An evidence based discussion about the players who've been overlooked for Cooperstown

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hall of Fame
1988 BBWAA ( 3.7%)

I rest my case. This is just plain silly, IMO.

[the 'stache]

You know, let's do Dewey right now while I'm thinking about him. Coincidentally enough, I was looking at Dwight Evans' career numbers just a few nights ago, and I thought he was a player that clearly deserved consideration within our discussion here. I will do Luis Tiant tomorrow night.

[the 'stache]

Dwight Evans, right fielder
Dwight Michael Evans
Boston Red Sox (1972-1990)
Baltimore Orioles (1991)





Dwight Evans is one of the stronger candidates from the pool of those players not already in Cooperstown. In fact, when I look at the 3.6% he got the last time he appeared on the ballot, in 1999, I am puzzled. Yes, the competition in 1999 was stiff, as three players were voted in-Nolan Ryan, George Brett and Robin Yount. And six other players on that ballot were eventually voted in by the BBWAA, as well. But surely Evans deserved to remain on the ballot at the very least, didn't he? How does a player with his credentials fail to garner the 5% required to remain on the ballot for future consideration?

Dwight's career numbers are listed above. They are impressive, especially when you consider the era he played in. So why was there so little support for one of Boston's favorite players?

Before we continue, a few things should be said. One, the advanced metrics used by today's statisticians were not available to the Baseball Writers in 1999. When considering why Dwight Evans fell off the ballot, we would need to consider his worthiness using the same evaluation methods the writers did some fifteen years ago. But to do so would simply be rehashing what has already been done. What we are seeking to do here is make a case for his induction based off of things that the writers might not have seen.

In order to proceed with this discussion, and accurately determine if Evans is worthy, I should share my methodology. I have alluded to some things in the past, but I have not done a good job of stating in detail how I look at a player.

Before I can start considering Dwight Evans' relevance from a historical context, the first thing I do is compare him against his peers. Specifically, I look at a player's primary position during their career, and compare the subject against the others playing that same position at the same time. Dwight Evans played in 2,606 games in his twenty season career. Of those, the vast majority was spent in right field, where he played 2,092 games. Evans played from 1972 to 1991. Now, Evans merits consideration for the Hall based on his career statistics alone. But his candidacy would be strengthened if it could be shown that he was one of the very best at his particular position during his career. We are doing this because we do not know how deep the position was during his career.

So, let's consider the right fielders in Evans' day. In order to get a large enough sample of players, I lower the game requirements to 750 games played. This isn't a perfect method, of course. I might be getting the early years of a player's career before they have hit their prime, meaning their numbers comparatively might be lower. I may also be catching the end of a player's career. But, if I raise the games played requirement, then more players will be excluded. So, I compromise.

A total of 26 Major Leaguers played at least 750 games in right field during Evans' career. How did Evans compare against his peers from an offensive standpoint? The one metric I come back to more than any other is OPS. It is not a perfect measurement, but it is a metric that can easily be understood, and it combines two primary elements of offense-getting on base, and hitting for power. A truly dynamic player will hit for power and get on base at a high rate. A high OPS means that the hitter provides value to an offense in multiple ways.

Of those 26 players, Evans ranked 5th in OPS, behind Reggie Smith, Darryl Strawberry, Jack Clark and Reggie Jackson. When you look at some of the players who are listed behind Evans, his numbers look even better. Among them are three Hall of Famers: Dave Winfield, Tony Gwynn and Andre Dawson.



Anytime you beat out hitters of those caliber, you have strengthened your own position. Now, keep in mind, as it has astutely been pointed out to me in the past, OPS does not take several things into consideration, like base stealing, or defense. Dwight Evans was a power hitter, and a run producer. He was not a base stealer by any means. And many of the players on this list provided value to their team by stealing bases. Three stole over 300 bases in their career: Bobby Bonds, Claudell Washington and Andre Dawson. Tony Gwynn stole 246, and early in his career, he was a real base stealing threat, tallying 56 thefts in 1987, and 40 in 1989. Gwynn was also awarded 5 Gold Glove Awards for his defensive play in right field. Andre Dawson won 8 Gold Gloves. But here, too, Dwight Evans provides great value defensively. Evans won 8 Gold Gloves of his own. As Red Sox fans can attest, and as my research showed, Evans had one of the strongest throwing arms in the game. While the number or extra bases he saved with his arm cannot be quantified, it is worth mentioning that his defense was a great asset to the Red Sox, and it elevated his standing among the greats of the game that played during Evans' career.

Now, we compare Evans against the very best hitters during his era. This is where Dwight Evans will either shine, or fall short.

I mentioned before that Evans was a power hitter. While he only won one home run title in his career, in the strike-shortened 1981 season, hitting 375 home runs in any era is impressive. Again, it is important to consider the era that Evans played in. While Evans was a decent power hitter early in his career, he really found his power stroke as he approached age 30. He hit 22 to lead the American League in '81 as a 29 year old. Between 1982 and 1987, a six year span, he hit 175 home runs, an average of 29 per season, or 31 per 162 games played. In fact, his 162 game average over this 6 year span were outstanding: 111 runs, 34 doubles, 5 triples, 31 home runs and 99 RBI.

That's 70 extra base hits per 162 games played for a six year period, all while over 30 years of age.

The argument might be made that Evans benefited from playing his home games at Fenway Park. Evans, a right handed hitter, had the Green Monster in left. While it does appear that the Green Monster helped him accumulate more doubles at home (he hit 279 doubles at home, and 204 on the road), his home and road splits are very close when it comes to home runs. Evans hit only 21 more home runs at home than he did on the road (203 vs 182). If anything, it seems that Evans' power was fairly consistent regardless of where he played.

Before we compare Evans against the very best hitters from his era, some context is needed. Between the years 1972 and 1991, the entirety of Dwight Evans' career, there were a total of 29 40 home run seasons in the Major Leagues, including only 2 seasons of 50 or more home runs (George Foster's 52 in 1977, and Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990). Between 1995 and 2014, the last twenty seasons, there have been 158 40 home run seasons, including 25 of 50 or more, 6 of 60 or more, and 2 seasons of 70 or more home runs (Mark McGwire hit 70 in 1998, and Barry Bonds hit 73 in 2001).

Baseball Reference.com, 40 home run seasons in the Major Leagues between the years 1972 and 1991.
Baseball Reference.com, 40 home run seasons in the Major Leagues between the years 1995 and 2014.

Let's now examine the very best hitters from Evans' era.

During Evans' career, there were 183 individual seasons where hitters with over 400 at bats reached a .900 OPS. Four of those seasons belonged to Evans, and as previously mentioned, he led the American League twice. Of those one 183 individual seasons, only 17 of them reached a 1.000 or better OPS. Comparatively, there were a whopping 545 individual seasons of .900 or higher OPS between 1995 and 2014, and 138 reached a level of 1.000 or higher.

It was a different game when Dwight Evans played. Numbers today are inflated. When Dwight Evans played, getting 385 home runs meant something. Look at it this way. By the time Dwight Evans had retired in 1992, many of the game's all-time greatest power hitters had gone before him. Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Robinson, Killebrew. Their spectacular home run totals were etched in the annals of baseball history. But at his retirement, only 29 other men had ever hit more than Dwight Evans' 385 round-trippers. But going back to OPS again, how did he do against his peers. Not only the right fielders, but everybody in the game.

Between 1972 and 1991, there were 306 hitters to tally 3,000 or more at bats. Of those, only 20 hitters could top the .840 put up by Dwight Evans. Of those, 9 are Hall of Famers.



How about comparing Evans against his peers for the decade of the 1980s, which would represent the prime of his career, from age 28 to 37?

In the 80s, 140 hitters totaled 3,000 or more at bats. Dwight Evans, from that group, had the sixth best OPS in the Majors. Only Mike Schmidt, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Don Mattingly, and Pedro Guerrero were better in the 80s. He was better than Darryl Strawberry and Eddie Murray, Dale Murphy and Robin Yount. In fact, if you look at the Hall of Famers who played in that decade, he beat 16 of 'em.

In fact, if you look at the beginning of the live ball era, 1920, until the end of his career in 1992, his .840 OPS ranks 72nd. The man ahead of him on the list? Carl Yastrzemski at .843. The five men behind him on this list? Greg Luzinski, Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Roberto Clemente and Enos Slaughter.

Baseball Reference.com list of all-time highest OPS from 1920 to 1992.

Evans was top tier offensive force. Was he an elite power hitter? No. The 70s and 80s only truly had two elite power hitters, Mike Schmidt and Reggie Jackson. However, when you combine everything that Evans brought to the table, though, the 941 extra bases, the runs production, his 1,391 walks, he could do everything you'd want a right fielder to do offensively. He had power, and he had a high on base percentage. He wasn't fast, but defensively he made up for his average speed with a tremendously strong and accurate arm. Sounds to me like the prototypical right fielder.

Evans had the seventh most home runs in the 70s and 80s. And when you look at the men who had more home runs than him, which of those would you rather have batting fourth or fifth in your lineup? Schmidt and Jackson again, absolutely. Forgetting for just a minute Mike Schmidt's spectacular defensive abilities, he was the home run threat for the entirety of his career. Reggie was comparable, but his OPS was some 63 points lower. The next two men, Darrell Evans and Dave Kingman, brought the home run, and not much else. Kingman managed a paltry 608 walks in nearly 2,000 games. His .302 OBP was just terrible. Evans? Considering his .248 AVG, he had an outstanding OBP of .361, having walked some 1,600 times. Next is Jim Rice, a man who is in the Hall of Fame. I've felt for some time that Evans, not Rice, was the most complete Red Sox outfielder of the trio that started in the 70s (the other being Fred Lynn). My research of the net found this interesting analysis and discussion of just that. A comparison of RAA (runs above average) shows that Evans was not only better, but much better than Rice when all things are considered. Rice was a great hitter, and I am not disputing that. He had a three year run between 1977 and 1979 that would hold up well against many of the game's greatest sluggers. He hit .320 with a .972 OPS across those three seasons, totaling 620 hits, 124 home runs and 384 RBI. He won an MVP (1978), and finished 4th and 5th in the MVP vote the other two seasons. 1983 saw a return to form for Rice, who hit .305 with a .911 OPS, leading the AL with 39 home runs and 126 RBI. He had other very good seasons, too. In 1975, he was second in the Rookie of the Year Vote, and 3rd in the AL MVP (teammate and fellow rookie Fred Lynn won both) hitting .309 with 22 homers and 102 RBI. In 1986, he hit .324 and again topped 200 hits and 100 RBI. But Dwight Evans was a more complete package. He lacked some of the highs Rice achieved (never winning an MVP), but he was steady. And he had that presence in right field. You didn't run on him. But after reading the excellent article written by adarowski back in 2010, when some of the pomp is stripped away, Evans was really better. Of the three outfielders that made up what was arguably the best outfield of the 70s, the Hall of Famer might have been the low man on the totem poll.

Rice went to 8 All Star Games. Lynn 9. Evans went to only three. If he were elected, he would tie Robin Yount for fewest All Star Game appearances by a Hall of Famer in the All Star Game era. It seems that Evans did not get the recognition from fans when he played. He was third in the AL MVP race in 1981, that strike shortened season. He finished in the top 5 one other time. Again, under-appreciated could have been Evans' middle name.

When everything is considered, I could definitely see Evans as a Hall of Famer. Certainly not on the level of the immortals like Ruth, Aaron or Mays. But a second tier Hall of Famer? Absolutely. Evans has fallen victim to writers who have underappreciated him. History, for example, will remember Carlton Fisk's iconic Game 6 winning home run from the 1975 World Series. But rather unfairly, it seems to forget the spectacular catch and throw double play Dwight Evans made to close the Reds out in the top of the eleventh inning.

It seems that the Veteran's Committee owes Dwight Evans some serious consideration. He brought power to an era that power seemed in comparatively short supply. He was great right fielder, collecting 8 Gold Glove Awards. Only 7 other outfielders have ever won more.

With this, I will open it up to discussion. Feelings on Dwight Evans belonging in the Hall of Fame?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hall of Fame
1988 BBWAA ( 3.7%)

I rest my case. This is just plain silly, IMO.

What's plain silly about it, Peter? That I'm suggesting one of the greatest defensive players in baseball history should be considered for the Hall of Fame? You don't have to agree, that's fine. But defense is half the game, and the greats of the game defensively are criminally underrepresented in the Hall, and in the game's annals. I think some of the players who were put in the Hall because of cronyism could be removed, and defensive stalwarts like Belanger could get in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Defense is not half the game. PITCHING is half the game. Defense makes some difference, but to suggest it is as important as hitting reflects, in my opinion, a significant misperception. You can't tell me the difference between Belanger and an average shortstop is the same as the difference between Ruth and an average player, in terms of impact.

[BearBailey]

I never understood how Jim Rice got in and Dwight Evans basically wasn't considered. I would take Evans over Rice every time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"You don't have to agree, that's fine."

And neither does anyone else except one guy who voted for him once. But don't let that deter you.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Defense is not half the game. PITCHING is half the game. Defense makes some difference, but to suggest it is as important as hitting reflects, in my opinion, a significant misperception. You can't tell me the difference between Belanger and an average shortstop is the same as the difference between Ruth and an average player, in terms of impact.

As a former pitcher at every level except professional, my experience taught me that only strikeouts, walks, HBPs, and wild pitchers are included in pitching...FAR less than 50% without those fielding the results of the all the other pitches - which amount to at least 2/3 of outs by almost every pitcher who ever lived. The only way I survived after my first shoulder injury was by learning to 'pitch' (as apposed to 'throwing' when my speed was enough to get me by) and depend on my teammates.

Even hitting is not fully 50% of the game. With base-running included, hitting makes up 50% of the game - called offense.

The other fifty-percent can, in truth be labeled defense includes pitching as it is in direct competition with the offense. IM(fairly experienced)O

Oh, you can disagree if you like as long as you understand that you are wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That isn't the point. Most fly balls and grounders are going to be handled the same way by most professional players. it's only at the edges that the quality of a fielder makes a difference in my opinion. Tell me, would you take Mark Belanger (a great fielding, pathetic hitting shortstop) over Rogers Hornsby (a great hitting, but by some accounts weak fielding, second baseman)? I doubt it.

[frankbmd]

Koufax retired early so he would never have to face Belanger.

The sentence above contains one Hall of Famer. Your free to pick either one.

[RGold]

This discussion is making me a little verklempt.

How about Maury Wills? Talk amongst yourselves.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by RGold

This discussion is making me a little verklempt.

How about Maury Wills? Talk amongst yourselves.

Appropriate use of the word verklempt in a sentence.

RGold moves on to the next round.

[KCRfan1]

Hey Pete, What's up with " When driving through Kansas City do not stop " ?

Frank B you are too funny.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Hey Pete, What's up with " When driving through Kansas City do not stop " ?

Frank B you are too funny.

It's a good-natured jab at a certain member who, whilst on a trip down I-35, was invited to stop in KC by a certain other member and have BBQ and take in the Negro League museum, but declined the invitation.

Of course the anti-social bastard denies it LOL.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a good-natured jab at a certain member who, whilst on a trip down I-35, was invited to stop in KC by a certain other member and have BBQ and take in the Negro League museum, but declined the invitation.

Of course the anti-social bastard denies it LOL.

I've been called worse. Thank you Peter.

My attorney has instructed me to deny, deny, deny.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And here I was charitably keeping it anonymous.

So now that the cat is out of the bag, a ditty for you.

Everything's up to date in Kansas City
But Frank B our MD he wouldn't know.
They've got a fine museum and some finer barbeque
But Frank B our MD he wouldn't go.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

I never understood how Jim Rice got in and Dwight Evans basically wasn't considered. I would take Evans over Rice every time.

I'll take Rice. Rice put his career numbers together in 14 years ( discounting 20 games his first season and 56 games his last season for 16 years total ) that took Evans almost 20 years to do. Rice wan't bad in the field, and was fun to watch at the plate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Evans had a significantly better on base percentage and was more consistent, although of course he didn't have those several massive power years, just one I believe. A much better fielder too. Close call.

[steve B]

That was a really interesting look at his hitting. I really liked him as a player, but never considered him as more than a bit above average as a hitter. Consistently above average, but not amazing. (I got to see a lot of games, and Rice was amazing. Evans was simply dependable. )

I did think his defense was much more impressive. Enough to illustrate some of the challenges for defensive stats. He only led in RF assists three times mostly early in his career. Doubleplays as an outfielder first twice, second twice. But that misses how many times opposing players simply didn't try for an extra base. I could recall it wrong, but I think he's also among the few RF to throw a runner out at first on an apparent hit. The closest I've seen since is Ichiro who has about the same arm.

Some of the offensive stuff misses a bit that's also hard to put into data.
He didn't steal many bases. But the RedSox in the 70's and 80's were a team that really didn't steal much at all. Generally in the bottom 5 in the Al, and in the late 70's -mid 80's usually last.

One of the things that probably hurt his chances is that he was really not a flashy guy at all. Not much of a favorite with the press either.

The way the team handled his retirement was like most Boston players who retired around the same time very poor. Yes, it was really time to retire for him and Stanley and Rice. But after an entire career somewhere not being given the chance to bow out gracefully and simply having it announced around September that they wouldn't be signed for the next year was taken as the insult it was. There could have been some behind the scenes refusal to retire that the public never heard about, but essentially cutting them was the teams way of running them down so the fans would feel ok about them not coming back. Many of the players who left back then wouldn't have anything to do with the team for several years. Rice didn't even show up for Jim Rice/Bob Stanley day. (Stanley didn't want to either but did for the fans. The coolest moment was after the speeches they said wait a mimute there's one more thing. And tossed him a beach ball. As hed done so often with ones that left the stands he caught it and popped it with his pocketknife. Got a standing o for that but not for any of the speeches. ) No old timers games, no broadcast positions nothing. That they're back doing that sort of stuff is all the current owners doing.

Some of the press bought into that. So the attitude was that they stuck around long after they should have left.
Another example of the press fickleness was Rice, failing as he got older it was mentioned that he might need glasses. He did. And he got some. Really unstylish horrid glasses. But he was hitting again. And the articles were mostly about how silly his glasses looked so he abandoned them. And stopped hitting. A bit weak yes, but he just couldn't catch a break from them.

And those are the same guys who were voting -Or not voting- for their local guys. Probably not voting.

That was right around the time I realized it wasn't a hall of fame, wasn't a hall of stats, but a hall of popularity with the press as long as you had stats that were marginally acceptable. Bill Lee should be in based on quotable lines, but just didn't put up the numbers.

Steve B

[the 'stache]

This isn't meant to be an either or discussion, Peter. Nobody here is arguing the merits of "defense being more important than hitting". Rather, I am trying to demonstrate that players who performed at the highest level defensively should receive more consideration than I think they've gotten.

If you have a hitter that is good enough to knock the ball into the cheap seats, you can have Mark Belangers at every position, and it's not going to make a difference. Ok, so Mark Belanger is a bit of a reach given how useless he was with the bat. I will give that to you. I think my premise is sound, but I will acquiesce on my chosen champion. Somebody like Bill Mazerowski was a weak hitter, and he clearly made the Hall based on his defensive prowess. Yet he still managed 138 home runs and 853 RBIs, numbers which are downright Ruthian when compared to Belanger's meager offensive output. But how would you feel if I were talking about Keith Hernandez instead of Belanger? Same talking points. Unlike Belanger, Hernandez was a difference maker offensively. He wasn't a power hitter, but he could stroke the ball all over the field. He was the National League MVP in 1979 when he hit .344 with 210 hits. His average and 116 runs scored led the league. He hit a league leading 48 doubles, then chipped in 11 triples and 11 home runs. He drove in 105 runs, walked 80 times, and struck out 78. He was an All Star, and won his second career Gold Glove. His .930 OPS represented his career high.

Hernandez had a career .821 OPS, which is pretty good. He hit .300 or better six times, and .296 for his career. He ended up with 2,182 hits in his career. He scored and drove in over 1,000 runs each. He wasn't a base stealing threat, totaling only 98 stolen bases in 161 career attempts.

Hernandez managed to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot for nine seasons, but he never seriously challenged the 75% threshold needed for Cooperstown. His 10.8% in 1998 was as close as he would come; you really can't even use the word "close" with Hernandez' Hall of Fame chances.

If I am here as an advocate for those incredible defensive players who were overlooked by the Baseball Writers, Hernandez could be a good starting point. He was a very good hitter, and he was an elite first baseman.

Does the basic idea I am trying to get across hold any merit in your mind, Peter? I am only asking that the players who have been named as the best defensively at their position for many years to get a second look, because not where are metrics available that can quantify the contributions they made defensively in much the same way that the were considered offensively. Are the metrics perfect? No. I'm sure they will be improved over time, much like batting average has given way to on base percentage, which has given way to BAbip, etc. And Gold Gloves are not a perfect award, either. We've discussed that there have been some players that won them that really were not the best at their position that season. Favoritism comes into play with that award occasionally, too, it seems. But Keith Hernandez has won 11 Gold Gloves, the most by a first baseman in the league's history. And the Award has been handed out since 1957. That's now going on 57 years.

Keith Hernandez the hitter did not meet the criteria put forth by the individuals that made up the BBWAA. Might Keith Hernandez the hitter and first baseman now merit consideration to be elected by the Veteran's Committee.?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That isn't the point. Most fly balls and grounders are going to be handled the same way by most professional players. it's only at the edges that the quality of a fielder makes a difference in my opinion. Tell me, would you take Mark Belanger (a great fielding, pathetic hitting shortstop) over Rogers Hornsby (a great hitting, but by some accounts weak fielding, second baseman)? I doubt it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have no issue with outstanding defensive ability kicking a borderline player over the line, or with unique defensive ability such as Ozzie (and perhaps Hernandez) kicking a solid offensive player but one who wouldn't have made it on offense alone over the line. So my issue was more with Belanger than with the general notion that defense can count. I'm not sure I consider Mazeroski a solid enough offensive player to have made it, though.

[1952boyntoncollector]

In theory Pitchers only play defense and bring little to the table hitting wise or dont hit at all anymore....


Andy Petite for HOF....

[KCRfan1]

Bill, I will agree and disagree with reference to your take on Hernandez. He was a very good first baseman, however, I do not know anyone who would refer to him as elite, as you did.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

In theory Pitchers only play defense and bring little to the table hitting wise or dont hit at all anymore....,

but WaJo was a better hitter than Belanger.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

but WaJo was a better hitter than Belanger.

so was...Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Wes Ferrell, Catfish Hunter, Don Newcome, Bob Lemon, Warren Spahn...but definitely not Bob Buhl.

[Mark70Z]

Belanger was the best defensive shortstop I've ever seen, and could have been the greatest to ever play the position. Shouldn't the best of the best be at least considered for the HOF? I know he was a mainstay with the Orioles during the glory years; didn't matter to much what his hitting was he'd be playing short.

[1952boyntoncollector]

doesnt help belanger when ripken jr played as long as him a few years later and considered a better player...

[KCRfan1]

I think any of us who follow baseball could name 25 shortstops we would rather have on our team than Belanger, and as a bonus we can exclude HoFr's. Begin at 1970. I'm going to bed now.....

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Belanger was the best defensive shortstop I've ever seen, and could have been the greatest to ever play the position. Shouldn't the best of the best be at least considered for the HOF? I know he was a mainstay with the Orioles during the glory years; didn't matter to much what his hitting was he'd be playing short.

Thank you for your post, Mark. See, I appreciate hearing from somebody that actually saw him play.

When I came up with the idea for this thread, it was not my intention to state that any player we would be discussing definitely belonged in the Hall of Fame. It was meant to be a discussion of players that we felt had been overlooked by the BBWAA, and deserved a second look by the Baseball Veterans Committee. Unfortunately, I got a little carried away when I wrote my first post about Belanger. I'd just read a write up about his defensive skills, and the people that were writing about him probably propped him up when it came to writing about Belanger's abilities.

It's difficult to know just how he matches up against the others that might be considered the best defensive shortstops to ever play the game, because as great as he may have been, defensive statistics have always lagged behind those for offense.

I think it's likely that Belanger is one of the ten best defensive shortstops to play the game. I never saw Belanger, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzuto, Bill Dahlen, or Rabbit Maranville play. I have seen Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Alan Trammell, etc.

How do we reconcile these from such different eras?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

doesnt help belanger when ripken jr played as long as him a few years later and considered a better player...

That doesn't say anything negative about Belanger. All it says is that Ripken was a hell of a shortstop, and may have been a better defensive shortstop than I have given him credit for. Belanger also worked with Ripken to help him improve his defense, so maybe some of the credit would go to him, too,

I've always felt he was good. But I don't know if I've consider him one of the greats defensively. I've felt that Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Alan Trammell and Barry Larkin were the best defensive shortstops from when I started watching baseball. Gary Templeton was pretty good, too, as was Ozzie Guillen.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Bill, I will agree and disagree with reference to your take on Hernandez. He was a very good first baseman, however, I do not know anyone who would refer to him as elite, as you did.

Lou, go out on the web. Look at lists of the greatest defensive first baseman of all time. More often than not, he's #1 on the list. If he's not #1 on the list, he's close to it.

Here's a poll on Baseball Fever that Hernandez wins, taking 44% of the vote"

Baseball Fever.

Twenty names listed, and he's the top vote getter. And there are references in the discussion to other polls taken in other places, including sabermetric-based sites, where Keith Hernandez won.

Just from my own personal discussions with baseball fans, Cardinal and Mets fans I've talked with, he's absolutely revered for his defensive play. His intensity, and his talent, just separated him from the pack.

Go to Youtube, and watch the highlight films of him playing. Nothing gets by him. He's diving for balls all over the field. When somebody was dumb enough to bunt against the Mets, Hernandez would come rushing in, grab the ball, and beat the runner going to second with an absolute lightning strike. I watched him play, and he's the best I've ever seen defensively. I got to see him in the '82 World Series with the Cardinals. He did nothing with the bat in the first three or four games. But he was awesome defensively. And then we only had to win one of the last two games to win the series. And Hernandez destroyed us. In the last three games if the series, after going oh for the first four games, he was 7 for 12 with two doubles, a home run and 8 RBI.

The guy's a vacuum with a glove.

[the 'stache]

Luis Tiant, pitcher
Luis Clemente (Vega) Tiant (El Tiante)
Cleveland Indians (1964-1969)
Minnesota Twins (1970)
Boston Red Sox (1971-1978)
New York Yankees (1979-1980)
Pittsburgh Pirates (1981)
California Angels (1982)





Luis Tiant started his Major League baseball career at an interesting time in baseball history. 1964 marked the beginning of the second "dead ball era", which saw a substantial decrease in runs scored, and hitting, across baseball, but especially in the American League. Some would put the beginning of this era even a year earlier in 1963, which I tend to agree with.


The second dead ball era, and the beginning of Luis Tiant's career

Up to the 1962 season, Major League games saw an average of 4.25 runs per game or more, occasionally eclipsing 4.5 runs. In fact, the last time the Major League average dropped to below 4 runs scored per game was in 1943. But in 1963, the Major League average for runs per game dipped to 3.95, and the Major League batting average consistently ranged between .255 and .264 for more than a decade. In 1963, the Major League average dropped to .246. The numbers continued on as well below normal, reaching lows in both runs scored and league batting average in 1968, when there were only 3.42 runs scored per game, and the average Major Leaguer was hitting .237. Why these things happened would make for an interesting discussion in and of itself. But I present this information here to paint a picture of what was going on in baseball at the time Luis Tiant came up to the Majors with the Cleveland Indians. And as you all will soon see, Luis Tiant helped to lower those numbers. And at his very best, Tiant was almost unhittable. But, should Luyis Tiant have been a Hall of Famer, too?

Luis Tiant, born in Marianao, La Habana, Cuba in 1940, the only son of Luis Tiant Sr. Tiant Sr was himself a great pitcher for the New York Cubans of the Negro League. Tiant's professional career started in his native Cuba, and upon the recommendation of Bobby Avila, a former All Star infielder for the Cleveland Indians who was scouting for the team in Cuba, Tiant signed with the Mexico City Tigers of the Mexican League. Tiant split his time between the two teams for the next few years, until the Cleveland Indians purchased his contract from the Tigers. Tiant flew to America, and reported to the Charleston Indians, a Class A ball affiliate of the Indians, in 1962. Over the next two years in the minors, Tiant would compile a 29-10 record with an ERA slightly under 2.50. The Majors awaited Tiant. The Indians called him up, and he made his Major League debut in spectacular fashion, throwing a complete game shutout of the New York Yankees at Yankee Stadium on July 19, 1964. He struck out 11 and gave up only 4 hits. His next start was also a complete game, this time at home against the Boston Red Sox. He gave up one run, striking out 6. Tiant was on his way. Luis Tiant, at age 23, would go 10-4 with a 2.83 ERA. He would pitch five more seasons with the Indians, including a spectacular 1968 campaign where he would go 21-9 with an American League leading 1.60 ERA, and 264 strike outs. He allowed 5.3 hits per 9 innings pitched, also best in the league. Yet Tiant, now an All Star, didn't receive a single Cy Young vote, as Denny McClain of the Tigers went 31-6 with a 1.96 ERA. Tiant would go 9-20 the next season as his ERA ballooned up to 3.71. Tiant would spend a single season with the Minnesota Twins, where he would go 7-3, before moving on the the Boston Red Sox.

Over the next eight seasons, Tiant and his unique delivery would win 122 games. He would finish in the top 5 of the Cy Young voting twice, and end up sixth another. He'd have three more 20 win seasons, and be named to two more All Star teams. At the end of the 1978 season, Tiant had a career record of 204 wins against 148 losses, and a 3.16 ERA. He would play two seasons with the New York Yankees after signing as a Free Agent, going 21-17 as a Yankee. At age 40, he went to the Pittsburgh Pirates, his first time on a National League team. He started 9 games, and went 2-5. The next season, 1982, he came back to the American League as a member of the California Angels. He made 5 more starts, going 2-2, before calling it a career.

At the end of the 1978 season, Tiant had 204 wins and a career 3.16 ERA. A 3.30 ERA, where he ended up at retirement, is still very good. But I think he'd have been better off with the lower ERA as far as his Hall chances go. But, like many of the players we've looked at, Luis Tiant hasn't received serious support from the BBWAA. In 1988, his first season on the ballot, his name appeared on 30.9% of the ballots. One would think that with a decent start like that, he might have a shot at getting closer to the requisite 75%, even if he ultimately felt short. For players to have a reasonably good shot at being voted in by the Veterans Committee, I feel getting a BBWAA vote above 50% is helpful, or at the least, it's indicative of a player's chances down the road. The next year, however, Tiant dropped from 30.9% to 10.5%. Why there was such a precipitous drop is a curiosity to me. In 1988, only Willie Stargell was voted in. Jim Bunning appeared on 74.2% of the ballots, and Tony Oliva was third at 47.3%. Obviously, 1989's ballot brought some tough competition. Carl Yastrzemski and Johnny Bench both made it on their first try, Gaylord Perry received 68.0%, and Bunning received 63.3%.

Tiant dropped from 8th to 15th place in the voting.

Let's compare Tiant against his contemporaries. What do I compare when looking at pitchers? Obviously, my old standby OPS isn't applicable here. Wins, win-loss record, etc, isn't the greatest indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness. A bad pitcher can still win with enough run support. A great pitcher can still lose with no run support. With pitchers, I like to look at the things they can control first. ERA+ pitchers have a lot of control over, but the defense behind a pitcher also comes into play. ERA + is more effective as it adjusts for the ballparks a pitcher plays his games in. It's a start.

So, the first report I ran covered the period of 1964 to 1972. Pitchers who threw a minimum of 1,200 innings across these nine years which are considered the second "dead ball era". Since Tiant's career covered this entire period, and another decade beyond this, running one report over the entire period of his career would skew some of the data. Pitchers who did not throw during this era that favored pitchers (for whatever reason) would suffer comparatively. It would appear that Tiant pitched better than them when he may or may not have.

Here are the results of this first report.



What am I seeing in this report, and other similar reports I have run, changing the years, the inning requirements, etc? Luis Tiant is staying in relatively the same place, in the top 20% of the resulting reports run. In this report, he is 12th out of 61 pitchers who attained 1,200 innings pitched in the Major Leagues between 1964 and 1972.

When I open this report up to 1964 to 1982, the entirety of his career, he's 21st in ERA + of 108 pitchers that met the 1,500 innings pitched requirement. You can view the results of the report here if you so choose.

What about WHIP, or walks and hits per 9 innings pitched. This is one metric a pitcher has a lot of control over. Again, the defense behind him still impacts the total, but a pitcher can control how many walks he throws, and he can have a big impact on the number of hits he gives up. So, again, 1964 to 1982, 1,500 innings pitched, and Luis Tiant is again 21st on the list. It appears that Mr. Tiant is remarkable consistent. You can read this chart as well, so should you choose.

Here's an interesting stat to consider. WPA, or win probability added. This calculates how much of an impact a player had in their team's win. Over the course of a season, or several seasons, or even a career, this is a great sabermetric stat. Plays within a game affect the likelihood that team will win, and WPA will actually weigh the same play differently depending on the situation. A solo home run leading off the game is not weighed the same as a solo home run in the bottom of the ninth in a 2-2 tie. The walk off home run would contribute more to the win. The lead off home run obviously was important. Without it, there would have been no tie. But the game winning home run was definitive. So, when we look at WPA over the course of Tiant's career, we can compare the pitchers that played at the same time, under the same rules, in the same era. Those same 108 pitchers that threw 1,500 innings. Only now Tiant is 10th on the list. Instead of being in the top 20% (19.444% to be precise), he's now closer to 10% (9.259%).

Here's the report if you would like to see all the pitchers in order. Notice the pitchers that have lesser WPA scores with approximately the same innings.



Here's a breakdown I did of Luis Tiant compared to the Hall of Fame pitchers that appeared on this list. This is innings pitched per 1 point of WPA. The math is innings pitched (whole innings only) divided by WPA. A lower number is better.

Tom Seaver 76.8957
Jim Palmer 83.9141
Gaylord Perry 123.9574
Bob Gibson 87.0241
Steve Carlton 125.1940
Fergie Jenkins 144.3082
Don Sutton 129.1480
Vida Blue 117.1366
Luis Tiant 138.2400
Juan Marichal 111.5029
Nolan Ryan 140.2472
Bert Blyleven 127.8243
Phil Niekro 281.8761
Dennis Eckersley 114.4830
Rollie Fingers 105.8131
Catfish Hunter 246.8508
Jim Bunning 158.3305

Luis Tiant would be closer to the bottom of the list if they were sorted by total. But he was better than some pretty good pitchers: Catfish Hunter, Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Jim Bunning. Now, I don't know the exact formula of how Win Probability Added is calculated. But it seems to me that this straight forward analysis is sound.

Finally, one last metric, also from sabermetrics. Adjusted Pitching Wins (APW), which measures a starting pitcher's value in wins. Between 1964 and 1972, Tiant was ranked 9th in this metric, out of 199 pitchers with 1,000 innings pitched. The eight pitchers ahead of him are all in the Hall of Fame.



Looking now at awards, accolades, and times he led the league in primary pitching categories. Luis Tiant never won a Cy Young Award, but he certainly had some outstanding seasons, a few which would generally receive serious consideration for the Award. But remember, too, that some of his numbers are skewed somewhat by the era. Pitching ruled for a big part of his career. But, the argument could also be made that the reason pitching ruled was the direct result of the quality pitchers playing the game. No matter how pitcher friendly the second dead ball era might have been, being a starter, and giving up under 2 earned runs a start is special. And Tiant did that twice. Tiant's 1.60 ERA in 1968 was the second best individual season ERA during the period of 1964 to 1982 (minimum 162 innings pitched). And his 1.91 ERA in the 1972 season was the 12th best during this period.

Luis Tiant was named to the All Star team only three times (1968, 1974, 1976). He finished in the top 5 for the American League Cy Young twice, and another time, he finished sixth. In 1968, though he did not receive a single Cy Young vote, he finished fifth in the MVP vote. Though he never led the league in wins, he won 22 games once, 21 games twice, and 20 once. In 1975, he won 18. In all, he had 13 seasons of double digit wins. In 1969, his 20 losses led the American League, a year after winning 21 games. He led the league in ERA twice. His 5.3 hits allowed per 9 innings in 1968 led the league, as did his 9.2 strikeouts per 9 innings in 1967. In 1966 and 1968 he led the American League in shutouts. Since the advent of Sabermetrics, Tiant has found himself leading the league in statistics he didn't know existed. In 1968 and 1972, he led the AL in ERA +. He lead the AL in FIP, fielding independent pitching, in 1968, and in WHIP in 1973.

What about the Hall of Fame Statistics? The two players most similar to Luis Tiant, Catfish Hunter and Jim Bunning, are both Hall of Famers. The sixth most similar pitcher is another Hall of Famer, Don Drysdale.

He falls short in both the black ink and gray ink statistics. His black ink score is 13. A likely Hall of Famer has a 40 black ink score. The average gray ink score for a Hall of Famer is 185. Tiant's is 112. But the two other scores, Tiant is very close to Hall of Fame level. The Hall of Fame Monitor lists a score of 100 as being a likely Hall of Fame inductee. Tiant has a score of 97. And finally, the Hall of Fame Standard has the average Hall of Famer scoring a 50, and Tiant is fairly close with a 41.

The Jaffee WAR scoring system (JAWS) ranks Tiant as the 51st best starting pitcher of all-time. Tiant's 66.7 WAR is slightly below the WAR of an average Hall of Fame pitcher, 73.4.

Personally, I think Luis Tiant absolutely deserves another look by the Veterans Committee. The clincher for me was the adjusted pitching wins metric. When the only players that had a higher APW over that 19 year period he played were Hall of Famers, he's in pretty rare company.

Let's open up the discussion on Luis Tiant. Do pitchers still need to have 300 wins, or 3,000 strikeouts to get in as a starter? Do pitchers from past eras need to get one of these to get into Cooperstown? There are pitchers who, obviously, are exceptions to this. Koufax is one, but Koufax was on a whole other level at the end of his career. Tiant was great in his prime. But was he one of the best pitchers of his era? Would being one of the best be enough?

His 162 game averages: 15-11, 3.30 ERA. 155 K, 71 BB in 224 IP. 114 ERA + and a 1.199 WHIP. 7.9 hits, 2.8 walks and 6.2 K per 9 IP.

Let's see some Luis Tiant cards, photos, etc, too.

[Mountaineer1999]

Hmmm. I don't remember Tiant as an 81 Buc. Good stuff, not a HOFer though.

[clydepepper]

Another wonderful job, Bill!

I am more sure that Minoso is a HOFer than Tiant, but, as you said, he deserves strong consideration.

While on that island, how about Tony Oliva...I think his injuries cost him any serious consideration, but he would also be close.

I also noticed a couple of names high on your Dwight Evans-related tables:

Reggie Smith and Jack Clark

While I am sure Clark is no candidate, how bad was Smith in the field?

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Thank you for your post, Mark. See, I appreciate hearing from somebody that actually saw him play.

When I came up with the idea for this thread, it was not my intention to state that any player we would be discussing definitely belonged in the Hall of Fame. It was meant to be a discussion of players that we felt had been overlooked by the BBWAA, and deserved a second look by the Baseball Veterans Committee. Unfortunately, I got a little carried away when I wrote my first post about Belanger. I'd just read a write up about his defensive skills, and the people that were writing about him probably propped him up when it came to writing about Belanger's abilities.

It's difficult to know just how he matches up against the others that might be considered the best defensive shortstops to ever play the game, because as great as he may have been, defensive statistics have always lagged behind those for offense.

I think it's likely that Belanger is one of the ten best defensive shortstops to play the game. I never saw Belanger, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzuto, Bill Dahlen, or Rabbit Maranville play. I have seen Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Alan Trammell, etc.

How do we reconcile these from such different eras?

Well, you know, we'll "never" have an agreement or really reconcile players from different eras; it is fun to discuss though.

Now, while I was growing up I loved the defensive perspective of the game. It may be due to Brooksie being my hero growing up. Anyway, I saw Belanger and Ripken play and, in my view, Belanger was better defensively and of course Ripken was far better offensively. I've seen the modern shortstops play, like I said, I focused on that part of the game and defensively give me "The Blade" before any of those Ozzie, Omar, Trammell, etc. (even though they were exceptional shortstops).

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Lou, go out on the web. Look at lists of the greatest defensive first baseman of all time. More often than not, he's #1 on the list. If he's not #1 on the list, he's close to it.

Here's a poll on Baseball Fever that Hernandez wins, taking 44% of the vote"

Baseball Fever.

Twenty names listed, and he's the top vote getter. And there are references in the discussion to other polls taken in other places, including sabermetric-based sites, where Keith Hernandez won.

Just from my own personal discussions with baseball fans, Cardinal and Mets fans I've talked with, he's absolutely revered for his defensive play. His intensity, and his talent, just separated him from the pack.

Go to Youtube, and watch the highlight films of him playing. Nothing gets by him. He's diving for balls all over the field. When somebody was dumb enough to bunt against the Mets, Hernandez would come rushing in, grab the ball, and beat the runner going to second with an absolute lightning strike. I watched him play, and he's the best I've ever seen defensively. I got to see him in the '82 World Series with the Cardinals. He did nothing with the bat in the first three or four games. But he was awesome defensively. And then we only had to win one of the last two games to win the series. And Hernandez destroyed us. In the last three games if the series, after going oh for the first four games, he was 7 for 12 with two doubles, a home run and 8 RBI.

The guy's a vacuum with a glove.

Thanks for the tip Bill, I'll pass though. I've seen a lot of baseball in my lifetime, and Hernandez was excellent on defense. When I see or hear the term " elite " I am looking at the total package of the player in offense and defense over their career, not a game or series. I will stand by my opinion that Hernandez was not an elite player.

[the 'stache]

When I was referring to Hernandez as an elite first baseman, I meant his defensive ability was elite only. He was a very good hitter who had some outstanding seasons. But I would never call Hernandez elite offensively, especially for what the majority of first basemen were expected to provide offensively. Hernandez didn't provide enough power to be considered an elite offensive first baseman. But he was so good defensively, I think taken as a whole, he deserves another look for the Hall. I'd rate his defense a 10, and his offense about a 6, a 6.5 or closer to a 7 in his MVP season.

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Thanks for the tip Bill, I'll pass though. I've seen a lot of baseball in my lifetime, and Hernandez was excellent on defense. When I see or hear the term " elite " I am looking at the total package of the player in offense and defense over their career, not a game or series. I will stand by my opinion that Hernandez was not an elite player.

[the 'stache]

Thank you, Raymond.

Jack Clark was a nice player. He provided solid offense throughout his career, and it seemed to me that he always came up with the clutch hit when his team needed it. But when I look at his career stats, he was in reality quite average with runners in scoring position, or in high leverage situations. Perhaps his reputation as a big time clutch hitter was overblown.

The thing that's really strange about Clark is his career walk rate, and its effect on his OBP. Between 1975 and 1986, he got on base at about a .360 clip. That's pretty good. When you add in his 20-25 home runs every season, he made a nice player. But he seemed to figure something out in 1984. He only had 203 at bats, but he walked 43 times. He hit .320 in that shortened season, and his OBP was .434, which was highly irregular for Clark. For the next two seasons, his OBP dipped back between .362 and .392. But then in 1987, he became an on base machine at age 31. He walked 90 times in 1982, but he had 659 plate appearances. Well, in 1987, seemingly out of nowhere, he walked 136 times. Not only did his walks spike, but so did his strikeouts (139 Ks, 95 prior career high), and his home runs jumped up to 35. He had a .459 OBP and a .597 SLG for a spectacular 1.055 OPS, and a 176 OPS +. He would move over to the American League, and the Yankees the next season. He still walked 113 times. The next two seasons, he went back to the NL and played with the Padres, where he again led the NL in walks each season, with 132 in 1989 and 104 in 115 games in 1990. He played two more years, both with Boston, before retiring. He had 96 walks the first season in 140 games, and 56 walks in 81 games his final season. He he ended up walking 1,262 times in his career.

I don't know much about Reggie Smith's defensive abilities. He spent his first 8 seasons with the Boston Red Sox, and won one Gold Glove there in 1968. He had a 3.4 dWAR in total in those 8 seasons, his best being a 2.1 1970. He has a 64.5 career WAR, made up almost entirely from offensive contribution. His dWAR for his career ended up at 2.6. I don't know all that much about him, just what he did while with the Dodgers for the most part. He had back to back top 5 MVP finishes in 1977 and 1978, his best season being in 1977 when he had a 1.003 OPS, and a 168 OPS + which led the National League. He also led the league with a .427 OBP.

He had a really nice career. 300 + home runs, 2,000 hits, and an .855 OPS. He led the AL in doubles in 1968 and 1971, with 37 and 33, respectively. Hard to imagine somebody leading the league with 33 doubles now, isn't it?

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Another wonderful job, Bill!

I am more sure that Minoso is a HOFer than Tiant, but, as you said, he deserves strong consideration.

While on that island, how about Tony Oliva...I think his injuries cost him any serious consideration, but he would also be close.

I also noticed a couple of names high on your Dwight Evans-related tables:

Reggie Smith and Jack Clark

While I am sure Clark is no candidate, how bad was Smith in the field?

[steve B]

I think Tiant was another player whose chances suffered from a lack of a really solid relationship with the press. He was fairly open with them, nowhere near as quiet as Evans or avoiding them like Rice and some of the other Sox players. But at times he could be somewhat hard to understand which didn't make for "good" interviews.

If HOF voting was based on how the local fans perceive a player he'd be in already. I haven't met him myself, but know a couple people who have and by all accounts he's a fun guy.

Another thing that might have hurt his chances was that like many of the sox pitchers in the 70's he was a bit spotty. Sometimes brilliant, sometimes awful. You never really knew what you were getting. And he got a ton of run support for the era. Lee, Wright, Tiant, all were a bit unpredictable. Eckersley was a bit more stable, and Torrez was predictable - He'd get to a certain part of the game and simply disintegrate, and Zimmer never seemed to figure that out.

It's interesting how different eras compare. Today, a pitcher that reliably wins in the mid teens with a decent ERA is doing very well.

Steve B