Lance Parrish hit a lot of homeruns. It caused him to be a little above average hitter for his career overall. At his peak he was at his best a good hitter as he didn’t hit for average and didn’t walk much. He usually wasn’t a great doubles hitter either, having two seasons where he had more than 30.
I looked it up and for his career Parrish was rated at catcher as an above average fielder. However, he wasn’t a great fielder and had a few years below average. I was surprised Parrish had only one year above 5.0 WAR and so compared him to Munson, who I have as the number 20 catcher. Munson had four seasons with more than 5.0 WAR and one those was above 6.
I also noticed Parrish had more runs than Munson on defense above average. I know Parrish had more playing time than Munson to accumulate more, but he also had more playing time in his declining years when he could and often was below .500 as a catcher. I looked like Baseball Reference WAR rates Parrish and Munson as about equal in their peak. However, Munson had a better defensive reputation. I also, believe no system now is close to rating catchers correctly.
So, that is why I selected Munson ahead of Parrish for my Hall of Fame even though I have Parrish rated higher. I could include prime more which would have helped Munson which could work. However, I’m happy with my formula and don’t plan on making any changes in the near future. I don’t believe it is a conflict that I have Parrish rated ahead of Munson, but consider Munson the Hall of Famer. However, I would have no problem if Parrish made the hall before Munson.