Dwight Evans list

[timconnelly]

Happen to know that we have a person at this forum who especially likes Dwight Evans. So out of curiosity, I placed in his career totals in some important statistical categories just to see how many people would be in that company regarding their career totals. I was shocked to see that only 10 other players made this list and even more shocked by the company he is in on this list. The other players beat him by wide margins in many of the other categories. I am in no way comparing Evans to the other players on this list. But it helped me to see that he was an even rarer player than I had thought.

CAREER
HITS > 2440
HOMERUNS >= 380
RBI > 1380
RUNS >= 1470
WALKS > 1390

AVERAGE AVG H HR RBI R BB
1 Ted Williams .344 2654 521 1839 1798 2019
2 Babe Ruth .342 2873 714 2210 2174 2062
3 Lou Gehrig .340 2721 493 1995 1888 1508
4 Stan Musial .331 3630 475 1951 1949 1599
5 Jimmie Foxx .325 2646 534 1921 1751 1452
6 Hank Aaron .305 3771 755 2297 2174 1402
7 Mel Ott .304 2876 511 1860 1859 1708
8 Willie Mays .302 3283 660 1903 2062 1463
9 Frank Robinson .294 2943 586 1812 1829 1420
10 Carl Yastrzemski .285 3419 452 1844 1816 1845
11 Dwight Evans .272 2446 385 1384 1470 1391

[timconnelly]

If I had made a list of all the players with a hundred home runs, 2000 runs scored, and 4200 plus hits, the list would be even smaller. But I said the guy on that list is overrated. (:

I'm not a big believer in the importance of career totals but you have to be drawn to the fact that when a list is very small, it means the player was doing something right.

[Skipper Steve]

But,......................

if you use the limits as you did, and then say, rank them by career OPS, you get:

1 Babe Ruth 1.164
2 Ted Williams 1.115
3 Lou Gehrig 1.080
4 Jimmie Foxx 1.038
5 Stan Musial 0.976
6 Mel Ott 0.947
7 Willie Mays 0.941
8 Hank Aaron 0.928
9 Frank Robinson 0.926
10 Carl Yastrzemski 0.841
11 Dwight Evans 0.840

Which tells you that Evans was close to Yaz, in terms of a career, but not really any where near the others.

[SmedIndy]

Creating list like these are always suspect. You can string a bunch of things together and skew it favorably toward a player you wnat. It's the old Baseball Digest type of thing.

:rolleyes:

Dewey, a fine player, good soldier. Not QUITE HOF material, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'd rather go into Cooperstown with a crowbar and takes some plaques OUT first.

[timconnelly]

I agree competely that these types of lists can be misleading if you to try to prove something specific with them. In the Politics of Glory, Bill James actually listed a number of methods of arguing something illogically. And grouping a player according to a specific criteria that places him in the company of other far greater players is one of the flawed logic examples that he gives.

But I wasn't trying to say that Evans ranks with the other players on the list. I wasn't trying to say that he belongs in Cooperstown because of it. I was just trying to say that he (and anbody else who makes ANY list that you can come up with) was a pretty fair country hitter, quite a bit better than I had given him credit for.

I still like Steve's way of doing up the Hall of Fame the best. I see nothing wrong with honoring players who gave as much to the game as Evans did. In fact, I see something very wrong when they are not honored.

The Hall of Fame as it is currently set up is just flawed. If Evans goes in, instead of it being a great honor to a very fine player, there will be criticisms of his selection, as people say that the standards are too low.

I say that we just need to classify players as we honor them. I know that Evans would be the first to agree that he was no Aaron, Mays, or Mantle. But to honor players who gave so much to the game for so long is an important step in honoring the game itself.

[SmedIndy]

Unfortunately, the HOF was set up to honor greatness as a player or greatness in leadership to baseball, not the nice guys of the game.

[timconnelly]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Unfortunately, the HOF was set up to honor greatness as a player or greatness in leadership to baseball, not the nice guys of the game.

I'm not sure I agree. If you go to the Baseball Immortals site, you'll find a consistent vision of what a great ball player is. It's one man's perspective (Lee) and we have the opportunity to question him on each one of his specific choices. But the HOF is not one man's vision and there is no clear and discernable definition of who should be honored. I think the reason you want to bring a crowbar in is because many of the players don't meet your definition. (By the way, I am only arguing this with you because I have the utmost respect for your knowledge of the game. I've seen by your posting history that you know your stuff.)

I'm not sure whether Lloyd Waner was a nice guy or not, but I'm certain he wasn't a great ball player. I think the Waners of the baseball world should be honored, whether they are nice guys or not. I think it's very interesting that Lee includes Evans on his Baseball Immortals site. I personally do not consider Evans to be a truly great player and using your definition, he would not be included in a HOF of great players if I were choosing.

But it seems to me that a HOF made up of only the most selective greats who've ever played the game misses the point of baseball. If Joe Torre had hit .363 every season, he would've been a great ball player. That he only hit it for 1 season helped his team no less during that season. I think you have to keep reducing baseball back down to its lowest common denominators to really appreciate the game. Can't greatness be measured just as readily by one great season (Norm Cash in 1961), 1 game (Don Larsen) or even 1 play (the catch Ron Swoboda made in the '69 series)? The details are fuzzy but my vision of Evans' catch made off the bat of Joe Morgan is still vivid. Maybe that isn't greatness. Maybe it's something bigger than greatness.

[SmedIndy]

Let's put it this way:

The Hall of Fame is for extended Greatness. They set the parameters for a 10-year career, and only a few had careers that were that short (Addie Joss for one, Koufax another).

I think it should be reserved for those who demonstrated "greatness" over most of their careers. Yes, that does mean that guys like Evans, Tony Perez, and their ilk should be excluded. But guys like Joe Judge weren't in their to begin with and Judge was the Mark Grace of his time.

The LPGA does an excellent job with their HOF because they have such stringent requirements for membership. You're either in, or you're out. Baseball is subjective, and many tools we have at our disposal to measure players ability frankly didn't exist or were ignored back in 1939. And many people, as we know still think stats are stats, and you can compare eras straight. So those who scoffed at Bid McPhee's HOF induction were just clueless.

But the HOF cooked its own damn goose letting in a bunch of good players in, so it takes some people like Lee or this site to set it "straight", if they can.

[SmedIndy]

Also, thanks for the compliment. :cool:

My wife thinks I'm nuts, but you know how that goes!

Sorry...:topic:

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Skipper Steve
But,......................

if you use the limits as you did, and then say, rank them by career OPS, you get:

1 Babe Ruth 1.164
2 Ted Williams 1.115
3 Lou Gehrig 1.080
4 Jimmie Foxx 1.038
5 Stan Musial 0.976
6 Mel Ott 0.947
7 Willie Mays 0.941
8 Hank Aaron 0.928
9 Frank Robinson 0.926
10 Carl Yastrzemski 0.841
11 Dwight Evans 0.840

Which tells you that Evans was close to Yaz, in terms of a career, but not really any where near the others.

Well, according to this, Evans is a good comp for Yaz. Sounds like a Hall of Famer to me.

So, does someone know how to do a Similarity Score? Who does Dewey really comp to?

[Duque]

Originally posted by timconnelly


I still like Steve's way of doing up the Hall of Fame the best. I see nothing wrong with honoring players who gave as much to the game as Evans did. In fact, I see something very wrong when they are not honored.


I agree - Evans is one of those guys who right on the cusp - like a Mattingly or a Hernandez - but not quite there. They should definitely be remembered as icons of an era, but the Hall should only be about greatness, not just extended goodness. But - there are a lot of guys in the Hall worse than Evans.

[Skipper Steve]

Originally posted by sweaver
So, does someone know how to do a Similarity Score? Who does Dewey really comp to?

Chili Davis (879)
Billy Williams (873) *
Tony Perez (867) *
Dave Parker (853)
Al Kaline (845) *
Darrell Evans (843)
Harold Baines (840)
Joe Carter (836)
Andre Dawson (834)
Jim Rice (831)

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by Skipper Steve


Chili Davis (879)
Billy Williams (873) *
Tony Perez (867) *
Dave Parker (853)
Al Kaline (845) *
Darrell Evans (843)
Harold Baines (840)
Joe Carter (836)
Andre Dawson (834)
Jim Rice (831)

I find most baseball people a re split 50/50. It all boils down to...did Evans have periods of greatness....we can all answer yes, did he string enough to be great.... I say yes. Was he Willie Mayes.....clearly no. Do you have to be Willie Mayes to be in the hall? NO! Now lets add his defensive strengths. If were on the bubble with his bat, his abilty as the dominate right fielder for over 10 years should should push you over to a nod for the HOF.

If you are one of those who believe defense is nothing.....sorry, we must agree to disagree.

[sweaver]

One thing I notice about this list is there is no real close comp, no score over 900. Usually the sign of a unique and excellent player. I wouldn't advocate Chili for the Hall, but the next guys down the line are pretty good ballplayers. I'd say that is excellent company.

[Skipper Steve]

The thing that always impressed me about Dewey was that he came up as a great glove & incredible arm - - with a weak bat - - and then made himself into one of the best hitters in the league.

I love guys who work hard and improve once they make the show - - like Brett.

[hmrsf]

He had 2 children with an awful disease. He reported in a NESN where are they now, that instead of using it as an excuse for poor performance..."I wanted to grab hold of something that I had control of and made them my reason."

Another +, he was a managers dream. Tell him to bunt, sacrafice, protect a basestealer with a timely swing, teach a kid coming up to take your job.....he did it all and did it with class.


I guess no one will change my mind, but I want people to look at the STATS, then say he doesn't cut it. I give him the nod.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by Skipper Steve
I love guys who work hard and improve once they make the show - - like Brett. Silly ?: George Brett? I figure you're not talking about Bret Boone, since this is history.

[Skipper Steve]

Yes Yog, George Brett.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by hmrsf


I find most baseball people a re split 50/50. It all boils down to...did Evans have periods of greatness....we can all answer yes, did he string enough to be great.... I say yes. Was he Willie Mayes.....clearly no. Do you have to be Willie Mayes to be in the hall? NO! Now lets add his defensive strengths. If were on the bubble with his bat, his abilty as the dominate right fielder for over 10 years should should push you over to a nod for the HOF.

If you are one of those who believe defense is nothing.....sorry, we must agree to disagree.

Defense is important yes, but I still don't think he created enough offense. Especially, if you take into account that he played in Fenway, which was always a friendly hitters park in his era.

Most of his seasonal similarity scores are to guys like Sixto Lezcano and Reggie Smith. I don't know if 15 to 20 years of being Sixto Lezcano qualifies you for the HOF.

[sweaver]

Sixto was pretty good for a few years there with the Brewers.

Not that I'd vote for him for the Hall.

[Throwback]

You know, I would never have considered Dewey hall material, until HMRSF nominated him for my own Hall. Initially I was surprised, though not overly impressed, by what appeared to be a slightly sub-hall hitting performance, especially because his early years were so mediocre. Actually when I was writing my decision on my website (http://www.geocities.com/cowboydan76/hallofame.html ), I was intending it to be a mitigated rejection, but then I noticed his many gold gloves and I thought, Wow, this guy is a near-Ozzie Smith caliber defensive player with a near-hall bat! My mitigated rejection turned into a rather obvious acceptance by the time I was done writing. He didn't do anything with what you would consider hall of fame quality, but if you consider everything he did very well, it really seems kind of obvious that he should be in the hall of fame. Mind you, this isn't coming from a guy who tends to champion modern players. I think Winfield was questionable, as well as Fisk, and I think that by and large, old-time players were better than modern players, but even I can't deny Dwight Evans' hall credentials.

[SmedIndy]

How can you question Fisk or Winfield?

Evans' glove work is nice, but the HOF is a complete package. He was a good offensive player for his park and era. Not outstanding, only good. I need a higher standard than that?

And as for the older players, you need to remember offensive times change. The offenses of the 20's and 30's overrate players. The offenses of the 10's and 60's overrate pitchers.

Due to conditioning, better travel conditions, the fact that there are no rogue minor leagues out there, nutrition, and knowing more about injuries, this era is seeing the best major leaguers top to bottom.

That being said, the two best players of all-time IMHO, Cobb and Wagner, were from WAY back.

[hmrsf]

you are the greatest,:kiss:

[SmedIndy]

HMSRF -

I'm not an evil man, honest:shockbig:

Perhaps I'm venting a bit more because I'm recreating the 1976 AL season in Diamond Mind at home, and when I play the Red Sox Evans is off to a terrible start so I'm starting Miller more and more and putting Evans in to caddy for Rice and Yaz.

But still, he's a good guy. If they had an honorable mention wing in Cooperstown, he'd be there.

[redsox617]

Dwight Evans redefined how you play RF, once players saw his talents they stopped running on him period. He was the heart and soul of the Red Sox and I'm not ashamed to call him my favorite player of all time.

Some more stats -

Evans, who turned 50 Nov. 3, hit .272 with 385 homers and 1,384 RBIs in his 20-year career. He amassed more hits (2,446) than Mickey Mantle(2,415), hit more home runs (385) than Joe DiMaggio(361), and played in more games (2,606) than Babe Ruth(2,503). A three-time All-Star, he also won eight Gold Gloves as a right fielder.

HMRSF - you stole my pick
:hotdevil:

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
HMSRF -

I'm not an evil man, honest:shockbig:

Perhaps I'm venting a bit more because I'm recreating the 1976 AL season in Diamond Mind at home, and when I play the Red Sox Evans is off to a terrible start so I'm starting Miller more and more and putting Evans in to caddy for Rice and Yaz.

But still, he's a good guy. If they had an honorable mention wing in Cooperstown, he'd be there.


I take that! He is one of the players that I feel blessed to see. I will tell my grandchildren why we sit in section 24 and the importance of being able to see the right field corner. I will tell them of the GREAT right fielder. I will tell them of the crime of no 24 on rightfield enshrinement of Fenway. He may never get the nod.....but he is a HOF in my book and a caddy to no one. His bat only got better in the 80's and '75 is the famous catch....caddy?...wow you are tough...evil no.....!

:p

[SmedIndy]

What I meant by caddy is that I'm starting Miller in RF, then if the Sox are ahead I put Evans in and move Miller to LF.

So, in essence, he is a "caddy", much like Jerry Martin was for Luzinski.

However, when Evans starts hitting, rest assured I'll put him back in RF.

[Throwback]

SmedIndy- Do you believe Ozzie Smith should go in the hall?

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Throwback
SmedIndy- Do you believe Ozzie Smith should go in the hall?

Look at my posts on the HOF thread. I battled long and hard for Ozzie to be in, because his stats compare quite favorably to the SS of his time and he's the best defender ever and a positive on the bases.

Taking park factors and era into effect, Dewey's just a good offensive player, and while he was an outstanding OF his defense didn't save nearly the runs Ozzie's did. Plus he wasn't Ozzie on the bases.

[Throwback]

Now Ozzie Smith has been my favorite player since I was a little kid, and I certainly believe he should go in the hall, too. But I can't deny that overall, Evans was the better player. Ozzie was a little bit stronger in the field, and was plenty better on the basepaths, but Evans was the better hitter by plenty, and thus, I think, the overall better offensive player. I think that Evans would have to be the better player of the two, or at least equal. As a total package, as you put it, he clearly has more merit.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Plus he wasn't Ozzie on the bases. Too bad Ozzie didn't reach base enough (.337 OBA). His SB numbers could really have been something if he reached base.

OK - I am done on Ozzie. I promise.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Throwback
Now Ozzie Smith has been my favorite player since I was a little kid, and I certainly believe he should go in the hall, too. But I can't deny that overall, Evans was the better player. Ozzie was a little bit stronger in the field, and was plenty better on the basepaths, but Evans was the better hitter by plenty, and thus, I think, the overall better offensive player. I think that Evans would have to be the better player of the two, or at least equal. As a total package, as you put it, he clearly has more merit.

No, Ozzie was a much much better player.

Evans was a good hitter, but only good. Take Fenway into account and he slips a bit. He's also a corner outfielder and good corner outfielders are supposed to hit like that or they're back in Pawtucket.

Ozzie was amongst the best offensive shortstops for his era and he played in St. Louis and Busch, not Fenway.

Evans was among the best right fielders of his era, which saved a few runs. Ozzie was the best shortstop of his era, period, and maybe of all time, which saves many many runs. You CANNOT underestimate the great importance of SS compared to RF.

People just see the triple crown stats and ooh and aah, but they oohed and aaahed at some guys who played in the 20's that weren't so good. Ozzie's overall brillance outmatches everything.

[timconnelly]

Originally posted by SmedIndy



Evans was a good hitter, but only good. Take Fenway into account and he slips a bit. He's also a corner outfielder and good corner outfielders are supposed to hit like that or they're back in Pawtucket.

Ozzie was amongst the best offensive shortstops for his era and he played in St. Louis and Busch, not Fenway.





I would be the first to agree with you that Ozzie is a greater player than Dewey. I also agree with your reason: Simply put the position of shortstop is far more important than the position of right fielder.

But I disagree with everything you are saying in regards to Ozzie being a comparable offensive player. You're going to have to tell me what being a good hitting shortstop has to do with anything. When you step into the batter's box, you are not a shortstop, you are a hitter. Whatever runs you produce or fail to produce are not added to or subtracted from, because of the position that you play.

If you are talking about replacement value, every team had somebody on the bench who was capable of matching or exceeding Ozzie's career .472 offensive winning percentage. He was not on the field because of his hitting; he was a below average offensive player who may have been the greatest ever on defense. And Lee's formula even adjusts for the ball park so that's already been taken into consideration.

Evans is a .623 with Fenway Park factored in. For his career, Evans made 563 fewer outs while creating 432 more runs. If you break it down by position, Evans was 289 runs more valuable than an average outfielder playing half their games at Fenway, while Smith was 192 runs above the average shortstop playing half their games at Busch. This is based on a very similar number of games and plate appearances and factors in Smith's superior base running.

But as I said, I think that is mostly an erroneous way of looking at it, Smith was 72 runs below the NL average in runs created while Evans was 389 runs above average for AL players.

[hmrsf]

:kiss: :kiss: for you. Can't argue with them numbers....eh!

[nightal]

If the HOF puts in a guy like Mazeroski, which judging by the info supplied by all you, Ozzie should be a slam dunk. Now as to Evans, compare his stats to the guys I put on my "Most Underserving HOF's, and make your own call.

[sweaver]

Ozzie was the best defensive player of all time, any position, period. He belongs in the Hall on that standard alone, there are plenty of hitters there with no defense.

[SmedIndy]

Here's where I come at it:

You step in the batter's box as a hitter, but each team has the same guys playing the same positions. A team doesn't "lose" their shortstop in the batters box, and its silly to suggest that shortstops should be compared to the same standards as left fielders. You' d never have any shortstops in the HOF.

You compare Ozzie to his contemporaries: Steve Jeltz, Mariano Duncan, Kurt Stilwell, Rafael Belliard, Larry Bowa, Shawon Dunston, Jose Uribe, Andres Thomas, et. al. Ozzie rises way above them in offensive production. Best defender at his position, among the best hitters as his position in his league. Amongst the best baserunners in the league over the same decade. On another thread I looked at the 1986 NL shortstops. Ozzie was clearly head and shoulders above 'em all.

Best player at his position in his league over a decade. Hall of fame player. Period. Who's a better NL shortstop in the 80's?

A corner outfielder playing in Fenway in the 80's better not hit like an "average" AL player.

In 1986 - Evans had a fine year. Jesse Barfield had a better year and had a better arm. Carter had a pretty fine year. Rob Deer had a higher SLG and had 33 homers. Winfield had a good year. Baines had a good year. Tartabull had a good year. Put those guys in a neutral park and you can pick 'em.

Point is, positon does matter. A RF better damn well hit, or he's not starting on my team. As Downtown Ollie Brown once said when a reporter asked him about his arm, "Yeah, but I'd trade it for a few hits."

[timconnelly]

I just took a peek at a couple of seasons and clearly Evans was not running up huge numbers at Fenway and taking advantage of a park illusion.
Evans in 1987 home and away

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB K HBP SH SF GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Total 154 541 109 165 37 2 34 123 106 6 98 3 0 7 10 4 6 .305 .417 .569

Home 73 263 45 80 23 2 14 65 43 3 44 0 0 2 6 1 3 .304 .399 .567
Away 81 278 64 85 14 0 20 58 63 3 54 3 0 5 4 3 3 .306 .433 .572

Evans in 1986 home and away

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB K HBP SH SF GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Total 152 529 86 137 33 2 26 97 97 4 117 6 2 6 11 3 3 .259 .376 .476

Home 74 241 38 61 18 1 8 41 51 2 42 2 1 3 9 2 2 .253 .384 .436
Away 78 288 48 76 15 1 18 56 46 2 75 4 1 3 2 1 1 .264 .370 .510

Smith in 1987 home and away

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB K HBP SH SF GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Total 158 600 104 182 40 4 0 75 89 3 36 1 12 4 9 43 9 .303 .392 .383

Home 79 286 49 82 20 2 0 36 41 0 16 1 5 3 5 26 4 .287 .375 .371
Away 79 314 55 100 20 2 0 39 48 3 20 0 7 1 4 17 5 .318 .408 .395



Smith in 1986 home and away

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB K HBP SH SF GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Total 153 514 67 144 19 4 0 54 79 13 27 2 11 3 9 31 7 .280 .376 .333

Home 78 254 30 73 13 1 0 31 47 10 16 2 9 2 3 14 3 .287 .400 .346
Away 75 260 37 71 6 3 0 23 32 3 11 0 2 1 6 17 4 .273 .352 .319

[timconnelly]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Here's where I come at it:

You step in the batter's box as a hitter, but each team has the same guys playing the same positions. A team doesn't "lose" their shortstop in the batters box, and its silly to suggest that shortstops should be compared to the same standards as left fielders. You' d never have any shortstops in the HOF.

You compare Ozzie to his contemporaries: Steve Jeltz, Mariano Duncan, Kurt Stilwell, Rafael Belliard, Larry Bowa, Shawon Dunston, Jose Uribe, Andres Thomas, et. al. Ozzie rises way above them in offensive production. Best defender at his position, among the best hitters as his position in his league. Amongst the best baserunners in the league over the same decade. On another thread I looked at the 1986 NL shortstops. Ozzie was clearly head and shoulders above 'em all.



Buzz is the about the only person I know of quarreling with the selection of Ozzie to the HOF. In another thread, I listed him as the only A definition Hall of Famer on this years list.

But where you and I are taking separate roads is your insistence that being better offensively than the likes of Steve Jeltz, Mariano Duncan, Kurt Stilwell, Rafael Belliard, Larry Bowa, Shawon Dunston, Jose Uribe, and Andres Thomas somehow makes you a valuable offensive player.

Ozzie was a great defensive player but being a better hitter than Larry Bowa does not qualify him for a plaque in Cooperstown. IMHO

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by sweaver
Ozzie was the best defensive player of all time, any position, period. He belongs in the Hall on that standard alone, there are plenty of hitters there with no defense.

Sorry,

But Johnny Bench is the best defensive player of all time

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by timconnelly
Buzz is the about the only person I know of quarreling with the selection of Ozzie to the HOF. In another thread, I listed him as the only A definition Hall of Famer on this years list.
Since you guys are adamant that here's worthy, I'll accept that he's likely to get in. I still wouldn't vote for him, but seems that wouldn't matter given the consensus here. I also will never call him a good offensive player.

[timconnelly]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
I also will never call him a good offensive player.

Good morning, Buzz!

On that last point, I am in total agreement

[SmedIndy]

I'll still contend he is a good offensive player, because I will discount the SD years when he was young and rushed. I also still believe you need to put offensive numbers in a positional context to be relevant.

And it does matter who he was playing against. That's my standard for a HOF player; was he among the elite in his era. There's too many other RFs in Evans' era that he can't separate himself from the pack.

But I think we're becoming like Bob Barr vs. Bill Clinton here, so let's not waste anymore bandwith on this. We're not going to change anyone's mind.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by TGwynn19


Sorry,

But Johnny Bench is the best defensive player of all time

Nope.

There's no such thing as a bigger JB fan than me, but he had holes in his defensive game. Ozzie had none. He's the best.

Actually, Bench remade the catcher position offensively much the way A-Rod, Derek and Nomah have done for shortstop. But he didn't call a good game or "handle" pitchers very well. No one would ever ask him to be a pitching coach, like Dave Duncan is now.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by sweaver
Nope.

There's no such thing as a bigger JB fan than me, but he had holes in his defensive game. Ozzie had none. He's the best.Not trying to pick on Bench himself, but what are the 5 or so things you feel a catcher must excel at to be considered among the elite (:webgem: only)? I'm thinking:

1. handling the rotation
2. blocking the plate
3. throwing out runners
4. preventing or retrieving wild pitches

Anything else, or in a different order?

[Skipper Steve]

Sorry guys - this is overdue. (I've been real busy at work and haven't been locked into the board.) This thread is on Evans - - if you want to debate Ozzie and/or Bench, start a new thread on them. Thanks.

[Xanadu Dragon]

re-opened for those who want to discuss Dwight Evans.

[pwdennis]

I like Dwight Evans as a ball player - he is marginal HOF material - probably better than Tony Perez, but not as good as Yaz. The OPS numbers cited earlier in this posting

Carl Yastrzemski 0.841
Dwight Evans 0.840

are somewhat skewed in that Yaz played his peak years during the worst offensive period since before 1920. Starting his career in the 1970s, Yaz's OPS would more likely be in the 0.890 - 0.910 range - closer to Frank Robinson than to Dwight Evans

[calexpat]

What I want to know is how/why does someone "renounce membership"? Why not just stop posting?

[VNV Nation]

YAz is yet another guy from that 1960s-1970s period who is underated because he didn't hit .350 with 50 homers a year, like Albert Belle.

But he was certainly great, and not just in '67. Evans was never that level of player.

[VNV Nation]

Using Win Shares to analyze Dewey as a HOFer....

Bill James uses Win Shares in four different ways to rank players....Career total, Top 3 seasons, best 5 consecutive years, and Win Shares per 162 games.

By only one of these measures, Career Win Shares, is Dewey in HOF territory. There are 26 players listed as primary right fielders who have 300+ Win Shares, and 17 are in the Hall or are virtual locks (Gwynn, but not counting Pete Rose) Dewey has 347. The only right fielder with more Win Shares who isn't in/going/would be in is Rusty Staub.

Based on peak performance, Dewey just isn't there. His best seasons are 31, 29, 26 Win Shares... there are probably a dozen players or more with better 3-year totals who aren't in....Dave Parker, Bobby Bonds, Bobby Murcer, Ken Singleton, Staub, Jack Clark, Roger Maris, Gavvy Cravath, Canseco, Johnny Callison, Swish Nicholson, Fielder Jones. His peak value is just nothing special.

Ditto for best 5 consecutive years....Among the top 25 players at his position, Dewey's best 5-year run is the worst, by quite a bit. He's at 122. All of your basic HOF right fielders are at 130 or above, and most are over 150, and even some nonHOFers are. Some guys over 150 include Pete Rose (160), Paul Waner (154), Dave Parker (150), Singleton (153), Elmer Flick (152).

Per 162 games, Dewey is ahead of only Slaughter and Staub, those guys spent a long time as pinch-hitting specialists, and Andre Dawson and Dave Parker.

Thus, by James' method, Dewey ranks as only the 22nd best right fielder of all time.

[hmrsf]

I am just glad we are talking about him. He is my all time favorite player.

I want him in the HOF or at the very least have the Red Sox change their policy about retiring numbers. (must be in HOF)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dewey scores 43.3 on the HOF standards ranking (Baseball Reference) but only 69.5 on the HOF monitor, just below the bottom of the gray area.

Dewey hit 385 HRs, and led the league in 1981. It was a 3 way tie in a shortened season, and marked his emergence as a major slugger.

If there had been no strike, Dewey probably would have gotten 400 HRs for his career. That looks SO much more than 385.

I really believe that had Dewey gotten 400 jacks, we would be talking about him as just above the cusp, rather than just below. He would have done better in HOF voting, and may have already been enshrined.

I go back and forth on Dewey. I like him, and think he was a better player than Rice. Dewey was a tremendous defensive right fielder, and was patient at the plate. He hit a late peak, but sustained it for some time.

On the other hand, there are bigger HOF injustices that need to be rectified before Dwight Evans is enshrined. Ron Santo and Gary Carter lead the list. I would also rate Ken Boyer, Ted Simmons, Lance Parrish, Lou Whitaker, Graig Nettles, and Darrell Evans ahead of Dewey, as well as Stan Hack.

Here's a question: Who would YOU put in the HOF first; Dewey Evans or Dave Parker?

[b-ball-lunachik]

I'd love to see Dewey go in and him looked at as a complete player --- I have to wonder if the game didn't completely gear toward offense these last several years, if Dewey would have had more of a shot - -because his defense was so tremendous...Joe Torre has said that Ichiro is the best rightfielder he's ever seen -- he's seen a lot of right fielders, yet how much do you hear about Ichiro's defense? not much...it's all about offense these days...and that's what's on people's minds when they vote and who they are being compared to now...

Maybe I'm thinking too much with my heart -- my cat is named Dewey after him even though I'm a lifelong Yankee fan -- but I think players like him and Mattingly belong even if they are cusp players...and I can think of a few that don't....

HM -- I still think the Red Sox should change that policy of retiring numbers -- Dewey's number should be retired...I think the Yankees retire too many but the Red Sox not enough...

[soxfan121]

Originally posted by b-ball-lunachik
HM -- I still think the Red Sox should change that policy of retiring numbers -- Dewey's number should be retired...I think the Yankees retire too many but the Red Sox not enough...

I know this wasn;t intended for me and it's :topic: but I like the Red Sox policy as is. Rather than honor every Johnny Pesky-come-lately, the Sox policy reserves the honor for only the greatest to wear the uni. The Yanquis, on the other hand, will be using numbers above #100 soon due to the ridiculous trend of retiring everyone who ever got a hit. ;)

When's the Luis Sojo jersey being retired? :D

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
.

Here's a question: Who would YOU put in the HOF first; Dewey Evans or Dave Parker?

I go with Dewey. He is the total package. One of the greatest fielders I have ever seen.

If the hall can not honor him the Red Sox should.

Players like Evans are not born, they are made. He came in the league as a top notch fielder. He became a driving hitting machine not through natural talent, but from hard work.


SF- I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree. Evans 24 belongs up on right field wall. He earned it.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Here's a question: Who would YOU put in the HOF first; Dewey Evans or Dave Parker?

Parker probably peaked higher than Evans, but his fall-off was quick and steep. (I'm going to have to go over and mention him in the "waste of talent" thread).

Evans, at his peak, was both a defensive and an offensive threat. Parker came in with a bang, while Evans' offensive numbers didn't take off for over 10 years (and unlike today, he didn't appear to be ahem enhancing his physical makeup to do it). Evans was a steady climb, followed by eight years of solid (almost) HOF caliber play. Parker had five-ish great years while Evans was still developing and then, essentially, crashed.

Had Evans started producing offensively in, say, 1976 or 1977 instead of 1981, he'd probably be either in or on his way... alas, he didn't.

While I admire Dewey and think he was an important part of two different great Sox clubs, he doesn't quite make the cut for greatness.

Actually, I'd put neither in the Hall.

[Skip]

Originally posted by TimmyB
Actually, I'd put neither in the Hall. I agree. Parker could have been good enough, but for whatever reason was not. Evans was a very good player, but not quite HOF-worthy.

[SmedIndy]

Parker, Evans, Murphy, Rice - all not quite good enough for various and sundry reasons. If a couple seasons would have been different for each, then they'd be in there.

Baseball is a cruel mistress sometimes.

[KCBOOMER]

Since the HoF is done by voting with very few other strictures mistakes are made. It is definitely intended to be a hall of greatness but funny things happen on the way to the ballot box. In baseball you have the problem of dominance (a Koufax type) versus longevity (a Sutton type). This tends to "squirrel" up the numbers.

When the HoF started it was absolutely intended to be for the "greats" and certainly the people around here prefer it that way. It is unfortunate that the Veteran's Committe screwed it up.

Dewey was a very good player but not HoF to me.

As for Lee's (who I have a lot of respect for) Baseball Immortals is no better than what the BBWA has elected. And Lee benefits from 50+ years of hindsight.

[digger]

Dwight Evans was a very good player, but when someone first brought up that he deserved the HOF (a roommate of mine from Connecticut), I laughed. Looking at his stats, he didn't deserve that laugh, but I think if a pretty avid baseball fan like myself had that initial reaction, that means something. I have never laughed at the idea of Trammell, Carter, Santo etc.

Evans is one of those guys that was so underrated during his career that he has become overrated after his career.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by digger
Evans is one of those guys that was so underrated during his career that he has become overrated after his career.

That's profound. Perception is a funny thing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by digger


Evans is one of those guys that was so underrated during his career that he has become overrated after his career.


The All-Underrated-While-Active-but-Overrated-Once-Retired Team:


1B---Norm Cash
2B---Bill Mazeroski
SS---Dave Concepcion
3B---Buddy Bell
LF---Joe Rudi
CF---Brett Butler
RF---Dwight Evans
C----Ernie Lombardi
P----Jack Morris
MGR-Gene Mauch

[jheer]

Originally posted by digger
Dwight Evans was a very good player, but when someone first brought up that he deserved the HOF (a roommate of mine from Connecticut), I laughed. Looking at his stats, he didn't deserve that laugh ...
(snip)
Evans is one of those guys that was so underrated during his career that he has become overrated after his career.

I think your reaction (laughing) was way off. Suggesting him for HOF is NOT laughable, but I don't think he is HOF material. Marv Throneberry is laughable (I'm certain he would laugh at the suggestion, too), but Dewey Evans is not.

I'm curious about the opinion above that Darrell Evans should go in the HOF before Dwight Evans. Anybody else agree with that? I don't know much about Darrell Evans other than he hit 40 HR in both leagues before anyone else. I don't see that, or his 414 HR (I think), as a qualification for HOF. Could he play the field at all? I remember him as a bit rotund, and more of a 1B-DH type with Detroit.

P.S. I like this last statement (quoted). I think it does fit quite a few players, some of which are included in the Lineup above.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
The All-Underrated-While-Active-but-Overrated-Once-Retired Team:
1B---Norm Cash
2B---Bill Mazeroski
SS---Dave Concepcion
3B---Buddy Bell
LF---Joe Rudi
CF---Brett Butler
RF---Dwight Evans
C----Ernie Lombardi
P----Jack Morris
MGR-Gene Mauch
You have Rudi backwards. He was way overrated when active.

[digger]

I didn't mean any disrepect about Evans when I said that I laughed when his name was suggested. In fact, I freely admit now that I was just as guilty as anyone about not giving Evans enough credit during his career. If it means anything, I had the same reaction to Evans as I just did to the post about Strawberry in the HOF, not that they were terrible players, but that some folks will do anything to argue for their favorite players.

For the record, the guy who suggested Evans would probably argue for Marty Barrett for goodness sake, who is a guy who went from underrated to overrated in a two week span on the basis of one good playoffs.