Dave Parker - HOF?
 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Hall of Very Good.

No. He had an above average long career..

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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:

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...2%20Parker.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...20Stickers.jpg

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.

:eek:

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.

+1 agree

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

He's not in my HOF.

I'm the broken record
 

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's not, but it is a really good back of the envelope indicator for non-pitchers. About 50 is where you can really start thinking about it. 65+ is an oversight as a rule.

Dave Parker’s career WAR is lower than Brett Garner’s.

I’m sorry ….. but that’s some seriously funny shit.

Palmeiro won a gold glove playing something like 30 games at the position. I might trust the numbers more than the writers.

Numbers would also tell you that Justin Bieber was far more important to rock and roll history than Jim Morrison was.

What was his WAR?

That wasn’t the case with Parker though. Speaking of WAR, Bobby Grich had a 71.1 WAR. Was he a Hall of Famer?

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.

Seems like the main sin a lot of these guys were guilty of was just sticking around too long.

That one is a mystery on the high end, and (at least to me) so is George Davis. Clear no for me on Grich.

Any metric has its aberrations and there will instances where it doesn't do a player justice, but I think overall WAR is pretty good. If you look at the all time rankings it's a pretty solid list.

Everyone has their opinion and brings up more recent metrics, WAR, etc to make cases for Parker and other players.

Parker had 15 years of voting by the writers and did not receive more than 24% support and less than 20% support on most years and had three or so opportunities from the veterans committee, I am sorry he is no Hall of Famer I don’t care what metric, argument you wish to make. If he was he would have already been enshired.

That goes for many others voted in recent years, i.e. Baines, Kaat, etc

Yeah, well, and your point is?

Hahahah

Grich walked a decent amount and played in an era where 2B couldn't hit. So his WAR gets inflated as a result. Willie Randolph gets the same kind of bump. Randolph had an oWAR one year of 6.4 when he hit 7 homers and slugged .407. In 1978, Grich had an oWAR of 3.2 - while slugging .329. That .329 was 4th-lowest in the AL that year.

So, yeah, if your contemporaries are horrible, being not-horrible makes you look good when using comparative stats. It's like saying a man that's 5'8" tall is a giant when you're comparing him to 2nd graders.

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?

Reputation is completely 100% subjective, it is not objective, and is often miles away from the truth. Because a narrative is popular or widespread does not mean it is true whatsoever.

Yes, MVP's have the same exact problem - it is a subjective award and often a popularity or narrative contest. It is not objective at all. We should look at how "who was actually the best player that year?" and try to use objective math to arrive at a reasonable answer, not look at who was given a subjective award.

Objective measurements > subjective measurements. It would be absurd and unreasonable to favor the subjective over the objective when trying to make a logical argument.



EDIT: "A player who is considered a mediocre fielder (or worse by WAR) is never going to win a Gold Glove" - Palmeiro was so mediocre his team didn't even want him in the field, and they still gave him one. I don't think this statement checks out.

How Fred Lynn finished 4th in 1979 is a case in point, but there are many.

I voted in the poll to put him in. Nothing to do with WAR or any of that. Just that when he played, he was dominant and yes, a household name to those who followed and watched baseball.

Palmetto getting a Gold Glove was a joke and an aberration, but is certainly an outlier. Subjective voters do miss from time to time, but Hall of Fame voting is subjective as well and influenced by personal prejudices and opinion. Players who were nasty to sportswriters (with the exception of shoo ins like Ted Williams) are going to have a tough hill to climb. It took Eddie Matthews six tries to get in because he had a contentious relationship with the writers.

WAR is sheer tomfoolery, championed by ivy league Poindexters and the dullards that follow their analysis for some reason.

To me I think it should be fairly simple. Major accomplishments should anchor consideration... 2 MVPs, 2 CYAs, 10 AS, 3000 hits, 500 HR, 300 hits, etc. and then adjust up or down depending on the situation. I think this used to be widely accepted as the way to go but things are now off the rails.

Parker's resume is 1 MVP, 7x AS, 2x WS, 3x GG, 3x SS, and 2 batting titles in 19 seasons (4 cut fairly short). Also, has 338 HRs, 2712 Hits, and 1,493 RBIs.

I think he comes up just short before adjusting his resume. On the qualitative side, he was a very popular, polarizing, player in his prime. Was the star on arguably the second best team of the 70's. Was viewed by most as one of the top 5 players for several seasons in his prime and had a solid resurgence in the mid-late 80s.

All things considered, he is not a HOF Pre-Baines, but most definitely one Post-Baines. I just hope Baines is the Mendoza line of the HOF and we don't see a slippery slope down to the likes of Terry Steinbach and Lenny Dykstra as borderline candidates.

Yeah, math is for losers :rolleyes:

Yes, who has been selected is a subjective measure. Subjective measures abound in hall candidacies.

Who should be elected can be investigated objectively, by applying equal standards.

I am not saying subjective measures have not been a major, or even the major yardstick. I am saying they are not logical or reasonable.

You know, it’s funny. Ive been defending Parker and I wasn’t even a fan particularly. I remember him and watching him and remember how feared he was but I was more of an American League fan. I’ve come to the conclusion that what has kept him out of the Hall is the so-called character clause. His numbers were certainly better than Ted Simmons for example, and he won championships, MVP and Gold Gloves but the drug trial in 1985, during his playing days, ruined his candidacy in the eyes of the sportswriters and then the Veterans Committee. That’s the reason he never got a decent number of votes and why he’ll maybe never get in. He was a helluva player in his prime but can’t overcome the stigma of his role with drugs inthe game.

+1

Steve

Not math, more like a new theology led by depraved scoundrels.

With you on this, but with "Rock" Raines (love that nickname lol) getting in fairly recently, maybe Parker will follow suit soon.

List of top 20 players by WAR. Seems like a pretty good list, not sure where people are coming from who say it's foolishness.

1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 183.1 10626 1221.1 L
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 164.9 2534 5914.1 R
3. Cy Young+ (22) 163.6 3104 7356.0 R
4. Barry Bonds (22) 162.8 12606 L
5. Willie Mays+ (23) 156.1 12545 R
6. Ty Cobb+ (24) 151.5 13103 5.0 L
7. Henry Aaron+ (23) 143.0 13941 R
8. Roger Clemens (24) 139.2 213 4916.2 R
9. Tris Speaker+ (22) 134.7 12020 1.0 L
10. Honus Wagner+ (21) 130.8 11766 8.1 R
11. Stan Musial+ (22) 128.6 12721 0.0 L
12. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 127.3 9481 R
13. Eddie Collins+ (25) 124.4 12087 L
14. Ted Williams+ (19) 122.0 9792 2.0 L
15. Pete Alexander+ (20) 119.3 1981 5190.0 R
16. Alex Rodriguez (22) 117.6 12207 R
17. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.3 2264 5067.1 B
18. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 113.6 9665 L
19. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 111.1 13346 R
20. Mel Ott+ (22)

I hope this is sarcasm…

Some people think because they aren't smart enough to understand something, it must have no legitimacy.

I’m not pro or anti war, at least with respect to baseball.

But the fact that the top 20 or 25 WAR guys of all time is a great list hardly convinces me that it’s a great metric for drawing distinctions between hundreds or thousands of other players.

If anyone wants to argue that Brett Garner was a better player than Steve Garvey or Dave Parker, have at it.