Dave Parker - HOF?

Snapolit1 · #1 04-10-2022, 08:47 PM

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 · #2 04-10-2022, 08:58 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 04-10-2022, 09:02 PM

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

Peter_Spaeth · #4 04-10-2022, 09:04 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 04-11-2022, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What was his WAR?

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

doug.goodman · #6 04-11-2022, 12:18 AM

Quote:

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 · #7 04-10-2022, 09:06 PM

Quote:

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 · #8 04-10-2022, 09:20 PM

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 · #9 04-10-2022, 09:33 PM

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

Peter_Spaeth · #10 04-10-2022, 09:39 PM

Quote:

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 · #11 04-10-2022, 11:09 PM

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 · #12 04-11-2022, 09:29 AM

Quote:

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 · #13 04-11-2022, 03:26 PM

Quote:

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 · #14 04-11-2022, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Ricky · #15 04-11-2022, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

Peter_Spaeth · #16 04-10-2022, 09:36 PM

Quote:

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 · #17 04-11-2022, 02:36 AM

Quote:

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 · #18 04-11-2022, 09:25 PM

Quote:

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

View Poll Results: Should Dave Parker be in the HOF?
Yes	138	50.00%
No	138	50.00%
Voters: 276. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SOLD: Dave Parker Signed Ball - PSA	carlsonjok	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	05-23-2021 04:11 PM
Wtb - Kent tekulve, Dave Parker Pirates gu jerseys	mrozie21	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	0	05-20-2020 06:40 PM
Dave Parker & Harold Baines bats	Fredskinz	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	7	02-13-2019 07:25 AM
Reds 1984 dave parker jersey & giants 1982 parker jersey	Al Parker	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	1	07-04-2013 10:16 AM
Dave Parker game used Cooper bat	keithsky	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	11-19-2011 07:23 PM