Wander Franco Rookie Card Debate (2021 Bowman's Best vs. 2022 RC logo cards)

[LVDan]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what if one likes how it was when Jim Beckett was a boy?

Simpler times for sure.
I gotta say though, being a boy and seeing those sleek, sharp mid 80s Donruss designs was a turn-on and probably a big early reason for my involvement in cards.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by LVDan

Simpler times for sure.
I gotta say though, being a boy and seeing those sleek, sharp mid 80s Donruss designs was a turn-on and probably a big early reason for my involvement in cards.

same!

[LVDan]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I can get behind the logo. First card released is a rookie in my book but I see why it's necessary. Nobody wants to buy 4-5 year old wax and have half your bass players now serving pizza.

What I cannot get behind is calling:
-Schwarber 2016s (273 PA in 2015)
-Bregman 2017s (217 PA in 2016)
-Yordan 2020s (369 PA in 2019)
-Wander 2022s (308 PA in 2021)

RCs when they were clearly and deliberately held back to make MLBPA and it's license holders more money. These are not RCs. MLBPA started off doing the right thing. Trout made the RC logo popular. 2015 RC logo class made RC logos "a thing." 2015 wax went to the moon. Moonbois began getting involved, speculating 2016, 2017, 2018. And at that moment, MLBPA realized what they had. An incentive to hold over as many good players called up in June or later for a full 12 months worth of RC logo releases.

To me, that's a scam that I can't support.

Agree 100% that the "hold back" is crappy move. Set a cutoff date and don't make any judgement calls. Having great newer players with a fraction of the RCs available is a beautiful, organic thing that keeps me interested when it happens because of call up date, not because some company wants a bellcow to anchor 15 crappy early season releases..

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Goldie

I just think you're trying to be obtuse here, saying that "half of the players included in the set" won a MVP within a year of production or are one of the most popular/valued 3 rookies in a year (and Gleyber 100% was one when Topps was making decisions for who to prioritize during their 2018 Bowman/Bowman Chrome checklists, of which this product claims to be the "Best" of), or are a 1st/2nd ballot HOF. You're wrong, and deep down inside you know you're wrong, so you grab onto the smallest thread and yank it for all it's worth.

Well, let’s do the math…
— Roy + cy young + mvp this year plus last year = 12
— “top 3 rookie popularity” = ~1-2 (assuming redundancy with prior)
— likely HOF = ~15-20

Total = ~31

Total set number = 65

31/65 = ~50%

…hmmmmm

Either I’m wrong, or I just know how to do math


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ddouglas14

Does anyone on here understand Occam's razor? Honest question. The RC logo is explained in a 23 page SEC filing, and that is being put up as the "Occam's razor" approved solution? Whereas first card in a widespread set with veterans, is the more difficult answer? This seems more like the dollar shave club razor

Honestly, not a single post in the thread is correctly applying Occam's Razor, because Occam's Razor does not actually mean the same thing as K.I.S.S. But I didn't wade into that, because it seemed like an unnecessary side argument.

But whatever we call it--Occam's Razor, K.I.S.S., etc.--I don't think there's an argument against the simplest definition of a RC in the RC logo era being one that has the RC logo on it. Not arguing right or wrong definition. Just simplest definition.

We're not asking why the RC logo is on the card, just what is a RC. The one with the logo that says RC. Especially for new people entering the hobby, this is very simple and straightforward. Can't really be more simple.

Meanwhile, a LOT of explanation is needed to explain why that card that says RC right on it is not a RC, as opposed to saying it is a RC.

[imbluestreak23]

This is something I genuinely do not know. What are the requirements for an All-Star RC Cup logo that Topps applies?

It is interesting that the majority of cases where there is deliberate manipulation of the RC logo with holding players to the next year that those players also have an All Star RC Cup affixed which usually is given to a player's 2nd year flagship card.

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by LVDan

As someone who won't be buying any Wanders at all-
This is one of the strongest RC logo opinions on here so far. What makes beckett's definition more valid than MLBs?
If you prefer the beckett definition that is perfectly fine. Collect how you like.
If you prefer MLB's definition that is perfectly fine. Collect how you like.

I just think anyone trying to tell the other camp they're flat out wrong is just like, flat out wrong.

I think the fact that we are in a card collecting forum and we as a whole cannot agree on something so simple is a microcosm of the state of our country.

[ddouglas14]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Honestly, not a single post in the thread is correctly applying Occam's Razor, because Occam's Razor does not actually mean the same thing as K.I.S.S. But I didn't wade into that, because it seemed like an unnecessary side argument.

But whatever we call it--Occam's Razor, K.I.S.S., etc.--I don't think there's an argument against the simplest definition of a RC in the RC logo era being one that has the RC logo on it. Not arguing right or wrong definition. Just simplest definition.

We're not asking why the RC logo is on the card, just what is a RC. The one with the logo that says RC. Especially for new people entering the hobby, this is very simple and straightforward. Can't really be more simple.

Meanwhile, a LOT of explanation is needed to explain why that card that says RC right on it is not a RC, as opposed to saying it is a RC.

So the KISS argument against BB50 is that there should be one set of rules for pre-2006 cards and another for post-06? Otherwise what is the 92 bowman Rivera? I think the application of Occam and KISS would both support BB50 as a RC

[Archangel1775]

Serious question, same group attempting to argue the Bowmans Best card as a rookie card....shouldn't the 1st Bowman card be their rookie cards? First MLB card, first in a MLB uniform with MLB team names. Sure, they aren't numbered part of the "base set" but if one were to put a set together, it would be considered a base card, not an insert. I was just looking at 1995 Bowman's Best and the set is divided into rookie/prospects (1-90) and veterans (1-90). The 3 big rookies are not part of the veterans set. We can just go back to the Pre-2005 agreement days.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

Serious question, same group attempting to argue the Bowmans Best card as a rookie card....shouldn't the 1st Bowman card be their rookie cards? First MLB card, first in a MLB uniform with MLB team names. Sure, they aren't not numbered part of the "base set" but if one were to put a set together, it would be considered a base card, not an insert. I was just looking at 1995 Bowman's Best and the set is divided into rookie/prospects (1-90) and veterans (1-90). The 3 big rookies are not part of the veterans set.

In the hierarchy of qualities that may constitute a rookie card, this is how I value them:
1) 1st licensed card produced
2) bass set
3) at a minimum, cards released during the year that the player made their MLB debut
3) whatever logos a company wants to put on it

So yes, I personally like calling 2019 BC Wanders a RC. This is where the debate started in 2006 and 2007, split 50%-50%. Over time, people like me are on an island with Wilson.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I can get behind the logo. First card released is a rookie in my book but I see why it's necessary. Nobody wants to buy 4-5 year old wax and have half your bass players now serving pizza.

What I cannot get behind is calling:
-Schwarber 2016s (273 PA in 2015)
-Bregman 2017s (217 PA in 2016)
-Yordan 2020s (369 PA in 2019)
-Wander 2022s (308 PA in 2021)

RCs when they were clearly and deliberately held back to make MLBPA and it's license holders more money. These are not RCs. MLBPA started off doing the right thing. Trout made the RC logo popular. 2015 RC logo class made RC logos "a thing." 2015 wax went to the moon. Moonbois began getting involved, speculating 2016, 2017, 2018. And at that moment, MLBPA realized what they had. An incentive to hold over as many good players called up in June or later for a full 12 months worth of RC logo releases.

To me, that's a scam that I can't support.

I don't think it's a scam - because again Panini follows the same thing. Topps can't choose to hold back Wander if Panini is going to start slapping RC logos all over the place this year. So if it's a scam, it's a coordinated scam by both companies (for all I know that's true).

I see what you mean though, and I respect it - though I tend to think of cards differently. I think of series one and two specifically of a reflection of the year prior. That's the stats they show on the back. That (should be) what the photography reflects. Let update be for team changes and such.

It always drives me nuts when a prominent player retires and isn't in the next year's Topps set with a full listing of their career stats on the back.

So I don't mind Seeing Wander's RC with Wander's rookie year reflected on the back. But then again, I don't mind a rookie having no stats at all on the back, so I'll gladly grab a pitchfork for an ally in other areas.

(Also, card backs peaked with 1994 Topps and that's a disgrace. It's 2022. You can do better than the 90s)

[imbluestreak23]

It sounds like the MLBPA is the group that dictates who is a RC logo guy and who isn't. But it's also in the interest of the license holders, Topps and Poopini, to have those names held back as well. So Topps and Poopini 100% aren't colluding with each other. If anyone is colluding, it's Topps, Poopini, and MLBPA together.

I just imagine weekly monday morning meetings between the three parties facilitated by the MLBPA starting in May and ending (now) in June of every year. The #1 item on the agenda is. "How Can We Make More Money." The sub-bullets are a weekly review of MLB call-ups with a coordinated decision to set the cut-off at the appropriate time to maximize current year revenue & next year's revenue.

I would bet my life that these meetings exist lol

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by BabaORiley

I wasn't talking about Bowman's Best numbering. 1,50,100 have ALWAYS - save for a few years when they started getting cute - been reserved for Superstars in the Flagship set.

Keeping with the theory (only a theory) that Topps did this deliberately and with a bit of anger & feelings of betrayal at losing the license driving them, releasing this set with Trout at 1, Wander at 50, Torkelson at 100 is a not-so-subtle middle finger. To the MLBPA? To Fanatics? Or maybe even just an internal venting of frustration over the entire situation?

A voice of reason on this thread.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by Silent George

I will say I find it hilarious that there's such an attack on people "slave to the rc" logo, who are themselves slave to a numbering system. You've got guys who aren't in the majors, not on the 40 man, etc. But there's a card that doesn't specifically call them a prospect, so it MUST be a major league card. TO me that's just as much idol warship as a RC logo is.

Rookie cards started going crazy 15+ years ago, with card companies racing to put fetuses in their card sets so they could lay claim to having the rookie you had to chase. MLB specifically went to put an end to this with the RC logo. And while the market obviously dictates, and some players are sort of grandfathered in that crossed over in that time, this was an issue that was clearly defined by MLB itself.

Why it's a debate - or why Beckett should have some sort of say in it because they failed to adjust with the times, well that's beyond me. But it seems illogical that, say, topps should be able to sneak an OOPS numbering system into the mix and kill the value of a Panini rookie card. Or worse yet, Panini does this with some future prospects in a few years, makes some unlicensed crap cards the must chase rookies of 2023 because of how they managed to number the cards on the back.

Beckett wrote a well thought out and comprehensive explanation for why they were considering the 21 BB prospects as rookies, as well as the implications of their decision. Beckett concluded by saying collect what you like.

Topps has yet to say anything.

Panini is irrelevant.

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

I'd be interested in reading the article, but it's paywalled. Not gonna pay to read it.

New York Times
By Stuart Miller
May 18, 2013

When Cee Angi was young, a neighborhood bully forced her to trade her 1992 Topps Dave Winfield card for a David Segui. The bully did not know much about baseball, but he knew that the number Topps had assigned to the back of Winfield’s card, 5, made it more valuable than Segui’s, which was 477.

But this season, Topps tossed its idiosyncratic formula for assigning numbers to the players’ baseball cards, and some traditionalists are dismayed.

“It’s unnerving,” said Angi, now an SB Nation columnist. “It’s an unnecessary change.”

“The problem with the lack of consistency isn’t just that it rocks the boat of nostalgia,” she wrote recently, “but it eliminates a common language that existed from year to year.”

Joe Posnanski, a national columnist for NBCSports.com, said, “I don’t like it at all. ” He added, “Baseball exists on a continuum more than other sports, and Topps is part of that.”

As far back as the mid-1950s, a few years after Topps began producing baseball cards, upper-echelon players were distinguished by card numbers ending in two zeros, like 100, 200 or 300. The next best would be identified by numbers ending in a single zero, with 50, 150 or 450 held in more esteem than 160 or 440. The level below them had numbers that ended in 5; multiples of 25 were the best in this bunch. Starting around 1990, the best player would often be No. 1. Everyone else seemed to be assigned a number randomly, at least at first.

For instance, in 1967, before Tom Seaver’s rookie year, he was No. 581. In 1969, after two straight 16-win seasons, Seaver was promoted to 480. That year, “00” honors went to Hank Aaron, Bob Gibson, Felipe Alou, Don Drysdale, Mickey Mantle (probably a farewell gesture because he had just retired) and Tony Oliva. But after winning 25 games, a Cy Young Award and a World Series with the Mets, Seaver was No. 300 in the 1970 set.

Last year’s No. 1 was Ryan Braun, and the “00” cards were Jose Bautista, Miguel Cabrera, Josh Hamilton, Robinson Cano, Alex Rodriguez and Clayton Kershaw. This year, however, Kershaw is No. 22.

That is not intended as an insult but as an honor in Topps’s new system. Kershaw’s uniform is No. 22, and players who wear the same number were bumped elsewhere. Stars of a slightly lower caliber like Andrew McCutchen and Jason Heyward received Nos. 122 and 222. Similarly, Derek Jeter is No. 2, while Denard Span is No. 102 and Zack Cozart is No. 202. Joey Votto’s card bears his jersey number, 19, as does Justin Verlander’s, 35. The new cards have more oddities, like the No. 322 assigned to Alex Gonzalez, who wore No. 11 last year, most of which he spent on the disabled list.

Topps has maintained the tradition of never acknowledging that it uses a formula for assigning card numbers. One marketing executive would not discuss the topic, and another did not return phone calls seeking comment for this article.The Topps numbering system was never exact, especially because the decisions were made not by general managers but by card makers. But the patterns were clear enough that fans could evaluate a player’s worth based on his card number.

Some scholars found evidence of racism in Topps’s early decisions. Robert M. Regoli, Eric Primm and John D. Hewitt published an article in 2007 in The Social Science Journal that revealed that white players had received “preferential placement” until the mid-1960s, the civil rights movement took hold and black players started receiving their due.

Posnanski recently undertook a study on Joe Blogs, his personal Web site, creating a points formula to determine to whom Topps had assigned the best numbers during their careers. His top 10 left no doubt that although this system was imperfect and inconsistent, it was in place for decades. Those 10 players were Reggie Jackson, Alex Rodriguez, Willie Mays, George Brett, Rod Carew, Aaron and Barry Bonds (tie), Mantle, Nolan Ryan and Pete Rose.

Card collectors loved knowing there was order in their world. R. Lincoln Harris, who writes the Blue Batting Helmet blog, said, “The first thing I’d do when I was looking for good players was look for the double zero.”

Angi said her father would separate her “00” cards — the Cal Ripkens and Don Mattinglys — to protect them. But not everyone seems to mind the changes.

“I don’t get the concern,” said Josh Wilker, the author of “Cardboard Gods.” He added that his 18-month-old son dumped most of his cards on the floor and that he usually grabbed a few and read the backs. “I like the new ones. They’re fun.”

Posnanski acknowledged that “the cards are much better than they used to be.” But he dismissed inserts like autographs as gimmicks and said that Topps had underestimated how much fans, as opposed to investment-oriented collectors, cared about tradition.

The Topps strategy seems contradictory, Harris said, because it is tapping into fans’ nostalgia by putting current players on 1972-style cards this year while altering the numbering system.

Topps veered from tradition at various points in the past two decades but then returned . That gives Posnanski hope for the future.

“Maybe next year, they’ll just bring the old way back,” he said.

[rlriii13]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I just imagine weekly monday morning meetings between the three parties facilitated by the MLBPA starting in May and ending (now) in June of every year. The #1 item on the agenda is. "How Can We Make More Money." The sub-bullets are a weekly review of MLB call-ups with a coordinated decision to set the cut-off at the appropriate time to maximize current year revenue & next year's revenue.

I would bet my life that these meetings exist lol

Item #2 on the agenda: How long before the printer offers that new color of chromium stock?

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by LVDan

As someone who won't be buying any Wanders at all-
This is one of the strongest RC logo opinions on here so far. What makes beckett's definition more valid than MLBs?
If you prefer the beckett definition that is perfectly fine. Collect how you like.
If you prefer MLB's definition that is perfectly fine. Collect how you like.

I just think anyone trying to tell the other camp they're flat out wrong is just like, flat out wrong.

I'm a BB50er/Topps intentional guy but I agree that this isn't clear cut by any means and there are points to be made on both sides.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I can get behind the logo. First card released is a rookie in my book but I see why it's necessary. Nobody wants to buy 4-5 year old wax and have half your bass players now serving pizza.

What I cannot get behind is calling:
-Schwarber 2016s (273 PA in 2015)
-Bregman 2017s (217 PA in 2016)
-Yordan 2020s (369 PA in 2019)
-Wander 2022s (308 PA in 2021)

RCs when they were clearly and deliberately held back to make MLBPA and it's license holders more money. These are not RCs. MLBPA started off doing the right thing. Trout made the RC logo popular. 2015 RC logo class made RC logos "a thing." 2015 wax went to the moon. Moonbois began getting involved, speculating 2016, 2017, 2018. And at that moment, MLBPA realized what they had. An incentive to hold over as many good players called up in June or later for a full 12 months worth of RC logo releases.

To me, that's a scam that I can't support.

Valid. Appreciate the research.

[seanbros55]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I can get behind the logo. First card released is a rookie in my book but I see why it's necessary. Nobody wants to buy 4-5 year old wax and have half your bass players now serving pizza.

What I cannot get behind is calling:
-Schwarber 2016s (273 PA in 2015)
-Bregman 2017s (217 PA in 2016)
-Yordan 2020s (369 PA in 2019)
-Wander 2022s (308 PA in 2021)

RCs when they were clearly and deliberately held back to make MLBPA and it's license holders more money. These are not RCs. MLBPA started off doing the right thing. Trout made the RC logo popular. 2015 RC logo class made RC logos "a thing." 2015 wax went to the moon. Moonbois began getting involved, speculating 2016, 2017, 2018. And at that moment, MLBPA realized what they had. An incentive to hold over as many good players called up in June or later for a full 12 months worth of RC logo releases.

To me, that's a scam that I can't support.

When did this turn into a thread about musicians?

[pewe]

Originally Posted by seanbros55

When did this turn into a thread about musicians?

Slang… seemed to arise sometime in the last couple years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seanbros55]

Originally Posted by pewe

Slang… seemed to arise sometime in the last couple years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this like base fishing?

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Beckett wrote a well thought out and comprehensive explanation for why they were considering the 21 BB prospects as rookies, as well as the implications of their decision. Beckett concluded by saying collect what you like.

Topps has yet to say anything.

Panini is irrelevant.

What's your point?

[seanbros55]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

I think the fact that we are in a card collecting forum and we as a whole cannot agree on something so simple is a microcosm of the state of our country.

This.

This thread has turned into a red state vs blue state arguing over Trump, COVID, vaccines and guns…

It’s too bad that the mudslinging style of those “debates” has permeated into our little baseball card message board.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Honestly, not a single post in the thread is correctly applying Occam's Razor, because Occam's Razor does not actually mean the same thing as K.I.S.S. But I didn't wade into that, because it seemed like an unnecessary side argument.

But whatever we call it--Occam's Razor, K.I.S.S., etc.--I don't think there's an argument against the simplest definition of a RC in the RC logo era being one that has the RC logo on it. Not arguing right or wrong definition. Just simplest definition.

We're not asking why the RC logo is on the card, just what is a RC. The one with the logo that says RC. Especially for new people entering the hobby, this is very simple and straightforward. Can't really be more simple.

Meanwhile, a LOT of explanation is needed to explain why that card that says RC right on it is not a RC, as opposed to saying it is a RC.

I don't get why this argument is so hard to understand.

If you were to give a random person each card and say which one is a Rookie Card which one do you think they will pick? One requires zero knowledge and the other requires a history lesson.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Beckett wrote a well thought out and comprehensive explanation for why they were considering the 21 BB prospects as rookies, as well as the implications of their decision. Beckett concluded by saying collect what you like.

Topps has yet to say anything.

Panini is irrelevant.

Correct. Thanks for the summary