Jackie Robinson undervalued compared to Mantle?

[Tails01]

Why don't Jackie Robinson Topps cards command more value relative to Mantle?

Jackie appears in Topps sets from 1952 to 1956 (5 years).

Mantle appears in Topps sets from 1952 to 1969 (16 years because no 1954 or 1955 because of an exclusive contract with Bowman).

Slabbed Mantle cards typically double the same grade as Jackie cards (take 1956, for example), and yet there are more than three times the Mantle cards in existence.

Was Mantle really that much better?

Peak 5-year WAR goes to Mickey, but career WAR is very close (110 vs. 107).

[sportsyard]

Yankees bias maybe. Gap could close over time though.. the low pop of the 1952 topps mantle really lifts all other values. The fact Robinson's RC is leaf might hurt it a bit as well. The rest of Robsinson's cards would be worth more if the RC was worth more.

[mintacular]

Card collecting values goes beyond performance, that's just the way it is and will always be.

[Tails01]

Originally Posted by mintacular

Card collecting values goes beyond performance, that's just the way it is and will always be.

That's actually why this is so weird. Breaking the color barrier is a huge intangible. There's no "Mickey Mantle Day" in MLB where every player wears his number...

[Smarti5051]

It is true that Mantle sells for more than Jackie, but it definitely feels like Jackie has been closing the gap the past few years.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tails01

Why don't Jackie Robinson Topps cards command more value relative to Mantle?

Jackie appears in Topps sets from 1952 to 1956 (5 years).

Mantle appears in Topps sets from 1952 to 1969 (16 years because no 1954 or 1955 because of an exclusive contract with Bowman).

Slabbed Mantle cards typically double the same grade as Jackie cards (take 1956, for example), and yet there are more than three times the Mantle cards in existence.

Was Mantle really that much better?

Peak 5-year WAR goes to Mickey, but career WAR is very close (110 vs. 107).

Jackie Robinson has a fwar of 57.2 & bwar of 63.9. On the field Robinson wasn't close to Mantle, not that that matters much to value.

[hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

It is true that Mantle sells for more than Jackie, but it definitely feels like Jackie has been closing the gap the past few years.

This. Jackie and Mays too.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sportsyard

Yankees bias maybe. Gap could close over time though.. the low pop of the 1952 topps mantle really lifts all other values. The fact Robinson's RC is leaf might hurt it a bit as well. The rest of Robsinson's cards would be worth more if the RC was worth more.

In March of last year a PSA 7 Jackie RC sold for 402k. The highest sale for a PSA 7 52 T Mantle is 264k, 51 B Mantle RC is 174k.

[SpartanWarrior]

The gap between the two is much different in 2022 than it was in 1992.

in 1992 you could get a nice VG-EX 1956 Jackie for $30-40 give or take. Same nice VG-EX Mantle would run you $200-250. And you'd sell 15 Mantles for every Jackie that you sold. Today I'd say Jackie sells at a more similar rate if you just look at 51-56 cards. Both are highly desirable.

There is also the factor that for a period of time Mantle was "the guy" on "the team". Throw in the cultural significance of the 52 Mantle to card collecting and you end up with Mantle being the king of BB cards.

[MantleMarisFord]

Originally Posted by SpartanWarrior

in 1992 you could get a nice VG-EX 1956 Jackie for $30-40 give or take. Same nice VG-EX Mantle would run you $200-250.

Where did I put my time machine? 🤣

[oplum29]

Mickey Mantle was The Mick, he was the boyhood hero for a lot of kids around that time.

and he played for the Yankees too, replacing DiMaggio in center field.

i think over the years, as the movies, Jackie Robinson appreciation day, and things like that, the gap has closed somewhat, but not really. it's Mantle and then everybody else.

even Willie Mays and Hank Aaron have a little bit of a gap after the Mick don't they?

[Scooby9261]

Yeah ive noticed that with a lot of cards. I have cards that hold more historical value that are worth very little. Yet a beat up Mantle (any year) costs significantly more. Its just how it goes, im glad there are plenty of great players to collect for that dont cost an arm and a leg. I own a few Mantles, but Im not looking for more either. Ive had a lot of fun collecting Maris, Cepeda, Skowron and now Bobby Richardson cards and trying to complete all their Topps cards from when they played. Lot of variety.

-Walt B
CTCards

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Originally Posted by rats60

Jackie Robinson has a fwar of 57.2 & bwar of 63.9. On the field Robinson wasn't close to Mantle, not that that matters much to value.

That’s not the whole story right? I’ve I compare their fWARs over the same age ranges (age 28 when Jackie started in the MLB to end of career, 36 for Mantle, 37 for Jackie), Jackie outpaces Mantle 57.2 to 44.3. That’s a huge difference. Mantle’s last best season came as a 32 year old with a 5.5 season. At the same age, Jackie had a 9.0 season and followed it up with a 7.8 and a 6.

Who’s to say what Jackie could have done had he played in his prime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vintg]

Originally Posted by IgnatiusJReilly

That’s not the whole story right? I’ve I compare their fWARs over the same age ranges (age 28 when Jackie started in the MLB to end of career, 36 for Mantle, 37 for Jackie), Jackie outpaces Mantle 57.2 to 44.3. That’s a huge difference. Mantle’s last best season came as a 32 year old with a 5.5 season. At the same age, Jackie had a 9.0 season and followed it up with a 7.8 and a 6.

Who’s to say what Jackie could have done had he played in his prime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

excellent info !! thanks alot for that post

[rats60]

Originally Posted by IgnatiusJReilly

That’s not the whole story right? I’ve I compare their fWARs over the same age ranges (age 28 when Jackie started in the MLB to end of career, 36 for Mantle, 37 for Jackie), Jackie outpaces Mantle 57.2 to 44.3. That’s a huge difference. Mantle’s last best season came as a 32 year old with a 5.5 season. At the same age, Jackie had a 9.0 season and followed it up with a 7.8 and a 6.

Who’s to say what Jackie could have done had he played in his prime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you want to cherry pick years when Mantle was hurt. Mantle missed 39 games in 1962 with a knee injury. Mantle missed 99 games in 1963 with a broken foot. Mantle missed 40 games in 1965 with a hamstring injury. Mantle missed 64 games in 1966 with an injured shoulder. So you want to compare 7 injured years and 3 healthy years of Mantle to Robinson's 10 years? Lol.

From 1952-1961 Mantle had 83.5 WAR. Robinson 57.2 for 10 seasons. Robinson's best season was 9.6 WAR Mantle had seasons of 11.5, 11.4 and 10.3. Robinson's best hitting season was an OPS+ of 154. Mantle's best season was 221 with a career OPS+ of 172.

Who's to say what Mantle could have done with healthy legs? What we do know is that Mantle was much better than Robinson on the field when they played.

[discodanman45]

Power hitting Yankees will always outsell their contemporaries. Don Mattingly 1984 Topps RC outsells Ryne Sandberg 1983 Topps RC, and that isn't even Mattingly's most expensive rookie card. The value of the pinstripes is real.

I think Mickey Mantle was the better player and would have had the higher peak than Jackie even if he started at 19 in MLB. However, I think Jackie cards should be just as valuable as Mantle's because of the historical significance of his career. It does also give insight on the demographics of baseball collectors. If the card collecting community, especially baseball, was more diverse you would see Jackie Robinson cards be much more expensive. For many of us who never dealt with racism, his story doesn't have the same impact on our lives. However, for some collectors his cards represent much more than baseball and that is what we are buying as collectors.

[Donkaylove]

Originally Posted by rats60

So you want to cherry pick years when Mantle was hurt. Mantle missed 39 games in 1962 with a knee injury. Mantle missed 99 games in 1963 with a broken foot. Mantle missed 40 games in 1965 with a hamstring injury. Mantle missed 64 games in 1966 with an injured shoulder. So you want to compare 7 injured years and 3 healthy years of Mantle to Robinson's 10 years? Lol.

From 1952-1961 Mantle had 83.5 WAR. Robinson 57.2 for 10 seasons. Robinson's best season was 9.6 WAR Mantle had seasons of 11.5, 11.4 and 10.3. Robinson's best hitting season was an OPS+ of 154. Mantle's best season was 221 with a career OPS+ of 172.

Who's to say what Mantle could have done with healthy legs? What we do know is that Mantle was much better than Robinson on the field when they played.

crap on em all, dr. knowledge. boom!

[k13]

Way overvalued and one of the most overrated players of all time.

Mantle is already overrated that makes Jackie 100x overrated.

Perfect era to pump him up.

[vintg]

Originally Posted by rats60

So you want to cherry pick years when Mantle was hurt. Mantle missed 39 games in 1962 with a knee injury. Mantle missed 99 games in 1963 with a broken foot. Mantle missed 40 games in 1965 with a hamstring injury. Mantle missed 64 games in 1966 with an injured shoulder. So you want to compare 7 injured years and 3 healthy years of Mantle to Robinson's 10 years? Lol.

From 1952-1961 Mantle had 83.5 WAR. Robinson 57.2 for 10 seasons. Robinson's best season was 9.6 WAR Mantle had seasons of 11.5, 11.4 and 10.3. Robinson's best hitting season was an OPS+ of 154. Mantle's best season was 221 with a career OPS+ of 172.

Who's to say what Mantle could have done with healthy legs? What we do know is that Mantle was much better than Robinson on the field when they played.

you are an insufferable, arrogant, pompous arse.

cherry - pick ??? you've got to be kidding me.

robinson was NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY in his PRIME YEARS because of racism
in this country, and when he was, it was HELLACIOUS on him and his family.

pick up his autobiography and get back to me, OK ?

the first thing to go in a players 30's is his speed, one of robinson's main calling cards. but yeah, that's "cherry picking, too" right ???

i am not saying jackie was outright better than mantle overall, but, a very
interesting comparison.

and, oh, do you really want to compare who took better care of his body ???

"dr. knowlege, my ass"

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Originally Posted by rats60

So you want to cherry pick years when Mantle was hurt. Mantle missed 39 games in 1962 with a knee injury. Mantle missed 99 games in 1963 with a broken foot. Mantle missed 40 games in 1965 with a hamstring injury. Mantle missed 64 games in 1966 with an injured shoulder. So you want to compare 7 injured years and 3 healthy years of Mantle to Robinson's 10 years? Lol.

From 1952-1961 Mantle had 83.5 WAR. Robinson 57.2 for 10 seasons. Robinson's best season was 9.6 WAR Mantle had seasons of 11.5, 11.4 and 10.3. Robinson's best hitting season was an OPS+ of 154. Mantle's best season was 221 with a career OPS+ of 172.

Who's to say what Mantle could have done with healthy legs? What we do know is that Mantle was much better than Robinson on the field when they played.

How is it cherry picking to compare the two players over the only age ranges where they both played? Isn’t it the only way to compare them? All I’m saying is that if you compare them during the age range where they both played, Jackie was a better player. It’s not complicated and it’s the simplest thing you can do.

I’m not saying Mantle wasn’t amazing as a young player, because he was. The start to his career was better than anyone and only matched by Ted Williams (if he hadn’t fought overseas) and almost Mike Trout.

Sheeesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tails01]

sorry I asked. you guys will fight about anything.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by IgnatiusJReilly

How is it cherry picking to compare the two players over the only age ranges where they both played? Isn’t it the only way to compare them? All I’m saying is that if you compare them during the age range where they both played, Jackie was a better player. It’s not complicated and it’s the simplest thing you can do.

I’m not saying Mantle wasn’t amazing as a young player, because he was. The start to his career was better than anyone and only matched by Ted Williams (if he hadn’t fought overseas) and almost Mike Trout.

Sheeesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At age 19 Mickey Mantle was playing in the Majors. Jackie Robinson was playing in Junior College. At age 21 Mantle was 4th in the AL in WAR and led the Yankees to a World Championship. Jackie Robinson was hitting . 097 at UCLA. Why wasn't Jackie tearing up the Negro Leagues instead of struggling at UCLA?

It is cherry picking when one player has played for 12 years and is breaking down from injuries after dominating the AL and the other player is healthy and only played a couple of seasons. You choose to use WAR which is a counting stat and based on the number of games they played. Why not use OPS+ that shows how good the players were when actually playing? Even while playing hurt Mantle has an OPS+ of 195 in 1962, 196 in 1963, 177 in 1964, 170 in 1966 and 150 in 1967. Robinson's corresponding OPS+ at similar ages 152, 139, 154, 138, 135. Mantle was a much better player at a younger age and even at the end of his career playing injured, he was still better than Robinson when he played.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintg

you are an insufferable, arrogant, pompous arse.

cherry - pick ??? you've got to be kidding me.

robinson was NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY in his PRIME YEARS because of racism
in this country, and when he was, it was HELLACIOUS on him and his family.

pick up his autobiography and get back to me, OK ?

the first thing to go in a players 30's is his speed, one of robinson's main calling cards. but yeah, that's "cherry picking, too" right ???

i am not saying jackie was outright better than mantle overall, but, a very
interesting comparison.

and, oh, do you really want to compare who took better care of his body ???

"dr. knowlege, my ass"

Are you really this miserable?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintg

you are an insufferable, arrogant, pompous arse.

cherry - pick ??? you've got to be kidding me.

robinson was NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY in his PRIME YEARS because of racism
in this country, and when he was, it was HELLACIOUS on him and his family.

pick up his autobiography and get back to me, OK ?

the first thing to go in a players 30's is his speed, one of robinson's main calling cards. but yeah, that's "cherry picking, too" right ???

i am not saying jackie was outright better than mantle overall, but, a very
interesting comparison.

and, oh, do you really want to compare who took better care of his body ???

"dr. knowlege, my ass"

We are discussing baseball not your political agenda. My favorite display at the Hall of Fame is the one with Roberto Clemente, Jackie Robinson and Lou Gehrig talking about their character. That doesn't change the fact that Mantle was a much better baseball player than Jackie.

[i4gotmyid]

Originally Posted by Tails01

Why don't Jackie Robinson Topps cards command more value relative to Mantle?

Jackie appears in Topps sets from 1952 to 1956 (5 years).

Mantle appears in Topps sets from 1952 to 1969 (16 years because no 1954 or 1955 because of an exclusive contract with Bowman).

Slabbed Mantle cards typically double the same grade as Jackie cards (take 1956, for example), and yet there are more than three times the Mantle cards in existence.

Was Mantle really that much better?

Peak 5-year WAR goes to Mickey, but career WAR is very close (110 vs. 107).

Rarity of cards and player ability rarely result in "value" especially in vintage. Scarcity is what matters, there may be 3x the Mantle cards but there are probably 10x the Mantle collectors compared to Jackie and that is what drives pricing. There is a history of lower ability players in all sports that are worth more than their peers because of a rabid following of collectors.