread... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241738

Moncada has some 1st cards (which I would consider to be rookies but some do not) in 2015 leaf and maybe another brand? Can't remember. These are unlicensed by MLB I think? I believe Topps has a monopoly on that now, which doesn't seem right to me either.

His first licensed Topps and Bowman cards are from 2016 I believe. And even though he debuted in 2016, his "RC logo" cards (which some modern collectors consider to be rookies) are from 2017 only I think. It's really confusing and makes no sense to me. To me first year cards are rookie cards (as long as they've been signed to an MLB franchise). I can see not calling high school cards Rookie cards, but once a player is signed to a franchise and has a major card issue I don't see how that's not a rookie. It has/had been for years. (1991 chipper jones, 1993 Jeters etc...)

The notion that people pay huge amounts for these chicken scratch illegible autographs (and most of them appear to be that way these days) is odd to me.

I don't find anything new about the way people sign their names. Look at Napoleon's signature.

You're just being contrarian. It's obvious that a very high percentage of modern players make zero effort to give you anything resembling a legible signature.

I was just kidding about Napoleon but I think the quantity has a lot to do with the quality. You have to sign thousands for all kinds of brands and sets. I'm guessing that affects how you go about signing.

Looks like Dan Prescott put a great deal of effort into his on-card autos.

No excuse imo. For millions a year, take the time.

+1 in a huge way! The players don't seem to realize that without fans willing to foot the bill, there are no "professional" sports. The fans pay the salaries through admissions, concessions, parking and buying the radio and TV sponsors' products. Their teams are just conduits through which that money flows.

Best wishes,

Larry

I agree with that but this isn't about players signing for fans, it's about players signing insert cards that number probably in the tens of thousands.

This doesn't really compare but once a week I sign our vendor checks at work. I sign probably 200 checks each time. Even at that low number I've decided to change my signature to make it easier on me.

And who do the players think are buying the cards? I don't care how many they are asked to sign (and I doubt any given player is asked to sign tens of thousands), they are getting paid so much money they should take the time to sign cleanly and legibly.

I mean look at this it's a disgrace.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Justin-Verla...kAAOSwc1FXYHtd

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2016-Bowman-...AAAOSwMvtZXvTC

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2016-Bowman-...4AAOSw6YtZWtpy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2015-Bowmans...wAAOSw8d5ZWtgn

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AARON-JUDGE-...YAAOSw1BlZVxx0

I would be willing to bet that if you didn't know whose cards they were you couldn't tell who had signed half the autographs out there.

I don't know what 8 years you are comparing for Mariano, but Kimbrel hasn't played a full 8 seasons yet. So you can't compare 8 seasons. For the years I compared (Kimbrel's full seasons 2011-2016, and Rivera's first 6 full seasons as a reliever 1997-2002) then the numbers are Kimbrel 13.6 and Rivera 17.5. This still puts the favor in Rivera, but not nearly the difference you have. It also backs up my theory, though, that Rivera didn't have many comps when he played. Today Kimbrel is, arguably, not even the best this season, but doing better than Rivera.

Again I would like to remind you that I am not saying Mariano wasn't great. I am refuting the idea that "He's a once in a lifetime talent". The game is changing and Kimbrel is a sign of this.

On this subject of the game changing here is an interesting article from earlier this week:

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news...a1drgug56ipj9x

I took the years 1996 through 2003, the first 8 years of Mariano's career as a relief pitcher. His war was 26.0. Even if you cut out 2003 because it was a full season and Kimbrel's in the midst of a full season, Rivera's war was still 22.4, considerably higher than Kimbrel's and during the height of the steroid era.

I don't think fans are the biggest buyers of cards. I think dealers, prospectors, and flippers are the majority of the card buying audience. Why do I think that? Because of the type of inserts that are included in the product and the product price point, coupled with the fact that the casual fans I know don't collect cards. Also I don't think a baseball card contract is as lucrative as you're making it out to be. Signing cards for Bowman isn't included in a player's salary as a baseball player.

Secondly, a signature is a mark. If you become familiar with someone's mark, it doesn't matter what the signature looks like. You will always be able to identify it because you are familiar with the mark. To each their own on that one, but if I wanted to collect artwork I would, and then there would just be another debate on what makes something art.

Again Kimbrel hasn't played 8 years. He hasn't finished this season, and didn't break RC status in 2010.

Mariano was not a full time closer in 1996, he was a setup man. He had 107 innings that year and only had 8svo. Closer WARs are always lower, it doesn't favor part time pitchers. So you can't use that season to compare to a closer.

I gave you the most comparable stats I could. The first 6 full seasons of closer duty for both pitchers.

If those are the parameters then I don't think it's really worth discussing them yet. Rivera was an elite full-time closer for 17 of his 19 seasons. Kimbrel has been a full-time closer for only 6 seasons. It's like trying to compare Altuve to Cobb. Altuve had 985 hits after his first 5 full seasons, after 5 full seasons Cobb had 1058. I don't think Altuve will be within 100 or so hits of Cobb when he retires.

Oh please tell me you are kidding me right now. You are talking in circles. You already brought up cumulative stats. Here is my quick summation of responses and you can go back and read the full response with stats to back it up:

I would also like to point out that your Altuve/Cobb comparison doesn't make any sense here. Altuve's .314 BA doesn't compare to Cobb's .370 BA over those 5 seasons. In essence Altuve has less hits in more chances. You can't even compare the two.

A better Cobb comparison would be like you saying Pete Rose is better than Cobb because he accumulated 65 more hits than Cobb over 24 seasons and ignoring the 528 extra games Rose played in. Cumulative stats, in and of themselves, are not good bench marks of a great player. Nor should they be the end all in comparing players.

I gave you legitimate stats to compare Kimbrel to Rivera with the given stats at this point in both of their careers. You are using emotion, straw men arguments, and the argument that "we can't compare current players to past players with high cumulative stats" in an attempt to delegitimize the facts as presented. I still propose inning for inning at this point in their career Kimbrel is very comprable to Rivera, and possibly better.

You're the one with the parameter after parameter. I took 8 seasons of relief vs 8 seasons of relief and you said but this and but that. I don't think Altuve has anything in common with Cobb either, and that's my point vis a vis Kimbrel. You're taking a guy who has strung together some good seasons early on in his career and comparing him to an all time great where longevity factors heavily into people's perception of his ability.

Ok, it is obvious you are just looking for an argument and are unable to look at stats from unbias perspective. You did not take 8 seasons of relief. Kimbrel hasn't had 8 seasons of relief. That seems to be alluding you. He played 21 games in 2010, we haven't even hit the all star game this season. You are taking 8 full season WARs and comparing them to 6 full seasons and two partial seasons. By this logic Austin Jackson's 10 WAR in his first two seasons makes him much better than Aaron Judge since he only has a 4.8 in his "first two seasons".

The parameters I set weren't arbitrary. You tried to compare non closer seasons to a closer with WAR stats. That can't be done. Otherwise one could conclude that Jerry Koosman was better than Mariano Rivera since Koosman's 57.1 WAR over 19 seasons was better than Rivera's 56.6 over 19 seasons.

In the canine world one leaves a "mark" by raising their hind leg near a tree.
Let's hope player's autograph "marks" don't replicate this technique, or we'll end up with shiny, scented cards with yellow stains, and flipper/collectors will search unopened packs with their noses.:eek::eek::eek:

You can be as contrarian as you wish, it seems to be your way sometimes, but I cannot believe the vast majority of people would not prefer a nice legible autograph to a chicken scratch even if it was distinctive. In the meantime, cue up the tune: My uncle out in Texas can't even write his name, he signs his checks with "x's", but they cash them just the same.

I can't be the only one that sniffs their cards, right? Cardboard smells good. I miss old printer paper.

I'll see myself out.