Dave Parker - HOF?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

List of top 20 players by WAR. Seems like a pretty good list, not sure where people are coming from who say it's foolishness.

1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 183.1 10626 1221.1 L
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 164.9 2534 5914.1 R
3. Cy Young+ (22) 163.6 3104 7356.0 R
4. Barry Bonds (22) 162.8 12606 L
5. Willie Mays+ (23) 156.1 12545 R
6. Ty Cobb+ (24) 151.5 13103 5.0 L
7. Henry Aaron+ (23) 143.0 13941 R
8. Roger Clemens (24) 139.2 213 4916.2 R
9. Tris Speaker+ (22) 134.7 12020 1.0 L
10. Honus Wagner+ (21) 130.8 11766 8.1 R
11. Stan Musial+ (22) 128.6 12721 0.0 L
12. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 127.3 9481 R
13. Eddie Collins+ (25) 124.4 12087 L
14. Ted Williams+ (19) 122.0 9792 2.0 L
15. Pete Alexander+ (20) 119.3 1981 5190.0 R
16. Alex Rodriguez (22) 117.6 12207 R
17. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.3 2264 5067.1 B
18. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 113.6 9665 L
19. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 111.1 13346 R
20. Mel Ott+ (22)

Some people think because they aren't smart enough to understand something, it must have no legitimacy.

[Snapolit1]

I’m not pro or anti war, at least with respect to baseball.

But the fact that the top 20 or 25 WAR guys of all time is a great list hardly convinces me that it’s a great metric for drawing distinctions between hundreds or thousands of other players.

If anyone wants to argue that Brett Garner was a better player than Steve Garvey or Dave Parker, have at it.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I’m not pro or anti war, at least with respect to baseball.

But the fact that the top 20 or 25 WAR guys of all time is a great list hardly convinces me that it’s a great metric for drawing distinctions between hundreds or thousands of other players.

If anyone wants to argue that Brett Garner was a better player than Steve Garvey or Dave Parker, have at it.

^^^This!!!^^^

[wrapperguy]

If you have to have a poll, then he is not worthy. And the fact that our little poll is split down the middle emphasizes the point. A HOFer should be obvious to everyone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by wrapperguy

If you have to have a poll, then he is not worthy. And the fact that our little poll is split down the middle emphasizes the point. A HOFer should be obvious to everyone.

I think the Hall was only that way for a decade or so, until the Frankie Frisch cronyism started.

[philliesfan]

If you use Phil Rizzuto as the standard, then almost everyone should be in.

[G1911]

If the standard is "is this player better than the worst player elected?" then we are adopting the "one mistake must beget a thousand mistakes" logic. This doesn't make rational sense to me. We've got to induct several hundred players pretty quickly now if that is the standard.

Comparing to the average HOFer at that position, or to "is he the best player of his time not in? Is he the best player at his position not in?" makes more rational sense. One mistake should not dictate that dozens more must then be made.

Does Dave Parker compare alright to an average HOF RF'er? Is he the best eligible player not in? Is he the best eligible RF not in? I think this would be a reasonable process of inquiry.

Asking "Who is the best RF not in?" and looking into the data tends to lead to less biased answers.

[Jim65]

I don't like the "is he the best player not in"? Or the "is he the best player at his position not in"? Because there will always be someone who fits that description.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

If we were the BBWAA he wouldn't get in, so there's no change in status. Let's find the guys that 75% of us can agree on!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If we were the BBWAA he wouldn't get in, so there's no change in status. Let's find the guys that 75% of us can agree on!

We won't get 75% agreement on him but my #1 guy (besides guys like Arod, Clemens, and Bonds) is Albert Belle. The only argument against him is "his career was too short" but, if we're not holding that against Addie Joss, Kirby Puckett, or Sandy Koufax, we shouldn't be holding it against Albert Belle either. The standard is 10 seasons (9 if you're Joss) - not "well, kinda 10 but really 14-16 or however many I feel like". And Belle played in 12 seasons anyway.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Some people think because they aren't smart enough to understand something, it must have no legitimacy.

Hard to overstate the importance of that fact.

[mq711]

WAR and other stats aside, didn’t Parker admit to bringing drug dealers into the Pirates locker room with the intention of Cocaine transactions. All this during the drug wars that resulted in the deaths of thousands and the ruined lives and disrupted families of millions. I find this behavior far worse than anything Bonds, Clemons, Arod, Ect. did. I think he should be under life ban like Pete and Shoeless Joe.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by mq711

WAR and other stats aside, didn’t Parker admit to bringing drug dealers into the Pirates locker room with the intention of Cocaine transactions. All this during the drug wars that resulted in the deaths of thousands and the ruined lives and disrupted families of millions. I find this behavior far worse than anything Bonds, Clemons, Arod, Ect. did. I think he should be under life ban like Pete and Shoeless Joe.

I wouldn't vote for Parker, but it's not his fault there was a war on drugs.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Some people think because they aren't smart enough to understand something, it must have no legitimacy.

Perhaps, but the real problem lies with the vast majority who deep down know they aren't smart enough to understand something but regurgitate nonsense anyway for mere optics. A foolish attempt to lift their room temperature IQs to 145. Sadly, there are so many of these cretins that it becomes an echo chamber and the only conclusion is that they're all geniuses! Feels good to be a blind idiot so long as everyone tells you you're brilliant.

[D. Bergin]

This is going to get a lot of people worked up, but in looking up careers of other Right Fielders I found that Jessie Barfield has an almost identical career accumulated WAR to Dave Parker, and did it in 1,038 less games played.

Granted, Jessie had perhaps the greatest defensive statistical 10 year run for a Right Fielder in history, despite only winning 2 Gold Gloves...but still......

Sincerely,

"Not on any side in this fight"

[Snapolit1]

Supports the idea that it's far better for WAR purposes not to stick around too long and wear out the welcome mat as your skills inevitably decline.

Probably the best thing that could happen to a good player for purposes of WAR is to have a great 10 years and then suffer a career ending injury in the off season.

Yogi Berra lower WAR than Bobby Abreau and Chase Utley.

Maybe some times the numbers do lie.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

This is going to get a lot of people worked up, but in looking up careers of other Right Fielders I found that Jessie Barfield has an almost identical career accumulated WAR to Dave Parker, and did it in 1,038 less games played.

Granted, Jessie had perhaps the greatest defensive statistical 10 year run for a Right Fielder in history, despite only winning 2 Gold Gloves...but still......

Sincerely,

"Not on any side in this fight"

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Supports the idea that it's far better for WAR purposes not to stick around too long and wear out the welcome mat as your skills inevitably decline.

Probably the best thing that could happen to a good player for purposes of WAR is to have a great 10 years and then suffer a career ending injury in the off season.

Yogi Berra lower WAR than Bobby Abreau and Chase Utley.

Maybe some times the numbers do lie.

Abreu may be one of the most under-rated hitters in history. Never higher then 12th in MVP voting (and that wasn't even close to his best year). Just super-efficient and consistent. His numbers really pop out for a guy that never played at Coors Field.

A .395 lifetime OBP for a modern guy that played as long as he did, is fairly impressive. Throw in 400 SB's, and he wasn't exactly a slouch in the OF.

Will likely never be a HOF'er, but there are definitely worse guys in there.

[Snapolit1]

Everyone has their views. I think baseball HOF has to be a mixture of objective data and subjective views as to one's overall importance to the game. Yogi Berra is an icon of the sport. For many reasons of course. If his WAR was 12.2 he's still deserve to be in the HOF.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Abreu may be one of the most under-rated hitters in history. Never higher then 12th in MVP voting (and that wasn't even close to his best year). Just super-efficient and consistent. His numbers really pop out for a guy that never played at Coors Field.

A .395 lifetime OBP for a modern guy that played as long as he did, is fairly impressive. Throw in 400 SB's, and he wasn't exactly a slouch in the OF.

Will likely never be a HOF'er, but there are definitely worse guys in there.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Everyone has their views. I think baseball HOF has to be a mixture of objective data and subjective views as to one's overall importance to the game. Yogi Berra is an icon of the sport. For many reasons of course. If his WAR was 12.2 he's still deserve to be in the HOF.

Well yeah, not like Yogi was a slouch in that department either. WAR is a cumulative stat just like hits/walks/HR's/etc.., and must be put in context.

He obviously played a very demanding position and was pretty dominant in his standing at that position among his peers at the time.

...and he still ranks pretty highly among catchers of all eras.

I personally think catchers should get judged for HOF candidacy completely different then all other position players. Similar to Pitchers.

I remember moaning and groaning about Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter getting in, and most recently of course, Ted Simmons.

Most demanding position on the diamond and there's guys out there who think Johnny Bench and Yogi (and maybe Piazza) should be the only catchers represented in the HOF, because all they do is compare their offensive stats to regular position players.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Supports the idea that it's far better for WAR purposes not to stick around too long and wear out the welcome mat as your skills inevitably decline.

Probably the best thing that could happen to a good player for purposes of WAR is to have a great 10 years and then suffer a career ending injury in the off season.

Yogi Berra lower WAR than Bobby Abreau and Chase Utley.

Maybe some times the numbers do lie.

It’s not a rate stat, it’s a cumulative stat. Players are rewarded for long careers (Ryan, for example, has great WAR and not very good rate stats). WAR is only lost if the player is performing less than what WAR calculates an average ‘replacement level’ player (a minor leaguer) would perform. Players of this level rarely last for entire second half’s of careers. Parker only went negative in 1987 and 1991. He is not being punished for sticking around by WAR and has positive WAR from his later years outside of Pittsburgh. This claim that a player is rewarded for a career ending as soon as he stops being great is factually false and not how the metric works.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s not a rate stat, it’s a cumulative stat. Players are rewarded for long careers (Ryan, for example, has great WAR and not very good rate stats). WAR is only lost if the player is performing less than what WAR calculates an average ‘replacement level’ player (a minor leaguer) would perform. Players of this level rarely last for entire second half’s of careers. Parker only went negative in 1987 and 1991. He is not being punished for sticking around by WAR and has positive WAR from his later years outside of Pittsburgh. This claim that a player is rewarded for a career ending as soon as he stops being great is factually false and not how the metric works.

It's by no means a perfect metric, but if someone has a better one, let's use it. Almost any metric, to me, is better than "I saw him play 5 games live and another 10 on TV and he was AWESOME." Other than someone on the team one follows, I don't think anyone really saw enough of any given player to give a meaningful evaluation. Small sample size. And even then, it's skewed by bias, memory, etc.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's by no means a perfect metric, but if someone has a better one, let's use it. Almost any metric, to me, is better than "I saw him play 5 games live and another 10 on TV and he was AWESOME." Other than someone on the team one follows, I don't think anyone really saw enough of any given player to give a meaningful evaluation. Small sample size. And even then, it's skewed by bias, memory, etc.

Personally, I think rate stats compared to league average are better. Things like OPS+, though it weights slugging too much.


I’m not a fan of WAR’s fictional minor leaguer as the base line instead of the league average. I don’t agree with all the weighting, such as the components adding value to guys who played when there weren’t many good players at their position in the league (a big part of Grich and Randolph’s misleading WAR), etc. etc. I think it is designed around the modern game and is less and less useful the further back you go.


But, it’s objective and mathematical. It’s a calculation applied cleanly to all. An objective measure beats a subjective measure. Those arguing against WAR aren’t making a case based on other objective measures. Appeals to emotion, to ‘I remember him’, to subjective measurements (since when has an MVP and a couple gold gloves been a hall of fame ticket anyways?) are not reasonable. Math is reasonable. A reasoned debate should be about the application of the math and which objective math should be used and where the line between in and out belongs.


You know a player probably isn’t a great selection when his advocates rely on memory and the subjective instead of the objective.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's by no means a perfect metric, but if someone has a better one, let's use it. Almost any metric, to me, is better than "I saw him play 5 games live and another 10 on TV and he was AWESOME." Other than someone on the team one follows, I don't think anyone really saw enough of any given player to give a meaningful evaluation. Small sample size. And even then, it's skewed by bias, memory, etc.

Some people think their eyes tell them more than stats.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Perhaps, but the real problem lies with the vast majority who deep down know they aren't smart enough to understand something but regurgitate nonsense anyway for mere optics. A foolish attempt to lift their room temperature IQs to 145. Sadly, there are so many of these cretins that it becomes an echo chamber and the only conclusion is that they're all geniuses! Feels good to be a blind idiot so long as everyone tells you you're brilliant.

At least they are smart enough to know that there are people out there smarter than themselves and dont have to resort to name calling because they dont have the intelligence to dispute an opposing position with facts.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Jim65

At least they are smart enough to know that there are people out there smarter than themselves and dont have to resort to name calling because they dont have the intelligence to dispute an opposing position with facts.

You sound like Gregg Jeffries! Sticks and stones bruh!