Wildcard → Lag Board → Scottie Pippen
Scottie Pippen vs Michael Jordan
1988-89 Fleer #20 against 1988-89 Fleer #17 — measured, not predicted.
Building a baseline Same set Basketball
Measuring Scottie Pippen against Michael Jordan — 1 of 8 observations needed before a baseline means anything.
- Ratio now
- 13.1%
- Baseline
- not established yet
- Vs baseline
- —
- Observations
- 1
- Michael Jordan, 30d
- —
- Scottie Pippen, 30d
- —
Not enough observations to draw a history yet. The index records one ratio per pairing per scan; this chart appears once there are at least two.
Every recorded observation
| Observed | Ratio | Peer | Anchor | vs baseline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-27 | 13.1% | $24 | $181 | — |
Why these two
Same set, same team, and the six championships the two of them won together. Pippen's rookie card is #20 in 1988-89 Fleer and Jordan's base card is #17 — three cards apart in the same checklist, printed and pulled under identical conditions.
What would make this wrong
Pippen's demand is partly Jordan's demand. A pair this tightly coupled can compress simply because the Jordan is being bought as a Jordan rather than as a card from this set, which is a gap that has no particular reason to close.
How this is measured
Each scan records one number: the fair value of Scottie Pippen's 1988-89 Fleer #20 divided by the fair value of Michael Jordan's 1988-89 Fleer #17, both from comparable sales. The baseline is the median of those observations over 90 days — excluding the most recent 21, so a fresh move cannot drag down the very number it is being measured against. Below 8 observations there is no baseline and this page says so instead of showing one.
The baseline is never authored. It is the median of what was recorded, or it does not exist. Nobody types a target ratio into this system.
This is an observation about a historical relationship, not a forecast. A gap that never closes means the market permanently re-rated Scottie Pippen rather than temporarily forgot him — that is the risk in every pairing here, and it does not mean-revert on a schedule.