There are already more right fielders in the Hall of Fame than any other position, with the obvious exception of pitchers. It's difficult, then, to argue that we should induct any more, at least not those that are borderline.
That's a fair argument. If we slap the "Hall of Famer" label on every player who was merely very good, we're quickly going to run out of room in Cooperstown.
Despite that, I would vote for not one, but two right fielders on this year's ballot.
Andre Dawson and Dave Parker are both worthy of selection. You simply can't argue with their numbers compared to the group of right fielders that have already been enshrined. As a group, the 22 men currently in the Hall averaged 2241 games, 8316 at bats, 1474 runs scored, 2573 hits, 259 home runs, 1345 RBI, a .309 batting average and a .869 OPS. Among those that played in the Gold Glove era, they averaged about 5 awards each. They averaged 10 All-Star appearances and 5 top-10 MVP finishes.
Now look at Dawson - 2627 games, 9927 at bats, 1373 runs scored, 2774 hits, 438 home runs, 1591 RBI, .279 average, .805 OPS, 8 Gold Gloves, 8 All-Star games, 4 top-10 MVP finishes. With the exception of batting average and OPS, he compares very favorably. Granted, those are two significant areas in which he falls short, but when you factor in his exceptional work ethic and professionalism and his ability to play through pain and injury, he makes the cut.
Parker is a very thin cut below Dawson, mostly due to defense, but he's still qualified - 2466 games, 9358 at bats, 1272 runs scored, 2712 hits, 339 home runs, 1493 RBI, .290 average, .810 OPS, 3 Gold Gloves, 7 All-Star games, and 6 top-10 MVP finishes. He was not quite as good a defensive player as Dawson, who was exceptional, and he had some notorious off-field issues that embarrassed his team and the game as a whole, so Parker doesn't rank quite as high. I wouldn't necessarily blame the BBWAA for keeping him out (which I fully expect at this point since he's languished on the ballot for 6 years now).
There was one factor that clinched it for me when I decided that each man was worthy. There have been A LOT of poor selections among the right fielders who are currently enshrined. I could make an argument that nine of the 22 - Kiki Cuyler, Elmer Flick, Harry Hooper, Willie Keeler, King Kelly, Tommy McCarthy, Sam Rice, Enos Slaughter and Ross Youngs - should never have been elected. I decided to exclude these nine and re-calculate the average numbers for the remaining right fielders in the Hall. If Dawson and Parker still stacked up well, I would support them.
Well, they do. The remaining 13 Hall of Fame right fielders - and we're talking cream of the crop here with the likes of Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, and Ruth included - had the following averages: 2521 games, 9227 at bats, 1617 runs scored, 2845 hits, 389 home runs, 1652 RBI, .308 average, .902 OPS, 6 Gold Gloves, 11 All-Star selections, and 6 top-10 MVP finishes. That's ten categories, albeit arbitrary ones that I chose because they seem to be the ones most frequently cited by actual voters. Dawson exceeds 4 of them; Parker 1 (though he tied another). That really clinched it for Dawson. If you're exceeding this group of Hall of Famers in 40% of the measurements and comparing fairly well in most of the others, well, you belong.
It made Parker a tougher call, until I factored in one final thing. Parker played in an era much less conducive to offense than most of the Hall of Famers. During Parker's playing days, a .983 OPS would lead the league, on average. Among the remaining 13 Hall of Famers, only Reggie Jackson (.981) and Sam Crawford (.960) played in periods of lower production. As a group, the Hall of Famers averaged 1.031. That's nearly 50 OPS points, a significant difference, about five percent. If we bump all of Parker's numbers by five percent to account for the difference in eras, he's suddenly right the ballpark with the greats - 2589 games, 9826 at bats, 1336 runs, 2848 hits, 356 home runs, 1568 RBI, .305 average, .851 OPS. Granted, it's a stretch to bump all of his numbers based solely on this difference, but we do have to make some adjustment in Parker's favor in order to be fair. Five percent seems about fair.
No, Parker wasn't as good as most of the 13 right fielders we compared him to. But these are the greatest right fielders ever, and we know that Parker WAS better than the nine Hall of Famers we culled out. Those nine averaged 1835 games, 7000 at bats, 1267 runs scored, 2180 hits, 71 home runs, 901 RBI, .311 average, and a .807 OPS. I would cut a deal right now in which I withdrew my support of Dave Parker's induction in return for the removal of these nine men from the Hall of Fame. But until that happens, Parker gets my vote.
To take this argument one step further, here are the numbers of another right fielder currently on the outside of the Hall looking in: 2606 games, 8996 at bats, 1470 runs scored, 2446 hits, 385 home runs, 1384 RBI, .272 average, .840 OPS, 8 Gold Gloves, 3 All-Star games, 4 top-10 MVP finishes. He did this in an era when an OPS of just .975 would lead the league, skewed even more drastically against him than in Parker's case. Clearly this guy has a great case. I'd say he has an even better case than Parker, though not quite on a par with Dawson. Still, someone who deserved a great deal of support, right?
Unfortunately, you won't find this man on this year's ballot. Despite an exceptional career that's easily better than about 40% of the right fielders already in the Hall, Dwight Evans never received more than 10% of the vote in any of his years on the ballot. He lasted just three years before being dropped for lack of support.
Hey, maybe he doesn't belong if he can only beat out the 9 guys who shouldn't be there. But they are there, aren't they?
The Hall of Fame has a serious problem on its hands. As long as the voters refuse to recognize players like Parker and Evans, who clearly outperformed a large percentage of the men already enshrined at their position, the distance between the truly deserving and the truly undeserving is going to grow. As election becomes more and more reserved for only the truly exceptional - as it should have been all along - the only new players entering the Hall are going to make the likes of Tommy McCarthy and Ross Youngs look all the more pitiful in comparison.
The proper thing for the Hall to do is hire a panel of experts - true Hall scholars - who can cut through all of the sentimental junk that got many men elected for the wrong reasons. They can study the issue and make recommendations of players that should be removed from the Hall. Personally, I would empower them to actually remove players, but that won't fly with the members or with the Hall itself. But by making formal, studied recommendations of who should be removed, at least there's hope that the very worst - Tommy McCarthy, George Kelly, et al - would finally get the boot.
Until that happens, the Hall is going to have people like me sniping at them every year. Maybe they don't think that's such a bad thing. After all, the debate brings them attention every year.
But the Hall is on the brink of becoming a joke among baseball scholars. That IS a bad thing. I certainly hope they think so too.
» You can read more of Paul's work at www.lostinleftfield.com.
Also by Paul White
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Slot #5, Rich Gossage
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot - The Starters I Left Behind
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Slot #4, Jim Rice
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Trammell & Smith
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Slot #1, Gary Carter
» Happy Birthday Bob Elliott
» 3,000 Hits That Don't Belong in Cooperstown
» Frankie Frisch's Sad Legacy: The Cheapening of The Hall of Fame
» Babe's MVP Snubs
» The Schalk-Schang Redemption: Two Men Who Prove That The Hall of Fame Veterans Committee Was a Sham
» Being Tony Muser
» More submissions
Copyright © 2002 by Paul White. Posted January 10, 2002.
BALLPLAYERS | TEAMS | CHRONOLOGY | TODAY | BOOKS | NEWSLETTER | ERRATA | FAQ
