Steve Carlton Rookie worth so little

[ALBB]

Same with the '71 set - all through the 80's - the Steve Garvey RC was the money card there. While I think you could argue that card is still a key to the set, it's had quite a fall from the #1 position in the set over the last 20-30 years.
__________________

yea, those years from early 70s to late 70s were often ignited by the first wave of the ' rookie craze" ..
it seemed collectors tried to "outsmart each other/ beat others to the punch" .. with the rookies, and started relying on the monthly price guides ..and jumping on the 69 Bonds, 71 Blyleven, 73 Boone,74 Parker, etc... in hopes of getting in on the " ground floor" of some lesser know rookie cards

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by ALBB

Same with the '71 set - all through the 80's - the Steve Garvey RC was the money card there. While I think you could argue that card is still a key to the set, it's had quite a fall from the #1 position in the set over the last 20-30 years.
__________________

yea, those years from early 70s to late 70s were often ignited by the first wave of the ' rookie craze" ..
it seemed collectors tried to "outsmart each other/ beat others to the punch" .. with the rookies, and started relying on the monthly price guides ..and jumping on the 69 Bonds, 71 Blyleven, 73 Boone,74 Parker, etc... in hopes of getting in on the " ground floor" of some lesser know rookie cards

That is an interesting factoid about the '71 Garvey. At this point, the guy seems a little underrated. He falls short on numbers and WAR but he was a clutch player who rose to the occasion made the all star team 8 years in a row when it meant something to be an all-star. He might be the ultimate case for WAR being a flawed metric since his 38.0 seems to exclude him but hell the guy smells like a HOFer for anyone who followed the game back then.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

He falls short on numbers and WAR but he was a clutch player who rose to the occasion made the all star team 8 years in a row when it meant something to be an all-star. He might be the ultimate case for WAR being a flawed metric since his 38.0 seems to exclude him but hell the guy smells like a HOFer for anyone who followed the game back then.

IMO, Garvey is not in the HOF because he's a first baseman with less than 300 career home runs. The writers want all first basemen in the Hall to have numbers looking like Lou Gehrig or Willie McCovey. Then Garvey had some personal scandal in the mid-80's, which tarnished his golden boy image. I think the combination of those things killed it for the writers, and now he's not in simply because the various iterations of the VC are always so hit or miss. I think he belongs in because he was arguably the best at his position in his league for the better part of a decade. But yes, low WAR, and not a great OBP either.