A Mantle Price Bubble?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

I don't think anyone should ever put "Mickey Mantle" and "overvalued" in the same sentence unless the words "will not ever be" are in between them.

Sean

Mickey Mantle is overvalued. His numbers in baseball don't equate to his value in cards. If his aren't overvalued then every other player has undervalued cards.

Don't believe me just compare his numbers to Musial or even better Mays.

Mays:
Black Ink Batting - 57 (21), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 337 (8), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 376 (5), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 76 (2), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Center Field (1st), 156.2 career WAR/73.7 7yr-peak WAR/115.0 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.4 career WAR/44.1 7yr-peak WAR/57.2 JAWS

Mantle:
Black Ink Batting - 62 (15), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 272 (17), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 300 (15), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 65 (22), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Center Field (4th), 109.7 career WAR/64.7 7yr-peak WAR/87.2 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.4 career WAR/44.1 7yr-peak WAR/57.2 JAWS

[MattyC]

Just using the numbers is a very reductive if not specious way to grasp Mantle's stature in the sport and hobby.

But rounding out the numbers, there is his still-record WS HRs to consider. The home run is the grandest, most popular act in the sport, and he did it more often than anyone else-- on the grandest stage. No doubt this contributes to his mythic stature. Now, is this a function of being on a good team? No doubt. But he happened to be on that team and he was the one who hit all those homers. And that is what the people remember.

When looking at Mantle, one must really look beyond numbers-- though in terms of peak, in terms of career OPS+, the numbers are great. Look where America was after WWII, and how planets aligned to create a hero. Mantle's looks, the team he played for, his very name, all these factors contributed to what he became.

In later life, his flaws, the way he spoke of them, the way he touched hearts by imploring people not to follow in his footsteps-- these are things that transcend what one can find on baseball reference.

Also, Mantle's numbers and the #311 card are two separate entities. A card has qualities and significance beyond the player depicted. Otherwise how could we ever see common player cards sell for bundles? Mantle's #311 is a hobby icon. Perhaps THE hobby icon after the Honus. It is probably on more want lists than any other card. It is the headline card of perhaps the most popular set in the hobby. These are things that are not tied exactly and only to his numbers.

Looking only at stats is like looking only at grade stickers and VCP grids when valuing and evaluating cards. It can lead one to miss a lot of the intangibles.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Mickey Mantle is overvalued. His numbers in baseball don't equate to his value in cards. If his aren't overvalued then every other player has undervalued cards.

Don't believe me just compare his numbers to Musial or even better Mays.

Mays:
Black Ink Batting - 57 (21), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 337 (8), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 376 (5), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 76 (2), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Center Field (1st), 156.2 career WAR/73.7 7yr-peak WAR/115.0 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.4 career WAR/44.1 7yr-peak WAR/57.2 JAWS



Mantle:
Black Ink Batting - 62 (15), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 272 (17), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 300 (15), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 65 (22), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Center Field (4th), 109.7 career WAR/64.7 7yr-peak WAR/87.2 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.4 career WAR/44.1 7yr-peak WAR/57.2 JAWS

Most or all of the above simply emphasizes quantity over quality. The Mick is one of just 8 or 9 players with a runs created per 27 outs figure greater than 200% of league average (a Bill James stat which I believe best measures the offensive value of a player, and automatically corrects for different conditions and eras). Mantle was at around 215% of league average (going by recollection of calculations made several years ago for various upper echelon HOF'ers), which placed him 3rd or
4th of all time (Williams was first, at 250%, while Ruth was second, at around 240%). Mays, on the other hand, was around 180%, which, while excellent, left him nowhere near Mantle. Musial was around 193%--great, but still significantly quite a ways behind in this purely objective, but immensely meaningful statistical comparison. Lest you doubt the significance, OBPS+ (on base % plus slugging % compared to league average, a stat widely accepted insofar as its relationship with offensive production is concerned) correlated quite well: 171% for Mantle; 156% for Mays. Mantle also scored more runs per game, and had a far higher on base percentage at .421, one of the highest of all time, while, going by memory, Mays was no better than around .380. Quality of play while both were active? Mantle, by a wide margin, which is why James rated him the 6th best player of all time (while Mays often had similar totals in the glamor stats, he was making about 60 more outs per year than Mantle to get them, due in large part to far smaller walk totals--studying games will rather quickly reveal that the team which takes longer to use up its allotted outs most often wins the game).

Career value leads to a different conclusion, since Mays' greater longevity gave him higher totals, but Eddie Murray had far higher totals than Johnny Mize and Hank Greenberg, two of the greatest first basemen of all time--would anyone in their right mind suggest that Murray was a higher quality player than either?

My conclusion is that while I believe the value of Mantle's '52 Topps card is in a bubble, propped up in too great a measure by elements of demand that are both speculative and transient, in light of the quantity of cards that are out there, he was unequivocally not overrated as a player.

Interesting discussion, and best wishes to all,

Larry