Dave Parker - HOF?

Gorditadogg · #1 04-13-2022, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky

Garvey was a corner infielder who didn�t hit for power so WAR doesn�t like him. Parker didn�t walk and had a low OBP and those things weren�t valued in his time. Had they been, he might have been a different hitter. Wade Boggs, who DID walk a lot and had a high OBP, and was coming along at the same time, was kept in the minors by Boston until he was 25 because he was a third baseman who didn�t hit for power. Different times with different values from today. Our values today are heavily influenced by the relatively new metrics.

It doesn't say much for Parker if he spent 19 years in the majors and never learned that walks are valuable. Most of us knew that when we were 12 year old kids playing Little League.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 04-13-2022, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It doesn't say much for Parker if he spent 19 years in the majors and never learned that walks are valuable. Most of us knew that when we were 12 year old kids playing Little League.

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

D. Bergin · #3 04-13-2022, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

You could also throw in, making contact and moving a runner over. Doesn't count as a sacrifice, but definitely more valuable of an out, then a strikeout.

The Mattingly's and Gwynn's I mentioned above, did that regularly.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 04-13-2022, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You could also throw in, making contact and moving a runner over. Doesn't count as a sacrifice, but definitely more valuable of an out, then a strikeout.

The Mattingly's and Gwynn's I mentioned above, did that regularly.

Right. I think deducting for Ks as I suggested would capture that.

D. Bergin · #5 04-13-2022, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right. I think deducting for Ks as I suggested would capture that.

Maybe. I guess the issue is that strikeouts aren't frowned upon anymore. At least it's not a Double Play, is kind of what the thinking goes, I guess.

It's all about launch angle now, and not cutting down your swing later in the count.

That's what analytics have decided is more valuable.

I'm self-aware enough to know, I'm not smart enough to dispute that.

HistoricNewspapers · #6 04-13-2022, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You could also throw in, making contact and moving a runner over. Doesn't count as a sacrifice, but definitely more valuable of an out, then a strikeout.

The Mattingly's and Gwynn's I mentioned above, did that regularly.

You can count exactly how many times a player made an out that moved a runner. It isn't a mystery and that positive is already included in the better measurements. Don't forget though, that guys who strike out a lot also move runners up with their contact outs too...so in the end the difference is pretty small in its positive impact. It does help, but not to the degree that many seem to make it out to be.

I think everyone forgets that over half of your at bats come with nobody on base, so right off the bat, half of your outs, whether they are line outs, fly outs, or strikeouts, accomplish the exact same thing. Nothing.

For example, a guy who strikes out 130 times is viewed by many as an abomination. Then another who strikkes out 30 times as an instant HOFer. So the difference is 100 contact outs. Half of those occur with nobody on base, so the difference is really 50 contact outs. About 1/3 occur with two outs where it doesn't matter either, so the differnce is then about 32 outs. Then of those 32, not all of them move runners. Most don't, and of some of the ones that do, it is only when there are zero outs where the impact is felt more. So just thinking logically without even counting all of them, there is a difference, but not a big one.

Then just look at the play by play data and you don't have to guess. Those are included in the better hitting measurements, not WAR though.

G1911 · #7 04-13-2022, 12:29 PM

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.

Snapolit1 · #8 04-13-2022, 12:35 PM

Quote:

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.

A lot of great pitchers over the years have said they only got great when they came to realize that they didn�t need to strike everyone out.

HistoricNewspapers · #9 04-13-2022, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

A lot of great pitchers over the years have said they only got great when they came to realize that they didn’t need to strike everyone out.

Yet still struck them out. That has to do more with command. They got great by limiting the baserunners and home runs. When you limit the baserunners and home runs then it doesn't matter how many you strike out or not, just like in hitting.

The more BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR you get, the better you become....even if you struck out in every single out you made, it wouldn't matter as long as you are getting the most BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #10 04-13-2022, 01:56 PM

Quote:

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.

because any time you avoid contact as a pitcher you lessen the chance of a negative outcome for you.

HistoricNewspapers · #11 04-13-2022, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

because any time you avoid contact as a pitcher you lessen the chance of a negative outcome for you.

Also, 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.

G1911 · #12 04-13-2022, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

because any time you avoid contact as a pitcher you lessen the chance of a negative outcome for you.

Yes, I understand that. I am saying it is not really possible, in a direct conflict between hitter and pitcher, for an event to be almost insignificantly harmful to the offense but hugely beneficial to the defense. That makes no logical sense. If it doesn�t really hurt the offense much, then it cannot help the defense much.

darwinbulldog · #13 04-13-2022, 02:39 PM

Quote:

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.

D. Bergin · #14 04-13-2022, 03:00 PM

Quote:

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.

D. Bergin · #15 04-13-2022, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

You can count exactly how many times a player made an out that moved a runner. It isn't a mystery and that positive is already included in the better measurements. Don't forget though, that guys who strike out a lot also move runners up with their contact outs too...so in the end the difference is pretty small in its positive impact. It does help, but not to the degree that many seem to make it out to be.

I think everyone forgets that over half of your at bats come with nobody on base, so right off the bat, half of your outs, whether they are line outs, fly outs, or strikeouts, accomplish the exact same thing. Nothing.

For example, a guy who strikes out 130 times is viewed by many as an abomination. Then another who strikkes out 30 times as an instant HOFer. So the difference is 100 contact outs. Half of those occur with nobody on base, so the difference is really 50 contact outs. About 1/3 occur with two outs where it doesn't matter either, so the differnce is then about 32 outs. Then of those 32, not all of them move runners. Most don't, and of some of the ones that do, it is only when there are zero outs where the impact is felt more. So just thinking logically without even counting all of them, there is a difference, but not a big one.

Then just look at the play by play data and you don't have to guess. Those are included in the better hitting measurements, not WAR though.

Maybe. Situational stuff gets lost a bit, but maybe not enough to make much of a difference.

HistoricNewspapers · #16 04-13-2022, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Maybe. Situational stuff gets lost a bit, but maybe not enough to make much of a difference.

Situational items are most definitely included in the more precise hitting measurements. They don't get lost at all.

D. Bergin · #17 04-13-2022, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Situational items are most definitely included in the more precise hitting measurements. They don't get lost at all.

Maybe poorly worded, but basically I was agreeing with you.

Gorditadogg · #18 04-13-2022, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

Yes, wouldn't that be great? You could do the weightings based on how each of those individual stats contribute to team wins. Then you could compare players' overall results to each other or even to a replacement level player.

Somebody should do that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Aquarian Sports Cards · #19 04-13-2022, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

GIDP's is one of the WAR killers along with Caught Stealing and poor OBP (not taking walks, generally) K's are just another out though.

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