Why don't baseball card collectors care about WS Rings?

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Griffey, Banks, Sandberg, etc. - they all greatly regret not being able to play in the World Series and have been quoted to say so.

Dan Marino’s biggest regret in the nfl was not having won the Super Bowl.

I understand today’s players may have different priorities which reflects today’s societal priorities, but when you are already filthy rich, not having a championship ring is always something that your filthy rich champion colleagues can hold against you.

You all may be filthy rich, but if you don’t have a ring, you will still be haunted for never winning it all. It’s human nature.

Back in the day, before money was the only priority in sports, people actually took pride in winning.

When you got it all, you don’t actually have it all unless you have a ring, ask any athlete that, not their agents.

Winning is important to professional athletes, I'm saying it's not the #1 priority for a vast majority of them.

And I trust what an agent says vs. what athletes say in public. How many athletes are going to publicly admit money is their top priority? Look at a guy like Kirk Cousins. He had that special place in his house for the Lombardi trophy and kept talking about wanting to win it. But when he was a FA this summer, he took the money even though he's already like top 10 in highest earners in NFL history. If winning was really that important to him, he could have taken less and stayed with the Vikings (or gone to another team on the cheap). Actions speak louder than words.

How many pros under the age of 25 would take a championship ring over $100M? Most of them are just fighting to stay in the league so they can get a 2nd contract.

So to answer your original question...what do most athletes play for and why?

I'd say most play for money so they can provide for their families.

And I don't fault them for that. As an athlete, that window to cash in is very small and can shut quickly. Make $$$ while you can. And honestly, even if you take less money, there is still no promise that you're going to win a chip. But the money is guaranteed (for the most part).

Just don't expect me to believe it when you say your top priority is winning and you're getting top dollar in the sport.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Winning is important to professional athletes, I'm saying it's not the #1 priority for a vast majority of them.

And I trust what an agent says vs. what athletes say in public. How many athletes are going to publicly admit money is their top priority? Look at a guy like Kirk Cousins. He had that special place in his house for the Lombardi trophy and kept talking about wanting to win it. But when he was a FA this summer, he took the money even though he's already like top 10 in highest earners in NFL history. If winning was really that important to him, he could have taken less and stayed with the Vikings (or gone to another team on the cheap). Actions speak louder than words.

How many pros under the age of 25 would take a championship ring over $100M? Most of them are just fighting to stay in the league so they can get a 2nd contract.

So to answer your original question...what do most athletes play for and why?

I'd say most play for money so they can provide for their families.

And I don't fault them for that. As an athlete, that window to cash in is very small and can shut quickly. Make $$$ while you can. And honestly, even if you take less money, there is still no promise that you're going to win a chip. But the money is guaranteed (for the most part).

Just don't expect me to believe it when you say your top priority is winning and you're getting top dollar in the sport.

Wait, Kirk Cousins valuing money over a Super Bowl ring? You millennials are killing me tonight! Of course a perennial loser is going to value money over something he is never going to have.

Obviously athletes and all other living human beings on earth need to prioritize that big contract first to secure a future for their following generations. Athletes prioritize oxygen, water and nutrition first as well.

You forget, however, we are talking about legacies of the greatest players in their sport - they all have the big contracts and are set for generations.

What separates the great from the greatest, who is the cream of the crop? The ones with rings.

Ask Griffey if he would sacrifice several years of salary for a championship ring? No brainer. Ask fish boy what he wants at this point of his career - no brainer. It’ll be the monkey that is surgically attached to his back for eternity.

Regret is real.

[REGGIE206]

Rings matter in our baseball hobby. That is the reason why Mickey Mantle cards sell more than Willie Mays cards.

[PuddleMonkey]

People want what they don't have, it's human nature. If you don't have money you'd love to get your hands on some. When you have gobs of it that ring sounds awfully nice.

[hermanotarjeta]

Career finals records don’t mean a thing.

Sincerely,

Lebron fan bois

[dream34]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Trout fan claiming rings are overvalued and for the uneducated and lazy?

Sounds par for the course to me!

For all the typing you do, you really should do some reading and pay attention to what other people type.

The Trout in my avatar is a reminder to myself of never selling too early on a good idea. I had 2 of them, quadrupled my money on each and sold them at 2k apiece a long time ago because I’m a Harper guy.

I have ZERO posts in any Trout thread and could have told you years ago that it wasn’t going to happen for him. He re-signed with the worst possible company/organization you can. Ohtani saw the same signs and left as soon as he could.

[dream34]

Honestly, you’re showing your incredible lack of baseball knowledge. I don’t know any baseball fan that dings Griffey for no titles much less “monkey on his back”. That’s a term reserved for other sports.

I’ll say it again, fans of other sports love narratives to solve arguments or prove greatness. Baseball fans actually use data and facts because they are more quantifiable in baseball.

[Archangel1775]

I was about to point out Ken Griffey Jr. I can't explain it myself. Maybe it's his connection to the adults/kids in the 90s/2000's. His cards are one of the most sought after of that time frame even putting Jeter 2nd when all things are considered.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by dgioulakis

I'll be swimming against a strong current by wading into this discussion in the baseball section, but IMHO, these comments are completely missing critical points to the game of football. To be succinct about it: little offense can be generated in the NFL without a decent offensive line, and certainly not enough to sustain a drive. Aside from the player-safety aspect of protecting the quarterback, there is no run game that can be established without extremely talented tackles and guards. Without the run, you lose balance and unpredictability. During a play-action, those seconds that a DE or OLB must hesitate to read the play as it unfolds are no longer necessary if they know a QB is passing.



It doesn't matter if you have Mahomes or Brady. We literally saw this playout just recently in '20-'21 when the Chiefs offensive line was banged up post-AFC championship. The Superbowl ended 31-9 with potentially the two greatest QBs in NFL history. Arguably, this had little to do with Mahomes' turf toe and more so because both his starting tackles were out from injury. He had no time to let any play develop. This is also why tackles and defensive ends are among the highest-paid positions outside of QBs and star receivers.



While I agree with what is being said in regards to basketball, which I do think a single player can have an outsized influence on the outcome, I don't think there is any sport that is more team-oriented than football. At least in baseball a single player can drive up to four runs at a single at-bat.



I strongly encourage everyone the next time you watch a football game: for each play, pick a single lineman to follow as best as possible. It's difficult because the cameras don't give a good perspective on the line. But each play is drawn up so uniquely that when you see the movement, it's so beautifully orchestrated and each player must hit their designed play at the right moment for it to have a chance to succeed. I'm going to borrow some images just to help illustrate what's often not understood, or overlooked, or simply under-appreciated:

We all understand football is a team sport. But we're baseball collectors. Tell it to football collectors who don't understand it. To them, it's all about quarterbacks in the hobby. And for quarterbacks, who have more effect on the game than any other single position, they put emphasis on rings. If football understood their sport, they would collect more than quarterbacks.

[jhssketchcards]

Yogi Berra has more rings (10 just as a player) than anyone in MLB history and won 3 MVPs on a team with hobby GOAT Mickey Mantle…

And no one cares. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by dream34

Honestly, you’re showing your incredible lack of baseball knowledge. I don’t know any baseball fan that dings Griffey for no titles much less “monkey on his back”. That’s a term reserved for other sports.

I’ll say it again, fans of other sports love narratives to solve arguments or prove greatness. Baseball fans actually use data and facts because they are more quantifiable in baseball.

Individual achievements and records/milestones are more revered and recognized in baseball due to it’s long history in extensive print media.

Basketball and football cards really didn’t become a thing until the late 90’s.

My bad about assuming you are a Trout homer though you represent as one via your avatar, my point is that they probably use that argument the most to defend their guy, it’s been like that for a decade.

[Twalk1975]

If you could assign say 10 points across a player's attributes (stats, charisma, team, championships) to create the perfect hobby star, how would you do it?

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

I was about to point out Ken Griffey Jr. I can't explain it myself. Maybe it's his connection to the adults/kids in the 90s/2000's. His cards are one of the most sought after of that time frame even putting Jeter 2nd when all things are considered.

It’s the nostalgia and the fact that his UD1 single-handedly 10x’d the hobby in the early 90’s.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Wait, Kirk Cousins valuing money over a Super Bowl ring? You millennials are killing me tonight! Of course a perennial loser is going to value money over something he is never going to have.

Obviously athletes and all other living human beings on earth need to prioritize that big contract first to secure a future for their following generations. Athletes prioritize oxygen, water and nutrition first as well.

You forget, however, we are talking about legacies of the greatest players in their sport - they all have the big contracts and are set for generations.

What separates the great from the greatest, who is the cream of the crop? The ones with rings.

Ask Griffey if he would sacrifice several years of salary for a championship ring? No brainer. Ask fish boy what he wants at this point of his career - no brainer. It’ll be the monkey that is surgically attached to his back for eternity.

Regret is real.

Your question was ask any athlete what they play for and why, not ask the greatest athletes who have made the more money than they can spend in 10 lifetimes what they play for and why.

I have no doubt 54 year old Griffey would give up a few years of salary for a ring, especially in hindsight. As others have said, anyone that has everything but a ring wants a ring. But ask Griffey if he'd rather have his career (20+ seasons, $172M in salary plus whatever else in endorsements) or if he'd rather have Albert Almora's career (7 years, ~$8M, WS ring).

[hermanotarjeta]

If Ernie Banks had five World Series rings, his cards would be much more coveted.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Your question was ask any athlete what they play for and why, not ask the greatest athletes who have made the more money than they can spend in 10 lifetimes what they play for and why.

I have no doubt 54 year old Griffey would give up a few years of salary for a ring, especially in hindsight. As others have said, anyone that has everything but a ring wants a ring. But ask Griffey if he'd rather have his career (20+ seasons, $172M in salary plus whatever else in endorsements) or if he'd rather have Albert Almora's career (7 years, ~$8M, WS ring).

Like Kirk Cousins, nobody collects Albert Almora. Both are irrelevant to this conversation.

To denigrate winning as not being the main motivating factor why the most collectible athletes play their respective sports is idiocy. Your conjecture has no validity.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by dream34

Honestly, you’re showing your incredible lack of baseball knowledge. I don’t know any baseball fan that dings Griffey for no titles much less “monkey on his back”. That’s a term reserved for other sports.

I’ll say it again, fans of other sports love narratives to solve arguments or prove greatness. Baseball fans actually use data and facts because they are more quantifiable in baseball.

Sounds like you feel more baseball fans value individual statistics over actually winning. That’s a narrative drive in itself.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Like Kirk Cousins, nobody collects Albert Almora. Both are irrelevant to this conversation.

To denigrate winning as not being the main motivating factor why the most collectible athletes play their respective sports is idiocy. Your conjecture has no validity.

Again, your question was ask any athlete what they play for and why.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Again, your question was ask any athlete what they play for and why.

Their answer with the mic and camera in their face?

“Win championships. That’s why we play the sport.”

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Like Kirk Cousins, nobody collects Albert Almora. Both are irrelevant to this conversation.

To denigrate winning as not being the main motivating factor why the most collectible athletes play their respective sports is idiocy. Your conjecture has no validity.

Wasn't the original question about collectors motivations, not the athletes motivation?

The baseball card hobby as a whole doesn't necessarily value WS rings (Griffey, Trout, Ohtani, Judge, Banks, Sandberg, Cobb..etc), but team fans/collectors do. My Albert Almora auto card won't go anywhere while I am alive because of his connection with the 2016 Cubs. Same goes for my Matt Szczur auto card. Had that team not won it all, they wouldn't mean a thing.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

Wasn't the original question about collectors motivations, not the athletes motivation?

The baseball card hobby as a whole doesn't necessarily value WS rings (Griffey, Trout, Ohtani, Judge, Banks, Sandberg, Cobb..etc), but team fans/collectors do. My Albert Almora auto card won't go anywhere while I am alive because of his connection with the 2016 Cubs. Same goes for my Matt Szczur auto card. Had that team not won it all, they wouldn't mean a thing.

Yes, I was going to point out that cards of many common players sell like hotcakes after a team wins a World Series. Many baseball fans and card hobbyists do value World Series wins.

Perhaps it’s more of an investor thing in baseball than the other sports. So few rings to go around for so many individual stars in the sport. The narrative needs to be pushed in a more variety of ways to sell cards.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

Wasn't the original question about collectors motivations, not the athletes motivation?

The baseball card hobby as a whole doesn't necessarily value WS rings (Griffey, Trout, Ohtani, Judge, Banks, Sandberg, Cobb..etc), but team fans/collectors do. My Albert Almora auto card won't go anywhere while I am alive because of his connection with the 2016 Cubs. Same goes for my Matt Szczur auto card. Had that team not won it all, they wouldn't mean a thing.

Hey, I also collect Albert Almora (but not Szczur)!

That makes 2 of us =)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by no10pin

Tom Brady touches the ball on every play in the 4th quarter
Michael Jordan can shoot the ball on every play in the 4th quarter.

You can only bat in baseball when it's your turn.

Rings can help prices for a player, but not having one won't hurt them usually.

That is interesting. I didn't realize Tom Brady played on Defense and Special Teams. All this time I thought Brady played less than half of the plays. It is amazing what you can learn on Blowout.

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Hey, I also collect Albert Almora (but not Szczur)!

That makes 2 of us =)

I had a mission to collect auto cards (not IP) of the entire WS roster. Strop and Rondon don't appear to have them. I just found a Grimm the other day, but it is a weird college one...and stupid expensive. I kept the Szczur as he was a significant contributor during the season.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by rats60

That is interesting. I didn't realize Tom Brady played on Defense and Special Teams. All this time I thought Brady played less than half of the plays. It is amazing what you can learn on Blowout.

And on some plays like flea flickers and fumbles/Tuck Rules, he even touches it twice!

C'mon, Rats!