I liked Dwight Evans. I think it's okay to include him in the discussion for HoF. That said, thisThat is a terribly developed and terribly written article. Some nits: If a premise of your argument is "Cesar Cedeno is included in the discussion for Hall of Fame candidacy", then you are set on establishing quite a low bar to begin with. Worse, if you need to fricking include Al Cowens as a standard for comparison because he had one nice year where four people thought he was worthy of MVP… Discussing "fine" players (Burroughs, Cedeno, [I don’t think Cowens, in the argument for HoF, qualifies as even a "fine" player]) as benchmarks for "better than them, so maybe hall of fame good" (Dwight Evans) is a fallacy. I don’t have the list handy, but I’d tell you which. It’s not a valid argument to say "he is better than this good guy, ergo hall of fame!" Why only seem to find the players born in 1951 as a seemingly important metric? Odd. Here’s the pissy part: Spend half the article talking about how good walks and OBP are (which I do agree), but only occasionally giving the stat out. Why not include those numbers in your frequent stat-graphs? Dwight Evans was a very good baseball player. But being very good isn’t good enough. Were he on Kansas City, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Also, if Winfield had been kept out of the Hall of Fame, I wouldn’t find it an injustice. Good player. I’d take him, but his numbers don’t scream HoF. Too many .260 type seasons, in my view, to make him a lock. He is in, and that's cool. I kinda think Parker feels more "HoF"-y, but he has the cocaine history. Even then, were he in, I'd say cool. But he's not, and I also say cool. I don't think it's an injustice. I think Dwight Evans being in wouldn't feel right. I do get why it's discussed. Anyway... thoughts?