Explain scarcity vs. quality to me

[7mart7]

I'm not sure I understand why rare cards like a Christy Matthewson with OVR of 95 are offered at insanely high starting bids like 50,000 compared to less rare cards of better players like Syndergaard (OVR 98) around 8000.

Are people purchasing in the auction house to build winning teams or to collect cards?

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by 7mart7

I'm not sure I understand why rare cards like a Christy Matthewson with OVR of 95 are offered at insanely high starting bids like 50,000 compared to less rare cards of better players like Syndergaard (OVR 98) around 8000.

Are people purchasing in the auction house to build winning teams or to collect cards?

You have to look at the underlying ratings (stuff/movement/control), as the overall ratings are often inflated for the "live" cards. 95 Mathewson is 90/65/85 while 98 Syndergaard is 80/73/68. Mathewson also has a big stamina advantage. His is a better card. Is it 40K+ points better? Maybe not at lower levels, but in Perfect leagues when looking for every incremental advantage, sure, as long as you're comfortable losing some points in movement to get sizable stuff and control boosts.

[uschi_baerchen]

Matthewson is about as good as 92/73/68. So he has a Advantage of about 10 Points over Syndergaard (who in turn is my number one pitcher, but then I do not have 42.000 PP to upgrade and I would buy deGroom for 42.000 to drop my Corbin to number 3, my Dierker to no. 4, my Whitley to no. 5 and sell my Kopech - but that is another Story)

[Abnerdoubleday]

While the original comparison given probably wasn't the best one, it is a very valid point. There are quite a few cards with regular asking prices well in excess of any possible in-game value. It's a head-scratcher.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Abnerdoubleday

While the original comparison given probably wasn't the best one, it is a very valid point. There are quite a few cards with regular asking prices well in excess of any possible in-game value. It's a head-scratcher.

Yeah, I still haven't quite figured out who gets those magic boosts. Like, for example, compare the 87 Gwynn (conveniently an 87 OA) to the 1969 Clemente in contact/power/eye/defense:
Gwynn 88/23/49/87
Clemente 84/74/40/79
Gwynn has a very slight edge in defense, an edge in speed, and will hit more doubles, but Clemente has a lot more power.
Last 5, Clemente goes for 6.5k, Gwynn goes for 17k

And then you have the 1962 Frank Robinson, who's a 79/76/51 (76 defense). Yeah, he has massive gap power and is a 93 overall. But his average is 32k. I could see wanting him over Clemente, sure. And being a Diamond, he'll be a rarer card to have. But to want him by a Mike Trout amount more than Clemente?

I can understand how the top cards at a position will command a top premium. While I could never afford the 100k pricetag on a Rogers Hornsby, I can understand why he could go for 100k vs 40k for Joe Morgan for 4k for Robbie Alomar. Top players will command top prices. But it definitely feels like some players probably just had a few people pay crazy prices for them early on, and they just kept up getting that much, while other players got bought cheap early, and have stayed that way.

[atabakin]

The one I really don't understand is the 78 Ozzie Smith card. The Live Andrelton Simmons card is better at pretty much everything except for speed, yet Ozzie costs about 10-15x as much.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

And then you have the 1962 Frank Robinson, who's a 79/76/51 (76 defense). Yeah, he has massive gap power and is a 93 overall. But his average is 32k. I could see wanting him over Clemente, sure. And being a Diamond, he'll be a rarer card to have. But to want him by a Mike Trout amount more than Clemente?

Robinson has a much better gap power (94 vs. 73), better eye (51 vs. 40), better avoid K (61 vs. 48), better speed (65 vs. a base-clogging 14), much better error rate (76 vs. 38), and he carries a 3K advantage in vendor cost if you have to sell him. The other stats are pretty much a push, so Robinson is significantly better than Clemente.

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by atabakin

The one I really don't understand is the 78 Ozzie Smith card. The Live Andrelton Simmons card is better at pretty much everything except for speed, yet Ozzie costs about 10-15x as much.

Huh? You sure you aren't talking about the lesser Ozzie?

Simmons is only significantly better at Power and having more insane defensive ratings. Essentially the same in Contact & Avoid Ks, while Ozzie has 20 points more in Gap, 26 more in Eye. And his running skills are much better across the board. 78 Ozzie is probably one of the top leadoff hitters in the game, plus one of the best infielders.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

Huh? You sure you aren't talking about the lesser Ozzie?

Simmons is only significantly better at Power and having more insane defensive ratings. Essentially the same in Contact & Avoid Ks, while Ozzie has 20 points more in Gap, 26 more in Eye. And his running skills are much better across the board. 85 Ozzie is probably one of the top leadoff hitters in the game, plus one of the best infielders.

I'm not near a computer so I was just going off the top of my head. If you don't need a leadoff hitter, I still don't see much reason to pay the premium over what you can get for 800 PP

[atabakin]

After looking at it more closely, I'll admit that Ozzie is the better card (as a lifelong Cardinals fan I'm trying to remain objective), but that's still not justifying the price difference.

Put another way, would you rather have Ozzie, or Simmons PLUS Posey, J.D. Martinez, Corbin, AND Dierker? Or just pay up and get Lindor.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by atabakin

After looking at it more closely, I'll admit that Ozzie is the better card (as a lifelong Cardinals fan I'm trying to remain objective), but that's still not justifying the price difference.

Put another way, would you rather have Ozzie, or Simmons PLUS Posey, J.D. Martinez, Corbin, AND Dierker? Or just pay up and get Lindor.

I would take the 2018 Lindor card over the Ozzie card and pay the difference if any. What little Lindor gives up in defense, he will easily get back with power.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I would take the 2018 Lindor card over the Ozzie card and pay the difference if any. What little Lindor gives up in defense, he will easily get back with power.

1987 Ozzie runs about 10k (9999 last 5, 8750 overall). Lindor last 5 is 7600.

Ozzie is 5 points better defensively (93 vs 88), and has a bit better eye and avoid K, as well as a bit more speed. But that's a big gap in power to makeup.

But yeah, the 1 power vs 69 is huge. And to me, I don't see the gap between Ozzie and Simmons - Andrelton has better D, and offensively it's basically 1 power/62 eye vs 33 power/36 eye. Although I guess given how PT works, that 33 power probably is less than 10 HR over the course of a season, so I could definitely see how walks might translate better.

[Orcin]

I think the reason that Ozzie carries such a premium is the extremely high defense ratings. He's the best and, for some people, there is no point of diminishing returns.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I think the reason that Ozzie carries such a premium is the extremely high defense ratings. He's the best and, for some people, there is no point of diminishing returns.

In real life I think he was the best... but he's not rated the best in PT.