Dave Parker - HOF?

[Snapolit1]

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.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

This is going to get a lot of people worked up, 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"

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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.

[Snapolit1]

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.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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.

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.

[pcoz]

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by pcoz

NL MVP(should've won a 2nd in Cincy)

While I definitely agree that Willie McGee should not have won the MVP in 1985, Dave Parker shouldn't have either. Dwight Gooden was, by far, the best player in the NL in 1985. If you don't like pitchers winning the MVP then I'd probably go with Dale Murphy instead over Parker. Similar average, OBP, SLG, and homer stats but Murphy was a significantly better defender.

[G1911]

Gooden got absolutely robbed in '85.

If we aren't allowed to pick a pitcher, I'd give it to Pedro Geuerrero that year. WAR has him a hair below McGee but I think he had the better year. Really only hurt by the fewer games, but he had the best rate production.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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.

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.

[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.

[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.