Dave Parker - HOF?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Jersey City Giants]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep, people just like to make stupid comments. I say clearly yes given where the standards have clearly gone for induction. He was a feared hitter in his prime, absolutely feared.

[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

[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.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by Kidnapped18

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

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.

[Snapolit1]

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

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

[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.