Rice, Evans, and Lynn

[Mike90]

With Jim Rice likely to be inducted this week, I thought it would be interesting to find how BBF posters compared Rice to his two teammates in the outfield, Dwight Evans and Fred Lynn. All three of them are borderline HOF candidates IMO. Evans and Lynn don't have a chance of being elected, but both of them have better OBPs than Rice despite lower BAs. Which of these outfielders do you think should be Hall of Famers?

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of them are really good picks for the HOF.

All things considered, I think the guy who's getting in is the worst of the three (Rice). I rate Lynn the highest, mainly because he was a career center fielder whose OWP was the highest of the three. I really can't see how you can rank Lynn behind either one of the other when you adjust for position.

[Mike90]

None of them are really good picks for the HOF.

All things considered, I think the guy who's getting in is the worst of the three (Rice). I rate Lynn the highest, mainly because he was a career center fielder whose OWP was the highest of the three. I really can't see how you can rank Lynn behind either one of the other when you adjust for position.

Dwight Evans played over 600 more games than Lynn, so he gets points for longevity. I think I would rate Lynn ahead because of those two great MVP-level seasons, but Evans has more career value.

[willshad]

Rice is the best qualified for the hall, despite being probably the worst player of the three. He managed to put almost of of his skill into getting good triple crown stats, which makes him a more dominating hitter than the other two. He faded a bit too early for me, however, to really endorse him for the hall. He basically had the first 2/3 of Eddie Murray's career. Would Murray had been a hall of famer if he had retired after 1989? Murray walked more, but Rice had the better peak. He would be in the very lowest levels if he were inducted (along with guys like Bottomley, B. Williams, Perez, and Cepeda), but wouldn't lower the standards.
Evans and Lynn are like opposites: one of them ( Lynn) peaked young, and turned into a 23 65 .270 type of guy after age 28 o so, while the other really didnt get going until age about age 29. I suppose if you combine Lynn up until age 28 with Evans from age 29 on you'd get a hall of famer (can anyone give career totals for this 'Fred Evans' ?). But then youd also have to deal with the fact that none of these guys were hall of fame type hitters outside of Fenway. I really can't see either Lynn or Evans as being particularilly close.

[jjpm74]

I'd give Dwight Evans the benefit of the doubt.

[leecemark]

--They are all borderliners for me. I'm okay with Rice making it and it wouldn't water down the Hall if they all made it. Of course it won't enhance it that much either and if none of them made it I'd be okay with that too.

[NewYork NewYork]

This is how I'd rank them...

Stats per 162 Games:

Player G HR RBI BA OPS+ WPA *BtRns TZ PosAdj RAA
Lynn 1969 25 91 .283 129 2.03 23.81 -2.96 0.33 21.18
Evans 2606 24 86 .272 127 2.21 22.53 0.99 -8.67 14.85
Rice 2089 30 113 .298 128 1.76 22.85 0.85 -9.99 13.71


Just by looking at the numbers you can tell why it's no surprise that Rice is the one getting Hall of Fame Hype while the other two guys will never make it. When you adjust their stats for 162 games you see that Rice leads all the Triple Crown stats by pretty significant margins (5 HR, 22 RBI, .015 BA). But if you really look into it, they were all extremely close as hitters. When using OPS+ and *BtRns, the 3 guys were pretty much identical.

I also looked at TotalZone to compare them as fielders. All of the guys are very close to average in the field, although Lynn is considered the worst of the 3 by this system. For positional adjustments I just used the numbers listed here http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/complete_war_2008/ and multiplied it by the games played at each position, added the numbers for each position, and then divided it by the total games played.

The final stat (RAA) is a combination of hitting (*BtRns), fielding (TotalZone), and positional adjustments. I just quickly named it RAA (Runs Above Average) because I'm not bright enough to think of a cooler name lol. It's not a 100% fool proof way of comparing players, but I think it's pretty accurate.

According to the numbers, Fred Lynn was easily the best player of the 3 per 162 games. He was the worst fielder of the 3 by a pretty decent margin according to TotalZone but the fact that he was just as good of a hitter as, if not better than, Rice and Evans makes him much more valuable than the other two when you take into account positonal adjustments. He played CF for most of his career while the other two guys were Corner OF'ers, obviously a corner OF'er is expected to produce more runs.

If you go by these numbers, I think it becomes extremely hard to vote for Rice over Lynn and/or Evans. Lynn played pretty much the same amount of games as Rice and was just as good of a hitter despite playing a tougher position. Even if you think Rice was the better hitter, it would only be by a little bit. I don't think it'd be enough to make up for the positional difference. And Rice and Evans were extremely similar players. The only difference between the two is that Evans played over 500 more games than Rice. That's a pretty significant difference in my mind, Rice would have to atleast be the better player per 162 games played to have a good argument. But if you look at the numbers, they were virtually the same per 162 games.

Jim Rice was a good hitter, but I just don't think he's as good as Evans and Lynn. I don't think any of these guys are HOF worthy (Lynn would be the only guy who I'd think about), especially Rice. Sometimes a player is better than his stats, but when looking at WPA Rice is far behind the other two guys per 162 games. Rice had a pretty nice prime, but I don't think it was nearly enough to make up for his overall career. I think he's the 3rd best on this list and I don't think he belongs anywhere near the Hall of Fame. If he does make it (it looks like it'll happen), I think he'd be one of the weakest Hall of Fame choices in recent memory.

[philkid3]

I don't think any of them are glaring omissions or any of them would be horrible additions. All are probably in my "deserve a long, hard look" gray area.

Evans would probably get in for me, and be one of the "worst" deserving candidates.

Lynn would be one of the better players I leave out.

Rice is out, and part of while I feel confident in that is not that he's so far away but because it's such a common peace of debate I've become pretty learned in his case.

[willshad]

This is how I'd rank them...

Stats per 162 Games:

Player G HR RBI BA OPS+ WPA *BtRns TZ PosAdj RAA
Lynn 1969 25 91 .283 129 2.03 23.81 -2.96 0.33 21.18
Evans 2606 24 86 .272 127 2.21 22.53 0.99 -8.67 14.85
Rice 2089 30 113 .298 128 1.76 22.85 0.85 -9.99 13.71


Just by looking at the numbers you can tell why it's no surprise that Rice is the one getting Hall of Fame Hype while the other two guys will never make it. When you adjust their stats for 162 games you see that Rice leads all the Triple Crown stats by pretty significant margins (5 HR, 22 RBI, .015 BA). But if you really look into it, they were all extremely close as hitters. When using OPS+ and *BtRns, the 3 guys were pretty much identical.

I also looked at TotalZone to compare them as fielders. All of the guys are very close to average in the field, although Lynn is considered the worst of the 3 by this system. For positional adjustments I just used the numbers listed here http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/complete_war_2008/ and multiplied it by the games played at each position, added the numbers for each position, and then divided it by the total games played.

The final stat (RAA) is a combination of hitting (*BtRns), fielding (TotalZone), and positional adjustments. I just quickly named it RAA (Runs Above Average) because I'm not bright enough to think of a cooler name lol. It's not a 100% fool proof way of comparing players, but I think it's pretty accurate.

According to the numbers, Fred Lynn was easily the best player of the 3 per 162 games. He was the worst fielder of the 3 by a pretty decent margin according to TotalZone but the fact that he was just as good of a hitter as, if not better than, Rice and Evans makes him much more valuable than the other two when you take into account positonal adjustments. He played CF for most of his career while the other two guys were Corner OF'ers, obviously a corner OF'er is expected to produce more runs.

If you go by these numbers, I think it becomes extremely hard to vote for Rice over Lynn and/or Evans. Lynn played pretty much the same amount of games as Rice and was just as good of a hitter despite playing a tougher position. Even if you think Rice was the better hitter, it would only be by a little bit. I don't think it'd be enough to make up for the positional difference. And Rice and Evans were extremely similar players. The only difference between the two is that Evans played over 500 more games than Rice. That's a pretty significant difference in my mind, Rice would have to atleast be the better player per 162 games played to have a good argument. But if you look at the numbers, they were virtually the same per 162 games.

Jim Rice was a good hitter, but I just don't think he's as good as Evans and Lynn. I don't think any of these guys are HOF worthy (Lynn would be the only guy who I'd think about), especially Rice. Sometimes a player is better than his stats, but when looking at WPA Rice is far behind the other two guys per 162 games. Rice had a pretty nice prime, but I don't think it was nearly enough to make up for his overall career. I think he's the 3rd best on this list and I don't think he belongs anywhere near the Hall of Fame. If he does make it (it looks like it'll happen), I think he'd be one of the weakest Hall of Fame choices in recent memory.


I dont think you are really looking at it the proper way. What a player averaged per 162 games isnt really as important as how many seasons he actually had that were of a hall of fame quality. Your way does not take into account in season durability whatsoever. While Lynn may have been close to Rice as a hitter per 162 games, he seldom played anywhere near that in any season. Only 4 times did he play as many as 140 games in a season..by contrast Rice had 10 such seasons. During his prime, from 1975-1986 there was only really one season that he missed significant time with injury (1980), and he still managed a 24 86 .294 line that year....a single season RBI total that Lynn only surpassed TWICE in his entire career!
The bottom line is, that Lynn only had 2 seasons ( 3 or 4 if you REALLY want to stretch it) that were star quality; and definitely only 2 that were 'hall of fame' quality'. Yes, he was a 9 time all star, but most of those choices were due to reputation. Rice, however, had legit all star stats almost every year. He could very well have won 5 or 6 MVPs. (And no, I dont care about how many 'win shares' or whatever riduculous stat some choose to decide what is an all star quality season) If Rice had won 5 MVPs would we even be debating his hall credentials?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He could very well have won 5 or 6 MVPs. (And no, I dont care about how many 'win shares' or whatever riduculous stat some choose to decide what is an all star quality season) If Rice had won 5 MVPs would we even be debating his hall credentials?

What seasons were these? If Mickey Mantle nor Stan Musial, nor Mike Schmidt could win more than three MVPs what makes you think Rice could have?

[willshad]

What seasons were these? If Mickey Mantle nor Stan Musial, nor Mike Schmidt could win more than three MVPs what makes you think Rice could have?

He finished in the top 5 on 6 occasions. Ceratinly if someone can finish in the top 5, it isn't a stretch to say he could have won it in that season...especially since none of those seasons had a runaway choice. Usually when it is that close, it's just a matter of whose team finished first. I'm not saying he was the best player in the league that many times, but that he had at least 6 'MVP type' seasons. Yes, I know that Ripken was better due to position, but it's not like he was unanimous in 1983...Murray received 10 first place votes, and Rice was as good as Murray that year. Again, if the Sox were in first that year, Rice probbaly would have won the MVP.
Without getting into a detiled debate about how he ranked each season from a sabermetric standpoint, the fact is that Rice had much more durability than Lynn, and several more 'mvp type' seasons. To me, this makes him better qualified for the hall.

[mwiggins]

I don't think any of them are worthy Hall of Famers. But none of them would be the worst in the Hall if they did get in, either. In my book, Evans is the best of the lot, followed by Rice and Lynn in that order.

[sturg1dj]

none are locks...the most deserving career wise would be Rice and Evans...which is funny since I think Lynn was the most talented...just couldn't stop getting hurt

[curveball]

<< Yes, he was a 9 time all star, but most of those choices were due to reputation. Rice, however, had legit all star stats almost every year. He could very well have won 5 or 6 MVPs. (And no, I dont care about how many 'win shares' or whatever riduculous stat some choose to decide what is an all star quality season) If Rice had won 5 MVPs would we even be debating his hall credentials? >>

It's funny how you downplay Lynn's 9 all star selections, arguing that most of them were due to reputation, yet elevate of Rice's all star and MVP selections. So you are already admitting that there are serious flaws in the voting, which is definitely true. Taking a cursory glance at their stats, I see 1977, and definitely 1981 as years Lynn probably shouldn't have been selected. Rice may have not deserved it in 1984, 1985, and 1986, but I didn't check to see who the competition was in right field. Rice was definitely not even close to deserving 5 or 6 MVP awards.

All star selections, Cy young voting, and mvp voting are lousy ways to judge a players career anyways. You said so yourself that certain players get votes based on reputation. These votes are subjective, and personally, I pretty much ignore them, as they will always take a back seat to ops, stolen bases, era, whip, innings pitched, etc...., which were actually earned on the playing field.

[KCGHOST]

Evan had the best overall career, so if you have to pick one I'd pick him. You can flip a coin between Lynn and Rice, but I wouldn't vote for either.

[willshad]

He finished in the top 5 on 6 occasions. Ceratinly if someone can finish in the top 5, it isn't a stretch to say he could have won it in that season...especially since none of those seasons had a runaway choice. Usually when it is that close, it's just a matter of whose team finished first. I'm not saying he was the best player in the league that many times, but that he had at least 6 'MVP type' seasons. Yes, I know that Ripken was better due to position, but it's not like he was unanimous in 1983...Murray received 10 first place votes, and Rice was as good as Murray that year. Again, if the Sox were in first that year, Rice probbaly would have won the MVP.
Without getting into a detiled debate about how he ranked each season from a sabermetric standpoint, the fact is that Rice had much more durability than Lynn, and several more 'mvp type' seasons. To me, this makes him better qualified for the hall.

I know that the voting is very flawed...but the fact is that Rice was putting up numbers that were consistent with what all star players put up during that time, and in at least 6 seasons had numbers that the MVPs were putting up. This was mostly due to the fact that he was more durable than Lynn. In 1986 he was third in the MVP voting...that would be very unusual for someone who didnt even deserve to be an all star. He certainly deserved it that year.

Now I dont know how the first half/second half splits went, but Lynn was an all star in seasons when he had lines of 10 65 .314 , 18 76 .260, 5 31 .219, 22 74 .282. He simply missed too much time and was too inconsistent to be seriously considered for the hall. I never said Rice 'deserved' 5 or 6 MVPs., but that it is reasonable to believe that, if Boston had been in first place every year, he would have won it 4 or 5 times. I think what hurt him in 1986 was that he was considered by then to be part of the old guard, and kind of taken for granted. The new guys like Clemens and Mattingly were getting all the headlines. You have to remember, during the 70s and most of the 80s, a 30 100 .300 season was considered a 'monster' season. This is about what Rice averaged during his prime years. In his best years he surpassed these numbers by a large margin, making him seem like a monster among monsters.

And you are right....subjective voting is not a good way to judge how good a player really was. But in determining who is more qualified for the hall of fame, I think they are quite important. I think they mean more than simply figuring out how good a guy was on average for 162 games, and treating his whole career as if it were one big 'season'. I think some sabermetric people tend to do this, and thus overrate guys who had trouble staying in the lineup (Mantle, Mccovey,Larkin, Walker, Lynn). If two guys had similiar quality stats, but one played 120 games and the other played 150 games, who was more valuable? Lynn played in only about 100 less games than Rice for his career, and had a similiar OPS+. This is misleading, however, because, outside of a couple of seasons, Rice was playing much more during his prime years.

[curveball]

<< And you are right....subjective voting is not a good way to judge how good a player really was. But in determining who is more qualified for the hall of fame, I think they are quite important. >>

You are contradicting yourself because you say it is not a good way to judge, and then say it is a good way to judge as far as HoF qualifications. I think subjective voting is never a good way to judge how good a player was, period.



<< I think they mean more than simply figuring out how good a guy was on average for 162 games, and treating his whole career as if it were one big 'season'. I think some sabermetric people tend to do this, and thus overrate guys who had trouble staying in the lineup (Mantle, Mccovey,Larkin, Walker, Lynn). If two guys had similiar quality stats, but one played 120 games and the other played 150 games, who was more valuable? Lynn played in only about 100 less games than Rice for his career, and had a similiar OPS+. This is misleading, however, because, outside of a couple of seasons, Rice was playing much more during his prime years. >>

I would definitely give Rice more credit for durability, but if they had a similar OPS+ for their career, that would be a huge edge to Lynn because he played centrefield.

[willshad]

To me, the durability trumps the positional advantage. If Lynn was a catcher, it would be understandable to miss a lot of time, but he wasn't. When deciding hall of fame worthiness, I tend to look at how many 'hall of fame type' seasons that player had....how many times he was a legit MVP candidate. This is very difficult to do while missing 40 or 50 games each season.

To me, there is also a difference between a player's 'value', sabermetrically speaking, and his hall worthiness. Spreading out your value may be fine and dandy, but I dont think being pretty good at everything should merit you a shot at the hall (eg Roy White). Guys who dominate in one or two areas should be looked at first.

[Paul Wendt]

<< And you are right....subjective voting is not a good way to judge how good a player really was. But in determining who is more qualified for the hall of fame, I think they are quite important. >>

You are contradicting yourself because you say it is not a good way to judge, and then say it is a good way to judge as far as HoF qualifications. I think subjective voting is never a good way to judge how good a player was, period.
Probably there is no contradiction, only a disagreement. You presume that Hall of Fame qualification should be "how good a player was"; that is, playing quality or simply "quality" for short. Many people disagree.

[NewYork NewYork]

I dont think you are really looking at it the proper way. What a player averaged per 162 games isnt really as important as how many seasons he actually had that were of a hall of fame quality. Your way does not take into account in season durability whatsoever. While Lynn may have been close to Rice as a hitter per 162 games, he seldom played anywhere near that in any season. Only 4 times did he play as many as 140 games in a season..by contrast Rice had 10 such seasons. During his prime, from 1975-1986 there was only really one season that he missed significant time with injury (1980), and he still managed a 24 86 .294 line that year....a single season RBI total that Lynn only surpassed TWICE in his entire career!
The bottom line is, that Lynn only had 2 seasons ( 3 or 4 if you REALLY want to stretch it) that were star quality; and definitely only 2 that were 'hall of fame' quality'. Yes, he was a 9 time all star, but most of those choices were due to reputation. Rice, however, had legit all star stats almost every year. He could very well have won 5 or 6 MVPs. (And no, I dont care about how many 'win shares' or whatever riduculous stat some choose to decide what is an all star quality season) If Rice had won 5 MVPs would we even be debating his hall credentials?


I see your point, I was just trying to show how good they were on a per game basis. I completely agree with you about games played per season being very important. I took out the 2 lowest games played totals from each of these players' career and then divided it by the seasons played. I took the 2 lowest away because too often a player plays less than 50 games his first and/or last year. I think it's more accurate this way...

Games Played per Season-
Rice: 143.5
Evans: 139.7
Lynn: 125.2

So you do have a point, Rice usually played more games per season than Lynn. But I just don't think this makes up for the fact that Lynn was simply a better player. The positional difference is huge, I think it's much more important than an 18 game difference per season. And Dwight Evans played essentially the same amount of games over a couple of more seasons.

Rice was a good player, but he's just a very weak choice for the Hall.

[curveball]

Probably there is no contradiction, only a disagreement. You presume that Hall of Fame qualification should be "how good a player was"; that is, playing quality or simply "quality" for short. Many people disagree.

You are going to have to explain to me exactly what you meant there, especially the part about many people disagreeing.

To me, apart from being a cheater or a felon, which would probably exclude somebody, the most important factor in being enshrined in the HoF is how good a player was.

Awards, that are based on subjective voting are never good indicators of how good a player was. In my opinion all-star, MVP, and Cy Young votes should award the best players, but I know that definitely isn't always the case, so I put very little stock in them. I may use them as a reference, as to how the voters felt in a particular season, but I form my own opinions. People who choose to use these awards as arguments, are just following the opinions of others, and failing to come up with their own.

The HoF voters put way too much emphasis on how well players do in these voting categories, and they fail miserably in doing the necessary research required to see a player's true qualifications.

[Cougar]

Well, Rice is now in the Hall.

[willshad]

You are going to have to explain to me exactly what you meant there, especially the part about many people disagreeing.

To me, apart from being a cheater or a felon, which would probably exclude somebody, the most important factor in being enshrined in the HoF is how good a player was.

Awards, that are based on subjective voting are never good indicators of how good a player was. In my opinion all-star, MVP, and Cy Young votes should award the best players, but I know that definitely isn't always the case, so I put very little stock in them. I may use them as a reference, as to how the voters felt in a particular season, but I form my own opinions. People who choose to use these awards as arguments, are just following the opinions of others, and failing to come up with their own.

The HoF voters put way too much emphasis on how well players do in these voting categories, and they fail miserably in doing the necessary research required to see a player's true qualifications.


The problem is, there has to be some subjectivity at some point. Each person has a different definition of how to judge how good a player was. And , even when people agree on the factors, their results, using 'objective' formulas and such, often yield very different results. You make it seem like you want someone like Bill James to make a formula, and put each player's total value into one number...and if you score under a certain level then you're not in the hall; over a certain number and you're in.

[curveball]

The problem is, there has to be some subjectivity at some point. Each person has a different definition of how to judge how good a player was. And , even when people agree on the factors, their results, using 'objective' formulas and such, often yield very different results. You make it seem like you want someone like Bill James to make a formula, and put each player's total value into one number...and if you score under a certain level then you're not in the hall; over a certain number and you're in.


I just get sick and tired of people using statements like so and so only played in 3 all-star games, or he hardly got any Cy Young or MVP votes as their primary arguments.

I would never use the argument that so and so only played in 3 all-star games unless I actually researched his career and felt that he only deserved 3 selections. A lot of casual fans get swayed by what they hear, and when they hear that somebody was never or hardly ever selected as an all-star, they automatically presume that the player was of low quality.

I would rather prefer something like James does, which actually requires a lot of research, and the HoF would be so much better represented if the voters were more qualified and informed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I just get sick and tired of people using statements like so and so only played in 3 all-star games, or he hardly got any Cy Young or MVP votes as their primary arguments.

I would never use the argument that so and so only played in 3 all-star games unless I actually researched his career and felt that he only deserved 3 selections. A lot of casual fans get swayed by what they hear, and when they hear that somebody was never or hardly ever selected as an all-star, they automatically presume that the player was of low quality.

I would rather prefer something like James does, which actually requires a lot of research, and the HoF would be so much better represented if the voters were more qualified and informed.

All-Star game selections are indicators of the opinion of a player's contemporaries (fans, players, managers, and observers). A guy who was a multiple All-Star made more of an impression on voters as a star than did a player who was only picked once.

ASG selections, ROY, Cy Young, and MVP voting can all be criticized, but they are an indicator of how the observers of the time viewed a player. There is something to the idea that a HOF candidate is a bit questionable if nobody who watched him play thought he was that special.

[henrich]

The problem is, there has to be some subjectivity at some point. Each person has a different definition of how to judge how good a player was. And , even when people agree on the factors, their results, using 'objective' formulas and such, often yield very different results. You make it seem like you want someone like Bill James to make a formula, and put each player's total value into one number...and if you score under a certain level then you're not in the hall; over a certain number and you're in.

I took my best crack at it 10,000 before the era of free agency equals in the Hall of fame with very few exceptions (Hodges, Powell, Davis willie-gordon's selection brought the number from 4 to 3 yeah!). As for the players you are discussing, here's how they rank for the H-Factor.

LF Rice 11,347 12th all-time at his position
CF Lynn 8853 32nd all-time at his position
RF Evans DW 10,932 22nd all-time at his position

[jalbright]

All-Star game selections are indicators of the opinion of a player's contemporaries (fans, players, managers, and observers). A guy who was a multiple All-Star made more of an impression on voters as a star than did a player who was only picked once.

ASG selections, ROY, Cy Young, and MVP voting can all be criticized, but they are an indicator of how the observers of the time viewed a player. There is something to the idea that a HOF candidate is a bit questionable if nobody who watched him play thought he was that special.

I'm with you, Fuzzy, in viewing All-Star selections and MVP voting as pieces of evidence which aid in viewing a candidate. If the rest of the evidence stacks up in the other direction, I'll certainly go with it, but even with their flaws these pieces of evidence can help seal the deal one way or the other.

[Los Bravos]

To quote Deniro's character from Heat, there's a flip side to that coin. Namely that if a guy actually did get a lot of play in those categories, then it follows that the view of him, at least at the time, was a rather positive one.

That can be challenged and quibbled with after the fact, but as a document of contemporary opinion, it needs to be taken into account.

[Mike90]

I consider contemporary opinion but take it with a grain of salt. Rice was 3rd in MVP voting as a rookie in 1975 because of his 102 RBI (5th) and Boston winning 95 games, but his OPS+ was only 127, and he wasn't a good fielder or baserunner. His OBP (.350) was only 9 points better than average. I don't think Rice was one of 20 most valuable players in the AL that season, much less in the top 3, and I would not use that season's voting as an example of what a dominant player he was.

Where do you, as in everyone on baseball fever, think Rice rates among the worst outfielders in the Hall?

[mwiggins]

Where do you, as in everyone on baseball fever, think Rice rates among the worst outfielders in the Hall?

He might make my top 10 for worst OF's in the Hall. Maybe. But he's a good distance from the bottom of the barrel.

[Macker]

I also looked at TotalZone to compare them as fielders. All of the guys are very close to average in the field, although Lynn is considered the worst of the 3 by this system.

If the system shows Lynn as the worst of the 3, it doesn't say much for that system. Lynn was a good outfielder. He dove for a lot of balls that he really shouldn't have. The announcers would play up his sensational catches that the better centerfielders could catch on the run. Regardless, he was a better fielder than Rice by a good margin. I saw about 80% of every Red Sox game those three played. Rice was my favorite of the three, but he was the worst fielder of them.

[SavoyBG]

Rice is the best qualified for the hall, despite being probably the worst player of the three. He managed to put almost of of his skill into getting good triple crown stats, which makes him a more dominating hitter than the other two. He faded a bit too early for me, however, to really endorse him for the hall. He basically had the first 2/3 of Eddie Murray's career. Would Murray had been a hall of famer if he had retired after 1989? Murray walked more, but Rice had the better peak.

No he didn't. Murray beats him fairly easily in peak value. From 1981 through 1985 Murray's OPS+ was over 150 every year. Rice was only over 150 in two seasons.

Win shares per 162
Rice - 21.86
Murray - 23.40

TOP THREE WIN SHARES SEASONS
Rice - 36, 28, 28 = 92
Murray - 33, 31, 31 = 95

BEST 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Rice - 127
Murray - 142

[Fuzzy Bear]

I consider contemporary opinion but take it with a grain of salt. Rice was 3rd in MVP voting as a rookie in 1975 because of his 102 RBI (5th) and Boston winning 95 games, but his OPS+ was only 127, and he wasn't a good fielder or baserunner. His OBP (.350) was only 9 points better than average. I don't think Rice was one of 20 most valuable players in the AL that season, much less in the top 3, and I would not use that season's voting as an example of what a dominant player he was.

Where do you, as in everyone on baseball fever, think Rice rates among the worst outfielders in the Hall?

Rice is in the bottom half of HOF outfielders. He's ahead of the clear-cut mistakes (Chick Hafey, Lloyd Waner) and the overrated (Max Carey).

I rank Rice behind Ross Youngs, mainly because I don't view Youngs as the horrible mistake so many here view him as. Had Youngs not fallen ill and died young, he's have been a non-controversial HOF selection. He was a better offensive player than Rice, and MUCH better on defense.

Rice is borderline. I can't complain that he's in, but there are guys not in (Oliva, Belle, Allen) that are, IMO, clearly better than he was.

[mwiggins]

Rice is in the bottom half of HOF outfielders. He's ahead of the clear-cut mistakes (Chick Hafey, Lloyd Waner) and the overrated (Max Carey).

I rank Rice behind Ross Youngs, mainly because I don't view Youngs as the horrible mistake so many here view him as. Had Youngs not fallen ill and died young, he's have been a non-controversial HOF selection. He was a better offensive player than Rice, and MUCH better on defense.

Rice is borderline. I can't complain that he's in, but there are guys not in (Oliva, Belle, Allen) that are, IMO, clearly better than he was.

I'm 100% with you on Youngs not being a mistake, and that Rice is ahead of Hafey and L. Waner...but to say he's ahead of Carey seems like quite a stretch. I wouldn't say he's any worse than Hugh Duffy or Goose Goslin or Sam Rice or Chuck Klein. And I'd probably put him ahead of all of those guys.

But, the key thing to remember is that if those guys really were the standard HoF OF's then Jimmy Wynn, Reggie Smith, Andre Dawson, Dave Parker, Dwight Evans, Bobby Bonds, Frank Howard, Sherre Magee, Minnie Minnoso, Charlie Keller, and Tim Raines would already be in the Hall.

[Mike90]

That 1975 to 1986 thing was awfully effective for my boy Jim Rice. I'm going to try it for Dwight Evans.

Did you know that from 1972 to 1991, Dwight Evans ranks 3rd in runs scored (only behind Mike Schmidt and Robin Yount; everyone in the top 6 is in the Hall), 3rd in walks, 7th in RBI, and 8th in home runs as well as winning 8 gold gloves?...Not quite the same ring as hearing a bunch of firsts. Maybe a shorter time period would work better...

From 1981 to 1989, Dwight Evans ranks 1st in walks, 2nd in runs scored (behind Rickey!), 2nd in RBI (tied with Dale Murphy), 4th in home runs, 7th in doubles. Evans has more Runs + RBI in that period than anyone else...This one is probably better than what he did over his entire career, although it doesn't help Dwight that one of his crowning achievements is his huge number of walks.

Here's another one for Bert Blyleven: From 1970 to 1989, Blyleven ranks 1st in shutouts (60), 2nd in strikeouts (3562), and 4th in wins (271).

[Los Bravos]

Excellent case, none of which even takes into acount Dewey's defensive brilliance.

This is an object lesson in why anyone who ever runs that "If you have to think about it..." okeydoke past me runs the risk of tapping into my inner Greg House.

[bagwell368]

I saw at least 50 Sox games a year for the entire career of these guys, and before and after.

I have examined, and written about this topic quite a few times - including the Rice vs Evans thread leader that was filched from me a few months back.

Facts:

#1. Dwight Evans was clearly a better player then Jim Rice.
#2. Career wise Evans was a better hitter then Rice.
#3. 3 and 5 year peak, Rice was marginally better then Evans.
#4. Lynn is a better CF then Rice is a LF - overall
#5. Evans is a better RF then Rice is a LF - overall

None of them IMO belong in the HOF. Evans has the best argument.

Evans - EQA .296 EQR 1606 + 66 RF = 1672 Runs
JRice - EQA .293 EQR 1367 -55 LF = 1312 Runs

in 1511 PA's (about 2.4 years more) - Evans crucified Rice by 360 net runs, it's not even close - a more valuable career - aside from greatness early on and his "reputation" which has brought him a long way - longer then the reality of his career was. The simple fact - Evans was a better player.

[bagwell368]

I also looked at TotalZone to compare them as fielders. All of the guys are very close to average in the field, although Lynn is considered the worst of the 3 by this system. For positional adjustments I just used the numbers listed here http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/complete_war_2008/ and multiplied it by the games played at each position, added the numbers for each position, and then divided it by the total games played.

The final stat (RAA) is a combination of hitting (*BtRns), fielding (TotalZone), and positional adjustments. I just quickly named it RAA (Runs Above Average) because I'm not bright enough to think of a cooler name lol. It's not a 100% fool proof way of comparing players, but I think it's pretty accurate.


Any system has has Rice/Lynn/Evans close in the field is one to avoid. Evans is clearly one of the 10 greatest RF's since 1945, playing a very difficult home field.

Rice was a faceless below average fielder.

Lynn was a bit of a showboat, but had some fine years before he got injured and old.

Do not underestimate the fact that Evans had 1511 more PA's then Rice at almost the same OPS+ RC/G RAA pace, meaning, he was a better player in terms of overall value.

Then there is the reputation bias. Evans didn't have an elite year with the bat until his 9th year. He batted 3/4/5 seldom compared to Rice, so he lost PA's and RBI opportunites. If you line up Evans and Rice from high to low on WARP3 - Evans wins every single year, and has years at then end when Rice is a 0. Rice started quick, so he earned that rep of a slugger. But he had his last elite year at age 27! He was the singlemost over paid player in the ML in the 80's and had the worst 4 year stretch of GDIP's in the history of the game.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

#3. 3 and 5 year peak, Rice was marginally better then Evans.

That is the main difference between Rice and Evans, but I think to use the word "marginally" is to understates the difference. Whether Evans has more career value than Rice is up for debate, but I maintain that Rice is the better HOF candidate due to peak value, and HOF candidacy is what this thread is about. Neither one has enough career value for that alone to get him into the HOF. Outfielders with sub .300 averages and fewer than 400 homers usually need something else. For Al Kaline it was 3,000 hits. For Ralph Kiner it was a short-lived, but absolutely dominant display of power. For Jim Rice it was a run as one of the best all-around hitters in baseball - he was an annual threat to hit 40 homers and bat .300 (not to mention drive in 120 if you're into that kind of thing). Dewey doesn't have that X-factor. To use a cliche, he was a jack of all trades, but a master of none. He walked a lot, but so did Eddie Yost and no one is clamoring for his induction. He played great defense, but he was a corner outfielder, not a shortstop. As a hitter, he was consistently good, but rarely great. If Harold Baines had played top-notch defense in right field, he'd essentially be the same player as Dewey. I think that Rice is just barely above the HOF cutoff, and I supported his induction for several years before it finally happened, but I can't bring myself to support Dewey - he's just barely below that cutoff.

[Mike90]

That is the main difference between Rice and Evans, but I think to use the word "marginally" is to understates the difference. Whether Evans has more career value than Rice is up for debate

Really? Rice has an OPS+ of 128, and Evans' is 127, but Evans' OPS is much more OBP-heavy than Rice's, giving Evans the slight advantage in EqA (.296 for Evans to .293 for Rice), and Evans had 1500 more plate appearances than Rice, and Evans was considered a great defensive corner outfielder while Rice wasn't. Evans is credited with 347 career win shares, and Rice has 282. I'm not sure how you feel about win shares but a difference of 65 win shares over a career is pretty much insurmountable, and all the other uber-stat systems have Evans clearly ahead of Rice for career value. Rice does have better triple-crown stats though.

Outfielders with sub .300 averages and fewer than 400 homers usually need something else.

Agree with this.

Dewey doesn't have that X-factor. To use a cliche, he was a jack of all trades, but a master of none.

He did lead the league in walks three times, although master of walking doesn't sound quite as good as most feared hitter of his generation. Most feared walker of his generation? But that's probably Rickey.

He walked a lot, but so did Eddie Yost and no one is clamoring for his induction.

This reminds of an article I read about McGwire's hall chances where the writer said (basically), "Yeah, McGwire hit a lot of homers, but so did Dave Kingman. You don't think Kingman's a hall of famer do you?" If all Evans did well was walk a lot, he would get about as much hall of fame support on this forum as Yost does (none).

He played great defense, but he was a corner outfielder, not a shortstop. As a hitter, he was consistently good, but rarely great.

These are good arguments against Evans, although I probably have a higher opinion of Evans' best hitting seasons than you do. He led the league once in OWP (in a strike season) and was in the top 5 three other times. It sucks for Evans that he had his best season in '81.

If Harold Baines had played top-notch defense in right field, he'd essentially be the same player as Dewey.

If Baines had won 8 gold gloves as a corner outfielder instead of playing the majority of his games as a DH, he would be a hall of famer.

I think that Rice is just barely above the HOF cutoff, and I supported his induction for several years before it finally happened, but I can't bring myself to support Dewey - he's just barely below that cutoff.

I would switch these: Evans barely above the cutoff, and Rice below. They're close, but I have Evans as being clearly ahead.

[Brad Harris]

None of them are really good picks for the HOF.

All things considered, I think the guy who's getting in is the worst of the three (Rice). I rate Lynn the highest, mainly because he was a career center fielder whose OWP was the highest of the three. I really can't see how you can rank Lynn behind either one of the other when you adjust for position.
I should just let you speak for me on all such matters. :highfive:

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

This reminds of an article I read about McGwire's hall chances where the writer said (basically), "Yeah, McGwire hit a lot of homers, but so did Dave Kingman. You don't think Kingman's a hall of famer do you?" If all Evans did well was walk a lot, he would get about as much hall of fame support on this forum as Yost does (none).

My argument was structured the same as that one, but...

1) Although I am by no means a traditionalist-type who undervalues walks, I absolutely consider home runs to be more important. Appropriately, Kingman (a guy who essentially just hit homers) gets more HOF support than Yost (a guy who essentially just drew walks), although neither one is even close to being a serious candidate.

2) Even though they each hit "a lot" of homers, McGwire hit considerably more homers than Kingman, despite playing in fewer games. Dewey actually has fewer walks than Eddie Yost, despite playing in substantially more games.

I'm as behind Mark McGwire's HOF candidacy as I can be. He is arguably the greatest power hitter of all-time, and he drew a lot of walks (more per capita than Dewey, actually).

[bagwell368]

That is the main difference between Rice and Evans, but I think to use the word "marginally" is to understates the difference. Whether Evans has more career value than Rice is up for debate, but I maintain that Rice is the better HOF candidate due to peak value, and HOF candidacy is what this thread is about.

Sorry, I disagree. With the stick only Rice was about 4% better in his best 5 years.

Also, one of Evans's best years was the strike year, the combined RS record had them taking the East easily, if the season is whole there is a terrific argument he wins the MVP.

But when you factor the glove and baserunning into it - Evans beats Rice from year #1 to year #14, every single one. Line up WARP3, and look. And that was Evans batting outside of the 3/4/5 slots unlike Rice. At first because he wasn't a fine hitter, later because he could get on base and was more flexible.

For Jim Rice it was a run as one of the best all-around hitters in baseball - he was an annual threat to hit 40 homers and bat .300 (not to mention drive in 120 if you're into that kind of thing).

Perception of common fans does not stand up to analysis. Evans was better.

Feared Hitter: His best WARP3 year was 9.7, his best SLG .600, his best OBP .384 - not a very amazing peak for a "HOF" LF in the live ball era. I think it was his stare, and going into the stands in LF in Yankee Stadium, and breaking not one but two bats on checked swings. Reputation galore. He's like Fonzie, big rep, but did you notice he never punched anyone out?

[bagwell368]

Prospectus blows away Rice's candidacy for the HOF:

In evaluating the Hall of Fame candidacies of Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines recently, I made a point of avoiding any discussion of Jim Rice for a simple reason: his candidacy doesn't merit being mentioned in the same breath. That's not to say that Rice wasn't an excellent ballplayer, but his relatively short career and the context surrounding it simply leave his case wanting. The BBWAA clearly feels otherwise, as Rice polled 72.2 percent of the vote last year, the ninth straight year he's received above 50 percent. Still, he fell 16 votes shy in his second-to-last year on the ballot. With his candidacy in its final year and surrounded by such controversy, we'll take a closer look at his case.

If you're joining us late, please read this year's introduction to the JAWS system and the changes in the underlying WARP metric since last year's evaluation.


-------------------- H HR RBI AVG OBP SLG AS MVP GG HOFS HOFM Bal 2008%
Jim Rice ---------- 2452 382 1451 .298 .352 .502 7 1 0 42.9 147.0 14 72.20
Rickey Henderson 3055 297 1115 .279 .401 .419 10 1 1 52.6 183.5 0 ---
Tim Raines ------- 2605 170 980 .294 .385 .425 7 0 0 6.8 90.0 1 24.30

--------------- EqA BRAR BRAA FRAA Career Peak JAWS

Rice .293 627 359 -41 55.1 39.6 47.4
Henderson .316 1285 906 194 155.7 74.9 115.3
Raines .309 905 608 8 94.3 54.9 74.6

Avg HOF LF .303 743 473 2 76.8 48.2 62.5

HOFS & HOFM: Bill James' Hall of Fame Shares and Monitor.
Bal: How many years the player has appeared on the ballot.
2008%: The player's share of the vote in 2008.

Jim Rice was Boston's first pick in the 1971 draft, the 15th pick overall, passed over in favor of such luminaries as Danny Goodwin, Jay Franklin, Condredge Holloway, and Tom Veryzer. Not that the first round was entirely a bust, as Frank Tanana was taken just two picks ahead of Rice by the Angels, and Rick Rhoden was chosen five picks behind him by the Dodgers. Though he hit just .256/.311/.408 as an 18-year-old in the New York-Penn League, Rice climbed quickly through the Red Sox system, reaching Triple-A Pawtucket in late 1973 and Boston in late 1974 after a season at Pawtucket in which he won the International League Triple Crown and would earn The Sporting News Minor League Player of the Year honors. He made his major league debut on August 19, and hit .269/.307/.373 in 24 games, mainly as a DH and pinch-hitter.

Just over two weeks later, fellow rookie Fred Lynn would debut as well. The following year the two players would help Boston win their first pennant since 1967, with Lynn winning both Rookie of the Year and MVP honors, a then-unprecedented feat; for the year, Lynn hit .331/.401/.566 with 21 homers, a season worth 8.3 WARP, using Clay Davenport's revised replacement level. Rice finished second in the Rookie of the Year balloting and third in MVP on the strength of a .309/.350/.491 line with 22 homers, but his season was only worth 4.1 WARP due to his lesser defensive value and much lower OBP and SLG numbers. Already he was overrated.

<got to pay to get more>

[bagwell368]

Rewrote this post which was originally stolen and posted by a fraud around the turn of the year. Did so for logical flow:

Dwight Evans or Jim Rice – who was a more valuable player?

Most people knee jerk an answer of Jim Rice. But its not so, in fact it is not even close, and I am going to prove it:

Twisted Perceptions. Rice came up with Fred Lynn and formed one of the most famous duos in the history of the sport – the “gold dust twins”, and they captured the imagination of fans around the country, not just Boston. Three of Rice’s best six seasons came in his first 5 years. He established himself as a slugger at a very young age. His last great year was at age 26.

Evans came up a few years earlier, a spotty hitter but great fielding RF (in the most difficult RF in all of baseball). He was seen as a nice complimentary piece, and not much more. The first person to really notice him was Sparky Anderson in 1975. He had heard all about Yaz, Tiant, and Lynn. But to him, Evans was the most impressive of all the Sox in the classic ’75 WS. Evans didn’t have a really fine offensive year until his 9th year at age 29.

Consider Evans with his best years front loaded like Rice’s what people would have thought? With his considerable advantge in playing time (1511 PA’s more), and his very real defensive advantage over Rice factored in, along with higher OPS, and Rice’s awful GDIP figures, it will become clear the Evans was a better player, and by a considerable margin. But it wasn’t seen then because Rice struck first.

I. Offensive Career rate stats: TIE

JRice OPS+ 128 (188th all time); wOBA .375
Evans OPS+ 127 (197th all time); wOBA .374;

JRice 1384 RC in 09058 PA - .1528 RC/PA
Evans 1612 RC in 10569 PA - .1525 RC/PA Evans 99.8% of Rice’s output per game

JRice: RC/G 6.0
Evans: RC/G 6.2

Evans OWP .646 – Rice OWP .627

In terms of rate stats, we have to call it a tie. That is the closest thing to an edge Rice has.

II. Offensive Career career/counting stats: Evans

In terms of career value, a player with almost the same rate stats that has 1511 more PA’s (14.3% more then Rice - or about 2.3 full years of playing time) is more valuable from a career perspective. Let’s look at some numbers.

If Evans and Rice were equal, then according to playing time, Rice should have about 85.7% of Evans counting stats, in fact he is somewhat lower in the following five stats.

Evans: EQR 1606: JRice: 1367 – 85.1%
Evans: BRAR 751; JRice: 618 – 82.3%
Evans: BtWin 35.5; JRice BtWin 28.9 - 81.4%
Evans: BtRns 362.4; JRice BtRns 294.7 - 81.3%
Evans: BRAA 445; JRice: 350 – 78.7%

III. 5 year Offensive Peak (per RC): Rice

Here is a list of the best 5 RC (runs created) seasons of each player, any order:

Evans - 134, 134, 132, 112, 104 = 616
JRice – 147, 138, 136, 115, 113 = 649

Sadly for Evans, one of his best years looked to be the strike year – 1980. If you EQ for games missed his 95 RC of that year go to 126, and his 104 drops off the list, and then he is only 11 RC back in this 5 year comparison.

IV: Next 9 years (per RC – more average Years): Evans

Evans – 100, 100, 95, 85, 79, 74, 71, 69, 66 = 739
JRice – 99, 92, 88, 83, 83, 81, 64, 63, 55 = 708

31 runs over 9 years, not a big edge for Evans, but enough to virtually erase Rice’s advantage in the best 5 year match up.

Consecutive peak: Tie

Evans and Rice’s best 11 year in a row OPS+ peak are very close:

Evans: 115, 124, 162, 148, 106, 147, 124, 130, 156, 135, 136
JRice: 120, 147, 157, 154, 122, 116, 130, 141, 112, 123, 136

So you ask - if Evans is so great, why does Rice have him in BA, SLG, RBI, reputation, and a HOF plaque?

Evans: .272 / .470 SLG / 1384 RBI
JRice: .298 / .502 SLG / 1541 RBI

Answers for RBI and reputation:

#1: Batting order placement

Evans: ---- Rice:

1st – 160 -- 003
2nd – 565 -- 003
3rd – 211 -- 882
4th – 152 -- 677
5th – 322 -- 263
6th – 429 -- 161
7th – 333 -- 088
8th – 297 -- 006
9th – 137 –- 006

Evans batted in places where he could score more runs (1 & 2 due to his OBP), but also more often in places where RBI’s are somewhat harder to get (6-9) -- (only 26.3% at 3-4-5 whereas Rice had 87.2% of his games at 3-4-5).

Evans scored 1470 runs compared to 1271 for Rice, and had .370 OBP compared to .352 for Rice, which balances off Rice’s advantage in BA, SLG and RBI to yield this very close portrait we have developed so far looking at the rate stats only.

Another issue with Evans appearing lower overall in the order – costing valuable PA’s in a typical 155 game season, which result in less runs and RBI’s due to less opportunity. In 1979, he batted mostly 8th and some 9th – now that was a legendary line-up – but 563 PA in 153 games tells a lot. Even in ’86 he batted 6th, 1st, 5th - after 3 brilliant seasons in 5 years he was the best hitter on the Sox apart from Boggs. Better then Rice at that time at age 34 with more great seasons to come. His early weakness as a hitter and later flexability worked against him getting a really solid place in the order like Rice did.

Base running: Evans

On startling thing about Rice most people don’t talk about: GDIP. His is 5th all time at 315, but his percentage of GDIP is the 2nd highest I could find among players with over 5000 career PA. Ernie Lombardi a fine hitting and lead footed catcher is the only one with a worse GDIP percentage. Lombardi is hailed by many as the slowest player of all time.

Neither stole a lot – Evans more SB’s but his CS rate was worse then Rice. Still with 88 less career GDIP’s in 1511 more PA’s, and my memory which says Evans was a bit quicker base to base and paid more attention on base then Rice, a small advantage must accrue to Evans. I’d guesstimate 2-3 runs per season.

Defense: Evans

8 GG’s for Evans
Rate 103 – 3% above average RF (11 years above average, 7 below (1 due to injury, 4 old age)
RAR in RF 271 – runs saved above replacement
RAA in RF 66 – runs saved above average player.

0 GG for Rice;
Rate 96 – 4% below average LF (3 years above average, 8 below)
RAR 102 – runs saved above replacement level
RAA -55 – runs save above average player

12% of Evans’s games at DH (not regularly until age 37)
34.4% of Rice’s games at DH, regularly starting in ’75 at age 22. A player that can’t play in the field is a disadvantage.

Evans RAA in RF over 100 games (11 seasons): 15, 24, 6, 9, 12, 1, 15, 7, -8, 7, -12 = 76
JRice RAA in LF over 90 games (11 seasons): -10, -11, 3, -8, -4, 0, -14, -3, 11, -11, 5, -12 = -54

Evans core career as a RF he saved 76 runs with his glove or an average of 6.9 runs per season.
Rices core career as a LF he caused 54 runs to be let up or 4.9 runs average lost per season.

A 10.8 run differential may not sound like much, but observe the WARP3 stats below for each player listed hierarcharically from high to low seasons, and total, it makes all the difference.

Summary:

Rice has a thin lead in 5 year peak offense, which could be mitigated to almost zero if you give Evans his missing games of 1980 (not a peak year for Rice so it wouldn’t count). There is also the extra AB’s Rice accrued during many of these years when Evans was hitting 6th or 7th to consider.

Over the entire career the hitting stats from a rate standpoint are very similar with Evans holding the advantage of more playing time at virtually the same rate making him more valuable career wise.

Finally – defense, Evans is one of the 5-7 greatest RF’ers since WW II along with Clemente and Kaline. Add those runs into a close battle, and viola! It’s no longer close. Evans was a better player for a longer period then Rice. He also tops Rice in Peak seasons from top to bottom as well when including offense, defense, and base running. Let’s take a look at WARP3 numbers for both players sorted with best first. What if they both started the same year in the same progression – who is being argued for the HOF now?

Rice career WARP3: 80.2
09.7 | 08.9 | 7.5 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .0

Evans career WARP3: 116.5
12.5 | 10.1 | 9.2 | 8.7 | 7.8 | 6.8 | 7.4 | 6.7 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.4 | .4

Rice’s overall career is worth only 68.8% of Evans career value, everything considered according to WARP3. As a player – not a hitter, he cannot match Evans year by year, or any combination of peak years. Look again from the best year to the nth year, Evans leads in every single year when sorted from high to low. Now that is a crushing defeat for the Rice boosters.

Switching over the James’ Win Shares, we have another solid victory for Evans:

JRice Win Shares 21.86 per 162 games *
Evans Win Shares 21.57 per 162 games * Evans 98.7% of Rice’s output per season

Evans: WinShares 347; JRice 282; Rice has 81.3% of Evans output in 85.7% of the playing time.

And for all the old time guys that will rail about stat geeks. I saw those guys from the start – some years over 75 games a season. I thought through 1979 that Rice and Lynn would end up in the HOF. But by 1982 I was praying that Rice would just strike out w/ men on base and not hit into another friggin DP. And I grew to appreciate the intensity of Evans’s AB’s in the 80’s.

As so much else, Rice got into the HOF on reputation, not reality, with the added recoil against the steroid generation. Evans didn’t get any support when he came up, and he fell off the ballot because he wasn’t a wonderful hitter at the start, took walks when they were not in fashion.

I do not think Dwight Evans belongs in the HOF, and I sure as hell know Rice does not either. Ron Santo, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, and Bert Blyleven to name but a few all deserve in more then Evans or Rice.

Here are some WARP3 figures from other players to consider:

Jim Rice: 80.2
Fred Lynn 81.7 – Rice couldn’t even top short career Lynn.
Roy White: 84.6 – he and Wynn both played in a terrible offensive era in bad home parks. WARP3 adjust for that.
Jim Wynn: 94.6 – one less knife blade in the belly from his wife at age 29, and he might be in, as is he is about the 12th best CF of all time.
Ron Santo: 112.8 – this is HOF territory for a corner OF or 1B, for a 3B this is enormous.
Trammell: 127.1 – top 7 or 8 SS of all time, disgrace that his isn’t in.
Tim Raines: 131.1 – maybe the 6th – 8th best LF ever, top lead off guy as well, in.

I can’t believe any serious baseball fans supported Rice when these guys were out there. I’m more of a Red Sox fan then almost anybody that’s been rooting since 1966, and I want no part of this guy in the HOF, it is not fair.

[Los Bravos]

Outfielders with sub .300 averages and fewer than 400 homers usually need something else.The tremendous defense gets that job done for a lot of us.

[Mike90]

My argument was structured the same as that one, but...

1) Although I am by no means a traditionalist-type who undervalues walks, I absolutely consider home runs to be more important. Appropriately, Kingman (a guy who essentially just hit homers) gets more HOF support than Yost (a guy who essentially just drew walks), although neither one is even close to being a serious candidate.

2) Even though they each hit "a lot" of homers, McGwire hit considerably more homers than Kingman, despite playing in fewer games. Dewey actually has fewer walks than Eddie Yost, despite playing in substantially more games.

I'm as behind Mark McGwire's HOF candidacy as I can be. He is arguably the greatest power hitter of all-time, and he drew a lot of walks (more per capita than Dewey, actually).

I don't think walks are as important as home runs, and I don't think Dewey is as great as McGwire, but comparing Yost to Evans is ridiculous. Yost has a 109 OPS+, and Evans has a 127 OPS+ in 1400 more plate appearances, and I doubt a defensive gap makes up for that. I guess a similar comparison would be Kingman to Rice. One of Rice's two claims to fame is that he hit for excellent power, but Kingman hit considerably more homers than Rice in fewer games. Of course Kingman isn't nearly as good or Rice, and Yost isn't nearly as good as Evans because a player's value isn't solely determined by their most extreme skill.

[Brad Harris]

If one does nothing else, just look at their career OPS+ and PA numbers. Once you factor in the stuff that doesn't measure, Lynn and Evans outdistance Rice quite handily.

The interesting thing about Rice's induction is that it now paves the way for future selections (Dawson is the most immediate example): "If Jim Rice is a Hall-of-Famer, why not ____________?" :crazy

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

The interesting thing about Rice's induction is that it now paves the way for future selections (Dawson is the most immediate example): "If Jim Rice is a Hall-of-Famer, why not ____________?" :crazy

That was my among my biggest reservations about supporting Rice's induction. Rice is just above the cutoff in my opinion, and there are a lot of players outside the HOF who are in his range, most of them being just below the cutoff as I see it. Dawson will probably get in, and I'm okay with that. The same goes for McGriff. However, I think it will probably stop there. I don't think it will be an issue once the steroid era guys start showing up on the ballot. They will be held to a higher standard (and, perhaps unfairly, so will any hold-overs from the 80s who are still hanging around on the ballot). Jim Rice is not going to open the door for Luis Gonzalez and company if that's what you're worried about, and anyone older than that is probably going to be swept to the side when the Frank Thomases, Mike Piazzas, and Ken Griffeys show up.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I don't think walks are as important as home runs, and I don't think Dewey is as great as McGwire, but comparing Yost to Evans is ridiculous. Yost has a 109 OPS+, and Evans has a 127 OPS+ in 1400 more plate appearances, and I doubt a defensive gap makes up for that. I guess a similar comparison would be Kingman to Rice. One of Rice's two claims to fame is that he hit for excellent power, but Kingman hit considerably more homers than Rice in fewer games. Of course Kingman isn't nearly as good or Rice, and Yost isn't nearly as good as Evans because a player's value isn't solely determined by their most extreme skill.

Congratulations. You've convinced me that my argument was a little flawed. This is what I meant: I brought Yost up to demonstrate that walks along aren't enough to get someone into the HOF. I stand by that claim. If they were, Eddie Yost would be in, because he was great at that one thing. I don't think home runs are enough either. Kingman is the best litmus test I can think of. However, Kingman hit .236, which, in and of itself, probably prevented him from ever being a serious HOF candidate. Rice didn't hit homers quite like Kingman did, but he was good enough to lead the league three times. On top of that, he was a .300 hitter during his prime, and nearly a .300 hitter for his career. That makes him a viable candidate. Dewey was very good at many things, but not great at any one thing. If he was great at anything, it was drawing walks and playing right field. It doesn't quite have the same ring as saying "If Jim Rice was great at anything, it was hitting for power and hitting for average." I don't think Rice was great at hitting for average, but he was much better at it than Dewey, and I do think he bordered on greatness when it came to hitting for power.

PS - Kingman was no Rice and Yost was no Dewey. None of them were Mark McGwire.

[SilentKiller]

Despite baseball being a sport where numbers tell more than any other game, at the same time it seems perceived reputation means more in baseball than any other game. For that reason Jim Rice goes into the Hall while Lynn and Evans most likely will never get in.

[Mike90]

Congratulations. You've convinced me that my argument was a little flawed. This is what I meant: I brought Yost up to demonstrate that walks along aren't enough to get someone into the HOF. I stand by that claim.

I don't think anyone would dispute that walks alone aren't enough to get someone into the HOF.

If they were, Eddie Yost would be in, because he was great at that one thing. I don't think home runs are enough either. Kingman is the best litmus test I can think of. However, Kingman hit .236, which, in and of itself, probably prevented him from ever being a serious HOF candidate. Rice didn't hit homers quite like Kingman did, but he was good enough to lead the league three times. On top of that, he was a .300 hitter during his prime, and nearly a .300 hitter for his career. That makes him a viable candidate.

I don't want to sound like I'm bashing Rice, or you. Rice certainly does have a case. He didn't quite have a .300 BA, or 400 home runs, or 2500 hits, or 1500 RBI -- that's why it took him so long to get elected -- but he was awfully close to all those standards plus he won an MVP and finished in the top-5 five other times. He was clearly considered a great player at his best, or at least a great hitter. At no point in Evans' career was he thought of as highly as Rice in that 1977-'79 period.

But I don't think Rice > Dewey holds up to closer scrutiny. Yeah, Rice has a better BA -- .298 to .272 -- but OBP has more impact on winning, and Evans' .370 OBP is better than Rice's .352. Rice has more power but not a lot more; his IsoP (just slugging minus BA) is .204 while Evans' is .198. Evans was much better defender than Rice with over 500 more games played. Rice was an outstanding hitter, and Evans doesn't have a season as great as Rice's '78, but Evans was the better all-around player.

Dewey was very good at many things, but not great at any one thing. If he was great at anything, it was drawing walks and playing right field. It doesn't quite have the same ring as saying "If Jim Rice was great at anything, it was hitting for power and hitting for average." I don't think Rice was great at hitting for average, but he was much better at it than Dewey, and I do think he bordered on greatness when it came to hitting for power.

That's Dwight problem for the Hall. It's easy to make a case for Rice: he hit for both power AND average. Dwight's skill set is broader, not as concentrated on a few hitting statistics, and as a result it's a bit harder for people to recognize him as a hall of famer. Evans' case is that his BA was a tiny bit above average AND he had a lot of walks AND he hit for very good power but not quite as good as Rice AND he was a terrific defender in a relatively non-important defensive position AND he played 2600 games. None of those aspects of Evans' game stands out by itself, but taken as a whole, Evans is a slightly above borderline hall of famer.

PS - Kingman was no Rice and Yost was no Dewey. None of them were Mark McGwire.

Something we can both agree with.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Mike90,
I don't think you're bashing me - nothing wrong with friendly debate, and I think we've both kept it friendly. It sounds like we agree that both Rice and Evans are very close to the HOF cutoff. I'm not sure about you, but I can honestly say this about both men: I wouldn't lose any sleep if he didn't get elected, but I wouldn't be upset if he did either. I have supported Rice's cause for a while, but not passionately. The main reason why I favor him over Dewey is that neither one has career numbers that scream Hall of Fame, and Rice had a better peak (at least offensively), which you seem to acknowledge in your last post. Who knows, I may come around to supporting Dewey eventually, but I can't say that I do right now. When I joined this forum about a year and a half ago, I didn't support Dick Allen (you can find documented evidence of that in my posting history). Now I consider him to be one of the bigger snubs ever. The insight I've gotten from the caliber of fans that post on this board has brought me a long way.

[Mike90]

Mike90,
I don't think you're bashing me - nothing wrong with friendly debate, and I think we've both kept it friendly. It sounds like we agree that both Rice and Evans are very close to the HOF cutoff. I'm not sure about you, but I can honestly say this about both men: I wouldn't lose any sleep if he didn't get elected, but I wouldn't be upset if he did either. I have supported Rice's cause for a while, but not passionately. The main reason why I favor him over Dewey is that neither one has career numbers that scream Hall of Fame, and Rice had a better peak (at least offensively), which you seem to acknowledge in your last post. Who knows, I may come around to supporting Dewey eventually, but I can't say that I do right now. When I joined this forum about a year and a half ago, I didn't support Dick Allen (you can find documented evidence of that in my posting history). Now I consider him to be one of the bigger snubs ever. The insight I've gotten from the caliber of fans that post on this board has brought me a long way.

I agree that Dick Allen is a bigger snub than both of them, and that the quality of discussion for this forum is on a higher level than most other sports sites.