Race, Performance, and Baseball Card Values

Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State University

ScholarWorks@GVSU ScholarWorks@GVSU

Peer Reviewed Publications

School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and

Legal Studies

11-2005

Race, Performance, and Baseball Card Values Race, Performance, and Baseball Card Values

John D. Hewitt

Grand Valley State University

, [email protected]

Robert Muñoz Jr.

William L. Oliver

University of Colorado at Boulder

Robert M. Regoli

University of Colorado at Boulder

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/scjpeerpubs

ScholarWorks Citation ScholarWorks Citation

Hewitt, John D.; Muñoz, Robert Jr.; Oliver, William L.; and Regoli, Robert M., "Race, Performance, and

Baseball Card Values" (2005).

Peer Reviewed Publications

. 6.

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/scjpeerpubs/6

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Legal

Studies at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peer Reviewed Publications by an authorized

administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholar[email protected].

10.1177/0193723504273121JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005BASEBALL CARD VALUES

TRENDS

RACE, PERFORMANCE, AND

BASEBALL CARD VALUES

John D. Hewitt

Robert Muñoz, Jr.

William L. Oliver

Robert M. Regoli

This study reports on a search for racial disparities in the value of baseball

cards for Black and White members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame

(HOF). The study’s sample of 51 players was derived from the population of

the 96 players elected to the HOF since 1936 by the Baseball Writers of Amer

ica. Although the authors found that race produced no statistical difference

in Black and White players’ card values, they did observe that players’ career

performance plus the availability of a player’s card (scarcity) exerted a sig

nificant effect on the value of cards. The study concludes with a discussion of

possible interpretations of these findings.

Keywords: race; baseball cards; performance; values

e are curious to find out if differences exist in the value of Black

and White National Baseball Hall of Fame (HOF) players’ rookie

baseball cards and, if so, whether racial prejudice plays a role.

Several studies have examined racial discrimination in the broader game of

baseball. But does evidence of racism in the game mean that there is racism

in the purchasing decisions of card collectors? Feagin (2000) argues that rac

ism is integral to the foundation of the United States and pervades every

facet of life in society:

[It] is lived, concrete, advantageous for white, and painful for those who are not

white.Eachmajorpartofablackorwhiteperson’slifeisshapedbyracism....

Where one lives is often determined by the racist practices of landlords, bank

ers, and others in the real estate profession. The clothes one wears and what

one has to eat are affected by access to resources that varies by position in the

racist hierarchy. When one goes off to school, her or his education is shaped by

contemporary racism—from the composition of the student body to the charac

ter of the curriculum . . . and it is likely that racism affects who one’s political

representatives are. Even getting sick, dying, and being buried may be influ

enced by racism. (p. 2)

Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Volume 29, No. 4, November 2005, pp. 411-425

DOI: 10.1177/0193723504273121

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Thus, according to Feagin (2000), racism affects all human interaction

in all situations all of the time. It has a significant saliency as an explana

tory variable for social phenomena and is a strong determinant of one’s iden

tity, social relationships, political rights, and location in the labor market. It

affects employment, housing, publicly and privately valued goods, public

policy, and, of course, sports.

Several studies have found that Black athletes are perceived and eval

uated differently. The fact that the same behavior is often perceived differ

ently most likely effects evaluation of their performances and thereby the

significance of their contributions. In a study using photo-elicitation meth

ods, Gonzalez and Jackson (2003) found that respondents attributed the

success of White players to socioeconomic factors and the success of Black

players to physiological factors. The difference in the order of importance

given to contributing factors along racial lines was cited as evidence of the

institutionalization of racism and discrimination.

Not only are Black athletes likely to be viewed differently, they are

also more likely to be evaluated negatively. Gabriel, Johnson, and Stanton

(1999, p. 1334) discuss the negative stereotypes in the media portrayal of a

player’s behavior:“For instance,a white player who has off-field problems or

misses practices,might be called ‘fun-loving’, ‘free-spirited’ or ‘independent,’

whereas a nonwhite with similar behavior might be dubbed ‘uncoachable’,

‘temperamental’ or ‘disruptive.” A study of the media portrayal of players

along racial lines revealed that most players, Black Americans included, are

not viewed negatively; however, all of the players who were portrayed nega-

tively were Black. In addition, Black players are more likely to be viewed as

arrogant or insolent by their teammates and White coaches (Evans,1997).

Black players are also limited by perceptions of their abilities in that

they are subject to stacking, that is, limited to certain positions. Studies

have reported that Whites are disproportionately placed, and Black players

underrepresented, in key functionary or central positions that, because of

their critical role, have a greater impact on the outcome of a game. These

positions allow the greater display of intelligence, decision-making skills,

coordinative tasks, social interaction, group acceptability, leadership—in

football, the center, quarterback, and middle linebacker positions; in base

ball, pitcher and catcher positions; and in basketball, the point guard posi

tion (Frey & Eitzen, 1991; Jibou, 1988; Lomax, 1999; Ogden & Hilt, 2003).

Conversely, these studies found that Blacks are overrepresented in posi

tions requiring more physical skills such as speed and quickness—in foot

ball, running back, receiver, and defensive line positions; in baseball, the

outfield positions; in basketball, the forward position. Given that key posi

tions have a greater outcome on the game, the limited access of Black play

ers to these positions plays a part in the evaluation of the significance of

their contribution to a team.

In the voting of minority players into the HOF, Brown and Bear (1999,

p. 420) found that between 1952 and 1987, “white players were over

represented in the central positions (pitcher and catcher), and black players

412 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

were overrepresented in the peripheral positions (the outfield).” These find

ings are significant because a player’s position, such as pitcher, is associated

with a greater likelihood of being elected to the HOF. For example, of the

players who entered the HOF (elected and put in by the Veterans Commit

tee) since 1936, a disproportionate number of these players (59 of the 189, or

31%) are pitchers (Thorn, Palmer, & Gershman, 2001, p. 224).

Jibou (1988) found that controlling for performance, being Black

shortens one’s career given the tendency of teams to retain White players of

declining but similar ability as Black players who are let go much earlier in

their career. Black players also face discrimination in getting into the HOF.

Findley and Reid (1997), for instance, found that Black players were less

likely to receive votes in both the nomination and ballot process of the HOF.

Desser, Monks, and Robinson (1999) found a preference for nominating

White players and a voting bias against Black players who made it on the

HOF ballot. Yet despite performance indicators, Findley and Reid found

Black players had a lower probability of being elected to the HOF, control

ling for other relevant factors.

Desser et al. (1999) also found evidence of the significantly superior

performance of Black baseball nominees relative to White nominees:

African American outperformed whites in batting average, runs produced, life-

time batting average more than .300, and stolen bases. . . . In no category did

white nominees significantly outperform African American nominees. In fact,

the sample of eligible African Americans not nominated had a higher mean life-

time batting average than the white nominees. (p. 88)

There is little question then, that racism has had widespread and pro-

found impact on the game of baseball and formal recognition of its heroes.

However, does this mean that fans of baseball, when purchasing rookie

cards for trading or collecting, make decisions on which cards are most val

ued according to the race of the players? In the study of baseball cards, we

can explore the possibilities of evidence of racial preferences in card values.

If, as Feagin (2000) argues, the United States is a totally racist society, the

results will indicate significant differences in card values by the race of play

ers, with the values of cards of White players greater than the values of

cards of Black players with similar performance records. Alternatively, if

there is no evidence of racial difference, if differences in card values are

determined by performance of players and the availability (scarcity) of cards

as most card dealers and collectors believe, then Feagin’s claim that the

United States is a totally racist society is not supported.

THE ORIGIN OF BASEBALL CARDS

The material culture produced by sport does not just passively reflect

society’s beliefs—it serves as the substance by which symbolic messages are

transmitted and thereby serves as an active agent in social interaction. Of

all the cultural artifacts in existence, people collect sport memorabilia more

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 413

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

than any other type. Of the sport memorabilia collected, people collect base

ball cards more than anything else (Anonymous, 2000). There are three rea

sons for their popularity.

1. Baseball cards are easily accessible and often inexpensive.

2. Baseball cards may rekindle fond memories of our childhoods.

3. Baseball cards can be an investment in the future.

Baseball card collecting emerged during the late 19th century when

tobacco tycoon James Buchanan “Buck” Duke started the practice of insert

ing a small cardboard into the backs of cigarette packages to prevent dam

age during shipping. Each cardboard had advertising on one side and the

picture of a popular actor on the reverse. Duke’s competitors responded to

this innovation by imprinting pictures of baseball players on the cards (Wil

liams, 1995). These first baseball cards became popular with both smokers

and nonsmokers; between 1886 and 1890, more than 20 different tobacco

sets were distributed (Lipset, 1983).

Public interest in baseball cards soared with the rise in tobacco sales

in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, the public’s fascination declined

almost as rapidly as it had risen. In 1913, R.J. Reynolds Company aban-

doned the baseball card tradition when they introduced Camel cigarettes.

The hobby experienced a near crippling meltdown. One by one, tobacco com-

panies dropped the baseball cards out of fear that consumers would consider

their cigarettes inferior to Camels. With no new cards being produced, inter-

est in cards quickly faded until 1938 when the stage was being set for a

remarkable baseball card comeback.

The hobby’s resurrection can be traced to the creation of the Topps

Company.Their first product was a single piece of chewing gum priced at one

cent. Their gum hit a home run with the public and a tradition developed

where businesses would place Topps gum on their counter next to the cash

most popular product: Bazooka bubble gum. For several years, Topps found

itself in a fiercely competitive and exploding bubble gum market. During

this time, a young employee recommended to Topps president that baseball

cards be inserted into packages. In 1951, Topps issued its first card set.

Cards were sold in small packs with each pack containing two cards and a

gum piece for one penny.

While Topps brought baseball cards back to the limelight, another

company, Bowman, produced baseball cards 3 years earlier, issuing its first

set in 1948. The two companies squared off in a bitter rivalry. The competi

tion ended amicably in 1956 when Topps purchased Bowman. Topps was in

total control of the baseball card industry between 1956 and 1980. Its

monopoly ended in 1981 when a District Court ruled that Topps and the

Major League Baseball Player’s Association (MLBPA) had restrained free

trade in the baseball card market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act

of 1890. The MLBPA was ordered to issue licenses to at least one new

414 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

company immediately. In 1981, three companies distributed baseball cards:

Donruss, Fleer, and Topps.

RACE, PERFORMANCE, AND BASEBALL CARD VALUES

Earlier research has been mixed regarding the impact of a player’s

race on the value of his baseball card. For example, when Nardinelli and

Simon (1990) and Anderson and LaCroix (1991) compared card values of

Black and White players, they found that the cards of Whites were more

valuable than those of Black Americans. On the other hand, in a study of 29

HOF members, B. Regoli (1991) concluded that race and card values were

not related and concluded that the card prices of comparable Black and

White players were similar.

In a subsequent study, R. Regoli (2000) argued that to more fully

understand the relationship between race and card values, it is necessary to

identify those factors (and their significance) that are the best predictors of

card values for Black and White players. He further suggested that collec

tors might use different systems of evaluation when they are determining

the card values of Blacks and Whites. According to R. Regoli (2000), card

values for Whites were foremost based on their “on the field” performance,

whereas card values of Black Americans were predominantly based on

extra performance factors, such as the validation of their achievements by

the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA), a group of mostly

White journalists.

The present research replicates and extends these earlier works by

exploring the relationship between race and card rookie values after con-

trolling for performance and the availability of the cards.

METHOD

Data were derived from three sources: (a) prices listed for cards in

near mint condition in the April, 2003, issue of Beckett’s Baseball Monthly,

(b) the Professional Service Authentication (PSA) April 2003 Population

Report on the scarcity of cards, and (c) player career data reported by Thorn

et al. (2001) in Total Baseball.

THE SAMPLE

There are 254 members in the HOF. Included are 189 former Major

League players, 23 executives or pioneers,18 Negro League players, 16 man

agers, and 8 umpires. Since 1936, the BBWAA has elected 96 players to the

HOF, whereas the Committee on Baseball Veterans has chosen an addi

tional 93 players. The 96 players elected to the HOF constitute the study’s

population. However, only 51 of them were included in the analysis after

applying the following criteria.

1. To have comparable samples of Black and White HOF players, every player

in the study had to have played in the integrated major baseball league that

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 415

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

started in 1947 with Jackie Robinson. Only 66 of the 96 players met this con

dition; thus, 30 players, including Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, and Babe Ruth,

who played in a segregated major baseball league only, were excluded.

2. Before 1948, baseball cards were distributed erratically; so, it is not too sur

prising that the value of cards produced prior to 1948 is highly exaggerated

because of their scarcity and sensitivity because of the very poor quality of

available printing. Because their rookie cards were manufactured before

1948,10 players were eliminated from the study, leaving us with 56 players.

3. The study only examines the card values of Black and White HOF members.

Therefore, five Latino players—Luis Aparicio, Rod Carew, Roberto

Clemente, Juan Marichal, and Tony Perez—were eliminated, leaving 51

players.

THE VARIABLES

The dependent variable in this study is card value in dollars (value).

This variable was created by tallying the prices listed in the April 2003 issue

of Beckett’s Baseball Monthly for the rookie cards (in near mint or mint con

dition) of the 51 players who constituted our sample. The independent vari

ables were race (Black or White), availability (number of cards available on

the market), and performance (career performance as measured on a scale

from 0 to 100). The study’s three independent variables were produced in the

following ways:

1. Race: Determined by inspecting eachplayer’scardinBergerandSlocum’s

(1985) Topps Baseball Cards, 1951-1985. The players were dichotomized

into Black (n = 18) and White (n = 33) subcategories. (See Brown and Bear,

1999,for a discussion of the procedures used to determine a player’s race.)

2. Performance: The most objective available measure of a player’s career per-

formance is his total baseball ranking, or TBR (Thorn et al., 2001). There is

general agreement among baseball statisticians that TBR is among the best

composite indicators available for comparing the career performances of

players in relation to each other. (See Thorn et al., 2001, for a full discussion

of the development and construction of the TBR.) The TBR ratings for our

sample of 51 players ranged from 2.0 for Lou Brock to 95.9 for Willie Mays

(see Table 1).

3. Card availability: The value of a baseball card is affected by how scarce or

rare it is. Unfortunately, card companies do not publish data revealing their

production numbers for any specific year. One technique, however, for gaug

ing the availability of cards is through the population reports published by

the PSA, a card certification company (see B. Regoli, 2001). Every month,

PSA reports the number of specimens of a card that exist in near mint or

better condition. Using information from the April 2003 PSA Population

Report, we constructed a measure of availability based on how many rookie

cards of each player in near mint or better condition were reported to exist.

The number of such cards ranged from 13 (Bob Lemon) to 1,416 (Kirby

Puckett). This extraordinary range in the availability of cards is the result

of several possible factors, including the year the card was produced (older

cards are more scarce) and patterns and practices of collectors at different

points in card history.

416 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 417

TABLE 1

Rookie Card, Value, Reputation, Availability, and Performance (N =

51)

Name Card Value Availability Performance

Hank Aaron 1954 Topps #128 1500 164 90.1

Ernie Banks 1954 Topps #94 800 121 24.9

Johnny Bench 1968 Topps #447 125 239 30.2

Yogi Berra 1948 Bowman #6 450 70 34.8

George Brett 1975 Topps #228 80 1042 43.9

Lou Brock 1962 Topps #387 125 111 2.0

Roy Campanella 1949 Bowman #84 700 90 22.2

Steve Carlton 1975 Topps #477 150 114 35.6

Gary Carter 1975 Topps #620 15 74 30.1

Don Drysdale 1957 Topps #18 225 83 34.7

Rollie Fingers 1969 Topps #597 40 109 22.5

Carlton Fisk 1972 Topps #79 50 96 33.4

Whitey Ford 1951 Bowman #1 1400 35 39.2

Bob Gibson 1959 Topps #514 200 84 46.3

Catfish Hunter 1965 Topps #526 80 136 6.9

Reggie Jackson 1969 Topps #260 250 252 44.0

Fergie Jenkins 1966 Topps #254 70 146 32.1

Al Kaline 1954 Topps #210 600 119 45.9

Harmon Killebrew 1955 Topps #124 250 159 32.8

Ralph Kiner 1948 Bowman #3 150 48 27.0

Sandy Koufax 1955 Topps #123 800 179 20.0

Bob Lemon 1949 Bowman #238 200 13 35.2

Mickey Mantle 1951 Bowman #253 8500 53 77.4

Eddie Mathews 1952 Topps #407 8000 15 52.2

Willie Mays 1951 Bowman #395 3000 56 95.9

Willie McCovey 1960 Topps #316 125 64 38.1

Joe Morgan 1965 Topps #16 60 29 63.9

Eddie Murray 1978 Topps #36 80 1313 34.1

Stan Musial 1948 Bowman #36 800 49 70.1

Phil Niekro 1964 Topps #541 80 37 38.0

Jim Palmer 1966 Topps #126 100 200 36.4

Gaylord Perry 1962 Topps #199 85 93 36.8

Kirby Puckett 1984 Fleer XRC # 93 100 1416 32.3

Robin Roberts 1949 Bowman #46 250 39 25.9

Brooks Robinson 1957 Topps #328 350 214 23.3

Frank Robinson 1957 Topps #35 200 162 71.0

Jackie Robinson 1949 Leaf #79 1100 81 33.3

Nolan Ryan 1968 Topps #177 600 398 14.2

Mike Schmidt 1973 Topps #615 150 361 77.9

Tom Seaver 1967 Topps #581 500 264 51.2

Ozzie Smith 1979 Topps #116 80 796 42.4

Duke Snider 1949 Bowman #226 900 55 24.3

Warren Spahn 1948 Bowman #18 300 43 43.1

Willie Stargell 1963 Topps #553 125 85 31.6

Don Sutton 1966 Topps #288 50 45 13.7

Hoyt Wilhelm 1952 Topps #392 750 38 29.2

Billy Williams 1961 Topps #141 60 215 30.1

Dave Winfield 1974 Topps #456 40 699 36.9

Early Wynn 1949 Bowman #110 125 59 18.2

Carl Yastrzemski 1960 Topps #148 150 280 46.1

Robin Yount 1975 Topps #223 50 853 31.4

SOURCE: Professional Sports Authenticators (2003), at www.psacards.com.

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

We sought to model card value as a function of race, availability, and

performance—as measured by total baseball score.It was expected that card

value would increase as cards became less available and as performance

increased. We also expected that race would affect card value. Race could

have an additive effect on card value, so that cards for Black players would

have lower value, after statistically controlling for availability and perfor

mance.Race could instead affect card value through an interaction with per

formance, so that, for example, card value as a function of performance

would increase more steeply for White players than it would increase for

Black players.Finally,a null effect of race on card value would be of interest,

especially given the research findings reviewed earlier in the article on the

pervasive and widespread effects of race. However, the modest sample size

and the observational nature of the data set would make it impossible to

argue that race has a negligible (let alone, null) effect on card value.

The variables of value and availability were highly skewed and were,

hence,log transformed before they were entered into the analysis.Examina

tion of the errors (residuals) from the regression analyses indicated that the

transformations helped produce linear effects and distribution of errors

that were close to normal. It was especially important to meet the statistical

assumptions of regression analysis (e.g., normal distribution of errors) to

increase statistical power and to yield valid statistical tests.

In an initial regression model, log-transformed value was regressed on

the variables log-transformed availability, performance, race (0 = White; 1 =

Black), and the interaction of race and performance. The regression coeffi-

cient for the interaction term was not significant, t(46) = –.87, p = .387.

Hence, we next examined an additive model, for which log-transformed

value was regressed on log-transformed availability, performance, and race.

The R

for the model was .27.

Table 2 displays the regression coefficients for the additive model. All

variables are statistically significant except for race (the alpha level of .05

was used for all statistical tests). Card value clearly increases with increas

ing player performance and decreases with increasing card availability. The

negative regression coefficient for race, if reliable, would indicate that cards

for Black players are lower in value than cards for White players after con

trolling for log-transformed availability and performance. However, the

observed regression coefficient for race (–.124) did not reach statistical sig

nificance, t(47) = –.34, p = .734.

Three observations (Morgan, Mantle, and Mathews) appeared to have

a high degree of influence on the additive regression model, as indicated by

regression diagnostics. When these observations were excluded from the

analysis, the same pattern of results was obtained. After removing the influ

ential observations,the regression coefficient for race increased to a positive

value, which, if reliable, would indicate that cards for Black players are

higher in value than cards for White players after controlling for the other

418 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

variables. However, the observed regression coefficient for race (.193) was

not significant, t(44) = .582, p = .564.

Table 3 is designed to help interpret the effects of the independent

variables on card value for the additive regression model. The table displays

the changes (effects) in card value predicted by the model over meaningful

intervals of each independent variable and holding the other variables con

stant at reference values. The reference values for the continuous variables

were their medians, and the reference value for race was Black. The effects

of the additive model over the intervals were reverse-transformed, so that

all numbers in the table are in the original, untransformed units. For the

continuous variables (availability and performance), the intervals from low

to high were defined by their interquartile ranges.For the dichotomous vari-

able (race), the meaningful interval was defined as White to Black (i.e., the

entire range). As displayed in the table, the effects for availability and per-

formance are on the order of $100. The effect of race was $26, and this

difference was not significant.

DISCUSSION

The analysis produced two major findings: (a) player race did not

affect card value, and (b) both career performance and card availability did

exert a significant and strong impact on card prices for both Black and

White players.

Should we conclude that race does not affect card values? Not neces

sarily. It may be that the better performance of Blacks keeps their card val

ues comparable to Whites. In other words, as long as Black players fulfill

expectations, their cards will be evaluated favorably (Gabriel et al., 1999).

These findings suggest the possibility that Black superstars or sports heroes

are seen on the same plane as Whites.To put it differently, on some level, the

evaluation of the performance of Black HOF members transcends racial

consideration.

The enshrinement into the HOF represents a perception that a player

is among the very best to have played the game. Less than 1% of all major

league baseball players are ever enshrined in Cooperstown. Once a player

has achieved this high and honorable status, he is truly idealized in the

minds of others (Goffman, 1959). He is in every respect a social icon and a

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 419

TABLE 2

Regression Coefficients for the Additive Model

Estimate Standard Error tValue Pr(<|t|)

Intercept 6.356 .857 7.42 .000

Log availability *0.404 .161 *2.51 .015

Performance 0.027 .009 3.07 .004

Race Black *0.124 .363 *0.34 .734

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

cultural hero. This lofty status is reserved for very few and bestows on those

who achieve it a special recognition thousands of others only dream of. In a

sense,a player is not seen so much in terms of Black or White but as someone

who arouses in the minds of many memories and fantasies of days in their

past. Roland Gift, lead singer for the Fine Young Cannibals, expressed this

dynamic when he said, “I’m not Black, I’m famous” (Gates, 1997, p.158).

Although there are indeed real, objective differences in the career perfor-

mances of HOF players, all are now and then, more or less,the subject of peo-

ple’s stories. And it may be this sense of the players and their cards that

accounts for the absence of an overall statistical difference in card values.

In the final analysis, if racism has an effect on card collecting, it is

likely to be in rather subtle ways. Unfortunately, our sample may simply be

too small to draw absolute conclusions. There may be too little variance with

such a small sample of only the very best players. Our analysis was of a small

groupofplayerswhoareatthetopofthegameandvotedintotheHOFby

the BBWAA. Because they are in the HOF, all of their rookie cards are more

valuable and more expensive than less stellar players. Future research

using larger samples that would include players put into the HOF by the

Veterans Committee, players nominated to the HOF but who did not receive

sufficient votes to be inducted, and other extremely good players but who

were not up to the standard of the HOF may produce different findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to all the ways in which baseball presents a rich,fresh labo

ratory for studying prejudice and discrimination,its source and its effects on

consumption, performance, evaluation, income and, even, career prospects,

baseball has the rare quality of remaining a symbol of both constancy and

evolution in our society. The essential rules of baseball have not changed in

more than a century; the game represents a genuine continuity across the

ages—the perfect medium for comparison (Gould, 2003). In a monumental

420 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

TABLE 3

Effects Based on Additive Model Over Meaningful Intervals of the

Independent Variables

Low High Effect Lower .95 Upper .95

Availability

55.5 214.5 –108.1 –45.5 –246.5

Performance

28.1 44.0 87.6 54.8 137.2

Race

White Black –25.9 –38.9 20.9

NOTE: The units for low and high are in number of cards and in total baseball ranking

(TBR) units for availability and performance, respectively. The units for effect and the

corresponding upper and lower confidence limits are in dollars. See text for details.

a. At race = Black; performance = 34.7 TBR units.

b. At race = Black; availability = 109 cards.

c. At performance = 34.7 TBR units; availability = 109 cards.

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

way, it embodies both the presence of change in our society—the first wide

spread breaking of the color line, daily and nationally, physically and cultur

ally, historically and presently—and the remaining elephant in our collec

tive living rooms, that large, cumbersome object we keep trying to ignore in

the midst of our games and collections, amid all our hopes and keepsakes.

Although our study found no significant differences in the relation

ship between players’ race and card value, the average card of Black players

is lower. Some studies of discrimination in baseball memorabilia demon

strate evidence that collectors value the baseball cards of Black players less,

whereas others do not find any evidence of discrimination. These studies use

different samples, a chief difference in them being the distance in time

between the players’ career end and the time of measure.

Does racism appear to influence the rookie card values of HOF play

ers? The attitudes and beliefs of baseball card collectors, who are over

whelmingly White and middle aged, are likely to reflect the attitudes and

beliefs of the larger society toward people of color (Bloom, 1997; Helmreich,

1997). It is thus possible that the way collectors value cards reflects what

Feagin (2000) claims to be a systematic racist or racial ideology that is a fun

damental component of the social organization of American society.

Collectors often buy cards as an investment, just as if they were buy-

ing stock in a company. At the same time, they are not naïve about the exis-

tence and workings of racial ideology that operates in American society.

They may see the cards of White HOF members as a very conservative

choice,a relatively safe and secure investment. Like blue-chip stocks, collec-

tors express a confidence that over time the cards of White HOF members,

primarily because of their scarcity, will increase in value. On the other hand,

collectors may simply be exercising caution or discretion when investing in

cards of Black players. The reality of an existing racial ideology could

influence the choices they make.

Feagin’s (2000) claim that an all-pervasive racism in American society

would be far reaching so as to even affect the rookie card values of HOF play

ers does not appear supported. Although there are some discernable differ

ences in card values of Black and White HOF players, the results here do not

provide support for the idea of racial preferences in the value of baseball

cards.

Does this mean race does not affect the value of baseball cards?

Bonilla-La Silva (2003) argues that contemporary racism is disguised by

referring to liberal notions of meritocracy and the minimal of racism. In

accordance with this logic, many argue that equally deserving Blacks rise to

the top and that discrimination is not as bad as it once was because of the

exceptional Black representation across different arenas of social life.

Accordingly, the question of whether card value depends on whether a

player is Black or White cannot be answered in simple dichotomous terms

for several reasons.

First, players in our sample, which includes only those selected into

the HOF, have already been affected by several decisions in the selection

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 421

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

process that some studies have found to be affected by race. Thus, only those

players, including Black players, deemed as the crème de la crème,are

included in our sample.The fact that the HOF selection process includes fac

tors other than performance subjects Black players to an analysis of their

selection worthiness by a primarily White decision-making body.

Second, and relevant to both the selection process and the results of

our analyses, there are severe limitations in conceptualizing racism in a

static fashion or, more specifically, to interpret results in dichotomous fash

ion or simply as a quantitative result. It is more analytically meaningful to

consider racism along a continuum and also to consider the results in terms

of the logic and meaning of the collector preferences.

Although our findings indicate a lack of significant relationship

between player race and card value, we have to keep in mind that we are

looking at a preselective sample—thatis,Blackplayerswhohavealready

been deemed worthy of selection by the larger, dominant White society. The

fact that some Black players have been allowed into the HOF, and the card

values of these players are similar by race, does not clearly establish evi

dence for an arena of social life free of racism or racial thinking.

Unlike the past, when Blacks were excluded from most American

institutions, today, we can point to almost any arena of social life in the

United States and find the inclusion of African Americans. However, the

inclusion of some Blacks does not satisfactorily account for the exclusion of

many Blacks on a widespread level. Our finding—that no statistically sig-

nificant difference exists in the value of their cards based on race—must be

understood as only being operative for, or indicative of, Black players found

to be acceptable for inclusion in the HOF. That is, there may be a form of

tokenism at work here, a seeming level of equality based on those Black

players found to be worthwhile and acceptable by a predominantly White

decision-making body.

Thus, the measure of racism here should not be limited to whether

Blacks are included or valued equally but that Blacks are included and val

ued equally under what conditions and based on what criteria. We have indi

cated above the need to expand our sample and data to address this ques

tion. However, future studies that hope to shed light on the impact of player

race on card values also require a different methodology to determine

whether any racial logic or thinking exists in the mind of collectors.

It is only by way of a more qualitative approach such as focused inter

views that researchers will be able to more meaningfully understand the

meaning of numbers or, more specifically, the reasoning and values attached

to the monetary value associated with the cards of Black and White players.

Although Feagin (2000) posits that race affects all levels of society, it is not as

simple as a yes or no question or Black or White differences; it is also a ques

tion of how race might affect both the outcomes and also the meanings,

explanations, and interpretations collectors associate with the outcomes or,

in this case, the value of the cards. It is not simply a case of show me the

money; we must also ask of our research to show me the meaning.

422 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

NOTES

1. A rookie card is a player’s first appearance on a regular issue card from a card set

distributed nationally.

2. There are two principle ways for players to enter the National Baseball Hall of Fame

(HOF). They may be elected by a 75% vote of the Baseball Writers Association of

America (BBWAA) or by a vote of the HOF Veterans’ Committee. The most

esteemed way to enter the HOF is to be elected by the BBWAA (Deane, 1989). To be

elected to the HOF, players must meet the following criteria:(a) active as a player in

the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning 20 years before and end

ing 5 years prior to election; (b) played in each of 10 Major League championship

seasons; (c) ceased to be an active player or a player in the Major Leagues at least 5

calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with base

ball; (d) in case of death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less

than 5 full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next

regular held at least 6 months after the date of death or after the end of the 5-year

period,whichever occurs first; (e) any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be

an eligible candidate. The less prestigious but alternative way to enter the HOF is

by a vote of the Veterans Committee.The Veterans Committee can select any player

who competed in any portion of at least 10 seasons and who has been retired as a

player for at least 21 years. In addition, players whose service in the Negro Baseball

Leagues prior to 1946 and the Major Leagues thereafter total at least 10 years or

portions thereof are defined as eligible candidates.

3. The current study did not involve random sampling from a population. In fact, all

baseball players meeting certain criteria were included in the analysis,so the entire

population of interest was included. Some methodologists, such as Richard Berk

(2004), argue that inferences based on standard regression analysis of observa-

tional data of this type cannot be trusted. However, randomization tests provide a

possible alternative basis for inference (Manly, 1997). Randomization tests address

the question of whether the observed results could have been produced by random

processes without relying on strong distributional assumptions.We carried out ran-

domization tests for the regression coefficients from the additive model. The ran-

domization tests yielded p values that were very close to those that appear in Table

2. We will make available the results of the randomization tests on request.

4. We can only speculate on what might be found if instead of limiting our analysis to

the HOF players, we considered the card value of all postintegration players. But

such speculation is not likely to be very fruitful. The card values for the vast major

ity of commonplayersarelargely identical and tend to fall in the range of .05 cents to

.20 cents per card.

AUTHORS

John D. Hewitt is a professor of criminal justice at Grand Valley State

University. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from Washington State Univer

sity. Professor Hewitt is the author or coauthor of four books and more than

40 articles dealing with crime delinquency, adolescent behavior, and sport

card collecting. Robert Munoz, Jr., received his Ph.D. in sociology from the

University of Colorado. His research publications are in the areas of sport,

family, cultural c ompetency in the mental health field, and race and e thnic

studies in the United States. His areas of teaching include racial and ethnic

groups from Latin America and the Caribbean and also on the U.S.-Mexican

border relations. He is a resident of Portland, Oregon. William L. Oli ver

received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Colorado. He is cur

rently a research associate in the Institute of Cognitive Science at the Univer

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 423

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

sity of Colorado. His research interests are in the areas of statistical natural

language processing, s kill acquisition, and expertise. Robert M. Regoli is a

professor of sociology at the University of Colorado. He received his Ph.D.

from Washington State University. He is the author or coauthor of seven

books and more than 100 journal publications. He is a former president of

the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, a fellow of the academy, and

recipient of two J. William Fulbright Awards, where he conducted research

and le c t u red at the In stitute of Criminology, National Taipei University, Tai

pei, Taiwan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors contributed equally to the manuscript; their names are

listed alphabetically. We would like to thank the Council of Research and

Creative Work at the University of Colorado for financial support. We also

greatly appreciate the suggestions of our colleagues, Matt DeLisi, Timothy

Fong, Mike Radelet, Adam Regoli, Rick Rogers, and Jules Wanderer. Direct

communications to Robert Regoli at [email protected].

REFERENCES

Anderson, T., & LaCroix, S. (1991). Customer racial discrimination in major league

baseball. Economic Inquiry, 29, 665-677.

Anonymous. (2000). 25 alive. EBAY Magaz ine, 1, 101.

Beckett, J. (2003). Beckett baseball card price guide (No. 25). Dallas, TX: Beckett.

Berger, S., & Slocum, F. (1985). Topps baseball cards: 1951-1985.NewYork:Warner.

Berk, R. (2004). Regression analysis: A constructive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Bloom, J. (1997). A house of cards. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). R acism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persis-

tence of racial inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brown, J., & Bear, G. (1999). Minorities in major league baseball: 1952-1987. Interna

tional Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34, 411-422.

Deane, B. (1989). Awards and honors. In J. Thorn & P. Palmer (Eds.), Total baseball

(pp. 497-527). New York: Warner.

Desser, A., Monks, J., & Robinson, M. (1999). Discrimination in baseball hall of fame

voting. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 591-603.

Evans, A., Jr. (1997). Blacks as key functionaries: A study of racial stratification in

professional sport. Journal of Black Studies, 28, 43-59.

Feagin, J. (2000). Racist America. New York: Routledge.

Findley, D., & Reid, C. (1997). Voting behavior, discrimination and the national base

ball hall of fame. Economic Inquiry, 35, 562-578.

Frey J., & Eitzen, D.S. (1991). Sports and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 503-

522.

Gabriel, P., Johnson, C., & Stanton, T. (1999). Customer racial discrimination for base

ball memorabilia. Applied Economics, 31, 1331-1335.

Gates, H., Jr. (1997). Thirteen ways of looking at a Black man. In B. Schneider (Ed.),

Race: An anthology in the first person (pp. 143-165). New York: Three Rivers.

Goffman, E. (1959). Stigma.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Gonzalez, L., & Jackson, E. N. (2003). Perceptions of success in professional baseball:

A photo-elicitation study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 69.

Gould, S. J. (2003). Triumph and tragedy in Mudville: A lifelong passion for baseball.

New York: Norton.

424 JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / November 2005

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Helmreich, W. (1997). The things they say behind your back.NewBrunswick,NJ:

Transaction.

Jibou, R. (1988). Racial inequality in a public arena: The case of professional baseball.

Social Forces, 67, 524-534

Lipset,L.(1983). The encyclopedia of baseball cards (Vol. 1). New York: Centerreach.

Lomax, M. (1999). The African American experience in professional football. Journal

of Social History, 33, 163.

Manly, B. F. (1997). Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in biology.

New York: Chapman & Hall.

Nardinelli, C., & Simon, C. (1990). Customer racial discrimination in the market for

memorabilia. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 575-595.

Ogden, D., & Hilt,M.(2003).Collective identity and basketball: An explanation for the

decreasing number of African American on America’s baseball diamonds. Journal

of Leisure Research, 35, 213-228.

Regoli, B. (1991). Racism in baseball card collecting. Human Relations, 44, 255-264.

Regoli, B. (2001). Ranking sport card certification companies. Free Inquiry in Creative

Sociology, 29, 91-99.

Regoli, R. (2000). Racism, racism, everywhere: Looking inside the hobby of baseball

card collecting. Race & S ociety, 3, 183-192.

Thorn, J., Palmer, P., & Gershman, M. (2001). Total baseball (7th ed.). New York: Total

Sports.

Williams, P. (1995). Card sharks. New York: Macmillan.

BASEBALL CARD VALUES 425

at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on June 10, 2013jss.sagepub.comDownloaded from