Dave Parker - HOF?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

What would surprise many is that the base on balls rate in MLB the last 15 years is actually lower than what it was in the 1950's, and very similar to that of the late 1970's/early 80's.

Since 2014 the walk per game rate has ranged from 2.88 to 3.39 per game.

From 1977 to 1979 it was 3.27, 3.24, and 3.23.

I must confess this surprised me.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

I tend to think the modern analytics has it correct, strikeouts are not that detrimental to the offense. However, most pitching metrics continue to heavily weight strikeouts. If strikeouts are not that detrimental to the offense, then they are also not that helpful to the defense.

Absolutely. This is why you won't find a GM looking to trade for the next Nolan Ryan. Sure fun to watch, but you'll get more wins with a Maddux.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

The reason why pitcher strikeouts are viewed a little differently than hitters strikeout is that pitcher strikeouts are a good indicator that the skill of getting the batter out was close to 100% done by the pitcher when it was a strikeout, whereas, if a pitcher induces a ground out, then the fielding ability becomes a factor into how much the pitcher or fielder was responsible for the out.

That comes into play when predicting future performance of a pitcher. That is why when measuring a pitcher, when you look at their strikeout and walk ratios that is a good indicator of how good they are as opposed to if it was good defense behind them. Same for home runs allowed by a pitcher. Home runs allowed by a pitcher removes teams' defensive ability from the equation.

That doesn't mean that pitchers can't induce weak contact too, because they can, and some can repeat that year after year...but it is not on the same level of predictability as strikeout to walk ratio and home runs allowed.


Other than that, from the pitcher's perspective, an out is still just an out whether a ground out or strikeout occurs. What it comes down to is limiting baseruners and limiting home runs. The better you are at that, the better pitcher you will be. That is why someone like Greg Maddux was superior to Nolan Ryan despite that vast difference in strikeouts.

Same for hitters, it comes down to getting on base and getting on base efficiently(done in the least amount of outs made with the most amount of bases taken in one plate appearance).

Hitting the most home runs while making the least amount of outs is the most optimal way of hitting.

Then you have a sliding scale of hitters who get the most BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR while making the least amount of outs....and it may make a 2% difference if the outs are batted ball outs or strikeouts, because what really matters is how many HR, 3B, 2B, 1B, and BB you get with home being the obvious most valuable in that line of importance.

I’m fully aware that a strikeout is a credit to the pitcher (or a debit to the hitter). Not striking out is similarly a credit to the batters eye and pitch waiting.

An out is an out most of the time, the hitting metrics recognize the K has little actual value these days. If this is true, then it is not logically possible in a directly adversarial game for the K to have great value to the defense. Yet the advanced analytics for pitchers tend to focus heavily on the K, it’s a big part of why pitchers accumulate WAR faster now, because it favors the K for pitchers without an equal punishment for batters in an era where hitters don’t care about whiffing 150 times a year. This isn’t logical in a direct adversarial game if a strikeout barely hurts the hitter. It either is significant to both, or it is not significant to either when we are measuring what produces wins. Outcome A can not logically be significant to Team A’s winning odds but insignificant to Team B’s winning odds when there are two teams.

[D. Bergin]

More batted balls, leads to more errors and puts more pressure on a defense. 1 error can swing a game one way or another.

I don't know if any of that is true or not, but it sounds pretty good in my head.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by G1911

I’m fully aware that a strikeout is a credit to the pitcher (or a debit to the hitter). Not striking out is similarly a credit to the batters eye and pitch waiting.

An out is an out most of the time, the hitting metrics recognize the K has little actual value these days. If this is true, then it is not logically possible in a directly adversarial game for the K to have great value to the defense. Yet the advanced analytics for pitchers tend to focus heavily on the K, it’s a big part of why pitchers accumulate WAR faster now, because it favors the K for pitchers without an equal punishment for batters in an era where hitters don’t care about whiffing 150 times a year. This isn’t logical in a direct adversarial game if a strikeout barely hurts the hitter. It either is significant to both, or it is not significant to either when we are measuring what produces wins. Outcome A can not logically be significant to Team A’s winning odds but insignificant to Team B’s winning odds when there are two teams.

That is because WAR is isolating the factors that are fully known to be in the pitchers control as opposed to in the control of the defense behind them....and they are giving a bigger validity factor to the pitchers that are producing a high level of K/BB ratio and home runs allowed, because they know that the pitcher is in control of those.

Basically, they are ignoring weak contact allowed by the pitcher and putting all contact in play into the hands of the defense.

They then try to add how much the defense was a factor in how many runs were allowed and that is when things go haywire because it is extremely hard to do that and you can get a lot of odd results in pitcher WAR.

WAR for pitchers is awful. It is hard enough to measure the value of a single defender, let alone measure an entire team defense and try to decipher if weak contact outs were the product of the pitcher or the defense.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Absolutely. This is why you won't find a GM looking to trade for the next Nolan Ryan. Sure fun to watch, but you'll get more wins with a Maddux.

I think a GM would be ecstatic to trade for the next Nolan Ryan. Kevin Gausman gets $21-23 Million a year based on one passable season out of 10.

Nolan would only have to go 5 or 6 innings a game. He'd be able to throw even harder, and snap that curveball even sharper then he already did.

Modern coaching would likely be able to shave the walk rate he was cursed with the 1st half of his career, down a bit in the process to.

Yeah, Maddux was better...but that's a pretty high bar.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I think a GM would be ecstatic to trade for the next Nolan Ryan. Kevin Gausman gets $21-23 Million a year based on one passable season out of 10.

Nolan would only have to go 5 or 6 innings a game. He'd be able to throw even harder, and snap that curveball even sharper then he already did.

Modern coaching would likely be able to shave the walk rate he was cursed with the 1st half of his career, down a bit in the process to.

Yeah, Maddux was better...but that's a pretty high bar.

Actually, GM's ARE looking for pitchers like Nolan Ryan and want to do exactly what you said...teach them command.

Ryan may actually be the beginning of what the modern game is looking for. He is a pioneer of sorts in that way.

There are a lot of guys with his arsenal now and with command already engrained in them though.


However, Ryan would be a victim of limited innings too because that is more of a strategy being employed as opposed to the modern pitcher's ability/inability to pitch more innings.


The higher velocity a ball is coming greatly increases the chances are that it will not be hit. That is why GM's want guys who can throw hard. It doesn't mean that a strikeout is much different that a batted ball out...its just that pitchers who throw so hard are going to induce more strikeouts by virtue that it is harder to hit higher velocity pitches located in the same place as lower velocity pitches. So it produces more outs.'

Nolan Ryan had a modern arsenal of pitches with lesser command and guys 'back in the day' were striking out left and right vs him too...and those guys are supposedly 'contact' kings compared to now, yet they struck out just as much agains the type of velocity seen today, its just that not as many back then had it.

On the flip side, hitters do have to sell out more as well because of the number of flame throwers now, so they do sacrifice more strikeouts.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

More batted balls, leads to more errors and puts more pressure on a defense. 1 error can swing a game one way or another.

I don't know if any of that is true or not, but it sounds pretty good in my head.

Ironically, it is often the guys who strike out a lot who reach base just as frequently on errors because they hit the ball harder on their contact.
Those guys and the super speedy guys.

LH batters have an advantage in that area as well.

[JimC]

I don't believe they should let ANYONE ELSE into the Hall until the Harold Baines mistake is corrected.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Actually, GM's ARE looking for pitchers like Nolan Ryan and want to do exactly what you said...teach them command.

Ryan may actually be the beginning of what the modern game is looking for. He is a pioneer of sorts in that way.

There are a lot of guys with his arsenal now and with command already engrained in them though.


However, Ryan would be a victim of limited innings too because that is more of a strategy being employed as opposed to the modern pitcher's ability/inability to pitch more innings.


The higher velocity a ball is coming greatly increases the chances are that it will not be hit. That is why GM's want guys who can throw hard. It doesn't mean that a strikeout is much different that a batted ball out...its just that pitchers who throw so hard are going to induce more strikeouts by virtue that it is harder to hit higher velocity pitches located in the same place as lower velocity pitches. So it produces more outs.'

Nolan Ryan had a modern arsenal of pitches with lesser command and guys 'back in the day' were striking out left and right vs him too...and those guys are supposedly 'contact' kings compared to now, yet they struck out just as much agains the type of velocity seen today, its just that not as many back then had it.

On the flip side, hitters do have to sell out more as well because of the number of flame throwers now, so they do sacrifice more strikeouts.

Yeah he just didn't have consistent control especially of his curve which was his great negative. When he did, he was dominant.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

If someone wants Dave Parker in what are their thoughts on Rocky Colavito? Better Power numbers in a bad power hitting era and very similar in the field. Average fielder with canon arm. (or Roy Sievers, Frank Howard, George Foster, Jack Clark ad infinitum)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Similar batters, according to Baseball Reference. I would not have guessed Torii Hunter hit 350 HR.

Similar Batters
Luis Gonzalez (907.1)
Torii Hunter (906.8)
Tony Perez (895.7) *
Billy Williams (883.9) *
Garret Anderson (874.5)
Harold Baines (871.6) *
Andre Dawson (865.2) *
Al Oliver (862.7)
Chili Davis (859.1)
Rusty Staub (857.1)

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by JimC

I don't believe they should let ANYONE ELSE into the Hall until the Harold Baines mistake is corrected.

Well, that ain't gonna happen.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Well, that ain't gonna happen.

I agree, Baseball will never open that can of worms. Even if they did, theres far worse elections than Harold Baines.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I agree, Baseball will never open that can of worms. Even if they did, theres far worse elections than Harold Baines.

Who would you say is a worse pick than Baines? I'd call some of the elections by the almost openly corrupt Frisch VC as probably worse. I can't think of a worse selection the last 30 years or so. Maybe Sutter, that was a pretty bad one too.

[Jason19th]

[QUOTE=D. Bergin;2215002]I think a GM would be ecstatic to trade for the next Nolan Ryan. Kevin Gausman gets $21-23 Million a year based on one passable season out of 10.

Nolan would only have to go 5 or 6 innings a game. He'd be able to throw even harder, and snap that curveball even sharper then he already did.

Modern coaching would likely be able to shave the walk rate he was cursed with the 1st half of his career, down a bit in the process to.

I would argue that Nolan’s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan’s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era’s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don’t understand the adoration.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

[QUOTE=Jason19th;2215347]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I would argue that Nolan’s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan’s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era’s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don’t understand the adoration.

Not sure I buy this as his walk rate was almost always steadily improving through his career. In his last 9 full seasons he had 8 of his best BB/9 rates.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

[QUOTE=Jason19th;2215347]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I would argue that Nolan’s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan’s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era’s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don’t understand the adoration.

Not sure I buy this as his walk rate was almost always steadily improving through his career. In his last 9 full seasons he had 8 of his best BB/9 rates.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I think a GM would be ecstatic to trade for the next Nolan Ryan. Kevin Gausman gets $21-23 Million a year based on one passable season out of 10.

Nolan would only have to go 5 or 6 innings a game. He'd be able to throw even harder, and snap that curveball even sharper then he already did.

Modern coaching would likely be able to shave the walk rate he was cursed with the 1st half of his career, down a bit in the process to.

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I would argue that Nolan’s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan’s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era’s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don’t understand the adoration.

Well giving up a Walk, IS better then giving up a hit, and his ego must have lessened throughout his career, because by the 2nd half of his career he had a pretty respectable walk rate.

Mediocre ERA? I mean, he had some up and down years, but he won 2 ERA titles, and was Top 7 in the league 8 different years.

Was also Top 10 in WHIP (hits/walks combined) 9 times, leading the league twice.

[bjerome]

As far as Dave Parker goes, I do not feel he is a Hall of Famer. 1st Ballot Hall of Very Good. Among the best 1-2% to not be in Cooperstown. I will say this as far as his candidacy much like I said about Harold Baines. Did he play his way into the conversation. He absolutely played his way into the conversation. Once you are in the conversation, anything can happen. Will I be upset if Parker got in? Not at all, just as I wasn't upset when Baines got in. I wasn't because they certainly played their way into the conversation. Baines had the right mix of voters on the panel that year and he is in. That could really be anyone.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by G1911

Who would you say is a worse pick than Baines? I'd call some of the elections by the almost openly corrupt Frisch VC as probably worse. I can't think of a worse selection the last 30 years or so. Maybe Sutter, that was a pretty bad one too.

The Frisch selections were horrible. The 2 worst selections off the top of my head are Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski. The first player I would remove would be Cap Anson.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

Who would you say is a worse pick than Baines? I'd call some of the elections by the almost openly corrupt Frisch VC as probably worse. I can't think of a worse selection the last 30 years or so. Maybe Sutter, that was a pretty bad one too.

In the last 30 years? Just looking over the various metrics on bb-ref, I'd definitely go with Sutter. Same career WHIP as Bret Saberhagen but with only 40% as many innings pitched. And among relievers, a worse ERA+ than John Franco (who also had substantially more IP).

Baines is not a good choice, but 4 of his 5 top matches on similarity score are also Hall of Famers. (The one exception, interestingly, is Dave Parker.) None of Suter's top 10 matches are in the Hall. It's hard to even know where to start if you had to make a case for one of them. Jeff Reardon?

Going by the JAWS rankings, I would certainly agree that inducting the 74th best rightfielder was, at best, a questionable choice, but probably not as much as inducting the 23rd best relief pitcher when the consensus is that the Hall should include somewhere from 0-10 relievers. I mean, I'm a big Hall guy, but 23rd best reliever (which I think is a fair ranking for Sutter) doesn't comport with my vision of Cooperstown.

[D. Bergin]

People really need to get over the Harold Baines thing. Especially if you're a traditional stats, WAR is over-rated type of fan. He's in. He's not getting kicked out.

He was THE figurehead of a certain position in baseball for almost 10 years (regardless of whether or not you like the DH), until Edgar Martinez came along.

Call him a compiler if you want (hasn't ever been a penalty for getting into the HOF), but he's also 34th All-Time in RBI's (1628). Everybody in front of him and for a ways behind him, is either in the HOF, waiting to get in the HOF, or a scandal/steroid guy.

Also: 47th in Hits (2866), same situation as above, though he is much closer to the likes of Johnny Damon and Vada Pinson right behind him.

43rd Total Bases (4604), closest non-scandal/non-future guy to him is Fred McGriff 11 spaces back (who I would put in, in a second, if it were up to me).

I might not have put Baines in, but I'm not sure why so many people are so upset about it. It's not like he bet on baseball or kicked your grandmother down the stairs.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

People really need to get over the Harold Baines thing. Especially if you're a traditional stats, WAR is over-rated type of fan. He's in. He's not getting kicked out.

He was THE figurehead of a certain position in baseball for almost 10 years (regardless of whether or not you like the DH), until Edgar Martinez came along.

Call him a compiler if you want (hasn't ever been a penalty for getting into the HOF), but he's also 34th All-Time in RBI's (1628). Everybody in front of him and for a ways behind him, is either in the HOF, waiting to get in the HOF, or a scandal/steroid guy.

Also: 47th in Hits (2866), same situation as above, though he is much closer to the likes of Johnny Damon and Vada Pinson right behind him.

43rd Total Bases (4604), closest non-scandal/non-future guy to him is Fred McGriff 11 spaces back (who I would put in, in a second, if it were up to me).

I might not have put Baines in, but I'm not sure why so many people are so upset about it. It's not like he bet on baseball or kicked your grandmother down the stairs.

Harold had heart and kidney transplant this past year. I want to take this time to wish the man well.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The Frisch selections were horrible. The 2 worst selections off the top of my head are Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski. The first player I would remove would be Cap Anson.

I'm more okay with Mazeroski than Rizzuto. Rizzuto is about the same as Al Dark. Nobody wants to elect Al Dark.

The last choice is politics. If people who do not meet the prevailing social standards of the present are not allowed to be honored, the HOF itself probably cannot reasonably exist at all.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

People really need to get over the Harold Baines thing. Especially if you're a traditional stats, WAR is over-rated type of fan. He's in. He's not getting kicked out.

He was THE figurehead of a certain position in baseball for almost 10 years (regardless of whether or not you like the DH), until Edgar Martinez came along.

Call him a compiler if you want (hasn't ever been a penalty for getting into the HOF), but he's also 34th All-Time in RBI's (1628). Everybody in front of him and for a ways behind him, is either in the HOF, waiting to get in the HOF, or a scandal/steroid guy.

Also: 47th in Hits (2866), same situation as above, though he is much closer to the likes of Johnny Damon and Vada Pinson right behind him.

43rd Total Bases (4604), closest non-scandal/non-future guy to him is Fred McGriff 11 spaces back (who I would put in, in a second, if it were up to me).

I might not have put Baines in, but I'm not sure why so many people are so upset about it. It's not like he bet on baseball or kicked your grandmother down the stairs.

He is much worse than this suggests because of his poor rate stats. The sheer number of RF's better than him (that also didn't have to play 1,600 more games at DH to get their raw values up) who are not in and have no realistic chance of getting in make it look like a terrible selection. The Hall typically does not reward compilers who still failed to hit the biggest milestones. 22 years to collect 2,800 hits is not exactly HOF impressive.

He's 34th in RBI's - and had 100 in a season only 3 times, maxing out at 113. Two of those 3 years his OPS+ was below 120.

He's 47th in Hits - with a batting average of .289 which is not terrible or anything but has never been considered Hall worthy itself. Again, especially for a player who actually took the field less than half the time.

He's 43rd in total bases - with a .465 slugging as a primary DH and an OPS+ of 121, which is again good but not a HOF positive.

He didn't hit the 'auto-induct' compiler milestones (300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 dingers), he didn't produce at anything approaching a HOF rate, especially for his position as a pure offense player at the easiest position in the game.

It is further made worse by the stink of open corruption oozing from his election. It is not a credit that his former manager and owner were 2 of the votes for him and advocating on the committee. If you need your friends to have votes and lobby for you to gain admittance after maxing out at 6% of the vote before this, you probably aren't a real HOFer. It looks like the Frisch committee all over again. People tend to not like corrupt choices.

If it wasn't for the corruption, he'd be seen more as a Sutter/Rizzuto type of weak choice who doesn't really belong, but that's the system. The corruption puts it into the bigger deal category for a lot of people.

[Jason19th]

I think the evolution of Cap Anson is a interesting story that needs to be thought about. While he was clearly racist there is some evidence that he had some growth on the issue. From 1907 until 1910ish Anson sponsored, managed and occasionally played for a team called Anson’s Colts which played in the racially integrated Chicago semi pro league. The league had all white teams, all black teams and often played exhibitions with mixed race Cuban teams. There is also some evidence that Anson formed a friendship or at least a relationship of mutual respect with Rube Walker. I am not saying that he had a full conversion and should be treated as a civil rights champion, but as is often the case the reality is a bit more complicated then the sound bite

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

In the last 30 years? Just looking over the various metrics on bb-ref, I'd definitely go with Sutter. Same career WHIP as Bret Saberhagen but with only 40% as many innings pitched. And among relievers, a worse ERA+ than John Franco (who also had substantially more IP).

Baines is not a good choice, but 4 of his 5 top matches on similarity score are also Hall of Famers. (The one exception, interestingly, is Dave Parker.) None of Suter's top 10 matches are in the Hall. It's hard to even know where to start if you had to make a case for one of them. Jeff Reardon?

Going by the JAWS rankings, I would certainly agree that inducting the 74th best rightfielder was, at best, a questionable choice, but probably not as much as inducting the 23rd best relief pitcher when the consensus is that the Hall should include somewhere from 0-10 relievers. I mean, I'm a big Hall guy, but 23rd best reliever (which I think is a fair ranking for Sutter) doesn't comport with my vision of Cooperstown.

Quisenberry, for a contemporary example, was so far superior to Sutter it's not even funny.

[SteveMitchell]

Just registered my vote, #120 "for" Dave Parker's inclusion (against 124 no's) in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Before voting, I did check Baseball-Reference.com and was reassured by the stats (2712 hits and .290 average over nearly 2 decades in the majors) that my recollection of his great throw from right field in the 1979 All-Star game was not the sole basis for my vote. Oh, yes, and his 9 times receiving MVP votes (resulting in one title, one second, two thirds, one 5th, etc.) and three Gold Gloves, three Silver Slugger Awards, two batting titles and multiple other league leader numbers were no mere afterthoughts. He wasn't Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb or the two dozen or so other automatic HOF'ers, but he was a great ballplayer and, I believe, the top 300-500 players (of more than 20,000 to play at the big league level) ought to be so honored.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...arkeda01.shtml

[John1941]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm more okay with Mazeroski than Rizzuto. Rizzuto is about the same as Al Dark. Nobody wants to elect Al Dark.

Rizzuto was way better than Dark because of his great fielding. Dark wasn't that much better as a batter (98 OPS+ vs. 93 OPS+), but Rizzuto was way better as a fielder. He moved to third base by the end of his career, and BR rates Rizzuto as 95 runs better than Dark as a fielder, if you include the positional adjustments.

Al Dark is probably underrated though.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Quisenberry, for a contemporary example, was so far superior to Sutter it's not even funny.

As you can probably tell from my avatar, I'd love it if Quisenberry was elected.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by John1941

Rizzuto was way better than Dark because of his great fielding. Dark wasn't that much better as a batter (98 OPS+ vs. 93 OPS+), but Rizzuto was way better as a fielder. He moved to third base by the end of his career, and BR rates Rizzuto as 95 runs better than Dark as a fielder, if you include the positional adjustments.

Al Dark is probably underrated though.

Dark oWAR: 42.4
Rizzuto oWAR: 29.6

Dark dWAR: 12.2
Rizzuto dWAR: 23.0

Dark WAR: 43.8
Rizzuto WAR: 42.2

Dark slashed .289/.333/.411, Rizzuto .273/.351/.355

Dark did move to 3B when he got old, but his career was also longer. Rizzuto was a better fielder, but they are very similar players on the whole, and many of the modern analytics give more value to Dark's career than Rizzuto. Yankees get more press clippings and Rizzuto was a stud in 1950, but it's very debatable which was better. I don't think either belong, but they are direct contemporaries in the same city at the same position in the same time, and Rizzuto comes out lower by a lot of the modern stats.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I always thought that if Dark had stayed a Giant his whole career there might have been a catchy song written "Pee Wee, Darkie and the Scoot"

Of course Pee Wee left both of them in the shade as a much more complete ballplayer.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I think the evolution of Cap Anson is a interesting story that needs to be thought about. While he was clearly racist there is some evidence that he had some growth on the issue. From 1907 until 1910ish Anson sponsored, managed and occasionally played for a team called Anson’s Colts which played in the racially integrated Chicago semi pro league. The league had all white teams, all black teams and often played exhibitions with mixed race Cuban teams. There is also some evidence that Anson formed a friendship or at least a relationship of mutual respect with Rube Walker. I am not saying that he had a full conversion and should be treated as a civil rights champion, but as is often the case the reality is a bit more complicated then the sound bite

Never let nuance, complexity or facts get in the way of a regurgitated political sound bite narrative.

[wrapperguy]

If you have to have a poll, then he is not worthy. And the fact that our little poll is split down the middle emphasizes the point. A HOFer should be obvious to everyone.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by G1911

Dark oWAR: 42.4
Rizzuto oWAR: 29.6

Dark dWAR: 12.2
Rizzuto dWAR: 23.0

Dark WAR: 43.8
Rizzuto WAR: 42.2

Dark slashed .289/.333/.411, Rizzuto .273/.351/.355

Dark did move to 3B when he got old, but his career was also longer. Rizzuto was a better fielder, but they are very similar players on the whole, and many of the modern analytics give more value to Dark's career than Rizzuto. Yankees get more press clippings and Rizzuto was a stud in 1950, but it's very debatable which was better. I don't think either belong, but they are direct contemporaries in the same city at the same position in the same time, and Rizzuto comes out lower by a lot of the modern stats.

Rizzuto certainly doesn't have overwhelming credentials, and I wouldn't mind much if he wasn't in the Hall, but he did miss three years to WWII, and taking that into account it's closer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by wrapperguy

If you have to have a poll, then he is not worthy. And the fact that our little poll is split down the middle emphasizes the point. A HOFer should be obvious to everyone.

I think the Hall was only that way for a decade or so, until the Frankie Frisch cronyism started.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

Rizzuto certainly doesn't have overwhelming credentials, and I wouldn't mind much if he wasn't in the Hall, but he did miss three years to WWII, and taking that into account it's closer.

I think he's in because he's a Yankee and because of his post-career career.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think he's in because he's a Yankee and because of his post-career career.

Yup. I think Rizzuto is a good example that your post career contributions to baseball, do have a say in whether you get elected or not.

He was a beloved announcer in New York for decades after his career was over.

Maybe he wasn't a HOF announcer, or a HOF player, but put them together, and maybe he equals a very worthy HOF'er.

Plenty will argue that's not how things are done. I'd argue they are...and Rizzuto and Joe Torre are just two examples of it. It's just not acknowledged.

Just so happened that Rizzuto got in as a player and Torre a manager...but we know, they both got in for more then that in combination.

Also, the MVP and 3 years of prime production lost to the military, don't hurt either.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yup. I think Rizzuto is a good example that your post career contributions to baseball, do have a say in whether you get elected or not.

He was a beloved announcer in New York for decades after his career was over.

Maybe he wasn't a HOF announcer, or a HOF player, but put them together, and maybe he equals a very worthy HOF'er.

Plenty will argue that's not how things are done. I'd argue they are...and Rizzuto and Joe Torre are just two examples of it. It's just not acknowledged.

Just so happened that Rizzuto got in as a player and Torre a manager...but we know, they both got in for more then that in combination.

Also, the MVP and 3 years of prime production lost to the military, don't hurt either.

The interlude in Paradise by the Dashboard Light should have disqualified Rizzuto.

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

Rizzuto certainly doesn't have overwhelming credentials, and I wouldn't mind much if he wasn't in the Hall, but he did miss three years to WWII, and taking that into account it's closer.

Dark lost a few years as well; he went into the Marines in 1943 and didn't get out until July of 1946.

[SteveMitchell]

Well said, D. Bergin. Many outstanding players went on to coach, manage, broadcast, administrate, umpire and even (shudder) write Baseball, making them Hall of Fame worthy for a lifetime of service to the game. Buck O'Neill recently was elected and Lefty O'Doul has been long overlooked. With a free afternoon, dozens of others could be cited including another 2022 HOF man: Jim Kaat.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yup. I think Rizzuto is a good example that your post career contributions to baseball, do have a say in whether you get elected or not.

He was a beloved announcer in New York for decades after his career was over.

Maybe he wasn't a HOF announcer, or a HOF player, but put them together, and maybe he equals a very worthy HOF'er.

Plenty will argue that's not how things are done. I'd argue they are...and Rizzuto and Joe Torre are just two examples of it. It's just not acknowledged.

Just so happened that Rizzuto got in as a player and Torre a manager...but we know, they both got in for more then that in combination.

Also, the MVP and 3 years of prime production lost to the military, don't hurt either.

[peterb69]

Do I think Dave Parker belongs in the Hall? - No
Do I think Dave Parker belongs in the hall based on other fringe players in? - Yes

What we need is an Elite HOF category of players who are in already. Maybe a fixed number and only way in is to bump someone out.

[shagrotn77]

Wow. 127 votes for yes. 127 for no. I guess you could say that we're split on this topic. I voted yes, but only because the voters have loosened their standards quite a bit over the last few years. Harold Baines getting in really messed everything up. I hate playing the if this guy's in, then that guy deserves to get in game. But it's kinda where we're out now. We can thank Jerry Reinsdorf for that.

[philliesfan]

If you use Phil Rizzuto as the standard, then almost everyone should be in.

[G1911]

If the standard is "is this player better than the worst player elected?" then we are adopting the "one mistake must beget a thousand mistakes" logic. This doesn't make rational sense to me. We've got to induct several hundred players pretty quickly now if that is the standard.

Comparing to the average HOFer at that position, or to "is he the best player of his time not in? Is he the best player at his position not in?" makes more rational sense. One mistake should not dictate that dozens more must then be made.

Does Dave Parker compare alright to an average HOF RF'er? Is he the best eligible player not in? Is he the best eligible RF not in? I think this would be a reasonable process of inquiry.

Asking "Who is the best RF not in?" and looking into the data tends to lead to less biased answers.

[Jim65]

I don't like the "is he the best player not in"? Or the "is he the best player at his position not in"? Because there will always be someone who fits that description.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

If we were the BBWAA he wouldn't get in, so there's no change in status. Let's find the guys that 75% of us can agree on!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If we were the BBWAA he wouldn't get in, so there's no change in status. Let's find the guys that 75% of us can agree on!

We won't get 75% agreement on him but my #1 guy (besides guys like Arod, Clemens, and Bonds) is Albert Belle. The only argument against him is "his career was too short" but, if we're not holding that against Addie Joss, Kirby Puckett, or Sandy Koufax, we shouldn't be holding it against Albert Belle either. The standard is 10 seasons (9 if you're Joss) - not "well, kinda 10 but really 14-16 or however many I feel like". And Belle played in 12 seasons anyway.

[Kidnapped18]

Tim Raines HOF 2017