Dave Parker - HOF?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by G1911

When the math doesn't agree with one's view, it is the math that must be wrong.

Well, there are such things as imaginary numbers, right?

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on the current inductees that are enshrined?" The answer is simply - YES.

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on his career?" The answer becomes debatable.

In 1986 he led the league with 304 total bases and scored a .3 WAR. Something just doesn't seem right with that number.

Overall, I think he'd be a borderline yes due to his batting titles, MVP and all-star appearances.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Fred

Well, there are such things as imaginary numbers, right?

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on the current inductees that are enshrined?" The answer is simply - YES.

If the question is "should Dave Parker be elected to the HOF based on his career?" The answer becomes debatable.

In 1986 he led the league with 304 total bases and scored a .3 WAR. Something just doesn't seem right with that number.

Overall, I think he'd be a borderline yes due to his batting titles, MVP and all-star appearances.

Which stats do you think are not imaginary? I’m happy to use other stats instead of WAR, as I’ve written several times in this thread. I don’t think it is reasonable to use completely subjective things like awards. Parker is similar to several other 120’s OPS+ players of the period, Hernandez, Lynn, Rice, Madlock, etc. of whom only Rice has been elected. The consensus seems to be this group is not HOF worthy.

I’d love to use other math. I’ll accept any objective standard. No objective case has yet been made for Parker. Each one has been an appeal to subjective standards.