Does Lance Parrish deserve to be in the HOF?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I don't know. I'm just tired of what I perceive to be good but not great players going in, and so many what I consider to be great, again, my perception, not going in. I would really like to see some of the guys I collect, who after reading about them, or that I actually remember being discussed as great from the days in which I followed baseball go in. I guess that's just asking too much, realistically. That's why I collect my own Hall of Fame.

I didn't see Parrish play. But I think my question is: would Parrish be considered Baines, and a joke to the HOF, or would he be more like Ted Simmons, and considered an honor a long time coming?

Originally Posted by rats60

Mickey Cochrane at #19 and Roy Campanella at #20? That list can't be real.

Looking at the list, he is looking at three different measures of WAR: 7 yrs, 5 yrs, and 3 years. Looking at Cochrane and Campanella compared to the top catchers (Bench, Carter, Fisk, Ivan Rodriguez, Yogi), it's noticeable that Cochrane and Campanella have something that creates that separation. Usually when I look at lists like this, the cream of the crop are noticeably separated, like a bell curve. You have those few anomalies at the top and bottom, and then a huge chunk in between. The in-between players are the ones you get to argue about. Of Cochrane, Campanella, Hartnett and Piazza....as you question....I'm not sure how they are passed by Jason Kendall.