What hitting stat is most necessary for hobby stardom?

[MOFNY]

I think BA is more universally respected. There is no OPS title, or OBP title, or XBH title, etc. Someone notices a .340 BA and probably thinks the guy is doing pretty good.

 

[AKA Coastal]

Batting Average. Can you imagine how popular a player like Ty Cobb would be in the game today. He never hit more than 12 HR's in a season ,but his aggressive play and .400avg's would very popular among the masses today. We just haven't seen it in so long that we've shifted to the long ball as to what drives the hobby. If anyone had a breakout season and put up Cobb, Vaughan, O'neil, Browning, Jackson, Delahanty, Heilman, etc numbers they would be very popular and would sell for big bucks. The longball is always going to be popular ,but steroids has kind of thrown a wrench in the history of it.

 

[Topnotchsy]

The 2 go hand in hand. Your forgetting that Jeter is the face of the Yankees, Ichiro is the first Japanese superstar to make it big in America, and Tony Gwynn is a lovable teddy bear. What about guys like Derin Erstad, Todd Helton, Bill Madlock, Dave Parker, Willie McGee, Freddy Sanchez? Without the power, your not a stud. Without the average, your not a stud. You need a bit of both, but more importantly power.

My point is simply that BA is most necessary. While power helps when it comes with a high BA and there are players with solid BA's who do not get much press, the BA is needed. True Jeter combined it with NY, Ichiro with Japan, but you won't find a power hitter who got much hobby love without BA.

 

[brouthercard]

The 2 go hand in hand. Your forgetting that Jeter is the face of the Yankees, Ichiro is the first Japanese superstar to make it big in America, and Tony Gwynn is a lovable teddy bear. What about guys like Derin Erstad, Todd Helton, Bill Madlock, Dave Parker, Willie McGee, Freddy Sanchez? Without the power, your not a stud. Without the average, your not a stud. You need a bit of both, but more importantly power.

My point is simply that BA is most necessary. While power helps when it comes with a high BA and there are players with solid BA's who do not get much press, the BA is needed. True Jeter combined it with NY, Ichiro with Japan, but you won't find a power hitter who got much hobby love without BA.

Well, obviously the BA is needed to keep you in the majors, but you really can't argue that a high batting average will get you more HOBBY LOVE than tons of homers. The majority of those with a high batting average also have many homers. You won't stay in the majors without a passable BA.

Case in point, do you really feel that Albert Pujols cards would be MORE valuable or he would be even as popular if he only averaged, say, ten home runs a year instead of 30 plus? I mean, he would still have a career .300+ average. I can't see his hobby star being this bright with the reputation of being a light hitter.

Also, how much more valuable would Tony Gwynn's or Wade Boggs's cards have been if they had hit more homers than Don Mattingly during those year. What if Boggs and Gwynn both had over 500 career homers each - wouldn't they have to be comparable to Ted Williams in the argument of being the greatest hitters of all time? Wouldn't their cards be mulitply more expensive?

Furthermore, Let's look at more recent prospects- would Longoria's chromes be selling for $200 if he only hit 8 homers last year? Would he even have been rookie of the year? How about Ryan Braun? His chromes would still be $30 to $40 if he only hit 10 home runs in each of his first two years.

I fail to see any compelling reason how you can argue that batting average is the single greatest indicator of hobby stardom. Honestly, it's popularity first, and that is driven by having good hitting numbers, home runs greatly outweighing BA.

 

[Topnotchsy]

I fail to see any compelling reason how you can argue that batting average is the single greatest indicator of hobby stardom. Honestly, it's popularity first, and that is driven by having good hitting numbers, home runs greatly outweighing BA.

I agree 100% that the most popular players have a combination of factors, and that power is a significant player. All I'm saying is that BA is the stat that without it, there's basically no chance of hobby stardom (even if a guy has power, high OBP, etc. etc.)
As far as popularity, I was speaking about hitting stats so it wasn't included. "Popularity" in my mind equals "demand" when it comes to cards, so it's almost like saying an increase in demand results in increases in demand.

 

[brouthercard]

I fail to see any compelling reason how you can argue that batting average is the single greatest indicator of hobby stardom. Honestly, it's popularity first, and that is driven by having good hitting numbers, home runs greatly outweighing BA.

I agree 100% that the most popular players have a combination of factors, and that power is a significant player. All I'm saying is that BA is the stat that without it, there's basically no chance of hobby stardom (even if a guy has power, high OBP, etc. etc.)
As far as popularity, I was speaking about hitting stats so it wasn't included. "Popularity" in my mind equals "demand" when it comes to cards, so it's almost like saying an increase in demand results in increases in demand.

So Longoria batted, what .285 last year? I used him as an example. Do you really think his cards would be selling for $200 if he only had 8 home runs instead of 27 last year? They would be closer to $30 to $40, and no one would really be talking about him cause he's tucked away in TB. He wouldn't even be a top 3 player on his own team. He commands the price he does because of ONE thing- his HR and his HR potential.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

While a combination of power, batting average etc. is generally necessary for hobby super-stardom, and no single stat is enough, the only stat that IMO where a weakness pretty much precludes the possibility of hobby stardom is batting average.

Despite the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" there are tons of guys who have achieved stardom without it (Ichiro, Jeter, Gwynn etc. etc.) We can look at the all-time great homerun hitters, and it's only the ones with a reasonable batting average that get any attention. Adam Dunn, Greg Vaughn are some examples of big-time power hitters with no following. Ryan Howard plays in Phillie, is by far the best power hitter in baseball today, is outgoing and popular and won the WS last season, but his hobby popularity has dropped with his batting average. I'd even mention Grady Sizemore who is pretty popular, but is not a hobby superstar IMO because his batting average has been a bit low (despite the fact he was 30/30 last season with a great OBP.)

While there's no question that power helps, and the more positives (as far as personalyity, ballpark etc.) the better, but none is as integral IMO as batting average.

Disagree. Completely.

Based on your topic alone and the phrase "hobby stardom" along with "hitting stat" I don't think batting average is it. The three players you mentioned are completely isolated cases.
Ichiro - Ichiro was a star in Japan for 10 years before he stepped into a Mariners uniform. He is a hobby "star" due to his tremendous following in Japan.
Jeter - Jeter plays in New York and he is primarily a hobby "star" due to his location and a slew of rings as a young player.
Gwynn - Gwynn actually proves the opposite of your thought that batting average is integral. While a great player, Gwynn has never been a hobby "star." Ever.

Mark McGwire is probably the only player we need to even discuss. And while his .263 career batting average is impressive...it's those 583 home runs that made him a hobby "star."

For example, let's take a player named Johnny Prospect, he joins the big leagues and goes on a tear...hitting a .430 clip over his first 10 games, while his brother Jerry Prospect hits 5 homeruns over his first 10 games. Who are we talking about? Who is selling for more?

It isn't Johnny.

 

[brouthercard]

While a combination of power, batting average etc. is generally necessary for hobby super-stardom, and no single stat is enough, the only stat that IMO where a weakness pretty much precludes the possibility of hobby stardom is batting average.

Despite the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" there are tons of guys who have achieved stardom without it (Ichiro, Jeter, Gwynn etc. etc.) We can look at the all-time great homerun hitters, and it's only the ones with a reasonable batting average that get any attention. Adam Dunn, Greg Vaughn are some examples of big-time power hitters with no following. Ryan Howard plays in Phillie, is by far the best power hitter in baseball today, is outgoing and popular and won the WS last season, but his hobby popularity has dropped with his batting average. I'd even mention Grady Sizemore who is pretty popular, but is not a hobby superstar IMO because his batting average has been a bit low (despite the fact he was 30/30 last season with a great OBP.)

While there's no question that power helps, and the more positives (as far as personalyity, ballpark etc.) the better, but none is as integral IMO as batting average.

Disagree. Completely.

Based on your topic alone and the phrase "hobby stardom" along with "hitting stat" I don't think batting average is it. The three players you mentioned are completely isolated cases.
Ichiro - Ichiro was a star in Japan for 10 years before he stepped into a Mariners uniform. He is a hobby "star" due to his tremendous following in Japan.
Jeter - Jeter plays in New York and he is primarily a hobby "star" due to his location and a slew of rings as a young player.
Gwynn - Gwynn actually proves the opposite of your thought that batting average is integral. While a great player, Gwynn has never been a hobby "star." Ever.

Mark McGwire is probably the only player we need to even discuss. And while his .263 career batting average is impressive...it's those 583 home runs that made him a hobby "star."

For example, let's take a player named Johnny Prospect, he joins the big leagues and goes on a tear...hitting a .430 clip over his first 10 games, while his brother Jerry Prospect hits 5 homeruns over his first 10 games. Who are we talking about? Who is selling for more?

It isn't Johnny.

Thanks for bringing up Mcgwire again. Obviously, if Mcgwire hit only ten homers a year, but had a .300 career average, his cards would have been much much less valuable, and he would have been a lesser star.

And I agree that Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs were never hobby stars. NEVER. I would argue that Don Mattingly was a hobby star, and what made him stand out above Gwynn and Boggs? His HR total and HR potential.

 

[Topnotchsy]

While a combination of power, batting average etc. is generally necessary for hobby super-stardom, and no single stat is enough, the only stat that IMO where a weakness pretty much precludes the possibility of hobby stardom is batting average.

Despite the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" there are tons of guys who have achieved stardom without it (Ichiro, Jeter, Gwynn etc. etc.) We can look at the all-time great homerun hitters, and it's only the ones with a reasonable batting average that get any attention. Adam Dunn, Greg Vaughn are some examples of big-time power hitters with no following. Ryan Howard plays in Phillie, is by far the best power hitter in baseball today, is outgoing and popular and won the WS last season, but his hobby popularity has dropped with his batting average. I'd even mention Grady Sizemore who is pretty popular, but is not a hobby superstar IMO because his batting average has been a bit low (despite the fact he was 30/30 last season with a great OBP.)

While there's no question that power helps, and the more positives (as far as personalyity, ballpark etc.) the better, but none is as integral IMO as batting average.

Disagree. Completely.

Based on your topic alone and the phrase "hobby stardom" along with "hitting stat" I don't think batting average is it. The three players you mentioned are completely isolated cases.
Ichiro - Ichiro was a star in Japan for 10 years before he stepped into a Mariners uniform. He is a hobby "star" due to his tremendous following in Japan.
Jeter - Jeter plays in New York and he is primarily a hobby "star" due to his location and a slew of rings as a young player.
Gwynn - Gwynn actually proves the opposite of your thought that batting average is integral. While a great player, Gwynn has never been a hobby "star." Ever.

Mark McGwire is probably the only player we need to even discuss. And while his .263 career batting average is impressive...it's those 583 home runs that made him a hobby "star."

For example, let's take a player named Johnny Prospect, he joins the big leagues and goes on a tear...hitting a .430 clip over his first 10 games, while his brother Jerry Prospect hits 5 homeruns over his first 10 games. Who are we talking about? Who is selling for more?

It isn't Johnny.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. The truth is that the superstar players are rarely the one's who are useful in examination, as most have many different reasons they are popular. I do agree 100% that power is something that impacts popularity heavily, all I am saying is that there is basically no one in the history of baseball who has achieved popularity without a reasonable batting average (McGwire is an exception, the only one I can think of. Obviously the result of the HR record, but a legitimate case never the less.

Again, I am not saying that the most popular players of all time were not all homerun hitters. Simply saying that HR's without BA rarely if ever equal hobby popularity, while you do find players with high BA's and low HR totals that are popular.

 

[brouthercard]

While a combination of power, batting average etc. is generally necessary for hobby super-stardom, and no single stat is enough, the only stat that IMO where a weakness pretty much precludes the possibility of hobby stardom is batting average.

Despite the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" there are tons of guys who have achieved stardom without it (Ichiro, Jeter, Gwynn etc. etc.) We can look at the all-time great homerun hitters, and it's only the ones with a reasonable batting average that get any attention. Adam Dunn, Greg Vaughn are some examples of big-time power hitters with no following. Ryan Howard plays in Phillie, is by far the best power hitter in baseball today, is outgoing and popular and won the WS last season, but his hobby popularity has dropped with his batting average. I'd even mention Grady Sizemore who is pretty popular, but is not a hobby superstar IMO because his batting average has been a bit low (despite the fact he was 30/30 last season with a great OBP.)

While there's no question that power helps, and the more positives (as far as personalyity, ballpark etc.) the better, but none is as integral IMO as batting average.

Disagree. Completely.

Based on your topic alone and the phrase "hobby stardom" along with "hitting stat" I don't think batting average is it. The three players you mentioned are completely isolated cases.
Ichiro - Ichiro was a star in Japan for 10 years before he stepped into a Mariners uniform. He is a hobby "star" due to his tremendous following in Japan.
Jeter - Jeter plays in New York and he is primarily a hobby "star" due to his location and a slew of rings as a young player.
Gwynn - Gwynn actually proves the opposite of your thought that batting average is integral. While a great player, Gwynn has never been a hobby "star." Ever.

Mark McGwire is probably the only player we need to even discuss. And while his .263 career batting average is impressive...it's those 583 home runs that made him a hobby "star."

For example, let's take a player named Johnny Prospect, he joins the big leagues and goes on a tear...hitting a .430 clip over his first 10 games, while his brother Jerry Prospect hits 5 homeruns over his first 10 games. Who are we talking about? Who is selling for more?

It isn't Johnny.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. The truth is that the superstar players are rarely the one's who are useful in examination, as most have many different reasons they are popular. I do agree 100% that power is something that impacts popularity heavily, all I am saying is that there is basically no one in the history of baseball who has achieved popularity without a reasonable batting average (McGwire is an exception, the only one I can think of. Obviously the result of the HR record, but a legitimate case never the less.

Again, I am not saying that the most popular players of all time were not all homerun hitters. Simply saying that HR's without BA rarely if ever equal hobby popularity, while you do find players with high BA's and low HR totals that are popular.

What exactly is your cutoff for low batting average, and how many home runs does a player have to hit to be considered a hobby star?

I think really you are arguing semantics. Of course you need a decent average to be a hobby star, you need a decent average to play baseball in the majors, but not everyone who has a decent average becomes a hobby star.

More players who have higher home run totals become stars than players who have decent batting averages with no home run power.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. The truth is that the superstar players are rarely the one's who are useful in examination, as most have many different reasons they are popular. I do agree 100% that power is something that impacts popularity heavily, all I am saying is that there is basically no one in the history of baseball who has achieved popularity without a reasonable batting average (McGwire is an exception, the only one I can think of. Obviously the result of the HR record, but a legitimate case never the less.

Again, I am not saying that the most popular players of all time were not all homerun hitters. Simply saying that HR's without BA rarely if ever equal hobby popularity, while you do find players with high BA's and low HR totals that are popular.

Reggie Jackson was arguably the biggest star of the 70s was he not? He reached a .300 average only once in his career and it was exactly .300. His career average was a whopping .262.

Dale Murphy was no doubt a hobby "star" for years...along with his .265 career batting average.

We could go on here.

 

[rico08]

What exactly is your cutoff for low batting average, and how many home runs does a player have to hit to be considered a hobby star?

I think really you are arguing semantics. Of course you need a decent average to be a hobby star, you need a decent average to play baseball in the majors, but not everyone who has a decent average becomes a hobby star.

More players who have higher home run totals become stars than players who have decent batting averages with no home run power.

Basically what I've been thinking.

There is no magic statistic or variable to define hobby success and I don't think collectors are as basic as "the guy bats .310 so I'll buy his stuff."

Players are special or popular for a bevy of reasons. Some guys hustle, some are fan favorites, some are sure-fire Hall of Famers, and some are all three.

 

[AKA Coastal]

If Pujols was a (career) .254 40HR 100RBI guy he would be put in the same boat as Carlos Pena, Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan, Andrew Jones . He needs his average just as much or than he needs his HR's to be the star he is.

 

[brouthercard]

If Pujols was a (career) .254 40HR 100RBI guy he would be put in the same boat as Carlos Pena, Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan, Andrew Jones . He needs his average just as much or than he needs his HR's to be the star he is.

But do you understand the point that if Pujols has his career .335 average, but only 8 homers a year, he would be in the same category as Placido Polanco. It's his home runs that make him a hobby star, not high BA.

Pujols would be a bigger star with a .270 career average and 40 home runs a year, than with a .310 career average and 8 homers a year.

 

[AKA Coastal]

If Pujols was a (career) .254 40HR 100RBI guy he would be put in the same boat as Carlos Pena, Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan, Andrew Jones . He needs his average just as much or than he needs his HR's to be the star he is.

But do you understand the point that if Pujols has his career .335 average, but only 8 homers a year, he would be in the same category as Placido Polanco. It's his home runs that make him a hobby star, not high BA.

Pujols would be a bigger star with a .270 career average and 40 home runs a year, than with a .310 career average and 8 homers a year.

You obviously need a decent amount of homerun's .but you also need a decent batting average. A .335 20HR 90RBI would get more hobby love than a 260 40HR 110RBI.

 

[kharmon]

Just my two cents, hobby stardom is based on the power numbers a player puts up and/or the team, location, or market the player is in. A good comparison is Michael Young and Jeter. Young put up as good, or better numbers, than Jeter in fielding percentage, hits, and avg. since 2003 or so. Jeter remains a force in the hobby because he is on a high exposure team with the Yankees. If the roles had been reversed, Jeter had spent his career with the Rangers and Young with the Yankees the roles would be reversed.

Wright, Ortiz, Jeter, and players on championship or big market teams will always be a bigger force in the card market than players in small market areas.

 

[brouthercard]

[quote="AKA Coastal":tuz7cvbw]If Pujols was a (career) .254 40HR 100RBI guy he would be put in the same boat as Carlos Pena, Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan, Andrew Jones . He needs his average just as much or than he needs his HR's to be the star he is.

But do you understand the point that if Pujols has his career .335 average, but only 8 homers a year, he would be in the same category as Placido Polanco. It's his home runs that make him a hobby star, not high BA.

Pujols would be a bigger star with a .270 career average and 40 home runs a year, than with a .310 career average and 8 homers a year.

You obviously need a decent amount of homerun's .but you also need a decent batting average. A .335 20HR 90RBI would get more hobby love than a 260 40HR 110RBI.[/quote:tuz7cvbw]

Like I said before, it's just a matter of semantics, defining the words hobby stardom, high/low battting average, and high/low HR's.

I think 20 hr could be considered a power hitter.

 

[AKA Coastal]

Jose Reyes '06 season.... .300avg 19HR 81RBI's. This is the year his cards exploded.
Dustin Pedrioa '08 season..326avg 17HR 83RBI's. This is the year his cards exploded.

and I realize both of them are in big markets ,but without the averages they would have just be ho-hum players. I don't consider them power hitters.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

While I agree wholeheartedly, I'd like to expand this thought even more. There isn't any single aspect of the modern HOBBY that should be taken for granted - at least for more than a few weeks at a time.

Its all to easy to place your finger on the hobby pulse at any given instant to figure out what's hot and what's not...but figuring out what will be hot long term becomes impossible.

This is why its important for some sellers to be able to sell at a moment's notice.

Basically what I've been thinking.

There is no magic statistic or variable to define hobby success and I don't think collectors are as basic as "the guy bats .310 so I'll buy his stuff."

Players are special or popular for a bevy of reasons. Some guys hustle, some are fan favorites, some are sure-fire Hall of Famers, and some are all three.