So, are Pitchers Hobby Good now or what?
 

Skenes was the inspiration for this Thread.

absolutely not

Skenes is on the Pirates and has not had TJ yet

I don't mind calling anyone [I]investing[/I] in pitchers an idiot.

[QUOTE=PuddleMonkey;19794395]I don't mind calling anyone [I]investing[/I] in pitchers an idiot.[/QUOTE]

As long as you have a willingness to not hold long term I think pitchers will outperform hitters in term of ROI with far less variance as well.

To answer your question I would say yes, just look at what Chase Burns and Hagen Smith are going for out of draft this year. Even compared to last year there were tons of pitchers that could be purchased for next to nothing that had elite stuff and a solid chance to be top 10 MLB arm (most of these guys were frequently mentioned in the pitchers thread) vs this off season where there were few less deals to be had.

[QUOTE=johnlocke36;19794438]As long as you have a willingness to not hold long term I think pitchers will outperform hitters in term of ROI with far less variance as well.[/QUOTE]

Well yeah, they're like a 3x leveraged ETF. I'm talking about those dips prospecting for rookie pitchers and thinking if they hold for 20 years they're gonna be rich.

Pretty much I remember this commercial as it sums up the hobby pretty well. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjkuJPvMrI8[/url]

But now velocity is cool. Everyone loves pitching ninja, driveline content. Young kids want to throw as hard as possible and will idolize guys throwing 104 more and more, perhaps even above guys hitting 40 bombs. It's not a stretch that this love for velocity and pitching carries over to trading cards.

The biggest obstacle will be collecting pitchers will be cool/popular for young collectors. People 55+ have generally terrible views on pitching generally and unlikely to invest in pitchers.

I think the 55+ crowd loves pitchers, but they also grew up with studs that were allowed to go longer than 6 innings. Analytics and injuries neutered pitchers.

[QUOTE=johnlocke36;19794441]Pretty much I remember this commercial as it sums up the hobby pretty well. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjkuJPvMrI8[/url]

But now velocity is cool. Everyone loves pitching ninja, driveline content. Young kids want to throw as hard as possible and will idolize guys throwing 104 more and more, perhaps even above guys hitting 40 bombs. It's not a stretch that this love for velocity and pitching carries over to trading cards.

The biggest obstacle will be collecting pitchers will be cool/popular for young collectors. People 55+ have generally terrible views on pitching generally and unlikely to invest in pitchers.[/QUOTE]

There was a period of time during the 90s and early 2000s when some of the hottest baseball prospects and rookies in the hobby were pitchers -- Ben McDonald, Hideo Nomo, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, etc.

I think Mark Prior flaming out really did a lot of damage to the perceived investment potential of young pitchers.

I think the fact that starting pitchers are throwing fewer and fewer innings each year, and losing more and more time to injuries, continues to put downward pressure on the values of pitchers in the hobby.

[QUOTE=johnlocke36;19794438]As long as you have a willingness to not hold long term I think pitchers will outperform hitters in term of ROI with far less variance as well.

To answer your question I would say yes, just look at what Chase Burns and Hagen Smith are going for out of draft this year. Even compared to last year there were tons of pitchers that could be purchased for next to nothing that had elite stuff and a solid chance to be top 10 MLB arm (most of these guys were frequently mentioned in the pitchers thread) vs this off season where there were few less deals to be had.[/QUOTE]

Draft prices across the board have been bananas, so I don't think that's a great comparison.

Skenes hype is good.

Pitchers is not good.

[QUOTE=PuddleMonkey;19794440]Well yeah, they're like a 3x leveraged ETF. I'm talking about those dips prospecting for rookie pitchers and thinking if they hold for 20 years they're gonna be rich.[/QUOTE]

3x leverage? That's might sound like a lot on Wall Street but we're in the age of crypto where anything under 25x on a coin that isn't some obvious rug pull the president is shilling is considered "eh safe enough". 3x might as well be nothing since presumably you'd be hedging somewhere else.

I think that while it's hard to predict the potential for TJ or really, how they come back from TJ, there's value in the likes of Japanese pitchers with established track records of pitching without injury. Also, some teams handle rehab better. The Angels might finally be learning their lesson after 10 years of ruining arms at least. Andrew Heaney ignored team advice and even though he was a pitching machine at times he had the occasional insanely dominant game (ironically almost always against the Rangers), about 1 a year, but when you keep changing pitching coaches unless you're Shohei and can't understand every little detail - translators, even the best ones, lack the precision of native speakers sometimes purely because there's no analogous term or the difficulty in conveying the unspoken but assumed to be understood aspect of conversations - not that he cared much since he called his own games when nobody else on the team did. The Angels could only screw up his pitching career so much, and after Sosh left they let him do his thing and he did it ridiculously well.

For players like Imanaga and other with no pronounced elbow injury history and entered MLB effectively mid-career the pitcher tax is silly. They throw a lot of nasty breaking stuff over there and now also fastballs that are just as hard if not more than most major leaguers. Not everyone is RA Dickey but you don't need to be RA Dickey to be durable. Only 38% of pitchers get TJ anyway. In fact there's been a Google Sheet that tracks reports and have fairly detailed data going back to 2016 with more scattershot data going back even further: [url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQujXQQGOVNaiuwSN680Hq-FDVsCwvN-3AazykOBON0/edit?usp=sharing[/url]

Fangraphs keeps track of current injuries on their RosterResource page: [url]https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/depth-charts/angels[/url]

Cross reference the two and it becomes pretty clear that the hobby largely fell to the availability heuristic in news reportage. No writer will publish an article in seriousness title "Paul Skenes did not suffer an injury today", or "Planes land safely with no crashes as every other day this year at LAX". If all you see are reports to pitcher injury - which in the MLB for TJ topped out in 2012 and settle in the mid 20s, although teams use more pitchers than before by quite a bit. Unfortunately, it's one thing to know the facts and it's another thing to convince the card buying public, and the madness of crowds can last a long time, damn any evidence to the contrary.

(HIPAA doesn't really come into play here, if anyone was about to mention that. There's not only no private cause of action so the violation triggers enforcement but none of it goes to you, and keeping mum has a cost in public perception that is far higher than a single HIPAA violation can fine anyway). There are other injuries that are not UCL related, but I have literally never heard of "prone to tearing labrums" as a rationale for anything.

I informally (as in, I don't actively look for, but if I acquire one and I don't have a copy/better copy I will keep) have a PC for both Maddux and Randy Johnson. I feel fortunate that I not only saw Maddux pitch (at the tail end of his career, but still) and got paid for it - I was working at the stadium. His outing was shorter than my shift but barely. We shut down in the 7th if we did not have a supply issue (or in one case, a straight up race riot, not at Dodger Stadium, but same job, different venue. The tip-stealing supervisor was the icing on the worst cake in the world). If his cards get neglected because this belief that pitchers have a significant increase of TJ and velo is to blame, might as well as burn down the department education because all that funding went to everything but teaching, it appears.

I get the sense that people don't see pitchre's duels that are actually like, two dominant pitchers go at it to see who blinks first, bsically, coloring the view. I dont know when you suddenly lost the ability to refer to a pitcher's duel that doesn't go all 9 innings anything but. It's the part of baseball that is easily the most compelling mismatching the expectation that a pitcher's duel ends in a CGSO at the end, I think, when the greatest pitching duel was Thor v Jose Fernandez in one of his last starts at Citi when Jose Fernandez pitched 5 full innings and Thor pitched 7. Thor was mowing hitters down - 12 Ks - and Fernandez pitched like he really didn't care about where it landed until with the bases loaded and 2 outs no jam was impossible to overcome at a time of need. Completely contrasting skills - and one from someone who is a strikeout pitcher - and just seeing it live in the grounds - ridiculous stuff, on most pitching for Thor, and On every pitch that mattered for Jose. But you know, if Smoltz or anyone who thinks RBI is a measure with important keep acting like it's some weird witch magic geometry that is made up or nerdy guesses or whatever, well, 30-31 games might sound short but That's almost 2 football season' worth of games, if they are top of the depth charter. People tend stick to the insane beliefs because you don't have to do antything to do that And so good luck with that

[QUOTE=ThoseBackPages;19794384]absolutely not
[/QUOTE]

Unless you are referring to quality of investment, this is absolutely wrong. Yes, investing in pitchers is pretty dumb. But so is investing in most players. But the question at hand is if they are good for the hobby. It is undeniable that Paul Skenes was lighter fluid on our hot hobby this past year. And before him, Spencer Strider was one of the hottest cards for Braves players (still is). The hobby loves pitchers when they are worth loving. It doesn't make them good investments, but they are great for the hobby. How can anyone say Skenes, Strider, Ohtani when pitching, etc aren't good for the hobby? They obviously are.

PS. I'll add another note. I'm assuming you were in the hobby for the Kerry Wood and Mark Prior hype years. Add in Strasburg. These guys single handily carried the hobby during their hype peaks. Pitchers are great for the hobby when its the right talent. It just doesn't last as long as hitter hype.

This pole stinks.

Elite pitchers have always been hobby good. The perception and narrative that they aren't has been created by investors and flippers who get burned by pitching prospects. Pitchers are more prone to injuries, but those who have great careers and avoid those injuries can be hobby good. But make no mistake, when a pitching prospect comes up and looks like the next Nolan Ryan, they are hobby good. Heck, Strasburg was probably the most hobby good prospect ever.

[QUOTE=PuddleMonkey;19794451]I think the 55+ crowd loves pitchers, but they also grew up with studs that were allowed to go longer than 6 innings. Analytics and injuries neutered pitchers.[/QUOTE]

This.... I am not in that crowd, but I know that some HOF pitchers from past decades are still very highly sought after.

Shameless plug for Gerrit Cole; HOF Class of 2037.

[QUOTE=Thor34;19794583]Shameless plug for Gerrit Cole; HOF Class of 2037.[/QUOTE]

I’m not making fun of you, but your posting in this thread with a Noah Syndergaard inspired sign in is ironic

I love how this thread is cherry picking the outliers. Yes there have been times that a pitcher has been hot, but overall that fuel does not last long. Look at the base rookie cards from Cy Young winners and compare them to the MVP winners. You are looking at 10x difference for hitters.

[QUOTE=fungi2510;19794596]I love how this thread is cherry picking the outliers. Yes there have been times that a pitcher has been hot, but overall that fuel does not last long. Look at the base rookie cards from Cy Young winners and compare them to the MVP winners. You are looking at 10x difference for hitters.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you understand the question at hand. It isn't about quality of investments and holding card value long term. You can't say that Paul Skenes wasn't good for the hobby. He 100% was. You can't say that the buzz around Roki Sasaki isn't good for the hobby. It 100% is.

[QUOTE=premium1981;19794513]Unless you are referring to quality of investment, this is absolutely wrong. Yes, investing in pitchers is pretty dumb. But so is investing in most players. But the question at hand is if they are good for the hobby. It is undeniable that Paul Skenes was lighter fluid on our hot hobby this past year. And before him, Spencer Strider was one of the hottest cards for Braves players (still is). The hobby loves pitchers when they are worth loving. It doesn't make them good investments, but they are great for the hobby. How can anyone say Skenes, Strider, Ohtani when pitching, etc aren't good for the hobby? They obviously are.

PS. I'll add another note. I'm assuming you were in the hobby for the Kerry Wood and Mark Prior hype years. Add in Strasburg. These guys single handily carried the hobby during their hype peaks. Pitchers are great for the hobby when its the right talent. It just doesn't last as long as hitter hype.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. I also think the buy-in is significantly lower for most non-Skenes, Stras & Ohtani guys. If you wanted to get in cheaply on Tarik Skubal, you still could today. Same for 99% of the other SPs and pretty much every RP in the game today. See the pitcher thread for plenty of examples of guys picking up premium, key cards for pennies on the dollar.

[QUOTE=ScooterD;19794593]I’m not making fun of you, but your posting in this thread with a Noah Syndergaard inspired sign in is ironic[/QUOTE]

It's like rain on your wedding day.

[QUOTE=premium1981;19794606]I don't think you understand the question at hand. It isn't about quality of investments and holding card value long term. You can't say that Paul Skenes wasn't good for the hobby. He 100% was. You can't say that the buzz around Roki Sasaki isn't good for the hobby. It 100% is.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think YOU understand the question: are pitchers hobby good? No. Some might be for a very short time, but that is not how the phrase works. Just because a guy goes off a la Jordan Shafer or Sam Horn that does not mean they are hobby good. Buzz is not the same thing.

[QUOTE=fungi2510;19794625]No, I don't think YOU understand the question: are pitchers hobby good? No. Some might be for a very short time, but that is not how the phrase works. Just because a guy goes off a la Jordan Shafer or Sam Horn that does not mean they are hobby good. Buzz is not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Who determines the time frame for hobby good? You? Did Paul Skenes not just carry an entire product to the moon all by himself? That makes him hobby good in my book. The question wasn't if he will be hobby good in 2 years.

[QUOTE=fungi2510;19794625]are pitchers hobby good? No. Some might be for a very short time, [/QUOTE]

I do find it a bit ironic that you say they aren't hobby good, but then say they are in the next sentence. You just added a qualifier saying for a short period of time.:doh:

[QUOTE=PuddleMonkey;19794395]I don't mind calling anyone [I]investing[/I] in pitchers an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Great point
Does Hobby Good mean Investor Good?

[QUOTE=cardsin47;19794634]Great point
Does Hobby Good mean Investor Good?[/QUOTE]

Hobby means demand and chatter IMO. When it comes to "investing" in cards, 99% of players are going to go down in the future. That doesn't make them irrelevant to the current hobby. Some drop fast and some drop slow. Many factors go into the rate of decline. But at the end of the day, almost all of it is bad investments long term. So if declining value takes away the "hobby good" title, then there is no hobby. Pretty much no one is hobby good if that is how we determine it. Acuna has declined in value, guess he isn't hobby good either. Pujols has declined in value, he isn't hobby good. Nolan Ryan has declined in value, he's out. Aaron Judge has declined in value from his peak. He gone. Let's just all agree that no one is hobby good.:)!

[QUOTE=fungi2510;19794625]No, I don't think YOU understand the question: are pitchers hobby good? No. Some might be for a very short time, but that is not how the phrase works. Just because a guy goes off a la Jordan Shafer or Sam Horn that does not mean they are hobby good. Buzz is not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Nolan Ryan and Johnny Bench have a rookie card in the same year. Johnny Bench is the greatest catcher of all time. Nolan Ryan is like the 30th best pitcher of all time. Who is more collectible? Who is hobby good? Here's a hint, Nolan Ryan is the most valuable non-rookie card in every playing days set he's in.

So yes, pitchers are a much bigger gamble, so the period most of them are hobby good is shorter. But they can be hobby good, and they can maintain being hobby good. Top end pitching prospects routinely drive the market (Wood, Pryor, Strasburg, Skenes, etc...). Those aren't outliers. The number of hobby good players at any time is small. So for 4+ pitchers to be the top draw in the market over a 20 year span is significant.

Those of us who were around 15 years ago learned that pitchers weren't hobby good from Stephen Strasburg. People spending big bucks on Paul Skenes will learn soon enough.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794651]Those of us who were around 15 years ago learned that pitchers weren't hobby good from Stephen Strasburg. People spending big bucks on Paul Skenes will learn soon enough.[/QUOTE]

Huh? We all learned that Strasburg WAS hobby good. He was the hobby goat. Being hobby good has nothing to do with what their cards will do in the future. It has to do with what they are doing now. And I can name just as many (actually more) position players who were hobby good that fell off the planet and whose cards are worthless. Just as I can name pitchers whose careers are over that are still hobby good.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794651]Those of us who were around 15 years ago learned that pitchers weren't hobby good from Stephen Strasburg. People spending big bucks on Paul Skenes will learn soon enough.[/QUOTE]

Careful...some people on this forum will accuse you of wanting him to fail for saying this just so you can come back and say, "I told you so!" :)!

I'd argue that things were already starting to turn around for pitchers a bit as Spencer Strider had card values rivalling hitters. In a way, he was proof-of-concept for Skenes buyers (not me). There is room in the market for pitchers, but they have to be clear-cut aces on a year-to-year basis. Kershaw, Scherzer, and Verlander have been hobby good for ages but they are aging out. Cole and Sale might be able to get there eventually but hobby inertia and a bias against pitchers has me doubtful. I do think that young, high strikeout heavy pitchers will always catch collectors' attention. That said, any Skenes card I happen to acquire will be sold instantly and I only buy pitcher cards to collect because they are cheap and fun.

[QUOTE=jduds;19794670]I'd argue that things were already starting to turn around for pitchers a bit as Spencer Strider had card values rivalling hitters. In a way, he was proof-of-concept for Skenes buyers (not me). There is room in the market for pitchers, but they have to be clear-cut aces on a year-to-year basis. Kershaw, Scherzer, and Verlander have been hobby good for ages but they are aging out. Cole and Sale might be able to get there eventually but hobby inertia and a bias against pitchers has me doubtful. I do think that young, high strikeout heavy pitchers will always catch collectors' attention. That said, any Skenes card I happen to acquire will be sold instantly and I only buy pitcher cards to collect because they are cheap and fun.[/QUOTE]

I feel like it's the opposite. When I was collecting 30-40 years ago, I never once heard the concept that pitchers weren't hobby good. We were all chasing Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson just as much as the hitters. It wasn't until prospecting really took off in the late 2000s that this concept seemed to take root, and not until the pandemic era that it really went nuts. I am convinced the concept that pitchers aren't hobby good is based solely on the fear that prospecting their Bowman cards is a risky investment.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794651]Those of us who were around 15 years ago learned that pitchers weren't hobby good from Stephen Strasburg. People spending big bucks on Paul Skenes will learn soon enough.[/QUOTE]

Strasburg was the hobby for a period of time. There was no player in the entire hobby that had higher demand at that time. His arm falling off later doesn't change that peak hobby demand.

[QUOTE=Big35Hurt;19794658]Careful...some people on this forum will accuse you of wanting him to fail for saying this just so you can come back and say, "I told you so!" :)![/QUOTE]

I won't bother. There's enough proof for ME not to spend big money on cards of current pitchers. Everyone in this thread that needs to be right can drop the "I told you so" when Skenes DOESN'T blow out his elbow and need TJ surgery and the rest of us will all stand corrected.

BTW, all of Strasburg's cards that were $1k+ back when he was "the hobby goat" can all be had for under $150 today. I wanted his Million Dollar Giveaway Autograph and will pick one up at some point for pennies on the dollar.

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19794676]I feel like it's the opposite. When I was collecting 30-40 years ago, I never once heard the concept that pitchers weren't hobby good. We were all chasing Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson just as much as the hitters. It wasn't until prospecting really took off in the late 2000s that this concept seemed to take root, and not until the pandemic era that it really went nuts. I am convinced the concept that pitchers aren't hobby good is based solely on the fear that prospecting their Bowman cards is a risky investment.[/QUOTE]

Nolan Ryan was the main guy I collected in the late 80's. In the 90's it was Greg Maddux. My wallet says that they were indeed hobby good, as you mentioned.

I think the problem is more attached to how pitchers are used now and the injuries that happen to so many of them. You can't remain in high demand when you aren't playing. And if you have enough time sitting on the pine, your career numbers do not get to where previous greats got to. But that is true of hitters too. It just happens to pitchers more often. Josh Hamilton had a massive peak and cratered to really low lows because of his inability to stay on the field (for multiple reasons). Its really not much different than someone like Strasburg. So was it because Strasburg was a pitcher? No, it was because he didn't live up to the hype. Same as Josh Hamilton.

There isn't a single person here that can say with a straight face that if Paul Skenes never gets injured and wins 300 games and strikes out 4,000 batters that he wouldn't have hobby demand just because he is a pitcher. So that means losing the title "hobby good" is about lack of performance. Not because of the position being played.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794696]I won't bother. There's enough proof for ME not to spend big money on cards of current pitchers. Everyone in this thread that needs to be right can drop the "I told you so" when Skenes DOESN'T blow out his elbow and need TJ surgery and the rest of us will all stand corrected.

BTW, all of Strasburg's cards that were $1k+ back when he was "the hobby goat" can all be had for under $150 today. I wanted his Million Dollar Giveaway Autograph and will pick one up at some point for pennies on the dollar.[/QUOTE]

So the 2025 market erases the 2010 market? I don't understand that logic. I understand how bad of an investment he was. That is undeniable. But 2010 actually happened. It isn't a theory. He was the hottest name in the hobby.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794696]I won't bother. There's enough proof for ME not to spend big money on cards of current pitchers. Everyone in this thread that needs to be right can drop the "I told you so" when Skenes DOESN'T blow out his elbow and need TJ surgery and the rest of us will all stand corrected.

BTW, all of Strasburg's cards that were $1k+ back when he was "the hobby goat" can all be had for under $150 today. I wanted his Million Dollar Giveaway Autograph and will pick one up at some point for pennies on the dollar.[/QUOTE]

Oh I 100% agree with you if the question is SHOULD young pitchers be hobby good from an investment standpoint. Especially in the current game, they are a HUGE risk. But that's not what this discussion is about.

[QUOTE=premium1981;19794700]So the 2025 market erases the 2010 market? I don't understand that logic. I understand how bad of an investment he was. That is undeniable. But 2010 actually happened. It isn't a theory. He was the hottest name in the hobby.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. The hobby goat for a 10-year period disappeared and the bottom fell out from underneath the value of his cards once he retired. Guys like Ichiro, Pujols, etc that are all hobby good has seen their prices hold or increase over time because they remained hobby good even after retirement. If pitchers remain hobby good only when they're doing well and then fall into the hobby abyss after they retire, then their being hobby good is fleeting at best. All time greats like Nolan Ryan aside, modern pitchers don't do it.

Again, I don't need to be right. I've seen enough to not go out and spend big money on any pitchers. My heart goes out to the person spending $1 million on that Skenes Pro Debut patch.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794716]My heart goes out to the person spending $1 million on that Skenes Pro Debut patch.[/QUOTE]

Not mine - let the buyer beware

Just spitballing a little, but it seems that pitchers become “hot” in the hobby when either (1) you have a rookie lighting the world on fire or (2) you have a group of the same 3-4 who are dominant every year.

Group A would be Prior, Wood, Lincecum, Skenes, etc. Obviously, injuries have hurt this group (no pun intended).

Group B would be the groups of Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux - Pedro, Unit, Maddux - Verlander, Scherzer, deGrom, Kershaw. I’m sure that I’m forgetting some groups or leaving people out. These groups have had more staying power because they have (mostly) been able to stay on the field and put up great numbers year after year.

The problem with group B is that the exception (DeGrom) is becoming more of the norm for the modern pitcher. Look at Snell - 2 CYs, but his other 7 seasons have been unremarkable. People cant have confidence that his cards will go up if he is only healthy and effective once every 4 years. Group B is a dying breed

[QUOTE=ScooterD;19794725]Just spitballing a little, but it seems that pitchers become “hot” in the hobby when either (1) you have a rookie lighting the world on fire or (2) you have a group of the same 3-4 who are dominant every year.

Group A would be Prior, Wood, Lincecum, Skenes, etc. Obviously, injuries have hurt this group (no pun intended).

Group B would be the groups of Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux - Pedro, Unit, Maddux - Verlander, Scherzer, deGrom. I’m sure that I’m forgetting some groups or leaving people out. These groups have had more staying power because they have (mostly) been able to stay on the field and put up great numbers year after year.

The problem with group B is that the exception (DeGrom) is becoming more of the norm for the modern pitcher. Look at Snell - 2 CYs, but his other 7 seasons have been unremarkable. People cant have confidence that his cards will go up if he is only healthy and effective once every 4 years. Group B is a dying breed[/QUOTE]

You need a Group C for guys who are amazing but -- for whatever reason -- don't have a jaw-dropping W/L record and therefore fly under the radar. Zack Wheeler, Aaron Nola, Logan Webb, etc.

[QUOTE=Triple B;19794716] I've seen enough to not go out and spend big money on any pitchers. My heart goes out to the person spending $1 million on that Skenes Pro Debut patch.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%. But I also feel that way about almost every card. I think they are all bad investments. I buy Braves that will be in my collection with my son forever (unless I croak and he sells them all). But I fully expect, if he were to ever sell them they would not be worth as much down the road. And we have some jaw dropping cards in our collection. I think there is just too much available and people have short attention spans.

I think this topic can be looked back on in 15 years and other than a rare exception, every single player and card will be down. So to say its because someone is a pitcher isn't fair. They just don't hold up physically the same as a hitter so they just drop faster. But when the great pitching talents of our game perform, and keep performing the rate of drop is no really any bigger than hitters. Greg Maddux additions to the collection still cost a lot.

But again, to clarify, I agree that pitchers are bad investments.

Terms like Hobby Good devalue critical thinking

[QUOTE=PumpnDumpling;19794736]Terms like Hobby Good devalue critical thinking[/QUOTE]

I don’t think so …. It’s a necessary bucket to help classify a group of Players.

[QUOTE=cardsin47;19794743]I don’t think so …. [B]It’s a necessary bucket to help classify a group of Players[/B].[/QUOTE]

So that they can be what?

[QUOTE=StateEx;19794729]You need a Group C for guys who are amazing but -- for whatever reason -- don't have a jaw-dropping W/L record and therefore fly under the radar. Zack Wheeler, Aaron Nola, Logan Webb, etc.[/QUOTE]

I think you’re right - and this group would be filled with effective pitchers who would see a bump if they put together a great season and got into CY contention. If they would do that for several seasons in a row, they could “graduate” to group B. Is that fair?

Looking back, I would put Mark Buerhle into this group - yes? The problem is that you would have to flip these guys at the right time to make a profit (if that’s the goal) - unless they “graduate” to group B. I would actually put Snell and Kluber here too. Maybe King Felix

In a bubble no
Profitable, yes

My favorite low end prospect is a pitcher in A ball. I think there is a better chance he sees his base BCA go from $20-50 than 95% of hitters that currently sell for $20.

[QUOTE=StateEx;19794729]You need a Group C for guys who are amazing but -- for whatever reason -- don't have a jaw-dropping W/L record and therefore fly under the radar. Zack Wheeler, Aaron Nola, Logan Webb, etc.[/QUOTE]

Y'all are forgetting about Group D: guys that can go 50/50 while recovering from surgery. Only one guy in that group though.

[QUOTE=PumpnDumpling;19794747]So that they can be what?[/QUOTE]

Hobby Good :cool:

to me Hobby Good, much like The Small HOF is a small list.

Hobby Good and Hobby Hot Right Now are not the same.

Skenes is on the Pirates and has not had TJ yet. BUT HE HAS A HOT GF! Yea, well JV married a hot chick and he is barely hobby luke warm. Kershaw, Max and Cole are also luke warm. Kershaw probably has the edge on the other three, but all are champions and future HOFers. Yet, outside of high end First Cards or other super low print cards, few people care about them

to me, a strong indicator of Hobby Good is when a kid pulls a 8th year base card of the player and says "wow, i got (name here)!"

there is nothing wrong with thinking that some of these younger pitchers have or will help the hobby right now, but much like the Woods/Priors/Straus' of the hobby, they will fade in time

There are hobby good pitchers in every generation. It's simply not accurate to say collectors don't care about Maddux, Pedro, Nolan, Christy Matthewson, Cy Young, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, the list of hobby good players is small. But it always includes pitchers. And it has nothing to do with the position they play whether they are on or not on the list. It has everything to do with their individual performance and marketability.

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19794780]
Cy Yound [/QUOTE]

Is he from Japan? ( jk OLF5 )

The only two pitchers who are really "hobby good" are Koufax and Ryan.

Nobody cares much about everyone else.

Look at the prices of Randy Johnson cards as compared to Griffey cards, for example....

[QUOTE=mfw13;19794787]The only two pitchers who are really "hobby good" are Koufax and Ryan.

Nobody cares much about everyone else.

Look at the prices of Randy Johnson cards as compared to Griffey cards, for example....[/QUOTE]

Even if I agreed with your evaluation (which I don't), your list of hobby good pitchers just shows that even a pitcher who blows out his arm and has a short career can be hobby good. :coffee:

[QUOTE=cardsin47;19794783]Is he from Japan? ( jk OLF5 )[/QUOTE]

Fixed. Thanks.:)!

It's all about the numbers. We like gaudy numbers.

Nolan Ryan is so sought after because of his longevity and ridiculous numbers he put up over his lengthy career.
He is an outlier and yes, very hobby good.

On the other hand, we could look at Koufax and his relatively short career and didn't sniff 200 wins or 3000 k's but he may have had the most dominant 4 year stretch ever. He also won 4 world series, collected 2 MVP's and 3 Cy Young awards in just 12 years. Playing for the Dodgers didn't hurt either.

The problem with todays pitchers is that we just aren't going to see those season or career numbers due to innings limits. How many guys starting out in the last say 5-10 years are ever going to get to 300 wins or 3000 strikeouts? Maybe none and that's just sad.

Heck, in the last 10 years there's only been 5 pitchers that have 300 strikeouts in a season and the last time was 6 years ago!

[QUOTE=Promethius88;19794795]It's all about the numbers. We like gaudy numbers.

Nolan Ryan is so sought after because of his longevity and ridiculous numbers he put up over his lengthy career.
He is an outlier and yes, very hobby good.

On the other hand, we could look at Koufax and his relatively short career and didn't sniff 200 wins or 3000 k's but he may have had the most dominant 4 year stretch ever. He also won 4 world series, collected 2 MVP's and 3 Cy Young awards in just 12 years. Playing for the Dodgers didn't hurt either.

The problem with todays pitchers is that we just aren't going to see those season or career numbers due to innings limits. How many guys starting out in the last say 5-10 years are ever going to get to 300 wins or 3000 strikeouts? Maybe none and that's just sad.

Heck, in the last 10 years there's only been 5 pitchers that have 300 strikeouts in a season and the last time was 6 years ago![/QUOTE]

This is true. But I think the bar will evolve with the position.

[QUOTE=cardsin47;19794765]Hobby Good :cool:[/QUOTE]

[URL="[url=https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/0jmzSHm/giphy.gif[/img][/url]"][url=https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/0jmzSHm/giphy.gif[/img][/url][/URL]

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19794803]This is true. But I think the bar will evolve with the position.[/QUOTE]

As I was typing all of that I wondered the same thing. As the sport evolves to specialized pitching, it possibly could but then how does anyone ever stand out?

You could have a bunch of dominant guys that pitch no more than 4 innings an outing and unless they are giving up nothing and striking out everyone, they are pretty much on the same level.

It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

I think what people don’t realize about pitchers is you have the ability to pick up guys that could easily win a Cy Young in 1-2 years and it’s not uncommon to be paying sub $50 for a true gold BCA or Topps Chrome Gold RC. The chances of doing this for a hitter are literally 0.

Sure when the hitter does finish top 3 MVP he’s worth way more then the pitcher but when they both such your losses are infinitely higher then the pitchers.

Just looking at some of best pitchers in baseball now.

skubal was basically free
Ragans was free
Strider was free
Mclanahan was free
Mason miller was free
Crochet was free

[QUOTE=johnlocke36;19794810]I think what people don’t realize about pitchers is you have the ability to pick up guys that could easily win a Cy Young in 1-2 years and it’s not uncommon to be paying sub $50 for a true gold BCA or Topps Chrome Gold RC. The chances of doing this for a hitter are literally 0.

Sure when the hitter does finish top 3 MVP he’s worth way more then the pitcher but when they both such your losses are infinitely higher then the pitchers.

Just looking at some of best pitchers in baseball now.

skubal was basically free
Ragans was free
Strider was free
Mclanahan was free
Mason miller was free
Crochet was free[/QUOTE]

I agree that's how it is now. But it wasn't always that way. I believe that mindset is a recent phenomenon. It wasn't unusual for the top pitchiing prospect to outsell the top hitting prospect. Brien Taylor, Todd Vanpoppel, and Ben McDonald rivaled Kevin Maas and Phil Plantier. People didn't think twice about chasing pitchers. But now that investing has become the norm, people have been burned too many times by pitchers and now shy away from them.

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19794821]I agree that's how it is now. But it wasn't always that way. I believe that mindset is a recent phenomenon. It wasn't unusual for the top pitchiing prospect to outsell the top hitting prospect. Brien Taylor, Todd Vanpoppel, and Ben McDonald rivaled Kevin Maas and Phil Plantier. People didn't think twice about chasing pitchers. But now that investing has become the norm, people have been burned too many times by pitchers and now shy away from them.[/QUOTE]

Whats interesting is that I think pitchers are more risk free now then ever even though they are more inclined to have TJ etc. Largely because elite stuff at any level is just going to play at any level and the evolutions in pitching theory over the last 10 years blow hitting out of the water. Basically take a guy that puts up Skenes/Burns/Smith numbers in the SEC and they are also going to dominate in MLB. Before Skenes came up I said he was already a top 10 MLB pitcher and possibly best pitcher in baseball and was basically laughed at. Ill say it now to Burns and Smith are prob both top 30 SP in baseball right now.

Now where is the risk, they will all prob have TJ at some point. But doesn't matter you can sell before then or you can buy in after the TJ (thats what I like to do). But the chances of some of these guys just not having it or not making it some reason outside of injuries is far less then any hitter prospect

[QUOTE=johnlocke36;19794831]Whats interesting is that I think pitchers are more risk free now then ever even though they are more inclined to have TJ etc. Largely because elite stuff at any level is just going to play at any level and the evolutions in pitching theory over the last 10 years blow hitting out of the water. Basically take a guy that puts up Skenes/Burns/Smith numbers in the SEC and they are also going to dominate in MLB. Before Skenes came up I said he was already a top 10 MLB pitcher and possibly best pitcher in baseball and was basically laughed at. Ill say it now to Burns and Smith are prob both top 30 SP in baseball right now.

Now where is the risk, they will all prob have TJ at some point. But doesn't matter you can sell before then or you can buy in after the TJ (thats what I like to do). But the chances of some of these guys just not having it or not making it some reason outside of injuries is far less then any hitter prospect[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is a fascinating phenomenon in all this. Because of the shift toward shying away from pitchers, it has created a sitation where if you are going to invest, there are some real values out there for pitchers. That said, I don't invest in cards, so it's not real relevant to me, but I can see what you mean.

I guess that is the ultimate question of this thread. As the hobby cycles from loving pitchers, to shying away from the, to seeing there might be some value in them again, will people see someone like Skenes and the hobby shift back toward pitchers en masse? Instead of niche investors seeing value, will a lot of people?

I don't know the answer to that because there are obviously other factors at play, notably the increased risk of injury is greater than every before.

[QUOTE=ThoseBackPages;19794384]absolutely not

Skenes is on the Pirates and has not had TJ yet[/QUOTE]

No Trader Joe's in Pittsburgh?!

[QUOTE=eastbayak;19794867]No Trader Joe's in Pittsburgh?![/QUOTE]

Pity-Im digging the chile lime pork rinds

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19794838]

I guess that is the ultimate question of this thread. As the hobby cycles from loving pitchers, to shying away from the, to seeing there might be some value in them again, will people see someone like Skenes and the hobby shift back toward pitchers en masse? Instead of niche investors seeing value, will a lot of people?
.[/QUOTE]

This was the exact premise for this Thread. :)!

If the goal is to buy, flip, and make money - I think you stay away from the legends and the hot prospects/rookies. You find someone with electric stuff who could break out for a season or two. Then you flip and put the profits into another potential rising star on the cheap.

Dan - does that sound right?

People buying Skenes right now are gonna get rekt.

I collect pitchers, but go look at Ryan/Koufax/Kershaw rookies to see pitcher ceilings. Then check out other elite HoF pitchers like Bob Gibson. It ain't great.

[QUOTE=nowiamsad;19794961]People buying Skenes right now are gonna get rekt.

I collect pitchers, but go look at Ryan/Koufax/Kershaw rookies to see pitcher ceilings. Then check out other elite HoF pitchers like Bob Gibson. It ain't great.[/QUOTE]

I mean, it's not bad. Compare Koufax to the big position player rookie in 1955 Topps. Clemente sells for a little more, but not much. Compare Ryan to the other big position player rookie from 1968 Topps. Ryan outsells Bench by far. I think you are underselling how much hobby good pitchers sell for.

[QUOTE=ScooterD;19794906]If the goal is to buy, flip, and make money - I think you stay away from the legends and the hot prospects/rookies. You find someone with electric stuff who could break out for a season or two. Then you flip and put the profits into another potential rising star on the cheap.

Dan - does that sound right?[/QUOTE]

Yes if you are looking to make money you poor all your money into someone like prelander berroa. But there is very limited upside in these guys as it’s a challenge to even find $1000 worth of cards to buy for a guy if you wanted (assuming you are only buying reasonably priced cards.). Then when they turn into crochet you sell the next season

This whole rookie Pitcher pump reminds me of the NFL bois pumping RBs, WRs, and other positions when the QBs were trash. Eventually the hype wore off and they moved onto the next QB.

[QUOTE=nowiamsad;19794961]People buying Skenes right now are gonna get rekt.

I collect pitchers, but go look at Ryan/Koufax/Kershaw rookies to see pitcher ceilings. Then check out other elite HoF pitchers like Bob Gibson. It ain't great.[/QUOTE]

Not saying it won't happen but we're also comparing apples to oranges.

Card attributes significantly differ between the two groups (unsure about Kershaw but Ryan/Koufax/Gibson didn't have autographed/game-used/superfractor RCs).

[QUOTE=ScooterD;19794906]If the goal is to buy, flip, and make money - I think you stay away from the legends and the hot prospects/rookies. You find someone with electric stuff who could break out for a season or two. Then you flip and put the profits into another potential rising star on the cheap.

Dan - does that sound right?[/QUOTE]


[IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250128/5d5299f34d801a7cc963d75f0ed825e8.jpg[/IMG]
That’s me scoot- making sure to toss back the runts that don’t pop for a 75%ish+ refund. For me lack of big downside makes chasing colorful balls of yarn a fun and relatively risk free pursuit. Buy as cheap as absolutely possible, never delay selling when tangible profits are attainable. Penny stock tangents with the low expectation of successes that yield a tank of gas or bundle pack of national brand Mac and cheese dinners as the spoils. Super exciting stuff.
Make no mistake, I’m not collecting baseball cards. Rather I’m playing with cards in a very predictable and cyclical cycle of whimsy and half baked gut instinct. As I’ve alluded to before, confirmation of being correct and ego stroking play a fair part here too. Some years it’s an absolute wash of running in place, some years you hit on Ragans and Skubal and take the kids camping with steaks.

[QUOTE=ScooterD;19794751]I think you’re right - and this group would be filled with effective pitchers who would see a bump if they put together a great season and got into CY contention. If they would do that for several seasons in a row, they could “graduate” to group B. Is that fair?

Looking back, I would put Mark Buerhle into this group - yes? The problem is that you would have to flip these guys at the right time to make a profit (if that’s the goal) - unless they “graduate” to group B. I would actually put Snell and Kluber here too. Maybe King Felix[/QUOTE]

Agree. And guys who don't make the jump will be the ones we're having HoF arguments about in 15 years. Guys with high WARs, but no CYs, etc.

[QUOTE=LVDan;19794878]Pity-Im digging the chile lime pork rinds[/QUOTE]

Surely there's an In & Out. Right?!

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;19794975]I mean, it's not bad. Compare Koufax to the big position player rookie in 1955 Topps. Clemente sells for a little more, but not much. Compare Ryan to the other big position player rookie from 1968 Topps. Ryan outsells Bench by far. I think you are underselling how much hobby good pitchers sell for.[/QUOTE]

Yea I think people are underestimating the chances that Skenes stays healthy and just ends up being like greatest pitcher of all time (won’t ever have counting stats) but think more like much younger degrom trajectory that was able to stay healthy. He has potential to do stuff no pitcher in a long time has done