Most undervalued HOFers

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Hey c'mon Pete, no need to be so snarky with a newcomer! He is right though that there are a ton of threads on this.

I'm from Cincy and admittedly a homer, but really a lot of the Reds are undervalued. The fact that you can pick up a mid-grade raw Joe Morgan rookie for less than a blaster is a headscratcher to me. Frank Robinson has finally seen a little pickup with his key cards since COVID is great, but a lot of his other cards are still undervalued (e.g. that 61 you have).

The discrepancy between the Nolan Ryan and Johnny Bench rookies in the 68 set is shocking. Probably one of the greatest, albeit most overrated, pitchers of all time seems to go for 5x+ what the almost unanimously best catcher (I would actually throw Campanella and Berra in that conversation) is night and day from how breakers and wax-fiends price new product.

Perez, while not held in the same regards as the other "Franchise 4" has two very important SPs that imo are crazy cheap, his 65 RC and the 67 (which is one of the best looking cards of the 60's).

Davey Concepcion, while not a HOFer, was a very important piece of the BRM, a 9x AS, and was up to a few years ago, when he started doing a decent amount of private signings, a pretty tough signature. Yet his cards/autos are fairly cheap.
\

Strongly agree with all of this and would add Vada Pinson, who could easily be in the Hall IMHO. Ryan and Bench both had rookie cards in '68. Bench is widely regarded as the best catcher of all-time. But few would say that about Ryan as a pitcher (despite his obvious greatness). So how can one possibly explain the price disparity of the two cards, other than the small market factor that negatively impacts Bench?

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Strongly agree with all of this and would add Vada Pinson, who could easily be in the Hall IMHO. Ryan and Bench both had rookie cards in '68. Bench is widely regarded as the best catcher of all-time. But few would say that about Ryan as a pitcher (despite his obvious greatness). So how can one possibly explain the price disparity of the two cards, other than the small market factor that negatively impacts Bench?

The small market is definitely a factor, but I think it also probably has to do with the fact that Ryan played for so long. When the “hobby” became HUGE and seen as a viable investment from the mid-‘80s to the early ‘90s, Ryan was basking in “living legend” status while still having current cards (and, in fairness, still throwing the occasional no-hitter), whereas Bench had been retired for years.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Strongly agree with all of this and would add Vada Pinson, who could easily be in the Hall IMHO. Ryan and Bench both had rookie cards in '68. Bench is widely regarded as the best catcher of all-time. But few would say that about Ryan as a pitcher (despite his obvious greatness). So how can one possibly explain the price disparity of the two cards, other than the small market factor that negatively impacts Bench?

You are really asking why Ryan is so popular? Seriously?

[timn1]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

You are really asking why Ryan is so popular? Seriously?

292 losses, .526 PCT. Led the league in walks 8 times, ERA 2 times, Wins 0 times.

The guy had the arm to be the GOAT but not the makeup. (He had plenty of makeup all right: the makeup to try to strike out every batter and to throw a no-hitter every time out - but not to WIN any way he could.)

IOW, the poster's question is a great one. Ryan was a phenomenon, absolutely, but not head-and-shoulders above all the other greats of the era - yet his card prices are way out of scale with almost all of them.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the specific dynamics of the hobby from about 1989-1994, which is when Ryan's cards really took off.

For market and also psychological reasons I think the hobby has needed a single supersuperstar from every era to drive values. Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Mantle have been in this position for decades now, and this doesn't look to change.

With more recent eras, it's somewhat more fluid. During most of the 1980s the guy was Pete Rose, whose ugly little decapitated rookie image from 1963 Topps was going for wild money for years, way above any other post-1960 rookie. But although the hobby was still in a serious growth mode, after the 1989 Rose/Giamatti debacle someone else was needed in this role.

So Ryan was the right guy at the right time, Amazingly, he hadn't lost much if anything off his performance, and it looked like he was going to pitch forever (as Rose had looked ten years earlier, though he was no longer the player he had been). He was adopted by a large segment of the casual collecting hobby.

In the last three decades, Ryan's star has dimmed a bit, but because his cards were so pricey from so long time ago, people have a lot of money tied up in them, and don't want to let them go cheap. Hence the prices stay up there compared to his contemporaries who were not still playing when the hobby price boom came, especially Bench, who retired in '83.)

Actually, the same thing goes on with Rose, whose cards never completely collapsed in value despite the disgrace. His rookie is still far higher relative to almost everyone's in the era. ($2K for a PSA 5, while Billy Williams' 1961 Topps rookie in PSA 5 is like $75!). I think this is almost entirely a residual effect of Rose cards being so high from such a long time ago.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

There is far too much dislike for Ryan on this forum, in addition to the constant poo-pooing of his ability and stats.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by timn1

Actually, the same thing goes on with Rose, whose cards never completely collapsed in value despite the disgrace. His rookie is still far higher relative to almost everyone's in the era. ($2K for a PSA 5, while Billy Williams' rookie in PSA 5 is like $75!). I think this is almost entirely a residual effect of his cards being so high from such a long time ago.

I'd like to think his accomplishments might have a wee bit to do with the value.

[packs]

I don't understand that perspective on Ryan at all. It is not uncommon for someone with a freakish arm like his to walk batters. It comes with the territory. You're asking for too much if you want a guy with an iron arm cannon and pinpoint control.

Look at Feller. He was Nolan Ryan before Nolan Ryan. Feller led the league in walks and strikeouts in the same season four times. Twice he led the league in wins, strikeouts, walks and hits surrendered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

While I don't think Ryan was as great as, say, Seaver or Carlton, due mostly to too many walks, he did pitch mostly for weak teams, and had he pitched for better ones, he might have had 40-50 more wins which would have put him in some pretty exalted company.

[molenick]

Newly added: Appling, Hooper, Schalk. Not included: Medwick (played in 1932 but not a regular until 1933). Also did not include managers Rickey or Robinson.

So as far as I can tell, the list of HOFers not in t206 or 1933 Goudey who played fully in-between these two sets or were regular players at the time one of the sets was issued but were not included in either set: Alexander, Appling (regular in 1932), Bancroft, Carey, Coveleski, Hafey, Harris, Heilmann, Hooper, Kelly, Lombardi (regular in 1932), Lopez, Roush, Sisler, Youngs.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by molenick

Newly added: Appling, Hooper, Schalk. Not included: Medwick (played in 1932 but not a regular until 1933). Also did not include managers Rickey or Robinson.

So as far as I can tell, the list of HOFers not in t206 or 1933 Goudey who played fully in-between these two sets or were regular players at the time one of the sets was issued but were not included in either set: Alexander, Appling (regular in 1932), Bancroft, Carey, Coveleski, Hafey, Harris, Heilmann, Hooper, Kelly, Lombardi (regular in 1932), Lopez, Roush, Sisler, Youngs.

Good list directly above. You did accidentally left off Ray Schalk, which was your 'newly added' list.

If you allow Hall of Famers who also appeared in the other two large scale tobacco issues of the era (T205 and T207) and 1930's issues up through the 1934 issues of 1934 Goudey, 1934-36 Diamond Stars and 1934-36 Batter-Up, the following would be eliminated from the list:

Alexander - 1931 W517
Appling - 1933 W574, 1934 Goudey, 1934-36 Diamond Stars, 1934-36 Batter-Up
Carey - 1912 T207
Hafey - 1931 W517, 1933 Delong, 1933 Tattoo Orbit, 1934 Goudey, 1934-36 Diamond Stars, 1934-36 Batter-Up
Harris - 1931 W517, 1934-36 Diamond Stars
Heilmann - 1931 W517
Hooper - 1912 T207 (and 1909-11 E254 Colgan's Chips)
Kelly - 1931 W517
Lombardi - 1933 Tattoo Orbit, 1934 Goudey, 1934-36 Diamond Stars, 1934-36 Batter-Up
Lopez - 1934-36 Diamond Stars, 1934-36 Batter-Up
Roush - 1931 W517

Leaving just these HOF players without cards from the 1909-1912 and/or 1930-34 eras:

Bancroft
Coveleski
Schalk
Sisler
Youngs


Brian

[timn1]

I don't really object to the walks, except in how they contribute to the failure to get wins for the team he's pitching for.

But also, Feller led the league in walks four times, not eight as Ryan did. In three of those four seasons he also led in Innings Pitched. And he won 102 and lost 51, for a .667 PCT. ( I also see him leading in hits surrendered 3 times, not 4, but anyway...)

In Ryan's 8 seasons of leading in walks, he led in IP only once and won 135 and lost 117 (.536).

In other words, Feller figured out how to win early on despite the wildness, and went on to a .621 PCT lifetime. For Ryan, as many accounts have emphasized (see Posnanski's The Baseball 100), the walks were as much about trying to make that perfect untouchable pitch over and over as they were about actual wildness.

Another way to look at this: Feller won 82% of Ryan's wins while losing 55% of Ryan's losses. Detect a pattern here?

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand that perspective on Ryan at all. It is not uncommon for someone with a freakish arm like his to walk batters. It comes with the territory. You're asking for too much if you want a guy with an iron arm cannon and pinpoint control.

Look at Feller. He was Nolan Ryan before Nolan Ryan. Feller led the league in walks and strikeouts in the same season four times. Twice he led the league in wins, strikeouts, walks and hits surrendered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Their ERA was nearly identical with Ryan's being a little better. Ryan's WHIP was better.

[packs]

Ryan pitched nearly 1,500 more innings and struck out over 3,000 more batters.

If you look at the years he won 20 games for the Angels, in 1973 he won 21 games for an Angels team that won 79 games total. In 1974, he won 22 games for an Angels team that won 68 games total. When he won 19 games in 1977, the Angels won 74 total games. I don't know how much more successful he could have been when you only look at wins.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I'd like to think his accomplishments might have a wee bit to do with the value.

Yes, his accomplishments had everything to do with the INITIAL rise in his cards' prices in the 1980s. But those accomplishments were all there before and during that initial rise. My point is that the values have stayed surprisingly high after his disgrace because of the residual effect.

(Just FYI, I am a lifelong Rose fan and I think MLB should now relent and let him in the HOF.)