Who are the most "over-valued" players

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Well I suppose one could nitpick and "fault" Nolan Ryan for not having either a screwball or a knuckleball, but in his defence (and I'm not exactly one of his big fans), he still threw a whopping 222 complete games in 773 starts with an ERA of only 3.19 over his 27 seasons. Those are inredibly good numbers.

Meanwhile Pete Rose won two Gold Gloves in addition to batting .303 over 24 seasons. The only "deficiency" I can find in his game is that his highest stolen base total in any one season was only 20.

Ryan pitched in a very pitching-friendly era and environment, so his career ERA was only 12% better than league average over that time. He walked 4.7 per 9 innings for his career. He had tremendous strengths, of course, but his control was a definite weakness.

The two Gold Gloves notwithstanding, Rose was an average defensive player in his best years, and usually below that. His total offensive production was 18% better than league average - quite good, but not inner-circle great. Of course that is brought down somewhat by the fact that he hung around for several years as a mediocre-or-worse player to break the record. One can interpret that either way, I guess - that he was a better player than his career stats, or that he hurt his teams for his last several years. Or both, of course.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by ASF123

The two Gold Gloves notwithstanding, (Pete) Rose was an average defensive player in his best years, and usually below that.

His two Gold Gloves speak much louder than your unsupported opinion.

Originally Posted by ASF123

One can interpret that either way, I guess - that he was a better player than his career stats, or that he hurt his teams for his last several years. Or both, of course.

Last "several" years?! No. You're overstating your case. His last year. Looking at his batting average in his final years:

1984: .286
1985: .264
1986: .219

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

His two Gold Gloves speak much louder than your unsupported opinion.



Last "several" years?! No. You're overstating your case. His last year. Looking at his batting average in his final years:

1984: .365
1985: .264
1986: .219

I have a strong feeling that citing stats beyond batting average and ERA is going to be useless, so nevermind (although even if you’re only looking at BA, for 1984 you need to include his 314 plate appearances with the Expos along with his 107 for the Reds).

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by ASF123

...although even if you’re only looking at BA, for 1984 you need to include his 314 plate appearances with the Expos along with his 107 for the Reds.

Whoops! I'm sorry. I got my eyes crossed and goofed when pecking out his batting average for 1984. I've now corrected it.

Originally Posted by ASF123

I have a strong feeling that citing stats beyond batting average and ERA is going to be useless....

You're correct on that point as well.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

His two Gold Gloves speak much louder than your unsupported opinion.



Last "several" years?! No. You're overstating your case. His last year. Looking at his batting average in his final years:

1984: .286
1985: .264
1986: .219

Context is important too - he was a 1B who slugged .337, .319, and .270 those three years. By any definition, that's awful.

[Balticfox]

Huh?! Was he awful at first? That's not something I've heard previously.

If not, his batting stats are a separate and distinct entity from where he played in the field. And while I agree that his last year was bench worthy, his previous two years were decent enough.

Meanwhile I hated the Big Red Machine in the 1970's because I was a Pittsburgh Pirates and Montréal Expos fan when it came to the National League but I now respect Pete Rose for his all out style of play. And so now I'm defending him! A lifetime .303 batting average despite playing for 24 years until 1986 warrants high praise.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Because of that historical significance, I have to think there's much more room for growth in Jackie's prices over the next 10, 20, 50 years when compared to Mantle or about anyone else. If the day ever comes when there are a lot more non-white collectors in the market, it should really take off.

If more non-whites come into the hobby, then watch Mickey Mantle go even higher!

Originally Posted by aljurgela

This is not really a discussion of the player... even if you decided that Mantle was THE best player of all time, I would think that he is overvalued... According to my calcs the value (market cap) of all of the PSA graded Mantles out there is close to $300 million (assuming $15 million for each of the PSA 10s and using the Cardladder current valuations)... $293.5 million of JUST the 1952 Topps...

Yes, like I said in my earlier post, the 52T Mantle prices are beyond insane. But what are your thoughts on his other cards? I think they are priced just right.

Originally Posted by aljurgela

I, for one, collect Negro League cards and many (most) historians would say that Oscar Charleston was a better, more important player than Mantle and if you could buy ALL of his cards, I bet that those would less than 3% of Mantle's 52 Topps. Of course he has more fans, more visibility, etc., but this is why I think that Mantle is so over-priced.

Some Negro League players have really taken off. Look at the Leaf Paige, for example. It might not be on the same level as the 52T Mantle, but it’s certainly getting there. And then, of course, there is Josh Gibson. His Toleteros card is probably worth even more than the Mantle now.

Originally Posted by rats60

If stories are to be believed, a lot of the value of the 1952 Topps Mantle was due to Woody Gelman hoarding them.

Could you tell me more about this? Interesting. Anyone hear about this before ??

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Ted Williams & Mantle, similar to Wilt Chamberlain & Bill Russell. Both Williams & Chamberlain were better than Mantle & Russell. However, Mantle and Russell were helping their stacked teams win multiple Championships.

Yes, the Celtics were a loaded team. However, Russell was mostly used for shutting down opposing players. When it came to offense, his contributions were not that great. In other words, there were guys on his squad who were much-better scorers. As for Mantle, I would not say that he played on stacked teams. The Dodgers were stacked during that era: Jackie, Campy, Pee Wee, Duke, etc. Not the Yankees. Furthermore, Mantle was a scoring machine. None of the guys on his team came even close.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ASF123

The two Gold Gloves notwithstanding, Rose was an average defensive player in his best years, and usually below that.

However, I give Rose a lot of credit for being able to play every position except P, C, and SS. That kind of flexibility is very valuable to a team. As his teams added and lost star players, Rose moved over to fill the need.

Primarily 2B until Helms and later Morgan came along, outfield until 1975 when Perez was moved to first and Rose to 3B, and then to first when he joined the Phillies, who already had third base covered.

And during the season, Pete often filled in on a game-by-game basis, wherever needed.