Dave Parker vs. the HOF

by bucdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 10:45 AM EDT Comment 37 comments

I ran an AP story in the paper today in which Dave Parker complains that if Jim Rice can be in the Hall, why can't he? Their offensive stats are somewhat similar, but of course Dave was a far superior defensive player. (I'd argue that if Jim Rice was no better than a guy who threw away five prime years of his career to being a fat druggie he doesn't belong in the Hall, but what's done is done.)

"There are very few who went in recently who were as important to the team as I was. I was always The Guy or one of The Guys ... I was probably one of the most instrumental guys as far as my team having success."

He's right about that, which I'll get to.

Dave's convinced, of course, that his dabbling in drugs is the reason he's being blackballed. I think he's right, but I also think he way understates his involvement. He kind of makes it sound like he was standing on the street one day and someone threw a bag of coke that hit him in the face and he accidentally inhaled.

Not quite. There was an open drug market running in the Pirates clubhouse in those days, and Dave Parker was, in fact, The Guy in that clubhouse. If he gave a sh*t about his career and life and the careers and lives of his teammates, not to mention the integrity of the game and the embarrassment that whole episode caused the team and the game, he could have been "instrumental" in putting a stop to it. He could have gone to management and told them what was going on, rather than facilitating the drug use and setting a fine example for his teammates who didn't have half his talent. He could have been The Guy.

But he didn't because he was right in the middle of it. So: No Hall for you, Dave. I don't care for Jim Rice (see below), who for all I know unloaded the greenie jar down his gullet before he took the field every day, but at the very least he didn't sully himself, his team and his game with the kind of sordid adventures Dave Parker did.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The reason Parker isn't in

is because all the cocaine and triple cheeseburgers destroyed his production from 1980 – 1984, the years that should have been part of his prime. If he’d been sober and in shape during those years he’s have over 3,000 hits and 400 HR and he’d be in, no question.

You made those decisions, Dave, now you get to live with the consequences.

by maguro on Aug 26, 2009 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Parker was and will continue to be one of my favorite Pirates of all time. He made his bead and now he has to lie in it. But, that said, I think it is a little unfair to pin the drug scandal on him. He may have been “THE guy” in the locker room, but he was far from the only guy. No one stepped up, not teammates, managers/coaches, or the FO.

by PensFan024 on Aug 26, 2009 11:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

BucsDaddy....

I find the “morality issues” the toughest ones to judge. Amphetamines, steriods, more explicit illegal drug use…..I don’t have an answer as to where to draw the line.

I guess I would ask you, if Parker didn’t have the drug issue would you vote him in based on his performance?

by dtoddwin on Aug 26, 2009 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No

by bucdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think Rice belongs in, either, so I don’t have a problem here.

by WTM on Aug 26, 2009 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oops, hit send too soon

Rice’s career was made by playing in Fenway. His career OPS was .920 at home and .789 on the road. I don’t have a problem with a big split for a guy who hit 500 HRs or whatever, but with a marginal guy like Rice, the fact that he was just a decent hitter half the time is a killer. I wouldn’t put Parker in because he was similar to a guy who doesn’t belong there anyway.

by WTM on Aug 26, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

It was amazing to watch the Boston and the Red Sox media machine roll during the last year and push for Rice. I mean Dan Shaugnessey was writing about “the most feared hitter of his generation” and crap like that every other day.

Gotta think that Rice is the least deserving guy of the last 30 years. And, Circle Me Bert still isn’t in. Travesty.

by dtoddwin on Aug 26, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's definitely in the conversation.

I was talking to someone the other day, and he brought up Bruce Sutter as another good candidate.

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

what Cooperstown defines a HOF player by, but my definition of a HOFer is a player who performed at an elite level(comparitive to players from the same era). Now I’ve never seen anything other than the Cobra’s ASG @ 3 Rivers(born in 83’), or have his stats, but I believe if he was an elite player, put him in.

What players do off the field is their own business, just like it’’s my business what I do when I’m away from work. Bringing “morality issues” into determining achievements becomes a self righteous debate that most people have no right judging another man’s decisions.

by Danatural08 on Aug 26, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Guidelines:

“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.”

Not particularly useful, as far as this discussion is concerned.

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The sportsmanship and character clauses....

are the ones that many voters use when justifying a no vote for guys like Parker, Raines and Big Mac.

by dtoddwin on Aug 26, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But Parker

wasn’t doing it outside his place of business, on his own time. The drug trade was going down IN his place of business. And he was in a position of leadership and did nothing to discourage it. In fact, he indulged in it. Now if he were a … I dunno, a dishwasher in a restaurant, maybe that’s not such a huge deal. But he had 24 teammates, everyone else in the organization, plus a city and its fans counting on him; he owed them all his best efforts, and his drug use and his fondness for cheeseburgers or whatever he ate, helped cause that to deteriorate prematurely. I mean, Jeez, look at the numbers he put up even in his late 30s and ask yourself how many more wins the team might have managed if he’d been in top shape with a clear mind from 80-84. I know the Pirates were in a pennant race in 1983 down to the last week and that year Dave hit .279/.311/.411 with 12 homers. Think he might have made a difference?

He betrayed himself and his huge talent, but he also betrayed his team and the fans.

by bucdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Problem is he wasn’t doing these things on his own time.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stevemandich.com/uploaded_images/blogparker1-751551.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stevemandich.com/2008/06/happy-birthday-dave.html&usg=__hDyWVpSeUm_0aMKPN86mTAB4RoM=&h=680&w=481&sz=65&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=vjyeuNiVM_rK6M:&tbnh=139&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDave%2BParker%2Bsmoking%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

by PensFan024 on Aug 26, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that didn’t work. Just go to google images and type in “Dave Parker Smoking” the first photo is of the Cobra smokin’ a doobie in the dugout.

by PensFan024 on Aug 26, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would seem strange to me...

…to keep a guy like Parker out solely because of his recreational drug use, if you felt that he was otherwise deserving. The writers were perfectly happy to elect Orlando Cepeda, even though he was arrested for smuggling five pounds of a different recreational drug (i.e. pot) and drew a five-year jail sentence.

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 12:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep.....

It is such a moving marker. I’m sure most people saw Bill James’ article last month where he hypothesized that 30-40 years from now, we will look back and view steroid use very passively as humans continue to try to find ways to increase life expectancy through stem cell research, genetic engineering and, yes, steroids.

The money quote being that all these guys will get in at that point as a cultural shift in attitudes will have taken place. Provocative thought.

by dtoddwin on Aug 26, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are all kinds of inconsistencies.

There’s a big push going on right now to restore Pete Rose’s eligibility, and a lot of his proponents are making a case on the idea that steroid users are worse than gamblers. None of them mention that Pete has admitted to illegally taking amphetamines as a performance enhancer, or that at the time he was betting on games his roommate and bookie was supporting himself by selling steroids.

And then, of course, there are the known PED users already in the Hall. Players from the ‘70s who took “greenies”, like Mays and Aaron and Stargell. And even before that, you’ve got Babe Ruth injecting himself with an extract from sheep testicles, and before that, you’ve got 19th-century star (and Pirate) Pud Galvin experimenting with the Brown-Séquard Elixir, i.e. testosterone extracted from animals such as dogs and guinea pigs.

But thank God we’ve kept all those dirty drug users out of our pristine Hall of Fame!

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No proof Stargell (or Mays) misused drugs

From Stargell’s PPG obitituary:

In September 1985, former teammates Dale Berra and Dave Parker, testifying in highly publicized drug trials, said they got amphetamines from Stargell and Bill Madlock. Though Stargell and Madlock immediately called a press conference to deny those charges, suspicion lingered until March of the following year when Peter Ueberroth, then commissioner of baseball, absolved both of any wrongdoing.

“And I mean any wrongdoing,” Ueberroth said.

Berra, Parker and John Milner would have said anything at the drug trials to save their collective asses. Hundreds of guys shared a club house with Willie Stargell over 18 ML seasons. Everyone but these admitted drug users, who were trying to stay out of jail and on the playing field, deny that they ever saw Stargell do or push drugs. Hell, John Milner claimed at the same trial that WIllie Mays took liquid speed. Mays said it was cough syrup.

What Mays said applies to Stargell too — “It’s a shame that a man can be crucified (by) one statement.”

Liars lie – that’s what they do. Uberroth was a straight up, honorable commissioner — I trust his statement over these druggies. You gotta do better than Dale Berra and Dave Parker if you want to make this lie stick to Willie Stargell.

by WstCstBucco on Aug 26, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Ueberroth was so straight-up and honorable...

…that he acted as the ringleader in the owners’ illegal collusion to hold down salaries between 1985 and 1987, eventually resulting in $280M worth of punitive damages for MLB. Details here, if you need them.

Liars do lie. And that’s why you should take anything Ueberroth says and assume that the opposite is true.

As for the wall of silence around the drug trials, what do you honestly expect? Did you think players would be lining up for the chance to stick a knife into beloved figures like Stargell and Mays? How many players voluntarily came forward to talk about steroid use in the ’90s and name names?

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So in your mind absence of proof is proof? No one but 2 liars trying to escape jail terms and suspension from MLB accused Stargell, but the fact that no one else ever said it somehow proves Stargell used drugs?

And plenty and plenty people have come forward to talk about PED use (their own or others) – a partial list includes José Canseco, Ken Caminiti, Bobby Estalella, 2 Giambi brothers, Gary Sheffield, Tom House, Wally Joyner, David Segui, Jim Leyritz, John Rocker, Paul Byrd, etc. Some, like Canseco and Jason Grimsley, have “named names.”

In 25 years, where’s all the former players wanting to sell their autobiographies that have named Stargell? Not a one. But names of new PED users (a much more recent scandal) are coming out weekly.

Large allegations require large proof. If you wanna come on a Pirates blog and claim as fact that Willie Stargell took drugs in the Pirates clubhouse, you gotta do way better than Dale Berra and Dave Parker.

P.S. What does collusion have to do with Ueberroth’s sterling record on dealing with drug abuse in MLB while commissioner? (Wikipedia gives him credit for prosecuting “a successful and vigilant anti-drug campaign” while commissioner.) MLB owners have been colluding from time immemorial and (probably) continue to do so.

by WstCstBucco on Aug 26, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This isn't the "absence of proof".

Several of Stargell’s teammates testified under oath, and under pain of perjury, that he used and distributed greenies. If they lied about that, and were caught lying, they’d GO TO JAIL. Meanwhile, prosecutors would’ve been perfectly happy with Berra, Milner, Parker, et al not bringing Stargell’s name into it, because there were other players who didn’t name names, and nothing bad happened to them for speaking exclusively about their own drug use.

Nobody came forward with shocking revelations of Stargell using greenies in their autobiographies because, by and large, nobody gives a shit about greenies (and such revalations would hardly have been shocking anyway, after the Drug Trials testimony). Everybody back then was doing it. Jim Bouton wrote all about it in Ball Four. Tom House wrote all about it in pieces like this one. Christ, Ralph Kiner has spoken openly about finding pills lying around the clubhouse, and being given straight Benzedrine by a team trainer (Link). Is Kiner lying, or senile? Everybody did it. Stargell would’ve been weird if he hadn’t done it.

Nobody cares about greenies because the current drug hysteria isn’t about the wrongness of using PEDs to play better baseball, or about the wrongness of using illegal drugs under any circumstances. It’s about certain individuals in the media and the government taking advantage of the opportunity to put the boot in a few times on a few individuals they don’t like, with a bunch of other sorry bastards getting dragged along for the ride. Which is a long and venerable tradition throughout human history, but doesn’t have anything to do with character or the moral timbre of the sport.

Ueberroth lied, openly and repeatedly, over a period of several years, about whether the owners were colluding to hold down salaries. Therefore, he’s not trustworthy, and his endorsement of Stargell isn’t worth spit. Like you said, liars lie.

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last Add

Neither of us are going to convince the other,

But a couple questions:

You said “Several of Stargell’s teammates testified under oath, and under pain of perjury, that he used and distributed greenies.”

Contemporaneous accounts say only Dale Berra and Dave Parker testified to this. Are these two the “several” teammates or do you got more? I wouldn’t trust either as far as I can throw them. And why would the prosecution go after defense witnesses who’s testimony they claimed were irrelevant for perjury — perjury must be material to be actionable.

You also said that Ueberroth “acted as the ringleader in the owners’ illegal collusion.” Can you back this up? Again the accounts just are that he went along (and there was no court testimony at all here). Certainly, there’s proof that collusion occurred both before and after his term. And Fay Vincent as commissioner squarely and very publicly put the blame on the owners for the mid-80’s collusion, and not Ueberroth.

Ueberroth is currently a trustee of the University of Southern California, was appointed in 1993 as the head of Rebuild L.A., is a Director of Coca Cola and Hilton Hotels, and the co-owner of Pebble Beach golf course. In short, he is a man respected by others. Much like Willie Stargell.

And much unlike Dale Berra and Dave Parker.

P.S. I wouldn’t sell Dave Parker a ticket to visit Cooperstown — he destroyed himself. And seeing Dale Berra in the photos for the 20 year anniversary of the ’79 World Champs made me sick.

by WstCstBucco on Aug 26, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you read my Ueberroth link upthread?

The relevant passage (from here):

Peter Ueberroth, Major League Baseball’s sixth Commissioner, got owners started down their ruinous path on October 22, 1985. After eleven straight years of supposed financial losses for the "industry," Ueberroth addressed the owners at the headquarters of Anheuser Busch (courtesy of Gussie Busch, one of the original hard-line owners).
At one point in what amounted to a stern lecture, Ueberroth said, “If I sat each one of you down in front of a red button and a black button and I said, ‘Push the red button and you’d win the World Series but lose $10 million. Push the black button and you would have a $4 million profit and you’d finish in the middle.’ You are so damned dumb. Most of you would push the red button. Look in the mirror and go out and spend big if you want, don’t go out there whining that someone made you do it.”
In closing, Ueberroth told his employers, "I know and you know what’s wrong. You are smart businessmen. You all agree we have a problem. Go solve it."
[…]
A few weeks later at the general managers’ meetings in Tarpon Springs, Florida, Ueberroth hammered home his point, saying, "It’s not smart to sign long-term contracts. They force clubs to want to make similar signings," he said. "Don’t be dumb. We have a five-year agreement with labor."2
What might have been lost on the Lords in the first meeting was made clear in the second: Keep player salaries down. However you have to.

Ueberroth was also the one who created the “information bank” that owners used to share and coordinate information on salary offers that they’d made.

His most famous quote, after the first lawsuit was filed: "They [i.e. the owners] aren’t capable of colluding. They couldn’t agree on what to have for breakfast."

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Berra and Parker were the two.

Milner testified that he got greenies, but didn’t know where they came from, and Lacy was named but didn’t testify. That said, numerous former players have said or written that it was common practice for the veteran leaders of teams to be in charge of procuring the greenies, and Stargell and Madlock certainly would have fit the bill.

Berra’s and Parker’s testimony was material. They testified as to the chain of custody for the illegal drugs. If they’d been lying about Stargell (and Madlock) being the sources, then they would have also been protecting the actual source(s) of the drugs. Which is material in a hearing on, y’know, the scope and origins of drug usage. There would have been very real consequences if they’d been caught in a lie. And if they were going to lie about that, why not lie about other things? Neither man’s testimony exactly covered him in glory, y’know?

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point to me isn’t that Parker’s a bad guy because he used drugs, but that his own performance was significantly degraded because he abused drugs and was out of shape. He was less of a player than he should have been. That’s an on-field issue.

by WTM on Aug 26, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at it this way: Let’s say you have player A and player B. They both finish with nearly identical, borderline-HOF numbers. There’s nothing else especially noteworthy about A and he gets in. B, however, was the worst clutch player of his time. He never, ever came through in a pennant race and hurt his team year after year in September, and all of this can be objectively proven. Wouldn’t that be a reason not to vote B in? Isn’t Parker’s failure to live up to his ability, for reasons directly his fault, during what should have been his prime and at a time when he was his team’s franchise player, an even better case not to vote for him?

by WTM on Aug 26, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems like double-counting to me.

Whatever damage Parker did to his career, it’s already reflected in the numbers. The home runs he didn’t hit and runs he didn’t drive in because he was high are already missing from his stat sheet. They’re what makes him roughly comparable to Rice in the first place, rather than far ahead.

by Vlad on Aug 26, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW

the last (see below) in that post referenced an unflattering remark about Jim Rice that either got cut off when this posted or that Charlie deemed inappropriate. If it was the latter, I apologize.

by bucdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Parker

I’m in the minority camp. I believe Parker falls into the “tough call” category based on statistics alone. Clearly, his behaviors (drugs, food) are hurting his candidacy.

At the same time, I have no doubt if Parker played in Boston on NY he already would be in the hall.

Rice was nowhere near the player Parker was.

by Bernie6666 on Aug 26, 2009 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

To elaborate

His peak of unquestioned greatness is way too short, 1975-79. Look at his OPS+s after that, with the exception of one year they fall off a cliff and he’s just a good offensive ballplayer.

by bucdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Crap

That was supposed to be in reply to dtoddwin’s question, to which I answered, “No.”

by bucdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Parker is a Borderline HOFer based on his numbers. However...

There is a common theme being represented by folks all around the baseball world when discussing this topic that if someone does drugs that they are a scumbag. Cocaine was as open a part of American(not just baseball) culture then as drugs that actually ENHANCE a players performance have been in the very recent past/present. He, just like many other men, went down that slope. He didn’t do the drugs to cause himself, his team, or his sport any harm. But like any other addict he did in fact hurt himself and those that he cared for. That was not the end of his story though. He got clean and he got his life and career back on track. And that , I believe, also deserves some recognition. I remember most of the country was elated to celebrate a similar story last summer; Josh Hamilton’s .

by Jake B on Aug 27, 2009 2:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Y'know

I agree. And while I’ve been ranting about what he did to himself and the hurt he caused himself and his team and his game and his city, in the end I like Dave. He’s a huge personality and he’s funny as hell. And he DID get himself straightened out, and bravo for him. I still think his peak of greatness was too short for an HoFer, and as far as him being a borderline case overall, when you weigh the harm against the good, I think he loses the benefit of the doubt. As far as cocaine being an “open part of the culture”: It was illegal. Period.

And when I applied for a job with the FBI, and the questionnaire asked “Have you ever used illegal substances?” and I figured, they probably know anyway, and wrote, “Yes, marijuana, 20 years ago,” they weren’t interested in admitting me either.

by bucdaddy on Aug 27, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pat at WHYGAVS

has a post up about this on his site and at FanHouse that’s worth reading, though he doesn’t draw a conclusion.

by bucdaddy on Aug 27, 2009 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Vlad/Bucdaddy et al.

I enjoyed reading through all the comments here. You guys really posted some good stuff.

I really don’t know what to think anymore about all this drug stuff in baseball, how far it goes back, who did what etc.

There’s a new book out about Cooperstown-and dang it I can’t remember the author’s name and where I read the review-in which he contends that even Mickey Mantle was on the juice during his HR race with Roger Maris. He says that Mantle got an abscess on his buttocks from an injection of ’roids that caused him to miss some games that season.

As far as Parker for the HOF goes, I don’t think he belongs there for the many reasons listed by those above.

by patthatt on Aug 27, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs