Jump to content

Larry Doby


waroriole

Recommended Posts

I'm really not trying to sound like a contrarian here, but why does Larry Doby never get any attention for all that he did.

He really seems to have come up with the short end of the stick. They integrated their respective leagues at almost the exact time. Yet, Jackie Robinson's number is retired throughout baseball. Robinson has a day set aside to honor him each year by MLB. Robinson has movies made about him. Most people have no idea who Larry Doby was. Robinson received all the praise for being the first man to integrate baseball, but Doby endured the same things Robinson did, he just started a couple of months later.

It's a shame that MLB doesn't really acknowledge him. It would be nice if something were done to include Doby in Jackie Robinson's Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not trying to sound like a contrarian here, but why does Larry Doby never get any attention for all that he did.

He really seems to have come up with the short end of the stick. They integrated their respective leagues at almost the exact time. Yet, Jackie Robinson's number is retired throughout baseball. Robinson has a day set aside to honor him each year by MLB. Robinson has movies made about him. Most people have no idea who Larry Doby was. Robinson received all the praise for being the first man to integrate baseball, but Doby endured the same things Robinson did, he just started a week later.

It's a shame that MLB doesn't really acknowledge him. It would be nice if something were done to include Doby in Jackie Robinson's Day.

You aren't wrong, but there are reasons. Unlike Branch Rickey, who built media and public anticipation, Bill Veeck tried a no-big-deal strategy to introducing Doby - he initially kept the signing a secret and did not encourage press attention. Also, while Robinson was a 28 year old who came into the league as the starter at 2B (for a NYC team!), had over 700 PAs, won the RoY and came in 5th in the MVP voting, Doby was only 23, not that good yet, and played very sparingly, with total of 33 PA in 1947.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't wrong, but there are reasons. Unlike Branch Rickey, who built media and public anticipation, Bill Veeck tried a no-big-deal strategy to introducing Doby - he initially kept the signing a secret and did not encourage press attention. Also, while Robinson was a 28 year old who came into the league as the starter at 2B (for a NYC team!), had over 700 PAs, won the RoY and came in 5th in the MVP voting, Doby was only 23, not that good yet, and played very sparingly, with total of 33 PA in 1947.

Neither of those things should prevent MLB from including Doby in the celebrations that go on today.

I mean the guy was 5 years younger, and still showed the maturity of an incredibly stoic man in his 30's. I can understand why Jackie would be the big draw initially, but enough time has passed to honor Doby as much as Robinson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of those things should prevent MLB from including Doby in the celebrations that go on today.

I mean the guy was 5 years younger, and still showed the maturity of an incredibly stoic man in his 30's. I can understand why Jackie would be the big draw initially, but enough time has passed to honor Doby as much as Robinson.

I think you're right, but it's a matter of history and perception, and others have tried (and mostly failed) to draw attention to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree that mention should be made of Doby. Something over the weekend annoyed me on the MLB Network when Harold Reynolds (I think?) was talking about Jackie Robinson. He said that Robinson's entry paved the way for people like Doby, and as far as I knew the entry of both was simultaneous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree that mention should be made of Doby. Something over the weekend annoyed me on the MLB Network when Harold Reynolds (I think?) was talking about Jackie Robinson. He said that Robinson's entry paved the way for people like Doby, and as far as I knew the entry of both was simultaneous.

Jackie's first game was April 15, 1947. Larry's first game was July 5, 1947.

I'm glad I looked this up, I always thought that Doby played his first game a week after Robinson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Doby has played second fiddle to Jackie Robinson for far too long and now that there's a movie out about Jackie Robinson I really would like people to remember the first black man to play in the American League.

That's the thing about life before interleague play, Jackie Robinson was unknown to most of the American League crowd anyway. It was Larry Doby who had to listen to the same taunting, abuse, etc etc, and unlike Robinson, he wasn't a world beater as a rookie. Playing well earned Robinson a lot of respect quickly, at least with Dodgers fans, I don't know if he had it easier or harder than Doby because of that (it's not a competition). I wish an AL player (maybe our Adam Jones!) would offer to wear Doby's number on the day everyone else wears 42.

Obviously this isn't trying to diminish what Jackie Robinson did. I think Doby's got an interesting legacy, I've always been more interested in the silver medalists and minor characters in life because everyone talks about who did something first, at what time, and in great detail, but not nearly as much attention is paid to runners-up. Usually that's because winning is everything but in this case, being second place didn't mean Larry Doby had an easier time of things.

By the way, in addition to trailblazing, he was a great baseball player too. 136 OPS+, good for a 47.7 oWAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the way it goes. Quick, who was the third African American player in the majors? The fourth? You probably never heard of either one, but they both debuted within 15 days of Doby. (Hank Thompson and Willard Brown, both for the St. Louis Browns.) I'm sure they received just as much abuse.

The fact is, Jackie Robinson was first, and that will always make him the trailblazer and they symbol of the struggles that black players had in those days, even though he was far from the only one to experience it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the way it goes. Quick, who was the third African American player in the majors? The fourth? You probably never heard of either one, but they both debuted within 15 days of Doby. (Hank Thompson and Willard Brown, both for the St. Louis Browns.) I'm sure they received just as much abuse.

The fact is, Jackie Robinson was first, and that will always make him the trailblazer and they symbol of the struggles that black players had in those days, even though he was far from the only one to experience it.

Fair enough. I still think MLB should do more to recognize Doby and not put all of the focus on Robinson.

As an aside, I never realized just how good Robinson was. In only 10 seasons, he was worth 61 rWAR. Lifetime OBP of .409. All while playing a MI position. It's a shame he didn't get to the majors until he was 28. It would be great to see what kind of numbers he could have put up if he had debuted 5-6 years earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Doby has played second fiddle to Jackie Robinson for far too long and now that there's a movie out about Jackie Robinson I really would like people to remember the first black man to play in the American League.

That's the thing about life before interleague play, Jackie Robinson was unknown to most of the American League crowd anyway. It was Larry Doby who had to listen to the same taunting, abuse, etc etc, and unlike Robinson, he wasn't a world beater as a rookie. Playing well earned Robinson a lot of respect quickly, at least with Dodgers fans, I don't know if he had it easier or harder than Doby because of that (it's not a competition). I wish an AL player (maybe our Adam Jones!) would offer to wear Doby's number on the day everyone else wears 42.

Obviously this isn't trying to diminish what Jackie Robinson did. I think Doby's got an interesting legacy, I've always been more interested in the silver medalists and minor characters in life because everyone talks about who did something first, at what time, and in great detail, but not nearly as much attention is paid to runners-up. Usually that's because winning is everything but in this case, being second place didn't mean Larry Doby had an easier time of things.

By the way, in addition to trailblazing, he was a great baseball player too. 136 OPS+, good for a 47.7 oWAR.

It would be interesting to know more about Larry Doby's story. He really has become a footnote to Jackie Robinson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Doby was also the SECOND African-American manager in MLB history, after another Robinson, Frank Robinson. I agree that since Doby was the first player to integrate the American League that something should be done to commemorate the occasion. He really gets no where near the recognition he deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Branch Rickey, who built media and public anticipation, Bill Veeck tried a no-big-deal strategy to introducing Doby - he initially kept the signing a secret and did not encourage press attention.

And this, while quite uncharacteristic of Veeck, may have had root in a big splash he was planning: some time before Jackie Robinson, Veeck had an idea to buy the Phillies and stock it with a complete African-American roster. Once word got to MLB, the sale was scuttled.

Amazing what would have happened if Veeck succeeded in that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the way it goes. Quick, who was the third African American player in the majors? The fourth? You probably never heard of either one, but they both debuted within 15 days of Doby. (Hank Thompson and Willard Brown, both for the St. Louis Browns.) I'm sure they received just as much abuse.

The fact is, Jackie Robinson was first, and that will always make him the trailblazer and they symbol of the struggles that black players had in those days, even though he was far from the only one to experience it.

Yeah, I recall writing a post here a few years ago about Thompson and Brown and the importance of the St. Louis Browns in integrating the majors.

But yes, events certainly conspired to make Jackie the symbol above the others who debuted later the same year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Sure, totally agree with you there. But they were definitely contributors to the thinktank there, and they assuredly have taken a lot from Luhnow and the rest of the gang there.  And we now have over half a decade of data from Baltimore. If we were back in the year 2020, I would say “not enough information, we don’t know yet what they’ll do or how they’ll operate separate from the rest of that group.” But it’s been a while now, and I just haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe they’ll trade one or more players that they have drafted and developed into an elite prospect. Have you? I’m not asking to be a jerk, I’m honestly curious if you’ve seen anything different that leads you to believe that is something they’d do.  If they have a major flaw as a group, I think it’s that they’re more than a little rigid. This last draft really hammered home the point that they know what they think is the best approach and they’re not going to diverge from that path, regardless of the circumstances (or the momentary needs of the organization). I think this makes them frustrating at times, but also very easy to predict.  The common thread in every major buy-side trade they’ve been a part of in 17 years is buying low on proven assets. The Cardinals grabbed Holliday in that weird period where the A’s had gotten him but ended up not wanting to keep him. The Astros picked up Carlos Gomez in the middle of an injury-plagued year where he’d taken a step back from his previous all-star status. They snagged Verlander at the August deadline when his fastball was down and his ERA was up. They stole Cole when he was coming off a down year and approaching FA. And the O’s nabbed Burnes in a similar posture. Skubal is the opposite of all those guys. He’s not quite as proven (or durable) as their typical trade target, and he’s at the absolute highest point of his value right now. I just don’t see them talking themselves into “buying high” on a guy, especially when the cost is so astronomical. If I was trying to make an educated guess about who fits their usual mold, someone like Sandy Alcantara in the offseason would make perfect sense. But right now…maybe Luis Castillo? His numbers are down across the board, he’s sliding down the rotation in Seattle (from ace to maybe #4 now?), but he’s also a proven commodity who is a pretty sure bet to give you almost 200 innings every year. Could they work a deal involving some MLB offensive pieces (in addition to prospect value of course) to pry Castillo loose? That would be a pretty Elias/Sig move.
    • I don’t get that at all. The fit makes no sense
    • There was an article recently that connected the Phillies to Mullins but I don't think it speculated on the return or if anyone else would be included.
    • You don't stop at picking up 2024 Kimbrel if you are all in. The Burnes move was great but he traded surplus for an expiring contract.  That's not an all in move.  That's more of a call than an all in.
    • You don't trade Ortiz & Hall for 1 year of Burnes if you're not all in.  I would be surprised if Elias didn't take a legit stab at this.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...