Should Dave Parker be in the hall of fame?

strangecreature · August 13, 2009 11:00AM

Imo, the Baseball hall of fame is a joke. It took Jim Rice his final writers vote to be voted in. Parker had pretty good career stats, won 2 WS rings, and should have won 2 MVP'S. But in 1985, the infamous cocaine trial cost him the MVP award. Now, over 20 years later, why are the writers still holding his one-time cocaine problem against him? Cocaine is not like steroids, where it makes your stats explode, and he did clean up his act, and became a great player again after his 1981-1983 slump.

Discuss

joestalin · August 13, 2009 11:18AM

open the door and let everyone in!

MantleMarisFordBerra · August 13, 2009 11:33AM

The Cobra ain't HOF material, cocaine or no cocaine. He just wasn't good enough (though he did have some strong years).

larryallen73 · August 13, 2009 11:38AM

Darn close. Had he played his whole career for the Yankee's he would be in.

DavidPuddy · August 13, 2009 11:43AM

Parker was a very good player, but not HOF material.
Lots of SO's, not enough HR's, not liked by the media, drug issues.

He's in the hall of very good. IMO.

strangecreature · August 13, 2009 12:12PM

<< The Cobra ain't HOF material, cocaine or no cocaine. He just wasn't good enough (though he did have some strong years). >>

I totally disagree. He has better numbers than alot of players that are in the hall. When he retired in 1991, he was in the top 50 all-time in 6 different categories. And some he still is. He won an MVP, all star MVP, won 2 batting titles, 3 gold gloves, 290 ba, and had nearly 1,500 rbi. Didnt have 3000 hits but 2,700 is decent total. Not to mention had the strongest arm in the 70's, and was one of the fastest runners in the sport.

If thats not hall material, i dont know what is?

DaBeef · August 13, 2009 12:31PM

I think he is hof material, matlock as well.

joestalin · August 13, 2009 2:26PM

if Matlock goes you have to put in tony pena, sitting on his @#) while playing baseball was genius. Bench, Yogi, Pena

get ur dun

TomGshotput · August 13, 2009 8:43PM

The sportswriters spend 60 years establishing a set of standards for the Hall-of-Fame and 10 years destroying them

If we go by the long established standards he falls short

If we go by some of the recent choices he makes almost as much sense as anyone

stown · August 13, 2009 9:17PM

I grew up watching Parker play against my 'Stros; he was always a threat in the box and from the field. Heck, I even personally witnessed him hit a speaker from the Dome's roof.

Having said that, his career stats indicate he was a better than average player that never reached significant milestones.

IMO, he's not HOF material. If he were to get in, I would seriously question HOF voters' capabilities to differentiate between a good player and a great one.

IchiroDeported · August 13, 2009 9:56PM

yes the coke head, wasted career hall of fame.

Bottom9th · August 13, 2009 10:15PM

<< Parker was a very good player, but not HOF material.
Lots of SO's, not enough HR's, not liked by the media, drug issues.

He's in the hall of very good. IMO. >>

I agree...good, but not great.

Wondo · August 14, 2009 1:11AM

Parker was the NL's improved version of Jim Rice. The Hall of Fame is getting turned into an All Star team, not a team of All Time Greats!

smtjoy · August 14, 2009 1:45AM

Pirate fan and love the cobra but not deserving of the HOF

strangecreature · August 14, 2009 1:52AM

<< 

<< Parker was a very good player, but not HOF material.
Lots of SO's, not enough HR's, not liked by the media, drug issues.

He's in the hall of very good. IMO. >>

I agree...good, but not great. >>

Well he was sure great enough to be on the cover of many sport magazines in the 70's. Reason: He was the best player in the game in the late 70's. And has plenty of hardware to prove it. A book that came out in the early 80's(i cant remember the name of it) listed Parker as one of the top 100 players in history.

strangecreature · August 14, 2009 2:01AM

<< Pirate fan and love the cobra but not deserving of the HOF >>

What in your opinion is deserving? Was Mazeroski deserving? How about Tony Perez? Why are they in the hall but not Parker?

RonBurgundy · August 14, 2009 2:45AM

Yes. The Cocaine Hall of Fame.

Uphill · August 14, 2009 4:34AM

No.

strangecreature · August 14, 2009 4:43AM

I still have yet to hear a good argument why he shouldnt be there by the nayers?

Hoopster · August 14, 2009 6:35AM

The good thing about the era that they played in is that there is no mystery to what their run value was offensively. When the play by play study is put into effect, it becomes clear which hitter had the best run value. Whether their teammates took advantage of it is not in their control.

The situational batter runs accounts for every at bat and accounts for the different values of hits based on number of outs and number of runners on base. For instance, a double with the bases loaded is of more worth than a double with two out and nobody on. Subsequently, hitting into a double play with the bases loaded is of far more NEGATIVE value than making an out with nobody on base.

Once all these at bats and situations are tabulated for, you get a very clear picture which hitters were the best offensive players for a team to have.

Here are the situational batter runs for a couple of HOFers and Parker. These are adjusted for their home parks.

Parker 365.....Non Park adjusted 400
Perez 364......NOn Park adjusted 386

Rice 190.........None Park Adjusted 284

A guy like Rice who hit into an incredible amount of double plays is correctly painted with a MUCH lower Situational Batter Runs.

Is that HOF material for Parker when you consider a guy like Yaz has 510 Park Adjusted Runs? I don't know for sure. I do know that he was far more deserving than a guy like Rice. When defense is considered, that gap widens even more.

Bottom9th · August 14, 2009 10:33AM

<< 

<< 

<< Parker was a very good player, but not HOF material.
Lots of SO's, not enough HR's, not liked by the media, drug issues.

He's in the hall of very good. IMO. >>

I agree...good, but not great. >>

Well he was sure great enough to be on the cover of many sport magazines in the 70's. Reason: He was the best player in the game in the late 70's. And has plenty of hardware to prove it. A book that came out in the early 80's(i cant remember the name of it) listed Parker as one of the top 100 players in history. >>

So the fact that he was on the cover of a lot of sport magazines in the 70's is why he should be in the hall of fame??? I bet Mark Fidrych was on the cover of a lot too. Parker had a good career that could have been a lot better. I think he's only peaked at 25% of the HOF voting so I would bet that the only way he gets into the hall is when he buys a ticket.

strangecreature · August 14, 2009 4:01PM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Parker was a very good player, but not HOF material.
Lots of SO's, not enough HR's, not liked by the media, drug issues.

He's in the hall of very good. IMO. >>

I agree...good, but not great. >>

Well he was sure great enough to be on the cover of many sport magazines in the 70's. Reason: He was the best player in the game in the late 70's. And has plenty of hardware to prove it. A book that came out in the early 80's(i cant remember the name of it) listed Parker as one of the top 100 players in history. >>

So the fact that he was on the cover of a lot of sport magazines in the 70's is why he should be in the hall of fame??? I bet Mark Fidrych was on the cover of a lot too. Parker had a good career that could have been a lot better. I think he's only peaked at 25% of the HOF voting so I would bet that the only way he gets into the hall is when he buys a ticket. >>

Fidrych was a one-year wonder wasnt he? I gave many reasons and stats(like others here) why he should be in the hall of fame. I believe Parker had over 50% voting when he first became eligible. If the people who voted only went by what he did on the field, he would be in the hall. The baseball hall of fame is a joke. Much like the rock hall, where disco bands get in and the greatest american rock band gets ditched. Parker may get in the same way Mazeroski finally got in by the veterans.

Bottom9th · August 14, 2009 7:28PM

Parker peaked at 25% of the vote in 1998, and more recently has been getting around 10% of the vote (15.1% in 2008)

Source

ernie11 · August 14, 2009 7:31PM

He's one of those would've-gotten-in-the-HOF players.

CrimsonTider · August 14, 2009 9:12PM

Dale Murphy is more deserving. 2 time MVP, only Schmidt hit more home runs in the 80's, and ended his career with 398 home runs in an era when 400 home runs was considered the gold standard for enshrinement.

I think Murphy will make it because of his squeaky clean rep. The longer the steroid cloud hangs over baseball, the better chance Murphy has.

IchiroDeported · August 14, 2009 10:50PM

agreed, parker never sees the hall unless he buys a ticket. He does not have the stats career wise to make the hall and the perception (an accurate one) is that he blew his chance by snorting the baselines, sweet and low and everything that looked like coke. very easily could have had 3000+ hits and a hundred more homers if not wasting his talent.

p.s.
Murphy will get in the HOF eventually. Nice guy+ the best slugger of the 80's next to schmidt.

estang · August 14, 2009 11:39PM

I don't see him getting in & I do think his coke problem is a big strike against him. He doesn't do the drug & he's likely in with better numbers... He was a great player. Better than Dale Murphy. Garvey is another that was very very good & could be hall worthy...

I also wonder if he juiced with Canseco & McGwire...surely he was aware of what was going on...

WinPitcher · August 14, 2009 11:44PM

IMO he is one of many that are on the cusp.

Steve

CrimsonTider · August 15, 2009 1:13AM

Better than Dale Murphy.

I'm not so sure about that. I'll give Dave this much, he was a better contact hitter, his career batting avg was .290 compared to Murphy's .265.

Murphy won 5 straight gold glove 82-86
Parker won 3 straight gold gloves 77-79
Advantage Murphy

Murphy had 2 MVPs
Parker had 1 MVP
Advantage Murphy

Murphy led the NL twice in HRs 84, 85
Parker won two batting titles 77, 79
Advantage Push

Murphy hit 398 HRs
Parker hit 339 HRs
Advantage Murphy

Murphy has 2111 career hits
Parker had 2712 career hits
Advantage Parker

Murphy is a member of the 30/30 club
Parker is a member of the 20/20 club
Advantage Murphy

Murphy is a mormon
Parker is a cokehead
Advatage Murphy

Murphy was walked 986 times
Parker was walked 683 times
Advantage Murphy

Murphy stuckout 1748 times
Parker struckout 1537 times
Advantage Pitchers

Murphy was a better power hitter, had better speed, and was a better fielder than Parker. Murphy was more feared by his opposing pitchers than Parker, hence the higher number of walks.

I think that Murphy was an all around better player than Parker and almost all would agree that if you were to start a team that you would rather have Murphy than Parker any day.

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 2:25AM

<< I
>>

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 2:28AM

<< 

<< I don't see him getting in & I do think his coke problem is a big strike against him. He doesn't do the drug & he's likely in with better numbers... He was a great player. Better than Dale Murphy.
>>

Agreed. Murphy's batting average of 265 is not hall material. He won 2 mvp's but his career stats are not good enough. Parker's ba is alot better, more hits, and rbi's. The only thing that stands out with Murphy is he had a decent amount of home runs. Both players won several gold gloves but Parker was the better athlete and had the strongest arm in the game. In game 2 of the 79 World series he threw out Eddie murray in a key play at home plate like a cannon, that cost the Orioles the game. Murray couldnt believe he had just been thrown out. Throwing out runners at home was the norm for Parker, which he did often. Murphy only led his team to the playoffs one time in his career. Parker should have won 2 mvp's but they fudged the vote in 85 due to his cocaine trial. In other words he got robbed. So they gave the award to someone who hit 10 home runs. >>

CrimsonTider · August 15, 2009 2:58AM

Ray Schalk was inducted with a .253 average.

I think Murphy has that beat.

CrimsonTider · August 15, 2009 3:04AM

A good arm does not mean a better fielder. Jermaine Dye has one of the best arms in the game, but he is no Andruw Jones when it comes to fielding.

Someone who wins 5 gold gloves is a better fielder than someone who wins 3 gold gloves.

If Murphy had hit 2 more home runs he would have already been inducted. In the 1980's any sports writer would have said that 400 home runs was the magical number for a slugger to be enshrined. Now, due to steroids, there is no magical number. 700 home runs in this era is no longer a golden ticket to Cooperstown.

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 3:17AM

<< A good arm does not mean a better fielder. Jermaine Dye has one of the best arms in the game, but he is no Andruw Jones when it comes to fielding.

Someone who wins 5 gold gloves is a better fielder than someone who wins 3 gold gloves.

If Murphy had hit 2 more home runs he would have already been inducted.. >>

No way. The rest of his stats are pale.

In this case i still think that Parker was more impressive defensively. Parker's arm shined in big games like the 79 world series, and he won the all-star mvp by gunning 2 runners out. Fans always remember what the stars did in big games. After all, its called the hall of FAME, isnt it? What did Dale Murphy do that was memorable?

MantleMarisFordBerra · August 15, 2009 3:36AM

Look Dude, you're a homer for Parker - we get it. You came on here asking a question & didn't get the answer you wanted. It happens,let it go. It'll be ok.

Bottom9th · August 15, 2009 7:55AM

<< Look Dude, you're a homer for Parker - we get it. You came on here asking a question & didn't get the answer you wanted. It happens,let it go. It'll be ok. >>

Who is it that says Case Closed?

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 8:32AM

<< Look Dude, you're a homer for Parker - we get it. You came on here asking a question & didn't get the answer you wanted. It happens,let it go. It'll be ok. >>

Actually i got some good answers but you need to read the whole topic. This is a hall of fame debate. Do you have anything helpful to add?

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 3:12AM

HOF, he has a case.

But it is certain that Parker was a better player than some guys in already...like a Jim Rice who got in because of Wade Boggs, Fenway Park, and ignorant fans/writers.

smtjoy · August 18, 2009 3:32AM

Overall I just dont think he had the overall stats, hits, homers and rbi's for a right fielder compared to say clemente, etc. I also dont think maz deserved it and I do not think Murphy should make it either, his low BA plus not enough homers knocks him out. I just hate to see the "Hall of above average".

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 4:31AM

It is a baseball hall of "FAME", there are various views and opinions what constitutes great enough fame for entry.
It is not a hall of statistical formula evaluation.

The above being said, most men within are top quality baseball players. It might seem the Vet committee is a bit more flexible than the regular elections by the BBWAA.

Other HOF outfielders who compare decently to Dave Darker might be,
Chick Hafey, Harry Hooper, and Tommy McCarthy, among others. The argument that because so and so is in, such and such should get in, cant always be valid, and although its a reasonable starting point for evaluations, eventually almost every MLB player ever, would compare somewhat favorably to another guy who got in.

I would personally find no fault if Parker got elected, a reasonable choice, however no great injustice would be felt if he did not.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 4:42AM

Jaxr,

See, when Jim Rice is entered in the conversation, you enter, LOL. In your estimation, who was better, Parker, or Rice?

strangecreature · August 18, 2009 9:11AM

<< Overall I just dont think he had the overall stats, hits, homers and rbi's for a right fielder compared to say clemente". >>

He had more homers and rbi's than Clemente. And their slg percentage is almost identical.

Right now as we speak, Parker is in the top 50 all-time in doubles, extra base hits, and RBI's. Out of the top 50 RBI leaders, 35 are in the hall of fame. And 10 others are not eligible yet.

Either Parker has been overlooked, or the writers are still holding his past cocaine use against him.

estang · August 18, 2009 12:09PM

Murphy was a very good player with a couple great years. However, his career didn't last long enough and 2100 hits for an outfielder that is over 100 homers away from 500, just doesn't do it for me. .265 average is very low for a guy that wasn't a 40+ guy. Still like Dale, but I'm giving the career edge to Parker. He also has 2 WS rings...or is it 1?

strangecreature · August 18, 2009 1:52PM

<< . Still like Dale, but I'm giving the career edge to Parker. He also has 2 WS rings...or is it 1? >>

Yes 2. One with Pittsburgh and one with Oakland. He also won 3 silver slugger awards.

greencrow · June 9, 2014 1:07PM

Happy birthday Dave!

Should Dave Parker be in the hall of fame?

Comments