It's not, but it is a really good back of the envelope indicator for non-pitchers. About 50 is where you can really start thinking about it. 65+ is an oversight as a rule.

Dave Parker’s career WAR is lower than Brett Garner’s.

I’m sorry ….. but that’s some seriously funny shit.

Palmeiro won a gold glove playing something like 30 games at the position. I might trust the numbers more than the writers.

Numbers would also tell you that Justin Bieber was far more important to rock and roll history than Jim Morrison was.

What was his WAR?

That wasn’t the case with Parker though. Speaking of WAR, Bobby Grich had a 71.1 WAR. Was he a Hall of Famer?

WAR isn't everything, a legitimate argument can be made it's not even a good metric. But it's better than Gold Gloves. Gold Gloves are 100% subjective. WAR is not. I don't think subjective measurements rooted in popularity and narrative really should be involved. Awards have a very long history of being given to the undeserving. They don't mean a player actually was good. The argument should be if the player was deserving of the honor, not if he got it. Gold Gloves especially are often a joke. Palmeiro played 246 innings in the field and got one. The award, in and of itself, means absolutely nothing, like all completely subjective accolades.


Parker was better than his WAR suggests, if you look at his best 3 or 4 years he looks like a Hall of Famer. He didn't end up with clear HOF numbers; he's one of numerous guys right on the border. Bill Madlock, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Keith Hernandez. Short of the big milestones, 120's range OPS+, lengthy careers, bright peak seasons but the end results aren't all that special. They are all in the borderline group. I'd be fine with any of them being in (Rice already is, I'm aware), or being out.

I don't see a mathematical argument that Parker is a clear HOFer in the next tier, where it is insulting that he isn't getting in.

Seems like the main sin a lot of these guys were guilty of was just sticking around too long.

That one is a mystery on the high end, and (at least to me) so is George Davis. Clear no for me on Grich.

Any metric has its aberrations and there will instances where it doesn't do a player justice, but I think overall WAR is pretty good. If you look at the all time rankings it's a pretty solid list.

Everyone has their opinion and brings up more recent metrics, WAR, etc to make cases for Parker and other players.

Parker had 15 years of voting by the writers and did not receive more than 24% support and less than 20% support on most years and had three or so opportunities from the veterans committee, I am sorry he is no Hall of Famer I don’t care what metric, argument you wish to make. If he was he would have already been enshired.

That goes for many others voted in recent years, i.e. Baines, Kaat, etc

Yeah, well, and your point is?

Hahahah

Grich walked a decent amount and played in an era where 2B couldn't hit. So his WAR gets inflated as a result. Willie Randolph gets the same kind of bump. Randolph had an oWAR one year of 6.4 when he hit 7 homers and slugged .407. In 1978, Grich had an oWAR of 3.2 - while slugging .329. That .329 was 4th-lowest in the AL that year.

So, yeah, if your contemporaries are horrible, being not-horrible makes you look good when using comparative stats. It's like saying a man that's 5'8" tall is a giant when you're comparing him to 2nd graders.

Subjective awards do have issues. However, with Gold Gloves, players win or don't win based on reputation, not necessarily popularity. No one is more popular than Mike Trout, yet he has never won a Gold Glove and likely never will. Because his reputation defensively is good, but not great. A player who is considered a mediocre fielder (or worse by WAR) is never going to win a Gold Glove. In his day, Parker's reputation was as a very good defensive right fielder, so he won 3 Gold Gloves.

If we are disregarding subjective standards in judging a players' career, should we throw out MVP award winners, as well?

Reputation is completely 100% subjective, it is not objective, and is often miles away from the truth. Because a narrative is popular or widespread does not mean it is true whatsoever.

Yes, MVP's have the same exact problem - it is a subjective award and often a popularity or narrative contest. It is not objective at all. We should look at how "who was actually the best player that year?" and try to use objective math to arrive at a reasonable answer, not look at who was given a subjective award.

Objective measurements > subjective measurements. It would be absurd and unreasonable to favor the subjective over the objective when trying to make a logical argument.



EDIT: "A player who is considered a mediocre fielder (or worse by WAR) is never going to win a Gold Glove" - Palmeiro was so mediocre his team didn't even want him in the field, and they still gave him one. I don't think this statement checks out.

How Fred Lynn finished 4th in 1979 is a case in point, but there are many.

I voted in the poll to put him in. Nothing to do with WAR or any of that. Just that when he played, he was dominant and yes, a household name to those who followed and watched baseball.

Palmetto getting a Gold Glove was a joke and an aberration, but is certainly an outlier. Subjective voters do miss from time to time, but Hall of Fame voting is subjective as well and influenced by personal prejudices and opinion. Players who were nasty to sportswriters (with the exception of shoo ins like Ted Williams) are going to have a tough hill to climb. It took Eddie Matthews six tries to get in because he had a contentious relationship with the writers.

WAR is sheer tomfoolery, championed by ivy league Poindexters and the dullards that follow their analysis for some reason.

To me I think it should be fairly simple. Major accomplishments should anchor consideration... 2 MVPs, 2 CYAs, 10 AS, 3000 hits, 500 HR, 300 hits, etc. and then adjust up or down depending on the situation. I think this used to be widely accepted as the way to go but things are now off the rails.

Parker's resume is 1 MVP, 7x AS, 2x WS, 3x GG, 3x SS, and 2 batting titles in 19 seasons (4 cut fairly short). Also, has 338 HRs, 2712 Hits, and 1,493 RBIs.

I think he comes up just short before adjusting his resume. On the qualitative side, he was a very popular, polarizing, player in his prime. Was the star on arguably the second best team of the 70's. Was viewed by most as one of the top 5 players for several seasons in his prime and had a solid resurgence in the mid-late 80s.

All things considered, he is not a HOF Pre-Baines, but most definitely one Post-Baines. I just hope Baines is the Mendoza line of the HOF and we don't see a slippery slope down to the likes of Terry Steinbach and Lenny Dykstra as borderline candidates.

Yeah, math is for losers :rolleyes:

Yes, who has been selected is a subjective measure. Subjective measures abound in hall candidacies.

Who should be elected can be investigated objectively, by applying equal standards.

I am not saying subjective measures have not been a major, or even the major yardstick. I am saying they are not logical or reasonable.

You know, it’s funny. Ive been defending Parker and I wasn’t even a fan particularly. I remember him and watching him and remember how feared he was but I was more of an American League fan. I’ve come to the conclusion that what has kept him out of the Hall is the so-called character clause. His numbers were certainly better than Ted Simmons for example, and he won championships, MVP and Gold Gloves but the drug trial in 1985, during his playing days, ruined his candidacy in the eyes of the sportswriters and then the Veterans Committee. That’s the reason he never got a decent number of votes and why he’ll maybe never get in. He was a helluva player in his prime but can’t overcome the stigma of his role with drugs inthe game.

+1

Steve

Not math, more like a new theology led by depraved scoundrels.

With you on this, but with "Rock" Raines (love that nickname lol) getting in fairly recently, maybe Parker will follow suit soon.

List of top 20 players by WAR. Seems like a pretty good list, not sure where people are coming from who say it's foolishness.

1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 183.1 10626 1221.1 L
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 164.9 2534 5914.1 R
3. Cy Young+ (22) 163.6 3104 7356.0 R
4. Barry Bonds (22) 162.8 12606 L
5. Willie Mays+ (23) 156.1 12545 R
6. Ty Cobb+ (24) 151.5 13103 5.0 L
7. Henry Aaron+ (23) 143.0 13941 R
8. Roger Clemens (24) 139.2 213 4916.2 R
9. Tris Speaker+ (22) 134.7 12020 1.0 L
10. Honus Wagner+ (21) 130.8 11766 8.1 R
11. Stan Musial+ (22) 128.6 12721 0.0 L
12. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 127.3 9481 R
13. Eddie Collins+ (25) 124.4 12087 L
14. Ted Williams+ (19) 122.0 9792 2.0 L
15. Pete Alexander+ (20) 119.3 1981 5190.0 R
16. Alex Rodriguez (22) 117.6 12207 R
17. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.3 2264 5067.1 B
18. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 113.6 9665 L
19. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 111.1 13346 R
20. Mel Ott+ (22)

I hope this is sarcasm…

Some people think because they aren't smart enough to understand something, it must have no legitimacy.

I’m not pro or anti war, at least with respect to baseball.

But the fact that the top 20 or 25 WAR guys of all time is a great list hardly convinces me that it’s a great metric for drawing distinctions between hundreds or thousands of other players.

If anyone wants to argue that Brett Garner was a better player than Steve Garvey or Dave Parker, have at it.

Hard to overstate the importance of that fact.

WAR and other stats aside, didn’t Parker admit to bringing drug dealers into the Pirates locker room with the intention of Cocaine transactions. All this during the drug wars that resulted in the deaths of thousands and the ruined lives and disrupted families of millions. I find this behavior far worse than anything Bonds, Clemons, Arod, Ect. did. I think he should be under life ban like Pete and Shoeless Joe.

Parker is such a tough case for me as a Pirates fan, who didn't really catch his career with the team due to my age, but I saw him later in his career and knew about his impact with the Pirates back then, so I liked him. He had a Hall of Fame run in his peak 1974-80, but he has a lot of flaws that were hidden by highlights.

For a high average guy, his OBP is low. He ranks 970th all-time among guys with 3,000 plate appearances in OBP. Yet he's 404th in average.

He gets credit for being a toolsy player due to his power, running and arm, yet he had a very poor success rate for stolen bases for someone who ran a lot and he committed a lot of errors. His defensive metrics are awful. He won three Gold Gloves, and one of those was a great choice, but the other two do not belong. He should have been a one-time Gold Glove winner (1977). He's not Derek Jeter bad, getting handed four of his five Gold Gloves as the worst player at his position, but it's close.

His 40.1 WAR really shows his flaws hidden by the highlights. No one is pushing for Albert Belle to be in the Hall, yet he put up the exact same WAR in 60% of the time, which clearly makes him a much more valuable player than Parker. They aren't even comparable. Belle got hurt by his attitude with the media (and everyone else), but Parker wasn't squeaky clean obviously, anyone who knows about the 1985 Pirates knows about his side story.

I voted no on him, but that's mostly because there are about 100 better candidates who are eligible right now, but I'm not against a large Hall of Fame. Someone like Parker should never be forgotten.

^^^This!!!^^^

Perhaps, but the real problem lies with the vast majority who deep down know they aren't smart enough to understand something but regurgitate nonsense anyway for mere optics. A foolish attempt to lift their room temperature IQs to 145. Sadly, there are so many of these cretins that it becomes an echo chamber and the only conclusion is that they're all geniuses! Feels good to be a blind idiot so long as everyone tells you you're brilliant.

This is going to get a lot of people worked up, :D but in looking up careers of other Right Fielders I found that Jessie Barfield has an almost identical career accumulated WAR to Dave Parker, and did it in 1,038 less games played.

Granted, Jessie had perhaps the greatest defensive statistical 10 year run for a Right Fielder in history, despite only winning 2 Gold Gloves...but still......;)

Sincerely,

"Not on any side in this fight"


:)

There was a time when Parker was widely considered the best player in the sport. 77-79. I missed anyone ever saying that about Edgar Martinez. Also Parker had a cannon for an arm in right field. Whoever said his defense didn’t add anything never saw him play. I get thinking he doesn’t belong but I’d absolutely vote for him.

Supports the idea that it's far better for WAR purposes not to stick around too long and wear out the welcome mat as your skills inevitably decline.

Probably the best thing that could happen to a good player for purposes of WAR is to have a great 10 years and then suffer a career ending injury in the off season.

Yogi Berra lower WAR than Bobby Abreau and Chase Utley.

Maybe some times the numbers do lie.

Abreu may be one of the most under-rated hitters in history. Never higher then 12th in MVP voting (and that wasn't even close to his best year). Just super-efficient and consistent. His numbers really pop out for a guy that never played at Coors Field.

A .395 lifetime OBP for a modern guy that played as long as he did, is fairly impressive. Throw in 400 SB's, and he wasn't exactly a slouch in the OF.

Will likely never be a HOF'er, but there are definitely worse guys in there.

Everyone has their views. I think baseball HOF has to be a mixture of objective data and subjective views as to one's overall importance to the game. Yogi Berra is an icon of the sport. For many reasons of course. If his WAR was 12.2 he's still deserve to be in the HOF.

I wouldn't vote for Parker, but it's not his fault there was a war on drugs.

Well yeah, not like Yogi was a slouch in that department either. WAR is a cumulative stat just like hits/walks/HR's/etc.., and must be put in context.

He obviously played a very demanding position and was pretty dominant in his standing at that position among his peers at the time.

...and he still ranks pretty highly among catchers of all eras.

I personally think catchers should get judged for HOF candidacy completely different then all other position players. Similar to Pitchers.

I remember moaning and groaning about Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter getting in, and most recently of course, Ted Simmons.

Most demanding position on the diamond and there's guys out there who think Johnny Bench and Yogi (and maybe Piazza) should be the only catchers represented in the HOF, because all they do is compare their offensive stats to regular position players. :confused::confused:

He was certainly ONE of the best. Can you say he was better than George Foster in that 3 year period? Or Schmidt?

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.

Parker HOF
 

I grew up watching Parker play, and there's absolutely no doubt imo he should be in the HOF. The 80's drug trial is the only reason in my book he's been held out. Amazingly, he tore his ACL in HS, and never had it correctly repaired. He played his whole MLB career on a below average knee and still was a 7x All Star, NL MVP(should've won a 2nd in Cincy), All-Star game MVP, 2 Batting Titles, and 2x WS Champion. He completely rebuilt his career in Cincy and Oakland after leaving Pitt. Also, when Ozzie Smith got in the HOF, they asked him who's the best player he ever played against during his career, and without hesitation, said Dave Parker, who could do it all.

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.

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.

At least they are smart enough to know that there are people out there smarter than themselves and dont have to resort to name calling because they dont have the intelligence to dispute an opposing position with facts.