Is collecting modern cards a sickness?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Neal

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Neal

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

Nice post, Larry. I agree with some of it. A few things .... first, yes, MLB draws from a larger pop. Included in that larger pool are nations and races that MLB never considered. Mantle had some nice seasons, but never dominated. Ruth DOMINATED. He was the only baseball player who has, imo. Mantle had a few powerhouse years, and a fantastic HOF career. Ruth was the only one. Not taking anything away from Mantle btw


Bottom line is that as much as Mantle and Ruth, among others, are considered "iconic" (and I would agree with that), there are a few others like Griffey, Pujols, and quite possible, Mike Trout, who should be considered "worthy" of being considered when the same ole list of icons is repeated over and over.

Good stuff