I don't know about "compelling," but I'm pretty sure that I'd put Evans in the Hall of Fame and I wouldn't put either Rice or Lynn in.

How much credit do we give defense? Lynn played center field and played it well. Rice played left field and played it... we'll say "sufficiently less well as to garner a fair number of at bats at DH." Had Lynn been less talented a center fielder, perhaps he might not have missed as many games as injuries, and he would have racked up enough counting numbers to catch Rice in hitting value, all while occasionally playing center field instead of left.

I'm sure that's not a fair game to play -- giving Lynn credit for counting numbers that he didn't get because of injuries that I'm pretending wouldn't have happened if he'd gotten more time at DH -- but one can paint Lynn as the better candidate than Rice without it. Lynn was a slightly better hitter for his career by OPS+, had a more OBP-heavy OPS, was a significantly better fielder at a significantly more important defensive position, all while playing nearly as many games. Depending on how much weight Rice gets for the extra games or how much weight Lynn gets for the defense, I would not be surprised at all if Lynn had the better overall career (without getting into the advantages of concentrating value in fewer seasons vs spreading it out over a longer career -- I'm not sure I have a preference about that anyway).

I think its completely unreasonable to give Lynn one ounce of credit for games he didn't play. His lack of durability - brought about in part by his style of play, is an integral part of his career. Giving Lynn credit for games he didn't play would be like giving Rice credit for playing center field.

Second, because of his lack of durability, OPS+ overrates his value. A guy who puts up an OPS+ of 130 in 120 games is not as valuable as one who does it in 160 games.

Finally, Lynn had two terrific years, four years apart. He was inconsistent in this regard. To me, using 1975 and 1979 to talk about how good he was would be like using 1961 to measure Norm Cash. In other words, if you asked the questions, "was Norm Cash the best player in the league at his position? Was he the best in baseball? Could a team win a pennant if he was the best player?", I don't think you should look at 1961 alone to answer those questions. Lynn had two such years, but they weren't consecutive, and did not establish a "true" level of performance, IMO.

I think its completely unreasonable to give Lynn one ounce of credit for games he didn't play. His lack of durability - brought about in part by his style of play, is an integral part of his career. Giving Lynn credit for games he didn't play would be like giving Rice credit for playing center field.

If the exercise is to determine whether Lynn should be in the HOF, I agree. But the exercise here is to determine if the Rice-Lynn-Evans combo was one of the best young outfields ever. Part of that discussion has to include whether they ever actually played at a level to warrant the label. Using Keltner after-the-fact to discuss performance level - while dismissing injury effects when the player was older - isn't the best choice, but it's not a bad choice.

It was an ok article for what it is, but can someone explain to me why the Keltner list is considered such a good barometer for HOF eligibility? Just about every Keltner article I have ever read reads almost the same, with some obvious "hell no"'s ("Is he the best player not in the hall of fame?") to some "sure, why not?"'s ("could a team win a pennant with him as their best player?") It strikes me as a rather lazy way to discuss someone's hall of fame chances without thinking about the particular mertits of the case at hand.

As to this particular case, I would go Evans > Lynn > Rice. Evans' was a fabulous defensive outfielder, and his 1981, even if you regress it, was really awesome.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

I think that some other Primate is studying this, but it seems to me that good hitters with extreme splits are overvalued. The extra runs that Lynn produced had less value than the runs that he lost on the road. Looking at it this way is similar to looking at support-neutral pitching stats, only that a pitcher who is more flaky is usually more valuable than a more consistent hurler with a similar ERA.

Am I the only one who saw this headline and thought, "Fred Lynn is dead?"

I thought the same when I saw this posted this morning.

That .347/.420/.601 line may have gotten a Fenway boost, but it provided real value to the Sox nonetheless- but what do you do with it when comparing Rice to Lynn? Rice WAS a better hitter than Lynn outside of Fenway- Lynn was better in Fenway than Rice- what do we do with that?

Another Primate is studying this, but it seems to me that good hitters with extreme splits are overvalued. The extra runs that Lynn produced at home had less value than the runs that he lost on the road. Looking at it this way is similar to looking at support-neutral pitching stats, only that a pitcher who is more flaky is usually more valuable than a more consistent hurler with a similar ERA.

Another Primate is studying this, but it seems to me that good hitters with extreme splits are overvalued. The extra runs that Lynn produced at home had less value than the runs that he lost on the road. Looking at it this way is similar to looking at support-neutral pitching stats, only that a pitcher who is more flaky is usually more valuable than a more consistent hurler with a similar ERA.

That makes sense, as I understand that the extra runs that Lynn produced at home had less value than the runs that he lost on the road. 8-D

The Keltner list is just a departure point for further discussion about a particular player, nothing more. And very few people do it well--a successful Keltner list should provide a few novel insights, just reinforce conventional wisdom or pre-existing assessments.

This was not an insightful Keltner List and reading it is frankly a waste of time. This article can be distilled into two propositions:
a) Lynn had some incredible seasons for a CF when he was young and healthy;
b) Lynn could not stay healthy and therefore did not accumulate the counting stats necessary to gain entry into the HOF.

Neither statement is especially insightful. It's too bad that Posnanski went off on the Keltner List of Lynn tangent, because a well-executed comparative analysis between Lynn's peak value versus the career value of Evans/Rice might yield something interesting.

I cut and pasted that from some old thread about Lynn. Must have pasted twice somehow.

Nothing against Freddie, though. One of my earliest memories of baseball was waking up one morning and looking in the Hartford Courant and seeing that he had 12 RBI against the Tigers one game in 1975.

The extra runs that Lynn produced at home had less value than the runs that he lost on the road. Looking at it this way is similar to looking at support-neutral pitching stats, only that a pitcher who is more flaky is usually more valuable than a more consistent hurler with a similar ERA.

OTOH, Lynn was a fantiastic defensive player when he was young, and that translated on the road as well. Once you make the defensive adjustment, you can make a case for Lynn, so I agree with Posnanski.

At the top of his game Fred Lynn was a Hall of Fame player if not inner circle. But this could be written about a number of players.

Lynn was Pete Reiser with a hair more luck and better medical care. And even with that he was a shadow of himself by 32.

I was going to mention the similarities between Lynn and JD Drew (career ops+ 128), but then I see Paul White makes the same comparison in the comments section below the article.

can someone explain to me why the Keltner list is considered such a good barometer for HOF eligibility?

At its inception, in the famous Abstract piece where Bill James unveiled it, the List really was a good way of doing a reality check on whether some claim like "one of only four American League third basemen between Hall of Famers Home Run Baker and George Brett to have two 110-RBI seasons!!!" was much of a Hallworthy credential when you looked at the player as a whole. Anyone on BTF who's read many HOM threads has probably Keltnered the interesting eligibles already in his/her mind, so I agree these lists aren't very intriguing to most of us ...

Drew gets hurt brushing his teeth. Lynn got hurt due to the manner in which he played.

To me there is a difference..........

Bobby Murcer is another pretty good comp for Lynn, though Murcer was more durable and had a more conventionally-shaped career path. Murcer too had HOF-caliber talent, but didn't perform at that level long enough.

OTOH, Lynn was a fantiastic defensive player when he was young, and that translated on the road as well. Once you make the defensive adjustment, you can make a case for Lynn, so I agree with Posnanski.

See, this is a dialogue. I Prefer this to the typical thumbs up/down HOF discussions that I see from time to time; not just here, but in other less Jamesian places.

I agree with you HW, but Lynn, like Drew, was often criticized for his willingness to play hurt. Again, I will defer to White and quote his comment.

Lynn was essentially the first version of J.D. Drew - a marvelously gifted ballplayer with natural, effortless ability who simply would not play on any given day if he had so much as a nagging hangnail bothering him. Sure, some of his injury issues were caused by slamming into walls. But enough were of a mysterious variety that his teammates questioned his desire to play.

How fair this criticism is can be argued, but the whispers were there.

GGC, it was actually ten RBIs against the Tigers. I think that game was on NBC's old Monday Night Baseball.

You're right, Boots. But it was a Wednesday game and ABC did MNB. I think there is actually some extant footage of the game.

Monday Night Baseball was on NBC from 1972-75, and on ABC from 1976-79. So if Fred Lynn's 10-RBI game had been on a Monday night, as I misremembered, it would have been on NBC.

I do know that John Candelaria's no-hitter was on MNB.

Did not know that, Boots. I think I first watched it in '76 when it was on ABC. I just assumed that it was an offshoot of MNF.

How fair this criticism is can be argued, but the whispers were there.

It happens a lot, whenever a player is not visibly injured, declares himself to be hurt and takes himself out, there are always those who will state (covertly or overtly) that the player is faking it, malingering, etc.

The worst instance I recall was with JR Richard. Back in 1980, he was the Astros' ace, but had begun behaving "oddly", several teamamtes took him to task, questioned his "heart", etc (He had thrown 267ip 4 straight years in an effing row) The Astros had finished 2nd the year before, and were in a pennant race, I distinctly remember one player saying the Richard couldn't take time off "just" because he didn't feel well- the team couldn't afford for him to miss a single start.

Having a great year, he began pulling himself from games, complaining of weakness and numbness, in his arm, and shoulder- he was put on the DL, allegedly under went a battery of examinations, nothing significant was found, the MSM decided that Richard simply couldn't cope with pithing in a pennant race.

Warming up before game he collapsed on the field, he'd had a stroke and nearly died- he survived but his career was over.

Lynn was essentially the first version of J.D. Drew - a marvelously gifted ballplayer with natural, effortless ability who simply would not play on any given day if he had so much as a nagging hangnail bothering him. Sure, some of his injury issues were caused by slamming into walls. But enough were of a mysterious variety that his teammates questioned his desire to play.

This passage is nonsense. There were players from the beginning of the game who wouldn't play on certain days due to injury. Or perceived injuries.

For heaven's sake, the phrase "jaking it" has been around forever.

In this instance White is singling out Lynn unfairly. All one has to do is troll through the history of the game.

#21 -- right on!

I remember that at the time. It was ridiculous that people were questioning Richard's heart and stamina. It's true he was nowhere near as dominant as I recall -- good lord look at those walks -- but he was widely considered a tough SOB. The idea that he was "jaking" seemed absurd, but it was out there. It was a shameful display.

And he did look like he was about to have a great pitching run. At age 28, he started K'ing more than 9/9; at 29 he got his walks under control enough to post a K/BB over 3; at 30, he was doing both those things again plus had cut his HR-rate to nothing (possibly just luck).

As to the question at hand:

I'm not sure I'd put any of these three in the HoF. But then I'll also admit I never realized Evans played in over 2600 games -- that's a lot. His career numbers aren't that far off Dave Winfield. But then I'm also wondering how a guy with over 10,000 PAs, a 370 OBP and decent speed doesn't make it to 1500 runs. And I'm not 100% sure he's even the best Evans not in the HoF.*

*I probably give Dwight the edge given Darrell wasn't exactly a smooth 3B by my memory -- though amazingly he made his only 22 appearances at SS, totalling 130 innings, at the ages of 35 and 36! (surely that's a record for most games and innings at SS by an old fart who'd never played there before ... did Sabean manage the Giants for a couple years when I wasn't looking?) But I'm assuming Darrell has a small offensive edge after adjusting for positions.

Lynn had three HR's in that game, and just missed a fourth.

Lynn, Evans, Murphy, Edmonds. Rank them!

Dwight Evans, then a gap, then Jim Edmonds, Fred Lynn, and Dale Murphy. I can see arguments for any ordering of 2-4, but I'm pretty sure I'd take Dwight Evans first over the other three.