He was the cure for his teams' disease.

Wow. No posts? I'll start.

So far, it looks like he'll be far from my ballot. I can see a peak voter supporting him (specially if your definition of peak is 5 years or less), but I will be surprised by any support beyond that.

Parker reveals the danger of relying too much ones system. He pops up as super-homable in mine, but that's because it loves his work before the Reagan Administration a bit too much. Usually in my system a kind of wide dispersion of his best seasons. But Parker was so good for five years, relative to his peers in the NL, that everything stacks up in those years. But once you flatten him back out and actually look at his career, it's not nearly HOMable.

The good news is that Parker's a rather extreme example, so I hope he's the exception that proves the rule for my system. There aren't that many guys who have five stud years in a row then are at or below a corner position's average for almost a dozen years thereafter....

Parker had a sterling defensive reputation (largely because of his throwing arm) that doesn't bear up to closer scrutiny. I did a study of right fielders of Parker's era back in the early days of Retrosheet data availability, and Parker was near the bottom of the pack in preventing baserunner advancement. Parker did pile up assists, true, but he also piled up throwing errors, AND he was very good at overthrowing the cutoff man and letting runners advance on the back end.

-- MWE

Pops up right next to Tony Oliva in my spreadsheet. Not bad but not HoM.

A very interesting comparison can be made by looking at Parker versus Jim Rice. Both came up in the mid 70's, were pretty good from the start, were among the best players in baseball from 77 to 79, and trailed off after that, although both continued to play for many years. Both were corner outfielders, and neither had much defensive value, although Parker had a good reputation early in his career.

Parker was probably better in the '70's, but not by as much as some might claim. Rice was clearly better in the '80s than Parker, by a substantial margin. Rice wasn't really a deserving all-star through the decade, but he was still a very useful player. Parker, with one or two exceptions, was not. I don't think either of them are deserving, but I think Rice was pretty clearly better over the course of their careers

I don't think either of them are deserving, but I think Rice was pretty clearly better over the course of their careers.

I totally agree with you. If you just sliced off their 1980s careers and looked at them, you'd think you were looking at two players of wildly disperate talent. Rice had five 120+ OPS+ years, and Parker just the one sore thumb 148 in 1985.

I will have Rice and Parker back to back on my ballot -- Rice ahead.

I actually like Parker better over the course of their careers. Not by much, though.

I will have Rice and Parker back to back on my ballot -- Rice ahead.

Too bad you can't freeze time.

Sansabelt. Cake hat. Mustard yellow. That's a hot uniform.

Boy, Parker's physique changed over time. While I'm old enough to clearly remember Parker in his prime, the bigger image in my mind is what he looked like around 1986. Its like a different guy.

Tim McCarver, as a Mets announcer in the 80's, was actually both funny and insightful. One of my favorite lines I remember is after Parker ran at full speed (for him) after a flyball, the call was, "Parker... on his mule!"

As a kid, I loved Parker on the Bucs. He was fun to watch again once he got traded to Cincy. His bs method of catching flyballs led to Eric Davis getting sucker-punched by Ray Knight. He had a few good years and netted us the great Jose Rijo. His homerun trot, which took about an hour, even had a name: "The Thing". He'd blast one, drop the bat, slowly break into a jog down the 1st base line, then, about 60' from the bag, he'd make a super slow veer way to the right & and pass awfully close to the 1st base dugout before heading back towards the inside corner of the 1st base bag.

I have a great picture of him, Kal Daniels, & Eric Davis---one of my favorite outfields of all time.

Kal Daniels...good times, man. Good times.

We Pirate fans certainly were hoping that Parker could become the heir apparent to Clemente.
He almost started off that way, skill-wise, but it became apparent he had neither the temperment nor the fortitude to follow in Roberto's footsteps.
As I recall, Pirate fans didn't cry much when he was turned loose after 2 sub-par years in 1983. It had only been 4 years since "We are Family"; little did we know that it would be another 6 or 7 years before we won a divison cahmpionship with a completely rebuilt team.
I also remember how absolutely horrible that 1985 team with Hendrick, Madlock and Thompson were to watch. They had completely lost any sense of caring by mid-summer. Truly pathetic!

re: 14

Ah, the memories. Those late 80's Reds teams were a lot of fun. The most fun that 2nd place baseball could ever be. I still remember the night that Ray Knight punched ED, and am still mad about it.

I also remember how absolutely horrible that 1985 team with Hendrick, Madlock and Thompson were to watch. They had completely lost any sense of caring by mid-summer. Truly pathetic!

I've pointed out before how the counterbalanced trades of Hendrick for Tudor, Lapointe (+ Uribe) for Jack Clark were keys to the success of the '85-'87 Cardinals. Stare at that pair of trades long enough an it would seem that the Pirates and Giants could potentially have cut out the middleman and traded Tudor for Clark.

Dave Parker's career with 1980-84 replaced by Brock2:



My question- would that hypothetical drug free player be HOM worthy?

My question- would that hypothetical drug free player be HOM worthy?

By my calculations, that Brock2 fills in the five year gap with OPS+'s of 157,156,146,134,133

1973-79 Actual 3500 PA, 142 OPS+
1980-84 From above 3300 PA, 145 OPS+
1985-91 Actual 4200 PA, 111 OPS+

Total with extrapolation 11000 PA, est OPS+ of 131.

Probably a HOM-er. That's in the neigborhood of Billy Williams level. From the rates above, that's a generous projection. Knocking it down a bit and he's likely still HOM level though (Goslin, Minoso).

Too bad about the mid-career slump.

I still remember the night that Ray Knight punched ED, and am still mad about it.

The Knight/Davis brawl

3 pinch hits in that game. The Rose teams always had a very solid bench.

In my system, Dave Parker (the actual career, no hypotheticals) looks about like Sam Thompson.

11. Andy Posted: March 28, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2319762)

I will have Rice and Parker back to back on my ballot -- Rice ahead.

Too bad you can't freeze time.

That was an interesting cover pic, makes Rice look like an infielder next to Big Dave. Bo Jackson was a powerful build for a baseball player, but if I could find that photo I had of him standing by the cage with John Mayberry, you might think he was a middle infielder.

Dave Parker's career with 1980-84 replaced by Brock2

The version I came up with here is very, very close to that: 2623 games, 2989 hits, 410 HRs, 130 OPS+.

The version I came up with here is very, very close to that: 2623 games, 2989 hits, 410 HRs, 130 OPS+.

Of course, he never would have attempted to get those 11 other hits. ;-)

He was the cure for his teams' disease.

I am a little surprised that I got this joke. I am far more surprised that someone bothered to make it.

I am far more surprised that someone bothered to make it.

Killjoy. ;-)

I saw nearly all of his games while he was in Pittsburgh. We all know his stats, so I will talk about some other things. I was very much a Parker fan and he was an extremely exciting player to watch. Even to this day, there is no one that I have seen that exceeds his aggressiveness on the basepaths. Parker ran ALL-OUT-HARD on even routine comebackers to the mound. He jumped at stretching singles to doubles or taking an extra base whenever a situation afforded a chance. And as cocky and arrogant as he was, Parker was an outstanding team-mate in the clubhouse and especially on the field. I can't tell you how many times he was the first pirate off the bench to defend a fellow team-mate. Parker was a leader with a natural ability to take charge. However, he is not a HOFr in my opinion. He simply wasted a good 5-7 years of mid-career performance. To his credit, he was able to overcome and have some very solid years later on.

He did have one of the most powerful arms (though erratic at times) I have ever seen. Still, I saw Clemente make a laser throw at the age of 38 that was better than anything I ever saw from Parker ...even the 1979 all star game throws. Clemente had a much, much faster catch-and-release time and his throws cut through the air much quicker than Parker's throws. The two men briefly met at training camp in 1971-72 ...it would have been something to have had Clemente mentor the young Dave Parker beyond 1972. Perhaps then Parker would not have wasted his mid-years and he would be a valid HOF'r.