Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why no attention to Larry Doyle?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    A little while back I did rankings for second basemen based on both Win Shares and WARP.

    In those Doyle finishes 15th and 32nd. Doyle does well in win shares while very poor in WARP3. I think a big part of this is that Win Shares is not era adjusted whatsoever while WARP3 is. Doyle loses over 35 wins because of this adjustment. If I had used simply WARP which is similar to Win shares in that it doesn't era adjust he would be ranked higher.

    Comment


    • #17
      I'll throw out another name of a past star from Doyle's era that is completely forgotten nowadays.

      Jake Daubert.

      Bill James ranks him around 61st for first basemen and in terms of modern players is most similar to Keith Hernandez.

      From what I have read he was the NL best first basemen of the teens. A slick fielder who could hit for average and get on base and run. Like Doyle he won an MVP in 1913. Stole 251 bases and was reported to be one of the best bunters in the game. Which was put to a lot of use because he normally batted second. He ended up having 392 sac bunts. But the guy was quiet and compared to his fellow ballplayers quite bland so he is not remembered often. But as I was skimming the reach guides and sporting news of that era his name and picture popped up quite a bit.

      Comment


      • #18
        Doyle is forgotten because of how long ago he played. All of his contemporaries are dead, and his stats aren't so eye-popping as to spur people to action.

        Doyle was considered a star during his time, and he was well regarded by his contemporaries. His selection to the HOF at this point would probably depend on a scholarly inquiry to examine which players of the deadball era have been unfairly overlooked.

        I would prefer that the HOF consider some of the stars of the 1960s that still deserve consideration, so they could enjoy the honor while they are still living, but Doyle was a great player, and he should be inducted into the Hall.
        "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

        NL President Ford Frick, 1947

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ubiquitous
          I'll throw out another name of a past star from Doyle's era that is completely forgotten nowadays.

          Jake Daubert.

          Bill James ranks him around 61st for first basemen and in terms of modern players is most similar to Keith Hernandez.

          From what I have read he was the NL best first basemen of the teens. A slick fielder who could hit for average and get on base and run. Like Doyle he won an MVP in 1913. Stole 251 bases and was reported to be one of the best bunters in the game. Which was put to a lot of use because he normally batted second. He ended up having 392 sac bunts. But the guy was quiet and compared to his fellow ballplayers quite bland so he is not remembered often. But as I was skimming the reach guides and sporting news of that era his name and picture popped up quite a bit.
          I agree than Daubert was a very good player, but not really even close to being a HOFer. Being the best NL 1Bman of the 1910s really isn't that impressive, and he probalby wasn't even that (Ed Konetchy). Daubert is a very good player though who deserves to be remembered. Really Keith Hernandez was a much better hitter (129 OPS+ versus 117).

          Comment


          • #20
            --I've also heard that Daubert was the best bunter in the game. That isn't really one of the top skills I'm looking for in my firstbaseman though. Poor man's Hernandez seems about right. Not that being an earlier and lesser version of Hernandez is anything to be ashamed of. Hernandez ought to be a Hall of Famer (although Daubert shouldn't).

            Comment


            • #21
              Doyle was a fine player of the Dead Ball Era. I wouldn't oppose his elevation but wouldn't stump for it.
              Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by leecemark
                --I've always been under the impression that Doyle was a huge star in his day and just got forgotten over time. He was the best player on a team that won 3 straight pennants (1911-13). He won the MVP once and was 3rd another time, in spite of the fact the award wasn't given out in much of his career. He won the batting title, which was THE big stat then, in 1915 (not his MVP year). I'd say he was much more famous and appreciated than Grich. Maybe not actually as good, but more honored in his own time.
                One reason I advocate for Doyle is that Laughing Larry was extremely well regarded by his contemporaries, both players and observers. The opinion of contemporaries is a big deal; it is evidence of how the people who watched a guy play were affected by seeing his performance.
                "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                Comment


                • #23
                  Larry Doyle

                  1887 hits, .290 batting average - not too shabby for a second baseman. He was the 1912 NL MVP, he has good grey ink, and statistically he is similar to Lou Boudreau.

                  Considered by some to be the greatest second baseman in Giants history, Doyle hit over .300 five times. A slugger at a non-slugging position, he was often in the top ten in slugging percentage.

                  So, should Larry Doyle be in the Hall of Fame?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Best of the "second tier" second base greats from 1900-1940
                    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      --Jeff Kent with less longevity and a better personality.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                        --Jeff Kent with less longevity and a better personality.
                        Yeah...hard not to like "Laughing" Larry.
                        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                          --Jeff Kent with less longevity and a better personality.
                          That's about right.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Does anyone know why Doyle retired at age 33 in 1920 to manage the Toronto Maple Leafs of the International League?
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It's a tough call for me. He was certainly one of the better players of his generation and reading his bio, he sounds like a real class act on top of being one of the better players at his position. He's maybe one of the top 10 of his dominant decade. Is that enough to elect him to the hall? I'm not sold yet. I ultimately voted no as a result of his numbers and longevity both of which were a bit on the short side. If someone can make an argument for him beyond the gray ink which is close but not close enough given his black ink and monitor, I'd be open to changing my mind.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Try this for his case:

                                Larry Doyle

                                I was surprised out how well he comes out on closer examination. I'll run through what that examination showed:

                                His 289 career win shares is good for 17th place among the second basemen discussed in the latest BJHA
                                The 90 win shares he got in his best three years is the 13th best total among that same list of second basemen.
                                The 130 win shares he earned in his best five consecutive years is good for 15th in that list of second basemen
                                He had the second most win shares of any middle infielder of the 1910's
                                His gray ink total is excellent for a second baseman, 110th of all time
                                He had pop in his bat as can be seen by the fact he finished in the top five in slugging percentage five times.
                                He was in the top seven in runs scored 7 times.
                                He was in the top seven in runs created five times.

                                To me, that resume says he was HOF caliber. Yet, we almost never hear about him, especially as an unrecognized great.
                                =========================================

                                One other point: I would ditch the use of the monitor. It's designed to mimic what has gotten people into the Hall, whether that makes any sense at all or not. Yes, it's designed to recreate stupid decisions made by the Frankie Frisch cabal of the Veteran's Committee, and other blunders. Thus, it's a horrible tool to use to determine whether someone should go into the HOF.
                                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X