1933 Goudey Ruth vs 1952 Topps Mantle

the 'stache · #1 05-09-2014, 05:29 AM

An interesting stat. For the 40 year period of 1950 to 1995, there were 276 Major League players with at least 5,000 at bats. Mickey Mantle had the highest OPS of all of them. Only Wade Boggs had a higher OBP, and nobody had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...=1&submitter=1

When you consider the sheer number of injuries Mantle dealt with during his career, what he was able to accomplish is pretty spectacular.

I don't think the gap between Ruth and Mantle is as big as some would lead you to believe. When you consider that Ruth didn't have to travel as much (he never had to fly cross country), he didn't face the best black players of his era, and he didn't play night games (Major League Baseball's first night game was in 1935), the advantage that he had might be diminished somewhat.

There's no doubt Ruth was a spectacular player, and I still think he's the greatest player of all-time, especially when you consider how dominant he was as a pitcher, too. And he clearly revolutionized the game.

But Mantle was the best pure power hitter for half a century. If he'd have been healthy, he'd have hit 800 home runs.

bn2cardz · #2 05-09-2014, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

An interesting stat. For the 40 year period of 1950 to 1995, there were 276 Major League players with at least 5,000 at bats. Mickey Mantle had the highest OPS of all of them. Only Wade Boggs had a higher OBP, and nobody had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle.

I already stated my opinion of Mantle being overvalued in cards in another thread so I am not going to state it all again, but I did want to point out that Willie Mays' Slugging was actually higher (barely but still higher):
Mays Slugging: .5575
Mantle Slugging: .5568

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

he [Ruth] didn't face the best black players of his era

This is slight misdirection. Out of the last 5 teams to allow black players, 4 of them were in the AL.
Senators - Sept 6 1954
Yankees - April 14 1955
Phillies (Only NL in the last 5) - April 22 1957
Tigers - June 6 1958
Red Sox - July 21 1959

So 8 years after his Rookie year Mantle wasn't constantly playing in a diverse league either. Even then these were the dates of the first black player and doesn't mean the team was fully integrated.

Mantle was good, there is no doubt about that, but people that support him seem to narrow down the facts to make him seem like he is the top player of all time. He wasn't, he was the top AL player during his time.

packs · #3 05-09-2014, 10:15 AM

The pre-integration argument against Ruth is definitely valid. And it was a shame that he didn't get to play against everyone. But ultimately, in my opinion, Ruth was Ruth and he would have been Ruth against all comers. Despite not getting to prove it, I don't think it takes away from his accomplishments. Same would go for traveling and night games. Or really any other argument someone could have against Ruth's abilities.

MattyC · #4 05-09-2014, 10:34 AM

I can name quite a few Ruth cards that precede his Goudey, and are worth more, arguably desired more, and are definitely scarcer, than his Goudey.

Basically, the Goudey Ruth is an awesome, beautiful, and valuable card from a seminal set-- but it was not the key card in its set, was issued further from the start of the player's career than was the #311 Mantle, and lastly Ruth had four cards within that set, as opposed to just one.

In contrast, Mantle had only the 51B prior to the 52, which was of course the inaugural and highly popular Topps issue. The Wheaties Premium, Exhibits, notwithstanding. It was also the key card in a watershed set.

IMO, in some cases, a card's desirability to collectors becomes about more than the sheer player stats. I believe that viewing such cards strictly and solely through the prism of player stats is as reductive and myopic as evaluating card values exclusively through VCP grids and sticker grades.

conor912 · #5 05-09-2014, 10:49 AM

I gave up on a 52T set in favor of a 33G set purely because I could have 4 Ruths and 2 Gehrigs for the price of 1 Mantle. Seemed like a no-brainer to me.

the 'stache · #6 05-09-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Mantle was good, there is no doubt about that, but people that support him seem to narrow down the facts to make him seem like he is the top player of all time. He wasn't, he was the top AL player during his time.

Not sure where you got the idea that I was "supporting" him. I don't prefer one player over the other. I was merely pointing out statistical support that Mantle is in actuality a better player than some people want to give him credit for. Oh, and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

There's no doubt Ruth was a spectacular player, and I still think he's the greatest player of all-time, especially when you consider how dominant he was as a pitcher, too. And he clearly revolutionized the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I already stated my opinion of Mantle being overvalued in cards in another thread so I am not going to state it all again, but I did want to point out that Willie Mays' Slugging was actually higher (barely but still higher):

Mays Slugging: .5575
Mantle Slugging: .5568

When OPS is adjusted for stadiums, Mantle has a sizable advantage.

OPS + for the stated period:

Mantle 172
Mays 156
Dick Allen 156
Hank Aaron 155
Frank Robinson 154
Stan Musial 151

Let me say again I think Dick Allen belongs in the Hall.

packs · #7 05-09-2014, 11:50 AM

I don't think stats really come into play with the value of Mantle's cards. The value of his cards is tied to him playing for the Yankees at the right time.

Vintageclout · #8 05-09-2014, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

An interesting stat. For the 40 year period of 1950 to 1995, there were 276 Major League players with at least 5,000 at bats. Mickey Mantle had the highest OPS of all of them. Only Wade Boggs had a higher OBP, and nobody had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...=1&submitter=1

When you consider the sheer number of injuries Mantle dealt with during his career, what he was able to accomplish is pretty spectacular.

I don't think the gap between Ruth and Mantle is as big as some would lead you to believe. When you consider that Ruth didn't have to travel as much (he never had to fly cross country), he didn't face the best black players of his era, and he didn't play night games (Major League Baseball's first night game was in 1935), the advantage that he had might be diminished somewhat.

There's no doubt Ruth was a spectacular player, and I still think he's the greatest player of all-time, especially when you consider how dominant he was as a pitcher, too. And he clearly revolutionized the game.

But Mantle was the best pure power hitter for half a century. If he'd have been healthy, he'd have hit 800 home runs.

Bill,

I agree with virtually all of your Mantle related comments except one. Injuries are NOT the sole reason Mantle feel short of his incredible potential, but rather his fondness of alcoholic beverages. Let's be honest here...we are talking about someone who spent most of his playing career in a seemingly infinite number of bars as late as 3:00/4:00 AM. Obviously playing many games with little to no sleep at all, Mickey unquestionably wasted a myriad of at-bats in a 'comatose-like' state, and we can only wonder how truly great he would have been had he not chose to drink his life away. In retrospect, I find Mantle's accomplishments absolutely amazing considering his rather loose lifestyle, justifying Ted Williams comment that Mantle was the most athletically gifted ballplayer he ever saw.

Joe

bn2cardz · #9 05-09-2014, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Not sure where you got the idea that I was "supporting" him. I don't prefer one player over the other. I was merely pointing out statistical support that Mantle is in actuality a better player than some people want to give him credit for. Oh, and...

I know you said Ruth was better, but you also compared his stats to a set criteria to state that he was better. By support I meant you are showing support for his baseball card values using stats (I will not argue with 2nd yr card vs end of the year or hi # vs lo# in the 52 set because I can agree with these to an extent)

If you are going to do a comparison though, you need Mays in the numbers. Some how your numbers keep missing Mays. You really do have to look at more than just home runs. Mays is the best comparison because they played the same position during the same period. You can not use stats to say that Mantle's cards are worth more than his counterparts. Card Values-to-talent either his cards are overvalued or everyone else is undervalued.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

When OPS is adjusted for stadiums, Mantle has a sizable advantage.

OPS + for the stated period:

Mantle 172
Mays 156
Dick Allen 156
Hank Aaron 155
Frank Robinson 154
Stan Musial 151

Let me say again I think Dick Allen belongs in the Hall.

Until 1958 Mays had the harder park. 480 center, 450 alleys
Mantle had 461 center, 457 left alley, and 407 right alley.

Again Mantle was merely the best in the AL. He just wasn't the overall best of his generation unless Home Runs are the only thing that matters, but even then it is hard to say that he was the BEST when he played at the same time as Aaron and Mays, and overlapped with Musial.

GregC · #10 05-09-2014, 01:14 PM

The problem is in trying to evaluate the value of Mantle's cards based on his stats and comparing both the stats and card values to his contemporaries. For whatever reason, Mays, Aaron, Musial etc just never had the broad appeal to collectors that Mantle does.

When the hobby boomed in the 80's Mantle's cards were the first to take off. They continue to be the premier card in any set they are in to this day. It clearly transcends statistics.

MattyC · #11 05-09-2014, 01:38 PM

The stars aligned for Mantle-- he had the talent, the looks, the name, the personality, the team, the stage, and the time. Some of these things were beyond his control but it doesn't change the fact that they were. And that he is and remains the brightest star in the Post War card collecting universe. In fact one of the reasons he fascinates me, and the 311 fascinates me, is that they are examples of a perfect storm, the coalescing of all these factors to create a star.

Mick Jagger or DiCaprio shouldn't be faulted if they were aided by timing and serendipity, and if there have been better performers from a sheer skill standpoint who didn't hit the cosmic lotto that they did. There will always be people as good as others who for a variety of factors never become as famous or desired.

Then we have factors like how he implored people not to make his mistakes, and how he hit all those WS homers. Again, team and opportunity were given him, but that's moot-- he was there and did what he did.

Ultimately, no post war card will ever dethrone the 311.

yanksfan09 · #12 05-09-2014, 02:18 PM

The Goudey Ruths were later in Ruth's career. Also there are 4 of them so if there were only 1 at the same printing levels, the card would likely sell for 4x or more the price it goes for now.

Also many people consider the 52 Mantle to be his, or one of his, rookie card(s). I know that is not true but it's the perception that matters. It is a very early card of his and his most iconic.

If comparing to Ruths best and most iconic cards (Baltimore News and m101's) we know who's cards trumps who's.

They're all great and classic cards but there are far more Ruths being that there are four in the set. The total number of Goudeys at any given time always far exceeds the amount of 52 Mantles out there for sale.

the 'stache · #13 05-10-2014, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Bill,

I agree with virtually all of your Mantle related comments except one. Injuries are NOT the sole reason Mantle feel short of his incredible potential, but rather his fondness of alcoholic beverages. Let's be honest here...we are talking about someone who spent most of his playing career in a seemingly infinite number of bars as late as 3:00/4:00 AM. Obviously playing many games with little to no sleep at all, Mickey unquestionably wasted a myriad of at-bats in a 'comatose-like' state, and we can only wonder how truly great he would have been had he not chose to drink his life away. In retrospect, I find Mantle's accomplishments absolutely amazing considering his rather loose lifestyle, justifying Ted Williams comment that Mantle was the most athletically gifted ballplayer he ever saw.

Joe

I agree with your assessment, Joe, but remember part of the reason he drank so much is that he thought he was going to die young. That's a pretty depressing thing to live with. He even said "if I knew I was going to live as long as I did, I'd have taken better care of myself." That's not to say the specter of Hodgkin's disease was the only reason he partied-he certainly loved the ladies, even though he had a wife in Dallas, but that was a big part of it.

Mick had something like 17 different broken bones. As somebody that's had north of that figure, I can tell you it's just hard getting out of bed, let alone competing against the best baseball players in the world.

25801wv · #14 05-10-2014, 10:00 PM

PSA, SGC, and Beckett (combined) population reports:

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle - 1639 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #53 - 1073 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #149 - 1101 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #181 - 1248 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #144 - 1424 TOTAL

----
Any one Ruth appears to be tougher than the Mantle.

MattyC · #15 05-10-2014, 11:51 PM

I think the demand for the Mantle relative to any of those Ruths is more than enough to offset the few hundred greater in pop. Not to mention those four Ruths are four offerings of the same player in the same set, versus the one Mantle in the 52T, and it being the key card.

I'd also hazard that the Mantle has far more crossovers than any of the Ruths, which would mitigate the pop disparity somewhat. But end of the day, sheer pop data is just one part of the equation. In this case I think other parts, such as demand and proximity to player's rookie year, outweigh the pop comparisons and speak to why the #311 is worth more grade-for-grade.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1952 mantle /ruth ball	frank5k	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	12-02-2013 09:03 PM
FS: 1928 Harrington's Babe Ruth and 1933 Goudey Ruth #149	piecesofthegame	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	01-04-2013 06:50 AM
FSH: 1952 Topps Mantle (SOLD), 1933 Goudey #149 Ruth PSA graded (SOLD)	judgebuck	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	14	08-19-2011 12:52 PM
SALE: 1933 Goudey Ruth SGC 10 & 1932 Sanella Ruth PSA 6	iggyman	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	08-01-2011 06:11 PM
1933 Goudey Babe Ruth, 1956 Topps Mickey Mantle, 1953 Bowman Color Mickey Mantle for trade	Archive	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	4	04-07-2008 07:48 PM