Bobby Doerr- Was he a good choice? [Archive]

View Full Version : Bobby Doerr- Was he a good choice?

AlecBoy006

02-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Don't get me wrong, Bobby Doerr is a guy who I like and all, but I think other should've gotten in before him. I don't have a huge problem with him (like Drysdale, Aparicio) but I think others should've gotten in before him.

AlecBoy006

02-09-2007, 05:33 PM

I'd be interested in what you people think.

dgarza

02-09-2007, 05:56 PM

I said Yes just because he's in. Should have been sooner, but better late than never. I don't really know what the "right" time is.

Appling

02-09-2007, 06:24 PM

I was a Red Sox fan in those days, but I still wonder: why Doerr but not Joe Gordon? Flash Gordon was considered a better fielder and a better HR hitter -- and he even won an MVP vote.

Westlake

02-09-2007, 06:32 PM

I'd like to know about Leecemark's vote. Did you vote no because you dont think Doerr should be in at all?

AlecBoy006

02-09-2007, 07:28 PM

I'm not saying I don't think Doerr should be in, but I think others before him.

nerfan

02-09-2007, 08:11 PM

Westlake

02-09-2007, 08:13 PM

In fact Harold Baines had a higher OPS+, and was a fine outfielder before the DH, so don't give me the crap about DHing.

If Baines, an OF and DH DIDN'T have a higher OPS+ than Doerr, than he wouldn't even last a year on the ballot. And no one was giving you any crap.

leecemark

02-09-2007, 08:17 PM

I'd like to know about Leecemark's vote. Did you vote no because you dont think Doerr should be in at all?

--Doerr is a very questionable selection IMO. As Appling mentioned Joe Gordon was his direct contemporary and was a better player. There are at least a half dozen other comparable or better 2B not in. I think Doerr made it mostly because Ted Williams was his good friend and campaigned hard for him.

Westlake

02-09-2007, 08:41 PM

This is what I dont get. Why was Joe Gordon a better player?

Doerr- .288/.362/.461
Gordon - .268/.357/.466

Doerr - 115 OPS+
Gordon - 120 OPS+

Doerr did this in 1300 more plate appearances. This is only offense, where it's very close, maybe slighty in Gordon's favor...

Defensively, Doerr was MUCH better than Gordon. Gordon was slighly above average in the beginning of his career, and then was terrible while an Indian. Doerr was a top tier defensive second baseman, the anecdotal and statistical evidence both agree with this.

Looking at BP's FRAA, for their careers Gordon was at a 13, and Doerr was at a 164.

Also, according to WARP, career wise Doerr was at a 112.2 and Gordon was at 85.6. Take these stats however you will, I dont put all my stock in them, but they just back up my opinion that Doerr was a better player.

538280

02-09-2007, 09:05 PM

dgarza

02-09-2007, 09:11 PM

I still don't understand was "right time" means. All a vote "no" means is that Doerr shouldn't have gone in in 1986, some other year or not at all would been a "yes" vote.

jalbright

02-10-2007, 06:31 AM

The other reason Gordon is better than Doerr is the parks. Doerr had a hitter's paradise to play half his games in (Fenway), while Gordon played a lot of home games in a murderous home park for a right handed power guy like him (Yankee).

Jim Albright

jalbright

02-10-2007, 06:33 AM

I still don't understand was "right time" means. All a vote "no" means is that Doerr shouldn't have gone in in 1986, some other year or not at all would been a "yes" vote.

Agreed. This poll question is a mess, which may well distort the results.

Jim Albright

Fuzzy Bear

02-10-2007, 08:40 AM

I voted "yes" because I think Doerr is OK as a HOFer. Second base is a position where there is a HUGE gray area, the biggest of any position. We have Bobby Doerr in, and Joe Gordon out. Billy Herman in, Buddy Myer out. Red Schoendienst in, Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker out.

That's not Doerr's fault. Doerr was, in all liklihood, not as good an offensive player as Joe Gordon, due to park factors, and due to the fact that Gordon had MUCH greater home run power. (Slugging second basemen, as a rule, have done poorly in HOF voting; they are almost PENALIZED for their power.) Gordon and Doerr vied for the position of best 2B in the AL in the forties after the decline of Gehringer. The public perception seems to be divided; Doerr's in the HOF, but Gordon won an MVP.

Here's a quote about Doerr's retirement, dated 8-7-51:

Bobby Doerr suffers a severe sacroiliac pain that forces the future Hall of Famer into early retirement. The Red Sox regular 2B for 13 seasons, Doerr will become a Red Sox coach.

Doerr's careeer is short, but it's not really missing anything but his decline phase. At the time of his retirement, Doerr was on his way to having a typical, All-Star Bobby Doerr season. He hadn't lost much ability up to the point of his seemingly sudden back pain, so he had been aging well. His decision to retire and become a coach was NOT an unusual thing for a player who was a highly visible star of a team with whom he was closely identified. I don't give him slack for the injury; it was a consequence of his natural body and playing baseball, but if Doerr played today, between the increased money and the advances in sports medicine, he would have tried to come back, perhaps play 1B or OF, and he would have added to his career totals. Had Doerr aged naturally, he probably would have ended up with about 260-280 HRs and 2,500 hits, which is very good for a second baseman, but probably wouldn't have added a whole lot to his HOF resume.

Doerr is NOT a HOF mistake; in fact he's at about the middle of the HOF, all things considered. He's Lou Whitaker to Joe Gordon's Sandberg. The problem isn't that Sandberg and Doerr are IN the HOF, it's that Gordon and Whitaker are not in.

Westlake

02-10-2007, 08:44 AM

Westlake, to me Gordon is definitely a better offensive player than Doerr. The difference is that Gordon missed three prime years to WWII and Doerr played two years during WWII and had by FAR his best hitting season (1944) against that very suspect competition. Without WWII I suspect Gordon's hitting numbers go up, and Doerr's go down and we're left with a decent offensive differential.

Doerr wasn't that special as an offensive player outside of that one war seasona and his career was very short. Defensively he was very good, but still the lack of career value and no great seasons (again except for 1944) don't really bode too well. I also think he is a very questionable selection.

Value is Value is Value, isn't it Chris? He still produced for this team during that time.

About Jalbright's comment about parks, isn't OPS+ already park adjusted? Even with the huge adjustment they must give to Gordon, he's still only 5 points higher is 1300 less ABs.

Doerr's career may have been short, but Gordon's was even shorter. If Doerr's career value isn't good enough, then I dont see how Gordon's is even close.

AlecBoy006

02-10-2007, 12:58 PM

Fuzzy Bear

02-10-2007, 03:11 PM

What I am trying to say is this:

Should Bobby Doerr have been elected at the time he was? Should he have been elected before/after?

And I say yes to Schoendienst because he also a successful coach, too.

I have no problem with a player being elected to the HOF while a superior comparable player is left out. That Gordon was a better player, IMO, should not mean that it was a mistake to induct Doerr. The mistake was in not inducting Gordon.

538280

02-10-2007, 03:25 PM

Value is Value is Value, isn't it Chris? He still produced for this team during that time.

About Jalbright's comment about parks, isn't OPS+ already park adjusted? Even with the huge adjustment they must give to Gordon, he's still only 5 points higher is 1300 less ABs.

Doerr's career may have been short, but Gordon's was even shorter. If Doerr's career value isn't good enough, then I dont see how Gordon's is even close.

Because Gordon was asked to fight in WWII for three years while Doerr only one? That is something totally out of Gordon's control. It was not his fault that he didn't have value those years. The "1300 less ABs" argument does not make any sense given that 1. Gordon's OPS+ probably would have been higher if he had played prime seasons 1943-1945, 2. Doerr's OPS+ would be lower if the competition 1943-1944 wasn't dilluted, and 3. If he played during the war Gordon's career would be just as long as Doerr's.

Westlake

02-10-2007, 03:30 PM

Because Gordon was asked to fight in WWII for three years while Doerr only one? That is something totally out of Gordon's control. It was not his fault that he didn't have value those years. The "1300 less ABs" argument does not make any sense given that 1. Gordon's OPS+ probably would have been higher if he had played prime seasons 1943-1945, 2. Doerr's OPS+ would be lower if the competition 1943-1944 wasn't dilluted, and 3. If he played during the war Gordon's career would be just as long as Doerr's.

You really do change your argument to fit what you wish to be true at the moment, Chris. You argument is always about 'value'.... always. Yet, the "1300 less ABs" thing doesn't fly THIS TIME? Why? Because it doesn't fit what you want it to?

1. Gordon's OPS+ maybe have been higher, but it wasn't.

2. You dont know that at all, and it doesnt matter either way, because thats not what really happened.

3. He didnt. He contributed nothing to his team at the time. It was out of his hands, but that doesnt mean anything baseball wise. He fought for his country, good for him and good for us, he served us better over there -- but i'm not going to pretend like he played so I can say he had a better career that someone else, because we dont live in never-never land.

hellborn

02-10-2007, 06:23 PM

....

About Jalbright's comment about parks, isn't OPS+ already park adjusted? Even with the huge adjustment they must give to Gordon, he's still only 5 points higher is 1300 less ABs.

....

I may need an education on OPS+, but isn't the park adjustment based on overall batting numbers with no consideration for L/R? Yankee clearly had vastly different effects on righties like Gordon and DiMaggio than on lefties like Dickey...but, I believe that the overall numbers for Yankee tend to be generally neutral.

Westlake

02-10-2007, 06:27 PM

Same thing with L/R in Fenway. They both get the same park discount for playing in such an offensive stadium, but it's not even close to as good a park for lefties as it is for righties.

I'm not sure on how this works for OPS+, can anyone else chime in? Is the OPS+ adjustment changed for righties and lefties or is the same effect applied across the board?

leecemark

02-10-2007, 08:10 PM

--OPS+ has no adjustment for handedness or type of hitter. It is going to underrate a RH power hitter and Yankee Stadium (and overrate a LH one). A RH power hitter might be overrated in Fenway, but it is a better BA park for lefties so I'm not sure what the overall effect would be for any particular type of hitter there. A high average hitter at a place like Forbes Field will be overated, but a HR hitter will be underated (think Clemente and Stargell).

DoubleX

02-10-2007, 08:36 PM

I think it's fair to say that playing at Fenway had a pronounced effect on Doerr's production. Doerr hit something like 40 points higher at home than on the road and hit almost twice as many homeruns at home than on the road.

All things considered though, I don't view Doerr as a bad Hall of Fame selection. Like others in this thread, I believe his contemporary Joe Gordon was the better player, and the gap would have likely been bigger if Gordon didn't lose three prime years to the war, but Gordon being better is not by itself a reason for Doerr not to be worthy in his own right. Doerr pretty much did everything you could want from a 2Bman. His numbers were very inflated by Fenway, but his 115 OPS+ is shiny enough as a 2Bman for me.

2B, like 3B, is a position that's not represented in the Hall as well as it should be (though 2B isn't nearly as bad as 3B). I think Grich, Gordon, and Whitaker should all be in, I'm still scratching my head that it took Sandberg three tries to get in, and I think guys like Randolph, Myers, Doyle, and Pratt have pretty decent arguments to be in as well (though I don't think I'd actually push for any of them).

KCGHOST

02-11-2007, 01:56 PM

I'm okay with Doerr. Arguing others were better with 20 years hindsight is pushing the credibility envelope.

538280

02-11-2007, 02:33 PM

3. He didnt. He contributed nothing to his team at the time. It was out of his hands, but that doesnt mean anything baseball wise. He fought for his country, good for him and good for us, he served us better over there -- but i'm not going to pretend like he played so I can say he had a better career that someone else, because we dont live in never-never land.

He was a great player in those years, though, Westlake, he just wasn't allowed to play for circumstances out of his control. Look, I think serving your country in a war is one of the most honorable things a person can do. I don't think someone should be penalized (when they WERE actually a great player in those years and would have been great if they played) for serving in a war. It's not right and it's totally out of their control. Similarly Doerr just wasn't as good as his raw numbers would indicate in 1944-the league's talent pool was totally dilluted.

Appling

02-11-2007, 08:05 PM

I have very high standards for the HOF, but still, Doerr is a funny selection. He consistently batted .290 with 15-25 HR each season (I'm thinking of Ray Durham, who also steals bases). He had a good but not great 115 OPS+ (which puts him right into Ken Boyer territory). If he had played 3 more seasons at his 1948-1950 level, I think he would be a pretty good candidate.
In those 1948-49-50 I was a Red Sox fan (more pricisely, a Ted Williams fan) so I remember those BoSox hitting stars pretty well. Bobby Doerr teamed with Vern Stephens as the RH power hitters who balanced the lineup (with Ted being the main LH power hitter).
Bobby Doerr had some good seasons then:
year -- BA -- HR - RBI
1948 - .285 - 27 - 111
1949 - .309 - 18 - 109
1950 - .294 - 27 - 120

Great numbers for a middle-infielder!
But look at his teammate, Vern Stephens, for the very same seasons:
1948 - .269 - 29 - 137
1949 - .290 - 39 - 159
1950 - .295 - 30 - 144
And Stephens was a SHORTSTOP!

Incredible RBI numbers for a shortstop, especially for that period. (Soincredible they were generally ignored!)
Stephens hit cleanup on that powerful Boston line-up, and he led the American League in RBI in 1949 and 1950.

Even more than Doerr, Stephens had HR and RBI that were hard to believe -- so the BBWAA acted as if they were not real numbers. (Or was Stephens blackballed because of his drinking?)

Anyway, I didn't know how to vote on this poll question. Doerr's numbers seem pretty typical for a HOF infielder elected by the Veteran's Committee -- not good enough to be elected earlier, by the BBWAA. Doerr was elected on his 30th HOF ballot -- I guess he waited long enough!

Fuzzy Bear

02-11-2007, 08:20 PM

In those 1948-49-50 I was a Red Sox fan (more pricisely, a Ted Williams fan) so I remember those BoSox hitting stars pretty well. Bobby Doerr teamed with Vern Stephens as the RH power hitters who balanced the lineup (with Ted being the main LH power hitter).
Bobby Doerr had some good seasons then:
year -- BA -- HR - RBI
1948 - .285 - 27 - 111
1949 - .309 - 18 - 109
1950 - .294 - 27 - 120

Great numbers for a middle-infielder!
But look at his teammate, Vern Stephens, for the very same seasons:
1948 - .269 - 29 - 137
1949 - .290 - 39 - 159
1950 - .295 - 30 - 144
And Stephens was a SHORTSTOP!

Incredible RBI numbers for a shortstop, especially for that period. (Soincredible they were generally ignored!)
Stephens hit cleanup on that powerful Boston line-up, and he led the American League in RBI in 1949 and 1950.

Even more than Doerr, Stephens had HR and RBI that were hard to believe -- so the BBWAA acted as if they were not real numbers. (Or was Stephens blackballed because of his drinking?)

Anyway, I didn't know how to vote on this poll question. Doerr's numbers seem pretty typical for a HOF infielder elected by the Veteran's Committee -- not good enough to be elected earlier, by the BBWAA. Doerr was elected on his 30th HOF ballot -- I guess he waited long enough!

Stephens, by all accounts, was a drinker, and he was part of the divided Red Sox clubhouse of his day. His case for the HOF isn't bad, but there is question as to how much his drinking and cliqueishness disrupted his teams. His career was prematurely ended by his drinking, so . . .

Despite all of this, I rate Stephens ahead of Phil Rizzuto, and, possibly, Pee Wee Reese.

Los Bravos

02-12-2007, 02:55 AM

Doerr is NOT a HOF mistake; in fact he's at about the middle of the HOF, all things considered. He's Lou Whitaker to Joe Gordon's Sandberg. The problem isn't that Sandberg and Doerr are IN the HOF, it's that Gordon and Whitaker are not in.Agreed. That sums this whole question up perfectly, for me.

AlecBoy006

02-12-2007, 07:40 AM

Is Gordon on the VC? Or was he one and done?

Appling

02-12-2007, 07:54 AM

Is Gordon on the VC? Or was he one and done?
Joe Gordon, who retired after the 1950 season, received 77 votes in the 1968 BBWAA election, 97 votes in 1969 (255 needed for election), and 79 in 1970. That ended his BBWAA eligibility.

AlecBoy006

02-12-2007, 08:09 AM

Wow, that sucks. I hope he got in. Look at those numbers after 11 seasons.

I swear they need some of us on the Hall commitee.

dgarza

02-12-2007, 09:12 AM

Is Gordon on the VC? Or was he one and done?
I think what you're asking is if he's on the VC ballot, if he still has a chance to make the Hall with the VC vote. He is on the VC ballot, so does have some sort of chance this month.

AlecBoy006

02-13-2007, 05:54 PM

Lets hope. Look at those numbers over just 11 years.

Fuzzy Bear

05-20-2007, 12:32 PM

Here's the thread on Doerr with responses; maybe the mods can combine the two threads.

natsnsoxfan

05-20-2007, 01:32 PM

Are any of you factoring in that he was a well above average fielding 2Bmen? He was one of the best at this position for his time and probably stacks up pretty well all time, defensively.

Seattle1

05-20-2007, 03:16 PM

Did you know Bobby Doerr now lives in a remote cabin in the rainforest in SW Oregon and gets his mail delivered by riverboat?

:lookitup

natsnsoxfan

05-20-2007, 07:00 PM

I knew he lived in Oregon but i highly doubt that other stuff is truth, especially considering there is no rainforest in Oregon :happy:

Seattle1

05-20-2007, 08:40 PM

I knew he lived in Oregon but i highly doubt that other stuff is truth, especially considering there is no rainforest in Oregon :happy:

Temperate rainforest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest)

natsnsoxfan

05-20-2007, 08:57 PM

Temperate rainforest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest)

My bad, i thought you were talking something like the Amazon Rainforest with monkeys and stuff, lol. :blush:

Seattle1

05-20-2007, 09:13 PM

No problem. :happy:

They showed Bobby Doerr at his home in a story on the Today show today.