I would argue against Parker being the best in baseball from 1977-1979. Seems most ignore more precise measurements like OPS+ and rely mostly on the traditional AVG/HR/RBI.
So if just going by the traditional AVG/HR/RBI then George Foster and Jim Rice are better than Parker from 1977-1979.
Their average per year in that span:
Foster .301/41/122 w/ a 157 OPS+
Rice .320/41/128 w/ a 153 OPS+
Parker .327/25/100 w/ a 150 OPS+
If defense is added, then you have to add all the other positions and the ones with higher positional value where their offense may not have been as high.
That being said, WAR fails when it comes to defense measurement and that is where you get the mistakes of Bret Garnder being listed as good. The WAR defensive component is far from accurate. So is the positional adjusment in WAR. It does make a difference when a SS hits 30 home runs compared to a RF, but how much so is debatable and the WAR component that adds that adjustment has a guess element to it as well.
So I would take Parker's offensive contributions and weigh those much heavier than the defensive metrics.
A lifetime 121 OPS+ from Parker is good, and is borderline, but he also played almost every day and had a couple 160 game seasons, so he didn't get the platoon advantage in his rate stats that most LH hitters did.
Considering all of that, and that Parker lost playing time in a crowded OF when he just came up...and the strike year too....I say yes to Parker.
|