Great thread, what about most under rated pre-war player?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Larry Doyle is criminally under-rated and largely forgotten by most people. He was the best offensive second baseman of the National League during his career. When Doyle retired he was the National League career leader for all second basemen in slugging, hits, doubles, triples, total bases and extra base hits. In 1915 he was also the first second baseman to win the National League batting title since 1876. I don't understand how he wasn't elected to the HOF by his peers.

I agree 100%. Captain of the Giants and their key hitter during their glory years, and yet he is neglected by Hall voters.

[oldjudge]

Pete Browning, Dave Orr, Harry Stovey and Deacon White

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know y'all don't like statistics, but here are the players most comparable statistically.
1.Del Pratt (903)
2.Tom Daly (882)
3.Chuck Knoblauch (882)
4.Lou Boudreau (876) *
5.Placido Polanco (876)

Doyle hit .290 lifetime. he had 1800 hits. How is he a Hall of Famer?

[Mark]

I, for one, don't mind statistics as long as they are read in the context of their era. Everything that Larry accomplished took place before the advent of the live ball (the "rabbit ball" as the oldtimers called it). Back when the NY Giants were the Yankees of baseball, he was the best position player on the team.

[FrankWakefield]

When comparing statistics, an oft overlooked statistic is that of which years played. In failing to recognize the chronology of the game, it is easy to be deceived by differences in a particular statistic.

Dead ball, lively ball, bat physics, dirty balls, 154 game seasons, 162 game seasons, that one 140 game season, war years, night games, mode of travel, tight wound baseballs, lowering the mound, and much, much more.

I'm a big fan of Ed Reulbach. I love reading Mr. James' article about him in his first Historical Abstract. Reulbach was at the pinnacle of the Players' Association, and when the owners sorted out the Federal League threat, then Ed saw limited action, and it seems obvious to me, from what I've read in old Baseball Magazine articles, that the owners kept him on the bench most of the time. Otherwise, Ed would have added enough wins to get close to 200, and he'd probably be in the Hall. Smokey Joe Wood was a dominant player. White, Donlin, Cravath, O'Doul, Travis, and Dahlen were great players. Mr. McGraw held Fred Merkle in high regard, even after his infamy. Larry Doyle was a great player, notwithstanding the attempt at comparing him to players eras removed. In the mid 20s there was a shortstop at Pittsburgh, Glenn Wright, and for a few years he was perceived as one of the bright stars of the game, across both leagues. His brightness flickered and dimmed, and now few people, even here at this board, are aware he played the game.

Ruth could not have hit 60 home runs in 1903, not with the long, slender 36" or 37" bats of the day, and the soft, dirty baseballs that were kept in play. Not even a juiced Bonds could have done it in 1903.

[vintagecpa]

Not a Pre-WWII player, but I think Alan Trammel was a fabulous player.

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

Not a Pre-WWII player, but I think Alan Trammel was a fabulous player.

I couldn't agree more, not sure he should be a HOFer, but every bit as good as Ripken and Smith.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark

I, for one, don't mind statistics as long as they are read in the context of their era. Everything that Larry accomplished took place before the advent of the live ball (the "rabbit ball" as the oldtimers called it). Back when the NY Giants were the Yankees of baseball, he was the best position player on the team.

Hitting .290 in the deadball era is not exactly overwhelming, given the averages of the day. Bill James (sorry Ted!!) does give Doyle a decent rating, #20 all time among second basemen. Just ahead of Chuck Knoblauch and Dick McAuliffe, and just behind two dubious HOFers, Bobby Doerr and Tony Lazzeri.