Larry Doyle and the HOF

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Not necessarily saying he SHOULD be in, but boy a LOT of similar players from his era ARE in. Heavily associated with one team (and a New York team at that) won an MVP, was well liked by his peers and definitely an above average ballplayer. Had some pop for the dead ball era, especially for a second baseman. Odd there's no real reason I can find for him retiring at 33, no injury or illness and he put up decent numbers in his final two seasons. Lots of guys like him (and frankly more than a few who were considerably worse!) were voted in by their buddies on Old Timers Ballots, wonder why not Doyle?

[Donscards]

Scott I think you are right on Doyle, I think if he would have played 2 more solid years, he would be in the Hall---He did have some Home Run power for that era , he hit 13 Homers in 1922 also had 25 Triples---I think most everybody that votes today has forgot about him. Anyway a very interesting player.

[btcarfagno]

Doyle is certainly the most deserving second baseman from that era, but there is a fairly long list of more deserving second basemen from subsequent generations who deserve enshrinement before he were to get in IMHO.

Grich, Whitaker, Randolph, Kent among others.

Tom C

[bn2cardz]

I don't have an answer as to why he never got in, but I can share some visuals to the thread:




https://www.flickr.com/photos/bn2car...57680676887830

[packs]

I've always thought he was a HOFer. He was the best second basemen in his league for pretty much his entire career. When you're the best player at your position for your generation, I don't see why that wouldn't merit a HOF induction.

[Brian Van Horn]

.

[David W]

From baseball-reference.com - http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/3b7d0b88

He missed much of the 1918 season with illness but regained his starting position the next year, appearing in 100 games at second base and batting .289 with seven home runs. The 33-year-old Doyle remained a regular in 1920, closing out his major-league career by batting .285 in 137 games.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

It also says in this brief bio he and Mathewson watched the stock market closely, and Doyle bought real estate in Florida, so perhaps he was financially set and no longer needed the baseball money. He also turned down a 2 year, $27K contact to jump to the Federal League, to stay with the Giants for $8000, so perhaps he retired early due to illness, and being financially well off.

[Brian Van Horn]

Doyle also overcame tuberculosis. The following PBS documentary mentions him at the end of the presentation (50 minutes in):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe.../films/plague/

[RaidonCollects]

Larry Doyle is definitely a border-line HOFer, in my opinion though I dont know what to think. On one hand he has some very impressive statistics and one of the all time giants greats. On the other, it seems to me that he only just barely is better than some of the weaker HOF members (i.e Travis Jackson), and I'm against overcrowding the hall too much. Here are some stats though for those unfamiliar with Doyle:

-1912 NL MVP
-1911 placed 3rd for NL MVP
-10th career WAR for NY Giants
-Should have got a MVP mention for his 1915 season
-298 career SB
-4th career triples giants franchise
-2nd for career sacrifice hits giants
-25 triple season

Owen

[packs]

I know WAR and other advanced stats are supposed to eliminate the discussions of "in their day" but that discussion is no more apt than when discussing Doyle. Can anyone name one NL second baseman who had a better career than Larry Doyle at the time that his career was complete? I don't think you can. So while Doyle might have stats comparable to Travis Jackson, no one had stats comparable to Doyle while he was on the field. That says something to me.

[nat]

He was certainly good, but 6500 at bats isn't much for a hall of famer. The HOFers with that few at bats are mostly guys with other things going for them: Jackie Robinson, Ross Youngs (who probably doesn't belong anyway), guys like that. Joe Gordon had fewer, but at his best he was better than Doyle, and he also missed time in the war. Doyle's MVP probably also wasn't deserved. WAR likes Wagner's season, I think I'd give it to Heine Zimmerman. Triple crown winner who also led the league in hits, doubles, slugging percentage, and total bases.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by packs

I know WAR and other advanced stats are supposed to eliminate the discussions of "in their day" but that discussion is no more apt than when discussing Doyle. Can anyone name one NL second baseman who had a better career than Larry Doyle at the time that his career was complete? I don't think you can. So while Doyle might have stats comparable to Travis Jackson, no one had stats comparable to Doyle while he was on the field. That says something to me.

Sure...in the AL. Nap Lajoie and Eddie Collins both had careers that overlapped the majority of Doyle's. While Doyle had a very nice career, his numbers were not on the same level as these two HOFers. Their stats were more than comparable to Doyle's, they were superior. I still think Doyle was a heck of a ballplayer though.

Your point about the NL is a good one. I'm not sure there was anyone as good as him at 2B in the NL at the time he played. However, I think there were some who played 2B in the NL before his time that were as good as Doyle. This include Bid McPhee, Hardy Richardson, and Bobby Lowe.

[packs]

Curious as to what metric you're using for Bobby Lowe being better than Larry Doyle. Lowe never led a single offensive category int he leagues he played in. His WAR is also half of Doyle's. I'm also not seeing Hardy Richardson being better than Doyle either. Doyle played more than three times as many games at second base than Richardson did.

Bid McPhee would be the closest but he spent 8 season in the American Association and his stats are a combination of a career spent in 2 leagues. It has always irked me that McPhee was able to get inducted but Stovey has not been able to, with the chief knock on Stovey being that he played in the AA.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

I've always thought he was a HOFer. He was the best second basemen in his league for pretty much his entire career. When you're the best player at your position for your generation, I don't see why that wouldn't merit a HOF induction.

No, you could argue he was the best at his position from 1909-1915, maybe. From 1916 on Rogers Hornsby was the best. In the other league Eddie Collins and Nap Lajoie were the best and all 3 are light years ahead of Doyle. Even Johnny Evers has a higher WAR and WAR7 and many don't think he belongs in the HOF. In 3 Hof ballots he received 4, 2 and 1 vote. Hall of Good not Hall of Fame.

[T206Collector]

Larry Doyle keeps me active because he signed so many pre-war cards. I'd vote for him for this reason alone!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Surprised nobody mentioned his awesome nickname "Laughing" Larry Doyle. Apparently he had so much fun and was so good-natured that he got that nickname. Again I'm not saying he belongs, but a guy like him was often put in by his peers on an Old-Timer ballot because he was so popular.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, you could argue he was the best at his position from 1909-1915, maybe. From 1916 on Rogers Hornsby was the best. In the other league Eddie Collins and Nap Lajoie were the best and all 3 are light years ahead of Doyle. Even Johnny Evers has a higher WAR and WAR7 and many don't think he belongs in the HOF. In 3 Hof ballots he received 4, 2 and 1 vote. Hall of Good not Hall of Fame.

I have no explanation for Evers' WAR but he was not a better player than Doyle. Doyle's OPS is 765, Evers is 690. Pretty big drop. Batting average for Doyle is much higher at 290 than Evers at 270. Doyle has more hits and better power numbers overall too in less seasons. Doyle slugs 70 points higher too.

I absolutely think Hornsby was infinitely better than Doyle, but I don't see how you can discount Doyle's entire career when he and Hornsby overlap for only 4 or so seasons.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

I have no explanation for Evers' WAR but he was not a better player than Doyle. Doyle's OPS is 765, Evers is 690. Pretty big drop. Batting average for Doyle is much higher at 290 than Evers at 270. Doyle has more hits and better power numbers overall too in less seasons. Doyle slugs 70 points higher too.

I absolutely think Hornsby was infinitely better than Doyle, but I don't see how you can discount Doyle's entire career when he and Hornsby overlap for only 4 or so seasons.

It is called defense. Evers was the best defensive 2nd baseman of the dead ball era. Doyle was bad, had a negative dWAR. I guess the only thing you care about is offense. I think defense is very important, especially for a middle infielder. Evers was better, in my opinion.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is called defense. Evers was the best defensive 2nd baseman of the dead ball era. Doyle was bad, had a negative dWAR. I guess the only thing you care about is offense. I think defense is very important, especially for a middle infielder. Evers was better, in my opinion.

dWAR isn't really a useful stat. It's not that I don't care about defense, it's that I don't care about dWAR. Mattingly's dWAR is -6.8 for his career. He won 9 Gold Gloves.

[OldOriole]

Gold glove awards are extremely subjective. Rafael Palmeiro won one in 1999 when he only played 28 games at first base and DH'ed the rest. Much like the MVP and All-Star voting, these results are often based on reputation and popularity rather than objective data.

[packs]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

Gold glove awards are extremely subjective. Rafael Palmeiro won one in 1999 when he only played 28 games at first base and DH'ed the rest. Much like the MVP and All-Star voting, these results are often based on reputation and popularity rather than objective data.

Of course, but that's why I specifically chose Mattingly to demonstrate my point re: the stat. Mattingly is no Palmeiro. He was a first baseman of the highest quality and he has a negative dWAR. In fact I just checked and Mattingly's career fielding percentage is 11th all time. Casey Kotchman has the highest fielding percentage among all first basemen according to BR. His career percentage is 998. He has a dWAR of -0.6.

[OldOriole]

I agree with you that dWar is far from perfect. However, I believe it is a much more accurate reflection of overall defense than fielding percentage. After all, other factors, such as range, are quite important. You can have a great fielding percentage but if you have the range of a fire hydrant it really weakens the fielding percentage stats. dWar is still being tweaked (and needs to be). I'm not sure it'll ever be perfect but I believe it's more encompassing than just fielding percentage. That being said, I'll once again state I think "Laughing" Larry was a heck of a player.

[Kenny Cole]

IMO, for the most part, HOF voters could care less about defense. I think that is pretty well true from 1936 on, with a couple of exceptions. Offensively, Doyle was WAAAAAAYYYYY ahead of Evers. He was also far more popular because Evers was, by all accounts, a prick. Doyle wasn't. I would have no problem with Doyle being elected but I'm pretty confident that it will not happen in my lifetime.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

dWAR isn't really a useful stat. It's not that I don't care about defense, it's that I don't care about dWAR. Mattingly's dWAR is -6.8 for his career. He won 9 Gold Gloves.

Do you understand that is because of position adjustment? If we were comparing a 1b to a 2b, I would agree with you. We are comparing two players in the same era at the same position. It is a very good measure in this example. Evers was the best defensive 2b of his era. Doyle was a bad defensive 2b.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

IMO, for the most part, HOF voters could care less about defense. I think that is pretty well true from 1936 on, with a couple of exceptions. Offensively, Doyle was WAAAAAAYYYYY ahead of Evers. He was also far more popular because Evers was, by all accounts, a prick. Doyle wasn't. I would have no problem with Doyle being elected but I'm pretty confident that it will not happen in my lifetime.

This is just not true. Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith and Ivan Rodriguez were all 1st ballot Hofers. If they were average defensively, they would never make the HoF. Why are Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar in the HoF, but a superior offensive player, Bobby Grich, getting no support? Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Nellie Fox, Red Schoendiest, Bill Mazeroski, Johnny Evers, Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, Joe Tinker, Travis Jackson, Phil Rizzuto and Rabbit Maranville are examples of other players in the HOF only because of defense.

There are others who would at best be borderline Hofers if not for defense. There are guys, such as Ted Simmons, who would be in the HOF if voters only cared about offense, but was below average defensively. However, Gary Carter, who was worse offensively than Ted, is considered an elite player at his position because he combined elite defense with above average offense. Do I need to go on? It should be clear that Evers being the best defensive player of his era trumps Doyle's superior offense and bad defense. If voters don't care about defense, why has Doyle recieved so little support for the HOF going all the way back to the 30s?

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Do you understand that is because of position adjustment? If we were comparing a 1b to a 2b, I would agree with you. We are comparing two players in the same era at the same position. It is a very good measure in this example. Evers was the best defensive 2b of his era. Doyle was a bad defensive 2b.

You brought up the stat, not me. My point stands. A good defensive player like Mattingly can achieve a negative dWAR. I would love for you to support what you're saying about Evers in any way other than condescension. How do you know Evers was so much better than Doyle? They played almost the same amount of games at the position and Evers' fielding percentage is only a half-point higher than Doyle's. I can believe he had better hands, but not by the distance you're putting between them without you explaining yourself.

[nat]

Doyle was at -22 rField for his career, Evers was at +127. That's a pretty large difference, based on their defense alone Evers would be expected to win about 15 more games for his teams, over the course of his career, than Doyle.

Having good hands is (except for those who are extremely bad) relatively unimportant for defense. Being able to get to balls is much more important.

rField for these guys is based on their Total Zone Rating. Basic info about Total Zone can be found here.

Converting Total Zone Rating into runs is probably done through a linear weight system. Details on linear weights can be found here.

[SteveMitchell]

Originally Posted by packs

I know WAR and other advanced stats are supposed to eliminate the discussions of "in their day" but that discussion is no more apt than when discussing Doyle. Can anyone name one NL second baseman who had a better career than Larry Doyle at the time that his career was complete? I don't think you can. So while Doyle might have stats comparable to Travis Jackson, no one had stats comparable to Doyle while he was on the field. That says something to me.

and

I've always thought he was a HOFer. He was the best second basemen in his league for pretty much his entire career. When you're the best player at your position for your generation, I don't see why that wouldn't merit a HOF induction.

"Packs" has said it very well. Modifying the title of Lawrence Ritter's classic a little: Larry Doyle was the glory of his time at second base! [in the National League]

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by nat

Doyle was at -22 rField for his career, Evers was at +127. That's a pretty large difference, based on their defense alone Evers would be expected to win about 15 more games for his teams, over the course of his career, than Doyle.

Having good hands is (except for those who are extremely bad) relatively unimportant for defense. Being able to get to balls is much more important.

rField for these guys is based on their Total Zone Rating. Basic info about Total Zone can be found here.

Converting Total Zone Rating into runs is probably done through a linear weight system. Details on linear weights can be found here.

Very well said and I completely agree....that much of a difference matters a lot. I'll also add that Evers had a career dWAR of 15.4, while Doyle's was below league average at -2.2 during his career. Their defensive abilities aren't even close.

[packs]

Originally Posted by nat

Doyle was at -22 rField for his career, Evers was at +127. That's a pretty large difference, based on their defense alone Evers would be expected to win about 15 more games for his teams, over the course of his career, than Doyle.

Having good hands is (except for those who are extremely bad) relatively unimportant for defense. Being able to get to balls is much more important.

rField for these guys is based on their Total Zone Rating. Basic info about Total Zone can be found here.

Converting Total Zone Rating into runs is probably done through a linear weight system. Details on linear weights can be found here.

Thank you for laying that out.