There’s always a major market (media) push for east/west coast and Chicago teams. It’s mostly positive, …but if you screw up one time, it’s off with their heads.
Agreed. Don’t even get me started on Eli Manning. 
Dave Parker and Dick Allen are in.
I can’t agree with either.
Allen I can buy, barely, despite his lack of counting stats, and having concluded that his negative effect on his teams thanks to his personality have been rather overblown.
Parker only has a short and relatively unspectacular peak, and, on BBRef at least, one of those years is inflated by 25 defensive runs saved, when the two surrounding years were both zero. Jeez. Meanhoo Luis Tiant dies and they still cannot be arsed to honor him.
I don’t agree with Parker, at all. He had four great seasons ('75, '77-'79), two good seasons ('76, '85), and the rest of his career was barely above replacement level. His decline after '79 was largely self-inflicted, AFAICT (cocaine and weight), and while there’s a good human-interest story about his comeback year with the Reds in '85, he simply wasn’t good enough for long enough to be in the Hall.
Allen’s case was at least a little stronger, but he, too, only had six seasons with a 5+ bWAR. BBRef shows that Allen’s JAWS 7-year peak WAR is comparable to that for enshrined third basemen, though he was mostly a first baseman for the second half of his career. My understanding is that he had a reputation as a difficult (or at least intense) player, though it appears that a lot of his teammates liked him.
The problem with these committees is there’s only sixteen guys on them, so a few personal connections, or one influential person, can decide who does or doesn’t get elected.
If the standard is as low as Harold Baines or George Kelly then these guys are pretty clearly above it, but there’s little sense to this anymore.
If one wants to argue Allen wasn’t that much of a jerk and deserves it, or that Parker’s late career WAR understates his value, I can buy that. But why these guys and not Ken Boyer or Luis Tiant? Why do they offer so few choices every year so that someone like Lou Whitaker or Graig Nettles cannot be an alternative?
We’ve also now reaches the point that there are a LOT of guys in the Hall of Fame. That’s inevitable as we keep creating more history, of course, but the number of weird omissions and inclusions, epecially given the steroid exclusions, is now so huge it’s hard to keep track of.
It’s the steroid guys on the one hand, and these borderline guys on the other, which is simply a chasm too far. Dick Allen had about a thid the career that Barry Bonds did, Dave Parker ~ 1/4th, Harold Baines 1/5th; just how much alleged steroid “value” does BB reasonably get shaved off of his career before he clearly ranks at or below these guys?
Neither will draw me to Cooperstown. Perhaps a mashup person, Parker Allen or Allen Parker, would be acceptable.
The ceremony is free for anyone to attend. Bring a chair, an umbrella and some water.
Hell of a precipitous decline, with 6 seasons of 92 or better RBIs after '79 (including consecutive years where he drove in 125 and 116 runs).
Look at Parker’s stats from 1980 to 1983, and compare them to what he did with Pittsburgh from '75 to '79. His performance absolutely, and suddenly, fell off a cliff: he went from a .310+ hitter to a .270 hitter.
He did manage to pull things together once he went to Cincinnati, but except for, arguably, 1985, he wasn’t nearly the same player he once was.
CC and Ichiro are definitely in. Otherwise, seeing a lot of solid “Hall of Very Good” candidates.
From 1974-79 he had a 31.1 WAR and a 146 OPS+, an absolutely dominant stretch. From 80-84, that fell to 3.4 and 106, respectfully.
That is a precipitous decline from “dominant force” to “the very definition of average”.
Odd how “average” players don’t typically churn out all those seasons of 92-100+ RBIs in the latter stages of their careers.
These threads often seem to devolve into expressions of resentment. “Well, I don’t think he/they are deserving. I’m offended. Humph!”.
Personally, I have no problem seeing really good players elected to the Hall of Fame.
His OBP with the Reds was .324. To help your offense score runs it isn’t enough to just drive them in. To have to explain this to someone in the year 2024… If 40 WAR is your threshold, then your Hall of “very good players” would expand to 1,000. Nice tarring with a very broad brush straw man there in your second paragraph too.
I’m not sure you have his stats page up but people are talking about his decline in 1980. Yes, he LATER recovered and drove in a lot of runs, though he wasn’t as good a player as he once was.
Sure, but then my question is why not… without even getting off guys whose names start with D, Dale Murphy? Don Mattingly? Dwight Evans? Dave Stieb? Darrell Evans?
First off, why are you using RBI as your metric of greatness? It’s a truly terrible stat. Great - he managed to hit behind a bunch of guys who got on base - why is that a reflection of individual talent? If he hit just as well but didn’t have the pleasure of having Rickey Henderson, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis and Robin Yount in front of him, how do you measure success? RBI sure ain’t it.
Parker managed to be average late into his career. That’s really valuable - guys who put up a league average line into their age 40 season are really rare. Doesn’t mean they deserve a HOF induction.
Dewey is my counterpoint (yes I am a Red Sox fan sue me). As compared to Parker, he was significantly above average for a longer time, and his peak compares pretty favorably (with his best season 1981 porked by the strike). He got on base a lot more, and I’ll posit that their defense was a push at worst, either way.
But the selection committee couldn’t even be arsed to put him on the ballot.
I’d like Jackmannii to find a HoFer whose ages 29 to 33 seasons were as near-worthless as Parker’s were.
Decided to rewatch the 1979 World Series to revisit Parker.