M101-4 George Sisler eBay Auction Results

[Wanaselja]

Can someone help me out here? What am I missing?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/265610358869

[Leon]

Kind of a crazy price for a common back rookie.
.

[JustinD]

[Carter08]

Could be a perfect front of two people needing to finish some sort of project. Wowzers.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

wow stunning price, over $4K for a 4, but as an M101-4 hoarder, I love it!!!

[Yoda]

Guys, this is the RC of George Sisler. One of the inaugural HOF class inductees, George batted over .400 twice, held several KMLB records until eclipsed in more modern times, was a golden glove first sacker for the lowly St. Louis Browns and a gentleman on and off the diamond.
I believe the buyer got a bargain and can see a lot of upside value.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Guys, this is the RC of George Sisler. One of the inaugural HOF class inductees, George batted over .400 twice, held several KMLB records until eclipsed in more modern times, was a golden glove first sacker for the lowly St. Louis Browns and a gentleman on and off the diamond.
I believe the buyer got a bargain and can see a lot of upside value.

Agree, John (except that Sisler was not in the inaugural HOF class). This is the rookie card for a top-tier HOF player. Granted, I've never seen one go quite as high, but it's hardly a shock.

[Yoda]

Andrew, maybe I am confused, but in the photo of the first class, George is clearly present

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Guys, this is the RC of George Sisler. One of the inaugural HOF class inductees, George batted over .400 twice, held several KMLB records until eclipsed in more modern times, was a golden glove first sacker for the lowly St. Louis Browns and a gentleman on and off the diamond.
I believe the buyer got a bargain and can see a lot of upside value.

Yea, but he's no Joe Burrow!

What's his ceiling?


https://www.ebay.com/itm/13401026966...p2047675.l2557












Sorry guys. Couldn't help myself.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Andrew, maybe I am confused, but in the photo of the first class, George is clearly present

It's kind of semantics. He was among the 1st to go in when the Hall of Fame officially opened in 1939, but the official voting started in 1936.

[Yoda]

Dave, thanks. Now I understand, sort of.

[Casey2296]

Every card needs a thread.
_

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

It's kind of semantics. He was among the 1st to go in when the Hall of Fame officially opened in 1939, but the official voting started in 1936.

Yeah, I think the first class (from 1936) is considered to be 1) Cobb 2) W. Johnson 3) Christy Mathewson 4) Babe Ruth 5) Honus Wagner.

There were classes in '37, '38 and then the one where Sisler got in in '39. But the first Induction ceremony wasn't held until June 12, 1939 with all 11 living inductees present (including Sisler)
https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fam...s%20in%201936.

As for the price of that Sisler Rookie, its nice to see him getting some love after having been left off the ESPN top 100 list.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Agree, John (except that Sisler was not in the inaugural HOF class). This is the rookie card for a top-tier HOF player. Granted, I've never seen one go quite as high, but it's hardly a shock.

Actually, I think his M101-5 where he is labeled as a pitcher instead of 1B is considered his true rookie, but I digress. As a Sisler collector, I was pleasantly surprised to see this price as well. I'd like to have had it for my collection, but I wasn't bidding on it.

Here is a couple other tougher M101-4s because threads need cards...

[mrreality68]

Great player still a WOW price

But that’s the fun of the card market today I guess

[Exhibitman]

I think we are at a point where you can throw the book out the window when it comes to auctions of prewar HOFers and especially RCs. And a Sisler card:

[Peter_Spaeth]

He doesn't fare so well using the more modern metrics. Using JAWS he is only the 19th rated 1st baseman, and if I recall correctly, Bill James called him the most overrated player ever.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He doesn't fare so well using the more modern metrics. Using JAWS he is only the 19th rated 1st baseman, and if I recall correctly, Bill James called him the most overrated player ever.

Lemme take a wild guess...no Sisler rookie or Sisler cards in your collection.

[pawpawdiv9]

Not mine, but wish i could for my collection, but not at that $$$---nedless to say my offers are very low compared to asking price

[PhillyFan1883]

Sisler had one of the greatest seasons in mlb history. Excellent player, offensively and defensively- great rookie card From a still a underrated set. Happy to see these cards finally getting some love. Not surprising to me- these cards should be worth more given total populations and historical significance on the big time hof rookies like this one.. . The set is following the heavy weight ruth RC, Jackson, and Thorpe m101s of the world.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

Sisler had one of the greatest seasons in mlb history. Excellent player, offensively and defensively- great rookie card From a still a underrated set. Happy to see these cards finally getting some love. Not surprising to me- these cards should be worth more given total populations and historical significance on the big time hof rookies like this one.. . The set is following the heavy weight ruth RC, Jackson, and Thorpe m101s of the world.

Tru dat!

[Peter_Spaeth]

From Mr. James

"Perhaps the most over-rated player in baseball history..... Sisler had a lower on-base percentage, in his career, than Fred McGriff, Alvin Davis, Earl Torgeson, Jack Clark, Mike Schmidt, Mark McGwire, or Gene Tenace. Or Ralph Kiner, or Elmer Valo, or a hundred other guys who didn't hit anywhere near .300."

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...hall-of-famers

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agree with others, in today's sports card marketplace, doesn't seem like a crazy price to me for a low pop upper-tier HOF rookie card. I haven't checked but would assume that the majority of graded examples came in lower than that one.

[Wanaselja]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Agree with others, in today's sports card marketplace, doesn't seem like a crazy price to me for a low pop upper-tier HOF rookie card. I haven't checked but would assume that the majority of graded examples came in lower than that one.

I don’t have VCP so I can’t check in on AH results. The last sale I could find was a PSA 3 by PWCC in August of last year for $950.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He doesn't fare so well using the more modern metrics. Using JAWS he is only the 19th rated 1st baseman, and if I recall correctly, Bill James called him the most overrated player ever.

Did Bill James ever see him play in person, or even have video/TV clips to see how he actually played? There's a lot to be said about how the contemporaries of players may have a lot better handle on how good they actually are/were for the time. Also, the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.

The use of modern statistics has a bit of an inbred bias IMO, in that it is a more accurate measure of the modern game and doesn't always reflect what is truly significant or important for a different period of time. I love hearing how a lot of these modern know-it-all types will always say things like how this player or that player couldn't hold a candle to a player from today, and how bad that long-ago player would perform if they suited up today. What they don't realize is that if their favorite player from today was to go back 100-120 years and suit up to play back then, they'd possibly get their ass kicked. But because the people and players from back then aren't still around to tell such people to STFU, they smugly get away with their claims because they know they can never definitively be proven wrong. And it doesn't matter that they can never be definitively proven right either, they just keep shouting down anyone who doesn't think like and agree with them. Really sad it is like that, and to me indicates a lack of understanding and intelligence.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Agree with others, in today's sports card marketplace, doesn't seem like a crazy price to me for a low pop upper-tier HOF rookie card. I haven't checked but would assume that the majority of graded examples came in lower than that one.

No, not really, although there is not a large sample size. Here's mine:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Did Bill James ever see him play in person, or even have video/TV clips to see how he actually played? There's a lot to be said about how the contemporaries of players may have a lot better handle on how good they actually are/were for the time. Also, the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.

The use of modern statistics has a bit of an inbred bias IMO, in that it is a more accurate measure of the modern game and doesn't always reflect what is truly significant or important for a different period of time. I love hearing how a lot of these modern know-it-all types will always say things like how this player or that player couldn't hold a candle to a player from today, and how bad that long-ago player would perform if they suited up today. What they don't realize is that if their favorite player from today was to go back 100-120 years and suit up to play back then, they'd possibly get their ass kicked. But because the people and players from back then aren't still around to tell such people to STFU, they smugly get away with their claims because they know they can never definitively be proven wrong. And it doesn't matter that they can never be definitively proven right either, they just keep shouting down anyone who doesn't think like and agree with them. Really sad it is like that, and to me indicates a lack of understanding and intelligence.

Ruth Speaker Wagner Gehrig Cobb Hornsby and many others do JUST FINE under sabermetrics. Sisler is the only one I can think of he rates notably lower than some of the traditional rankings, maybe Heilmann too.

[nolemmings]

Sisler's career was badly hampered by a sinus infection after the 1922 season that affected his vision and hindered his ability. He missed all of 1923, on the heels of a .420 season with 257 hits, which cost him membership in the 3000 hit club. Check out his numbers seasons 1-8 compared to those thereafter.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He doesn't fare so well using the more modern metrics. Using JAWS he is only the 19th rated 1st baseman, and if I recall correctly, Bill James called him the most overrated player ever.

He doesn't have a super long prime, but his 7 year WAR peak is 7th All-Time among 1st baseman.

His biggest sin analytically, is that he didn't walk very much.

Different position, but he seems to profile very closely offensively to Ichiro, if Ichiro hadn't stuck around so long and junked a lot of his lifetime analytical averages. Tony Gwynn also comes to mind.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

He doesn't have a super long prime, but his 7 year WAR peak is 7th All-Time among 1st baseman.

His biggest sin analytically, is that he didn't walk very much.

Different position, but he seems to profile very closely offensively to Ichiro, if Ichiro hadn't stuck around so long and junked a lot of his lifetime analytical averages. Tony Gwynn also comes to mind.

Similar Batters
Heinie Manush (889.7) *
Zack Wheat (853.1) *
Kiki Cuyler (836.8) *
Jesse Burkett (820.5) *
Dan Brouthers (820.0) *
Joe Judge (819.3)
Jimmy Ryan (817.9)
Tony Gwynn (813.6) *
Roger Connor (811.8) *
Edd Roush (803.1) *

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ruth Speaker Wagner Gehrig Cobb Hornsby and many others do JUST FINE under sabermetrics. Sisler is the only one I can think of he rates notably lower than some of the traditional rankings, maybe Heilmann too.

Wasn't pointing out Sisler specifically, but speaking in general. And my comments are not directed at you. The way you bring him up though shows you can usually find an exception or two to anything, but that doesn't really prove anything. Some people will latch onto exceptions like that though and keep repeating it ad nauseum, to drown out those that don't automatically always agree with them. That seems to be the thing about statistics and statisticians, when something doesn't neatly fit and go along with their numbers, it is everyone else that is wrong or doesn't get it. God forbid their formulas or equations could ever be wrong. So, they will rationalize away how they and their numbers are always right, and everyone else is wrong. There is a reason Sisler's contemporaries and peers put him into the HOF

It is funny how people will argue that someone like Koufax should be the greatest lefty of all-time because he had a few peak years he was so great. Well look what happened to Sisler's career after he missed a year for health reasons, why doesn't he get the same peak years consideration that Koufax often gets? In addition, Sisler should be even more deserving of such consideration, his weaker years were likely due to health issues. What took Koufax so long till the latter part of his career to finally figure out what the hell he was doing. If Koufax was so great, you would expect him to be good from the start. Of course, some contrarian troll will probably jump on and whine about how I'm wrong because Koufax was a pitcher and Sisler wasn't, so it isn't the same thing for them. And that is exactly the kind of horse $hit they throw around to keep making themselves always look like they're right, while everyone else is always wrong.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ruth Speaker Wagner Gehrig Cobb Hornsby and many others do JUST FINE under sabermetrics. Sisler is the only one I can think of he rates notably lower than some of the traditional rankings, maybe Heilmann too.

So what?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So what?

You commented the modern metrics were not well suited to judging players from the early years or that is how I understood you. My point is that the players from that era we always list as all time greats do quite well by those metrics, which to me seems contrary to your proposition.

Specifically you said
the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.

Put another way, if the metrics fairly rate all those players consistent with our expectations, they probably are rating Sisler fairly too. IMO.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by BobC

...Of course, some contrarian troll will probably jump on and whine about how I'm wrong...

We have a contrarian troll on Net54? I don't believe it; there isn't a snowball's chance in hell...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

We have a contrarian troll on Net54? I don't believe it; there isn't a snowball's chance in hell...

That's a rather frosty comment.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's a rather frosty comment.

Bravo; well done, sir.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You commented the modern metrics were not well suited to judging players from the early years or that is how I understood you. My point is that the players from that era we always list as all time greats do quite well by those metrics, which to me seems contrary to your proposition.

Specifically you said
the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.

So, because some players do measure well using modern statistics, they all should? Cause that is exactly what you're implying by the statement you are making. I find stats interesting, but don't put the time and energy a lot of people do into them because they are at best, an imperfect way to measure, compare and predict performance. Aren't a lot of these advanced measures based on how well players perform against and in relation to their contemporary peers? We've gone over this BS before about how trying to compare players of today and long ago doesn't work because of all the context and other differences.

I am not going down this back and forth road. If you think James and his numbers are right, good for you. If not, good for you. Believe what you like, and I'll do the same. i just find it somewhat reprehensible when people keep putting down old players because of modern stats, and yet they've never even seen them actually play. I would tend to think the people putting Sisler in the HOF knew a lot more about him as a man and a player than Bill James ever will. So let him spew whatever crap he wants. And if you want to stick up for him, so be it. You win, Sisler is a crap player and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. Feel better!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So, because some players do measure well using modern statistics, they all should? Cause that is exactly what you're implying by the statement you are making. I find stats interesting, but don't put the time and energy a lot of people do into them because they are at best, an imperfect way to measure, compare and predict performance. Aren't a lot of these advanced measures based on how well players perform against and in relation to their contemporary peers? We've gone over this BS before about how trying to compare players of today and long ago doesn't work because of all the context and other differences.

I am not going down this back and forth road. If you think James and his numbers are right, good for you. If not, good for you. Believe what you like, and I'll do the same. i just find it somewhat reprehensible when people keep putting down old players because of modern stats, and yet they've never even seen them actually play. I would tend to think the people putting Sisler in the HOF knew a lot more about him as a man and a player than Bill James ever will. So let him spew whatever crap he wants. And if you want to stick up for him, so be it. You win, Sisler is a crap player and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. Feel better!

Nice straw man Bob. Who said Sisler doesn't belong in the HOF? Not Bill James and certainly not me. I think he's more a mid-tier HOFer than the elite upper tier HOFer some perceive him to be. I suspect James said the same thing. Shades of gray, Bob, not black or white. You can be overrated but still belong in the Hall.

Statistics have always been used to measure and predict performance in baseball. How many people in any era saw enough games of ALL teams to make accurate comparisons just based on what they witnessed in person? I mean even if I watched every single Red Sox game over a decade, could I fairly compare Clemens to Greg Maddux, or even Randy Johnson? Most people see a relatively small sample of games. You need the stats. You can argue about which stats.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nice straw man Bob. Who said Sisler doesn't belong in the HOF? Not Bill James and certainly not me. I think he's more a mid-tier HOFer than the elite upper tier HOFer some perceive him to be. I suspect James said the same thing. Shades of gray, Bob, not black or white. You can be overrated but still belong in the Hall.

That is yours and James' opinion based on modern sabermetrics. You can't be proven right, or wrong, so say what you want. My comments were more directed to the fact that some people rely almost exclusively on these sabermetrics as their reasons for thinking of certain players as they do, and yet, having never actually seen them play, they have no idea how the person actually played and how well they performed, aside from those numbers on the page.

I feel these modern statistics include some modern bias as they are geared more for how the game is played today, not back in the dead ball or other early eras. But if you don't feel that way, good for you. You are very adept at playing both sides of an argument till an advantage presents itself, and you can take it. I think that at the time Sisler was elected to the HOF he was definitely not considered a lowly, mid-tier HOFer. But using changes to the game and solely modern statistics, you and James are now downplaying such a legendary player in light of what is happening in today's game and how it is played differently now.

That kind of talk and dissing of some old player's career starts to sound akin to someone else saying things like how Hyun-jin Ryu is a so much greater pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. Talk and comments like that are disrespectful to the player, and those that actually saw him play and originally elected him to the HOF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

That is yours and James' opinion based on modern sabermetrics. You can't be proven right, or wrong, so say what you want. My comments were more directed to the fact that some people rely almost exclusively on these sabermetrics as their reasons for thinking of certain players as they do, and yet, having never actually seen them play, they have no idea how the person actually played and how well they performed, aside from those numbers on the page.

I feel these modern statistics include some modern bias as they are geared more for how the game is played today, not back in the dead ball or other early eras. But if you don't feel that way, good for you. You are very adept at playing both sides of an argument till an advantage presents itself, and you can take it. I think that at the time Sisler was elected to the HOF he was definitely not considered a lowly, mid-tier HOFer. But using changes to the game and solely modern statistics, you and James are now downplaying such a legendary player in light of what is happening in today's game and how it is played differently now.

That kind of talk and dissing of some old player's career starts to sound akin to someone else saying things like how Hyun-jin Ryu is a so much greater pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. Talk and comments like that are disrespectful to the player, and those that actually saw him play and originally elected him to the HOF.

If you look at the lists generated by metrics like JAWS, most would say there is an ANTI modern bias since they are dominated by the usual suspects. Take RF, Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Ott, Frank Robinson, for example. Let's try 2B. Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan, Gehringer. 1B Gehrig, Pujols, Foxx, Anson, Roger Connor. That's two 19TH CENTURY players. Really don't follow your point here.

[oldjudge]

With the exception of Ruth, Cobb, Thorpe and Jackson M101-4/5s are horribly underpriced. I also agree with Brian that his M101-5 is the more desirable card.

[Casey2296]

As an image collector the Sisler E121 is one of the greatest cards out there.

[h2oya311]

I was watching that card and it was still hovering under $500 with under a day left. I looked the next day and was floored at the hammer! I prefer the M101-5 over the M101-4 for the reasons stated above. The M101-5 is his rookie card, IMO, unless of course you prefer pre-rookie cards in which case you’d chase this one from 1914:

[Casey2296]

Beautiful card Derek

[JustinD]

I love that one Derek.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

As an image collector the Sisler E121 is one of the greatest cards out there.

Copy that.