Most undervalued HOFers

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by molenick

I think people underestimate Robinson as a player.

No, he was not on the Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan, Gehringer level but a lot of that is due to having a shorter career. His 162 game average is 16 HR, 23 SB, 111 runs, 87 RBIs with a .313/.410/.477 slash which translates to an .887 OPS and 133 OPS+.

And he his third (after Hornsby and Ross Barnes) in WAR/162 for second basemen. ROY, MVP, 7-time all star (in 10 MLB seasons). No Gold Gloves were awarded while he played but I am not aware of him being regarded as a defensive liability. And I don't know how to measure intangibles (hustle, leadership, distracting the pitcher, etc.), but if anyone had them, he did.

He was 28 years old as a rookie. His averages would be so much better if he started as a 20 year old like many others. No point of comparing him to anyone as far as numbers go. He would be in that group easily if he had a full career like they did. I know you acknowledged his short career but take his late start and the abuse he endured and I'll easily put him on their level.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Tomi

He was 28 years old as a rookie. His averages would be so much better if he started as a 20 year old like many others. No point of comparing him to anyone as far as numbers go. He would be in that group easily if he had a full career like they did. I know you acknowledged his short career but take his late start and the abuse he endured and I'll easily put him on their level.

Well, my point was that he was underestimated as a player...and I guess I did the same thing!

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by Tomi

He was 28 years old as a rookie. His averages would be so much better if he started as a 20 year old like many others. No point of comparing him to anyone as far as numbers go. He would be in that group easily if he had a full career like they did. I know you acknowledged his short career but take his late start and the abuse he endured and I'll easily put him on their level.

Jackie Robinson is a towering figure, IMO. His accomplishments in the context of the enormous resistance to his even playing the game are just astounding.

But it’s also worth considering that he, like so many others, was in WWII between 1942 and 1944. In ‘41, he was graduating college and playing a bit of pro football. So misfortune really prevented his baseball career from taking off before ‘45, which means that the color line, as horrible as it was, may not have had a huge impact on his final stats.

A couple of other things - I’ve seen video of him playing - I’m sure it’s available on YouTube, and man he must have been intimidating for catchers and pitchers. I can imagine that no one who was then active had seen anything like him. Also, Rachel Robinson is still alive, age 102. Due to Jackie’s sadly early death, she’s been a widow for more than half a century.

[jchcollins]

I grew up idolizing Nolan Ryan. His popularity exploded in the early 1990's when he went to the Rangers and continued to add no-hitters, and pass milestones like his 5k strikeout and 300th win. He was a humble, unassuming guy, and I read all his books and he generally just became my favorite player outside of my (favorite team) Cubs. His early cards when I was a young teenager who had just got into vintage quickly shot through the roof. The RC was out of the question, but I badly wanted just any card of Nolan with the Mets - could not make even that happen until I was older as a teenager. I eventually was also able to land a passable (but very OC) '73 Topps Ryan - arguably his greatest season - that I treasured for quite some time.

What bugs me today is the legion of fanboys and ostensibly younger people on social media who somehow have the idea that pitching is only about no-hitters and strikeouts. Nolan is "The GOAT" and somehow should be equated with Mathewson, Johnson, Grove, Koufax, Gibson, Maddux et al. in such groups. I'm sorry but this is simply not the case. I'm fine calling Ryan "the most amazing" pitcher of all time due to his unparalleled longevity, records that will never be approached and all that, but he's far from the best who ever lived.

The fact that an entire new generation of fans seem to not even know who pitchers like Gibson, Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, and others were because they are so bowled over by Nolan Ryan is troubling. Wins, and winning percentage for pitchers I can understand maybe aren't quite considered in same light as they were 50 years ago, but they should still count for something. It also ticks me off because as someone who is still very much a Nolan Ryan fan - I now have his complete run of at least the base Topps cards - they are maligning his true legacy! You can be a great, first ballot HOF pitcher and still not be the single "greatest" of all time. Nothing wrong with that.

[packs]

The only arguments against Ryan have been statistically based but this is a discussion about undervalued HOFers, of which Ryan isn’t one. This thread exists because value is not exclusively tied to performance and yet someone still finds it hard to believe that collectors are interested in someone like Nolan Ryan.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

The only arguments against Ryan have been statistically based but this is a discussion about undervalued HOFers, of which Ryan isn’t one. This thread exists because value is not exclusively tied to performance and yet someone still finds it hard to believe that collectors are interested in someone like Nolan Ryan.

You may not be referring to me directly - but I don't find it hard to believe that collectors are interested in Ryan, and never said that my comments were 100% on task to the original subject matter of the thread.

[packs]

No my comments were directed toward the person equating Ryan with Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven, pitchers who are not the all time strike out king, who didn’t throw 7 no hitters and who weren’t successful for 27 seasons with what might have been the most perfect arm baseball will ever see.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Ryan occupies a higher place, at least in my opinion.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

No my comments were directed toward the person equating Ryan with Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven, pitchers who are not the all time strike out king, who didn’t throw 7 no hitters and who weren’t successful for 27 seasons with what might have been the most perfect arm baseball will ever see.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Ryan occupies a higher place, at least in my opinion.

Right. And to me those points are Ryan's greatest asset. He was more just astoundingly unique than he was great. I don't know though why people have such a hard time recognizing that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have not verified this.

Nolan Ryan had 198 career non-win quality starts. He was 0-107 with a 2.27 ERA, 1.166 WHIP, & 9.77 K/9 in those starts.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

His early cards when I was a young teenager who had just got into vintage quickly shot through the roof. The RC was out of the question, but I badly wanted just any card of Nolan with the Mets - could not make even that happen until I was older as a teenager. I eventually was also able to land a passable (but very OC) '73 Topps Ryan - arguably his greatest season - that I treasured for quite some time.

To show you my long-term "perspective" and perspicacity, I traded a 1968 Nolan Ryan rookie card to a dealer for something like $400 circa 1992 simply because I had no interest in building a set of the 1968 Topps Baseball cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

To show you my long-term "perspective" and perspicacity, I traded a 1968 Nolan Ryan rookie card to a dealer for something like $400 circa 1992 simply because I had no interest in building a set of the 1968 Topps Baseball cards.

Not difficult to understand. I don't love that set. Even the Ryan just taken on aesthetic qualities is not the best looking card in the world. But, like many others for which that can be said - it's become iconic more for what it is than purely how it looks.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not difficult to understand. I don't love that set. Even the Ryan just taken on aesthetic qualities is not the best looking card in the world. But, like many others for which that can be said - it's become iconic more for what it is than purely how it looks.

Early on, especially after the 1969 World Series, it was the Jerry Koosman card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not difficult to understand. I don't love that set. Even the Ryan just taken on aesthetic qualities is not the best looking card in the world. But, like many others for which that can be said - it's become iconic more for what it is than purely how it looks.

Better than the 69 where he is pretending to be throwing the ball as it sits in his glove.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Better than the 69 where he is pretending to be throwing the ball as it sits in his glove.

Agreed. I don't love that either, but had to get one in decent shape for my run. My favorite early Ryan is the '70 Topps high number. It's a bit of an awkward pose, and if possible Nolan looks even deer-in-the-headlights younger than he did on his first two cards.