Dwight Evans HOF article by Bill James

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7555836/an-open-letter-mlb-hall-fame-dwight-evans-rightful-place-cooperstown

Great article. What do the geniuses on this board think?

You need a third option, Wouldn't be upset if he did or didn't get in. He was certainly one of the best players in the league at this position but wasn't really dominant. I'd equate him to Jim Kaat. Outstanding career and certainly one of the best but never did anything to standout from greats for even one season. Either one could get in and I wouldn't be upset. If they don't get in it wouldn't bother me either.

would be a better choice than jim rice

Sorry quan, but Evans never scared an opposing pitcher. No one scared an opposing pitcher like Rice did in his prime until Barry Bonds came along.

No one scared an opposing pitcher like Rice did in his prime until Barry Bonds came along.

Um, ever see Frank Howard play? 6' 7 or 8" 265 pounds or so of raw power. 3rd basemen took three steps back and retracted their nads when he came to the plate, and the pitcher sh!t bricks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy7luN3SbNc

It is interesting how much value some people put on longevity vs peak performance. Even if Evans never had any huge years, his capacity to do everything well for a long period of time may trump that. These types of candidates go all the way back to the 19th Century; think Cap Anson and Jim O'Rourke. Given that precedent and Evans' overall production, a case can be made for him, even if he never captured boyhood imaginations in the way that some other players have.

I saw Frank Howard play. He was big and hit the ball hard but it more fear of getting hurt by a batted ball than fear that the guy was a great hitter.

I'm all for rewarding but the super novas like Koufax and longevity guys Sutton. They are both great for different reasons. As I said, with Evans it wouldn't bother either way if he did or didn't get in. If you were building a team for one year you wouldn't want him, but you were building a strong stable team for the long haul, then he's probably near the top of the list.

Voted no here. James makes a compelling argument for Evans inclusion. Very close but his career reminds me of another questionable Outfielder, Roy Johnson. Johnson career was much shorter, but he hit for a better career avg., and both had similar slugging percentages.

As for defense/offense being a barometer, here is a comparison between Evans and IMO one of the all-time great defensive players, Omar Vizquel; While Evans OBP is way higher, his and Omar Vizquels' career batting average are identical .272, Vizquel has 400 more hits and 325 more stolen bases, while Evans has 300 more home runs. As for longevity, it's a push or maybe in favor of Vizquel.

omar also played a much more demanding position. Although playing the Green Monster is no piece of cake.

I don't see how you can compare Visquel and Evans. I prefer looking at other rightfielders.

I tend not look at different positions just because what teams want at each position is different. Until recently, SS and 2B were never positions where you worried about hitting, so even comparing 2B today to those pre-1980 isn't really fair either because very different things were required.

That's why for the HOF my basic question is, during the player's career was he one of the absolute best players at his position? I don't care how they measure up compared to player from other eras because the best you can estimate how they might have matched up.

While hitters from the 30s have impressive numbers, given the fact that the league was hitting around .300 and other offensive numbers were inflated, those numbers are not all that impressive. Hitting .350 in the early 30s isn't as impressive as hitting .300 in the mid to late 60s.

i voted no. not a hof'er in my mind. kind of a slippery slope, if i vote yes to him then i gotta think about the dale murphys out there or fred mcgriff (maybe he's a hof'er?).

jim rice wasn't feared anything, he makes too many outs...doesn't get on base enough and benefitted from having very good teammates. from the stats pitchers didn't really pitch around him or gave him any IBBs (maybe because evans was hitting behind him?).

Looking from today it is easy to say that, quan, but back in the day pitchers would almost rather face anyone than Rice in his prime. I sensed that fear with Schmidt, Brett or anyone else.

Murphy isn't comparable to Evans because he didn't have the long productive career that Murphy had. McGriff gets a big yes. He's probably one of the few powers hitters from the steroid era that didn't use steroids yet he was still able to put up numbers that kept him among the league leaders.

so if mcgriff is in then bagwell is in. i would certainly put bagwell in ahead of mcgriff.

as for rice if the first 14 years he didn't get in i don't know why they put him in the 15th. there's a similar thing going with jack morris also. i'm quitting the hof if that happens.

sabrjay wrote:Looking from today it is easy to say that, quan, but back in the day pitchers would almost rather face anyone than Rice in his prime. I sensed that fear with Schmidt, Brett or anyone else.

also i'm glad we have numbers so we can look back objectively instead of going by memory and hearsay. rice was very average on the road, and this myth that he was FEARED is overblown. his on base and walk totals did not support this at all.

according to 13 yr-old quan howard johnson was the best 3b ever and frank viola was the best lefty of all time.

I'm with Quan on this one. Rice was a GIDP master, and his bandbox home field inflated his numbers. Brett and Schmidt were far superior players and more feared hitters, if your criterion is which player does a pitcher fear will beat you.

Jay, we'll just have to disagree on Big Hondo, who I think was a better offensive weapon than Rice outright, and certainly so when you factor in the era, ballparks and teammates. Frank Howard had the exact same career homerun total as Rice, despite playing during a pitcher's era with higher mounds, with his prime years spent in a pitcher friendly ballpark and on teams that were generally woeful and offered no protection (quick, name three Senators from the 60's, or name one that was worth a damn). Rice played in a hitter's paradise, in an era that afforded him a chance to DH, and on teams that were loaded. I do not believe he was "feared" more than Hondo on any basis.

Morris is a HOF. And not because he was a Twin. He gets poo-poo'd because of his ERA but he was the dominant pitcher of his time. You don't anchor two world champions, be a big part of a third one and just being pretty good. For much of the 80s, if you had big game to win, there wasn't anyone else around that you'd rather have on the mound. The guy could win big games and you don't do that being pretty good. I know when I played for the Tigers I hated seeing him on the mound against the Twins because you knew you were in for a tough game.

Numbers are all fine a good but sometimes there things about a player that the numbers don't show. Even Evans is an example of that.

I don't believe Morris had a good enough ERA. Plus, he pitched in a time where ERA's were generally low. I'm not sure how much better he was than the league average, probably not much. Of course, he got killed by two horrible years at the end of his career.

I do admire his WS contributions, it should be factored in but I'm not sure it's enough to compensate.

When are the genius' going to weigh in?

I'm up for the genius challenge.

I'm for both Morris and Evans.

Not on topic but in the stream: I like Morris, even if he wasn't the dominant pitcher in the late 80s and early 90s that he was compared to early to mid 80s. Since I watched more NL ball in the 80s, can't say much, but I like that he got his wins (and not those many losses) and was a key starter in the later period. He pitched many innings during his career, completed many games (even for his era) so his high ERA, due more to his later seasons, really does not bother me. Dominant for many years during his early career and effective in his early to mid-30s, 250+ wins + WS effectiveness in mid-30s = HOF to me.

Morris' ERA+ which is park adjust ERA compared to the league is 105. 100 means league average. Below that you are worse than then league average, above the means you are better than the league average.


His similarity score shows that #1 is Dennis Martinez, but #2 is Bob Gibson. Not sure how that works out but when you're #2 most similar player is one of the all-time greats I'd say probably also belong in the HOF.

Of the 4 HOF measures, the only one he doesn't make average HOF numbers on is the black ink test. So that prettym much makes him an average HOFer, not a questionable bottom tier HOFer.

From 1979-92 he won fewer than 14 games only once. If a pitcher today won 233 games in 14 years we'd probably be shipping him off to Cooperstown right now. Yes it was a different game back then, but no other pitcher in that era can match that. He won and that's what you want you starting pitcher to do.. No matter what his ERA was, all did was win. I think it was Dick Williams talking about early 70s A's teams that said "We don't look good and we don't do the things the way they are supposed to be done, but we win games and that's all that counts."

we all know wins is no longer a good indicator for how good a pitcher is. morris was subpar in whip, era+, and war during his most dominant stretch compared to his peers . playing in a pitching-friendly era his era is sky high. for his '91 ws performance you can point to '92 postseason where he stunk it up.

his career numbers for defense-independent pitching stats are very average and when guys like brad radke candiotti kevin appier are ahead of you in career WARs...you don't deserve a plaque.

I think Wins is a failed statistic. We know today that pitchers don't win games, teams do. What the team's offense is like plays a huge role; that's why pitchers on teams like the Yankees rack up a huge amount of wins. So even if Dick Williams might have talked about pitchers winning games in the 1970's, I wouldn't use that as HOF criteria today.

I look at Morris' WAR, I see it at 40. Whereas Dwight Evans is at 60, Crime Dog 50. Bob Gibson's WAR is 85, so that is more than double Morris'. I don't know what a similarity score is, but I can tell you that their production on the field wasn't similar. Even Dennis Martinez beats out Morris in WAR, and he's not in the HOF, either.

So with Morris you are talking about a guy who pitched a lot of innings with an ERA around the league average, pitched great in two World Series, horribly in a third one, and average in the ALCS's. Is that enough to make the HOF? It shouldn't be, but it could be, because writers have to vote for somebody, and everyone else is from the steroid era, so with Morris' increasing vote every year, he looks primed to make it soon.

Numbers are great to use. Hell, I'm a serious stat head, but sometimes numbers don't tell you everything. In 1991 Viola is at the peak of his career and a lefty to boot and who does Tom Kelley want to anchor the pitching staff and pitch game 7 if needed? Jack Morris. Nuff said.

I'd want Juan Gonzales in the clean up spot in the WS at the peak of his career, but that doesn't mean he belongs in the HOF, either.