Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why no attention to Larry Doyle?

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

  • #31
    In this poll, we rated Doyle the third best HOF candidate from the 1910's, behind Sherry Magee and Heinie Groh.
    Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

    Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by jalbright View Post
      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.
      Hear! Hear!
      "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


      • #33
        Larry Doyle was a good second baseman and a marginal Hall of Famer. If he got in, he certainly would not be the worst player there.

        According to the NEWS HOF Gauge, he is the #17 second baseman of the century. Here is how he compares to some other second basemen who are NOT in the Hall yet.

        5. Craig Biggio 326
        7. Roberto Alomar 302
        11. Bobby Grich 272
        12. Jeff Kent 267
        13. Lou Whitaker 262
        17. Larry Doyle 252
        18. Willie Randolph 243
        19. Bobby Doerr 238
        21. Joe Gordon 235

        Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

        Comment


        • #34
          Oops, Bobby Doerr is in the Hall. Here is the complete list.

          1. Eddie Collins 426
          2. Rogers Hornsby 411
          3. Joe Morgan 384
          4. Nap Lajoie 375
          5. Craig Biggio 326
          6. Charlie Gehringer 306
          7. Roberto Alomar 302
          8. Ryne Sandberg 295
          9. Rod Carew 289
          10. Frankie Frisch 284

          11. Bobby Grich 272
          12. Jeff Kent 267
          13. Lou Whitaker 262
          14. Nellie Fox 258
          15. Billy Herman 257
          16. Jackie Robinson 257
          17. Larry Doyle 252
          18. Willie Randolph 243
          19. Bobby Doerr 238
          20. Johnny Evers 237
          21. Joe Gordon 235
          22. Tony Lazzeri 224
          23. Chuck Knoblauch 222
          24. Red Schoendienst 219
          25. Jim Gilliam 218
          Buddy Myer 218
          Del Pratt 218

          Comment


          • #35
            To me he is in with a group of guys who are all very good but not quite HoF caliber. Usually when that happens some get elected and most don't and it leaves all of us scratching our heads.
            Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

            Comment


            • #36
              I want to know why Doyle retired at age 33 after the 1920 season? If he still could play he could have added to his career value and could have been a part of the Giants 1921-24 World Series run which also could have strengthened his HoF candidacy.
              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

              Comment


              • #37
                --Doyle was not a good fielder even in his prime. By age 33 perhaps his defense was no longer good enough to hold down a regular job in the majors, even though his bat still played well at 2B. McGraw was big on defense and wouldn't have been thrilled with the idea of a huge liability in his infield. He had a pretty fair replacement lined up in Frankie Frisch too.
                --Perhaps the idea of being player-manager appealed to Doyle more than a spot on the Giants bench? In those days managers generally made more than players and even theToledo managers job may have seemed a better opportunity than playing out the string with the Giants (or moving on to a lesser club if that was his other option).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                  --Doyle was not a good fielder even in his prime. By age 33 perhaps his defense was no longer good enough to hold down a regular job in the majors, even though his bat still played well at 2B. McGraw was big on defense and wouldn't have been thrilled with the idea of a huge liability in his infield. He had a pretty fair replacement lined up in Frankie Frisch too.
                  --Perhaps the idea of being player-manager appealed to Doyle more than a spot on the Giants bench? In those days managers generally made more than players and even theToledo managers job may have seemed a better opportunity than playing out the string with the Giants (or moving on to a lesser club if that was his other option).
                  It sounds like Doyle didn't have a major injury that forced him to retire. He simply decided he wanted to manage. I wonder if he saw the "writing on the wall", that McGraw had a hot prospect in Frankie Frisch?

                  A side note. I checked the 1921 NY Giants roster. Frisch played 153 games at third base. I didn't know that.
                  Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    --Frisch played 153 games, but it was split between 2B/3B. He started the season at second, but moved to 3B when the Giants traded their thirdbaseman, Goldie Rapp, to the Phillies for secondbaseman Johnny Rawlings (actually a much bigger deal, but this is the part that pertains to our subject). Frisch moved back to second the next year when the Giants picked up Henie Groh. Frisch did continue to shift over to third whenever Groh was out of the lineup though.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                      I want to know why Doyle retired at age 33 after the 1920 season? If he still could play he could have added to his career value and could have been a part of the Giants 1921-24 World Series run which also could have strengthened his HoF candidacy.
                      There was no HOF in 1920, so making the HOF wasn't a consideration for Doyle. Had there been, I think he would have continued to play, if he could.

                      Sam Rice, who is in the HOF, retired with 2,987 career hits. There was no HOF when he retired, either; the milestone was meaningless. Had there been, he'd probably have hung on for 3K.

                      I wonder how many players whose careers ended prior to the establishment of the HOF would have been motivated to keep playing in order to be considered a HOFer. Larry Doyle almost definitely fits into that category; he was a marquee player in his best years with the Giants, and considered a central player by the media. Had Doyle played five more seasons, the tilt toward the hitter would have masked his decline, and his stats would have been superficially more impressive; he probably would have made the HOF if he had been able to hang on into the twenties.
                      "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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                        I think the line of second baseman outside the HOF wanting in from 1900-1930 starts with Larry Doyle. KC is right, except for the idea that Pratt and Doyle are "very" similar.

                        Doyle was a below average defensive second baseman; his fielding percentage was .004 below league average, and he did not have good range. Pratt, on the other hand, was an above-average fielder, with significantly better range than Pratt:

                        Here's Doyle:
                        Code:
                         Year Ag Tm  Lg Pos   G     PO    A    E   DP    FP   lgFP  RFg  lgRFg  RF9  lgRF9
                        +--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
                        +---- Fielding Sorted by Year ------+
                         1907 20 NYG NL  2B   69    128  158   26    7  .917  .952  4.14  5.12            
                         1908 21 NYG NL  2B  102    180  291   33   28  .935  .954  4.62  5.03            
                         1909 22 NYG NL  2B  144    292  323   39   51  .940  .938  4.27  4.66            
                         1910 23 NYG NL  2B  151    313  388   53   62  .930  .952  4.64  5.05            
                         1911 24 NYG NL  2B  141    272  340   36   46  .944  .952  4.34  5.03            
                         1912 25 NYG NL  2B  143    313  379   38   68  .948  .955  4.84  5.09            
                         1913 26 NYG NL  2B  130    315  345   31   55  .955  .955  5.08  4.92            
                         1914 27 NYG NL  2B  145    307  379   29   61  .959  .949  4.73  4.89            
                         1915 28 NYG NL  2B  147    313  396   40   66  .947  .955  4.82  4.79            
                         1916 29 TOT NL  2B  122    289  387   27   63  .962  .951  5.54  4.74            
                                 NYG NL  2B  113    270  352   26   53  .960  .951  5.50  4.74            
                                 CHC NL  2B    9     19   35    1   10  .982  .951  6.00  4.74            
                         1917 30 CHC NL  2B  128    300  348   33   54  .952  .956  5.06  4.96            
                         1918 31 NYG NL  2B   73    121  221   11   24  .969  .957  4.68  5.11            
                         1919 32 NYG NL  2B  100    214  311   24   48  .956  .960  5.25  5.14            
                         1920 33 NYG NL  2B  133    278  389   23   61  .967  .963  5.02  5.45            
                        +---- Fielding Sorted by Position --+
                         1907 20 NYG NL  2B   69    128  158   26    7  .917  .952  4.14  5.12            
                         1908 21 NYG NL  2B  102    180  291   33   28  .935  .954  4.62  5.03            
                         1909 22 NYG NL  2B  144    292  323   39   51  .940  .938  4.27  4.66            
                         1910 23 NYG NL  2B  151    313  388   53   62  .930  .952  4.64  5.05            
                         1911 24 NYG NL  2B  141    272  340   36   46  .944  .952  4.34  5.03            
                         1912 25 NYG NL  2B  143    313  379   38   68  .948  .955  4.84  5.09            
                         1913 26 NYG NL  2B  130    315  345   31   55  .955  .955  5.08  4.92            
                         1914 27 NYG NL  2B  145    307  379   29   61  .959  .949  4.73  4.89            
                         1915 28 NYG NL  2B  147    313  396   40   66  .947  .955  4.82  4.79            
                         1916 29 TOT NL  2B  122    289  387   27   63  .962  .951  5.54  4.74            
                                 NYG NL  2B  113    270  352   26   53  .960  .951  5.50  4.74            
                                 CHC NL  2B    9     19   35    1   10  .982  .951  6.00  4.74            
                         1917 30 CHC NL  2B  128    300  348   33   54  .952  .956  5.06  4.96            
                         1918 31 NYG NL  2B   73    121  221   11   24  .969  .957  4.68  5.11            
                         1919 32 NYG NL  2B  100    214  311   24   48  .956  .960  5.25  5.14            
                         1920 33 NYG NL  2B  133    278  389   23   61  .967  .963  5.02  5.45            
                        +--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
                         Position Total  2B 1728   3635 4655  443  694  .949  .953  4.80  4.99            
                        +--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
                         Overall Total      1728   3635 4655  443  694  .949  .953  4.80  4.99
                        Here's Pratt:

                        Code:
                         Year Ag Tm  Lg Pos   G     PO    A    E   DP    FP   lgFP  RFg  lgRFg  RF9  lgRF9  LF   CF   RF
                        +--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
                        +---- Fielding Sorted by Year ------+
                         1912 24 SLB AL  2B  122    273  326   36   49  .943  .945  4.91  4.75            
                                         SS   21     45   75   14   12  .896  .920  5.71  5.06            
                                         OF    8     19    1    0    0 1.000  .952  2.50  1.98                0    3    5
                                         3B    1      2    5    1    0  .875  .921  7.00  3.30            
                         1913 25 SLB AL  2B  146    364  425   41   56  .951  .954  5.40  4.82            
                                         1B    9     76    6    1    4  .988  .986  9.11 10.48            
                         1914 26 SLB AL  2B  152    358  423   46   48  .944  .953  5.14  4.78            
                                         OF    5     11    0    0    0 1.000  .957  2.20  1.92                2    0    3
                                         SS    1      3    2    0    0 1.000  .943  5.00  5.20            
                         1915 27 SLB AL  2B  158    417  441   31   82  .965  .956  5.43  4.89            
                         1916 28 SLB AL  2B  158    438  491   33   74  .966  .964  5.88  4.88            
                         1917 29 SLB AL  2B  119    324  353   29   64  .959  .959  5.69  4.94            
                                         1B    2     22    2    0    0 1.000  .988 12.00 10.75            
                         1918 30 NYY AL  2B  126    340  386   23   82  .969  .958  5.76  5.31            
                         1919 31 NYY AL  2B  140    315  491   26   64  .969  .961  5.76  5.19            
                         1920 32 NYY AL  2B  154    354  515   26   77  .971  .962  5.64  5.54            
                         1921 33 BOS AL  2B  134    283  408   28   90  .961  .956  5.16  5.35            
                         1922 34 BOS AL  2B  154    362  484   30   80  .966  .966  5.49  5.49            
                         1923 35 DET AL  2B   60    108  140   14   21  .947  .965  4.13  5.35            
                                         1B   17    169   10    0   10 1.000  .990 10.53 10.22            
                                         3B   12      4   29    4    1  .892  .946  2.75  3.27            
                         1924 36 DET AL  2B   65    133  192   18   38  .948  .966  5.00  5.39            
                                         1B   51    496   25    5   35  .990  .989 10.22 10.17            
                                         3B    4      2    8    0    0 1.000  .952  2.50  3.00            
                                         OF    1      2    0    0    0 1.000  .952  2.00  2.30                1    0    0
                        +---- Fielding Sorted by Position --+
                         1913 25 SLB AL  1B    9     76    6    1    4  .988  .986  9.11 10.48            
                         1917 29 SLB AL  1B    2     22    2    0    0 1.000  .988 12.00 10.75            
                         1923 35 DET AL  1B   17    169   10    0   10 1.000  .990 10.53 10.22            
                         1924 36 DET AL  1B   51    496   25    5   35  .990  .989 10.22 10.17            
                        
                         1912 24 SLB AL  2B  122    273  326   36   49  .943  .945  4.91  4.75            
                         1913 25 SLB AL  2B  146    364  425   41   56  .951  .954  5.40  4.82            
                         1914 26 SLB AL  2B  152    358  423   46   48  .944  .953  5.14  4.78            
                         1915 27 SLB AL  2B  158    417  441   31   82  .965  .956  5.43  4.89            
                         1916 28 SLB AL  2B  158    438  491   33   74  .966  .964  5.88  4.88            
                         1917 29 SLB AL  2B  119    324  353   29   64  .959  .959  5.69  4.94            
                         1918 30 NYY AL  2B  126    340  386   23   82  .969  .958  5.76  5.31            
                         1919 31 NYY AL  2B  140    315  491   26   64  .969  .961  5.76  5.19            
                         1920 32 NYY AL  2B  154    354  515   26   77  .971  .962  5.64  5.54            
                         1921 33 BOS AL  2B  134    283  408   28   90  .961  .956  5.16  5.35            
                         1922 34 BOS AL  2B  154    362  484   30   80  .966  .966  5.49  5.49            
                         1923 35 DET AL  2B   60    108  140   14   21  .947  .965  4.13  5.35            
                         1924 36 DET AL  2B   65    133  192   18   38  .948  .966  5.00  5.39            
                        
                         1912 24 SLB AL  3B    1      2    5    1    0  .875  .921  7.00  3.30            
                         1923 35 DET AL  3B   12      4   29    4    1  .892  .946  2.75  3.27            
                         1924 36 DET AL  3B    4      2    8    0    0 1.000  .952  2.50  3.00            
                        
                         1912 24 SLB AL  OF    8     19    1    0    0 1.000  .952  2.50  1.98                0    3    5
                         1914 26 SLB AL  OF    5     11    0    0    0 1.000  .957  2.20  1.92                2    0    3
                         1924 36 DET AL  OF    1      2    0    0    0 1.000  .952  2.00  2.30                1    0    0
                        
                         1912 24 SLB AL  SS   21     45   75   14   12  .896  .920  5.71  5.06            
                         1914 26 SLB AL  SS    1      3    2    0    0 1.000  .943  5.00  5.20            
                        +--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
                         Position Total  2B 1688   4069 5075  381  825  .960  .959  5.42  5.11            
                                         1B   79    763   43    6   49  .993  .989 10.20 10.23            
                                         SS   22     48   77   14   12  .899  .921  5.68  5.07            
                                         3B   17      8   42    5    1  .909  .943  2.94  3.21            
                                         OF   14     32    1    0    0 1.000  .954  2.36  1.98                3    3    8
                        +--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
                         Overall Total      1820   4920 5238  406  887  .962  .960  5.58  5.29
                        On the other hand, Doyle was a significantly better offensive player; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career is .666 to Pratt's .581. That's a significant difference. Doyle was also considered the bigger star, while active; he won an MVP award, something Pratt never came close to. This could be, in part, a function of Doyle playing for a storied New York Giant team for most of his career, while Pratt played for bad teams most of his career. Pratt was traded from the Yankees to the down and out Red Sox before the 1921 season, just when the Yankees began to win pennants.

                        It is easier to see what kept Pratt out of the HOF than Doyle. I believe that had Pratt ended his career with the Yankees, he may well have made the HOF.

                        I don't know what kept Doyle out of the HOF. Frankie Frisch, who packed the HOF with many lesser Giants while leading the VC, didn't do so for Doyle. I wonder if Frisch deliberately kept Doyle out of the HOF to ensure that he would be considered the greatest Giant second baseman in history, and that he saw Doyle as a rival to that distinction. It is certainly difficult to see the logic in denying Doyle (and Pratt, for that matter), while opening the door for Dave Bancroft, George Kelly, and Rube Marquard.
                        I just posted this in the thread on Del Pratt, but it applies to Doyle as well.

                        I would like to know if anyone knows if Frankie Frisch played a role in keeping Doyle out of the HOF.
                        "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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                          --Jeff Kent with less longevity and a better personality.
                          Doyle's case for the HOF rests, in no small measure, on the fact that unlike many "borderline" HOFers, Doyle was considered, while active, to be a major star.

                          Doyle won an MVP award, and was considered to be a big star on a successful team. In this regard, Doyle is far ahead of other middle infield "borderliners". Cecil Travis, Buddy Myer, Del Pratt, and (to some degree) Vern Stephens were never considered to be as big a star WHILE ACTIVE as Doyle was.

                          Opinions of contemporaries are not perfect. Sportswriters can gush over a player for all sorts of stupid reasons. Award voting isn't always perfect. (Doyle won his MVP award at a time where you could only win it once in a career.) Still, most players who are regarded, while active, as stars at the level Doyle was regarded by his contemporaries usually make the HOF. Other than Jackson and Rose (who are not there for other reasons), I cannot think of a player that was as highly regarded as Doyle was while active that did nto make the HOF.
                          "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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
                            In this poll, we rated Doyle the third best HOF candidate from the 1910's, behind Sherry Magee and Heinie Groh.
                            Ultimate Quest carried to ultimate conclusion
                            - third behind Magee and Groh in the 1910s,
                            - fourth behind Carl Mays, Magee, and Groh in the 1910s-20s
                            - tie fourth with Groh, behind Magee, Hack, and Gordon in the 1910s-40s
                            Where is Carl Mays?
                            - tie 14-15-16 (last) with Mays and Wes Ferrell in the runoff for overall top 20

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                              Opinions of contemporaries are not perfect. Sportswriters can gush over a player for all sorts of stupid reasons. Award voting isn't always perfect. (Doyle won his MVP award at a time where you could only win it once in a career.)
                              Maybe that was practically true but only because some winning players opted out and some writers thought it should be true. Doyle won the Chalmers Award in 1912, its second year. According to awards historian Bill Deane, 1911 winners "Cobb and Schulte voluntarily withdrew from the competition in 1912, although Cobb received 17 points anyway" (tie seventh with Baker).

                              From the results I infer that 1912 AL winner Tris Speaker did not ask out (he finished fourth in 1913) and I suppose that 1913 AL winner Walter Johnson did opt out (zero points in 1914). NL winners Doyle and Daubert scored some points and did not play well enough or me to hazard the guess about Johnson.

                              Draw your own inferences. Chalmers Award, detail vote

                              The league awards instituted in the 1920s did make previous winners ineligible --?but not the Chalmers winners of 1911-1914.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
                                Maybe that was practically true but only because some winning players opted out and some writers thought it should be true. Doyle won the Chalmers Award in 1912, its second year. According to awards historian Bill Deane, 1911 winners "Cobb and Schulte voluntarily withdrew from the competition in 1912, although Cobb received 17 points anyway" (tie seventh with Baker).

                                From the results I infer that 1912 AL winner Tris Speaker did not ask out (he finished fourth in 1913) and I suppose that 1913 AL winner Walter Johnson did opt out (zero points in 1914). NL winners Doyle and Daubert scored some points and did not play well enough or me to hazard the guess about Johnson.

                                Draw your own inferences. Chalmers Award, detail vote

                                The league awards instituted in the 1920s did make previous winners ineligible --?but not the Chalmers winners of 1911-1914.
                                The reason Chalmers Award winners were one-time eligible is that the prize was a Chalmers automobile. The Chalmers company opted to award only one car per player in their career.
                                "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

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X