T206 Dahlen HOF Price Impact - Seeking Opinions.
 

I asked this question in the T206 future HOFer thread, but it was quickly buried by all of the other discussion going on there. I'm looking for some opinions on what a HOF induction does to the market price of Dahlen T206 cards.

It looks very likely that Dahlen will get in, probably more a question of "when", not "if".

Being as his cards are already priced a a premium vs. your standard common, I'm wondering what members think.

Already Priced in. "Buy the rumor, sell the news." Everyone has been buying/hoarding thinking he will get in. The day he gets in, everyone will be selling which will be a good time to buy IMO.

I thought no more pre 1940 era players were going to be allowed into the hall of fame by the veterans comittee

^^^ Wrong. Three different Veteran's committees, covering three different time frames: 1) Pre-integration era, 2) Golden era, 3) Expansion era. They each vote every three years, on a rotating basis.

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/...re-integration

As I mentioned in the other thread, Dahlen will likely go in next December(2015).

He got 10 votes last time and three guys were elected in, while no one else on the ballot got more than three votes. He needed 12 votes(out of 16) to get in. The voters had a maximum of four votes, so while Ruppert, Deacon White and Hank O'Day got a total of 44 votes, that left a maximum of 20 votes for everyone else.

Ten of those 16 voters thought he was worthy, while there is a chance those other six were deciding between Dahlen and six other players for just one vote.

Another interesting player on the ballot was Tony Mullane. I think a few people are already holding on to his cards just in case he gets elected because the OJ prices take off. I have three of them and I can guarantee one will be on the market right away if he goes in.

Basically, if you have an extra Dahlen, it's worth holding on to just in case he makes it, but you'll want to move the card quickly because prices will jump up immediately, then settle down over time. There will be HOF collectors who want one right away

Mullane was a fine pitcher, but I think the voters, if they think of him at all, think of him primarily as a terrible racist and secondly as a very good pitcher, so unless the character clause is thrown out I don't see him getting elected.

And yes I have heard of Ty Cobb.

I don't think he would have been on that final ballot if there were serious questions about him. They left off players from his era like George Van Haltren, Bobby Mathews, Jimmy Ryan, Dummy Hoy, Lave Cross, Bob Caruthers, Pete Browning, Dave Orr, etc. You could make some kind of case for all of them, but Mullane was the one on the ballot.

They may think of him as a bigot, but while Cap Anson, the person that is considered the primary reason for the color barrier in baseball that Jackson broke through, is in, I really don't think it can be a primary reason to keep anyone else out.

I am kind of surprised by the whole Dahlen argument. He is marginal at best IMO, though the HOF has honored a few marginal players from that era. I think Larry Doyle is much more deserving and he never gets a mention.

I am kind of surprised by the whole Dahlen argument. He is marginal at best IMO, though the HOF has honored a few marginal players from that era. I think Larry Doyle is much more deserving and he never gets a mention.

Dahlen is helped by the SABR stats. Going by WAR, he is the seventh best position player in the first 40 years of baseball. All-time for shortstops, he is 5th highest ever. Defensively, he is the tenth best player ever. Going by those stats, he is far from a marginal player, he's a legit mid-tier HOF

Then you are making the mistake of only looking at the offensive numbers and not the whole picture

Larry Doyle 2B WAR= 45.3 (Position Rank 28th) / WAR7= 30.3 (Position Rank 41st) / JAWS = 37.8 (Position Rank 31st)

Bill Dahlen WAR= 75.3 (Position Rank 7th) / WAR7= 40.2 (Position Rank 21st) / JAWS = 57.7 (Position Rank 10th)

The only other person with comparable numbers to Dahlen not in (and eligible) is Alan Trammell. Even Bobby Wallace another comparable player from the era (and t206 member) has worse WAR (13th) and JAWS (14th) is in.

The people who saw him play, the 1936 and 1938 HOF voters, gave him 1.3% and 0.4% of the vote, respectively. He does not deserve to be in the Hall.

They didn't have access to the microprocessors and mutivariate statistical analyses that we have. They weren't stupid. We just have tools now that do a considerably better job of assessing a player's impact on his team's ability to win games than eyewitness memories do. Shame on us if we don't use them.

I disagree with this assessment. I doubt many voters in 1936 saw him play in his heyday during the turn of the century. It wasn't like he was on TV or his exploits be heard on the radio.

Those same voters gave Jesse Burkett 2 votes one year and one the other. Tim Keefe got one vote total. Kid Nichols got 3 votes each year.

Dahlen .272 lifetime, that speaks for itself. He should not even be in hall of fame discussion. It's like putting closing pitchers in the hall it absolutely absurd. If you can't pitch more than one inning, you shouldn't be considered a pitcher.

So only one stat matters? If he would have got 28 more hits for every 1000 at bats then it would be a different discussion? And the rest is discarded? :confused:

+1...

A small sampling Hall of Fame position players with less than .272 lifetime batting averages. Want to kick them out?

Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Willie McCovey, Joe Morgan, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith

The game evolves and as it does the people who dominate in the roles that emerge deserve the same consideration as everyone else. Relief pitching has become a critical element of the modern sport and its practitioners are every bit as valuable to their teams as starting pitchers, perhaps even more over a short series. It is not that they "can't" pitch more, it is that they are most valuable to the teams in their role. Mariano Rivera was a huge component of the Yankees' success over the last two decades and deserves HOF consideration--personally I consider him a 1st ballot shoo-in.

The Hof should be the very elite players. Not medicore players. Shouldn't be more than 100 players in. And it's insane how many people they put in that don't belong

But what happened to pitchers actually completing games? It's long gone, and saves are a joke. A great starting pitcher it 10 times more valuable than a "closer".

This is simply not true. There have been 18,174 total players in major league history and 211 have been inducted as players into the Hall of Fame. Meaning 99.9% have not been called by Cooperstown. The idea that the Hall of Fame is letting everyone in is simply hogwash. Not to mention of the several thousand negro league players who toiled in obscurity due to institutionalized racism only 35 have been inducted (that number should probably be doubled). There is room for PLENTY of more.

Well this is just my opinion, over half of those do not belong. And it will only get worse. It didn't just start though, there are plenty of T206 guys that have no business being in.

I agree with this in its entirety. Also, I think the NFL is much more forgiving and more easily attainable than the MLB, not even close...Just my 2 cents...

You can use stats to prove anything...Dahlen was never close to being the dominant player in the league, Doyle won an MVP, Doyle was the team captain of a team that was consistently in the hunt for a championship often acting as manager after Mugsy had been chased. He batted about 20 points higher on his career. I'd take him in a heartbeat over Dahlen, but both were merely very good players and whether you think they should be in or not depends on what you think the hall of fame should be. Both are also better than some players who are already in there.

Someone like Rivera, a failed starting pitcher, will get in on the first ballot and fairly easy I'm sure, but Bill Dahlen, one of the best defensive players of his era(when everyone played small ball) and an above average hitter, people doubt.

Dahlen batted 10,405 times, Rivera faced 5103 batters. So Dahlen spent double the time in the batter's box than Rivera did on the mound, plus played somewhere around 18,000 innings on defense,where remember, he was one of the best back then.

I don't know how anyone can think the relief pitcher that throws one inning is better than one of the best shortstops ever to the point one is iffy and the other is a sure thing. Shouldn't it be totally reversed when talking about these two?

They should have never let Hoyt Wilhelm in the Hall, because that led to Rollie Fingers, down to Goose Gossage, to Bruce Sutter and now we are putting in a one inning pitcher on the first ballot! How ridiculous is that, his position is pitcher, not relief pitcher. If a ball is hit to him and he throws the ball to first base for the out, it goes down as a 1-3 in the scorebook, not RP-3. Their position is pitcher and it's pathetic that someone like Jack Morris gets questioned with all his time on the mound and people throw in failed starters like they accomplished something special.

Dahlen and Mariano Rivera are not comparable. I get that you like the guy but come on.

That's right, Rivera is an complete joke! As are all closers, but especially him because the media worships him.

I wouldn't call Rivera a failed starting pitcher. He was an outstanding starter in the minors but only had a chance to start ten games in the majors which is not enough to establish whether or not he would have failed. If it was then Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine would not be getting inducted into the hall of fame this year. The fact of the matter is that Rivera never got another chance to start because he was so good when he came out of the pen not because he "failed" as a starter.

You are however right about Jack Morris.

Who decides who is "good enough" to get in? You? Me? Of course we have differing opinions on what players are hall of fame worthy but to say that half of the current hall of famers are not worthy is a pipe dream. You can't get a bunch of t206 experts to agree on whether Bill Dahlen should be a hall of famer let alone the rest of the hall.

That is how I feel, I just think it is crazy that DECENT players get in.

I don't think you understand the modern game.

This is such a typical comment when looking only at statistics like IP, CG, etc.

The game has evolved. Guys like Matty and Johnson could pitch WAY MORE INNINGS because the fact is, during the deadball era, pitchers didn't pitch hard until someone got to second base. They were almost lobbing the ball up there until someone was in scoring position. Maybe they would bear down when they had 2 strikes on the hitter, but they mostly conserved there arm until they needed it. Small ball.

This made a defensive SS like Dahlen mega valuable to his team.

I understand it quite well. But I do not agree with it. It is a bunch of over managing, over paid players.

Johnson was lobbing the ball??? It was dead ball, those guys were just trying to make contact. Johnson and Matty were by far the best two pitchers there ever will be.

Dahlen should be in, as well as Ed Reulbach.....Just my thoughts.

Reulbach's ERA was very very good.

+1...I dont know how he can be out... In addition to his amazing stats, he actually pitched consecutive 1-hitters in a double header game....Can you say amazing???

Jay,

I don't imagine most of the voters in 1936 or 1938 ever saw him play. By then he had been out of MLB for 24 years or so. And I feel pretty confident that the very few of those who actually saw him play saw him at the end of his career. That's sort of a different thing than seeing him in his heyday and voting on him based on that.

Yes. They didn't bear down until they had 2 strikes or a runner in scoring position. Do you really think Wajo threw 500+ complete games at 100mph?

Orioles1954--you may want to recheck your math, as should Kevin who agreed with it.

What exactly is the math?

Yes I do, he didn't get over 3500 strikeouts by lobbing the ball to the plate. He didn't need any "relief" he started his game and he finished his game.

Wow. The reason he isn't qualified is that his batting average was too low? I hesitate to call anyone a dumbass, but that statement surely qualifies. Joe Morgan's BA was lower then Dahlen's. Is he qualified?

Its become the Hall of Very good...

Nope shouldn't be in.

You got it Steven!!!!!!!!

Bottom line, Dahlen will get in the Hall. As far as his T206 prices? Hard for me t believe they can go any higher (Brooklyn). Having said that, Cobb thought a lot of this guy.....

You don't have to take Slipk's word for it, you can read Matty himself describe conserving his energy for the tough spots in his book Pitching in a Pinch.

Well if he conserved his energy and he still was the 2nd best pitcher in history, that says something about how good he actually was. Crazy good.

But lobbing the ball is a little different than bearing down on some hitters and some situations.

And the fact that you didn't know that also says something. Go do some research so that you have something resembling facts to back up your opinion. Having a factual basis for your opinion often adds validity to what you say.:)

An opinion is an opinion. You, me, everybody can voice your opinion, and MY opinion is that Johnson and Matty make these modern pitchers look like bush leaguers. And that is my opinion.

And 416 wins, 3508 strikeouts, 110 shutouts, 2.17 ERA speaks for itself. That is not anybody's opinion those are are his stats. (And I didn't have to go look those up, I know those by heart)

I guess you have a problem understanding context. That's OK. Go ahead and believe that Walter Johnson would strike out close to 300 batters a year in todays game and finish most of them if you want to. That's completely delusional, as shown by the fact that it never, ever happens, but go ahead and believe it if you want. The Easter Bunny is going to be coming soon. I hope he leaves you some candy.

But how do you know that Johnson wouldn't do that??? You're penalizing him cause of the era that he played in. That doesn't even make sense. How about we start we start a thread and see who people on here think is a better pitcher. You can can pick anybody you want and I will take Johnson. How does that sound? :)

I'm not penalizing him at all. He was a great pitcher, probably the best in his era. But you are out of your mind if you seriously think that he would come anywhere close to posting the same numbers today as he did then. That's the issue where we appear to differ. You seem to believe they are absolutes whereas I'm pretty sure they aren't. Even if Johnson was the best pitcher in the game today, and I'm not sure that would be the case, he wouldn't come close to the numbers he had when he pitched. The way the game has progressed, that simply isn't possible.

If you had to take 1 pitcher to start a game that your life depended on, who would you take? There's a big difference if we are using the rules/equipment from say 1912 versus present day. I'd be hard pressed to not take Maddux...

I just think that he would be as good if not better. I feel like today's pitchers are just pampered so much. I mean back then they had 3 man rotation, there wasn't having almost a week off between starts. And a starting pitcher today can pitch a very good game go out in the sixth or the seventh and the relief blow the lead for him.

The old timers were unquestionably tougher. Those men worked jobs in the off season, played with sub-par or no equipment and literally went to war during their careers. Todays ball players are extremely pampered. I've had the pleasure of watching my Tigers have the most dominant starting rotation for awhile now and not have a bullpen and piss away games in the playoffs. One reason I want JV to have the start of game 7 is he's a stud but he'll go all nine innings and not give some dipsh!t the chance to blow it.

I don't agree with the comment on closers. The mentality that they have to maintain, domination that the great ones have, and bottom line impact they have on a team is silly to argue. But, to each their own.

However, I find the line of thought interesting and wonder how you feel about guys that are primarily DHs? What about Edgar Martinez who had roughly 70% of his plate appearances as a DH? Frank Thomas with 60%? Thoughts on David Ortiz, who when it's all said and done, is going to land somewhere around 90%?

One can make the same argument applying your rationale that certain players don't do all things "typical" for the position. Silly, right?

Hard to not pick Matty on that. 1905 world series. 3 starts, all complete games 3-0 didn't give up a run. Pretty impressive.

There should not be DH's. If you do not play the field I feel you should not hit.

So is George Mikan the best center ever in the history of basketball? He revolutionized the position in the 1940s. His numbers, at that time, were unbelievable. He was the basketball equivalent of Babe Ruth, not just Walter Johnson. There was no one close to him until there was. Then there was Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, etc. So is Mikan the best center ever? If not, which I think has to be the answer, would you agree that the reason is that the game progresses, strategies evolve, athletes become better, training becomes more refined, nutrition is better and whatnot?

Mikan is Johnson, just in a different sport. Johnson dominated baseball when it was still a sport that was trying to evolve. You will never hear me argue that he wasn't one of the greatest pitchers ever, but you will also never hear me argue that he would do what he did then today. If your opinion is different, so be it. You certainly have the right to believe what you want. I'm not a politician, so I always just sort of thought that the opinions you espouse should be based on something that you could at least argue resembled a fact. However, if you want to believe that Walter Johnson would post the same numbers today as he did in 1912, power to you.

I agree. But...I don't make the rules of MLB and to correlate something I personally don't like with what reality of the game is and applying to HOF candidates is a stretch.

I like your old school view on the game, I really like it. I wish there were still 3 man rotations and guys throwing 25 CGs per year. But, there are several realities that we have to consider in why it's no longer that way. General evolution of the athlete, technology, training, nutrition, etc. Guys are bigger, stronger, faster now. Training and technology for the hitter has vastly improved. People in general are elite physically now due to general nutrition.

There aren't 3 man rotations any longer because if you were pitching on 3 days rest, you'd be lit up by today's hitters. Same reason there are no longer 220 pound offensive linemen in the NFL, because it simply no longer works. Today's defensive players would run them over.

The steroid era made it even worse as pitchers were then competing against super humans (even though a good number of pitchers were also juicing).

You mention context but refuse consider it when it comes to evaluating modern players.

I think Chamberlain was the best player ever, he would dominate no matter when he played. And I just feel Johnson would do the same. It was just so much harder on them back then and the great pitchers still dominated.

How so?

Sorry about that. I was getting you confused with t206hof.

It's so hard to compare then and now in all sports. Thinking Wilt is the best player every is a very valid argument. Thinking he would dominate today's game, not so much.

Again, evolution of the game. Basketball is the poster child for "horrible revolution". Basketball today isn't basketball. It's guys going one-on-one on the outside and full contact mosh pitting in the paint. If Chamberlain played today, he'd be among the best players in the league, but would certainly not dominate. He would not be physically elite today as he was in his time when he had 6 inches on the average center, hell there's shooting forwards his size now (Nowitzky, Durant, etc.). The perversion of the inside game (mainly to blame on the "Shaq era") would leave Wilt beaten down physically throughout the course of the season and simply not in a position to dominate.

Again, basketball is horrible today. But, the evolution of the game makes your claim very hard to support.

I think baseball is much worse as far as the players being pampered and stuff. Dirk is by far my favorite player to ever play the game, no matter what era he played in. It is bad in basketball no doubt though, it is all sports now.

The funny (ironic) thing about this whole discussion is that while I think Dahlen is eminently qualified, and Sherry Magee too, I would put them behind probably 10 negro leaguers if I was in charge of the selections. Among others, Grant Johnson, John Beckwith, Nip Winters, Ed Wesley, John Donaldson, Dick Lundy, Oliver Marcelle, Dick Redding, Chet Brewer, Bill Monroe and maybe even Eustequio Pedroso come to mind. Its a crime, IMO, that they aren't in. That's where the conversation should start.

Let's see today's pro b-ballers play where they're not routinely allowed to take an extra step to the basket. Just watch some old tape and you'll see giant difference.

Agree, it would be extremely interesting, and possibly embarrassing, to see today's basketball players play under the rules of say 30 years ago when the game was based more on skill than athleticism/power. Today's players constantly walk, carry the ball, etc. How many times during a standard NBA game do you see the player in bounding the ball after an opposing basket step on the line or not ever be out of bounds in the first place? It's disgusting. And the inside game...don't even get me started...does a guy like Shaq or Dwight Howard even make the league in 1980 when you're not allowed to use your size and strength to simply bowl guys over on offense and mug guys on defense?

I like how I started this thread as a T206 card value question and am now bitching about the NBA (sore spot for me, I love basketball but have almost completely stopped watching the NBA due to the current state of the game).

Doesn't take much skill to stand there and dunk the ball, its crazy when people mention Shaq in great big men.

I'm 100% on board. Dominating within the way that they changed the entire face of enforcing the rules mainly based on him, absolutely. I've seen him play in person probably 10 times and it's jaw dropping the way he was allowed to throw around 7'1" of 350 pounds with no repercussion. The most dominating big man of all time, probably (again with perversion of the rules). The best basketball player among big men all time...not even in the conversation.

Just think of him as the basketball equivalent of Walter Johnson in the decade of the 2000s and all will be good. :)