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?

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal

For F's sake!! Maybe some people have changed their mind on someone etc. So this adds another thread, who cares. But to reply "If you can figure out the search function", makes you sound like some kind of butt hurt Karen. Don't open the thread and don't read it.

I thought about replying, "WHAT'S A SEARCH FUNCTION???" but I think Peter's a good guy who just didn't care to see Conversation 101 on the topic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

I thought about replying, "WHAT'S A SEARCH FUNCTION???" but I think Peter's a good guy who just didn't care to see Conversation 101 on the topic.

Maybe it wasn't phrased well but I was sincerely suggesting you look at all the past threads because that would give you lots of other responses to your question. The fact that I've actively participated in this thread shows I wasn't suggesting anything other than that. But whatever, some people are just assholes.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only 240 HR, and he wasn't much of a HR hitter on the road either, so I think Forbes Field only gets one so far in downplaying his lack of HR power.

Home park makes a huge difference. From 1955-69 when Clemente played in Forbes, there were an average of 86 HR per season hit. Compare that to Hank Aaron's home field advantage. From 1966-68 there were an average of 151 HR per season hit in the "Launching Pad." After the 1968 season, the Braves moved the fences in to help Aaron hit more HRs. From 1969-73, that number jumped to 187 per season. 1n 1974 with Aaron at 713 HRs, the Braves moved the fences back. If Aaron hadn't played in Atlanta, he would be fifth all time in home runs and his cards would be priced similar to Frank Robinson's. Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron are the most overpriced post-war vintage players.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just looking at 1969, Hank hit more home runs on the road than at home.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by rats60

Home park makes a huge difference. From 1955-69 when Clemente played in Forbes, there were an average of 86 HR per season hit. Compare that to Hank Aaron's home field advantage. From 1966-68 there were an average of 151 HR per season hit in the "Launching Pad." After the 1968 season, the Braves moved the fences in to help Aaron hit more HRs. From 1969-73, that number jumped to 187 per season. 1n 1974 with Aaron at 713 HRs, the Braves moved the fences back. If Aaron hadn't played in Atlanta, he would be fifth all time in home runs and his cards would be priced similar to Frank Robinson's. Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron are the most overpriced post-war vintage players.

For his career, Aaron hit 385 homers at home and 370 on the road. 740 home runs would not make you 5th all-time.

[bobbvc]

Originally Posted by packs

I'll toss a vote to Arky Vaughan. Baseball Reference has him ranked as the 4th best shortstop of all time, behind only Wagner, Arod and Ripken. A nine time all star, batting champion, and lifetime 300 hitter. He averaged 6.9 WAR per 162 games over his career but is largely anonymous when people talk about the best shortstops of all time.

+1

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

But I don't hate head shots / Topps profiles. In some cases it was cool to get a glimpse of the player close up. The '58 Ted Williams is one I just love because of that; he looks pissed at the world.

(Not mine.)

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....

Originally Posted by jchcollins

As a kid, with no knowledge of hobby history or set rarity or anything, I gravitated towards the idea that the older the card was, the better. Thus by this logic, a 1952 Topps Duke Snider was worth much more than a 1956 Topps Duke Snider - even if I really liked 56's and would have maybe objectively come to the conclusion on my own that it was the better card.

Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....





Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

Interesting. I had sort of the opposite experience. My brothers and I first started buying 1965 Topps, but we ended up having a ton of earlier cards all the way back to 1952, whether from the kid across the street whose older brother had left him a massive collection, or my parents' friends who knew we collected and gave us their (older) kids' old collections, or trading with friends who had acquired them in probably similar ways.

No one gave a thought to value of course. I remember my girlfriend in high school had a little sister who loved baseball, so I gave her maybe 5 each of Mantle and Mays, we had dozens.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

(Not mine.)

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....





Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

LOL on Williams.

Yep. I started buying wax with 1986 Topps baseball, after having been introduced to the trading card medium the year before with what else? Garbage Pail Kids!

Only the "older kids" even had '85 Topps baseball, which they did not want to give up. I only acquired "older" cards like that later, as perhaps an 11 yo in 1988.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting. I had sort of the opposite experience. My brothers and I first started buying 1965 Topps, but we ended up having a ton of earlier cards all the way back to 1952, whether from the kid across the street whose older brother had left him a massive collection, or my parents' friends who knew we collected and gave us their (older) kids' old collections, or trading with friends who had acquired them in probably similar ways.

No one gave a thought to value of course. I remember my girlfriend in high school had a little sister who loved baseball, so I gave her maybe 5 each of Mantle and Mays, we had dozens.

See, the thread you didn’t want to exist at first brought you down a wonderful memory lane!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

See, the thread you didn’t want to exist at first brought you down a wonderful memory lane!

Can nobody on this board read? Jesus. For the third time, I was only trying to suggest to the OP other threads where he might see other answers, I was not indicating any objection to this thread, which obviously I don't have as I have been participating. In other words, you might ALSO want to take a look at X, to broaden the range of responses. Since I suck at using the search function, I wasn't able to link them myself, thus the comment about the search function. But go ahead, add to the litany of stupid comments directed at me. Is this your second in three days maybe? You had one too on the fixed officiating thread which I didn't even dignify with a response.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can nobody on this board read? Jesus. For the third time, I was only trying to suggest to the OP other threads where he might see other answers, I was not indicating any objection to this thread, which obviously I don't have as I have been participating. In other words, you might ALSO want to take a look at X, to broaden the range of responses. Since I suck at using the search function, I wasn't able to link them myself, thus the comment about the search function. But go ahead, add to the litany of stupid comments directed at me. Is this your second in three days maybe? You had one too on the fixed officiating thread which I didn't even dignify with a response.

So much for trying to get you to see the bright side! This was an arguably negative way to respond to the OP: “If you can figure out the search function, we've literally had this discussion 100 times, and you'll find all the ideas people have had.”

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So much for trying to get you to see the bright side! This was an arguably negative way to respond to the OP: “If you can figure out the search function, we've literally had this discussion 100 times, and you'll find all the ideas people have had.”

I already said I didn't phrase it that well, but after I've explained twice that my INTENT was good, trying to point him to additional sources of answers, you have to go rip me again. WTF man. Not as obnoxious as BigMouth Is Real, granted lol.

[riggs336]

He was undervalued by the writers in the 1950s, never receiving more than 13.5% of the HOF votes, and is undervalued in the card market imo. The 9th ranked left fielder per JAWS.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I had sort of the opposite experience. My brothers and I first started buying 1965 Topps, but we ended up having a ton of earlier cards all the way back to 1952, whether from the kid across the street whose older brother had left him a massive collection, or my parents' friends who knew we collected and gave us their (older) kids' old collections, or trading with friends who had acquired them in probably similar ways.

No one gave a thought to value of course. I remember my girlfriend in high school had a little sister who loved baseball, so I gave her maybe 5 each of Mantle and Mays, we had dozens.

Should I therefore understand that these cards you had then went by the wayside somehow and you no longer have them?

I turned my half of the card hoard we'd accumulated over to my buddy Anthony a few months after I'd been packed off to a boarding school in Kennebunkport, Maine for ninth grade in 1965. Once Anthony finished grade school himself in the spring of 1966, he turned over the cards which he'd lovingly filed in order in a large cardboard box to young Billy across the street thinking that Billy would continue carrying the torch and further build the collection. Not so. Billy just scrambled the contents of the box for the other kids in the neighbourhood right in front of Anthony's horrified eyes!

Given the sad though self-inflicted denouement to our/his collection, Anthony can't stomach the thought of spending even a dime on cards these days. He does still collect Shirriff Hockey coins since he still has the ones he got as a kid. And of course he enjoys looking through my card binders.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sadly, my Mom tossed vast numbers of cards when I was in college, because she wanted to make room for something else on the basement shelves where all the boxes were. Oh, what might have been. I mean the Mantles and Mayses and so on were probably well handled but still tragic. Speaking of which imagine getting a Mantle out of a pack and being pissed because you were trying to get a Sonny Siebert or whoever to complete the series checklist.

[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.

[timn1]

Do you really believe that some such newly hatched player valuation technique incorporating multiple subjective factors is a better gauge of Bobby Richardson as a player than the awards he was given during his actual career?

[/QUOTE]

YES YES YES

[timn1]

Originally Posted by John1941

For his career, Aaron hit 385 homers at home and 370 on the road. 740 home runs would not make you 5th all-time.

Sure, park effects are significant at times but the idea that Aaron is overrated is just nuts to me.

I Think If anything Aaron is way undervalued. One of the ten greatest players of all time, and I would argue one of the top five most important of all time.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by timn1

YES YES YES

Oh come on!

WAR stands for “wins above replacement” and it attempts to measure a player’s overall value to a team by positing how many wins he is worth when compared to a replacement-level player.

Since when are scouts very good at projecting how any minor league replacement player will fare at the MLB level? They make educated guesses but it's guesswork nonetheless and they're frequently wrong, very wrong. Quite simply there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.

Worse yet, the WAR stat involves projecting the performance of no specific player but some theoretical random replacement player. In other words an abstraction! So WAR is based on extrapolating, i.e. guessing, the play of an abstraction! Talk about airy-fairy!

I'm with those who believe that the search for one simple metric such as WAR to assess baseball players is a search "an ephemeral alchemy, a chimera, and he who searches for it runs a fool’s errand."

[bk400]

Originally Posted by timn1

Sure, park effects are significant at times but the idea that Aaron is overrated is just nuts to me.

I Think If anything Aaron is way undervalued. One of the ten greatest players of all time, and I would argue one of the top five most important of all time.

+1. One could make a credible argument that he was the greatest player of all time -- and had an off the field impact that perhaps rivaled that of Jackie Robinson.

[SAllen2556]

If I were buying for investment I'd buy Willie Mays all day. If anyone can catch Mantle in price, it's him. He's got the numbers, the reputation, and now that he's passed, he can't be rude to fans anymore!

I think with Mantle it's basically because his name is associated with baseball cards. If you consider the hobby and its growth, the '52 Mantle is the starting point. If you ask a non-collector, "What name do you associate most with baseball card collecting?" The answer would be Mickey Mantle.

For pre-war I think players who starred in the 1920's are undervalued because there were no really popular card sets produced. I'd include Harry Heilmann as one of those guys because he doesn't have a T206 or a Goudey card. In fact, I wonder how many hall-of-famers from that era don't have a card in either of those sets? Maybe Heilmann is the only one.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

For pre-war I think players who starred in the 1920's are undervalued because there was no really popular card sets produced then. I'd include Harry Heilmann as one of those guys because he doesn't have a T206 or a Goudey card. In fact, I wonder how many hall-of-famers from that era don't have a card in either of those sets? Maybe Heilmann is the only one.

There are several HOFers where nobody seems to care. Heilmann has always been one of them. Same with someone like Al Simmons. I have never in my life run into a single collector who specializes in either, although you have to imagine they're out there somewhere.

[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?

[molenick]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

For pre-war I think players who starred in the 1920's are undervalued because there was no really popular card sets produced then. I'd include Harry Heilmann as one of those guys because he doesn't have a T206 or a Goudey card. In fact, I wonder how many hall-of-famers from that era don't have a card in either of those sets? Maybe Heilmann is the only one.

I once tried to work out who was the best player not to be in any of the classic T and E sets, and also to miss all the 1930s sets, and Alexander was who I came up with. In some measurements, one of the top five pitchers ever, but probably under-collected because of not being in these sets.

However, he did make it into both Cracker Jacks sets, which are technically E cards (even though they are not usually referred to as E145-1 and E145-2) while Heilmann did not.

If you want to limit it to T206 and 1933 Goudey, I imagine there are other HOFers sandwiched between these two...but I have not tried to look for those. Maybe a fun project after work. Some of the "lesser" 1920s HOFers, like "Highpockets" Kelly and Chick Hafey would qualify.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

There are several HOFers where nobody seems to care. Heilmann has always been one of them. Same with someone like Al Simmons. I have never in my life run into a single collector who specializes in either, although you have to imagine they're out there somewhere.

Although he probably rates much higher than either of these two, you don't see a lot of people talking about their Jimmie Foxx cards either.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

With that being said, Alex has always been popular among card, autograph and memorabilia collectors. And rightly so!

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Although he probably rates much higher than either of these two, you don't see a lot of people talking about their Jimmie Foxx cards either.

Very true. And that's a real head-scratcher to me.

[molenick]

Here are some other 1920s stars not in T206 or 1933 Goudey: Bancroft, Carey, Coveleski, Harris, Lopez, Roush, Youngs. "Research" consisted of looking at Veteran's Committee selections of the 1960s and 1970s and checking if they had a 1933 Goudey card (some were playing at the time but were not in the set). I'm curious now, so will research more later. I'm guessing Alexander and Heilmann will remain the two best players.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Heilmann was truly incredible; it's so sad to me that he's been forgotten to time. At least some of the lack of value goes back to what I mentioned earlier about Tiger-themed collectors not being very liberal with their hobby budgets.

...and I'm not singling out Tigers collectors on this. There are many teams where this has always been applicable. Red Sox and A's are definitely among the top of such a list, even more so than the Tigers. That would serve to partially explain Foxx (and even Teddy).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by molenick

Here are some other 1920s stars not in T206 or 1933 Goudey: Bancroft, Harris, Lopez, Youngs. "Research" consisted of looking at Veteran's Committee selections of the 1970s and checking if they had a 1933 Goudey card (some were playing at the time but were not in the set). I'm curious now, so will research more later. I'm guessing Alexander and Heilmann will remain the two best players.

Sisler isn't in any mainstream sets, he's probably roughly comparable to Heilmann.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sisler isn't in any mainstream sets, he's probably roughly comparable to Heilmann.

Good one..will add to the list. Thanks.

So far the list of HOFers not in t206 or 1933 Goudey and who played in-between these two sets or were playing at the time but were not included: Alexander, Bancroft, Carey, Coveleski, Hafey, Harris, Heilmann, Kelly, Lombardi, Lopez, Roush, Sisler, Youngs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by molenick

Good one..will add to the list. Thanks.

So far the list of HOFers not in t206 or 1933 Goudey and who played in-between these two sets: Alexander, Bancroft, Carey, Coveleski, Hafey, Harris, Heilmann, Kelly, Lombardi, Lopez, Roush, Sisler, Youngs.

Not a HOFer but Joe Jackson isn't in either set, of course he's in E90-1 (or rather a drawing of someone with his name on the card).

[molenick]

If I don't limit it to HOFers I will never get any work done today!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Although he probably rates much higher than either of these two, you don't see a lot of people talking about their Jimmie Foxx cards either.

Had I any Jimmie Foxx cards, I'd be bragging about those every day on this forum. The best I can do though among the vulpine crew is Nellie Fox.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would bet that's the first appearance of "vulpine" on this forum.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Yes, we can add it to my record of being the first to use the term "jazz hands" on the forum nearly 20 years ago.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by molenick

I once tried to work out who was the best player not to be in any of the classic T and E sets, and also to miss all the 1930s sets, and Alexander was who I came up with. In some measurements, one of the top five pitchers ever, but probably under-collected because of not being in these sets.

However, he did make it into both Cracker Jacks sets, which are technically E cards (even though they are not usually referred to as E145-1 and E145-2) while Heilmann did not.

If you want to limit it to T206 and 1933 Goudey, I imagine there are other HOFers sandwiched between these two...but I have not tried to look for those. Maybe a fun project after work. Some of the "lesser" 1920s HOFers, like "Highpockets" Kelly and Chick Hafey would qualify.

I'd definitely agree Alexander is underrated - he was better than Mathewson but nowhere near as appreciated.

[packs]

I would say Tris Speaker is probably undervalued too. Tough to find many players of his caliber but I feel like his name is probably unknown to most casual fans who aren't collecting baseball cards. Despite being hugely popular in his own time it didn't seem to carryover to future fans.

He does have some pricey cards but I find him to be one of the more affordable HOFers in many of the sets he's in.

[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.

[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.)

[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.