Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
WAR isn't everything, a legitimate argument can be made it's not even a good metric. But it's better than Gold Gloves. Gold Gloves are 100% subjective. WAR is not. I don't think subjective measurements rooted in popularity and narrative really should be involved. Awards have a very long history of being given to the undeserving. They don't mean a player actually was good. The argument should be if the player was deserving of the honor, not if he got it. Gold Gloves especially are often a joke. Palmeiro played 246 innings in the field and got one. The award, in and of itself, means absolutely nothing, like all completely subjective accolades.
Parker was better than his WAR suggests, if you look at his best 3 or 4 years he looks like a Hall of Famer. He didn't end up with clear HOF numbers; he's one of numerous guys right on the border. Bill Madlock, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Keith Hernandez. Short of the big milestones, 120's range OPS+, lengthy careers, bright peak seasons but the end results aren't all that special. They are all in the borderline group. I'd be fine with any of them being in (Rice already is, I'm aware), or being out.
I don't see a mathematical argument that Parker is a clear HOFer in the next tier, where it is insulting that he isn't getting in.
|
Subjective awards do have issues. However, with Gold Gloves, players win or don't win based on reputation, not necessarily popularity. No one is more popular than Mike Trout, yet he has never won a Gold Glove and likely never will. Because his reputation defensively is good, but not great. A player who is considered a mediocre fielder (or worse by WAR) is never going to win a Gold Glove. In his day, Parker's reputation was as a very good defensive right fielder, so he won 3 Gold Gloves.
If we are disregarding subjective standards in judging a players' career, should we throw out MVP award winners, as well?