Dave Parker - HOF?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Snapolit1]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What was his WAR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZI2aLQ9Sw

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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

Yeah, well, and your point is?

Hahahah

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[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.

[Snapolit1]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

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.

[ncinin]

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

[Ricky]

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Ricky

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Ricky

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

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

Steve

[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.

[5-Tool Player]

Dave Parker belongs in the HOF

[JimC]

I don't believe they should let ANYONE ELSE into the Hall until the Harold Baines mistake is corrected.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by JimC

I don't believe they should let ANYONE ELSE into the Hall until the Harold Baines mistake is corrected.

Well, that ain't gonna happen.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Well, that ain't gonna happen.

I agree, Baseball will never open that can of worms. Even if they did, theres far worse elections than Harold Baines.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I agree, Baseball will never open that can of worms. Even if they did, theres far worse elections than Harold Baines.

Who would you say is a worse pick than Baines? I'd call some of the elections by the almost openly corrupt Frisch VC as probably worse. I can't think of a worse selection the last 30 years or so. Maybe Sutter, that was a pretty bad one too.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by G1911

Who would you say is a worse pick than Baines? I'd call some of the elections by the almost openly corrupt Frisch VC as probably worse. I can't think of a worse selection the last 30 years or so. Maybe Sutter, that was a pretty bad one too.

The Frisch selections were horrible. The 2 worst selections off the top of my head are Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski. The first player I would remove would be Cap Anson.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

Who would you say is a worse pick than Baines? I'd call some of the elections by the almost openly corrupt Frisch VC as probably worse. I can't think of a worse selection the last 30 years or so. Maybe Sutter, that was a pretty bad one too.

In the last 30 years? Just looking over the various metrics on bb-ref, I'd definitely go with Sutter. Same career WHIP as Bret Saberhagen but with only 40% as many innings pitched. And among relievers, a worse ERA+ than John Franco (who also had substantially more IP).

Baines is not a good choice, but 4 of his 5 top matches on similarity score are also Hall of Famers. (The one exception, interestingly, is Dave Parker.) None of Suter's top 10 matches are in the Hall. It's hard to even know where to start if you had to make a case for one of them. Jeff Reardon?

Going by the JAWS rankings, I would certainly agree that inducting the 74th best rightfielder was, at best, a questionable choice, but probably not as much as inducting the 23rd best relief pitcher when the consensus is that the Hall should include somewhere from 0-10 relievers. I mean, I'm a big Hall guy, but 23rd best reliever (which I think is a fair ranking for Sutter) doesn't comport with my vision of Cooperstown.

[D. Bergin]

People really need to get over the Harold Baines thing. Especially if you're a traditional stats, WAR is over-rated type of fan. He's in. He's not getting kicked out.

He was THE figurehead of a certain position in baseball for almost 10 years (regardless of whether or not you like the DH), until Edgar Martinez came along.

Call him a compiler if you want (hasn't ever been a penalty for getting into the HOF), but he's also 34th All-Time in RBI's (1628). Everybody in front of him and for a ways behind him, is either in the HOF, waiting to get in the HOF, or a scandal/steroid guy.

Also: 47th in Hits (2866), same situation as above, though he is much closer to the likes of Johnny Damon and Vada Pinson right behind him.

43rd Total Bases (4604), closest non-scandal/non-future guy to him is Fred McGriff 11 spaces back (who I would put in, in a second, if it were up to me).

I might not have put Baines in, but I'm not sure why so many people are so upset about it. It's not like he bet on baseball or kicked your grandmother down the stairs.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

People really need to get over the Harold Baines thing. Especially if you're a traditional stats, WAR is over-rated type of fan. He's in. He's not getting kicked out.

He was THE figurehead of a certain position in baseball for almost 10 years (regardless of whether or not you like the DH), until Edgar Martinez came along.

Call him a compiler if you want (hasn't ever been a penalty for getting into the HOF), but he's also 34th All-Time in RBI's (1628). Everybody in front of him and for a ways behind him, is either in the HOF, waiting to get in the HOF, or a scandal/steroid guy.

Also: 47th in Hits (2866), same situation as above, though he is much closer to the likes of Johnny Damon and Vada Pinson right behind him.

43rd Total Bases (4604), closest non-scandal/non-future guy to him is Fred McGriff 11 spaces back (who I would put in, in a second, if it were up to me).

I might not have put Baines in, but I'm not sure why so many people are so upset about it. It's not like he bet on baseball or kicked your grandmother down the stairs.

Harold had heart and kidney transplant this past year. I want to take this time to wish the man well.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

People really need to get over the Harold Baines thing. Especially if you're a traditional stats, WAR is over-rated type of fan. He's in. He's not getting kicked out.

He was THE figurehead of a certain position in baseball for almost 10 years (regardless of whether or not you like the DH), until Edgar Martinez came along.

Call him a compiler if you want (hasn't ever been a penalty for getting into the HOF), but he's also 34th All-Time in RBI's (1628). Everybody in front of him and for a ways behind him, is either in the HOF, waiting to get in the HOF, or a scandal/steroid guy.

Also: 47th in Hits (2866), same situation as above, though he is much closer to the likes of Johnny Damon and Vada Pinson right behind him.

43rd Total Bases (4604), closest non-scandal/non-future guy to him is Fred McGriff 11 spaces back (who I would put in, in a second, if it were up to me).

I might not have put Baines in, but I'm not sure why so many people are so upset about it. It's not like he bet on baseball or kicked your grandmother down the stairs.

He is much worse than this suggests because of his poor rate stats. The sheer number of RF's better than him (that also didn't have to play 1,600 more games at DH to get their raw values up) who are not in and have no realistic chance of getting in make it look like a terrible selection. The Hall typically does not reward compilers who still failed to hit the biggest milestones. 22 years to collect 2,800 hits is not exactly HOF impressive.

He's 34th in RBI's - and had 100 in a season only 3 times, maxing out at 113. Two of those 3 years his OPS+ was below 120.

He's 47th in Hits - with a batting average of .289 which is not terrible or anything but has never been considered Hall worthy itself. Again, especially for a player who actually took the field less than half the time.

He's 43rd in total bases - with a .465 slugging as a primary DH and an OPS+ of 121, which is again good but not a HOF positive.

He didn't hit the 'auto-induct' compiler milestones (300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 dingers), he didn't produce at anything approaching a HOF rate, especially for his position as a pure offense player at the easiest position in the game.

It is further made worse by the stink of open corruption oozing from his election. It is not a credit that his former manager and owner were 2 of the votes for him and advocating on the committee. If you need your friends to have votes and lobby for you to gain admittance after maxing out at 6% of the vote before this, you probably aren't a real HOFer. It looks like the Frisch committee all over again. People tend to not like corrupt choices.

If it wasn't for the corruption, he'd be seen more as a Sutter/Rizzuto type of weak choice who doesn't really belong, but that's the system. The corruption puts it into the bigger deal category for a lot of people.

[bjerome]

As far as Dave Parker goes, I do not feel he is a Hall of Famer. 1st Ballot Hall of Very Good. Among the best 1-2% to not be in Cooperstown. I will say this as far as his candidacy much like I said about Harold Baines. Did he play his way into the conversation. He absolutely played his way into the conversation. Once you are in the conversation, anything can happen. Will I be upset if Parker got in? Not at all, just as I wasn't upset when Baines got in. I wasn't because they certainly played their way into the conversation. Baines had the right mix of voters on the panel that year and he is in. That could really be anyone.