Dave Parker - HOF?

[Snapolit1]

I know we've had some spirited debates over the years about who should or should not be in the HOF, but seems to me Parker is a pretty bad oversight, no?

Admittedly I am no expert on many of the more recent statistical measures folks have come up with.

[D. Bergin]

He's about as borderline as borderline can get. Defensive metrics don't help him at all.

Lack of walks also hurts a lot of his more analytical stat lines that contribute to his WAR and OPS+ rates.

I do think if he had put up the same stats in the 60's-70's, instead of the 70's-80's......he'd probably be in by now.

He's one of those guys like Cecil Cooper or Bill Madlock or Carney Lansford, that the term "professional hitter" was made for.

[Jim65]

Parker is close, a couple more good seasons and he'd be in. If I had a vote, I'd vote no.

[Kidnapped18]

Tim Raines eventually made it to the Hall so...

[bbcard1]

I no longer have an idea what a hall of famer is. His WAR is very low....Harold Baines level. Traditional metrics (hits, homers, batting average, etc) are good. MVP and a couple of rings. There are a couple of players from the 1970s who's WAR is lower than I might expect...I wonder if it was an effect of the game and strategies of the day.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Kidnapped18

Tim Raines eventually made it to the Hall so...

Modern analytics loves Tim Raines. Not so much Parker.

Raines has almost 30 more accumulated WAR then Parker, with an almost identical amount of games played. That's an entire other career for lots of very good ballplayers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hall of Very Good.

[bmattioli]

No. He had an above average long career..

[G1911]

I do not see how he can possibly be reasonably considered a pretty bad oversight. He has some good traditional metrics but missed all the major milestones. His advanced statistics are pretty bad, 40 WAR in 20 years. He’s a very borderline candidate one can argue being just in either side of the line. Pretty big oversight? I see no math-based argument to support that.

[Kidnapped18]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Modern analytics loves Tim Raines. Not so much Parker.

Raines has almost 30 more accumulated WAR then Parker, with an almost identical amount of games played. That's an entire other career for lots of very good ballplayers.

Didn't realize WAR was criteria for election to the Hall now

Parker was a very good outfielder not MLB HOF worthy in my eyes however, if Raines eventually got in then Parker should be in too

Parker .290 BA/2712 Hits/339 HRs/1493 RBI/2 WS Rings/MVP
Raines .294 BA/2605 Hits/170 HRs/980 RBI/3 WS Rings/808 SBs

[Jason19th]

He may not be a clear Hofer but he is also not just an above average player with a long career. He was in the top 20 for MVP voting 9 times and made 7 all stars teams. He also won multiple gold gloves. That is an impact that player for a long time not just a compiler. I have always been a big proponent of WAR so I have to acknowledge that his is low. If he had played in an era that valued walks and/or was able to take walk his war would be much higher.

I think the real problem is that he is some much better then a bunch of guys in the hall that it seems like he should be in. I understand that most of those guys - I am thinking the Chick Haley, Jim Bottemly, Harold Baines, Ross Youngs type- were also mistakes and should not be basis for future inductions. But it still feels wrong that they are in and he is out.

[Rich Falvo]

I really want to say Yes, but I think he's just outside.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Kidnapped18

Didn't realize WAR was criteria for election to the Hall now

Parker was a very good outfielder not MLB HOF worthy in my eyes however, if Raines eventually got in then Parker should be in too

Parker .290 BA/2712 Hits/339 HRs/1493 RBI/2 WS Rings/MVP
Raines .294 BA/2605 Hits/170 HRs/980 RBI/3 WS Rings/808 SBs

But you're ignoring that Raines was a lead off hitter who had an OBP of .385 compared to Parker's .339 with 1571 runs scored compared to Parker's 1272 and an identical OPS to Parker (both .810). One might think you were cherry picking stats to make Raines look bad. You also neglected to mention that in addition to the 808 steals he had one of the greatest SB %'s of all time. When you're a lead-off hitter who gets on base at a high rate, steals bases at an astronomical rate and scores a ton of runs, even compared to other great lead-off hitters (leave Rickey out of this) you are significantly superior to a middle of the lineup guy who puts up OK numbers. I can make a list of middle of the lineup guys like Parker who aren't in the Hall. Tough job to do that with lead off hitters and Raines's numbers.

[Ricky]

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

[paul]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

Yes and yes.

[scotgreb]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

MVP in 1978 -- so arguably the best in the NL that year. Top 5 MVP four other years + top 20 nine times + 2 batting titles. Led the league in total bases twice. Arguably dominant.

As a Bucs fan, I don't believe it's an injustice either way but would like to see him in. He received 7 votes from the most recent Modern Era committee. Wouldn't be surprised to see him make it, given at least two more Modern committee votes (2024, 2026) against pretty weak fields IMO.

Scott

[h2oya311]

every post (even a poll) needs a card (edited to add that I see that Peter already did, oops)! Here are a few early Parker items in the event he ever does get the call to the hall:



that said, my vote is "no". Right on the fringe. But I wouldn't have even had Baines on the fringe, so who knows?!?!?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

every post (even a poll) needs a card (edited to add that I see that Peter already did, oops)! Here are a few early Parker items in the event he ever does get the call to the hall:



that said, my vote is "no". Right on the fringe. But I wouldn't have even had Baines on the fringe, so who knows?!?!?

Those are awesome cards, HOF or not. Absolutely love the oddball stuff.

[abothebear]

Dave Parker and Jim Rice are very similar across many traditional and advanced stats. I might even put Parker ahead of Rice when you consider other measures of success. But I don’t know if Rice is a good benchmark. I think he got a city-bias and dramatic headline boost. Not a fan of Parker’s cocaine dealings though.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Rich Falvo

I really want to say Yes, but I think he's just outside.

+1 agree

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

Hell YES, he was dominant!

Just talking about great arms in right field, You have Clemente. Then, in the 1970s, the best arms in the NL were Parker and Dave Winfield; Dwight Evans in the AL.

Parker and Winfield were very similar to each other.

Steve

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

I would like to point out that most, if not all of Parker's HOF eligibility was used up before WAR became as commonplace a metric as it is today. So apparently the "old fashioned" numbers guys didn't think he belongs either.

[Lorewalker]

He was definitely a threat at the plate in the 70s...loved seeing him play but probably a borderline HOFer. Sadly there are two many of those guys in the Hall, imo.

[Brian Van Horn]

I consider Parker and Bill Madlock worthy playing wise of the Hall of Fame. The drug trial in Pittsburgh.......

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I would like to point out that most, if not all of Parker's HOF eligibility was used up before WAR became as commonplace a metric as it is today. So apparently the "old fashioned" numbers guys didn't think he belongs either.

True but the writers don’t always get it right. We all can name guys who belonged in the Hall but either took too long to get there or the writers missed them and the veterans committee put them in. Parker is a close call but the guy was dominant and a top five player for a period of time. WAR hates his defense but he had a cannon and was well thought of defensively in his prime. I think he eventually goes in.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Ricky

True but the writers don’t always get it right. We all can name guys who belonged in the Hall but either took too long to get there or the writers missed them and the veterans committee put them in. Parker is a close call but the guy was dominant and a top five player for a period of time. WAR hates his defense but he had a cannon and was well thought of defensively in his prime. I think he eventually goes in.

I'm one of those weirdos who thinks the writers have done a good job over the years and the Veteran's Committee is responsible for most of the travesties.

[Ricky]

Nor weird at all and I mostly agree. But the writers have had their moments and misses.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

Yes. Having seen him play, I am a definite proponent of him getting into the Hall. He was considered the most fearsome hitter in baseball for quite a while, and had a cannon for an arm. Screw the metrics in this case.

[rhettyeakley]

There are some players that the metrics used to calculate WAR and other more advanced stats just absolutely hate... Dave Parker is one of those players. He is joined in that group with other "borderline" players by today's standards that were considered far better in their day than modern statistical analysis would indicate. Some of the more prominent in this group are players like Steve Garvey (WAR 38.0), Lou Brock (WAR 43.5), Joe Carter (WAR 19.5), Bil Madlock (WAR 38.2), Roy Campanella (WAR 41.6), Al Oliver (WAR 43.7) & many more. There are some that are shockingly bad by modern standards... look up Bill Buckner (lifetime .289 hitter with over 2,700 hits and has a career WAR of 15!!!)

On the flipside of this scale are guys that modern statistical analysis LOVE! Some players in this group are Bobby Grich (WAR 71.1), Buddy Bell (WAR 66.3), Graig Nettles (WAR 68.0), Sal Bando (WAR 61.5), Dwight Evans (WAR 67.2), Willie Randolph (WAR 65.9), Reggie Smith (WAR 64.5)

This is the danger of relying too heavily on these metrics for overall quality of the player.

[Snowman]

He's not in my HOF.

[yanks87]

Dave Parker is in two hall of fames for me:
Nickname - Cobra
Bad Ass Player - among other things, warmed up with a sledgehammer

In the mainstream world, my argument has always been if you are going to put Edgar Martinez in, you have to put Dave Parker in, their stat lines are SUPER close, but Cobra played in the field, won gold gloves, MVP's and went to World Series'. Stat guys, check your WAR at the door, it doesn't work in this comparison. Would that ever happen? NO. Since someone else invoked the "Hall of Very Good," I think that is where they both belong, along with a couple of other recent inductees.

While I am on the soap box, I do think that since now DH is becoming universal, there needs to be a qualifier for inductions of a player who plays more games at DH than in the field. Not some odd equation that can be reprogrammed to reflect intangibles, but cold hard stats that MEAN SOMETHING in baseball. In order for a DH to go into the Hall, they have to have hit over 3000 hits, or 500 home runs. If your one and only job is to hit, and it is your full time job, it shouldn't be a problem.

Now to go back to yelling at clouds, and calling squirrels lazy.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Forget WAR for a minute… for those who saw Parker play and remember him, was he a dominant player? Was there a period of time when he was the best player in the National League?

What defines a period of time? He was one of the best players for a 3 year period 1977-79. Is that enough for the HOF? Is 1 MVP and 2 batting titles an automatic?

[58pinson]

Wow! This poll looks like a swing state presidential election. Yes for me, and not even close.

[Rhotchkiss]

As I post this, it’s 67 yes and 66 no. I voted no.

Anyway, I feel that if the guy was a true HOFer, it would not be a 50/50 split in opinion

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by yanks87

In the mainstream world, my argument has always been if you are going to put Edgar Martinez in, you have to put Dave Parker in, their stat lines are SUPER close,

If a 26% superior OPS compared to the league is SUPER close I guess...

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Jim65

What defines a period of time? He was one of the best players for a 3 year period 1977-79. Is that enough for the HOF? Is 1 MVP and 2 batting titles an automatic?

He was third in mvp voting in 1975, 2nd in 1985 and 5th in 1986. He received mvp votes in nine seasons. I think he’s borderline, but i voted yes because in his prime he was the most feared player in the National League.

You know what he didn’t do? He didn’t walk. If you don’t walk and you don’t hit for a lot of power, WAR hates you. And in his era, walks and on base percentage were not valued the way they are now.

[Seven]

I voted no, but I also believe in a Small Hall so I'm not the best to ask.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If a 26% superior OPS compared to the league is SUPER close I guess...

Well, there’s that. It’s an imperfect comparison, but I stand by the fact if Edgar was so good, 3000 hits shouldn’t have been a problem.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Ricky

He was third in mvp voting in 1975, 2nd in 1985 and 5th in 1986. He received mvp votes in nine seasons. I think he’s borderline, but i voted yes because in his prime he was the most feared player in the National League.

You know what he didn’t do? He didn’t walk. If you don’t walk and you don’t hit for a lot of power, WAR hates you. And in his era, walks and on base percentage were not valued the way they are now.

Where is this most feared player coming from? Compare his power numbers to Schmidt.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I’m surprised that the drug trial took so long to be mentioned here. Parker was my favorite player growing up as a baseball fan during the late 70’s and early 80’s. After he retired, Parker received little love from the BBWA and during the time, most to blame was the drug trial. I don’t think the argument should be how good he was but whether or not that event should justify his exclusion from the HOF. In my opinion, that’s the primary reason that he didn’t get in originally.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where is this most feared player coming from? Compare his power numbers to Schmidt.

You’re right about Schmidt. Let’s say then that Parker was one of the most feared hitters in the National League in his prime. I remember him well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Ricky

You’re right about Schmidt. Let’s say then that Parker was one of the most feared hitters in the National League in his prime. I remember him well.

Agreed.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Ricky

You’re right about Schmidt. Let’s say then that Parker was one of the most feared hitters in the National League in his prime. I remember him well.

And he hit behind Stargell. I can't recall a more feared duo at that time. (no disrespect to The Bull intended)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

And he hit behind Stargell. I can't recall a more feared duo at that time. (no disrespect to The Bull intended)

Rice and Lynn had some big years.

[Ricky]

So, out of curiosity, I looked up Parker in Bill Janes Historical Abstract to see where Janes ranked him and Bill James has Parker as the 14th best right fielder ever. That’s pretty good.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Ricky

So, out of curiosity, I looked up Parker in Bill Janes Historical Abstract to see where Janes ranked him and Bill James has Parker as the 14th best right fielder ever. That’s pretty good.

JAWS only rates him 40th. I don't think he's a HOF but surely he's better than that.

[Snapolit1]

I know it's not WAR or any kind of objective measure, but not a week has gone by in the last 5 years that someone hasn't posted a video on Twitter of Dave Parker throwing some one out where I've been like "holy effin' sh*t . . . are you kidding me."

Yes, the evasive "holy effin' sh*t . . . are you kidding me" yardstick. Can't be ignored.

https://twitter.com/Super70sSports/s...02447334297600

https://twitter.com/BSmile/status/1512797200128126982

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I know it's not WAR or any kind of objective measure, but not a week has gone by in the last 5 years that someone hasn't posted a video on Twitter of Dave Parker throwing some one out where I've been like "holy effin' sh*t . . . are you kidding me."

Yes, the evasive "holy effin' sh*t . . . are you kidding me" yardstick. Can't be ignored.

https://twitter.com/Super70sSports/s...02447334297600

https://twitter.com/BSmile/status/1512797200128126982

His defensive WAR, despite that arm, is absolutely awful.

[Snapolit1]

If a guy’s defensive WAR is awful and he won 3 gold gloves and was in the close running many other seasons ….. I don’t know ….. maybe WAR isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

[Ricky]

Somehow WAR missed Dave Parker. He won a couple of Gold Gloves and at the time he played, he was widely regarded as a very good defensive player. No doubt, later in his career, he dropped off defensively but for the first half of his career, at least, people thought he was very good.