Dave Parker - HOF?

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If a 26% superior OPS compared to the league is SUPER close I guess...

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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

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

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

Yes, during that period, he was better than Foster. In the 1980 baseball preview issue, Sports Illustrated had Parker and Jim Rice on the cover under the headline “Who’s the Best?” And made the case that at that moment, they were the two best inbaseball.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Yes, during that period, he was better than Foster. In the 1980 baseball preview issue, Sports Illustrated had Parker and Jim Rice on the cover under the headline “Who’s the Best?” And made the case that at that moment, they were the two best inbaseball.

He wasn't better than Foster in 1977. He wasnt better than Rice in 1978. He wasnt THE best player in baseball 1977-1979.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

He wasn't better than Foster in 1977. He wasnt better than Rice in 1978. He wasnt THE best player in baseball 1977-1979.

Fred Lynn was better in 1979. I am guessing Schmidt too though I didn't check.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Jim65

He wasn't better than Foster in 1977. He wasnt better than Rice in 1978. He wasnt THE best player in baseball 1977-1979.

Didn’t say he was better than Foster in 1977 or Rice in 1978. Or the best player in baseball for those three years.

[Misunderestimated]

I voted "No" but I'd take him over several HOFers (including recent inductees like Hodges and Baines) who seem to beat him out based on "character" points.

In the moment (or at the time) the Cobra (later the Whale) sure felt like a HOFer. He was charismatic, talented, and a winner. The more recent metrics take him down a few pegs. Sort of the opposite of Bobby Grich, Ted Simmons, and Bert Blyleven.

My leading "sure felt like a HOFer" when he played who is still on the outside looking in is Steve Garvey. IF you asked a baseball fan about him during his playing days even the haters would have conceded he was a HOFer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

I voted "No" but I'd take him over several HOFers (including recent inductees like Hodges and Baines) who seem to beat him out based on "character" points.

In the moment (or at the time) the Cobra (later the Whale) sure felt like a HOFer. He was charismatic, talented, and a winner. The more recent metrics take him down a few pegs. Sort of the opposite of Bobby Grich, Ted Simmons, and Bert Blyleven.

My leading "sure felt like a HOFer" when he played who is still on the outside looking in is Steve Garvey. IF you asked a baseball fan about him during his playing days even the haters would have conceded he was a HOFer.

10 time all star and all those 200 hit seasons, but the metrics hate him. I think though it was before the metrics became in vogue that he failed to get in -- was he punished in part for his personality, I don't know. Maybe his relative lack of power?

[Misunderestimated]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

10 time all star and all those 200 hit seasons, but the metrics hate him. I think though it was before the metrics became in vogue that he failed to get in -- was he punished in part for his personality, I don't know. Maybe his relative lack of power?

----
Parker was on the ballot from 1997-2011... Never cleared 25% and peaked his second year, 1998.
He wasn't either a one-team guy or a major market star so those factors don't help him either.
Not sure if he was punished for his personality (like Richie Allen) but I don't think he's gotten the benefit that guys like Hodges, Baines, and Oliva got. Maybe he will get in, he's not as far out from his career as those three and it seems like the committee of last resort is willing to let in statistically lower-end candidates. To my thinking Parker's a bit below average all things considered.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

10 time all star and all those 200 hit seasons, but the metrics hate him. I think though it was before the metrics became in vogue that he failed to get in -- was he punished in part for his personality, I don't know. Maybe his relative lack of power?

Well when you get caught cheating on your wife AND your mistress it does tarnish your All-American Boy reputation. He was my hero growing up I remember being so crushed when that whole thing came out.

It is amazing that with 200 hits and between 25 and 35 home runs 3 times the dude never slugged .500. By WAR he was the 3rd best guy in that famous infield, and not all that far ahead of Bill Russell!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

Yeah but you're one of those "Big Hall" guys

Also I would argue Parker ever being considered the best player. I'd give you "among the best players" but Martinez was among the best hitters of his era.

Finally, a cannon does not make for a great defender. Guy made a TON of outfield errors. Yes he had a cannon, but catching the ball is kind of a big thing too.

[Jim65]

WAR is a stat, that's all it is. Its a tool to use to judge players. Saying it doesnt make sense because Jose Cruz had a higher WAR than Tony Perez is like saying batting average doesn't make sense because Rusty Greer had a higher career BA than Reggie Jackson or Harmon Killebrew.

[HistoricNewspapers]

I would argue against Parker being the best in baseball from 1977-1979. Seems most ignore more precise measurements like OPS+ and rely mostly on the traditional AVG/HR/RBI.

So if just going by the traditional AVG/HR/RBI then George Foster and Jim Rice are better than Parker from 1977-1979.

Their average per year in that span:

Foster .301/41/122 w/ a 157 OPS+
Rice .320/41/128 w/ a 153 OPS+
Parker .327/25/100 w/ a 150 OPS+

If defense is added, then you have to add all the other positions and the ones with higher positional value where their offense may not have been as high.

That being said, WAR fails when it comes to defense measurement and that is where you get the mistakes of Bret Garnder being listed as good. The WAR defensive component is far from accurate. So is the positional adjusment in WAR. It does make a difference when a SS hits 30 home runs compared to a RF, but how much so is debatable and the WAR component that adds that adjustment has a guess element to it as well.

So I would take Parker's offensive contributions and weigh those much heavier than the defensive metrics.

A lifetime 121 OPS+ from Parker is good, and is borderline, but he also played almost every day and had a couple 160 game seasons, so he didn't get the platoon advantage in his rate stats that most LH hitters did.

Considering all of that, and that Parker lost playing time in a crowded OF when he just came up...and the strike year too....I say yes to Parker.