Mookie Betts Autograph and Ball

My better half got me a Mookie Betts autographed ball last Xmas. Here it is:

It came with a certificate of authenticity (COA), but it was from the same ebay company that sold it. You probably know that you can't trust a COA from a company that certifies its own product, unless that company is a professional and trusted authenticator, like Beckett, JSA / DNA, etc. This company wasn't one of those. My better half, who has never bought an autographed collectible, didn't know that, and was also understandably pacified with the COA itself. The COA said:

"This certificate of authenticity guarantees the Rawlings Official Major League Baseball signed by Mookie Betts to be 100% genuine, being hand signed [sic] in person by Mr. Betts himself."

Sounds good, right? But what exactly is guaranteed to be genuine here? If you read it closely, the thing said to be genuine isn't the autograph, it's the baseball itself. Again, it says that the COA "...guarantees the ... baseball signed by Mookie Betts to be 100% genuine..." Whether by mistake (which I prefer to think) or by design, the COA sounds like it says it guarantees the autograph to be authentic, but it doesn't. It says the ball is a genuine Rawlings, which of course it is. Rawlings is the sole company that makes baseballs for Major League Baseball, and the commissioner's name is on it, but don't you want the COA to be for the autograph?

So I emailed the ebay company and asked if there was another COA or LOA (which really is what that was--a letter of authenticity; a certificate is usually a label or a card) that authenticates the autograph itself. The guy said No, but that he guarantees the autograph, or he'll give the money back.

I should mention here that the ball with autograph cost $70. Most Mookie Betts autographed balls, without a 3rd-party COA (like JSA) costs over $100, so this was a bargain. The ball looked really good to me--no smudges, dirt, cuts, etc. The autograph looked really good, too--no smudges, or blips, etc. Nice and clean with a good flow and solid contact.

After about an hour of research on ebay, comparing this to other authenticated Mookie Betts autographed baseballs, I decided this one was also genuinely his, and that I should send it out for authentication. (I did this just after I opened the gift on Christmas Day, before we continued opening things, because I'm an obsessive loser like that.)

So I saved up, because this stuff isn't cheap, and after a couple months I sent it to JSA (one of the three major 3rd-party authenticators, and JSA never sells anything--it only authenticates.) It took them about a month to say that it was, in fact, an autograph signed by Mookie Betts himself.

This cost $55. Not bad.

Then JSA sent it to Beckett, which grades the ball and the autograph. I wanted this done because this was the first autographed baseball bought for me by my better half, and because the ball and autograph looked good enough to grade, to better estimate its value and to protect them.

(I am violently upset with myself for allowing balls with Tim Wakefield and Jason Varitek autographs to fade from the sun. Now I have to replace those. Daniel Bard also--infamously, among my friends--autographed a ball and then smudged it to hell when he gave it back to me. I got back in a long line with a separate baseball to get another autograph, but got stopped just before I got to his table by an overly strict woman who said he was leaving. When I explained what happened, and that I'd been in line twice, she said she didn't care. [This was at Pawtucket's HotStove, where new players sign for free, usually in the beginning of January, when it's about four degrees. And the PawSox don't turn on the heat, either. Luckily Daniel Bard turned out to be...well, Daniel Bard. I still have the damn ball, too. Anybody want it?)

But I digress. So Beckett took another month to grade the ball and autograph--and its website somehow managed to screw up my account info., so that they had to mail me a separate invoice, and the regional sales manager had to email me when the ball was done and it was coming back to me.

This cost another $40. And I paid $18 to reimburse them for shipping and another $10 for insurance. By the end, you can see this isn't cheap: $70 (which my better half paid for the ball) + $55 + $40 + $18 + $10, for a total of  $193, plus the $28 I paid to ship and insure, for a total of $225.

Yeah, $225 to authenticate, encapsulate, grade the autograph and grade the ball. And that's with no guarantee that the ball and autograph were graded highly! (I've sent over 100 cards to SGC to get graded and slabbed, with no guarantee of what they'll say it is. Suffice it to say, I've won some and I've lost some. One big win was the Jim Bottomley 1933 Goudey, which you can find here.)

Now the ball looks like this:

As you can see, all's well that ends well: JSA said the autograph was authentic, and Beckett said that the ball and the autograph were both a perfect 10! That means that, by definition, even Mookie Betts himself won't have a Mookie Betts autographed baseball (or, to be more precise: an autograph and a baseball) in better condition than mine! I can actually say that nobody in the world--Yes, not even Mookie Betts himself!--will have a better Mookie Betts autograph, nor a better ball to have the autograph on!--than mine.

If he ever turns out to be a Hall of Fame player, this will be worth a ton. As it is, it's worth about $500, from some internet sales on authenticated and graded autographs and baseballs, on ebay and other sites, including auction houses. And Betts hasn't been to an All-Star Game yet, nor a playoff game. Once he does...

So here's another picker success, done in tandem with my better half. We spent $225 and it's worth about $500, for a profit of $275. Not bad, even by the standards of the Pickers themselves.

Don't worry, honey--I'm never going to sell it! But it's good to know the value in case we ever have to, right?

Sox 28-17 on May 24, 2016

A few things as we bask in the glory of the recent success:

--A few years ago (or during the first half last year), who would've thought JBJ would hit in 28 straight? With his offense and defense, he's probably one of the best players in the game. According to WAR, anyway.

--But keep in mind that he's been doing for a few months what Mike Trout has been doing for a few years.

--And I'm wondering why JBJ got so suddenly better, if you catch my drift.

--I hated to say that, because I spoke to JBJ for a short time a few years ago, at the Pawtucket Hot Stove League, and he's a very nice, soft-spoken guy. And he signed two baseballs for me, in the perfect spot, in a perfect marker with perfect handwriting.

--And, yeah, I'm sending those bad boys to JSA and then to Beckett ASAP.

--My comment a few spots ago holds true to Ortiz as well, who's having a resurgence with his power numbers at an age in which even the immortals (besides Bonds, of course) were beginning to feel it. I'm just sayin'.

--I was afraid for a moment there that the baking powder thrown at Ortiz after his game-winning double was actually the remaining HGH powder for both of them.

--Sorry.

--Carson Smith, who could've given the Sox three 7-9 guys that maybe rivaled the Yankees, is now out for at least a year after Tommy John surgery. What a shame. Wasn't last year his rookie?

--Not only are their 9 through 3 guys--Bradley, Betts, Pedroia and Bogaerts--very good hitters, but they're also all very fast. And great defensively. Few teams can boast four 9 through 3 hitters like that.

--To prove the point, the Sox scored three runs today when guys scored from first on a double. Your Sox of old would go 1st to 3rd on a double.

--I'll say about Christian Vazquez what I said about Bradley the last two years: with that great defense, all he has to do is slap-hit .250 and that'll be enough to make him a good big-leaguer.

--Clay Buchholz has to go.

Picking A 1933 Goudey HOF Jim Bottomley

Here's a before and after story about being a baseball card picker--the purchase, grading and valuation of a good baseball card.

I bought an ungraded 1933 HOF Jim Bottomley on Ebay in a screwdown case. Here's a picture of it from the listing after I bought it:

I spent $36.51 and paid $3.50 shipping, for a total of $40.01. (Notice the penny extra on the bid.)

I took a chance here--not something I typically do with money in general. But the Goudeys are one of the Big Three sets. The 1909-1911 T206s (which I've written about many times), the 1952 Topps and the 1933 Goudeys are the most-collected and sought-after sets. Any card from these sets will sell for more than average; HOF cards from these sets will be worth a premium value. And highly-graded HOF cards from these sets will be worth good money. A card in decent condition (even, in most cases, in poor condition) from these sets will re-sell, no problem. So if you want to collect a card and try to make a good profit at the same time, these are the cards to get. (I would throw the 1888 Old Judges and the T205s in this category as well. And any card, really, between 1900 to 1933.)  The trick is to buy one at a low price--ungraded cards can be bought for even cheaper--and then to send them away to SGC, PSA or Beckett to get them graded.

But doing so is taking a chance. No matter what you guess a card will be graded, it sometimes seems these guys grade the cards almost at whim, defying any reasonable explanation. (I have proof of this.) But if you want to increase a card's value, you have to get it graded. Out of all the companies, I think Beckett is the best for cards after 2000. PSA is best for cards 1960-1999. And SGC is best for all cards prior to 1960. It seems that overall card values back me up with this.

So what to buy? I've bought ungraded T206s and written about those before. But I'd never done so for a Goudey and I wanted to try. So if you're going to do that, you need to buy a popular player or a HOFer. But many of those are out of my price range. (Ruths and Gehrigs are worth hundreds or thousands of dollars.) I decided upon a HOFer nobody but serious fans know (and who shouldn't be in the HOF but for Veterans Committee shenanigans) and to get it raw, which means ungraded. The ones available during the limited time I allowed myself (because I could so easily go overboard with this and there goes the mortgage) were scant, and I settled on this guy.

Anyway, I sent it to SGC during its December Goudey/Play Ball/Diamond Star Special of $8 per card. (I also sent a HOF Rabbit Maranville Goudey, which I knew was in terrible condition; I was lucky to get that graded in Poor condition.) Because this venture is all about value and profit, you wait until the grading company has a sale on its grading. By chance, this sale came up right when I bought the card. Normally SGC charges $10 per card from this era.

So a few days ago (the website publishes your results when they're done, even before you get it in the mail) it was graded a 5 Excellent--which is really good for a 1933 Goudey, as they were handled a lot, and they're old, and they fray and literally disintegrate, and the corners round easily. The card, now graded, looks like this:

My Beckett Graded book shows the highest graded 1933 Goudey Jim Bottomley to be an 8, and I've got a 5. Not bad for $40! Book value? $150!!! Because you often can't get book value on cards, I looked up recently sold SGC 5 graded 1933 Jim Bottomley Goudeys on ebay. (I checked off the "sold listings" box; just because someone's asking $300 for the card on ebay, that doesn't mean it's worth $300. People ask insane prices via "Buy It Now" on ebay. But if a card has sold recently at a consistent price, that card is worth that price.) A PSA 5 (same exact grade and conditions, and PSA and SGC are equally respected) sold on January 10th, 2016 for $159.99, which shows the book value of $150 to not only be accurate, but maybe even a little low.

So I spent $40 on it, and paid $8 to get it graded, plus a couple bucks for shipping and insurance, for a total of $10 more. In summary, I paid $50 and it's worth at least $150---three times what I paid. Not bad! Even if I sent it to a 3rd party (an ebay company I do business with) and got the 87% he gives, and spent maybe $5 to send it to him, my profit is around $75-$80. Not bad for one card! It all took just minutes of my time, mostly sitting on my butt at my computer, and my post office doesn't usually have any lines, either. I could seriously make some part-time income doing this.

Mike Trout

Photos: Fronts and backs of my 2011 Mike Trout Bowman rookie cards, from my collection.

So, as promised, here are the Mike Trout RCs I spoke of in my last post.  As I mentioned, I don't typically buy recent cards.  Like, ever; I mostly do T206s, 1933 Goudeys, the 1887-1890 Old Judges, and Topps and Bowman HOFers pre-1960.

I made an exception this year for these three Mike Trout RCs, plus the Bryce Harper RC shown recently, and a Paul Goldschmidt and Jose Altuve RC, because they were very cheap, in mint condition, and of undervalued, under-rated players I believe have a good chance to be stars for a very long time.  Goldschmidt's RC values will go up, especially when he hits free agency and plays for a team collectors care about.  I mean, nobody cares about the Arizona Diamondbacks these days.

Anyway, as I also mentioned, the Mike Trout / Bowman situation was confusing, and took me awhile to come to terms with.  In essence, there are rookie cards that are actually rookie cards, and rookie cards that Ebay sellers say are rookie cards but that aren't, and rookie cards that people believe are rookie cards because they were released during the same season as the player's actual rookie cards, and rookie cards that are not rookie cards because they're prospect cards.  A rookie card is not necessarily the first card released of that player by a major card company.  (Those are now prospect cards and minor league cards.  This is confusing for those of us old enough to remember when the prospect cards from the, say, 1980 and 1981 Topps sets were the actual rookie cards.  Now they aren't.)  A rookie card is the first card made of a player once MLB has decided that he has made enough at-bats, or has pitched in enough games, to qualify as a rookie player.  This can often be a few years after the player has been in the big leagues, and long after his cards have started to appear.

So...the Mike Trout cards shown here (in the first photo, starting at the top and going clockwise) are:

a) ungraded Bowman Draft #101
b) Bowman Chrome Draft #101, graded 9.5 Gem Mint by Beckett (I love that case, by the way, though I don't like the BCCG case, which is also Beckett, just to add to the confusion)
c) Bowman Chrome #175, graded 9 Mint by PSA.

Though the swinging photos of the drafts are the same, and though the number on the back, and the design on the back, are the same, these are different cards.  One's a Chrome, and one's not, and that's just the way it is.  Everything else about them is the same, except the Chrome's picture is maybe not as bright and clear.

The first card, the Bowman Draft, cost me $19.38, including shipping.  I'm frankly taking a chance on it, hoping it'll be graded a 9 or 10.  If it isn't, I've got the other two that are, and this one's a gift for one of two people I know will love to have it, regardless of condition.  They're not as serious about this as I am.  It'll cost me about $7 more to get it graded, shipped and insured, so the total I'd invested in it by then would be $26.38.  At that figure, this card needs to grade an 8.5 to break even.  These values have risen recently in the Beckett Graded guide, and I believe they'll continue to do so.  By the time the next issue comes out, it may only need to grade an 8 for me to break even.

The next one, the Bowman Chrome Draft #101, graded 9.5 Gem Mint by Beckett, has a book value (BV) of $100.  It cost me $50.50, which includes shipping.  This card has also increased in value recently, and I believe it will continue to do so.  You can never assume you can re-sell something for the BV, but I believe this card will come close.  Often you're lucky to get 50% of BV when re-selling, but I believe I can sell this at one of my summer yard sales for $75, which is 75% of the BV.  If I were a baseball card picker, which I suppose I am, I would make a profit from this card of at least $25, especially from baseball fans or card collectors who don't like to use the internet.  Lots of those come to my occasional yard sales.

The last one, the Bowman Chrome #175, graded 9 Mint by PSA, I paid a little more for: $58.51, including shipping. Its BV is $80, which has also gone up recently.  Only a $22 profit on this one, if I ever need to re-sell it, but I believe it'll be worth more by that time.

So why the exception for Mike Trout?  Why buy all three of his Bowman RCs?

Well, first, go to his baseball-reference page here, and take a look at these numbers.

In the only four full years of his career, he's finished 2nd in the MVP voting and has won it once.

He bats leadoff (a move I don't like, and it hasn't helped the Angels) and hits lots of homeruns and drives in a lot of runs, and steals bases and walks (and Ks) a lot, for silly high on-base percentages. As an example of how well he does these things, in his MVP year he led the league in runs scored and in runs batted in.  That's very, very rare, to do that in the same year.  That's a Ruth / Mantle / Williams / Mays thing to do.  Of those, only Mantle and Mays had the same combination of speed and power.  But Mantle ruined his knees and ankles and Mays only showed off his speed on defense after awhile.

Ah, yes--the defense.  He makes acrobatic catches normally.  He doesn't have a great throwing arm, but he can run and go get it as well as anybody.  His first two years he was a web gem about to happen.

Every season he's played, he's led the AL in WAR and in Offensive WAR.  He's been in the top-4 in Slugging % and in OBS.  Top-3 in Runs Scored, Homers, Triples and Walks.  Top-2 in Runs Created, Adjusted Batting Runs and Adjusted Batting Wins.  And Base-Out Runs Added and -Wins Added. And Top-3 in Putouts as an Outfielder, which means he can really go get 'em, and his pitching staff gives up lots of flyballs.

An average CF in the HOF will have 27 Black Ink statistics.  He's already got 20--in just four years. An average HOF CF will have 144 Grey Ink stats.  He's got 77--in just four years.  An average HOF CF will have a 100 HOF Monitor.  He's at 75 already.  The HOFer will score a 50 in HOF standards.  He's at 31 after four years.  He's already the 40th best CF to ever play, and is compared favorably to Mantle, Frank Robinson and Jimmie Foxx.  His 7-year peak is almost that of the average HOFer--in just four years.

And when next baseball season comes around on April 1st, he'll be 23 years old.

And he's the one the ballplayers themselves say is the best right now.  They talk about him like the real old-timers talked about Ruth and Honus Wagner.

Mike Trout 2011 Bowman Draft RC

Photos: from my own collection

Here's a Mike Trout Bowman Draft rookie card.

This is not to be confused with the 2011 Mike Trout Bowman Chrome rookie card, or the 2011 Mike Trout Bowman Chrome Draft rookie card.  Both cards with "draft" in the name are #101, while the Chrome is #175.  Go figure.  What I can tell you is that when I went to bid on these, and the many dozens of other options that showed up, I had to look at my Beckett Graded book to see which one was which time and time again, since the three different cards also have different values.  I had to stop a few times and adjust my eyes, and it doesn't help that the listings on Ebay are often misleading or flat-out incorrect.  The sellers didn't seem to know what they were selling, at times, since some said they were selling a Bowman Chrome when they were actually selling a Bowman Chrome Draft.  There were many other misleading tags as well.  Crazy. And, oh yeah, there are tons of bunched-together listings in the Beckett book, and they tended to blur together after awhile, too.

I also had to look at the established Mike Trout rookie cards from cardboardconnection.com, which lists the actual rookie cards of every important player.  This is now necessary, since there are so many cards that say "rookie" or "RC" on them, but they're not actual rookies, they just got released in the player's rookie year.  That makes it a rookie, right?  No, because there are so many subsets from the same card company that not each of them are considered rookies.  Plus, there are a lot of "prospect" cards, which used to mean rookie, but now doesn't.  And some players have a rookie card even before their rookie year or their prospect card--see: Mark McGwire's Olympics card, which is his rookie.

For those who're wondering, Mike Trout's only rookie cards are: 2011 Bowman Chrome #175; 2011 Bowman Chrome Draft #101; 2011 Bowman Draft #101; 2011 Bowman Sterling #22 (Good luck! That one's BV is $150 for a NmMt 8 and $500 for a Gem 9.5 / 10); 2011 Finest Baseball #94 and 2011 Topps Update #US175.  (See how the Chrome and Topps is #175?  That's because Topps owns Bowman, but all the Bowman Draft sets and subsets are #101.)  That's a lot to see, and blur through, while you're sorting out listings by condition, cost, reputation and listing accuracy--the last of which was terrible!

And thank you to Cardboard Connection for providing those separate rookie and prospect listings.

By the way, did you know that prospect cards are released before the rookie cards, so you'll see them before you see the rookie cards, which used to be the ones you'd see first?  And some prospect cards are traded and bought like they're rookies, and are often worth much more than the rookie cards!

Anyway, as I mentioned in the previous Bryce Harper entry, I don't usually buy recent rookie cards. Bryce Harper is an exception worth taking a chance on.  Mike Trout is an exception you have to take a chance on.  Trout is a no-brainer, like Pujols was, but more so, because Pujols was so obvious, and so alone in the field of new players at the time, that he didn't even have to be awesome to be the one to buy at that time.

Mike Trout is different because he is shoulders above some very impressive newer players in the past few years.  Bryce Harper also stands out almost as much.  But there's also Paul Goldschmidt, the most underrated player in baseball, who's finished second in the MVP voting the past two straight years, and who noticed?  Very quiet player who plays for a very bad team; had he played for the Yankees, we'd be talking about him like we do Trout and Harper.  (I've been trying to get a Goldschmidt rookie, too, though I have far surpassed my holiday spending.  But a Mint Condition Goldschmidt Topps Update RC is only $10--and that's Buy It Now, not even bidding.  (Bids tend to be a few bucks cheaper.)  Anyway, I feel Goldschmidt is a sleeper, and I'm going to get his rookie now while it's cheap.  I just did the same with Jose Altuve's, which is just plain cheap; I got 7 Altuve Bowman RCs for $7, including shipping.  Ungraded, sure, but I gave to a friend the one with a few corner dings, and I'll send the best of the others to get graded and take my chances.

And we haven't talked about Rizzo, or Correa, or Arrieta, or any of the other ones.  These last 3-4 years have been amongst the best three to four year stretch for rookies since the early 90s.

Anyway, Mike Trout stands way above all of these guys, and the collectors seem to know it, since his ungraded Bowman cards sell for about $20 when bidding, and over $30 for Buy It Now.  Lots of buyers are Buying It Now, too, which tells me they're in very high demand, since experienced Ebay shoppers would rather spend $10 more just to know they can get one.

I spent $19.38 for the one pictured above, and that includes shipping.

So I'm taking a chance, because once I send it away, it has to be graded an 8 or better for me to break even.  In fact, an 8 is just $20 BV, so I'll lose out a little bit because I have to pay for it to be graded (I wait for the $5 or $7 specials from SGC) and I have to pay about a buck combined for shipping and insurance.  (I send 10 cards at a time to SGC, because it costs the same to ship and insure 1 card as it does 10 cards, so you may as well do 10.)

Since I'm spending another $7 to $9 or so on the grading, shipping and insuring, I need this card to get graded at least an NmMt+ 8.5, worth $25, in order to break even.  I have no idea whether this card is that or not, as I have long ago decided that I'm not going to drive myself crazy predicting a grading company's grade for a card, since I have conclusive evidence that they're often wildly off their own grading scale, and so it's basically a crapshoot.  This is especially true of newer cards.  (I've been very good at grading T206s--but the grading companies have been much more consistent with their grades for those, too.)  Even cards from the mid-80s have been graded one or two grades different than I'd predicted.  Why's my 1980 Rickey Henderson RC an 8 rather than a 9--which is a difference of about $275 in Ebay bidding value?  Couldn't tell you.  What's the difference between my Rickey 8 and the previous Rickey 7 it just replaced?  I don't know.  The corners and the gloss and the centering are the same.

Will this one break even?  I don't know, but here's why it's worth the chance for me, and also why I bought a 2011 Mike Trout Bowman Chrome RC and a 2011 Mike Trout Bowman Chrome Draft RC:

--Trout's RC values have increased lately and, I believe, will continue to do so.  For a long time.

--My Trout Chrome RC is a 9 and the Chrome Draft RC is a 9.5, so I've got my Mint condition Mike Trout rookie card situation covered.  (Those deals will be blogged about when they come in.)

--If this one is a dud--say, a 6 or 7--I can give it as a gift to either a relative or a friend of mine.  Neither takes this anywhere near as seriously as I do, and would love to have a Trout rookie of any grade.

--Worst possible scenario: I can sell it at the occasional yard sale I have every other summer, and I can get $20 to $25 for it, no problem, especially from older folks who love baseball but hate the internet.  And there's lots of those!

And that's why I bought an ungraded Mike Trout rookie, and would do so again, for either the relative or the friend who doesn't get this one.

Sorry for the long entry!

Bryce Harper 2012 Bowman Platinum

Photo: from my collection, scanned in.

So, this is Bryce Harper's 2012 Bowman Platinum rookie card, graded in PSA 9 Mint condition.  I got it for $8.51, plus $1.18 shipping, for a total of $9.69.  (This was in a package of 3 other cards from the same Ebay company.  I may write about those cards another time.)  The book value of this card from the Beckett Graded Card Price Guide is $25.  The Ebay selling price lately for this is about $20 to $25.  I got a Mint condition card for even less than half of what I can re-sell it for, which is always what I try to do.  I always buy with an eye to re-sell, if necessary in the future, so I always buy for about half the book value, and for about 75% of the recent Ebay value.  I made out well here.

I normally don't buy baseball cards of recent rookies or of recent new stars because their values can fluctuate wildly over a very short time.  If you take a look at the values of autographed rookie cards, or of prospect cards of the hottest new player, they've often cost hundreds--and thousands!--of dollars, and for what?  For the player to crash and burn, and now his cards are worthless, and all that money is down the drain.

Crazy.

However, Bryce Harper, and--even more so--Mike Trout are rare exceptions.  Trout's Bowman rookie cards are worth hundreds of dollars or more in Mint or Gem condition.  (I just got a Mint at about $50 and a couple of ungraded ones I'll take a chance on at $20 apiece.  If the ungraded ones get graded and turn out really low, I can give them away as gifts to guys I know who'd be thrilled to have them.) I may run an entry about my Mike Trout cards soon.

So why Bryce Harper?  Well, he won the ROY Award a few years ago, and just won the MVP.  Last year he hit .330.  He slugged .649 with over a 1.100 OPS.  He hit over 40 homers (with just 99 RBIs, but he's not to blame if nobody's on in front of him) and walked 124 times for a ridiculous .460 on-base percentage.

He has rubbed a few the wrong way, and certainly he had his cocky and immature moments--but remember a guy who was so cocksure and immature he was called The Kid?  I'm not saying Bryce Harper will even come close to Ted Williams, of course, but he has the tools--if he can stay healthy, mature and not party too much--to hang around a long time and to put up potential HOF numbers.

That's what I'm counting on.  Mike Trout has a better chance to do so, and I'll write about him next.

1909 T206 HOF George Davis

The Card

Photo: T206 George Davis, front and back.

For those interested, I bought this card for $36.33, including shipping.  T206.org says it's been selling recently at about $43, which is a very common value for a Hall of Fame T206 of a nondescript player in Poor condition.  (Poor condition T206s of the big boys--Cobb, Young, Walter Johnson, etc.--still run a couple hundred bucks.)  Anyway, that's a profit of $6.67.  Not much.  The Beckett Graded Card Price Guide (7th Ed. 2015) says it's been selling at about $50, which is a little high, on Ebay, anyway. That's a value of $13.67, which is a little better.

I'm just happy to have a T206 HOFer.  I have about 15 of those now, most of them in Poor or Good condition, because that's what I can afford, ya know?  This card is in good condition, for a Poor.

The Player / The Person

Photo: George Davis, while with the Chicago White Sox, from The Sporting News

Shockingly, the Veterans' Committee got it right when they inducted this guy into the Hall.  Normally the Committee's inductions are abysmal, especially players inducted from this era.  I've looked at a few of those lately, and when I checked Davis's card in my collection and I looked at his stats (via baseball-reference.com, just click it here to see), I was expecting more of the same.

But I was pleasantly surprised.  You may have to know a bit about the time to appreciate Davis's stats.  At a glance, they're not impressive.  He led the league in an offensive category exactly once: 135 RBIs in 1897 for the New York Giants.  (McGraw and Mathewson wouldn't join the Giants until later.)  This is a lot, but for the 1890s, pretty common for a league leader.  What impressed me a lot more was that between 1904 and 1908, the Chicago White Sox let him play full-time, in most of the team's games, although his offensive stats were way below the league's norms.

There's only one reason possible for this: Defense.  From 1890 through 1902, Davis's offensive stats are good, but not great.  They are, though, impressively consistent.  And consistency in 1890s baseball, for 12 years, is very rare, whether it's offense or defense.  The stats will pile up, as they did. So for peak value, Davis was not one of the best players in the league.  But in career value, he was.

And then came 1904-1908 with the White Sox, and those rather unimpressive numbers.  True, the game changed a little, but those are still bad stats.  Why would he still be allowed to play full-time? Could his defense have been that good?

Yes.  Turns out, it was.

His overall WAR (wins above replacement; click on the stat on the webpage if you're unfamiliar with it) was higher in 1904, 1905 and 1906 than it had been in any of his more impressive offensive years. This can only be due to his defense.  Any dWAR (defensive wins above replacement) in the positive is good.  (This happens a shockingly low amount of times, even for good players today.)  Anything above 1 is really good; anything above 2 is Gold Glove worthy.  Davis was a very good defensive player during his good offensive years (consistently between 1 and 2), but when his offensive skills eroded after 1903, when he sat out, due to problems with injury, salary, and constantly jumping between the Giants and the White Sox, and back (jumping teams was VERY common in the early 1900s, but his case was still odd.  Read about it at his Wikipedia page here), he must've realized that if he was going to still play, his defense had to get even better.

And for a few years, it did.  His defensive WAR, from 1904-1908, when his offense was terrible: 3.4; 2.8; 3.0; 2.9; 1.3.  With his average to below-average offense, but his incredible GG (before there was a Gold Glove Award) defense, his overall WAR from 1904-1908: 7.2; 7.2; 6.3; 4.6 and 2.1.  A 5+ is all-star worthy, and his defense alone made him 2 levels above that.

Over his 16-year career, the league averaged a .919 fielding percentage for the positions he played. Davis's fielding percentage was .936.  At shortstop, the league's was .923 and his was .940.  

If you're defending 17 percentage points higher than everyone else in the league, that's HOF exceptional.  Combine that with 1,545 runs scored (56th all-time), 2,665 hits (69th all-time), 453 doubles (100th all-time), 163 triples (33rd all-time), 619 stolen bases (17th all-time), and 1,440 RBIs (63rd all-time), and you're a Hall-of-Fame player.  JAWS says he's the 4th-best shortstop of all-time, and that's going head-to-head with Honus Wagner (#1), A-rod (#2) Cal Ripken (#3), Robin Yount (#5), Arky Vaughn (#6), Ernie Banks (#7) and Ozzie Smith (#8).  Derek Jeter, if you're curious, is #12, ahead of Barry Larkin, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese and Bobby Wallace (a contemporary of George Davis's)--but behind Alan Trammel (#11)!  [Take a look at Trammel's stats here and you'll be as amazed as I was.  I assure you, nobody--including the announcers and players who were around him--realized he was that good.  Alan Trammel, shockingly, is wildly deserving of the Hall of Fame. But that's another blog entry for another time.)]  All of these guys, by the way, were way above the average HOF shortstop's stats.  Normally shortstops can field, or they can hit, but they can't do both.

So why a blog entry about George Davis, who nobody in this generation (and in this century) has ever heard of?

Because he wasn't inducted into the HOF until 1998, and he died in 1940.  It came 58 years too late, but finally someone dusted off his stats and saw the HOF.  

Well, it started with Bill James, as these sabermetric things often do.  I'll let the Wikipedia page tell it:

In a 1995 book, baseball author Bill James referred to Davis as baseball's best player who had not been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.^[7]Also in 1995, Davis was featured in David Pietrusza's television film "Local Heroes" in the segment "Knocking on Cooperstown's Door."

In 1997, baseball researcher Frederick Ivor-Campbell said that Davis was "the most neglected player of the 19th century. He's definitely the best eligible player not in the Hall, and he's a lot better than a lot of guys already in."^[8] Around the same time, Davis was rated the 21st best baseball player of all time in the official baseball encyclopedia, Total Baseball.^[8]

Davis was up for a vote before the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee in 1998. Before the committee voted, sportswriter Dave Anderson wrote an article in The New York Times on Davis's Hall of Fame candidacy. He pointed out the work of Cohoes city historian Walt Lipka, which favorably compared Davis to almost all of the shortstops in the Hall of Fame. Anderson supported Davis's election, saying, "It's as if he were discarded nearly a century ago into a time capsule that was forgotten until now... For too long, George Stacey Davis has been his era's most forgotten best player."^[9] He was selected for induction that year.^[4]

Prior to his Hall of Fame induction, a Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) chapter in New York put out a call to locate a descendant of Davis to be present at the induction ceremony and announced plans for a historical marker in Cohoes.^[10] As a great deal of time had passed since his death, no relatives could be located, but a group of about 50 people from Cohoes traveled to the ceremony in support of Davis.^[1]

Me again.  I don't know if George Davis was the 21st best player of all-time, but he certainly belongs in the Hall.  He was light years better than Phil Rizzuto, Joe Tinker, Rabbit Maranville, and lots of other marginal candidates who probably shouldn't be in the Hall, but who are.  Davis got in so late that nobody was around to even honor his plaque.

And why was that?  Well, that's not so Hall-of-Fame worthy, but hey, don't judge:

Davis returned to the minor leagues for one season as player-manager of the 1910 Des Moines Boosters.^[6] He managed a bowling alley in the early 1910s. He was the Amherst College baseball coach from 1913 to 1918, then he became a car salesman.^[3]

The circumstances of his death remained a mystery until baseball historian Lee Allen discovered its details through a campaign to track down historical baseball players, run in part in The Sporting News. Davis was admitted to a Philadelphia mental institution in 1934 suffering from paresis due to tertiary syphilis. He died in the institution in 1940.^[3] Davis was survived by his wife Jane, who was said to have been angry at him when he died. They had no children. His wife spent $41 to have him buried within a day at nearby Fernwood Cemetery.

Me again.  Yeah, so no kids to have kids to honor his HOF plaque 58 years after he died of syphilis. Of course, you can get syphilis many ways, then and now, but...well, his wife was really pissed at him, and buried him the day after he died, apparently sans wake and funeral.  And it was a quickie burial, costing just $41, which sounds to me like someone dug a hole in the cemetery, threw him in, and filled up the hole.  Maybe even without a coffin, and definitely without a chaplain or onlookers.

And that pretty much says it all. 

The Dolly Stark Situation

Photo: The Dolly Stark Southern League T206 card, from BMWcards.com.  This is not the exact card in the story below.  BMWcards, by the way, is a company that sells really high-end, really high-quality, great-conditioned and highly-graded cards.  In other words, I can look, but I can't buy.
 
I almost bid on a Dolly Stark, which is a tougher-to-find Southern League card, and worth more than other commons in the set.  I can't tell you how many times I've bid on a Dolly Stark card.  So often, it's become a bit of a thing with me.  I have to get one--but not go crazy to do so.  This one was an SGC 30 2, which means it was graded by SGC, and graded a 30, which is SGC's way of saying it's in Good condition.  A 2 also means Good condition.  Good, in this case, is an actual grade, not just someone saying it's in good condition, if you know what I mean.  I'm a bit stingy, because I'm a bit poor, so buying a T206 in Good condition is okay with me.  It's not for most serious collectors. 

So I looked it up in what I call The Book--Beckett's Graded Card Price Guide.  It says that this exact card, in this exact condition, has recently sold for, on average, $80.  (This is not the same as saying it's "worth" $80, but it's as close to an immediate, go-with-it value you can get on short, convenient notice.)  When I saw it, the bid was $27. 

(Side note: Do not ever buy an item like a baseball card as a BUY NOW on Ebay, because if there's something wrong with the item--and there usually will be, or it wouldn't be BUY NOW, it'd be auctioned--Ebay will not reimburse you, and neither will the seller.  Only static items, like baseball card plastic sleeves, for example, or anything else you'd buy off a shelf or a rack, should ever be bought as a Buy It Now.) 

Anyway, I knew the bid would go up, but I hoped not by much, and a common card usually won't escalate tremendously.  I had my bid all set after there was less than one minute to go.  (I place my bid when there's a specific number of seconds left; not tellin' ya what that is.)  My bid was for $41.51, because the shipping was $3.50, and I didn't want to spend more than $45 total, even though the value was $80.  I try not to pay more than half what a card is worth, including shipping.  But as this Dolly Stark situation has become personal at this point, I splurged by a few bucks.  With 5 seconds left, the bids went from $27 to over $30 to over $40, etc., finally settling on $63.00.  That's not bad, spending $66.50 total for a card "valued" at $80--a savings of $13.50, but that was more than I wanted to spend on one T206 card, even though it was a Southern Leaguer (which are more rare and more expensive) and a personal situation, too.  There were other cards I was looking at, and I needed to save my money. 

Plus, once you've settled on a dollar amount you're willing to spend, you absolutely cannot go over that amount.  If you do, you will again, and suddenly you've gone Ebay crazy and spent your mortgage.  Craziness.  So I never sent my bid for this card.  The Dolly Stark situation still remains a personal thing.

The Sherry Magie Error T206 Card Sold on Ebay

Photo: The one you see here is valued at $90,000.  Yes.  90 grand.  Or, half the value of a good house.  The super-famous Magie (Magee) error card, from PSA.com.  The card in this picture is not the same exact one in the story below. 


I just watched a Sherry Magie (correct spelling: Magee) error card from the T206 set--one of the most sought-after, rare and expensive cards in the hobby--sell on Ebay.  Just watching, mind you.  Why?  Because it was in PSA 3 VG condition, which means the grading company PSA said it was in Very Good condition, which is an actual grade, and not somebody saying, "Hey, that's in very good condition."  The 3 means that this is the 3rd-lowest grade for a card, which is good if you're a serious, but financially limited, collector like me.  (Most serious T206 collectors are not financially limited.)  So I'm thrilled to get a card in VG condition, but most serious collectors prefer cards at least a good three stages higher, at least Excellent or Excellent-Mint condition.  If I had the money, I'd be the same.  But I don't, so I'm not, and I'm okay with that.

Anyway, Beckett's Graded Card Price Guide says that this exact error card, in this exact graded condition, has sold recently, on average, for $20,000 (Yes, twenty grand for a baseball card of someone you've never heard of.) and that this dollar "value" has gone up since Beckett's last report.  This is not the same as saying that the card is "worth" $20K, but for our purposes here we can think about it that way.

Suffice it to say, I don't (and most of you probably don't) have twenty grand to spend on a baseball card, so I'm just watching this take place.  At about five minutes before the end of the auction, the highest visible bid (if you've bought off Ebay before, you know the highest visible bid is often nowhere near the highest actual bid) is at about $12,000.  Now, this kind of famous card, an error card, a card that every serious T206 collector (including me) wants to have, will often go crazy in the last 10 seconds of bidding, so I'm fully expecting this thing to jump violently and quickly from $12K to $14K (seeing a baseball card jump in seconds by a few grand is a very rare thing to see), and so on, to come close to $20K or, as I expected, to exceed it.

To my utter shock--and, I'm sure, to the seller's worst nightmare--it doesn't.  It sells for $14, 544.  Someone out there just got one of the hobby's most sought-after cards at a savings of over $5,000.  Well, $5,456, to be exact.  Which means the seller, who should have expected the card to sell for something close, if not more than, $20,000, just took a hit of over five grand.

Meanwhile, I just saw a Burleigh Grimes 1933 Goudey, in PSA Good condition, with a book "value" of $50, just sell for $81.26, plus $3.50 shipping.

So some guy got a card at a savings of over $5,000--and he can very easily just re-list it himself sometime and sell it on some Friday or Saturday night, far away from Christmas time when people are buying presents and going broke, for the $20K, and make a nice $5,000 profit for himself by doing absolutely nothing.  Well, besides using a little common sense.  I would never auction off a super-valuable card around Christmastime.  I'd wait until February, or March, when people are depressed and miserable and will overspend.

Anyway, so some guy underspent by five grand and got a world-class card, while someone else vastly overspent on the Grimes card by $33.76, which in its own way is just as shocking.  Overspending by almost $34 on a card that's only worth $50 is an astoundingly financially unfeasible thing to do.

Ebay giveth and Ebay taketh away.  That's the risk you run putting something up for bid.  If you just get a sparse crowd, you're going to lose out, big-time.  The company selling the Magie card was not one of the mega-name card companies I'm familiar with on Ebay.  If it had been, with the established and serious client base those companies have, the card would've sold for closer to the $20K.

Craziness.  But the company's fault for putting it up for bid when it did.  Even if that's what the client asked the company to do (these guys often auction things for someone else, and get a cut of the sale price for doing so; that's called consignment), I can't believe the company wouldn't convince the card owner that he'll lose a few grand selling it now.

If I'd only had the money myself...

I also watched a 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #181 PSA 6 EX-MT Condition, sell for $6,100.  Shipping: $20.  (This is the classic card where he's grimacing and looking over his shoulder, his arm on the red Big League Chewing Gum ad.)  The book value: $5,000.  I can't decide if someone overspent by over a grand, or if this is a worthwhile and legitimate value.  A $1,100 profit on a $5K card is a pretty good haul.  This Ruth Goudey card is also one of the hobby's most recognizable cards.  Though not as much as the Napolean Lajoie (who's from RI) 1933 Goudey card.  A Near-Mint one of those recently sold for $60,000.  Yes, $60K for one baseball card.  This company was one of the mega-names, which I think accounted for the profit made by the card.  Sad, but true.  Why the owner of the Magie error card didn't consign it through one of the mega-name companies is a mystery.

The Sox So Far

Photo: taken by Matt Stone, from bostonherald.com, Nov. 17, 2011


Well, it's been a very long time.  And I won't lie: Posts on this blog will be sporadic.  But I have some quick Sox and baseball thoughts, and I was at Fenway twice this past week, for both Rangers games, so here we go...

--I have a sick Fenway losing streak, possibly about 10 or more games, including the last two Rangers games.  The first game I go to after seeing 7 of their last 15 home losses last year was the 18-3 debacle the other day.  Thanks, guys.

--That was my nephew's first Fenway game ever, too.  Bleh!  But we saw a Ted Williams-distance homer from Josh Hamilton land close to us, and an Adrian Gonzalez homer in the bottom of the eighth land very close to us.  This after I told my nephew not to even bother with a glove, because we'll never see a homer come close to us in Section One.  Those were maybe the longest I've seen at Fenway.  And he saw a big, long fight in the bleachers, which is also very rare for Friendly Fenway.

--Ryan Sweeney needs to play more often.  I don't care what the numbers say, even if they say he can't hit lefties.  Play him every day until he shows you that you can't let him do that.

--In the 18-3 game, with two out, and already down by about 12 runs at the time, Jason Repko hit a screamer, low off the left field wall, about 315 feet away--and tried to stretch it into a double.  Thrown out at second by a mile, as you will be when you hit a rocket only 315 feet away that ricochets right into the glove of the outfielder.  As I'm explaining how this is lousy baseball--since a runner on first or on second, down by double digits, doesn't matter, and you can't take a chance on a baserunning out ending the inning--the Sox come up in the next inning and every single one of them swung at the first or second pitch.  The little things win pennants.

--Having said that, I'm with a friend at Fenway for the 6-3 game.  Sox have a runner at third in the second, no score yet, just one out.  I say, "Bad teams don't score this run."  They didn't score that run.

--I like Cody Ross, but I can see why he's played for about five teams in maybe seven years.  But I still like him.

--Jerry Remy is looking good in his blue suits doing the pre-game.  Not Heidi Watney good, but you know...

--Speaking of Heidi Watney, bostonherald.com reported in November that her departure was "a mutual decision," pointing out that her contract ran out at the end of last year and the Sox weren't willing to renew.  This is, of course, an outrage, as she was more popular than any of the Sox players the last couple of years.  Nick Green and even Jason Varitek, for God's sake, were said to be dating Heidi Watney, and not the other way around.  Had one of them married her, he would have been Mr. Heidi Watney.  A travesty.

--As I explained to a friend of mine--and he still disagrees--Francona made the right decision to change his mind and attend the 100th birthday thing at Fenway.  My point to my friend--who pointed out in various correct ways how the Boston management hung Francona out to dry, and were lousy to him for a long time even before the losing streak that cost him his job--was that the 100th birthday celebration was for the fans, and the fans only.  And the fans wanted to see him there.  I want to see him there.  He does, in fact, owe it to the fans to be there.  If he wants to not attend Boston management-run ads to promote the thing, that's very understandable, and I wouldn't blame him for not posing with them for pictures afterwards.  But he needs to be there.  I'm glad someone--possibly his agent, asking him, "Do this for potential managing jobs later!"--talked some sense into him.  It's why you go to the wake of a parent of an ex a year after a messy breakup.  Because it's expected of you, and correctly so.

--This team being the 100th anniversary team is the same as getting severe heartburn from the champagne you drank just a little bit of at New Years.  Your stomach hurts both times, and they both leave a nasty taste in your mouth.

--The most telling comment from that whole Bobby Valentine/Youkilis mess was Pedroia's.

--And Valentine was wrong: Youk always plays 100%.  He literally doesn't know any other way.  But his follow-up comment was dead-on: Youk's swing is different, and something is very wrong.  Still fields a golden glove, though.

--Pedroia also plays 100% all the time--and there's nothing wrong with his bat this year, either.

--I don't miss Papelbon, even after Bailey went down and they still don't really have a closer.

--Their relief pitching, however, is fine, especially with Melancon gone.  Becket made it look easy against the Rangers, too.  Really he just made that one bad pitch to Napoli.

--Lester is worrying me, as his lack of quality starts goes back to last September.

--Fenway looks beautiful, even more so than Heidi did.  Yeah, I just said that.

Back in First

Photo: Reddick between Ortiz and Pedroia, celebrating his 10th inning, game-winning hit.  Matt Stone, Boston Herald

Four days' fever of over 101 degrees, plus the moving and such (and a little writing), have kept me away, but I thought it was time to add a little perspective:

--You've heard that baseball is a game of inches; this series showed this.  Last night, Rivera made two mistakes: he left a ball up to Scutaro (double) and another to Pedroia (SF).  That's it.  The Sox finally played small ball when it mattered, which is not easy against Mo.  Pedroia's sacrifice fly was just as impressive as Scutaro's double.  Mo usually Ks the batter or makes him ground out (with a drawn-in infield, that's usually bad) in that situation.  The Sox had missed better chances to score all game--and all series.  Anyway, that's it.  Two pitches slightly up.  Despite a Top-5 sports reporter's column, games now have almost no bearing in October.  Mo will not be fazed then by this.  CC?  Maybe a little bit more.

--Having said that, it is amazing that Sabathia is 10-2 against the rest of the majors, with an ERA barely above 2, and 0-4 against Boston with an ERA about 7.  I repeat, though: This will matter only a little bit in October.

--The Sox 10-2 record against the Yanks is also inexplicable.  But there are 7 regular season games yet between these two.  If the Yanks win them all, we're having the exact opposite conversation in October.

--Here's to hoping that Reddick plays when J.D. returns.  In fact, I'd prefer Reddick in right in the postseason as well.  Maybe a platoon?  How's Reddick hitting against lefties, anyway?  Well, he's 9-23, .331, over 1.000 OPS against lefties, according to Baseball-Reference.com.  How about we leave him in against both for awhile?  He's being platooned against lefties; I don't see that (outside of stroking a veterans ego).

--The Yankees starting pitching staff is either seriously overachieving, or coming into its own.  Nova and other unknowns have 9, 10 wins.  The proof will be in October.

--Speaking of October, the Sox/Yanks have a 9+ game lead in the wild card race.  What race?

--I hope I can land a playoff ticket.  Last playoff game I saw was the Sox 7-run comeback against the Rays in 2008.  Went with my Dad; glad I did.  It was his last game.

--Speaking of starting pitching, Beckett and Lester are gonna hafta be Johnson and Schilling in order for the Sox to go anywhere in the playoffs.

--The Yanks are even more lost, with CC and who knows.  Nova, I guess.  Outside of those guys, Girardi pulls the starter and hopes for great relief like he got on Friday night.  Every game.  Or the offense will have to pound the other team into submission.

--By the way, I ran into some Action Packed (that's the brand name) football cards from 1993-1995.  Includes a Marshall Faulk rookie card (worth $10), and some Montanas, Elways, Marinos, Bledsoes, and other HOFers and stars.  All great shape; no wear or tear, corners sharp.  It's all worth over $42, but I'll let it go for $20; I'm moving and don't feel like dealing with more cards (I have literally thousands already).  Drop me an email at sb {at} stevenbelanger {dot} com if you're interested.