There are any number of ways I could have attacked this. My first instinct was to use snark. I suppose that would be the easiest way to go about it. However, the Hall of Fame deserves more than that and the Veterans Committee voters (as misguided as they may be) deserve more than that. Plus, there is a certain eloquence that gets lost when we devolve into snark.
Michael Lewis wrote “Moneyball” and achieved a level of eloquence that few of us can expect to achieve in our lifetime. Most importantly, he found a way to explain something that is very complex into something entertaining and digestible. In the movie version, the height of the movie was clearly the parking garage scene where Peter Brand (Paul DePeofesta) told Billy Beane the entire plot.
There is an epidemic in and out of the game for people to fail to understand what they are watching. It would be simplistic to compare Dave Parker to Harold Baines. In some value discussions they are similar, but they are really very different. That can be seen when we look at the index, but that is a numerical explanation of a broader problem. The bigger question is where value comes from.
When we view Parker in the rearview mirror we see a dangerous hitter that also had a cannon for an arm. Therefore, some people add A and B and get a grapefruit. While Parker had some highlight reel throws and it was legitimately a gift, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about it’s value. He had 152 outfield assists in 18 seasons. He had seven seasons with ten or more assists.
Sure, focusing on just assists misses the value of a strong arm. Sometimes guys don’t take an extra base because they are afraid of that arm. That matters. What matters a lot more is range and that is something we hardly hear anything about. You prevent far more runs when you get to more balls. Parker didn’t get to as many as others.
Those 2700 hits are important. Those nearly 1500 RBI are important. The nearly 1300 runs scored are important. However, that isn’t the same thing as value. Harold Baines showed us that a player can be average for two decades and accrue numbers. Only things like the index can tell us about value.
Parker: 40.1 BWAR, 41.1 FWAR, 40.6 BWAR10, 40.2 FWAR10 = 162.0 Index
Parker’s numbers are peculiar because we usually don’t see a better peak value than career value. This makes him different than Baines and creates an entirely different picture. We see a picture of a player that was really good for six or seven years, but did little else of value for the rest of his career. Yes, that is worth something, but when we stack that up with other players that enjoyed a decade or more of excellence we find it lacking.
I should note that other systems like JAWS will look at Parker differently because they utilize a seven year peak. That is certainly defensible and they have every right to do that, but I’m still not seeing the career value necessary to make it over the hump. Right field is a jam packed position historically, but even if we compare Parker with the overall HOF median we would see he comes well short of the 220 typical median (the right field median is actually higher). He will eventually come within 70 percent of the right field median score.
To put this in perspective, I usually only profile players within 20 percent (80/120) of the median. In other words, I wouldn’t have even considered Parker for one of my articles unless it was a special “what about” article. He just wasn’t good enough for long enough to make the cut.
Parker: 121 OPS+, -19 Rbaser, .364 rOBA, .610 OW%, 1451 runs created
Each of these numbers fall below the right field median and most of them fall well below them. Runs created will end up being fairly close, but that’s it. Parker just didn’t steal first base often enough. He ends up being most similar to Jim Rice in this regard, but Rice was actually a better defender. In the late 1970s and early 1980s he was one of the more dangerous hitters in the game, but that peak did not last long. We see this historically on any number of occasions.
Parker: -21 Rfield, -14.8 DWAR, -15.9 FG, -11 TZ
He wasn’t even an average right fielder. He just didn’t get to enough balls. This is the crux of the entire Parker problem. There is a difference between the impressiveness or perceived importance of a skill and its actual value. Yes, he had a cannon for an arm, but how many runs did it actually prevent. If it were paired with even above average range it would have been something, but when paired with below average range the entire advantage is negated.
Parker: 36 MVP points, 25 BWAR points, +11 difference
This test actually works in his favor, but we can see that the BBWAA voters inflated his worth while he was playing. This is likely because they also did not understand what value he brought to the team defensively. They saw the arm and added it to gaudy counting numbers offensively and overinflated his worth. Still, the BWAR finish is somewhat impressive and definitely distinguishes him from guys like Baines.
Parker: 122 PA, .647 OPS, 3 HR, 11 Runs, 11 RBI, 1 SB
If Parker had been a playoff demon I might have overlooked some of his shortcomings. After all, his MVP points are impressive. Yes, his Pirates won the 1979 World Series, but he was hardly the reason for that win (at least in the playoffs). I’m not a scrooge when it comes to playoff performance. I wouldn’t torpedo him on the basis of his playoff performance alone, but when you are already lacking it is glaring.
The short truth is that Parker was the least qualified of the major Hall of Fame candidates. The committee did pick the most qualified candidate in Dick Allen, so it wasn’t all bad, but Luis Tiant and Tommy John were much more qualified. The Veterans Committee is a constant one step forward and two steps back because they can’t seem to get out of their own way. The biggest question remains unanswered: who is the best player at any particular position not in the Hall of Fame? Dave Parker was nowhere near the answer to that question in right field, so his selection is an unmitigated failure.
