Dave Parker - HOF?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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

There was a time when Parker was widely considered the best player in the sport. 77-79. I missed anyone ever saying that about Edgar Martinez. Also Parker had a cannon for an arm in right field. Whoever said his defense didn’t add anything never saw him play. I get thinking he doesn’t belong but I’d absolutely vote for him.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by glynparson

There was a time when Parker was widely considered the best player in the sport. 77-79. I missed anyone ever saying that about Edgar Martinez. Also Parker had a cannon for an arm in right field. Whoever said his defense didn’t add anything never saw him play. I get thinking he doesn’t belong but I’d absolutely vote for him.

He was certainly ONE of the best. Can you say he was better than George Foster in that 3 year period? Or Schmidt?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Jim65

He was certainly ONE of the best. Can you say he was better than George Foster in that 3 year period? Or Schmidt?

Yes, during that period, he was better than Foster. In the 1980 baseball preview issue, Sports Illustrated had Parker and Jim Rice on the cover under the headline “Who’s the Best?” And made the case that at that moment, they were the two best inbaseball.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Yes, during that period, he was better than Foster. In the 1980 baseball preview issue, Sports Illustrated had Parker and Jim Rice on the cover under the headline “Who’s the Best?” And made the case that at that moment, they were the two best inbaseball.

He wasn't better than Foster in 1977. He wasnt better than Rice in 1978. He wasnt THE best player in baseball 1977-1979.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by glynparson

There was a time when Parker was widely considered the best player in the sport. 77-79. I missed anyone ever saying that about Edgar Martinez. Also Parker had a cannon for an arm in right field. Whoever said his defense didn’t add anything never saw him play. I get thinking he doesn’t belong but I’d absolutely vote for him.

Yeah but you're one of those "Big Hall" guys

Also I would argue Parker ever being considered the best player. I'd give you "among the best players" but Martinez was among the best hitters of his era.

Finally, a cannon does not make for a great defender. Guy made a TON of outfield errors. Yes he had a cannon, but catching the ball is kind of a big thing too.

[Jim65]

WAR is a stat, that's all it is. Its a tool to use to judge players. Saying it doesnt make sense because Jose Cruz had a higher WAR than Tony Perez is like saying batting average doesn't make sense because Rusty Greer had a higher career BA than Reggie Jackson or Harmon Killebrew.

[HistoricNewspapers]

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.