Will collectors ever care about WS Rings, like collectors do about the NFL & NBA?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is irrelevant. Bonds is a cheater. I feel the same about him as I do Tom Brady, Lance Armstrong and any other steroid user including David Ortiz. That you cheer for a cheater says a lot about you and the fake lawyer.

Many of your heroes used amphetamines, spit balls, and any other unfair advantage they could. The fact that you use cognitive dissonance to distinguish different types of cheating tells me a lot about your character. Situation ethics are for the weak.

[fabiani12333]

rats60's logic summarized:

Barry Bonds:
1986-1989 (ages 21-24 seasons): .256/.345/.458, 124 OPS+, 5.9 bWAR average per season
1990-1992 (ages 25-27 seasons): .301/.424/.566, 177 OPS+, 8.9 bWAR average per season

Roberto Clemente:
1955-1959 (ages 20-24 seasons): .282/.311/.395, 89 OPS+, 2.1 bWAR average per season
1960-1962 (ages 25-27 seasons): .326/.367/.491, 129 OPS+, 4.8 bWAR average per season

Bonds is the cheater! He was a cheater in the early 90s. Clemente is a god and my hero.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by corndog

Whether a player has a ring or not is insignificant to me.
A players story means more to me as a collector.

Agreed. "Ring Culture" in American sports is a fever that must break.

The only sport that makes halfway sense is basketball, as there are only 5 players on the court at a time and they play both offense and defense.

[ThoseBackPages]

Rats is in denial that everyone cheats

[corndog]

Nolan Ryan has a WS ring as a reliever from early in his career.

What he did later is what makes him an all-time great.

Him having a ring is meaningless to his greatness.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by corndog

Nolan Ryan has a WS ring as a reliever from early in his career.

What he did later is what makes him an all-time great.

Him having a ring is meaningless to his greatness.

Yes, taking "Advil"

[General Tso]

You play to win the game.... Rings matter, winning matters. There are many great players but the ones that transcend time the most are the ones known for winning.

[BoSoxFan1999]

Originally Posted by General Tso

You play to win the game.... Rings matter, winning matters. There are many great players but the ones that transcend time the most are the ones known for winning.

I think the "penalty" for not winning a ring in baseball is not nearly as severe as the NBA or NFL due to baseball being much more dependent on team performance. Like, a player could bat 1.000 during the playoffs or pitch 2 no-hitters and it's still very possible his team doesn't win the title, or even get to the WS.

That being said, the boost multiple rings gives a baseball player is just as high in baseball than any other sport IMO.

[corndog]

Collectors don't care.

Investors and pumpers do care.

[BoSoxFan1999]

Originally Posted by corndog

Collectors don't care.

Investors and pumpers do care.

TRUE collectors care! lol

[robert0629]

Mariano Rivera would be a player who's popularity is tied to his postseason success. Without it he would still be in the Hall of Fame and considered the greatest reliever ever. However, he would not be held in such high regard since most fans don't care about relievers. He would be probably be as popular as Trevor Hoffman. Having the opportunity to shine on the big stage is why some fans consider him to be a living legend.

[williemayshayes]

My long winded opinion by relating Griffey and Mantle:
Collectors are driven by nostalgia more than rings.

Mantle's importance wasn't as much rings as he was seen as Joe DiMaggio's replacement...but faster and more powerful and he looked the part. Could he be Babe but also the fastest kid we've ever seen?

Griffey is an example that team success and later career falloff just doesn't matter much. His collectors see him frozen as the 20's kid in a backwards Mariner cap. He was the epitome of the 90s. By 1994 he was seen as a legitimate Mantle heir, hence the UD dual card.

That circles me back to collectors and their nostalgia...both have a large portrait card of similar pose that started a collecting renaissance in two different eras for two start up companies. I'm not aware of ever hearing that UD went with that pose on purpose, but I think they subconsciously gave us a '52T clone for a reason. To trigger our Mantle obsession over this five tool phenom in their inaugural product.

Those 2 were the literal face of collecting baseball cards for different eras and very little of that was dictated by rings.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by williemayshayes

My long winded opinion by relating Griffey and Mantle:
Collectors are driven by nostalgia more than rings.

Mantle's importance wasn't as much rings as he was seen as Joe DiMaggio's replacement...but faster and more powerful and he looked the part. Could he be Babe but also the fastest kid we've ever seen?

Griffey is an example that team success and later career falloff just doesn't matter much. His collectors see him frozen as the 20's kid in a backwards Mariner cap. He was the epitome of the 90s. By 1994 he was seen as a legitimate Mantle heir, hence the UD dual card.

That circles me back to collectors and their nostalgia...both have a large portrait card of similar pose that started a collecting renaissance in two different eras for two start up companies. I'm not aware of ever hearing that UD went with that pose on purpose, but I think they subconsciously gave us a '52T clone for a reason. To trigger our Mantle obsession over this five tool phenom in their inaugural product.

Those 2 were the literal face of collecting baseball cards for different eras and very little of that was dictated by rings.

[Trueblue]

I agree that a player’s baseball value isn’t directly tied to championship rings. It’s rooted more in nostalgia. Building on that, I think true legacy comes from compiling strong stats and delivering signature moments. Those defining highlights usually happen in the playoffs or in pivotal games that push teams toward October. Think Kris Bryant’s Game 6, the Lincecum/Bumgarner dynasty runs, Strasburg’s Game 7, or Gibson’s walk-off homer. Each of those players finished with numbers below Hall of Fame standards, yet their names live on in baseball lore. When you pair Hall of Fame level stats with those unforgettable moments, that’s when you achieve long term hobby relevance.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

I agree that a player’s baseball value isn’t directly tied to championship rings. It’s rooted more in nostalgia. Building on that, I think true legacy comes from compiling strong stats and delivering signature moments. Those defining highlights usually happen in the playoffs or in pivotal games that push teams toward October. Think Kris Bryant’s Game 6, the Lincecum/Bumgarner dynasty runs, Strasburg’s Game 7, or Gibson’s walk-off homer. Each of those players finished with numbers below Hall of Fame standards, yet their names live on in baseball lore. When you pair Hall of Fame level stats with those unforgettable moments, that’s when you achieve long term hobby relevance.

Curious what people say is Mantle's or Griffey's or Honus Wagner's or even Babe Ruth's signature moments were. It seems to me those hobby legends weren't really built on unforgettable moments, but something else.

[Trueblue]

I wasn’t around to watch Wagner or Ruth, but for me, Griffey was those insane catches - the ones that probably cost him some longevity in the game. To your point, there have definitely been multiple paths to baseball immortality, but the way things are now, I think the most conventional route is pairing Hall of Fame level stats with those signature moments. Mike Trout is a living example of a player that falls short of a truly signature moment, and I earnestly hope he gets a shot soon.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by williemayshayes

That circles me back to collectors and their nostalgia...both have a large portrait card of similar pose that started a collecting renaissance in two different eras for two start up companies. I'm not aware of ever hearing that UD went with that pose on purpose, but I think they subconsciously gave us a '52T clone for a reason. To trigger our Mantle obsession over this five tool phenom in their inaugural product.

Those 2 were the literal face of collecting baseball cards for different eras and very little of that was dictated by rings.

The '52 Topps Mantle image is totally different in style from the '89 Upper Deck Griffey image -- the Mantle card has a slight upward point of view, making Mantle appear more important and iconic. He's also looking over his shoulder and off into the distance. The Griffey card has an eye-level point of view, with Griffey looking directly into the camera, making Griffey seem more down to earth and relatable.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Curious what people say is Mantle's or Griffey's or Honus Wagner's or even Babe Ruth's signature moments were. It seems to me those hobby legends weren't really built on unforgettable moments, but something else.

Wagner just happens to have one of the rarest cards. Outside of that one, he gets little buzz. Ruth had the World Series "called shot", be it real or perceived. Mantle had the alleged 565 foot homer, also subject to debate. Willy Mays had "the catch". Griffey had an impressive All-Star Game back when people still cared about that game... but he just happened to come up at a time when the hobby was en fuego, had the beautiful swing, and had the numbers.

People remember those big moments.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Curious what people say is Mantle's or Griffey's or Honus Wagner's or even Babe Ruth's signature moments were. It seems to me those hobby legends weren't really built on unforgettable moments, but something else.

I know some doubt it’s legitimacy but come on:

[fabiani12333]

Baseball players are judged and viewed primarily for their individual statistics and accomplishments, while NBA and NFL players are judged and viewed primarily for the number of championships they've won. Baseball, for all the talk of being a team sport, is very much an individual-based sport -- most of the game is based around the pitcher-hitter match-up.

Cal Ripken Jr famously broke Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games-played record in 1995, but do people even remember he won a World Series with the Orioles back in 1983? Not really, unless you're a long-suffering Orioles fan.

Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's all-time home run record in 1974, but do people remember he won a World Series with the Milwaukee Braves in 1957? Nope.

Jerry Rice broke the NFL record for career touchdowns in 1994 and career receiving yards in 1996, but fans mostly remember him for his 3 championships with the 49ers.

Tom Brady broke the NFL record for career touchdown passes in 2021, but fans mostly remember him for his 7 Super Bowl titles.

Lebron James broke Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's record for career points in 2023, but fans mostly remember Lebron for his titles with the Lakers, Cavaliers and Heat.

[williemayshayes]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

The '52 Topps Mantle image is totally different in style from the '89 Upper Deck Griffey image -- the Mantle card has a slight upward point of view, making Mantle appear more important and iconic. He's also looking over his shoulder and off into the distance. The Griffey card has an eye-level point of view, with Griffey looking directly into the camera, making Griffey seem more down to earth and relatable.

Is this professional photographer Ken Griffey Jr critiquing my message?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Wagner just happens to have one of the rarest cards. Outside of that one, he gets little buzz.

Tell me you don't collect pre-war without telling me you don't collect pre-war.

Ruth had the World Series "called shot", be it real or perceived.

I agree that is a legendary moment for Ruth. But his legend was cemented LONG before that World Series, so I'm not sure it's as big a role as you are suggesting.

Mantle had the alleged 565 foot homer, also subject to debate.

Never once heard that homer as even a top 10 reason for his massive hobby following.

Willy Mays had "the catch".

Yet Mays cards are grossly undervalued compared to what he achieved on the field. He was better than Mantle, but plays second fiddle in the card world.

Griffey had an impressive All-Star Game back when people still cared about that game... but he just happened to come up at a time when the hobby was en fuego, had the beautiful swing, and had the numbers.

LOL An impressive All-Star game is what we are going with for the unforgettable moment that cemented Griffey's legacy. Okay. Like Mantle, that isn't even a top 10 reason people will give for why Griffey gets the hobby love he does.

[fabiani12333]

Titles mainly only matter in MLB if you're a Yankee, because the Yankees have had multiple dynasty teams and have the record for most titles in MLB history. There is a unique emphasis and prestige with winning titles as a Yankee.

So, if you're Derek Jeter -- titles matter.

If you're Aaron Judge, winning a title or not will matter -- sorry, your honor.

If you're Barry Larkin -- titles don't matter. Although, his title in 1990 is pretty important to Reds fans because it was the last time the team won one, let alone made it to a World Series. Also, who remembers Schottzie -- Marge Schott's dog?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Titles mainly only matter in MLB if you're a Yankee, because the Yankees have had multiple dynasty teams and have the record for most titles in MLB history. There is a unique emphasis and prestige with winning titles as a Yankee.

So, if you're Derek Jeter -- titles matter.

If you're Aaron Judge, winning a title or not will matter -- sorry, your honor.

If you're Barry Larkin -- titles don't matter. Although, his title in 1990 is pretty important to Reds fans because it was the last time the team won one, let alone made it to a World Series. Also, who remembers Schottzie -- Marge Schott's dog?

Objection!

Aaron Judge cards will be the second most collected cards of this generation, whether he wins a title or not. To suggest he needs a title is to be blind to the entire card market.

[PeteD]

Doesn't hurt.