Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Dwight Evans had a long and productive career, but his moment came in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series. We'll let Retrosheet take the call:


REDS 11TH: Rose was hit by a pitch; On a bunt Griffey forced
Rose (catcher to shortstop); Morgan hit into a double play
(right to first to shortstop) [Griffey out at second]; Evans
robbed Morgan of a probable home run with a leaping catch, then
threw in to double Griffey, who had rounded 2nd, shortstop
Burleson covering first;
0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Reds 6, Red
Sox 6.


Carlton Fisk's home run which followed the Evans catch is more widely remembered. In a way, that is a shame.

Dwight Evans was drafted out of high school by the Red Sox in the 5th round of the 1969 draft. He reported to the New York Penn League that summer, and hit .280 but without power. He moved up to the Western Carolinas League (full season low A) in 1970, and hit .276 with medium range pop, and followed that up with a similar season at age 19 in the high A Carolina League. In 1972 at age 20, he skipped a level starting the season with triple A Louisville and hit .300 with 17 homers and earned a September cup of coffee.

In 1973, he was with the Sox, platooning in right field with Rick Miller. Dewey hit .223, but with 40 walks and 10 homers in 282 at-bats. In the off-season, the Sox acquired Bernie Carbo, but in 1974, Evans took more of the right-field job, hitting .281 with fair strike zone judgment and power. Despite an increase in power and plate discipline in 1975, he was still sharing the job with Carbo and had only 459 plate appearances. From 1976 to 1980, he continued to produce at about the same level in usually 550 plate appearance per year, with a knee injury contributing to his lost time. In the strike year of 1981 at the age of 29 Evans made a leap forward with a .296/.415/.522 line, and his 30s were better than his 20s as he averaged over 600 plate appearances per year while maintaining his power and batting average and improving his plate discipline. Evans was a first-rate defender, smooth with excellent instincts and a Grade A arm. Bill Nowlin's short biography of Evans is worth a read.

So, how does Evans compare with other rightfielders. BBRef supplies four fine right-field comparables- Al Kaline and Dave Winfield on the high end and Dave Parker and Rusty Staub on the low end. Here are the numbers:

Player Plate Apps. HR BA OBP SLUG OPS+
Evans 10,569 385 .272 .370 .470 127
Kaline 11,597 399 .297 .376 .480 133
Parker 10,184 339 .290 .339 .471 124
Staub 11,229 292 .279 .362 .431 124
Winfield 12,358 465 .283 .353 .475 129

Should Dwight Evans be in the Hall of Fame? Hmmmm. It's all a question of standards. Kaline and Winfield are noticeably better than him. He's noticeably better than Dave Parker or Rusty Staub. He was clearly better than Staub, but was he really better than Parker? Parker was arguably the best player in baseball during the period 1977-79, but no one ever could make that argument about Evans. This raises a philosophical question; how much weight, if any, does one attach to peak performance?

To give us a factual basis for the question, how about looking at the best 3 years of three contemporaries, Evans, Parker and Jim Rice.  We use 1977-79 for both Parker and Rice, and 1981-82 and 1987 for Evans.  Remember that 1981 is the strike year:

Player Plate Apps. HR BA OBP SLUG OPS+
Evans 1888 88 .298 .410 .543 156
Parker 2055 76 .327 .390 .516 150
Rice 2144 124 .320 .376 .596 153


There you have it.  Evans was more effective offensively than Parker and Rice at the peak, but had fewer plate appearances in large part due to the strike.  The OPS+ differences understate Evans' advantage, due to the underweighting of on-base percentage in the OPS figure.  One could argue that Parker was a better defender at his peak, but it is a tough argument. They were both exceptional and both behind Barfield and Clemente.  He was much faster. However one slices it, the argument that Parker was a better player than Dwight Evans on the basis that his peak performance was better seems to me extremely tenuous.  Parker's performance outside his peak years clearly falls short of Evans by a wide margin, and the peak difference, if any, is miniscule. Parker was much more impressive, firing line drives out of the park to the power alleys with his unusual swing and powerful physique., but Evans was more effective.

I still don't know if Dwight Evans belongs in the Hall of Fame.  I suppose that he's about as good as Reggie Smith, a little less offence and a little more defence at the peak, although Evans never played center field.  Heads or tails?  Hmm, heads, he's in.

Next up: Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans- Hall Watch Retrospective | 13 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Magpie - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:27 AM EDT (#152331) #
He was clearly better than Staub

That's a big Maybe - but we'd have to take him out of Fenway and stick him in the Astrodome (during the 1960s, yet) to be sure. Dewey was a helluva player, though.
Mike Green - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:43 AM EDT (#152334) #
I guess the comment about Staub deserved an explanation.  Staub played his prime years (age 25 on) in Montreal.  Curiously, in Staub's best year in Houston in 1967, the Astrodome didn't play as much of a pitcher's park. Allowing Staub a small credit for the psychological effect of playing in a pitcher's park year after year (and not accounted for by the "OPS+" statistic), he was maybe as good a hitter as Evans.  But with the glove, there is no comparison.  Staub was at best an average defender.  He was a DH/1b by the age of 32.  And Evans was Evans. 
Chuck - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:32 AM EDT (#152346) #
Evans' HoF worthiness is certainly debatable. His skillset features two things, defense and the ability to draw walks, that does little to excite HoF voters, who seem unduly locked in to counting stats and thresholds ending in 000.

Jim Rice is the canary in the coal mine for that era's Red Sox team. If Rice isn't going in, then Evans definitely ain't.

Mike Green - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#152347) #
I would be shocked if Evans made it to the Hall.  He was a more valuable player than Rice over his career, but less impressive and less famous.
ken_warren - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 10:48 AM EDT (#152499) #
Let's look at these guys using Win Shares which does take park effects and defense into account.

Al Kaline

Total Career Win Shares - 441.4 (58.6 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 31.0, 30.5, 30.3 (91.8)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 130.0
Career Value - 977

Dave Winfield

Total Career Win Shares - 414.4 (41.1 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 33.0, 31.2, 28.3 (92.5)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 132.0
Career Value - 956

Rusty Staub

Total Career Win Shares - 358.1 (35.3 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 31.8, 29.6, 27.8 (89.2)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 145.0
Career Value - 916


Dave Parker

Total Career Win Shares - 324.3 (42.6 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 36.6, 33.0, 30.8 (100.4)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 148.8
Career Value - 923


Dwight Evans

Total Career Win Shares - 345.5 (51.9 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 30.8, 28.9, 25.8 (90.0)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 120.3
Career Value - 843


Reggie Smith

Total Career Win Shares - 345.5 (51.9 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 30.8, 28.9, 25.8 (90.0)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 120.3
Career Value - 835

The comparison to Reggie Smith is very good, however Reggie is never mentioned as a potential Hall of Famer and I would think the same would apply to Dwight, as under rated and unappreciated as he is.

Here are Bill James' rankings among all-time right fielders in his Historical Baseball Abstract

#11 Al Kaline
#13 Dave Winfield
#14 Dave Parker
#20 Reggie Smith
#22 Dwight Evans
#24 Rusty Staub



Jim Rice

Total Career Win Shares - 279.8 (35.6 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 35.8, 28.0, 27.8 (91.6)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 126.7
Career Value - 808

If he ever gets in, then about 50 other outfielders will have legitimate cases including Dwight Evans and Reggie Smith.  Hopefully the Red Sox hype machine is not that powerful.
ken_warren - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 10:58 AM EDT (#152500) #
Oops.....here are the correct numbers for Reggie Smith

Dwight Evans

Total Career Win Shares - 345.5 (51.9 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 30.8, 28.9, 25.8 (90.0)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 120.3
Career Value - 843


Reggie Smith

Total Career Win Shares - 326.3 (51.9 defense)
Best Three Seasons - 29.3, 28.6, 26.3 (84.2)
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 128.0
Career Value - 835

The comparison to Reggie Smith is very good, however Reggie is never mentioned as a potential Hall of Famer and I would think the same would apply to Dwight, as under rated and unappreciated as he is.
Mike Green - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 12:21 PM EDT (#152507) #
Reggie Smith has been mentioned as a possible Hall of Famer by me, and some others.  Win Shares defensive evaluations are very approximate.
ken_warren - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 12:47 PM EDT (#152509) #
Reggie Smith has been mentioned as a possible Hall of Famer by me, and some others.  Win Shares defensive evaluations are very approximate.

Has Reggie ever come close to being voted in?  Not that I recall.  He has more credentials than Jim Rice who seems to get all kinds of support.  But it seems to me that a guy like Dave Parker should be getting a lot more support than any of these guys.  Of course there was that drug use thing, which seems to be the biggest obstacle he now has to overcome.

What is the big issue with Win Shares defensive measures?   Clearly it is far better that simple observation.  Nobody would seriously suggest that we measure a hitters accomplishments by how he looks when he hits.  We look at what he has accomplished statistically and that is how we evaluate him.  Let's do the same with a players' defense.  I recall somebody suggesting that Vlad Guerrerro is a superior defensive player and should be given credit for that, when the statistical evidence shows just the opposite.

In any case the defensive contribution for a top hitting outfielder in very minimal in terms of his overall contribution.  The bulk of his value is his offense.  This is true for Willie Mays who was possibly the best defensive outfielder ever.  If he wasn't also a great hitter he would be down there with Marquis Grissom and Amos Otis who were almost as good defensively.   There's no possible way that Evans' defense makes him a better player than Dave Parker.  And I think that Win Shares is the best tool available for at least putting a players defensive contribution into proper perspective.
Mike Green - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#152512) #
There are a number of measures of defensive ability.  The best measures use play-by-play data.  Unfortunately, we do not yet have these measures for historical players, although with the expansion of Retrosheet, it would be possible to generate much of the data. To give you an idea of how wrong Defensive Win Shares can be, here are your AL second base leaders. Mark Loretta?  No way.  Not even close.  It'd be like saying Bill Buckner was a better hitter than Fred McGriff in 1987 because he outhit him .286- .247.

Anyways, BP's Runs Above Average has Parker as -21 RAA (+9 during his prime years) as a defensive rightfielder and Evans as +50 (0 during his prime offensive years later in his career).  You can argue that Parker was better than Evans because he was a smidge better in his prime (due to having everything working, offence and defence, at the same time and being more durable during his prime).  I don't buy it.

ken_warren - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#152514) #

Anyways, BP's Runs Above Average has Parker as -21 RAA (+9 during his prime years) as a defensive rightfielder and Evans as +50 (0 during his prime offensive years later in his career).


Win Shares gives Evans 51.9 fielding Win Shares, and Parker 42.6 saying basically the same thing that you are.  Evans was a better defensive outfielder.  Everybody agrees.

However:

Best season - Parker wins 36.6 to 30.8

2nd best season - Parker wins  33.0 to 28.9

3rd best season - Parker wins 30.8 to 25.8

For those not familiar with Win Shares these deltas represent  very large differences in ability.

Bill James right field ranking - Parker #14,  Evans #22

The only way of ranking Evans higher than Parker is to attack Win Shares and James work.  I don't see the point.  I also don't see any evidence to suggest that there is anything wrong with the above data, or that there is better data available.

Mike Green - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#152515) #
The problem is that Win Shares are a counting stat.  One of Evans' 3 best years was 1981, the strike year.  It actually probably was his best year.  He would have had fairly comparable numbers to Parker's best year, had the season not ended in August.  I'll grant you that Parker was perhaps a little better at the peak, but there's no comparison after that.  But, if peak is all that matters, Herb Score would be a Hall of Famer. 

Incidentally, there's a big difference between 9 Win Shares difference  on defence (3 wins or 30 runs), and 70 runs difference that BP has it.

ken_warren - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 03:25 PM EDT (#152517) #
One of Evans' 3 best years was 1981, the strike year.  It actually probably was his best year.  He would have had fairly comparable numbers to Parker's best year, had the season not ended in August.

This is really silly.  What happened happened.  Parker would have maintained his peak ability a lot longer if he wasn't a cocaine addict.  Gehrig would have had a better career if he hadn't contracted a deadly illness.  Ted Williams missed five seasons in military action.  David Ortiz, Brian Giles, and Richie Sexson would have much better careers if their teams had only given then a shot a little earlier.  How about Edmonds and Ryan Howard.  When evaluating a players career, particularly HOF credentials, we don't look at what might have been.  Unless it's Kirby Puckett or Don Mattingly of course.


I'll grant you that Parker was perhaps a little better at the peak, but there's no comparison after that.  But, if peak is all that matters, Herb Score would be a Hall of Famer.

Well peak may not be all that matters but is the best indication of how good a player truly was.  For players such as Koufax, Richie Allen, Newhouser, Campanella, and Jackie Robinson any other measure would be truly inappropriate.

Peak Years :

Parker  - 100.4
Evans -  85.5

Advantage to Parker by  17.4%


Best Five Consecutive Seasons (Durability and Consistency)

Parker - 148.8
Evans -  120.3

Advantage to Parker by  23.7%


Total Career Win Shares (Longevity)

Evans - 345.5
Parker - 324.3

Evans by  6.5%

I don't think it is at all accurate to say that after "peak seasons" are taken into consideration that it is no contest.






Mike Green - Sunday, August 06 2006 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#152520) #
If you look at best five seasons, rather than best five consecutive seasons, you'll find that they're about even.  After that, Evans wins.  And that's with a measure of defensive ability that most likely understates Evans' advantage.



Dwight Evans- Hall Watch Retrospective | 13 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.