Dave Parker - HOF?

D. Bergin · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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 · #8 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 · #9 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 · #10 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.

HistoricNewspapers · #11 04-13-2022, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

Other than that, from the pitcher's perspective, an out is still just an out whether a ground out or strikeout occurs. What it comes down to is limiting baseruners and limiting home runs. The better you are at that, the better pitcher you will be. That is why someone like Greg Maddux was superior to Nolan Ryan despite that vast difference in strikeouts.

Same for hitters, it comes down to getting on base and getting on base efficiently(done in the least amount of outs made with the most amount of bases taken in one plate appearance).

Hitting the most home runs while making the least amount of outs is the most optimal way of hitting.

Then you have a sliding scale of hitters who get the most BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR while making the least amount of outs....and it may make a 2% difference if the outs are batted ball outs or strikeouts, because what really matters is how many HR, 3B, 2B, 1B, and BB you get with home being the obvious most valuable in that line of importance.

G1911 · #12 04-13-2022, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

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.

Other than that, from the pitcher's perspective, an out is still just an out whether a ground out or strikeout occurs. What it comes down to is limiting baseruners and limiting home runs. The better you are at that, the better pitcher you will be. That is why someone like Greg Maddux was superior to Nolan Ryan despite that vast difference in strikeouts.

Same for hitters, it comes down to getting on base and getting on base efficiently(done in the least amount of outs made with the most amount of bases taken in one plate appearance).

Hitting the most home runs while making the least amount of outs is the most optimal way of hitting.

Then you have a sliding scale of hitters who get the most BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR while making the least amount of outs....and it may make a 2% difference if the outs are batted ball outs or strikeouts, because what really matters is how many HR, 3B, 2B, 1B, and BB you get with home being the obvious most valuable in that line of importance.

I�m fully aware that a strikeout is a credit to the pitcher (or a debit to the hitter). Not striking out is similarly a credit to the batters eye and pitch waiting.

An out is an out most of the time, the hitting metrics recognize the K has little actual value these days. If this is true, then it is not logically possible in a directly adversarial game for the K to have great value to the defense. Yet the advanced analytics for pitchers tend to focus heavily on the K, it�s a big part of why pitchers accumulate WAR faster now, because it favors the K for pitchers without an equal punishment for batters in an era where hitters don�t care about whiffing 150 times a year. This isn�t logical in a direct adversarial game if a strikeout barely hurts the hitter. It either is significant to both, or it is not significant to either when we are measuring what produces wins. Outcome A can not logically be significant to Team A�s winning odds but insignificant to Team B�s winning odds when there are two teams.

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.

HistoricNewspapers · #15 04-13-2022, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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.

Actually, GM's ARE looking for pitchers like Nolan Ryan and want to do exactly what you said...teach them command.

Ryan may actually be the beginning of what the modern game is looking for. He is a pioneer of sorts in that way.

There are a lot of guys with his arsenal now and with command already engrained in them though.

However, Ryan would be a victim of limited innings too because that is more of a strategy being employed as opposed to the modern pitcher's ability/inability to pitch more innings.

The higher velocity a ball is coming greatly increases the chances are that it will not be hit. That is why GM's want guys who can throw hard. It doesn't mean that a strikeout is much different that a batted ball out...its just that pitchers who throw so hard are going to induce more strikeouts by virtue that it is harder to hit higher velocity pitches located in the same place as lower velocity pitches. So it produces more outs.'

Nolan Ryan had a modern arsenal of pitches with lesser command and guys 'back in the day' were striking out left and right vs him too...and those guys are supposedly 'contact' kings compared to now, yet they struck out just as much agains the type of velocity seen today, its just that not as many back then had it.

On the flip side, hitters do have to sell out more as well because of the number of flame throwers now, so they do sacrifice more strikeouts.

Peter_Spaeth · #16 04-14-2022, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Actually, GM's ARE looking for pitchers like Nolan Ryan and want to do exactly what you said...teach them command.

Ryan may actually be the beginning of what the modern game is looking for. He is a pioneer of sorts in that way.

There are a lot of guys with his arsenal now and with command already engrained in them though.

However, Ryan would be a victim of limited innings too because that is more of a strategy being employed as opposed to the modern pitcher's ability/inability to pitch more innings.

The higher velocity a ball is coming greatly increases the chances are that it will not be hit. That is why GM's want guys who can throw hard. It doesn't mean that a strikeout is much different that a batted ball out...its just that pitchers who throw so hard are going to induce more strikeouts by virtue that it is harder to hit higher velocity pitches located in the same place as lower velocity pitches. So it produces more outs.'

Nolan Ryan had a modern arsenal of pitches with lesser command and guys 'back in the day' were striking out left and right vs him too...and those guys are supposedly 'contact' kings compared to now, yet they struck out just as much agains the type of velocity seen today, its just that not as many back then had it.

On the flip side, hitters do have to sell out more as well because of the number of flame throwers now, so they do sacrifice more strikeouts.

Yeah he just didn't have consistent control especially of his curve which was his great negative. When he did, he was dominant.

Jason19th · #17 04-14-2022, 04:03 PM

[QUOTE=D. Bergin;2215002]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.

I would argue that Nolan�s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan�s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era�s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don�t understand the adoration.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #18 04-14-2022, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE=Jason19th;2215347]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I would argue that Nolan�s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan�s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era�s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don�t understand the adoration.

Not sure I buy this as his walk rate was almost always steadily improving through his career. In his last 9 full seasons he had 8 of his best BB/9 rates.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #19 04-14-2022, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=Jason19th;2215347]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I would argue that Nolan�s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan�s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era�s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don�t understand the adoration.

Not sure I buy this as his walk rate was almost always steadily improving through his career. In his last 9 full seasons he had 8 of his best BB/9 rates.

D. Bergin · #20 04-14-2022, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I would argue that Nolan�s walk rate has nothing to do with control. I believe- and I may be stealing some of this from Bill James- that it was Nolan�s ego that lead to his walks. He was obsessed with limiting hits. He refused to give anyone anything to hit ever. While this got him lots of glory and no hitters it also lead to the insane pitch counts, the super high walk rates and his very mediocre era�s. He would have rather had an inning where he threw 40 pitches to get three walks and 3 strike outs then to risk giving up a hit. A lot of people seem to celebrate this. I don�t understand the adoration.

Well giving up a Walk, IS better then giving up a hit, and his ego must have lessened throughout his career, because by the 2nd half of his career he had a pretty respectable walk rate.

Mediocre ERA? I mean, he had some up and down years, but he won 2 ERA titles, and was Top 7 in the league 8 different years.

Was also Top 10 in WHIP (hits/walks combined) 9 times, leading the league twice.

D. Bergin · #21 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 · #22 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 · #23 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.

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