MLB HOT LIST - Opening Night to Monday, April 11th - WEEK 1

The MLB HOT LIST will highlight which MLB players had the most statistically impactful previous 7 days. It will be posted on Tuesdays using statistics spanning the previous Tuesday to Monday. Feel free to bring up any player or players who weren't mentioned who you believe deserve recognition. In keeping with the Major League theme of the MLB HOT LIST, the post-2005 rookie cards stated are a player's best MLB licensed true RC, not his best parallel/insert, Minor League or Major League prospect card.

BATTERS
1. Tyler White (Best RC - No RC yet) TOP STAT - 1.668 OPS
2. Trevor Story (Best RC - No RC yet) TOP STAT - 7 HRs
3. Bryce Harper (Best RC - 2012 Topps Triple Threads AU/JSY/99) TOP STAT - 7 BB/K
4. Daniel Murphy (Best RC - 2009 Topps Triple Threads AU/JSY/99) TOP STAT - .591 OBP
5. Dexter Fowler (Best RC - 2004 Donruss Elite Extra Edition AU/623) TOP STAT - 0.7 WAR
6. Jeremy Hazelbaker (Best RC - No RC yet) TOP STAT - .526 AVG
7. Manny Machado (Best RC - 2013 Topps Triple Threads AU/JSY/99) TOP STAT - 300 wRC+
8. Jean Segura (Only RC - 2012 Bowman Sterling) TOP STAT - 9 wRC
9. Eugenio Suarez (Only RC - 2014 Topps Update) TOP STAT - 9 RUNS
10. Matt Kemp (Best RC - 2005 Bowman Chrome AU) TOP STAT - 10 RBI

PITCHERS
1. Ross Stripling (Best RC - No RC yet) TOP STAT - 0.00 H/9
2. Clayton Kershaw (Best RC - 2008 Ultimate Collection JSY/AU/99) TOP STAT - 0.47 WHIP
3. Noah Syndergaard (Best RC - 2015 Topps Triple Threads AU/JSY/99) TOP STAT - 0.85 FIP
4. Aaron Nola (Best RC - 2016/incomplete) TOP STAT - 17.00 K/BB
5. Johnny Cueto (Best RC - 2008 Sweet Spot AU/249) TOP STAT - 2 WINS

HONORABLE MENTIONS
Jose Altuve (Best RC - 2011 Bowman Sterling) TOP STAT - 6 SBs
Jose Fernandez (Best RC - 2013 Bowman Sterling) TOP STAT - 0.85 SIERA

I just don't have the time to figure out how to link the ebay listings to the player names. It's not an easy process and much too time consuming. it doesn't even seem to work properly anyway.

No Starlin Castro?

psj said:

No Starlin Castro?

Click to expand...

or Kenta Maeda?

Or this guy? Or that guy? Or this guy? If you want to look at the league leaders, look at the league leaders. I can't put 100 players into a top 17 list. Castro and Maeda barely made a dent in the statistical leader categories. Good players who did well will always be left off these types of lists. This is why I say to mention whoever you want. Meaning, mention them instead of asking "Why not blah blah blah?".

As of yesterday, Tyler White does indeed have a licensed rookie card (with a print run of 1350).

I'm waiting for Topps to do the same thing with Rickard, Hazelbaker, Stripling, etc.

Nice list. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. The first couple weeks has a ton of players with crazy numbers. No easy way to pick them.

What about....

Tyler White has cards in Panini Elite Extra Edition. Since Panini isn't allowed to follow the rules, I guess they can't really be breaking them either, and we can call them rookie cards!

I don't care what people want to call their cards. The funny part is when I call so-and-so a RC using the Beckett "rules" and people act like it is some sort of heresy... meanwhile anything they can see with their eyes they call a RC. Doesn't really make sense, does it, to tell someone they are wrong about RCs, only to turn around and make RC claims yourself.

Look at the BO thread. lol It's a bunch of mongoloids who feel threatened because I used the tried-and-true definition of RC, while trying to tell me what a RC is. What does it matter? The cards I called RCs are RCs. I don't care if you want to call some card your dad made in his basement a RC, be my guest. But to tell me I'M wrong when I'm 100% right is just laughable and moronic.

sportscardtheory said:

I don't care what people want to call their cards. The funny part is when I call so-and-so a RC using the Beckett "rules" and people act like it is some sort of heresy... meanwhile anything they can see with their eyes they call a RC. Doesn't really make sense, does it, to tell someone they are wrong about RCs, only to turn around and make RC claims yourself.

Look at the BO thread. lol It's a bunch of mongoloids who feel threatened because I used the tried-and-true definition of RC, while trying to tell me what a RC is. What does it matter? The cards I called RCs are RCs. I don't care if you want to call some card your dad made in his basement a RC, be my guest. But to tell me I'M wrong when I'm 100% right is just laughable and moronic.

Click to expand...

Who's telling you that you're wrong?

First off, thank you for doing a list.

Beckett "tried and true" RC definition ONLY changed because they caved into MLB's new "rules" with the rookie card logo.

Originally, and still by far the accepted and used definition of rookie card is a player's FIRST card from a major company.

This means that Hazelbaker's RC is 09 elite and Story's is from all '11 products.





Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

hive17 said:

Who's telling you that you're wrong?

Click to expand...

99% of everyone who responded on BO. I haven't even posted once in there. It's a train wreck that I want no part of. But I'll continue to make the list. If someone doesn't like it, they can simply not click on the thread. Won't bother me.

BBCgalaxee said:

First off, thank you for doing a list.

Beckett "tried and true" RC definition ONLY changed because they caved into MLB's new "rules" with the rookie card logo.

Originally, and still by far the accepted and used definition of rookie card is a player's FIRST card from a major company.

This means that Hazelbaker's RC is 09 elite and Story's is from all '11 products.





Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. If you want to go with the "original" definition, it would be how I did it in the OP. Trust me, I know my ****. A RC has always been a MLB licensed, pack released or pack-released-set-continuation-end-of-the-year-box-set card of a player that's not an insert or a parallel. These are the MINIMUM requirements. Beckett still uses it to this day, other than calling MLBPA licensed cards RCs, which is fairly new on their part. Beckett doesn't accept either of the cards you mentioned as RCs. The Elite is unlicensed by MLB and the '11 Bowman Story stuff is technically inserted into the product and isn't part of the "base" set. Of course, that's just a technicality, as most people simply accept the Bowman prospect stuff as RCs. But whatever. I really don't care what people call their cards. Hazelbaker's 2009 TriStar cards are as much RCs as the Elite stuff, BTW. But I never see anyone clamoring to call TriStar cards RCs. lol People just pick and choose what suits them.

P.S. Trevor Story is a better story, but Tyler White outplayed him in the first week and a half of the season. Contrary to popular belief, HRs and RBI are not everything. White led the league in nearly every non-HR/RBI major hitting statistical category.

(I started typing this the other night and got sidetracked. Just finished. Sorry if it’s too long-winded!):

Beckett is too wishy-washy to use them as gospel. If they’re not calling the Tyler White ToppsNow card a rookie card, then they should probably change with the times and start doing so. Their whole idea of “it’s only a RC if it comes out of a pack” is outdated. It appears Topps is calling it a RC. The RC logo is on the front and all of the necessary licensing info is on the back. It’s his first licensed card, and (imagine this) he is an actual MLB rookie playing in the show! Just because you can only purchase the card on-line and not in a store doesn’t really matter anymore. Just like the on-line exclusive Topps Mini boxes were (are?). I remember buying a box the first year it came out and pulled some RCs from it (David Carpenter comes to mind). ToppsNow is its own standalone product (and eventual set).

I’m not bashing you or your lists, but I think most folks wonder why you choose to list all of these “best RC-logo cards” for the players. I understand the RC rules just as much as the next guy, and at some point I realized that I couldn’t rely on Beckett (or Topps for that matter) to always get it right. Sometimes you have to research and double-check it yourself and use common sense.

Anyway…for these lists, what is your goal? The VAST majority of hobbyists are more interested in the “best cards”, not an opinion of the best among the ones that Beckett chose to put their little “RC stamp” next to in their database. Perhaps if you explained WHY you list the way you do, then it would make some sense.
- Are you trying to sell these cards?
- Is it to get some “newb” to read the list and go buy cards that are not the most desirable ones?
- Is it to influence others to embrace to RC logo rules within the hobby? (This is the impression I get personally)
- Is it to see how many folks you can get riled up?
- Strictly entertainment; take it or leave it?
- Other?

My point of all this is…the hot list would be great without a listing of the “best rookie cards”. The ones you list are certainly not the “most desirable” cards for the large majority. I’m sure you realize that. A list of who is performing well would suffice. Other than simple entertainment value, the best purpose of any hot list is to identify which cards to SELL. Once you add these rookie cards to your hot list, the whole thing takes an odd turn for many people. You’re obviously spending time researching these cards for each player; I think most of the folks giving you pushback are just wondering WHY. You’re spending minutes you’ll never get back. Ha.

Having said all that, this isn’t an attack on you or your hot lists. Like you said, we can all choose to ignore all or part of them. Thanks for taking the time to make the lists. Have a good one.

It's just funny to me that many of the very same people who act like Beckett designating something RC is meaningless, use the fact that MLB/Topps designates something a RC as validation that it's a RC. lol There's no RC logo on prospect cards, so which is it. You want it any and all ways. The bottom line is, prospects aren't even rookies until they surpass MLB's rookie requirements, so the use of the word "rookie" in anything related to their prospect cards is a fallacy in and of itself. How can you have a "rookie card" when you have not been a rookie yet. I call anything made before or during a player's rookie season a rookie card and also call any card with the word rookie on it a rookie card, so it's not really an issue with me. What's an issue is people telling me I'm wrong when they are literally doing the same thing I am. Wake up.

You call 2011 Trevor Story cards RCs, that came out 5 years before he was a rookie, AND call his 2016 Topps Now card a RC. I mean, really, what do you care about my opinion when you are just making things up as you go along anyway. Beckett and most other hobby sources don't designate either of those cards RCs, but because Topps says the Topps Now card is a RC, you believe it? lol You believe some card that predates a guy's rookie season by 5 years is a RC because it's the general consensus that everything is a RC? lol It's just a jumbled mess. Meanwhile, I'm a jerk for calling RCs, RCs. OKAY.

In summation; you can call something anything you like, what it IS is a different story.

Most of the people who want to call prospect cards RCs AND their rookie logo cards RCs have an issue with, say, 2003 Miguel Cabrera cards being called RCs. He was a rookie in 2003 and had MLB licensed cards in 2000. It's the same same thing as a 2011 Trevor Story card being called a RC and his 2016 cards also being called RCs. No difference at all. Yet many of these people scoff at someone calling a 2003 Cabrera a RC or a 1996 Derek Jeter card a RC. Make up your mind. lol

Oh, I'm simply using the long-standing hobby requirements for RC status in these lists because I want to. If someone doesn't like it and wants to see prospect cards and inserts instead, I don't care. Make your own list.

sportscardtheory said:

99% of everyone who responded on BO. I haven't even posted once in there. It's a train wreck that I want no part of. But I'll continue to make the list. If someone doesn't like it, they can simply not click on the thread. Won't bother me.

Click to expand...

Roger. I never go to BO.