Dave Parker deserves spot in HOF

[Ron Madden]

Here's an interesting article by John Erardi.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...COL19/12260348

.

[PuffyPig]

He's like Tony Perez, a marginal candidate.

Perex got in barely due to his character and Big Red Machine exposure and reputation as a clutch hitter.

Parker's reputation away from the game will likely tip the scales in non-admission, like it or not.

[redsmetz]

I actually thought about posting this but taking the angle Erardi does with sabermetrics. Erardi has done a world of good for me, somewhat of a sabermetric resister, if you will, to get me to better understand what it's all about. But in this article he comes with a balance to it as well, which is why I find his approach so refreshing and valuable.

In this portion, he writes:

My sabermetric friends tell me Parker is essentially Albert Belle minus the surly personality, and that they would vote for Dale Murphy, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Tim Raines, Don Mattingly and Larry Walker (this is his first year on the ballot), before they would vote for Parker.

But I look at it this way:

Besides giving points to players who post their best years in their championship seasons, I also give points to players who resurrect their careers from the ash heap - as Parker did in the second half of the 1980s - even when that demise is self-inflicted.

I applaud sabermetricians for trying to remove all forms of subjectivity, but I'm not going to give zero weight to guys who play for World Series' teams and bounce back from demises.

I just can't go "pure math" on these guys.

Highlighting this is not a knock on sabermetrics. I believe that Erardi makes sabermetrics understandable to folks like me. But I think he makes a strong point that it can't tell the whole story in some cases.

I share his belief that should be in, warts and all.

[George Anderson]

What is sad like Erardi pointed out about Parker is he lost 4 prime years of his career during ages 29-33 due to his cocaine involvement. During that 4 year span he averaged 10 HR's and around 60 RBI's. It goes without saying had he been clean he would have put up his regular monster numbers of say 30-40 HR's with 90-100 RBI's and he likely would have been enshrined already.

Parker was the first big name free agent the Reds ever signed and I was a pretty big fan of his. His presence and attitude seemed to change the attitude the early 80's teams had of losing. He also played a big part in helping a young Eric Davis become the player he was. However like his manager Mr. Rose, he did something very dumb during his career and is now paying the consequences for it.

[Big Klu]

Originally Posted by redsmetz

I actually thought about posting this but taking the angle Erardi does with sabermetrics. Erardi has done a world of good for me, somewhat of a sabermetric resister, if you will, to get me to better understand what it's all about. But in this article he comes with a balance to it as well, which is why I find his approach so refreshing and valuable.

In this portion, he writes:

My sabermetric friends tell me Parker is essentially Albert Belle minus the surly personality, and that they would vote for Dale Murphy, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Tim Raines, Don Mattingly and Larry Walker (this is his first year on the ballot), before they would vote for Parker.

But I look at it this way:

Besides giving points to players who post their best years in their championship seasons, I also give points to players who resurrect their careers from the ash heap - as Parker did in the second half of the 1980s - even when that demise is self-inflicted.

I applaud sabermetricians for trying to remove all forms of subjectivity, but I'm not going to give zero weight to guys who play for World Series' teams and bounce back from demises.

I just can't go "pure math" on these guys.

Highlighting this is not a knock on sabermetrics. I believe that Erardi makes sabermetrics understandable to folks like me. But I think he makes a strong point that it can't tell the whole story in some cases.

I share his belief that should be in, warts and all.

Wasn't Tim Raines implicated in the Pittsburgh drug trials, too?

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by Big Klu

Wasn't Tim Raines implicated in the Pittsburgh drug trials, too?

Tim Raines of the Montreal Expos testified that he stashed a gram of cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games. The speedster, who at the time of the hearing was the four time defending National League stolen base champion, testified that he always slid into bases headfirst to ensure that the glass vial wouldn't break
\


http://www.suite101.com/content/the-...-trials-a59057

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

What is sad like Erardi pointed out about Parker is he lost 4 prime years of his career during ages 29-33 due to his cocaine involvement. During that 4 year span he averaged 10 HR's and around 60 RBI's. It goes without saying had he been clean he would have put up his regular monster numbers of say 30-40 HR's with 90-100 RBI's and he likely would have been enshrined already.

Parker was the first big name free agent the Reds ever signed and I was a pretty big fan of his. His presence and attitude seemed to change the attitude the early 80's teams had of losing. He also played a big part in helping a young Eric Davis become the player he was. However like his manager Mr. Rose, he did something very dumb during his career and is now paying the consequences for it.

I agree, George. Of course abusing cocaine does not necessarily mean exclusion from the HOF. Paul Molitor is in.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chip R

I agree, George. Of course abusing cocaine does not necessarily mean exclusion from the HOF. Paul Molitor is in.

Fergie Jenkins to.

[Johnny Footstool]

You evaluate the player based on the career he had, not the career he might have had.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

You evaluate the player based on the career he had, not the career he might have had.

History shows that that hasn't always been the case. Roy Campanella comes to mind.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

History shows that that hasn't always been the case. Roy Campanella comes to mind.

Campy won 3 MVP's. He was getting in regardless if the accident happened or not.

[Ron Madden]

Not that I agree or disagree with him but It seems to me that John Erardi puts a bit more thought into his HOF ballot than either Paul Daugherty or Hal McCoy put into theirs. (JMHO)

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Campy won 3 MVP's. He was getting in regardless if the accident happened or not.

He had less than 10 years as a Major Leaguer, and three of his last four years were 'down' years that signified the beginning of the end. I don't think anyone should get voted into the Hall based on only six successful years.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

He had less than 10 years as a Major Leaguer, and three of his last four years were 'down' years that signified the beginning of the end. I don't think anyone should get voted into the Hall based on only six successful years.

He also wasn't allowed to play in the majors until he was 26.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

He also wasn't allowed to play in the majors until he was 26.

To be technical, Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers in 1947. Campanella was in the minors at the time and didn't join until the middle of 1948. Anyway, it just further proves my point.

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

You evaluate the player based on the career he had, not the career he might have had.

Right or wrong, players are sometimes voted into the Hall based on the careers they might have had.