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. :)

Exactly!!! It takes zero skill when you're 400 lbs and 7'1. I think it took a little more skill to pitch than dunk though haha

I don't disagree with you t206hof about Matty and Johnson being the greatest pitchers of all time. They completely dominated the era that they played in.

Where I disagree with you is the way you are slamming the modern players. You talk about how the modern players are "pampered." It is not fair to penalize them just because the game has evolved. Fact is, players as well as people in general are bigger, stronger, faster, and healthier today than they were 100 years ago.

I don't think it is fair to compare Matty to Koufax to Maddux or Cobb to Mays to Miguel Cabrerra. Compare any of them to the players they competed against. They dominated. Can't compare them against players from a different era. It wouldn't be fair to any of them. Different time, different place.

Yes Mariano belongs in the HOF on the first ballot with 100% of the votes. He dominated the era he played in same way Matty did. Not Mariano's fault that the game has evolved. He was the greatest closer of his era.

I am always shocked by the sure fire hall of famers (Maddux) who don't go in unanimously.

Statistics are a useful tool when used to compare players in any sport when comparing players of the same era. Once taken out of that context, statistical comparison of players is not useful and, in fact, can create a very distorted picture of a players value relative to the era in which he competed. Apples to apples.

Deadball stars like Walter Johnson and Matty were undoubtedly great. But they also weren't pitching against any minorities. How superior would the great pitchers of today look if you removed every African-American batter (and nearly every Hispanic from the game as well) from the major leagues?

I love the Deadball era and the men who played during that time. But it doesn't make any sense at all IMO that players from 1910 would be better today when the talent pool is so much larger today,

I don't see what modern day race has to do with dead ball players.

Do you really think that there were no minorities who could have dominated the game if they were given an opportunity to play in the major leagues of the time? A huge portion of the talent pool was barred from playing in the major leagues during the Deadball era.

Expand ethnicities and you ultimately raise the level of play. Do you think the competition and skill would increase or stay the same if you played ball with the allowance of half the world or all of it?

I have no doubt that competition is greatest when the best players compete. Obviously there are negro leaguers and other minorities would could (should) have played in the majors.

It's hard to say how they would have faired. My comment was directed at the member who tried to guess how Johnson would have performed against modern day players of certain racial and ethnic classes.

There wasn't also nearly the advanced scouting among pre-war players.

I agree. We really can't compare these guys. It's apples and oranges.

The talent pool is larger but there are many more in the big leagues that also dilutes the talent. Cobb faced the same 21 starting pitchers for the entire year, now a player will face at least double that number. Every time you played the Giants in 1913 you faced Matty, Marquard and Tesreau. Guys are bigger, faster, stronger, etc. but Id like to think a guy like Cobb could play today. We have no idea how'd he'd hit a live ball his whole career. Would Cobb be one of the best in the league today? I think so.

The media would love a guy like Cobb.

Another interesting point to this conversation is looking at the evolution of equipment as well. WaJo and Matty were pitching to guys swinging broomsticks, not the Fred Flintstone barreled bats of today.

And gloves. It is tough to field with an early 20th century glove.

Cobb would tear up these new pitchers.