Dave Parker - HOF?

[G1911]

Gooden got absolutely robbed in '85.

If we aren't allowed to pick a pitcher, I'd give it to Pedro Geuerrero that year. WAR has him a hair below McGee but I think he had the better year. Really only hurt by the fewer games, but he had the best rate production.

[D. Bergin]

McGee was as good a pick as anybody in 1985, if you're going with a non-pitcher.

[Ricky]

Garvey was a corner infielder who didn’t hit for power so WAR doesn’t like him. Parker didn’t walk and had a low OBP and those things weren’t valued in his time. Had they been, he might have been a different hitter. Wade Boggs, who DID walk a lot and had a high OBP, and was coming along at the same time, was kept in the minors by Boston until he was 25 because he was a third baseman who didn’t hit for power. Different times with different values from today. Our values today are heavily influenced by the relatively new metrics.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Garvey was a corner infielder who didn’t hit for power so WAR doesn’t like him. Parker didn’t walk and had a low OBP and those things weren’t valued in his time. Had they been, he might have been a different hitter. Wade Boggs, who DID walk a lot and had a high OBP, and was coming along at the same time, was kept in the minors by Boston until he was 25 because he was a third baseman who didn’t hit for power. Different times with different values from today. Our values today are heavily influenced by the relatively new metrics.

The main reason those players didn't walk is because they were most likely high volume swingers who needed to do that approach to produce exactly what they did. Every generation has those guys, even now.

Every generation of hitters also has players who have the ability to be both selective enough to take walks and also still maintain a high slugging percentage and/or batting average(relative to their league averages). Those guys are called the elite.

It isn't really a choice to wake up one day and say "Hey, I'm going to take 50% more walks while also maintaining my slugging percentage and batting average." That is a rare ability.


What would surprise many is that the base on balls rate in MLB the last 15 years is actually lower than what it was in the 1950's, and very similar to that of the late 1970's/early 80's.

Since 2014 the walk per game rate has ranged from 2.88 to 3.39 per game.

From 1977 to 1979 it was 3.27, 3.24, and 3.23.

If it were as easy to do what Mike Schmidt did with walking 100 times a year and still leading the league in Home Runs AND Slugging percentage....then more people would do it...but they can't because they don't have that ability. It is rare. Players simply fall on different lines of that OB%/SLG% ability spectrum. It isn't the choice that many seem to think it is.

The 1950's ranged from a low of 3.29 to a high of 4.02.

[HistoricNewspapers]

To add to the above post, that generation of the 70's/80's had several guys who could take walks and still maintain batting averages and slugging percentages as good as Parker.

Eddie Murray in his prime, 1982-1985 had a slash line of .306/.394/.529, OPS+of 155. He is what I would call a hybrid of someone like Schmidt and Parker. Murray was selective enough to take his walks while also maintaining a higher volume of swings than someone like Schmidt. Murray had extreme elite hitting with men on base those years as well.

[HistoricNewspapers]

What really hurt Parker is that he had some very average years right after his peak. From 1980-1983 his OPS+ was only 107. Traditional stat-wise He averaged 11 HR and hit .280 with 56 RBI per year in that stretch.

[D. Bergin]

I've always been kind of fascinated by good hitters who didn't walk...but also didn't strike out very much either.

Think Tony Gwynn, Don Mattingly, Yogi Berra, etc....

Those guys just believed in making contact, and could almost at will foul pitches off until they got something they liked.

Not saying it was the best way to go about things "analytically"....but interesting....

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

What really hurt Parker is that he had some very average years right after his peak. From 1980-1983 his OPS+ was only 107. Traditional stat-wise He averaged 11 HR and hit .280 with 56 RBI per year in that stretch.

Those were his cocaine years. He stopped using in 1982 because he knew it was affecting his performance and had a resurgence in 1985-86.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

What would surprise many is that the base on balls rate in MLB the last 15 years is actually lower than what it was in the 1950's, and very similar to that of the late 1970's/early 80's.

Since 2014 the walk per game rate has ranged from 2.88 to 3.39 per game.

From 1977 to 1979 it was 3.27, 3.24, and 3.23.

I must confess this surprised me.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Garvey was a corner infielder who didn’t hit for power so WAR doesn’t like him. Parker didn’t walk and had a low OBP and those things weren’t valued in his time. Had they been, he might have been a different hitter. Wade Boggs, who DID walk a lot and had a high OBP, and was coming along at the same time, was kept in the minors by Boston until he was 25 because he was a third baseman who didn’t hit for power. Different times with different values from today. Our values today are heavily influenced by the relatively new metrics.

It doesn't say much for Parker if he spent 19 years in the majors and never learned that walks are valuable. Most of us knew that when we were 12 year old kids playing Little League.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It doesn't say much for Parker if he spent 19 years in the majors and never learned that walks are valuable. Most of us knew that when we were 12 year old kids playing Little League.

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

You could also throw in, making contact and moving a runner over. Doesn't count as a sacrifice, but definitely more valuable of an out, then a strikeout.

The Mattingly's and Gwynn's I mentioned above, did that regularly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You could also throw in, making contact and moving a runner over. Doesn't count as a sacrifice, but definitely more valuable of an out, then a strikeout.

The Mattingly's and Gwynn's I mentioned above, did that regularly.

Right. I think deducting for Ks as I suggested would capture that.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You could also throw in, making contact and moving a runner over. Doesn't count as a sacrifice, but definitely more valuable of an out, then a strikeout.

The Mattingly's and Gwynn's I mentioned above, did that regularly.

You can count exactly how many times a player made an out that moved a runner. It isn't a mystery and that positive is already included in the better measurements. Don't forget though, that guys who strike out a lot also move runners up with their contact outs too...so in the end the difference is pretty small in its positive impact. It does help, but not to the degree that many seem to make it out to be.

I think everyone forgets that over half of your at bats come with nobody on base, so right off the bat, half of your outs, whether they are line outs, fly outs, or strikeouts, accomplish the exact same thing. Nothing.

For example, a guy who strikes out 130 times is viewed by many as an abomination. Then another who strikkes out 30 times as an instant HOFer. So the difference is 100 contact outs. Half of those occur with nobody on base, so the difference is really 50 contact outs. About 1/3 occur with two outs where it doesn't matter either, so the differnce is then about 32 outs. Then of those 32, not all of them move runners. Most don't, and of some of the ones that do, it is only when there are zero outs where the impact is felt more. So just thinking logically without even counting all of them, there is a difference, but not a big one.

Then just look at the play by play data and you don't have to guess. Those are included in the better hitting measurements, not WAR though.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

Yes, wouldn't that be great? You could do the weightings based on how each of those individual stats contribute to team wins. Then you could compare players' overall results to each other or even to a replacement level player.

Somebody should do that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe it exists but it would be interesting to have a metric that assigns relative weights to walks, each type of hit, stolen bases, sacrifices and sac flies, etc and divides it over plate appearances. Maybe you even get a negative for GIDP and Ks.

GIDP's is one of the WAR killers along with Caught Stealing and poor OBP (not taking walks, generally) K's are just another out though.