Dave Parker - HOF?

Ricky · #1 04-11-2022, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

ronniehatesjazz · #2 04-11-2022, 06:51 PM

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.

G1911 · #3 04-11-2022, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

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

Yeah, math is for losers

ronniehatesjazz · #4 04-11-2022, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yeah, math is for losers

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

G1911 · #5 04-11-2022, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

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

I hope this is sarcasm�

G1911 · #6 04-11-2022, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky

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.

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.

Ricky · #7 04-11-2022, 09:10 PM

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.

ronniehatesjazz · #8 04-11-2022, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky

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.

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

Peter_Spaeth · #9 04-11-2022, 11:04 PM

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)

Jim65 · #10 04-12-2022, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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)

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

Snapolit1 · #11 04-12-2022, 06:58 AM

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.

darwinbulldog · #12 04-12-2022, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

Hard to overstate the importance of that fact.

ronniehatesjazz · #13 04-12-2022, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

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.

View Poll Results: Should Dave Parker be in the HOF?
Yes	138	50.00%
No	138	50.00%
Voters: 276. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SOLD: Dave Parker Signed Ball - PSA	carlsonjok	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	05-23-2021 04:11 PM
Wtb - Kent tekulve, Dave Parker Pirates gu jerseys	mrozie21	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	0	05-20-2020 06:40 PM
Dave Parker & Harold Baines bats	Fredskinz	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	7	02-13-2019 07:25 AM
Reds 1984 dave parker jersey & giants 1982 parker jersey	Al Parker	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	1	07-04-2013 10:16 AM
Dave Parker game used Cooper bat	keithsky	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	11-19-2011 07:23 PM