Dave Parker...HOFer? Jim Rice standard?

[Senser81]

Parker was IMO the NL equivalent to Jim Rice. Most feared hitter of his era who could hit with power and average. Not a very long ride at the top, though. Still, if HOF is about greatness, then I think Parker deserves a look before people completely forget about him.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/parkeda01.shtml

 

[jms493]

Do they have any superbowl ringz? :stonecold:

 

[FedEx227]

I like Parker a lot but I think most people agree Rice is one of the worst HOF (this is of course relative, it's the Hall afterall) and pretty much across the board Rice's numbers are better than Parker. We can't complain about Rice then champion Parker without enough statistical difference or real merit, so I'd say no on Parker.

 

[jms493]

Dave Kingman and Dale Murphy > Parker

 

[Senser81]

Dave Kingman and Dale Murphy > Parker

Parker was a much better all-around player than Kingman, at least.

 

[shag773]

Good all around player, probably the best OF arm I've ever seen. He had some monster years, but was never able to string them together consecutively or consistently. Not a HOF for me.

 

[NAHSTE]

Bill James gave Parker's career a nice overview in his Dwight Evans piece. Pretty odd career trajectory.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Dave Kingman and Dale Murphy > Parker

Dave Kingman was a pretty terrible player. Awful fielder, couldn't hit for average or get on base, didn't run well...basically, all he did was hit HR's.

Parker was a much better player than Jim Rice. Better pure hitter who won multiple batting titles, better raw power, when he was young he could steal bases, and he was a far far superior fielder, who like shag mentioned, may have had the most powerful throwing arm in recent baseball history. And for a feared slugger, Parker didn't strike out much.

Rice couldn't run, was a terrible fielder, and has one of the highest GDP% in baseball history. He was more consistent and durable than Parker. Parker got hurt in his prime, and while he managed to come back at an All Star level for the Reds, and was a very useful DH type late in his career for several teams, he was never the same type of all around threat that he was with the Pirates in the late 70's.

If you were starting a team and both guys were 21, you would take Parker without hesitation. If he hadn't had injury problems, he would have cruised into the hall of fame because from ages 29-34 he lost 4 or 5 prime production years before his "second" career.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Also, Rice was washed up at 34, and Parker had some great seasons past 34, including three All Star games and two top five MVP finishes.

I don't know if Parker is a hall of famer, but I know he was a better player than Rice. Really just a great pure hitter, who despite the injuries didn't lose his stroke until he hit 40.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Should probably also mention that Parker was one of the most high profile coke heads of the ugly MLB coke era, which was quickly forgotten thanks to the steroid era that followed.

 

[FedEx227]

Even if he had the numbers or was borderline his shit attitude and coke addiction probably keeps him out too.

 

[Senser81]

Would you put Parker in the HOF before Dick/Richie Allen?

 

[FedEx227]

I think Dick Allen was way better. I believe he should be in the Hall. In fact Allen is easily one of the better players (statistically) that's not in.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

No.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Of people who are eligible, in my opinion Dick Allen is the most egregious Hall of Fame snub.