Dave Parker - HOF?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s not a rate stat, it’s a cumulative stat. Players are rewarded for long careers (Ryan, for example, has great WAR and not very good rate stats). WAR is only lost if the player is performing less than what WAR calculates an average ‘replacement level’ player (a minor leaguer) would perform. Players of this level rarely last for entire second half’s of careers. Parker only went negative in 1987 and 1991. He is not being punished for sticking around by WAR and has positive WAR from his later years outside of Pittsburgh. This claim that a player is rewarded for a career ending as soon as he stops being great is factually false and not how the metric works.

It's by no means a perfect metric, but if someone has a better one, let's use it. Almost any metric, to me, is better than "I saw him play 5 games live and another 10 on TV and he was AWESOME." Other than someone on the team one follows, I don't think anyone really saw enough of any given player to give a meaningful evaluation. Small sample size. And even then, it's skewed by bias, memory, etc.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's by no means a perfect metric, but if someone has a better one, let's use it. Almost any metric, to me, is better than "I saw him play 5 games live and another 10 on TV and he was AWESOME." Other than someone on the team one follows, I don't think anyone really saw enough of any given player to give a meaningful evaluation. Small sample size. And even then, it's skewed by bias, memory, etc.

Personally, I think rate stats compared to league average are better. Things like OPS+, though it weights slugging too much.


I’m not a fan of WAR’s fictional minor leaguer as the base line instead of the league average. I don’t agree with all the weighting, such as the components adding value to guys who played when there weren’t many good players at their position in the league (a big part of Grich and Randolph’s misleading WAR), etc. etc. I think it is designed around the modern game and is less and less useful the further back you go.


But, it’s objective and mathematical. It’s a calculation applied cleanly to all. An objective measure beats a subjective measure. Those arguing against WAR aren’t making a case based on other objective measures. Appeals to emotion, to ‘I remember him’, to subjective measurements (since when has an MVP and a couple gold gloves been a hall of fame ticket anyways?) are not reasonable. Math is reasonable. A reasoned debate should be about the application of the math and which objective math should be used and where the line between in and out belongs.


You know a player probably isn’t a great selection when his advocates rely on memory and the subjective instead of the objective.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's by no means a perfect metric, but if someone has a better one, let's use it. Almost any metric, to me, is better than "I saw him play 5 games live and another 10 on TV and he was AWESOME." Other than someone on the team one follows, I don't think anyone really saw enough of any given player to give a meaningful evaluation. Small sample size. And even then, it's skewed by bias, memory, etc.

Some people think their eyes tell them more than stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Some people think their eyes tell them more than stats.

By my memory and eyes, Omar Vizquel was as good a clutch hitter as I ever saw. But I would bet that limited observation would not hold up.

[jingram058]

If WAR is what it takes to get into the HOF, count me out. HOF has lost it's relevance, and no longer matters. More stupid, irrelevant BS.

[G1911]

When the math doesn't agree with one's view, it is the math that must be wrong.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by G1911

When the math doesn't agree with one's view, it is the math that must be wrong.

Well, there are such things as imaginary numbers, right?

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on the current inductees that are enshrined?" The answer is simply - YES.

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on his career?" The answer becomes debatable.

In 1986 he led the league with 304 total bases and scored a .3 WAR. Something just doesn't seem right with that number.

Overall, I think he'd be a borderline yes due to his batting titles, MVP and all-star appearances.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Fred

Well, there are such things as imaginary numbers, right?

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on the current inductees that are enshrined?" The answer is simply - YES.

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on his career?" The answer becomes debatable.

In 1986 he led the league with 304 total bases and scored a .3 WAR. Something just doesn't seem right with that number.

Overall, I think he'd be a borderline yes due to his batting titles, MVP and all-star appearances.

Which stats do you think are not imaginary? I’m happy to use other stats instead of WAR, as I’ve written several times in this thread. I don’t think it is reasonable to use completely subjective things like awards. Parker is similar to several other 120’s OPS+ players of the period, Hernandez, Lynn, Rice, Madlock, etc. of whom only Rice has been elected. The consensus seems to be this group is not HOF worthy.

I’d love to use other math. I’ll accept any objective standard. No objective case has yet been made for Parker. Each one has been an appeal to subjective standards.

[steve B]

A lot of the HOF voting is based on how popular a player is with the press, and to some extent where they play. And to some extent who retires in the few years after any particular player retires. Evans is a good example of this, might have gotten in after a few years of eligibility, but came up against a year with something like 3 first ballot players and went off the ballot.
Parker was someone I could see being a hofer, but my recollection of him is that he wasn't particularly press friendly.

There was that stretch where he said he had trouble getting charged up for games and had fans throwing batteries at him in the field. A player with a better relationship with the press would have that quote handled differently, put in a better context, or maybe not even mentioned.

He did fall short in most career milestones, but the good years are what makes it a harder choice. How much should any player be penalized for a strike shortened year like 81?

And for the WAR above all else guys, how much should a player be penalized for just happening to play at a time when their position had lots of great players? Or for playing a slightly different position? Is Lynn better than Rice because he played center? Despite annually pulling his groin trying for long drives to the wall? Better than Evans? Why should he or any player get a bonus for playing a different position?

[bcbgcbrcb]

I agree with most everyone here, Parker is borderline. I am not unbiased and was a big Parker fan during his days in Pittsburgh and would have loved to see him get in, maybe still...

The fact remains that the direct reason for such low vote totals from the writers association has all to do with his drug connection in Pittsburgh. Aside from that, he would do doubt have been up in the 50-75% range over 10 years and maybe gets in towards the end there, maybe not. All the 27% max vote numbers prove is that the drug connection totally destroyed his 50/50 chance of getting in based on his playing ability/career.

BTW later in his career, no one was more highly regarded as a good character guy for his teams than Parker. Of course, he played for enough of them. lol

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I agree with most everyone here, Parker is borderline. I am not unbiased and was a big Parker fan during his days in Pittsburgh and would have loved to see him get in, maybe still...

The fact remains that the direct reason for such low vote totals from the writers association has all to do with his drug connection in Pittsburgh. Aside from that, he would do doubt have been up in the 50-75% range over 10 years and maybe gets in towards the end there, maybe not. All the 27% max vote numbers prove is that the drug connection totally destroyed his 50/50 chance of getting in based on his playing ability/career.

BTW later in his career, no one was more highly regarded as a good character guy for his teams than Parker. Of course, he played for enough of them. lol

I think the drug stuff is being oversold honestly. I think the traditional drug stuff has long ago been forgiven. I mean, it only delayed Fergie Jenkins induction by a couple years.

Though they got there with different ebbs and flows of their careers, Parker has almost identical lifetime stats to Dale Murphy.

Dale Murphy, who was beloved by fans, won 2 MVP Awards, 5 Gold Gloves (as a centerfielder no less, whether they were deserved is another argument), 7 time All-Star, 4 time Silver Slugger. Absolutely crushed it for about a 6 year span from 1982-87.

Unfortunately, past his age 31 season, he was barely a replacement level player anymore.

Support through the years from HOF voters compared to Parker. Nearly identical. Parker maybe even got slightly more support, though it's negligible.

Absolutely dominant stretches for both guys, but cumulatively, they are just on the outside looking in.

I'm a big Hall of Fame kind of guy, so I won't ever begrudge either of them getting in, but it might be a long wait.