Who are the most "over-valued" players

[Peter_Spaeth]

Roger Maris.
Tinker Evers Chance.
George Sisler.

[parkplace33]

Prewar HOFers who shouldn't be in the HOF. Lyons and Maranville come to mind.

[Balticfox]

Mickey Mantle. His cards are multiples the price of those of his contemporaries yet his talent was not.

[Snapolit1]

Sherry Mcgee.

Name means absolutely nothing to any baseball fan who is not on this board or a member the SABR Sherry Mcgee subcommittee, assuming there is such a thing.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Sherry Mcgee.

Name means absolutely nothing to any baseball fan who is not on this board or a member the SABR Sherry Mcgee subcommittee, assuring there is such a thing.

-
Every thread needs a card.
-

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Every thread needs a card.
-

It is truly remarkable how much standards have changed in grading. If I were sending this card to PSA today, I would be crossing my fingers hoping for a 3 and expecting a 2 a good percentage of the time.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It is truly remarkable how much standards have changed in grading. If I were sending this card to PSA today, I would be crossing my fingers hoping for a 3 and expecting a 2 a good percentage of the time.

PSA launched its services by awarding a plainly trimmed T206 Honus Wagner card a grade of NM/MT:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 2005, PSA Grader Bill Hughes, a grader of the T206 Honus Wager card, admitted in an interview with New York Daily News reporter Michael O'Keeffe that he knew the card had been trimmed when he graded the card.

Therefore some tightening of standards could have been expected. It was very clearly needed.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It is truly remarkable how much standards have changed in grading. If I were sending this card to PSA today, I would be crossing my fingers hoping for a 3 and expecting a 2 a good percentage of the time.

Understood, the difference is a centered red E94 with that much saturation and eye appeal doesn't care what PSA thinks, I'm an old school green label guy for my PC and care very little about the grade. It would be a travesty to cross this card to PSA because they haven't figured out that all pre war cards should be presented with a black apron.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Sherry Mcgee.

Name means absolutely nothing to any baseball fan who is not on this board or a member the SABR Sherry Mcgee subcommittee, assuring there is such a thing.

Of course, part of the reason his name means nothing is because it is Sherry Magee.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by molenick

Of course, part of the reason his name means nothing is because it is Sherry Magee.

Oh. That explains it! The correct spelling guy is a household name.

[molenick]

Ha! Actually, Magee was a really good player...one of those people like Dahlen who might be in the HOF if the various veteran's committees ever seriously considered early players. If you believe WAR, he is the 14th best right fielder ever (ahead of Stargell, Wheat, Medwick, Kiner, Manush, and several other HOFers).

Are his cards overvalued? If so, is it because of the Magie error? Or because people think he may get in the Hall one day? I couldn't say. I have one.

[phlflyer1]

Magee definitely was not a bad player. Just had the misfortune of playing for a lot of bad Phillies teams for most of his career.

And he certainly had one of the best poses in the E92 set!

[jpat]

Originally Posted by molenick

Of course, part of the reason his name means nothing is because it is Sherry Magee.

Yes, but the "Sherry Mcgee" error post will sell for a significant premium over the correct spelling version.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Mickey Mantle. His cards are multiples the price of those of his contemporaries yet his talent was not.

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

The rest is history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

The rest is history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Being a Yankee gave him a huge leg up over anyone else in terms of popularity. Playing hurt added to his mystique. The tape measure home runs did too, and the switch hitting power. The folk hero personality, the blond crewcut, the muscular build. All the World Series. And, especially if you count the astonishing on base percentage, a very great player too. If PURELY as a player he is overrated, it isn't by much.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being a Yankee gave him a huge leg up over anyone else in terms of popularity. Playing hurt added to his mystique. The tape measure home runs did too, and the switch hitting power. The folk hero personality, the blond crewcut, the muscular build. All the World Series. And, especially if you count the astonishing on base percentage, a very great player too. If PURELY as a player he is overrated, it isn't by much.

Agreed. In the career OPS+ rankings for non-juicers with at least 7,500 plate appearances, he is 5th, behind only Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, and Hornsby.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.

Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.

All correct and I agree. But I was answering the precise question posted:

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

...what pre-war players generally come with a higher value than their actual accomplishments on the field.

Not saying they're bad player, but they cost more to acquire than similar talent players. I'm not talking about a single card either. This applies to all cards of that player.

For one, Mickey Mantle wasn't as good as Willie Mays. And arguably Mantle wasn't as good as Ted Williams and Hank Aaron or even Roberto Clemente and Stan Musial.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

All correct and I agree. But I was answering the precise question posted:

As the original question was posed, yes I would agree with you.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

For one, Mickey Mantle wasn't as good as Willie Mays. And arguably Mantle wasn't as good as Ted Williams and Hank Aaron or even Roberto Clemente and Stan Musial.

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

That Mays was a real terror in the World Series he was in. People just love to drool and slobber over the catch which was about the only thing he did in 3 of them.
Exactly zero homers.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

I go back and forth arguing with myself about how important rings are for a baseball player's legacy. Baseball is, at once, both more individualistic and more team-dependent than, say, football and basketball. Someone needs to come up with an advanced statistic for "World Series or playoff wins above replacement value".

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To me rings mean less than nothing. Look at all the nobodies on the Yankees with many rings, are they somehow better than Ted Williams because they have some silly rings?

Better to have the "silly rings" than NO rings! Ha! The whole purpose of competing is to win, no ?? When people tell me that "baseball is mostly about the stats," then I tell them "why not get rid of the World Series then?" Why even have a championship ?? Oh wait, that's my point!! You play to win and Mantle did that better than anybody else !!

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

That Mays was a real terror in the World Series he was in. People just love to drool and slobber over the catch which was about the only thing he did in 3 of them.
Exactly zero homers.

Zero you say ?? Ouch !! Imagine if that had been the Mick in his spot ??

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

To me rings mean less than nothing. Look at all the nobodies on the Yankees with many rings, are they somehow better than Ted Williams because they have some silly rings?

Besides guys with error cards like Bill Ripken or Randy Johnson in my opinion Mickey Mantle is in a league of his own for cards being overvalued.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To me rings mean less than nothing. Look at all the nobodies on the Yankees with many rings, are they somehow better than Ted Williams because they have some silly rings?

Besides guys with error cards like Bill Ripken or Randy Johnson in my opinion Mickey Mantle is in a league of his own for cards being overvalued.

Agree, but if a player appears in enough post season games, I think their performance can make a bit of a difference in how you assess their career, in either direction. For example Kershaw's post-season horror show clearly has some downward impact on his overall rating. Mantle's WS Home Run records obviously added a bit to his status.
s

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

And Frankie Crosetti has 8 rings as a player and 9 more as a coach, so I suppose his cards should be ranked as most UNDER valued?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

And Frankie Crosetti has 8 rings, so I suppose his cards should be ranked as most UNDER valued?

Uhhh...Make that 17 rings, as a player and a coach. He was in 23 World Series, total. He had so many rings, they started giving him engraved shotguns instead.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Willie Mays = 1 ring
Ted Williams = 0 rings
Hank Aaron = 1 ring
Roberto Clemente = 2 rings
Stan Musial = 3 rings

Mickey Mantle = 7 rings

So, all those guys combined have the same number of rings as Mantle.

How many rings would they have won if they swapped places with Mantle—my guess is the same number.

[Balticfox]

The same number they already have, or the same number as Mantle has?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

How many rings would they have won if they swapped places with Mantle—my guess is the same number.

Strongly disagree. Some of them definitely would have had more.

[alywa]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Roger Maris.
Tinker Evers Chance.
George Sisler.

I agree on the first four, but for Sisler I think the market is probably right. There just aren't many Sislers, falling between the T & CJ eras and the Goudey cards. I only have one (below)

IMG_0747.jpg

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Tinker Evers Chance.

Agreed, and from a Cubs fan.

They are in because of the Franklin Adams poem. I mean Chance probably deserves it; good career and then was a manager as well - but the other two guys didn’t help turn more double plays necessarily than anyone else of their era. Tinker’s career batting average is .260 something?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Agreed, and from a Cubs fan.

They are in because of the Franklin Adams poem. I mean Chance probably deserves it; good career and then was a manager as well - but the other two guys didn’t help turn more double plays necessarily than anyone else of their era. Tinker’s career batting average is .260 something?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know this runs counter to the prevailing wisdom on this, but I actually think Bill James made a very interesting argument about this. Essentially he said that the point of playing baseball is to win the game. Which team won the most games in a season? The 1906 Chicago Cubs. Two seasons? 06-07 Cubs. Three seasons? 06-08 Cubs. All the way out to ten seasons, it's the 1904-1913 Chicago Cubs (I actually checked this - they won one more regular season game than the 1934-1943 Yankees). So no team in baseball history was better at winning games (in the regular season, at least). If you don't put in Tinker, Evers, and Chance, then the only HOFer from that team is Three Finger Brown. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So who do you put in? Tinker, Evers, and Chance were actually all really good players, both offensively and defensively. Maybe even better than the numbers show, because so much of their value was defensive. Their peak was at a time where the league ERA was about 3 and teams averaged about 1 unearned run per game. So if the Cubs only averaged .5 unearned runs per game, that is an enormous difference - far bigger than the impact defense has as a differentiator in today's game. And yes, they didn't turn an exceptional number of double plays, but with steals, bunts, and hit-and-runs, double plays just weren't as important a part of defense as they became later. So Tinker, Evers, and Chance may not be Tier 1 HOFers, but they are far from the weakest candidates, and they are not just in because of a poem.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

I know this runs counter to the prevailing wisdom on this, but I actually think Bill James made a very interesting argument about this. Essentially he said that the point of playing baseball is to win the game. Which team won the most games in a season? The 1906 Chicago Cubs. Two seasons? 06-07 Cubs. Three seasons? 06-08 Cubs. All the way out to ten seasons, it's the 1904-1913 Chicago Cubs (I actually checked this - they won one more regular season game than the 1934-1943 Yankees). So no team in baseball history was better at winning games (in the regular season, at least). If you don't put in Tinker, Evers, and Chance, then the only HOFer from that team is Three Finger Brown. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So who do you put in? Tinker, Evers, and Chance were actually all really good players, both offensively and defensively. Maybe even better than the numbers show, because so much of their value was defensive. Their peak was at a time where the league ERA was about 3 and teams averaged about 1 unearned run per game. So if the Cubs only averaged .5 unearned runs per game, that is an enormous difference - far bigger than the impact defense has as a differentiator in today's game. And yes, they didn't turn an exceptional number of double plays, but with steals, bunts, and hit-and-runs, double plays just weren't as important a part of defense as they became later. So Tinker, Evers, and Chance may not be Tier 1 HOFers, but they are far from the weakest candidates, and they are not just in because of a poem.

Valid viewpoint. They probably aren't in solely because of the poem, but the poem certainly didn't hurt. I've been a Cubs fan for 35+ years - it doesn't bother me in the least that they are in, LOL.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Roger Maris.
Tinker Evers Chance.
George Sisler.

Are Roger Maris cards that much more expensive than those of comparable stars? Keep in mind that it did take 61 years for his single season home run mark to be legitimately broken.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Are Roger Maris cards that much more expensive than those of comparable stars? Keep in mind that it did take 61 years for his single season home run mark to be legitimately broken.

Absolutely. Look at his rookie card, for example. Compare his cards to Hank Sauer and Bob Allison, whose stats are similar to his according to Baseball Reference. He's basically valued as a high mid tier hall of famer, if not higher.

[Misunderestimated]

All of the players who are famous for being infamous -- the Black Sox and Hal Chase come to mind.
Also there are a lot of low end HOFers (the guys who on the merits probably shouldn't be in the HOF in the first place) who are highpriced because they are HOFers. Thinking of the Frankie Frisch/Veteran's Committee inductees (e.g High Pockets Kelly). Also Tommy McCarthy, Rick Ferrell, Ray Schalk, and Lloyd Waner.
You've also got players who are famous for their off-the-field exploits like Moe Berg.
Roger Maris, Joe Wood, Jack Chesbro, and Hack Wilson are valued largely for single-season excellence.
Addie Joss is probably overpriced relative to the merits of his sadly truncated career too.
More recently there are the beloved great players who carry such a high premium that they are still overpriced relative to their merits -- Mantle and Clemente can be challenged on this basis.

[G1911]

Ten Million.

Art Whitney's dog.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ten Million.

Art Whitney's dog.

Uncle Sam

[Yoda]

If a top-shelf premium player should have a sustained brilliant career to qualify for greatness, then I have to rule out Joe Woods for frothy card values.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Yoda

If a top-shelf premium player should have a sustained brilliant career to qualify for greatness, then I have to rule out Joe Woods for frothy card values.

-
But we can't help collecting him, among others.
-

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Absolutely. Look at his rookie card, for example. Compare his cards to Hank Sauer and Bob Allison, whose stats are similar to his according to Baseball Reference.

Maris' rookie card is a really nice looking card though:

(Not mine.)

A full body shot against a gorgeous orange background, well let's just say it puts a smile on my face every time!