Hank Aaron card values

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You just "edited out all the garbage" to show you're right. More like, completely glossed over all the points that repudiated your rather hard-to-fathom position. People that know a bit about baseball have a different, enlightened opinion. 97.8% of Hall of Fame voters thought Aaron was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. When he was elected in 1982, only Ty Cobb was ever elected by a higher percentage of voters at 98.23%. Aaron also beat Williams, and Mays, too. Sure, you could say that Cobb and Williams were disliked by the media, and therefore their percentages were lowered because of some kind of bias. Well, Aaron was black. Forget bias. As Aaron was approaching Ruth's previously unbreakable mark, he received death threats in the mail. Yet still, he managed to out-gain even Babe Ruth, the man he passed on the all-time home run list. You can't tell me that there weren't some sore Yankees fans in that list of some 400 voters. Yet only 15 people out of 421 thought Aaron wasn't worthy of Cooperstown on his first ballot. Maybe they thought he was an all-time great. Maybe all the lists that name the greatest baseball players to ever play the game know something. Hank Aaron is consistently ranked in the top 10, or top 5 all-time when lists are published of the 100 best to ever play the game. Not because he was some "compiler", but because he was a special talent that played at an elite level for almost two decades.

The arbitrary numbers you select as a sign of "greatness" are head-scratching. 50 home runs...all-time great. 44, 45 or 47...not an all-time great. Tell me, do you consider Prince Fielder an all-time great? Or his daddy Cecil? They hit 50 in a season. So did Brady Anderson, and Luis Gonzalez. Were they "truly great"? A Triple Crown makes one a true great? Mickey Mantle won the Triple Crown in 1956. If Al Kaline had driven in 3 more runs, he wouldn't have. But Mantle would have still been an all-time great, no? Frank Robinson had a Triple Crown. Is he better than Aaron? Aaron put up several Triple Crown worthy seasons. All it takes to cost somebody a Triple Crown is a flu bug, or a broken finger. You need to be great to win a Triple Crown, no doubt. But you also need a lot of luck. Over the course of a 154 game season (back then), missing a game or two, or even a few at bats, could be the difference between winning it, and not. Willie Mays, for all his greatness, never won a Triple Crown. In fact, he never led in any two of the three categories in the same season. Aaron led in home runs and RBIs three times. In 1957 he finished fourth in batting, and in 1963, he finished third. In his twenty-two years, Mays never once led the league in RBIs. Yet he has over 1,900 in his career. Talk about accumulating stats. And he won only one batting title. He did lead his league in home runs four times. But so did Aaron, twice in Milwaukee, and twice in Atlanta. Aaron led the league in RBIs four times (three of those in Milwaukee), and won two batting titles in Milwaukee.

But Mays hit 50 home runs in a season. Yeah, he did twice. He hit 51 in 1955, playing his home games at the Polo Grounds, where he hit 22 of his homers at home. Jesus, all you had to do at the Polo Grounds was hit a pop fly down the left field line to get a home run. The foul pole was 279 feet! And Candlestick? The dimensions in left-center and center were 397 and 420 feet. His first three years in San Francisco, Mays hit 29, 34 and 29 home runs (three years after hitting 51!). What happened? In 1961, they moved the fences in, left-center by 32 feet to 365, and center field from 420 to 410. Lo and behold, "Say Hey" was a 40 home run hitter again in 1961, and then hit 49 in 1962. In 1960, Mays hit 12 home runs at Candlestick. They moved the fences in a whopping 32 feet in left-center, and boom, he hits 21 at home in 1961, and 28 at home in 1962. So please...cut the crap about the Braves moving in the fences for Aaron. It turns out a lot of teams moved the fences for their great players.

Back to Aaron's home run totals. Did you look at any of his other seasons, or just his single season best? What about the twelve years he played in Milwaukee?

In 1957, he hit 44 home runs to lead the NL. He hit 26 of those on the road. 18 at home. Aaron led the NL in RBIs, too. He had a Triple Crown-caliber season. Only Stan Musial's .351 and Willie Mays' .331 bested him. But he hit nearly 60% of his home runs on the road.

In 1963, he led the NL again with 44 home runs. 25 on the road, 19 at home. 57% of his homers came away from County Stadium.

In 1962, he hit 45 home runs, second in the NL. Mays hit 49. Aaron hit 18 home runs at County Stadium, and 27 on the road. 60% of his home runs were on the road. See a pattern here?

In 1960, Aaron hit 40 home runs. 21 at home, 19 on the road. Pretty much even.

He had no advantage at home while a member of the Milwaukee Braves, where he played his prime years. In 1960, they actually moved the fence in left field back, one foot in straightaway left-center field, and seven feet in Aaron's power alley, between the left field line and left-center. In the next four years, he hit 163 home runs, averaging 43 homers per 162 games played. In fact, while a member of the Braves in Milwaukee, he hit 185 home runs in Milwaukee, and 213 on the road. So, he hit 28 more home runs away from County Stadium. And the air in Milwaukee is not thin. I know, having lived there for 19 years. So, while they were moving the fences back slightly in Milwaukee, they were bringing them way in at the 'stick.

You know what OPS + does. It measures on base and power, and an adjustment is made for the player's ballpark.

Willie Mays had a career OPS + of 156. Know what Hank Aaron's was? Aaron's OPS + is 155. Willie Mays has a career OPS + that is one whopping point higher than Aaron's. Funny thing, that metric takes into consideration where Hank played all his games, and where Willie played all his. And it finds that the two were almost identical as far as their offensive production is concerned.

And as far as your brief WAR comparison, yes, Mays led ten times. Aaron led once. Aaron was second in the NL in WAR three times, third four times, fourth twice, and fifth twice. Eight times he was one of the best three players in the entire league (by WAR), and twelve times he was one of the best five. If you don't lead the league in WAR, you're not an all-time great? Were both Ruth and Gehrig not all-time greats? Yet when they played, unless they tied, one of them had to be second (or lower). Remember, too, that a center fielder (Mays) gets a positive 7.5 run adjustment while calculating, and right fielders (Aaron) get a 2.5 run deduction while calculating WAR. I completely understand that center field is a more demanding position, and that Mays, in putting up the numbers he did in center field, created incredible value. But it makes, in my humble opinion, an erroneous assumption. Consider the comparison of Mays and Aaron. The assumption is made, by WAR, that Aaron is less valuable because he plays right field. If he is incapable of playing center field, than this would be true, as Mays would add value because he produces at the same level offensively that Aaron does, while playing a position that is more demanding, one that Aaron could not.

But Aaron was a three-time Gold Glove winner in right field. And his string of Gold Gloves only ended because of the emergence of arguably the greatest defensive right fielder to ever play the game, Roberto Clemente. Was Aaron a very good to outstanding fielder, at least early on in his career? Yes. I will state again that I have some issues with defensive metrics as they are calculated for historical players. Aaron would one season have a -1.1 dWAR (1959), then a + 0.8 (1960), and a + 2.0 (1961). Those were followed by a 0.3, and a -1.3. I don't see how one player, when healthy, and in their prime, would have such variance in their defensive performance across multiple years. However, Mays is clearly one of the greatest center fielders to ever play the game, in both the offensive and defensive realms. I do not believe that Aaron would play center field as well as Mays. But I feel he could play it at a high level. Just not at Mays' astronomical level. Adjustments to dWAR should be made based solely on performance. If you have to give individual plays a higher score by a center fielder because of the ground covered (uZR-type ratings), fine. But to automatically adjust before any performance is taken into consideration, in my opinion, skews WAR needlessly.

One final thing to consider, not looking directly at the numbers.

Top 3 in MVP vote:
Aaron 8 times in the top 3, won once.
Mays 7 times in the top 3, won twice.

The men that watched these players day in, day out, saw them in person, talked to other players and sports journalists--they voted in a manner that puts Aaron and Mays in the same upper echelon of players in the National League. Both were among the top three players in the entire league in MVP voting about the same number of times. Mays won one more, Aaron was in the top 3 one more time. That's pretty darned close. When you consider their career stats, their OPS +, their WAR, MVP finishes, Hall of Fame votes, I just don't know how a baseball fan could consider Mays an all-time great, but not Aaron. I respect that you know your baseball, rats60, but I vehemently disagree with your conclusion.

This post is so full of errors and half truths, but I'll take on a few of them. First, Cobb is not the only player to recieve a higher percentage of HOF votes. The top 4 vote getters are Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Cal Ripken and George Brett. I guess you think Ryan and Seaver are the greatest pitchers of all time. Ripken and Brett are better than Cobb, Aaron , etc. See that is a pretty worthless metric to use.

You complain about Mays hitting 22 HRS in the Polo Grounds, well he hit 29 on the road. His best season in Candlestick, he hit 24 at home, 28 on the road. Nothing like Aaron's 31 at home.

You claim the Giants moved the fences in for Mays, but that is incorrect. The first two years in SF, the Giants played in Seals Stadium. Only the first year at Candlestick where the fences back, they were adjusted after one season to the place where they stayed until the Giants moved to a new stadium. Somehow you think that this is the equivalent on moving the fences in when Aaron is approaching Mays and Ruth and then moving them back when he passes. Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.

You talk about the angry letters that Aaron recieved. I will always believe that it was because of the above, not because of skin color. I remember at the time this issue with the fence and "the launching pad" was very controversial as Aaron passed Mays and Ruth. It caused a lot of bitterness similar to Bonds PED use. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mays was getting ready to hit 715, it wouldn't have been an issue.

So, it take it by OPS+ you are saying Mays was the better hitter of the two. So much for Aaron being the best hitter ever, lol. Mays was way better in the field, on the base paths and in every other phase of the game. I guess that is why Mays led in WAR 10 times, Aaron once.

Mays is an all time great but Aaron is not. Who said that? Not me. This thread was asking about card values and I said it was because Aaron wasn't as good as Mays, Mantle or Williams, not that he wasn't any good. If you want to say Aaron is a top 10 player, I have no problem putting him 10th. However, I do have a problem with claims that he is better than Mays or Mantle, because he's not.

[bn2cardz]

RATS posts explains why Aaron's cards aren't valued higher... there are people that still believe Mantle is better than he was.

Mantle was good. Top 25... Top 20... maybe Top 15.

Look at the four major comparative tools for position players: Blank Ink (how often they led a category), Gray Ink (How often they were in top 10), HOF Career Standards, and HOF Monitor. Mantle is never in the top 10. Actually I think if you use Mantle as the barometer (Though I agree that Mantle is overvalued, not the other's being undervalued) a more undervalued player than Aaron may be Musial.


Standard...Black Ink...Gray Ink... HOF Stan... HOF Mon
Aaron.......(8) 76........(2) 408......(9) 74.........(3) 421
Mays........(22) 57......(8) 337.......(5) 76........(6) 376
Mantle......(15) 62......(17) 272.....(24) 65.......(15) 300
Musial......(5) 116.......(3) 390.......(6) 76........(1) 452
Williams...(4) 122.......(11) 326......(15) 72.......(7) 354

Even with the walls moved in Aaron hit the ball. Mantle struck out a lot, he led this category 5 times, and was in the top five 10 times. Aaron was never in the top 10. His SO average is 68 in a 162 game season, compared to Mantle's at 115.

Also I haven't looked up exact stats but Aaron hit just above 50% of his homeruns at home. So lets just remove 55% of his home runs (I am sure it was less than 55% that were hit at home) he would still be in the top 100 in home runs while still having 3355 hits (removing the 416 home runs, again I don't know the exact number).

Mantle was in the top 10 WAR only 7 times compared below to the other players I mentioned:
Aaron: 15
Mays: 13
Musial: 10
Williams: 12

This does not mean mantle was a horrible player or didn't have peak seasons, but he gets elevated higher than he should. His peak seasons are what people remember and certainly bolster his numbers, and this is what Stache was pointing out when he brought up Mantle's peak seasons.

Just looking at single season stats only focuses on a few great seasons and not the consistency of a player.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

This post is so full of errors and half truths, but I'll take on a few of them. First, Cobb is not the only player to recieve a higher percentage of HOF votes. The top 4 vote getters are Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Cal Ripken and George Brett. I guess you think Ryan and Seaver are the greatest pitchers of all time. Ripken and Brett are better than Cobb, Aaron , etc. See that is a pretty worthless metric to use.

I'm going to reply to the individual elements of your post, so I can get more laughs out of it.

There are no errors, or half-truths. Perhaps you just misread what I said?

Here is what I said, verbatim:

97.8% of Hall of Fame voters thought Aaron was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. When he was elected in 1982, only Ty Cobb was ever elected by a higher percentage of voters at 98.23%.

I should have said "only Ty Cobb had been elected by a higher percentage of voters." That was poorly edited on my part. But it should be clear that I was referring to the players who had already been elected when Aaron went in. Cal Ripken Jr, George Brett, Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver were all still playing in 1982. They would get a higher percentage than Aaron when elected, absolutely, but the first from that group to do so wouldn't get in for ten more years. Aaron got what was at the time the second highest vote percentage in the game's history, and it took a decade until another player bumped him down to third place. I referenced this list on baseball reference when making that post. I knew that the above named players surpassed him. I wouldn't have known Ty Cobb was elected with a higher percentage without that list. Aaron currently has the sixth-highest vote percentage of all the men enshrined in Cooperstown. And it's still now, and will always be higher a higher percentage than Mays, Mantle or Williams received. It's not a worthless metric at all. You think it's worthless because it's a fly in the ointment where your argument is concerned. The BBWAA tend to know something about the game, and more of them thought Aaron was deserving of induction on the first ballot than Mays, Williams or Mantle. Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing the merits of their voting, only stating the facts. I happen to think that Aaron, Mays, Mantle and Williams were all superstars, and can't think of a logical explanation as to why any of them would get less than 100%. But they did. Nonetheless, their voting record supports my assertion that Aaron is one of the all-time greats to ever play the game.

Originally Posted by rats60

So, it take it by OPS+ you are saying Mays was the better hitter of the two. So much for Aaron being the best hitter ever, lol. Mays was way better in the field, on the base paths and in every other phase of the game. I guess that is why Mays led in WAR 10 times, Aaron once.

Where did I say that Aaron was the best hitter ever? Please don't put words in my mouth. I think Ted Williams is the best hitter to ever play the game, and I have said so for a long time:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Of the four players, I must admit that Ted Williams intrigued me the most. He's considered by many (myself included) the best pure hitter to ever play the game. He combined a spectacular natural ability with a tireless work ethic. He studied opposing pitchers, and memorized what they threw in different situations. He took a scientific approach to the art of hitting, perfecting his swing, making sure that his bats were made to his exact specifications.

You made the argument that Mays was an all-time great, and Aaron was not. OPS + shows that after nearly a quarter century of baseball, their offensive production was nearly identical. Was Mays a better player than Aaron? When their whole game is considered, I think he was marginally better because of his defensive prowess. On the base paths, Mays was not better. He had more steal attempts, but their stolen base percentages are nearly identical, Mays stealing 338 bases in 441 attempts (a 76.64% success rate), while Aaron stole 240 bases in 313 attempts (a 76.68% success rate). The only place where I'd give Mays the edge was in the field. Aaron was no slouch in right field, but Mays played at a high level defensively for a longer period of time, and did it at a more demanding position. I'm happy to acknowledge that Mays had a little bit higher WAR than Aaron. But then again, the argument has never been that Aaron was better than Mays, only that Aaron was an all-time great like Mays. If Mays was a 10 talent on a 1 to 10 scale, Aaron was a 9.50. It's like saying "Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all-time". Fine. But Lou Gehrig was an all-time great, too. Ruth might have had a better WAR than Gehrig (I haven't looked). But does that exclude Gehrig from the pantheon of baseball immortals? Not at all.

Originally Posted by rats60

Mays is an all time great but Aaron is not. Who said that? Not me.

Originally Posted by rats60

If you want a guy that played at a high level for a long time, but was never truly great, Aaron's your guy.

Originally Posted by rats60

You claim the Giants moved the fences in for Mays, but that is incorrect. The first two years in SF, the Giants played in Seals Stadium. Only the first year at Candlestick where the fences back, they were adjusted after one season to the place where they stayed until the Giants moved to a new stadium. Somehow you think that this is the equivalent on moving the fences in when Aaron is approaching Mays and Ruth and then moving them back when he passes. Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.

You're really going back to this? The Giants moved the fences in, and Willie Mays was the primary beneficiary. It doesn't matter if they did it in the first year, the second, or the third. They moved them in, and Mays home run totals at home jumped dramatically once that happened. So what if, after the Giants moved, he played his first two season's home games at Seals Stadium? His last four years in New York, Mays hit 41, 51, 36 and 35 home runs, including 20, 22, 20 and 17 at home. An average of 20 homers a season at his home ballpark. Then, the Giants moved. He hit 16 home runs at Seals in both 1958 and 1959. Then, in 1960, now at the 'stick, he hit 12 home runs. His first three seasons after the move, he hit 44 home runs at home, an average of 15 per year, down an average of 5 home runs at home a season, or a 25% drop. Then, the fences got moved. In 1961, the first with the left-center field fence moved in by more than 30 feet, Mays hit 21 of his 40 homers at home. In 1962, he hit 28 of his 49 bombs at home. In 1963, 1964 and 1965, he hit 137 home runs in total (38, 47 and 52), of which 20, 25 and 24 were at Candlestick. While his home-road splits normalized, it is clear that he gained home runs by the move in. He went from 20 home runs at home his last four seasons at the Polo Grounds to 15 at Seals (two years) and one at the new 'stick, up to 23 home runs a season at home. That's a better than 50% increase in homers at home Mays gained by moving the walls in. The point? This whole sub-discussion is pointless. And the whole "the Braves moved the fences in for Aaron as he approached Mays and Ruth." Um, didn't the Giants move the fences in, and help Mays get closer to Ruth?

The Braves and Giants both had all-time great home run hitters on their rosters. Both moved the fences in, primarily to benefit those all-time home run hitters. Guess what? Doing so helps them both sell more tickets.

Originally Posted by rats60

You talk about the angry letters that Aaron recieved. I will always believe that it was because of the above, not because of skin color. I remember at the time this issue with the fence and "the launching pad" was very controversial as Aaron passed Mays and Ruth. It caused a lot of bitterness similar to Bonds PED use. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mays was getting ready to hit 715, it wouldn't have been an issue.

Well, I will always believe Jennifer Lawrence might one day knock on my door, and ask me to fly to Paris with her for the weekend. But believing something doesn't make it true. Not in the slightest.

You seem oblivious to the fact that Mays played in San Francisco. Hank Aaron, as he approached Ruth, played in Atlanta. He was a black man in the deep south, about to break the most hallowed record in sports, held by the most popular athlete in American professional sports history. That Aaron benefited from some "launching pad" to do so may have generated some bitterness. But that was hardly the basis for the despicable hate mail he received. The color of his skin....was. People threatened his life, they said "we're going to shoot him as he rounds the bases" because he was a black man. And no, there really is no similarity between Bonds taking PEDs and the Braves moving the fences in. In one case, a Major League franchise moved the fences in, with the tacit approval of Major League Baseball, and not only Hank Aaron benefited. In the other, a player took performance enhancing drugs (which he alone benefited from), which, as of 2003, was a rules violation in Major League Baseball. That distinction is reflected in the Hall of Fame voting record for the two players: Aaron got inducted into the Hall by nearly 98% of the voters on his first try. Bonds has had three cracks at Cooperstown, and hasn't surpassed 37% of the vote.

Baseball scholars place Aaron in the top five all-time greats to play the game. This is not me saying it. These are men that have studied the game. And when one considers the thousands of men that have played Major League Baseball, when you are listed as one of the ten best to ever play the game, you are, indisputably, an all-time great.

You said Aaron was "never truly great." He clearly was.

Now, I'm done discussing this.

[KCRfan1]

RATS, I been enjoying the post made by you and others, but your are naive if you do not believe the " angry " letters Aaron received were not based on race and skin color. You believe what you wish, but it is well documented that is exactly what the letters were.

[ALR-bishop]

I think Rats is enjoying all this immensely, and I do not think he is naive. A little devious maybe, but not naive

[KCRfan1]

Maybe a little trolling, and poking the bear a bit. LOL

[71buc]

I was curious what people here thought about the 1954 Johnston Cookie Aaron rookie card's current value and if it would also enjoy a similar increase in value? I think that as the Topps version climbs others may see it as an attractive if not more affordable option. Thankfully I have both but have little knowledge of the value of more scarce regional issues versus the mainstream versions. There certainly seem to be fewer of the Johnston Cookies rookie Aaron's out there.

[MCoxon]

Great question on Johnston's Cookies - I'll bet regional and non-mainstream Topps issues will rise, relative to their Topps counterparts, especially in cases where there prices are lower even though they are more scarce.

I recently picked up a '57 Sohio Maris and love it. I think it must be much rarer than his '58 Topps, and like it for that reason.

Others will say Topps (and early Bowman, Goudey, Playball, etc.) will always hold sway among collectors and command premiums to non-mainstream cards, but I'm not so sure. I think there's a chance collectors will move their desires to regionals as they seek out "scarcity".

Even within mainstream cards, there's been a shift to buying on condition - a form of scarcity. Collectors today spend multiples on a PSA 8 or 9 cards compared to a PSA 7. I don't think that the price difference was so high for a Nr-Mt vs. a NM-MT card vs. a Mint card in the 1970s and 1980s (admittedly, due to the objectivity that TPGs bring).

I suspect people are bidding up prices on cards with low PSA pop numbers. For instance, I'll bet there are roughly the same number of 1959 Mantles in Nr-MT or better condition today as compared to 1985 (maybe more, as hidden stacks of cards are found). Let's say 5,000 1959 Mantle cards exist today at "Nr-MT or better" -- using Beckett's 1987 condition guides, and regardless of whether they're slabbed or not.

But there are now only 308 1959 Mantles in PSA 8 or above, as of this morning, per the PSA pop report. Thus, a shift in tastes (to a PSA 8+ slab) has artificially constrained demand of a card that had 5,000 down to 308. That's a form of scarcity, just not one that appeals to me

So long story short - I'd bet the 1954 Johnston's Cookies, the Sohios, the Bazookas, the Exhibits, the Red Mans (with tabs - scarce), the 1971 Topps Greatest Moments, etc., will continue to appreciate relative to their mainstream Topps counterparts