dave parker as an hof

[star8]

as much as i am a jim rice fan (408/78--gasp), there is no one in the grey area, more deserving than dave parker.
the numbers are, err, decent. the rbis, very good. the outfield play, very good--shoot great--, but that he never played on a team not in contention on sept 15.
yes, i wish that he had walked more.
but in two different half-decades (1975-80, and 1981-85), he was regarded as one of the two best players in baseball.
there are precious few who could claim that. not schmidt; not brett; cetrainly none of the ny cfs in the '50s.
parker is a better vote than simmons & santo--both of whom are two-foot putts. bunnies.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Santo hustled ever day for a Cubs team that wasn't going anywhere.

Parker openly dealt drugs in the clubhouse and had all the talent in the world but had days where he was going through the motions.

That stuff doesn't show up in the stats but the HoF voters remember.

Might as well put Dick Allen in.

[Wolf Hopper]

When he played, this is where Parker landed:


CAREER
1975-1990

RCAA RCAA
1 George Brett 622
2 Mike Schmidt 577
3 Rickey Henderson 527
4 Eddie Murray 499
5 Wade Boggs 455
6 Tim Raines 397
7 Dave Winfield 396
8 Jack Clark 373
9 Dwight Evans 366
10 Keith Hernandez 361
11 Rod Carew 330
12 Pedro Guerrero 328
13 Joe Morgan 325
14 Fred Lynn 306
15 Robin Yount 301
16 Ken Singleton 289
17 Reggie Jackson 282
18 Jose Cruz 272
19 Jim Rice 271
20 Paul Molitor 270
21 Darryl Strawberry 269
22 Don Mattingly 265
23 Greg Luzinski 254
24 Dave Parker 248
25 George Foster 244
T26 Andre Dawson 240
T26 Brian Downing 240
T28 Tony Gwynn 230
T28 Kent Hrbek 230
30 Ken Griffey Sr. 228

Greg Luzinski and Foster are good company.

[SmedIndy]

Starting in 1980 he declined. When he cleaned up and went to the Reds, he had two more good seasons.

He, Murphy, Rice, Garvey and Dwight Evans are in the corner booth of the coffee shop of the Hall of Very Good.

[pwdennis]

Parker pulls up a bit short of being borderline for HOF consideration

[star8]

i was surprised at the numbers--rcaa. but, i think of parker from 1974-83.
boy, he got old & fat, and painfully slow; but at no point would he been a fair trade (in the decade 74-83), for keith hernandez. or rice, or lynn, jackson, or...
that was pretty much my thought--acknowledged as one the of the two best players in baseball, in two half decades.
i remain a parker fan, but post 1924, how many other players would qualify?
recognized as one of the two best (pre-1961, seven year period) over two different five year, periods.

[SmedIndy]

See, I don't think he was recognized as one of the best in baseball in the second half decade. Rep, perhaps, but certainly not production.

[WiredTiger]

Parker was definitely hurt by the extra stuff outside of baseball. He was very good at times but didn't sustain it over a long enough period to get into the HOF. And I have to believe that part of it was due to the drug use and trouble with the law.

If he had continued being very good/great into the 80s then he would have made it.

[JamesI]

I used to support Parker's inclusion, but no longer do. There are too many better players waiting or about to become elidgeable, and his numbers are in the very good almost there range. Take away the problems with drugs, and his numbers probably imporve enough to get him in.

[Skip]

I'm with Smed and others on Parker's HOVG status. And ... even if his numbers were close enough to generate more serious consideration, the whole drug thing would be enough to keep him out. MLB would view his enshrinement as a black eye (and they are the experts on baseball's black eyes!)

[sweaver]

Originally posted by star8
there is no one in the grey area, more deserving than dave parker.
the numbers are, err, decent. the rbis, very good. the outfield play, very good--shoot great--, but that he never played on a team not in contention on sept 15.
This was an interesting statement, that screamed to be checked. In 1981, the split-season year, the Pirates finished the second half in last place, 21-33 and 9.5 GB, and were definitely not in contention for the last two weeks. Although, technically, they were not eliminated on Sept. 15. The 1984 Reds finished 70-92, 22 games out, and WERE eliminated by 9/15. Ditto the 1990 Brewers, 74-88 and 14 games off the pace.

That said, Parker did have an astonishing record of being on winners, and was regarded as the best player in baseball circa 1978-79. But I wouldn't support him for the Hall.

[RichKnowsBaseball]

The careers of Parker, Rice, and Foster overlapped to a great extent. They all have similar peak and career value, and each of them was an MVP. I don't see how any of them distinguished themselves enough from the other two to merit enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by sweaver
That said, Parker did have an astonishing record of being on winners, and was regarded as the best player in baseball circa 1978-79. But I wouldn't support him for the Hall.

This sums up my opinion on Dave Parker. I don't support his candidacy because there are better guys ahead of him that are still waiting.

Parker's qualification for the Hall is not insignificant. He WAS the best player in baseball in 1978-79. He was tremendous for a 2-3 year period.

I hold the drug thing against Parker because it became a team thing. His drugging wasn't something he did away from his team; it was part of the Pirate clubhouse, and it was part of a scandal that brought significant harm to the Pirates, and to MLB.

To sum his career up very quickly: Most guys who rack up Parker's triple crown stats for a career are NOT in the HOF. However, some are.

Tony Perez, his closest comp, is a HOFer; however, his qualifications for the HOF are not overwhelming, and have been criticzed (justly, IMO) in this forum.

Billy Williams is Parker's second closest comp. Billy's case is much better, in that:

(A) He has it over Parker, hands down, in terms of character and clubhouse contributions.

(B) He played in a worse era for hitters

(C) He spent much less time at DH.

Parker's other eight (8) comps are all the guys we debate in these threads. In order: Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Al Oliver, Jim Rice, Rusty Staub, Chili Davis, Dwight Evans, and Vada Pinson.

A good way to look at this scientifically would be to (A) rate Parker's comps in order, and (B) figure out where he belongs among them. Two of them are, after all, in the HOF, and all of the rest have a case; except for Chili Davis (and I think that there may even be a few people here who would argue on his behalf).

My subjective ranking, without doing any research, would be:

1. Williams
2. Pinson
3. Dawson
4. Perez
5. Staub
6. Evans
7. Rice
8. Oliver
9. Parker
10. Baines
11. Davis

[pwdennis]

Fuzzy - I agree with you in principle about Parker although I would rate the list of his comps thusly:

01 Williams
02 Rice
03 Evans
04 Dawson
05 Pinson
06 Perez
07 Baines
08 Parker
09 Staub
10 Davis
11 Oliver

[Fuzzy Bear]

I rate Staub so highly because of the seasons he put up in the Astrodome during the height of the pitcher's era. I rate Pinson so highly because of the pitcher's era he played in, and because he played CF, giving him a defensive bonus. (I could, argubly, give Dewey a defensive bonus for his RF play, rating him higher; I haven't firmly made up my mind on where he stands.)

Back to Parker: I was rereading Bill James' The Politics of Glory and reviewing his "Keltner List" questions, which are a subjective test as to whether or not Parker had a HOF-quality career. I'm not ready to advocate his selection, but I was surprised as to the strength of Parker's case under that criteria.

Parker does very well in the most stringent criteria on the "Keltner List"; much better than one would ordinarily think.

For example: "Was (Parker) ever regarded as the best player in baseball?" Parker meets that standard. From 1977-79, Parker was regarded as the best player in MLB, winning the MVP in 1978.

Parker also meets two other key criteria: He was the best player at his position in his league (and, IMO, in all of baseball) from 1977-79, and he was the best player on his team during that period.

If Dave Parker were the best player on a team, could that team win the World Championship? Yes, it could, and it did.

Was he good enough to play past his prime? Yes, and he did. (Of course, his prime was shortened by his love for nose candy, but that's another issue.)

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? Of course; the 1979 Pirates won it all. The 1978 Pirates contended when they were not expected to, setting the stage for 1979. Parker was the biggest reason why, Willie Stargell and his MVP-tie in 1979 to the contrary.

As far as HOF standards, Parker meets 41 HOF standards; the average HOFer meets 50, according to Bill James' system. This is in the top half of the gray area, I would suspect. Parker's black ink and gray ink totals are right in the middle of the HOF; he scores where the AVERAGE HOFer scores.

On the other hand, MOST players on the left end of the defensive spectrum with comparable career triple crown stats to Parker are NOT in the HOF. Again, his best comps are Tony Perez (a questionable pick, unless you give him a big defensive bonus for his years at 3B) and Billy Williams (the best of his comps). The rest of his comps have basically the same story; a case can be made for them, but most players with comparable triple crown stats are NOT in the HOF.

That being said, Parker stands alone from his other comps, with the POSSIBLE exception of Jim Rice, in that only Parker was ever considered, for a brief period of time, the best player in baseball. Parker, IMO, has a higher peak value than any of his comps, including Rice (although Rice sustained his peak for longer than Parker).

So to rule Parker out of the HOF completely, using the Keltner list, one must use the criteria of upholding standards of sportsmanship and character (the last qualification) as a veto. Parker certainly failed miserably in this area, although he appears to have cleaned up and become a good citizen. Nonetheless, Parker's drug activities contributed to the demise of the Pirates in the 1980s. The HOF is an HONOR, not an ENTITLEMENT; I have some problems honoring a borderline choice such as Parker when I KNOW that what he did (A) was criminal, (B) encouraged other criminality, and (C) helped his team lose. I can make a better case for Dick Allen than for Parker, in terms of character and sportsmanship.

So I guess I've taken a long trip around the circle with this post. Parker's case as a player, alone, has more merit, on peak value, than one would ordinarily consider. The reason the peak value was short-lived had more to do with Dave Parker than anything else.

That's my problem.

[RichKnowsBaseball]

My rankings:

01. Williams
02. Rice
03. Parker
04. Evans
05. Dawson
06. Perez
07. Pinson
08. Oliver
09. Staub
10. Baines
11. Davis

My comments:

Williams had the best combo of peak and career value. A very solid player with no holes in his game. #1 in runs created, runs created/game, RCAA, RCAP, and OPS+. He had 11 seasons of 100+ runs created. Next best among these players is six (Dawson and Pinson).

Rice and Parker are about the same in my book. For what it's worth, I think George Foster isn't that much behind them. All three played at the same time and were three of the best hitters in the game during the late 1970s. Each has one MVP to his credit. Parker was the best fielder of the three due to his strong arm (although he was erratic at times), and he was the fastest baserunner of the three in his prime. All three were surly at times, but only Parker's behavior and attitude proved to be a detriment to his team.

Evans shows up statistically as well or better than Rice and Parker, and he was a superior fielder. Rice and Evans were teammates. Rice was considered the better player during the 1970s. Evans broke out in 1981 and sustained a higher level of play throughout the 1980s than Rice. Twenty-five years ago, Rice was considered the (much) better player. In fact, to be fair to Rice, it wasn't even close. However, with the benefit of more sabermetric-type analysis and some added perspective over the years, Evans measures up quite well to Rice--and arguably even better. He is very underrated by HOF voters.

Dawson has an excellent resume with an MVP (albeit one he didn't come close to deserving), a ROY, and eight Gold Gloves. No 30-30 seasons but three 25-25 seasons. Dawson and Pinson, in their early years, were the best all-round players among this group. Below-average OBP was Dawson's downfall.

Perez had a long and productive year, but he was helped more by Rose and Morgan in the Cincy lineup than vice versa. I have a major issue with Perez never having led the league in BA, OBP, SLG, HR, RBI, BB, TB...nothing. NO BLACK INK whatsover! That seems like a major blemish for any DH-1B-LF-RF, particularly one that wasn't noted for his defensive or baserunning skills.

Pinson was on his way to a HOF career through 1965 at the age of 27. However, his career faded from there, and he was a slightly above-average to slightly below-average player the remainder of his career. He fell short of Cesar Cedeno for peak value and was essentailly a cross between Willie Davis and Amos Otis for career value. None of these CF have been highly regarded by HOF voters.

Oliver was an outstanding line-drive hitter, but he didn't have a lot of HR power. The rest of his skills were closer to average than not. An All-Star type player for many years but not a HOFer by any means.

Staub was a good hitter, particularly from age 23-27. His stats were held back by playing a large portion of his career in extreme pitchers' parks. However, even if you "adjust" them, he still comes up well shy of a HOFer.

Baines was a good hitter but never a great player. He had a long and productive career but at a level well below a HOFer. Amazingly, Baines never hit 30 HR in a single season. In fact, his single-season highs of 89 runs, 198 hits, 29 HR, 113 RBI, 10 SB, 73 BB, .312 BA, .403 OBP, and .541 SLG look like a normal year for a worthy HOFer. In view of the fact that Baines fell short of HOF stature as a hitter and was a below-average outfielder and almost exclusively a DH from 1987-on (or for nearly two thirds of his career), I think it is safe to say that he deserves no serious consideration as a HOFer.

Davis was more like Baines than not and, as a result, he falls equally short as a HOF candidate. Like Perez, Davis never led the league in any category during his career. In other words, he has no black ink. The only player on this list with less gray ink is none other than Baines. As an OF-DH, it is hard to get behind Davis as anything more than having a legacy of being a good offensive player during his career.

[Wolf Hopper]

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20040102&content_id=621405&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Dave thinks he should be in.

"I won two batting titles, should have won two MVPs, was in three World Series, was the MVP of the All-Star Game, DH of the Year twice and won the RBI crown," said Parker. "I did everything that you could possibly do in baseball, and I'm not in the Hall?

"I should be in the Hall of Fame. Ain't no doubt about it."

[sweaver]

I think Parker's on the bad side of the gray area for the HOF. He's better than some guys in it, but not very close to the average quality of a Hall guy. I have him 31st on the list of RFs, granted that's a list of very good players. I also rank him as the 247th greatest player of all time, and that's not a Hall of Famer in my book.

[manny tortolero]

Probably the strike in 1981 and the fact to play two years in an extreme pitchers park as Coliseum of Oakland and sharing his DH duties in 1988 and 1989 with 38 years old hurts his possibilities to get 3000 hits. Reaching that mark, his chances to be considered HOF would be a lot better.

[SmedIndy]

Close, no cigar.

[Skip]

Close, no cigar.Ditto. Plus, I just plain don't like him. (I know, that's irrelevant except for all you Rose haters).

<ducking and covering now>

[Elmo]

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm

Rules for induction to the HOF.....

"5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Not to raise the specter of the 'tuck' rule. Parker's credentials are pretty borderline in terms of on field numbers and the criterium, whether you like them or not, take into account 'integrity, sportsmanship, character.'

As with the argument that Rose 'deserves' to be in the hall based on his on field performance....sure, when you change the rules. Until then, Parker stays out based on performance and based on the criteria as outlined in the rules of induction. That may mean that we don't have the 'best' players in the Hall...but that's what the rules say.

[Skip]

the criterium, whether you like them or not, take into account 'integrity, sportsmanship, character.' ... as well as how selectively those criteria have been taken into account in the past.

[SmedIndy]

Yeah - Cobb, Pete Alexander, etc. Kept them out, eh?

[Elmo]

... as well as how selectively those criteria have been taken into account in the past.

Yep...for example Molitor was questioned in the same drug sweep that Parker was involved in (not selling in the club house as far as I know)......don't hear much of that now. Cobb doesn't mean as much, he was not that far out for the context of his time. Alvin Dark wasn't that far out of the context of his time either.....

[JamesI]

Yeah - Cobb, Pete Alexander, etc. Kept them out, eh?

Well, they weren't on the bubble to begin with.

As for PArker, I used to consider him HOF worthy. But as I became more knowledgable about what the real level of worthiness is, I think he's close but short.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yep...for example Molitor was questioned in the same drug sweep that Parker was involved in (not selling in the club house as far as I know)......don't hear much of that now. Cobb doesn't mean as much, he was not that far out for the context of his time. Alvin Dark wasn't that far out of the context of his time either.....

Remember this:

September 20, 1985: A federal jury in Pittsburgh convicts Curtis Strong of 11 counts of cocaine distribution after a trial whose prosecution witnesses revealed how widely the drug problem afflicts major league baseball. Prominent players who were granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony include Dave Parker, Lonnie Smith, Keith Hernandez, Jeffrey Leonard, and Tim Raines.

» February 28, 1986: In baseball's sternest disciplinary move since the Black Sox were banished for life, Commissioner Ueberroth gives seven players who were admitted drug users a choice of a year's suspension without pay or heavy fines and career-long drug testing, along with 100 hours of drug-related community service. Joaquin Andujar, Jeffrey Leonard, Enos Cabell, Keith Hernandez, Dave Parker, Dale Berra, and Lonnie Smith will be fined 10 percent of their annual salaries, while 14 other players will receive lesser penalties for their involvement with illegal drugs.

Parker received IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION to testify against a drug dealer who infested the Pirates' clubhouse the same way that Sport Sullivan, et al, infested the Black Sox' Clubhouse in 1919.

Parker's lucky he wasn't suspended. He's lucky to be working in baseball post-retirement.

[Elmo]

Parker's lucky he wasn't suspended. He's lucky to be working in baseball post-retirement.

I agree, although Baseball of course holds gambling to be a higher/lower order of transgression than anything else. If the scandal hadn't been so wide spread and over so many teams and players, I wonder if Parker (or whomever the 'isolated' player was) would not have been given some kind of suspended list situation.

[manny tortolero]

Was Parker a consumer or the Pirates clubhouse's drug dealer? i found in internet testimonies against John Milner and against the guy who used the Parrot's disguise but I didn't found a testimony about that Parker was a drug dealer.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Okay.

Was Parker famous? Well, he's well known. If you ask the average fan on the street, he/she has certainly heard of Dave Parker. Has what that fan heard been mainly positive or negative? Well, it's like Michael Jackson: some positive, some negative, but you can't deny that he's famous.

Is Parker the very best player who is NOT in the Hall of Fame? No. By my count, there are probably 10-15 players ahead of him: Minnie, Pete, Blyleven, Santo, Staub, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Dick Allen, Lou Whitaker, Ryno, Dawson, maybe Will Clark, Jim Rice, Jose Cruz...

Obviously, some of these guys are going in. They should ALL go in before Parker, IMO.

[gyb13]

pay the admission fee, dave, and you can be in the HoF