Dave Parker - HOF?

G1911 · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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.

jingram058 · #8 04-11-2022, 03:57 PM

I voted in the poll to put him in. Nothing to do with WAR or any of that. Just that when he played, he was dominant and yes, a household name to those who followed and watched baseball.

Ricky · #9 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.

ronniehatesjazz · #10 04-11-2022, 06:51 PM

WAR is sheer tomfoolery, championed by ivy league Poindexters and the dullards that follow their analysis for some reason.

To me I think it should be fairly simple. Major accomplishments should anchor consideration... 2 MVPs, 2 CYAs, 10 AS, 3000 hits, 500 HR, 300 hits, etc. and then adjust up or down depending on the situation. I think this used to be widely accepted as the way to go but things are now off the rails.

Parker's resume is 1 MVP, 7x AS, 2x WS, 3x GG, 3x SS, and 2 batting titles in 19 seasons (4 cut fairly short). Also, has 338 HRs, 2712 Hits, and 1,493 RBIs.

I think he comes up just short before adjusting his resume. On the qualitative side, he was a very popular, polarizing, player in his prime. Was the star on arguably the second best team of the 70's. Was viewed by most as one of the top 5 players for several seasons in his prime and had a solid resurgence in the mid-late 80s.

All things considered, he is not a HOF Pre-Baines, but most definitely one Post-Baines. I just hope Baines is the Mendoza line of the HOF and we don't see a slippery slope down to the likes of Terry Steinbach and Lenny Dykstra as borderline candidates.

G1911 · #11 04-11-2022, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

WAR is sheer tomfoolery, championed by ivy league Poindexters and the dullards that follow their analysis for some reason.

Yeah, math is for losers

ronniehatesjazz · #12 04-11-2022, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yeah, math is for losers

Not math, more like a new theology led by depraved scoundrels.

G1911 · #13 04-11-2022, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky

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.

Yes, who has been selected is a subjective measure. Subjective measures abound in hall candidacies.

Who should be elected can be investigated objectively, by applying equal standards.

I am not saying subjective measures have not been a major, or even the major yardstick. I am saying they are not logical or reasonable.

Ricky · #14 04-11-2022, 09:10 PM

You know, it�s funny. Ive been defending Parker and I wasn�t even a fan particularly. I remember him and watching him and remember how feared he was but I was more of an American League fan. I�ve come to the conclusion that what has kept him out of the Hall is the so-called character clause. His numbers were certainly better than Ted Simmons for example, and he won championships, MVP and Gold Gloves but the drug trial in 1985, during his playing days, ruined his candidacy in the eyes of the sportswriters and then the Veterans Committee. That�s the reason he never got a decent number of votes and why he�ll maybe never get in. He was a helluva player in his prime but can�t overcome the stigma of his role with drugs inthe game.

ronniehatesjazz · #15 04-11-2022, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky

You know, it�s funny. Ive been defending Parker and I wasn�t even a fan particularly. I remember him and watching him and remember how feared he was but I was more of an American League fan. I�ve come to the conclusion that what has kept him out of the Hall is the so-called character clause. His numbers were certainly better than Ted Simmons for example, and he won championships, MVP and Gold Gloves but the drug trial in 1985, during his playing days, ruined his candidacy in the eyes of the sportswriters and then the Veterans Committee. That�s the reason he never got a decent number of votes and why he�ll maybe never get in. He was a helluva player in his prime but can�t overcome the stigma of his role with drugs inthe game.

With you on this, but with "Rock" Raines (love that nickname lol) getting in fairly recently, maybe Parker will follow suit soon.

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