1909 T206 HOF George Davis

The Card

Photo: T206 George Davis, front and back.

For those interested, I bought this card for $36.33, including shipping.  T206.org says it's been selling recently at about $43, which is a very common value for a Hall of Fame T206 of a nondescript player in Poor condition.  (Poor condition T206s of the big boys--Cobb, Young, Walter Johnson, etc.--still run a couple hundred bucks.)  Anyway, that's a profit of $6.67.  Not much.  The Beckett Graded Card Price Guide (7th Ed. 2015) says it's been selling at about $50, which is a little high, on Ebay, anyway. That's a value of $13.67, which is a little better.

I'm just happy to have a T206 HOFer.  I have about 15 of those now, most of them in Poor or Good condition, because that's what I can afford, ya know?  This card is in good condition, for a Poor.

The Player / The Person

Photo: George Davis, while with the Chicago White Sox, from The Sporting News

Shockingly, the Veterans' Committee got it right when they inducted this guy into the Hall.  Normally the Committee's inductions are abysmal, especially players inducted from this era.  I've looked at a few of those lately, and when I checked Davis's card in my collection and I looked at his stats (via baseball-reference.com, just click it here to see), I was expecting more of the same.

But I was pleasantly surprised.  You may have to know a bit about the time to appreciate Davis's stats.  At a glance, they're not impressive.  He led the league in an offensive category exactly once: 135 RBIs in 1897 for the New York Giants.  (McGraw and Mathewson wouldn't join the Giants until later.)  This is a lot, but for the 1890s, pretty common for a league leader.  What impressed me a lot more was that between 1904 and 1908, the Chicago White Sox let him play full-time, in most of the team's games, although his offensive stats were way below the league's norms.

There's only one reason possible for this: Defense.  From 1890 through 1902, Davis's offensive stats are good, but not great.  They are, though, impressively consistent.  And consistency in 1890s baseball, for 12 years, is very rare, whether it's offense or defense.  The stats will pile up, as they did. So for peak value, Davis was not one of the best players in the league.  But in career value, he was.

And then came 1904-1908 with the White Sox, and those rather unimpressive numbers.  True, the game changed a little, but those are still bad stats.  Why would he still be allowed to play full-time? Could his defense have been that good?

Yes.  Turns out, it was.

His overall WAR (wins above replacement; click on the stat on the webpage if you're unfamiliar with it) was higher in 1904, 1905 and 1906 than it had been in any of his more impressive offensive years. This can only be due to his defense.  Any dWAR (defensive wins above replacement) in the positive is good.  (This happens a shockingly low amount of times, even for good players today.)  Anything above 1 is really good; anything above 2 is Gold Glove worthy.  Davis was a very good defensive player during his good offensive years (consistently between 1 and 2), but when his offensive skills eroded after 1903, when he sat out, due to problems with injury, salary, and constantly jumping between the Giants and the White Sox, and back (jumping teams was VERY common in the early 1900s, but his case was still odd.  Read about it at his Wikipedia page here), he must've realized that if he was going to still play, his defense had to get even better.

And for a few years, it did.  His defensive WAR, from 1904-1908, when his offense was terrible: 3.4; 2.8; 3.0; 2.9; 1.3.  With his average to below-average offense, but his incredible GG (before there was a Gold Glove Award) defense, his overall WAR from 1904-1908: 7.2; 7.2; 6.3; 4.6 and 2.1.  A 5+ is all-star worthy, and his defense alone made him 2 levels above that.

Over his 16-year career, the league averaged a .919 fielding percentage for the positions he played. Davis's fielding percentage was .936.  At shortstop, the league's was .923 and his was .940.  

If you're defending 17 percentage points higher than everyone else in the league, that's HOF exceptional.  Combine that with 1,545 runs scored (56th all-time), 2,665 hits (69th all-time), 453 doubles (100th all-time), 163 triples (33rd all-time), 619 stolen bases (17th all-time), and 1,440 RBIs (63rd all-time), and you're a Hall-of-Fame player.  JAWS says he's the 4th-best shortstop of all-time, and that's going head-to-head with Honus Wagner (#1), A-rod (#2) Cal Ripken (#3), Robin Yount (#5), Arky Vaughn (#6), Ernie Banks (#7) and Ozzie Smith (#8).  Derek Jeter, if you're curious, is #12, ahead of Barry Larkin, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese and Bobby Wallace (a contemporary of George Davis's)--but behind Alan Trammel (#11)!  [Take a look at Trammel's stats here and you'll be as amazed as I was.  I assure you, nobody--including the announcers and players who were around him--realized he was that good.  Alan Trammel, shockingly, is wildly deserving of the Hall of Fame. But that's another blog entry for another time.)]  All of these guys, by the way, were way above the average HOF shortstop's stats.  Normally shortstops can field, or they can hit, but they can't do both.

So why a blog entry about George Davis, who nobody in this generation (and in this century) has ever heard of?

Because he wasn't inducted into the HOF until 1998, and he died in 1940.  It came 58 years too late, but finally someone dusted off his stats and saw the HOF.  

Well, it started with Bill James, as these sabermetric things often do.  I'll let the Wikipedia page tell it:

In a 1995 book, baseball author Bill James referred to Davis as baseball's best player who had not been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.^[7]Also in 1995, Davis was featured in David Pietrusza's television film "Local Heroes" in the segment "Knocking on Cooperstown's Door."

In 1997, baseball researcher Frederick Ivor-Campbell said that Davis was "the most neglected player of the 19th century. He's definitely the best eligible player not in the Hall, and he's a lot better than a lot of guys already in."^[8] Around the same time, Davis was rated the 21st best baseball player of all time in the official baseball encyclopedia, Total Baseball.^[8]

Davis was up for a vote before the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee in 1998. Before the committee voted, sportswriter Dave Anderson wrote an article in The New York Times on Davis's Hall of Fame candidacy. He pointed out the work of Cohoes city historian Walt Lipka, which favorably compared Davis to almost all of the shortstops in the Hall of Fame. Anderson supported Davis's election, saying, "It's as if he were discarded nearly a century ago into a time capsule that was forgotten until now... For too long, George Stacey Davis has been his era's most forgotten best player."^[9] He was selected for induction that year.^[4]

Prior to his Hall of Fame induction, a Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) chapter in New York put out a call to locate a descendant of Davis to be present at the induction ceremony and announced plans for a historical marker in Cohoes.^[10] As a great deal of time had passed since his death, no relatives could be located, but a group of about 50 people from Cohoes traveled to the ceremony in support of Davis.^[1]

Me again.  I don't know if George Davis was the 21st best player of all-time, but he certainly belongs in the Hall.  He was light years better than Phil Rizzuto, Joe Tinker, Rabbit Maranville, and lots of other marginal candidates who probably shouldn't be in the Hall, but who are.  Davis got in so late that nobody was around to even honor his plaque.

And why was that?  Well, that's not so Hall-of-Fame worthy, but hey, don't judge:

Davis returned to the minor leagues for one season as player-manager of the 1910 Des Moines Boosters.^[6] He managed a bowling alley in the early 1910s. He was the Amherst College baseball coach from 1913 to 1918, then he became a car salesman.^[3]

The circumstances of his death remained a mystery until baseball historian Lee Allen discovered its details through a campaign to track down historical baseball players, run in part in The Sporting News. Davis was admitted to a Philadelphia mental institution in 1934 suffering from paresis due to tertiary syphilis. He died in the institution in 1940.^[3] Davis was survived by his wife Jane, who was said to have been angry at him when he died. They had no children. His wife spent $41 to have him buried within a day at nearby Fernwood Cemetery.

Me again.  Yeah, so no kids to have kids to honor his HOF plaque 58 years after he died of syphilis. Of course, you can get syphilis many ways, then and now, but...well, his wife was really pissed at him, and buried him the day after he died, apparently sans wake and funeral.  And it was a quickie burial, costing just $41, which sounds to me like someone dug a hole in the cemetery, threw him in, and filled up the hole.  Maybe even without a coffin, and definitely without a chaplain or onlookers.

And that pretty much says it all. 

My T206 Gifts to Myself

Photos: Jimmy Williams and Charlie Rhodes T206s.  These are not the exact same two cards mentioned in the story below.  The two pictured here are in Near Mint condition and worth about $550 each.  And I ain't payin' that.  These pics are from a great T206 card site, PSAcard.com.


So, if you've read the last few entries, you may be wondering: "Did he get any T206s for himself?"

Well, I did, and I'm ecstatic about them.  I got two, and both for the price of what the Grimes or Stark would've cost.

First, I got a Jimmy Williams SGC 3/40 VG T206 card.  This means that SGC, a top-notch card grading company (I only buy graded cards now, which is necessary but sort of sad.  That's another entry for another day.), graded the card at the third-lowest level, which is Very Good.  That's an actual grade, and not just someone at the company saying, "Wow, that's in very good condition."

Anyway, as I explained before, Very Good condition is more than good enough for me, as anything higher than that can get silly expensive.  Very Good cards will look great, and are far better than Poor, Poor/Fair, Fair and Good condition cards.  I'm actually happy with cards in Good condition, though that's the lowest condition I'll buy in, unless we're talking HOF T206 ballplayers.  Those guys are often expensive even in Poor condition, because they're HOFers and everyone wants them, so they're at a premium, even in bad condition.  I have T206s of about 7 HOFers, and they're in either Poor, Fair or Good condition.  Anything higher than that will be over $100 apiece, minimum.  Often, they'd be in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

So, the book value--I use Beckett's Graded Card Price Guide--of this exact Jimmy Williams card, in this exact condition, was $60.  That's a little high for me at Christmastime (and during most other times), but I figured I'd watch the bidding and give it a shot.  I've made a few extra bucks recently--not much, but enough to buy myself one or two affordable (ie--inexpensive) cards for Christmas and New Year's.  Or Thanksgiving and Christmas, if I want to be naughty and get myself another one for New Year's, which I probably will.  And then another a month later for my birthday...

But I digress.  So the shipping for this card was $3.50, and the BV was $60, as I mentioned.  I'd watched the Babe Ruths and Ty Cobbs and the Magie error card and the Grimes card and the Dolly Stark card come and go by now, and I wanted something, so I tried for this one.  (Jimmy Williams was a nobody player--a common card, in the hobby--and by far the least valuable of all the names I just mentioned.)  The highest visible bid was up to just $22 or so.  (If you've bid on Ebay before, you know the highest visible bid is often far below the actual highest bid.) 

I'm old hat at this kind of thing, so I knew that a common T206 in Very Good condition will often hit the $40 or $50 mark.  If it did, I wouldn't bid.  The BV was $60, and the shipping was $3.50, but you don't want to spend the book value price, and you certainly don't want to spend over the BV price.  (If you read the previous two entries, you know what I mean.)  Like the Dolly Stark card, which was more valuable, I didn't want to spend over $45 total.  I mean, I've bought HOF T206s in Poor or Good condition in the $40s and $50s, so I wasn't going to do that for a common card, even in VG condition.

As I've mentioned, you have to have a set dollar figure in mind--including shipping, which is not part of the card's value but yet is still money you have to pay--and never exceed that.  Otherwise, this Ebay thing can get out of hand in a hurry and suddenly you're in debt.

So I put in my max dollar amount, and I wait until the proper number of seconds remain before I post my bid.  (I ain't tellin' you my bid or the number of seconds I wait for.  Cuz I'm silly and unrealistic like that.)  And in the last ten seconds, the bids go from $22 to $23, $24, $24.55 and to $30 before my bid wins.

I've just watched the Dolly Stark sell for $63--admittedly, a fair price, since the BV was $80, but it was still more than I wanted to spend.  Another card, Josh Devore, had sold for $82, and the BV was $150, but still the $82 was more than I wanted to spend, though that one stung a little when it got that high.  (It had been in the $30s for awhile and I was hoping.)  The Magie error card went for over fourteen grand, and I saw Cobbs and Ruths sell for thousands, and I'm still waiting.  (This all took about half an hour, by the way, in case you thought I'd wasted my night doing this.)

I didn't spend the $63 or the $82 because I was able to get a T206 in Very Good condition (same condition as the other two) for just $31, plus $3.50 shipping.  And then, just a few minutes later, I was fortunate enough to get a Charlie Rhodes T206, also in Very Good condition, for just $28, plus $3.50.

Unfortunately, these two cards weren't from the same place, so I couldn't save on shipping, which I always try and do.  But, anyway, the bottom line is that I was able to get two VG condition T206s for a total of $66, including shipping.  Which is why I didn't spend $66.50--including shipping--for the one Dolly Stark card (though that would've been nice, and remains a personal thing with me), or the $85.50 for the one Josh Devore card--both in the same condition as the two I did get.  I'd rather spend $66 total for two VG T206s than over $20 more than that for one VG T206.

That's my Christmas present to myself.  I'm going to pay for those right now and log off from Ebay and not log back in for at least another month.  That's what I do--jump in, buy one or two, and then shut it down for at least a couple of months.  So as not to go crazy and in debt.  I can see why people would get addicted to this and drive themselves bankrupt.

And so that's it.  Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to my readers.  Be good to yourself this holiday season and this New Year's.  Get something inexpensive for yourself, too.  You deserve it!

Free Contest to Win A T206--1,400 T206s for Auction at Saco River Auction Co. January 2015

[Free contest to win a free 1909-1911 T206 explained at the bottom of this entry, in the P.P.S.  Contest ends midnight, Sept. 30, 2014.]

Yeah, that's right.  If you're into baseball cards at all, you know the T206s.  I've posted a few pics of the few I have.  This is the set that has the Honus Wagner card, formerly owned by Wayne Gretzky and others, worth literally millions of dollars.

Well, in January 2015, the Saco River Auction House, in Biddeford, Maine, will auction off the Portland Trove of T206s.  One thousand, four hundred of them.  All in good condition, or better.  All of them.  At an average of $50 per card--a very low estimate, considering there are Christy Mathewson cards, Walter Johnsons, Ty Cobbs, etc.--that's still $70,000 worth of T206 baseball cards being sold.  The real fetching price will most likely by ten times that, or more than $700,000.

To show you the awesomeness of this, look at the pics:

Can you believe that?!?  Oh, my goodness.  This makes me want to vomit in jealousy and greed, except I can't stop looking at the pics and wishing I had them.

Of course, since there are only 527 known cards in the set (though variations pop up even now, every so often), there are going to be some duplicates.  My guess is--the piles you see on the tables in the pics are the duplicates of that card.  So if a John Anderson, let's say, (in the second-to-last pic, he's in the second row from the bottom, all the way to the right; looks like he's praying) is on a small stack of three cards, I'm going to bet there are three John Andersons in the collection.  (There's only one John Anderson in the set.)  How did this happen?  Simple: The story is that a gentleman living in NYC in 1909 or so started smoking.  His choice of smoke was the El Principe de Gales--one of the rarest backs in the set!  Anyway, he smoked the stuff and kept the card the pouch came with.  And often, it'll come with a card he already had.  Like getting a duplicate in the wax packs we bought as kids.

So, if you're not doing anything on a particular day TBA in January 2015, and if the weather isn't too bad, I might just take a drive up to 2 Main Street in Biddeford, Maine--about a three hour drive, or so.  Hopefully the auction is on a Friday or Saturday night!  I might save up a little bit by then, and take my list of cards.  If you're into T206s, maybe I'll see you there.  Save your pennies: All of the cards in this trove were graded by SGC, and they're all in good condition or better.

Speaking of card collections, do you have one?  If so, what's your favorite?  Or do you have a favorite specific card, or set?  If you don't collect cards, what do you collect, and which of those is your favorite?

P.S.--Speaking of T206s, I've got a few extras, so I'll be having contests on this blog every now and then and giving one away for free.  Caveat: None of the ones I'm giving away are professionally graded.  They're known as "raw" cards, and they'd list in Poor, Poor / Fair, or Fair condition, but will still be worth at least ten bucks each, even in bad condition.  (I mean, they're free, so waddaya want?)  I'll mail it in a tobacco card toploader.  Stay tuned.

P.P.S.--In fact, what the hell.  I'll have a contest here and now.  Just answer the question(s) above the P.S. in a comment to this blog entry and I'll enter you in a random drawing to win one of my extra T206s from 1909-1911.  Each is worth somewhere between $10 to $25 and can be easily mailed to you.  If you're the winner, I'll ask that you send me an email.  When you do, I'll email you pics of the ones I've got available, and you can pick whatever one you want.  I'll mail it to you free of charge as well.  It can fit in a regular envelope, after all. 

1923 Willard's Chocolates--George H. Burns--20 Fair 1.5

Today I'm starting a new feature that spotlights one of my cards per week.  I'll try to keep the cards and the players as varied as I can.  I'll write about the player first, then the card.  Sometimes the card will be available for sale.  I'll say so at the bottom of the entry.  So look back here for a new entry, on average once per week, about a card and player.  And look back to previous entries about some cards I've already written about.

This one is a 1923 Willard's Chocolates: George H. Burns--in 20 Fair 1.5 condition, which isn't too bad for the age.  I mean, this card is 90 years old, after all.  I hope I look as good at 90, if I even reach that age.

The backs are blank, like the 1887 N182 Old Judges and the 1921 Exhibits.  (Love those, too, but they're very expensive.  The 1887s cost at least $100 each, in authentic, presentable or fair condition, which are the three lowest.  Crazy money, for me, anyway.)  This one has writing on the back, which I'm not crazy about.  Normally I don't buy blankbacks that aren't blank, especially if there's writing on it.  But this card was at a price I couldn't refuse.  It's the only 1921 Willard's Chocolates I own.

The Player

I was interested in the card partly because I was vaguely familiar with the player.  I knew that a George Burns led the league in hits in the 20s for a year, and won an MVP, and was a solid player.  The Hall of Famers' cards cost more, of course, so I had to stay away from those.  But you tire of buying commons of good cards, too--though this card is more a commons than a star card.  Still...So if you look him up on baseball-reference.com, which is the site I always use to get stats, you'd find that there were actually two George Burns playing in the 20s.  There's my guy, at this address, and then there's another guy, who played in the mid-10s to the mid-20s, at this address.  They were both good players, but time being what it is, let's focus on my guy.

He had an odd career, if you look at the stats.  In 1918 he led the league in games, hits and total bases, while batting .352 and with an almost-.400 on-base percentage.  Despite this, he only scored 61 runs, which tells me that he either didn't bat leadoff (or even in the top-5 in the order) or that the Philadelphia Athletics of 1918 was a bad team.  Or both.  Anyway, in spite of his good play, he was a part-time player in 1920 and in 1921--two prime years, when he was 26 and 27, peak years for many ballplayers.  He apparently got stuck in the depth chart behind another first baseman, and he was flat-out bought by the Cleveland Indians (for whom he was playing in 1923, the year of my card).  He was a part-time player for them, before being traded to the Boston Red Sox for Stuffy McInnis, an extremely good player.  He played very well for Boston, which traded him back to Cleveland in a huge trade you can read about at the bottom, beneath all the stats.

He played great in Cleveland, batting .306, .328, .310, .336, .358 and .319.  While averages across the league were up between 1921 and 1939, this is still very good.  In 1926 he was the MVP, with 216 hits and 64 doubles, a record until Earl Webb hit 67 for the Red Sox a few years later.  (Webb's record still stands today, so Burns' 64 is still in the top-5 or so.)  He had 3 triples, 4 homers and 115 RBIs, which means those doubles drove in a ton of runs, plus whatever singles he hit.  (This also means Cleveland was a good team, with lots of runners on base, and that Burns hit between 2nd and 5th in the lineup.)

But something happened, because two years later he was flat-out bought by the New York Yankees, who barely used him for a couple of seasons, before selling him back to the Philadelphia Athletics, who rarely played him.  And that's it.  He played twice for two different teams, and he seemed to be wanted, yet easily sold or traded, at the same time.

A very strange career for a very good player.  He led the league in hits twice, eight years apart, which is hard to do in general, but especially if you're playing in the same league as Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby and all those guys.  He finished second in hits and average one year; finished second to Babe Ruth in RBIs during his MVP year, and constantly was among the league-leaders in hits, average and defensive statistics, including consecutive games played and fielding percentage.  He snagged an MVP from them as well, when he was 33.  He had over 2,000 hits and hit over .300 for his career.  A quick glance at his defensive stats shows that he was good, maybe a little better than average.  Not a Gold Glove winner, but solid enough not to make a jerk of himself there, and he once made an unassisted triple play, which is very rare. Burns also played in two World Series, and won both of them, nine years apart.

I went to his Wikipedia page to see why he was traded or sold so often, and why he was made a part-time player in the middle of his career after very good seasons, and at the end, just a year after winning the MVP.  It didn't tell me a thing, except that there might not be anything to say, and that he became a good minor-league player and manager, and then a sheriff of a small town.  I guess injuries could explain the part-time status and the trades, but I would've thought Wikipedia would show that.  Maybe he had Rogers Hornsby disease: despite a HOF career and being a world-class hitter as the National League's Babe Ruth (and a second basemen!), Hornsby was also an uncontested jerk who teams couldn't wait to get rid of, and which actually became better after getting rid of him, despite replacing him with a worse player.  (A-rod is a present-day example.)  But, again, I would guess that the Wikipedia page would've mentioned that he was hard to get along with.  Instead, this article's writer seemed to be obsessed with Burns' greatness as a right-handed hitter, and with right-handers in general.

I suspect that there's more here to know.  If you feel like it, please investigate and leave a comment.

The Card

As stated by PSAcardfacts.com (click this link and look at the beautiful Babe Ruth card):

"The 1923 Willards Chocolate set consists of 180 cards, each measuring about 2” x 3-1/4”. Produced by a Canadian firm, the Willards Chocolate Company, the unnumbered cards feature a sepia-tone player photo with a white border. A facsimile autograph is printed across the image. The back of every card is blank. The key cards belong to Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and of course, Babe Ruth. This set is also anchored by Grover Cleveland Alexander, Stan Coveleski, Hugh Duffy, Johnny Evers, Frank Frisch, Kid Gleason, Burleigh Grimes, Harry Hooper, Rogers Hornsby, Miller Huggins, Connie Mack, Branch Rickey, and Tris Speaker. The company inserted one card into packages of their products. The set’s unique imagery has kept the Willards Chocolate issue extremely popular with collectors, and partly as the result of coming from a Canadian manufacturer is seen as being relatively rare."

Apparently they're commonly found trimmed, with the white border cut away, leaving just the picture.  (Some of the T206s I've seen were trimmed, too, like we do today with a copy that has too much black ink.  I don't get the point of doing this to baseball cards, but whatever.  Who knew in 1922 that they'd be worth so much?)  Anyway, they're worth less, obviously, if they're trimmed.  Mine isn't.  A graded set of 6.+ sold in 2010 for $71,700.  The Babe Ruth was $35,000 in Mint condition, and $315 in poor condition, which is a worse state than mine's in.  The Ty Cobb was $18,000 in Mint condition, and $155 in poor condition.  I don't own those, of course.  I make it a point not to buy cards for more than $15 to $25, and for even less, when I can.  I did so for this card, and it's not for sale.