Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Dave Parker still believes he should be in Hall of Fame

Yeah…and I still believe I should be reviewing sizzlin’ punk 45’s for the New York Rocker’s Disques Du’ Mondo column.

“I figure I was the most dominant player through my era,” he said. “I’m not in the Hall of Fame, but all the Hall of Famers know what I brought to the table. My numbers are as good as most Hall of Famers who went in over the last five or six years. I just hope I get in while I’m vertical.”

...The knock on Parker most likely dates to his part in a drug scandal. He testified against a dealer in court and was fined by Major League Baseball for his admitted to using drugs, including cocaine.

“I was a recreational user,” Parker said. “I never had a problem where I needed to be rehabilitated. In that situation, I was the biggest name there. They went after me more so than other players. Everybody knew the same guy. It’s just that I was Dave Parker. It happened. I got over it. I’m glad to see some of the guys who had problems recover from their problems. We went through that cocaine era. I’m glad that it’s done.”

If Parker is to get into the Hall of Fame now, he’ll have to rely on the Veterans Committee to give him another look in the years ahead.

“As time goes by, the less it means to me because I did everything possible,” Parker said. “I played the game the way it should be played. I played hard. I never missed a plane, never missed a game. I don’t know what it is. They talk about baseball being forgiving and society being forgiving. Well, forgive me and let me be where I need to be.”

Repoz Posted: July 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM | 196 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history, pirates, reds

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM (#3885564)
I have some sympathy for Parker in this. It must be hard to look at Jim Rice being honored and think, "Why not me, too?"
   2. Jacob Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM (#3885565)
You should've got 288 more hits, dumbass!
   3. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:04 PM (#3885567)
Still on the blow, I see.
   4. whoisalhedges Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:09 PM (#3885570)
“I figure I was the most dominant player through my era,”

If by "through his era," he means 1977-79, then sure.

I usually expect a more sustained peak.
   5. Anonymous Observer Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM (#3885579)
Dave Parker still believes he should be in Hall of Fame


The sun still rises in the east too.
   6. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM (#3885580)
If by "through his era," he means 1977-79, then sure.

I usually expect a more sustained peak.


Those three years were enough to get Rice in, and Parker was the better player in those years. He was better than Rice in 1978, Rice's calling card year.
   7. Rusty Priske Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:35 PM (#3885582)
Parker does deserve to be inducted... but he is far from a slam dunk so it is hard to complain about his exclusion.

(And yes, he deserves it much more than Jim Rice.)
   8. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM (#3885586)
Those three years were enough to get Rice in, and Parker was the better player in those years. He was better than Rice in 1978, Rice's calling card year.

But was he feared? Oh yeah, he was.
   9. GEB4000 Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:58 PM (#3885591)
Dave should review his dominating numbers from 1980 to 1984. I think that's where he fell off the path to the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure exactly what he was doing during that period of time, but playing well and regularly were not part of his regimen.
   10. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 12:59 PM (#3885592)
I'm not sure exactly what he was doing during that period of time

Blow.
   11. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:07 PM (#3885595)
Parker does deserve to be inducted... but he is far from a slam dunk so it is hard to complain about his exclusion.

(And yes, he deserves it much more than Jim Rice.)


Not really. When you look at their careers, Parker's was slightly longer, but Rice beats him in nearly every offensive category other than oWaR, which is solely a function of Parker's three extra years. Parker at one point had a reputation as somewhat of a speedster, but his career SB success rate was .577, which is worse than worthless. And while Parker was a better fielder in his prime, his career defensive numbers are still negative.

Parker's out of the HoF for one reason and one reason alone: His self-inflicted drug habit. Not because it was "performance-enhancing", but because it was exactly the opposite, which anyone who looks at the records can see. The closest parallel to Dave Parker's career isn't Jim Rice, it's more like Sam McDowell or Don Newcombe.
   12. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:10 PM (#3885597)
The Cobra!!

Has a very nice and neat five year peak from 1975-1979 and he was a hell of a player for those five years. He was not the best player in the NL over that span though, that was Schmidt and it wasn't close. Morgan probably was better too due to the sheer awesomeness of 1975-1976.

From 1986-1991 Parker racked up 3568 PAs and according to Baseball Reference -0.3 WAR during that time. He was regarded as having thrown his talent away on drugs before the revival in 1985, I'm not sure that was really fair. Other guys from the cocaine years seemed to play okay, although it's possible Parker's problems were substantially more worse and had a bigger effect.

I have absolutely no recollection of him playing for Milwaukee, Toronto or the Angels at the end of his career. I do remember his time in Oakland though.
   13. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:16 PM (#3885601)
I have absolutely no recollection of him playing for Milwaukee, Toronto or the Angels at the end of his career.

Don't feel too bad about that, Voros. Parker may not remember it himself.
   14. mathesond Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:21 PM (#3885605)
If I remember his time in Toronto correctly, he was traded to the Jays after the post-season roster deadline (September), and thus was not eligible to play in the playoffs. When the team asked him to travel with the club and hang out in the dugout, he refused, saying something to the effect that if they wanted him for the playoffs, they should have traded for him before the deadline.

Unless, of course, I'm thinking of Don Baylor.
   15. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:44 PM (#3885616)
Part of Parker's problem was using coke...and part of his problem was his lack drinking diet coke. The man got very out of shape in the early 1980s. In fact, I seem to recall that his contract included a weight clause that got a fair amount of attention at the time, mainly because he treated it more like the price of NOT showing up to Spring Training in decent shape.

A very good player...not a Hall of Famer.
   16. SOLockwood Posted: July 26, 2011 at 01:50 PM (#3885623)
#14: Actually he was released by the Angels on Sept. 7, and signed by the Blue Jays on Sept. 14.
   17. como10 Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:08 PM (#3885638)
I don't think it's just the drugs that are keeping him out. More generally, I suspect there is unconscious bias against him because he didn't make the most of his talent. Rice and Dawson were similar to the Cobra statistically but they don't carry a sense of unfulfilled promise with them. Parker does. He was a very good player who could have been great.
   18. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:09 PM (#3885639)
In addition to his earlier peak in the 70s, Parker was one of the most feared sluggers in RBI Baseball 2. With Lansford and Henderson reaching base in every single at-bat, he could really rack up the game's titular statistic.
   19. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:11 PM (#3885642)
I remember his Milwaukee and California years. He was traded for Dante Bichette IIRC.
   20. True Blue Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:11 PM (#3885643)
Maybe Parker should console himself with knowing that he got the 1979 All Star MVP for two assists that should have gone to Lee Mazzilli (game tying home run,game winning walk with the bases loaded). Not much of a consolation.

Parker did getfat in the early 1980s but I wonder if we looked at him today if we would call him that. If you look at the Bucky Dent game, Bill White makes jokes about Bob "Beetle" Bailey being overweight. Maybe in that era of skinny players but not today.
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:18 PM (#3885650)
Maybe Parker should console himself with knowing that he got the 1979 All Star MVP for two assists that should have gone to Lee Mazzilli (game tying home run,game winning walk with the bases loaded). Not much of a consolation.


No, the assists were his. (-:

It didn't just get him the MVP, it earned him a defensive reputation for the remainder of his career that his actual performance didn't justify. He could run a little when he was younger and had a strong but terribly erratic arm. He was not a good defensive player, but a polyester-clad Vlad.
   22. Tommy in CT Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:29 PM (#3885658)
It must be hard to look at Jim Rice being honored and think, "Why not me, too?"


Or Andre Dawson, for that matter. There ain't a whole lot to choose from between the Cobra and the Hawk. Of course, the Hawk doesn't belong in the Hall, but he's there and so Parker has a point.
   23. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:36 PM (#3885666)
but how did Guidry do against Parker?
   24. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:37 PM (#3885668)
A very good player...not a Hall of Famer.


And here's where Jim Rice screws things up for everybody. Why not Dave Parker? Why not Dale Murphy? Why not Cesar Cedeno?
   25. 200tang Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:46 PM (#3885678)
Damn you Jim Rice!
   26. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3885681)
There ain't a whole lot to choose from between the Cobra and the Hawk.

Remind me, when was Dave Parker a Gold Glove center fielder and excellent baserunner?
   27. salvomania Posted: July 26, 2011 at 02:56 PM (#3885685)

Has a very nice and neat five year peak from 1975-1979 and he was a hell of a player for those five years. He was not the best player in the NL over that span though, that was Schmidt and it wasn't close. Morgan probably was better too due to the sheer awesomeness of 1975-1976.


From 1975-1979 George Foster was also more impressive than Parker, at least offensively.
   28. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 03:09 PM (#3885693)
There ain't a whole lot to choose from between the Cobra and the Hawk.

Remind me, when was Dave Parker a Gold Glove center fielder and excellent baserunner?


Andre Dawson was clearly a better all-around player than Parker, but I can't say the same about Jim Rice. Dawson was probably one of the 2 or 3 best all-around players in baseball when he was with Montreal, Rice might have been one of the 2 or 3 best all-around players on the Red Sox, but even that is debatable.
   29. SoSH U at work Posted: July 26, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#3885698)
Andre Dawson was clearly a better all-around player than Parker, but I can't say the same about Jim Rice. Dawson was probably one of the 2 or 3 best all-around players in baseball when he was with Montreal, Rice might have been one of the 2 or 3 best all-around players on the Red Sox, but even that is debatable.


Andre Dawson is a borderline Hall of Fame selection. If he made it fine, if he didn't, that's fine too.

Rice was an outright bad selection. Parker would be equally bad. Rice's selection gives better players such as Murphy and others a crutch. It's really not terribly helpful to Parker's non-case.
   30. Hack Wilson Posted: July 26, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#3885699)
Enough about Dave Parker, what about Wes Parker? He was named to the Major League Baseball All-time Gold Glove Team, and is the only eligible member of the team who is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Wes should get credit for his brilliant acting career. How many times was Dave on the Brady Bunch? or Matt Helm? or Police Story? Okay, Dave may have portrayed on Police Story.
   31. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 03:30 PM (#3885704)
I have absolutely no recollection of him playing for Milwaukee, Toronto or the Angels at the end of his career. I do remember his time in Oakland though.


Because I started following baseball in October of 1986, I remember Parker's time with those teams, but not his time with the Reds or Pirates. (Although in the late 80s I played Tom Tippet's Pursue The Pennant with my brothers and I had the 1985 Reds, of which he was a key part.)

The problem with Parker is that he's all peak. He has five seasons that would fit very nicely into a HOF career... but not nearly enough outside of that. If your argument is mainly all peak, you have to have a Koufaxian one.
   32. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 03:39 PM (#3885710)
Speaking of Koufax... Mike Francesa commented on Blyleven yesterday and some other pitchers. He was all over the map.

According to Francesa, Blyleven wasn't dominant and didn't "feel like a Hall of Famer" when he was playing. Francesa looks for dominance. "For example... Catfish. He was dominant. All of those 20-win seasons. Blyleven had a nice curveball but wasn't dominant. I never thought I was looking at a Hall of Famer. Look at Sandy Koufax. Koufax was the best pitcher ever at his peak. Mussina? No, he's not a Hall of Famer. Neither is Pettitte."

He's also supported Morris in the past. So: Morris and Catfish, but not Blyleven or Mussina. And he's right that Pettitte's not a HOFer, but even Pettitte beats Morris and Catfish.

And Koufax's peak is bested by, for starters, Pedro/Clemens/Johnson/Maddux.
   33. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3885730)
Blyleven had a nice curveball but wasn't dominant.

Blyleven's an interesting case. He didn't really feel like a Hall of Famer and didn't feel dominant ... but he was dominant. The shutout and strikeout numbers don't lie.

Morris felt like a Hall of Famer (**) and should be in the Hall of Fame, though admittedly his is a close case with plenty of material for the antis.

Mussina sure felt like a Hall of Famer to me.

Pettitte didn't.

Catfish as "dominant" is preposterous on its face. Wins, while more meaningful in aggregate than sabermetric orthodoxy holds, do not translate to dominance. The guy was top ten in league Ks/9 once in his career. So, yeah ... Francesa.

(**) As chronicled herein, the divergence between his "playing ability" and "playing record" -- explicitly distinct HOF criteria -- and the reasons for it, were noted by contemporaries early in Morris's career. To those most familiar with his oeuvre, 1991 Game 7 didn't enhance as much as it confirmed.
   34. Mark Armour Posted: July 26, 2011 at 04:18 PM (#3885732)
I don’t blame the guy for wanting to be in the Hall of Fame, or even for thinking he should be. He was a hell of a player with a pile of trophies and two rings. Watching the ceremony on Sunday, I was struck by how those HOFers on stage were treated. I’d want to be up there too.

I am sure Parker wishes he had gone to the movies all those nights in the early 1980s instead of doing lines. I don’t have a moral problem here–it has been suggested that half of all major league players were at least casual users, and the percentage in the rest of society (among people with money) was higher than that. I went to many parties in the 1980s where coke was everywhere. There are many coke users in the Hall of Fame, some that we know about (Molitor) and several that we do not. Most of the guys from the 1980s likely at least tried it.

That said, Parker has five years in the middle of his career where he did not help his teams. That is the truth. He recovered a bit in his mid-30s, but at that point he was just a hitter–he had lost all the other tools that made him Dave Parker.

He had a fine career, and I hope that he finds some peace with all the good things he accomplished.
   35. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 04:28 PM (#3885737)
he got the 1979 All Star MVP for two assists that should have gone to Lee Mazzilli


I don't think Mazzilli had the arm for RF.
   36. PreservedFish Posted: July 26, 2011 at 04:31 PM (#3885738)
According to Francesa, Blyleven wasn't dominant and didn't "feel like a Hall of Famer" when he was playing. Francesa looks for dominance. "For example... Catfish. He was dominant. All of those 20-win seasons. Blyleven had a nice curveball but wasn't dominant. I never thought I was looking at a Hall of Famer. Look at Sandy Koufax. Koufax was the best pitcher ever at his peak. Mussina? No, he's not a Hall of Famer. Neither is Pettitte."


Although he is indeed all over the map, I think that Francesa's opinions on this probably line up with those of a large number of casual and serious fans.
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 04:47 PM (#3885745)
Although he is indeed all over the map, I think that Francesa's opinions on this probably line up with those of a large number of casual and serious fans.


If you're supposed to be an "expert," you really should understand ERA+ and the problem with wins.

And you don't really even need to understand ERA+. Morris has a 3.90 raw ERA. In a normal era of offense. The concepts are so simple.

SBB: If Morris was coming up big when it counted (let's say a 2.90 ERA), WTF was he doing when he didn't think it counted? Posting ERAs in the 5s? Do you think his team might have liked him to try during other times as well?
   38. como10 Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:06 PM (#3885757)
If Blyleven had pitched for Oakland in the early-mid 1970s and Catfish Hunter had pitched for Minnesota no one would be questioning Blyleven's dominance and Hunter almost certainly wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.
   39. Steve Treder Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#3885759)
#34: Nailed it perfectly, Mark.

Regarding coke use in the early '80s: among affluent young people (which Parker and every other ballplayer certainly was), at least casual use of cocaine was extremely widespread. The only other non-legal recreational drug more pervasive was weed. No one should be the least bit shocked about Parker's or anyone else's indulgence in coke.

That said, it is apparent that Parker's usage was more than casual. That certainly would be consistent with the manner in which he was "managing" his consumption of calories and of tobacco and god only knows what all else, because he became amazingly obese. Somebody upthread wondered if we would think of early 1980s-Parker as fat today, and the answer is, yes, oh yes we would. Baggy modern unis and all, he would look fat as hell today, because he was.

I do think that few if any modern players are as out of shape as Parker was at his worst. Vastly fewer players (or young people in general, for that matter) smoke cigarettes today, for one thing.
   40. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:12 PM (#3885760)
SBB: If Morris was coming up big when it counted (let's say a 2.90 ERA), WTF was he doing when he didn't think it counted?

"Doing" is too active a verb. Run of the mill games didn't put him in the zone as much as big games.(**) While they obviously impact different people differently, there's no way to simulate the bigger moments.

Do you think his team might have liked him to try during other times as well?


"Try" is too active a verb; see above. I suppose the answer is "yes," but the more precise answer for these purposes is that three organizations knew him warts and all, and all three denominated him their ace, deployed him as an ace, and paid him like an ace.

(**) As indicated by, among other examples, Game 7 1991. In an era before guys regularly pounded their chests, and emitted choreographed screams, and engaged in other simulacra of intensity for the television cameras, Morris looked and acted as if was genuinely possessed. Which, in a sense, he was.
   41. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#3885763)
If Morris was coming up big when it counted (let's say a 2.90 ERA), WTF was he doing when he didn't think it counted? Posting ERAs in the 5s? Do you think his team might have liked him to try during other times as well?


Yep. "Clutch" is just another word for "lazy". Otherwise, he would've pitched like a stud all the time.

While they obviously impact different people differently, there's no way to simulate the bigger moments.


Well, not if you're a dude, maybe.
   42. Jeff R., P***y Mainlander Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#3885764)
(**) As chronicled herein, the divergence between his "playing ability" and "playing record" -- explicitly distinct HOF criteria -- and the reasons for it, were noted by contemporaries early in Morris's career. To those most familiar with his oeuvre, 1991 Game 7 didn't enhance as much as it confirmed.


As a Jays fan, his shittacular 1992 post-season completely nullifies 1991 Game 7. How come he couldn't step it up, just one year later?
   43. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:45 PM (#3885773)
29. SoSH U at work Posted: July 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM (#3885698)

Andre Dawson is a borderline Hall of Fame selection. If he made it fine, if he didn't, that's fine too.

Rice was an outright bad selection. Parker would be equally bad. Rice's selection gives better players such as Murphy and others a crutch. It's really not terribly helpful to Parker's non-case.


There's a rarity, we agree on something. :)
   44. Srul Itza Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:51 PM (#3885779)
That said, it is apparent that Parker's usage was more than casual. That certainly would be consistent with the manner in which he was "managing" his consumption of calories and of tobacco and god only knows what all else, because he became amazingly obese.


Do you realize how hard it is to get so obese while doing so much coke and also smoking? That's a Hall of Fame accomplishment right there.
   45. Srul Itza Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:51 PM (#3885780)
Double Post
   46. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#3885783)
As a Jays fan, his shittacular 1992 post-season completely nullifies 1991 Game 7. How come he couldn't step it up, just one year later?


In boxing some guys seem to completely fall off the cliff after one last epic effort. Ken Norton's 15 round squeaker loss to Larry Holmes in 1978, Tom Sharkey's 25 round torture test against Jim Jeffries in 1899, Ezzard Charles' twin brawls with Rocky Marciano in 1954, etc. They throw everything they have in one last valiant effort and seemingly deplete their reserves forever.

But Morris? He was a bum.
   47. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:01 PM (#3885787)
Easy quiz: Name the two pitchers who won game 7 of the World Series one year and lost game 7 the next year.

-------------------------------

In boxing some guys seem to completely fall off the cliff after one last epic effort. Ken Norton's 15 round squeaker loss to Larry Holmes in 1978, Tom Sharkey's 25 round torture test against Jim Jeffries in 1899, Ezzard Charles' twin brawls with Rocky Marciano in 1954, etc.

Not to mention Jersey Joe Walcott, who gave Marciano the battle of his life for 13 rounds while defending his championship, and then went down in the 1st round while trying to get it back.
   48. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:03 PM (#3885788)
"Clutch" is just another word for "lazy". Otherwise, he would've pitched like a stud all the time.

Only a schoolmarm would care about how he performed on, say, October 1, 1983. It's of less moment for these purposes than the chemical composition of Francesca's ball sweat.

Morris pretty clearly ran out of gas in the 1992 postseason, at the end of a heavy-workload career marked by high-caliber work and elan. He wouldn't be "clutch" if he walked out on the mound today, either.
   49. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:04 PM (#3885791)
SBB: If Morris was coming up big when it counted (let's say a 2.90 ERA), WTF was he doing when he didn't think it counted? Posting ERAs in the 5s? Do you think his team might have liked him to try during other times as well?
DNFTT.
   50. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:07 PM (#3885792)
Do you realize how hard it is to get so obese while doing so much coke and also smoking? That's a Hall of Fame accomplishment right there.


I suspect it was the weight gain more than the drug use that messed up Parker's career. Several players from that era had serious cocaine problems without it becoming evident in their statistical lines - Keith Hernandez, Paul Molitor, Tim Raines, etc.

On the other hand, the coke probably contributed to Parker's obvious lack of concern about his baseball career.
   51. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:07 PM (#3885793)
Name the two pitchers who won game 7 of the World Series one year and lost game 7 the next year.

Gibson, 67 and 68

and Burdette 57 and 58
   52. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:08 PM (#3885795)
And Koufax's peak is bested by, for starters, Pedro/Clemens/Johnson/Maddux.


Debateable... I don't see how Pedro gets on this list, his numbers are propped up by him not actually bothering to face batters three or four times a game or pitch complete seasons. For 7 innings 29 times a year I'll take Pedro over probably any pitcher in baseball history, if I need a pitcher for a full season that is going to save my bullpen arms the other guys get my vote.

The other three I can see, especially Clemens in his youth where he was popping out shutouts and complete games. Koufax is really an elite four year period with two all star quality years tacked on roughly. He's about the absolute minimum peak candidate you could ever support and I don't see how a position player with a similar peak is remotely comparable, their impact isn't felt as much. (heck I don't think I could see a post 1985 starting pitcher with a similar peak relative to his peers garnering that much support---Koufax timed it perfectly, great years when pitching was arguably the most important part of the game since the end of the dead ball era)
   53. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:15 PM (#3885802)

According to Francesa, Blyleven wasn't dominant and didn't "feel like a Hall of Famer" when he was playing. Francesa looks for dominance. "For example... Catfish. He was dominant. All of those 20-win seasons. Blyleven had a nice curveball but wasn't dominant. I never thought I was looking at a Hall of Famer. Look at Sandy Koufax. Koufax was the best pitcher ever at his peak. Mussina? No, he's not a Hall of Famer. Neither is Pettitte."


Don't have them with me, but I have plenty of books from the 70's in which Bert is called dominant, mostly in regards to his curveball.(of course I also have books that actually use the word feared in regards to both Parker and Rice) There are also talk of his disappointing performances sprinkled throughout, indicating to me that he was at least a well thought of talent that underperformed. Of course there are several quotes from batters about how tough he was to hit. The funny thing is I don't think I have ever read someone saying that Morris was tough to hit.
   54. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:24 PM (#3885804)
The funny thing is I don't think I have ever read someone saying that Morris was tough to hit.


A three-second Google search would have shown someone three results from the top

Disco Dan Ford, 2003:

The toughest pitcher for me to hit was Ron Guidry. Also Jack Morris was hard too. Best pitcher I saw was Jim Hunter.He was always around the plate. Best hitter…there were a few…Rod Carew, Puckett, and you could put Mattingly in there also. Think he should be in the HOF.

I guess Dan Ford was blinded and deluded by teh wins, too.

An honest effort by anti-Morris people would see them finding these things before they go rambling on about stupid #### they have no clue about.
   55. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:26 PM (#3885807)
And Koufax's peak is bested by, for starters, Pedro/Clemens/Johnson/Maddux.

OTOH Koufax's postseason performances leave those four in the dust, even if you adjust for era. And while their ERA's went up in the postseason, Koufax's went down by about 65%:

Regular season / postseason ERA

Koufax 2.76 / 0.95

Pedro 2.93 / 3.46

Maddux 3.16 / 3.27

Johnson 3.29 / 3.50

Clemens 3.12 / 3.75
   56. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:29 PM (#3885808)
In boxing some guys seem to completely fall off the cliff after one last epic effort. Ken Norton's 15 round squeaker loss to Larry Holmes in 1978, Tom Sharkey's 25 round torture test against Jim Jeffries in 1899, Ezzard Charles' twin brawls with Rocky Marciano in 1954, etc. They throw everything they have in one last valiant effort and seemingly deplete their reserves forever.


I have a theory that is probably not true over all, but it seems to be true on select cases(too bad it's not predictive) that a once great player who is declining, at around age 36, has a bounce back year before finally falling off the cliff. There are plenty of examples to back it up, but of course there are plenty of counter examples too. (I'm actually afraid that Berkman may be one of those examples this year.)

It could be following your line of reasoning about putting it all into one valiant effort.
   57. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#3885816)
sorry, I meant someone actually good. Disco Dan Ford? he faced Morris 22 times in his career posted a .313/.421/.375/.796 in comparison to his career line of .270/.324/.427/.750 so Morris took his power numbers away from him.

Yes I do think he was blinded by Morris win totals, you are talking about an interview that happened almost 20 years after his last game. If he would have said Dennis Leonard, the guy who owned him and he faced 55 times in his career, I don't think it would have looked so good for him.

An honest effort by anti-Morris people would see them finding these things before they go rambling on about stupid #### they have no clue about.


and my comment was in reference to books written in 1970's and 1980's. the mystic of Blyleven not being well regarded in his time is revisionistic history that doesn't match the comments written about him at the time. Morris reputation at the time is somewhat what you are talking about in that he found a way to get the win.
   58. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:51 PM (#3885824)
OTOH Koufax's postseason performances leave those four in the dust, even if you adjust for era. And while their ERA's went up in the postseason, Koufax's went down by about 65%:


Did you actually adjust for era? Give Koufax another 50-150 innings and we'll see if his ERA decrease stays at 65%.

Then we can adjust for league, park, and the DH, and see how he looks.

Then we can have him pitch in playoff games when he's in his late 30s/early 40s, instead of just in his late 20s, and see how he looks.
   59. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 06:54 PM (#3885829)
sorry, I meant someone actually good.

Sure you did.

the mystic of Blyleven not being well regarded in his time is revisionistic history that doesn't match the comments written about him at the time. Morris reputation at the time is somewhat what you are talking about in that he found a way to get the win.


Speaking for myself, I kept an open mind about it and have been persuaded that Blyleven was better and a more deserving Hall of Famer than Morris -- irrepective of their contemporary reputations.

Morris's contemporary reputation was that he was one of the best pitchers in baseball, as amply demonstrated and catalogued in a myriad of methods, from a multiplicity of sources. It manifestly was not someone who merely "found a way to get a win."(**) I've never talked about it as that, and it was not that in fact.

(**) Though he did, in fact, win more games than his peers.
   60. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:10 PM (#3885839)
I'll accept a comment from Dan Ford but it would help if it wasn't 20 years after the fact, after reputations were already firmly in place.
   61. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:20 PM (#3885842)
Sure, but it's not as though he was way off. Guidry, Morris, and Hunter fit the categories Ford puts them in pretty well. And if he's just going on reputation, that simply means Morris had a well-established reputation as a guy who was tough to hit that still sticks with Ford 20 years later.
   62. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:21 PM (#3885843)
sorry, I meant someone actually good.

Sure you did


If you think I didn't, then stick to my original comment which is at the time. Dan Ford talking about it 18 years later is hardly a contemporary account, and of course the numbers don't back it up. He was better against Bert Blyleven than Morris so there is that point, but he was crushed by guys like Dennis Leonard, and the best pitcher of the 80's, Dave Stieb(.129 .156 .226 .382) but his memory seems to recall two of the biggest names in the era, neither of which he actually had significant problems against.

Morris contemporary reputation was he was a good guy to have at the top half of the rotation, nobody considered him among the best during the season. He wasn't dominant, he was good. He went out gave you complete games in an era where complete games were disappearing, and he kept a good offense in most games. Jack Morris managed to be a good pitcher for a long time, he was never a great pitcher, he was never dominant, he relied upon his offense to help him rack up a ton of wins, and he kept his team in games giving them a chance to come back. That is it. To say any different is silly.

You point to Stieb and his short career, which is fine, Stieb was better than Morris in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990

Morris in 1986, 1987(and of course from 1977-1979 when Stieb wasn't in the league, only 1979 is notable) (and again in 1991-1994 when Stieb was on his way out)

You then say that Morris was chosen over Stieb for the post season, well yes Stieb had flamed out by then. That is like saying the Orioles would take Jeremy Guthrie over Millwood. It's not about who was the better pitcher in their career, it's about who is the better pitcher now.
   63. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:26 PM (#3885845)
Sure, but it's not as though he was way off. Guidry, Morris, and Hunter fit the categories Ford puts them in pretty well. And if he's just going on reputation, that simply means Morris had and a well-established reputation as a guy who was tough to hit.


Isn't that somewhat circular logic. He is saying something 20 years after the fact that matches up with current reputation of the player, therefore it means that the current reputation must be based upon a well established past reputation?
   64. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#3885847)
You point to Stieb and his short career, which is fine, Stieb was better than Morris in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990

Dave Steib's short career has nothing to do with Jack Morris's Hall of Fame case and I've never said anything of the sort.

You then say that Morris was chosen over Stieb for the post season, well yes Stieb had flamed out by then. That is like saying the Orioles would take Jeremy Guthrie over Millwood. It's not about who was the better pitcher in their career, it's about who is the better pitcher now.


They overlapped one year, in that year Morris was 50 times better at 37 than Steib was at 34, and was obviously called upon for greater post-season duty -- Cito Gaston not being batshit insane and all. I'm not sure I even realized that until now, and it also has nothing to do with Jack Morris's Hall of Fame case.
   65. T.J. Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:32 PM (#3885853)
SBB: If Morris was coming up big when it counted (let's say a 2.90 ERA), WTF was he doing when he didn't think it counted?


Option J. No, seriously!
   66. Sweatpants Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#3885856)
Name the two pitchers who won game 7 of the World Series one year and lost game 7 the next year.


Gibson, 67 and 68

and Burdette 57 and 58
Walter Johnson did this in 1924-25, too.
   67. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:48 PM (#3885862)
They overlapped one year, in that year Morris was 50 times better at 37 than Steib was at 34, and was obviously called upon for greater post-season duty -- Cito Gaston not being batshit insane and all. I'm not sure I even realized that until now, and it also has nothing to do with Jack Morris's Hall of Fame case.


In the past you have pointed to Jack Morris 1. opening day starts as evidence of his reputation as dominance. 2.that Stieb was not selected over Morris is indication of his(Morris) reputation. Neither of them are evidence of the sort, but you have pointed to them in the past. (unless I'm confusing Tommy with you, which is possible although you are much smarter, more coherent and saner than Tommy)

You have been able to convince me to give Morris bonus credit, which allows me to rate him as a 110 era+ pitcher instead of a 105, it's not enough to get him into the hof, but it moves him probably from being top 150 pitcher of all time, to the cusp of top 125 of all time. It's still not enough to put him in the hall without opening the doors to Stieb(the best pitcher of the 80's) and three dozen other pitchers(at least).
   68. Jeff R., P***y Mainlander Posted: July 26, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#3885863)
Morris pretty clearly ran out of gas in the 1992 postseason, at the end of a heavy-workload career marked by high-caliber work and elan. He wouldn't be "clutch" if he walked out on the mound today, either.


He went 21-6 in the regular season. I mean, it wasn't like he was 10-15 and stumbling to the postseason.

The Metrodome was rockin' in 1991, no doubt about that. I can't imagine pitching in that atmosphere. That said, SkyDome was pretty crazy too in '92, what with an entire freaking country watching every pitch. It would have been a hell of a story if Jack couldn't had one last stellar postseason, instead of crapping the bed in every start.
   69. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 26, 2011 at 08:04 PM (#3885866)
OTOH Koufax's postseason performances leave those four in the dust, even if you adjust for era. And while their ERA's went up in the postseason, Koufax's went down by about 65%:

Did you actually adjust for era? Give Koufax another 50-150 innings and we'll see if his ERA decrease stays at 65%.

Then we can adjust for league, park, and the DH, and see how he looks.


I said that they were unadjusted, since I don't know of an easy converter for postseason stats. But they're certainly far enough ahead of the other 4 that you couldn't adjust them enough to put Koufax behind any of them.

And of course I'm talking about the postseason only. By any other standard other than the "Who would you want for one game?" Koufax doesn't measure up to any of the others, but that's so obvious I wouldn't think I've have to mention it.

Then we can have him pitch in playoff games when he's in his late 30s/early 40s, instead of just in his late 20s, and see how he looks.

Obviously we can't do that, but we can see how those others performed in the postseason up through age 30. Johnson didn't get there till he was 31, but the others did, and here's how they stacked up to Koufax:

Koufax 1949-66 - 8 games (7 starts), 57 IP, 0.95 ERA

Pedro 1998-99 - 4 games (3 starts), 24 IP, 1.13 ERA

Maddux 1989-96 - 14 games (all starts), 95 IP, 3.51 ERA

Clemens 1986-90 - 8 games (all starts), 48.2 IP, 3.88 ERA
   70. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 26, 2011 at 08:08 PM (#3885868)
Name the two pitchers who won game 7 of the World Series one year and lost game 7 the next year.

Gibson, 67 and 68

and Burdette 57 and 58


Walter Johnson did this in 1924-25, too.

Good point, Sweatpants, though I should have said "started and won", since Johnson's win in '24 was in late inning relief, after he lost his only two starts.
   71. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 26, 2011 at 08:41 PM (#3885878)
I'm no fan of SugarBear Blanks's rhetorical style, but the treatment of Jack Morris around here is pretty comical compared to the rest of the baseball media landscape. Like Jim Rice, I'm sure he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but if this was my only source of information I'd think Morris's reputation was somewhere between Bartolo Colon and Erik Bedard.

Because I started following baseball in October of 1986, I remember Parker's time with those teams, but not his time with the Reds or Pirates.

Likewise, my mental image of both Eddie Murray and Dave Winfield displays them as Indians.
   72. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2011 at 09:40 PM (#3885905)
I'm no fan of SugarBear Blanks's rhetorical style, but the treatment of Jack Morris around here is pretty comical compared to the rest of the baseball media landscape. Like Jim Rice, I'm sure he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but if this was my only source of information I'd think Morris's reputation was somewhere between Bartolo Colon and Erik Bedard.


I don't see a problem with that comparison, the Colon one, not the Bedard one. Colon has an 8 year stretch where he posted 135-75 record, with a 119 era+ over 1725 ip. Morris has a 7 year stretch(going beyond that hurts his numbers) where he posted a 125-77 record with a 117 era+ over 1788 innings. Over the rest of his career it's 2100 ip at 94 era+ with two good seasons and a bunch of poor or below average---basically his remaining career is equivalent to Mike Krukow's entire career.

Morris is a borderline ace level pitcher who was healthy for a long period of time, who pitched complete games in an era where complete games were going by the wayside(he has 133 complete games in the 80's---in comparison Stieb, the best pitcher of the 80's had 92 in one fewer start, and only Fernando broke 100 complete games--of course Stieb, Fernando, Hershiser, Welch Blyleven and Clemens all had more shutouts than Morris)
   73. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: July 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM (#3885935)
Saying that Blyleven had a "nice curveball" is like saying Warren Buffett has a "nice portfolio".
   74. Steve Treder Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:03 AM (#3885989)
Saying that Blyleven had a "nice curveball" is like saying Warren Buffett has a "nice portfolio".

Marilyn Monroe had a "nice figure."
   75. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:09 AM (#3885995)
I don't know if the analogy to Norma Jeane holds, Steve. A "nice" figure, yes. But not a great one. She
seems kind of heavy for a supermodel, at least when judged by the standards of today.

Pfft. I just realized that I've outlived her.
   76. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:25 AM (#3886009)
From 1986-1991 Parker racked up 3568 PAs and according to Baseball Reference -0.3 WAR during that time.


And here's where I call bullsh!t on WAR. In those six years, Parker made three All-Star teams, won two Silver Sluggers, and got MVP votes three times (5th in '86, 11th in '89, and 16th in '90). OK, so he was below average on defense. No way the average MLB team had a replacement option in their organization available that was capable of running off +0.3 WAR on Parker during those years.
   77. Jeff R., P***y Mainlander Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:28 AM (#3886011)
They overlapped one year, in that year Morris was 50 times better at 37 than Steib was at 34, and was obviously called upon for greater post-season duty -- Cito Gaston not being batshit insane and all


Yeah, no. Cito was pretty stupid setting up his '92 post-season rotation. Cito was always the king of throwing players into the starting rotation/lineup and letting them go based on previous reputation. Morris was 21-6/4.04 as the "Ace" of the staff, while Jimmy Key went 13-13/3.53 and Juan Guzman went 16-5/2.64. Can you guess who pitched well in their post-season starts and who lost or was bailed out of all of theirs?
   78. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:38 AM (#3886022)
the treatment of Jack Morris around here is pretty comical compared to the rest of the baseball media landscape. Like Jim Rice, I'm sure he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but if this was my only source of information I'd think Morris's reputation was somewhere between Bartolo Colon and Erik Bedard.

I don't see a problem with that comparison, the Colon one, not the Bedard one. Colon has an 8 year stretch where he posted 135-75 record, with a 119 era+ over 1725 ip. Morris has a 7 year stretch(going beyond that hurts his numbers) where he posted a 125-77 record with a 117 era+ over 1788 innings. Over the rest of his career it's 2100 ip at 94 era+ with two good seasons and a bunch of poor or below average---basically his remaining career is equivalent to Mike Krukow's entire career.

As we said in the 80s, "FACE!" :)
   79. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 12:38 AM (#3886023)
Pfft. I just realized that I've outlived her.


By going on 4 decades, yet.
   80. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 01:21 AM (#3886063)
I have to say, Sugerbear's idiocy and obstinancy on the Morris front have made it essentially impossible for me to take him seriously on any other subject. This has gone beyond the level of blind spot to the point of psychic malfunction.
   81. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 01:39 AM (#3886081)
I have to say, Sugerbear's idiocy and obstinancy on the Morris front have made it essentially impossible for me to take him seriously on any other subject. This has gone beyond the level of blind spot to the point of psychic malfunction.


It's bad, but I don't think it's on radar with his nonsensical Rafael Palmeiro presentation.
   82. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:17 AM (#3886128)
I don't know if the analogy to Norma Jeane holds, Steve. A "nice" figure, yes. But not a great one. She
seems kind of heavy for a supermodel, at least when judged by the standards of today.


So in your opinion, would the "It Gets Better" campaign have made a difference during your teenage years?
   83. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:19 AM (#3886133)
Just to make sure I was giving Ray a fair shake I went and scouted up an online gallery. Frankly, two "hubbas" aren't nearly enough. Perhaps I'm ignoring the caveat of "supermodel", as the term implies a runway fashion model in my mind's eye and has never really been synonymous with "sexiest dame."
   84. baudib Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:24 AM (#3886140)
I think Colon during his (admittedly much briefer) heyday. I watched a ton of baseball during Morris' career and I read TSN, Baseball Digest, etc.

Morris was well-respected, for sure. He's another HOF candidate who was hurt by having one of his best seasons in '81. But really, he wasn't regarded nearly on the same level as say, Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton or Jim Palmer. In the early 1980s, Dave Stieb was nearly universally regarded as the toughest pitcher in the American League. If you want a good comp to a terrific pitcher no one remembers, Morris was probably in a class with guys like Steve Rogers. FWIW, I don't really ever remember anyone putting Bert in the elite class, either.
   85. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:37 AM (#3886165)
Morris is basically Colon plus 2 good years. If Colon puts up 2 years above average but not spectacular, no one would even consider putting him in the HoF.
   86. Walt Davis Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:43 AM (#3886172)
I don't know if the analogy to Norma Jeane holds, Steve. A "nice" figure, yes. But not a great one.

And here's where I call bullsh!t on WAR!
   87. Sweatpants Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:53 AM (#3886180)
Morris is basically Colon plus 2 good years. If Colon puts up 2 years above average but not spectacular, no one would even consider putting him in the HoF.
I would not have guessed that Colon has the lower postseason ERA.
   88. Christopher Linden Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:05 AM (#3886189)
Norma Jean's beauty is not up for debate. She is easily the second most beautiful woman in modern-media history, just ahead of a bartender from Mike's Grill circa 1995 named Marguerite and just behind my current lady friend of a few years. Then again, eye of the beholder and whatnot.

And I second Srul. Looking back, three of the most amazing feats of the 1980s were:

- Dwight Gooden breaks the all-time record for strikeouts per nine innings as a 19-year-old
- Vince Coleman and Rickey Henderson make 100-steal seasons an annual occurrence.
- Dave Parker snorts rock-star levels of blow AND reaches the kind of superfat stratosphere that only Mo Vaughn's Diabetes Across America Tour and a few others have dared match. Hall of Fame-caliber self-destruction, that.

And that's a major shame, because Parker was a singularly talented ball player with a penchant for the spectacular. He took the most consistently ferocious cuts of any high-average hitter in the game, had a legendary rocket arm, and, before perfecting the high art of doing lines at the Burger King drive-thru window, moved astonishingly well for a big man. But to his credit, he pulled himself together and had one hell of a career. Over 15,000 men have played major-league baseball over the past 130+ years and not one in fifty had clearly better careers than Dave Parker's.

Happy Base Ball
   89. Steve Treder Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:09 AM (#3886191)
I don't know if the analogy to Norma Jeane holds, Steve. A "nice" figure, yes. But not a great one.

Oh.

No.
   90. Coot Veal and Cot Deal taste like Old Bay Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:27 AM (#3886201)

Disco Dan Ford


honest-to-christ the only ballplayer I've ever cursed on sight...

the ######## just could NOT take a pitch...
   91. Coot Veal and Cot Deal taste like Old Bay Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:32 AM (#3886206)
deleted 'cause of dumbness
   92. LargeBill Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:36 AM (#3886208)
71. Crispix don't have nothing against Frank McMormick Posted: July 26, 2011 at 04:41 PM (#3885878)

Likewise, my mental image of both Eddie Murray and Dave Winfield displays them as Indians.


Not sure how old (or young) you are, but that's just wrong. Especially regarding Murray. I'm a life long Indians fan and I don't even think of Murray as an Indian. Dude is an Oriole. I think of Eddie I imagine him in the uniform with the ugly bird they had in the 80's. I think of him and Cal. Dave is less indelibly etched in my mind because he moved around a little more, but I think of him mostly as a Padre or Yankee.
   93. RollingWave Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:44 AM (#3886212)
He should blame the Pirates of the last 2 decades really, if they've been playing like the Red Sox over the last decade he'd probably be in.
   94. LargeBill Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:59 AM (#3886215)
Coke is not the reason Parker is not in the Hall of Fame. A few voters might hold a recreation drug history against a player for a year or two, but not enough voters to keep a guy out. A few players have already gotten elected with histories. The knife and fork hurt Parker's career more than coke. I moved to Cincinnati in the late 80's and Parker had a great rep with the local restaurants. He would eat multiple main courses. He was a great athlete and still managed to have a very productive major league career with a few great seasons. If you watched him in the 70's you'd agree with him that he should be in the Hall of Fame. Thing is he didn't continue to play like the guy we saw in the 70's. Despite not taking care of himself he would be basically the average HoF'r.
Black Ink Batting - 26 (70), Average HOFer ? 27
Gray Ink Batting - 145 (99), Average HOFer ? 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 124 (110), Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 42 (144), Average HOFer ? 50

If he were elected we wouldn't be lowering the standards much, but there wasn't an overwhelming case to elect him. He couldn't know it at the time, but the 1981 and 1982 seasons are why he wasn't a more credible HoF candidate.
   95. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:59 AM (#3886216)
He should blame the Pirates of the last 2 decades really, if they've been playing like the Red Sox over the last decade he'd probably be in.


Jim Rice debuted on the ballot in January 1995, at a time when the Red Sox had not reached the postseason in five years, hadn't won a postseason game since 1986, were coming out of the dark ages of the Hobson years and were not expected to contend that season. He got 29.1 percent of the vote that first year, which was a higher percentage than Dave Parker ever received during his time on the ballot.

I know it makes a lovely BTF story that Jim Rice's Hall of Fame path was entirely the creation of an orchestrated Boston media campaign that took an otherwise forgotten ballplayer and turned him into a Hall of Famer. It just happens to be a crock. He started with a percentage where people sometimes make the long slogs toward Cooperstown, like a Goose or a Sutter or Bert.
   96. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:13 AM (#3886220)
Not sure how old (or young) you are, but that's just wrong. Especially regarding Murray.


My mental image of Winfield is Angels/Twins/Jays/Indians.

For Murray it's Indians too. Though (without looking it up) I remember his .330 year as a Dodger, 1990.

EDIT: Checking... Wow. I'd totally forgotten Murray played with the Mets. And returned to Baltimore for an encore at age 40.
   97. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:19 AM (#3886221)
I know it makes a lovely BTF story that Jim Rice's Hall of Fame path was entirely the creation of an orchestrated Boston media campaign that took an otherwise forgotten ballplayer and turned him into a Hall of Famer. It just happens to be a crock.


Huh? This is the BTF story?
   98. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:25 AM (#3886227)
Coke is not the reason Parker is not in the Hall of Fame. A few voters might hold a recreation drug history against a player for a year or two, but not enough voters to keep a guy out.

When people say that coke kept him out, they're referring to the disastrous effect it had on his production, not some kind of blackball. I thought that was pretty obvious.
   99. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:30 AM (#3886231)
When people say that coke kept him out, they're referring to the disastrous effect it had on his production, not some kind of blackball. I thought that was pretty obvious.


I strongly doubt coke has a negative effect on production, except to the extent that it causes work/eating habits to fade. Gooden's performance, for example, suffered from an arm injury, not cocaine use. Strawberry seemed to play well. Molitor. Hernandez.
   100. Morty Causa Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:35 AM (#3886233)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(54 - 10:33am, Nov 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(3 - 10:33am, Nov 22)
Last: bookbook

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(1 - 10:26am, Nov 22)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogRed Sox offer for Pablo Sandoval might be in the lead - Sports - The Boston Globe
(1 - 10:13am, Nov 22)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4118 - 9:28am, Nov 22)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(1 - 9:23am, Nov 22)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(130 - 9:17am, Nov 22)
Last: bob gee

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(11 - 9:15am, Nov 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(34 - 8:31am, Nov 22)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(1 - 8:31am, Nov 22)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(8 - 7:56am, Nov 22)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(14 - 7:52am, Nov 22)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(942 - 4:56am, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(46 - 3:53am, Nov 22)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogPablo Sandoval’s Brother: Red Sox Showed ‘First Class’ Attentiveness | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(16 - 3:10am, Nov 22)
Last: Chip

Page rendered in 1.0001 seconds
52 querie(s) executed