T206 Dahlen HOF Price Impact - Seeking Opinions.

darwinbulldog · #1 03-14-2014, 01:56 PM

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.

z28jd · #2 03-14-2014, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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.

bn2cardz · #3 03-14-2014, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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.

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.

bbcard1 · #4 03-14-2014, 02:26 PM

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.

z28jd · #5 03-14-2014, 02:39 PM

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

bn2cardz · #6 03-14-2014, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcard1

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.

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.

bbcard1 · #7 03-14-2014, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

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.

oldjudge · #8 03-14-2014, 02:44 PM

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.

darwinbulldog · #9 03-14-2014, 02:52 PM

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.

bender07 · #10 03-14-2014, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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.

z28jd · #11 03-14-2014, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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.

t206hof · #12 03-14-2014, 03:28 PM

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.

bn2cardz · #13 03-14-2014, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206hof

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?

Orioles1954 · #14 03-14-2014, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206hof

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.

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

Exhibitman · #15 03-14-2014, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206hof

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.

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.

Kenny Cole · #16 03-14-2014, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206hof

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.

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?

bundy462 · #17 03-14-2014, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206hof

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.

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?

Kenny Cole · #18 03-14-2014, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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.

bbcard1 · #19 03-14-2014, 02:32 PM

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Seeking thoughts and opinions.	Roofman4	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	09-06-2013 06:41 PM
Different SMR price for T206 Dahlen (boston) vs. other commons	CMIZ5290	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	01-17-2013 11:32 AM
Does The Auctioneer Impact The Price?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	12-09-2006 11:07 AM
Seeking Opinions Regarding Colgan's Chips	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	03-28-2006 08:21 PM