Jack Clark or Dave Parker?

[sweaver]

Who was better, Clark or Parker?

.

Great poll!

I’ve got these guys on my list with Clark sorting overall about a nostril ahead of Parker. TB’s got Parker at a 21.5 TPR, Clark at 30.7. That’s pretty far apart. Moreover, Clark played 580 games at first base, and TB dings the heck out of first basemen; so that would seem to increase Clark’s edge over Parker. Clark hit righty, Parker lefty; so Clark had to overcome a greater platoon disadvantage than did Parker. Both were cruddy base stealers; but Parker has to take the ding I think because he was more frequently cruddy. As right fielders, Parker gets a slight nod; but that’s not why either were on the payroll.

Both played in near identical run environments, so a cross-era looksee won’t reveal much here.

While Clark lasted 18 seasons and Parker 19, Dave played in 472 more games, had a few thousand more plate appearances, nearly 900 more hits. Clark’s a big fat what-if because of all the time he lost to injury. Home run count: Identical: Clark 340, Parker 339. Slugging, roughly the same: Clark .476; Parker .471. Parker gets Clark for BA .290 to .267. But Clark wallops Parker for OBA .383 to .342, which tells me Clark had the better eye, that Parker was the less disciplined hitter.

Clark was part of two championships, although still missing 30+ games in each of those seasons. Parker was part of five championships, an instrumental regular in three of those seasons, a contributor in the other two.

Strictly by the numbers Clark was more potent when he played. But time on the field is the tough issue for him. Except for ‘81 and ‘82, Parker was about always in the game.

Parker’s 2,712 hits lets him wipe his feet on the HoF welcome mat. But if Dave goes in, he’d have to follow Jack. I’m not seeing that happening.

Question: What’s the plus-minus adjustment for snottiness?

Unadjusted -- maybe maladjusted -- I have to vote Clark.

What are these guys’ RCAAs and Win Shares?

.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted for Parker, period, before reading Batman's analysis, which was interesting.

I certainly thought Parker had a higher peak. From 1977-79, Parker was generally regarded as the best player in baseball. Now that observation may not be substantiated by the numbers, but that was the opinion of those who watched him play. Clark was never viewed with such esteem, in part because he was oft-injured, and in part because he was, at times, a malcontent.

I believe Parker had more defensive value in RF, for what it's worth.

Both could have had HOF careers. I think Parker is closer on that score as well

[Wolf Hopper]

Jack Clark had 5 seasons of 35+ RCAA.

Dave Parker only did it 3 times.

Parker was better in the field. This is close for me. I need more time to decide.

[pathogan]

...close,very close.Clark put up huge #'s in the old cavernous Busch,Parker was a good Rf,both pains in the neck...toss up

[nyy26wc]

Clear victory for Clark

RCAA
Clark: 385
Parker: 242

OBA vs. league
Clark: +.049
Parker: +.008

SLG vs. league
Clark: +.085
Parker: +.080

OPS vs. league
ClarkL +.133
Parker: +.088

OWP
Clark: .654
Parker: .577

RC/G vs. league
Clark:+1.87
Parker: +1.01

HR vs. league
Clark: +186
Parker: +136

.

I’m solid that Clark’s the right answer, but I really don’t like the guy. So I’ll throw up -- I mean POST -- a stat line that may stimulate a better case for Parker.

From B-R --

Parker v. Clark, 162 Game Avg.:

    AB   R  H  2B 3B HR RBI SB CS  BB  SO  BA   OBP  SLG  TB IBB HBP GDP
P. 615  84 178 35  5 22  98 10  7  45 101 .290 .339 .471 289  11   4  14
C. 556  91 148 27  3 28  96  6  5 103 117 .267 .379 .476 265  10   2  14

.

[gyb13]

I voted JC over DP, though James thinks Parker's defense gives him the nod:

Win Shares:
Parker 327 (118th all-time) - 281.7 batting
Clark 316 (138th all-time) - 289.1 batting

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Clear victory for Clark

RCAA
Clark: 385
Parker: 242

OBA vs. league
Clark: +.049
Parker: +.008

SLG vs. league
Clark: +.085
Parker: +.080

OPS vs. league
ClarkL +.133
Parker: +.088

OWP
Clark: .654
Parker: .577

RC/G vs. league
Clark:+1.87
Parker: +1.01

HR vs. league
Clark: +186
Parker: +136

I disagree. There's nothing "clear" about it. I voted Clark for peak, Parker for career because the numbers listed above utterly ignore two areas Parker wins hands down - defense and longevity. Overall, that makes his career more valuable, though Clark had better individual seasons.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

I disagree. There's nothing "clear" about it. I voted Clark for peak, Parker for career because the numbers listed above utterly ignore two areas Parker wins hands down - defense and longevity. Overall, that makes his career more valuable, though Clark had better individual seasons.

Longevity isn't an asset for Parker in this situation.

Parker had 1929 more plate appearances and made 1707 more outs.

So, in order for that to better, one would have to come to conclusion that Clark would have been a better player if he had an extra 1929 plate appearances in which he had a .115 OBA and -143 RCAA.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Longevity isn't an asset for Parker in this situation.

Parker had 1929 more plate appearances and made 1707 more outs.

So, in order for that to better, one would have to come to conclusion that Clark would have been a better player if he had an extra 1929 plate appearances in which he had a .115 OBA and -143 RCAA.

That's too simplistic, and you know it. We don't know how good or bad Clark would have been in those extra games because HE DIDN'T PLAY THEM. Parker did, thus keeping some replacement level guy off the field for nearly 500 games more than Clark did. There's value in that, and until someone invents a time machine so Clark can go back to 1993 and continue his career through age 40, that value favors Parker. Throw in the defense and the fact that his teams actually WON something and I would take Parker if I had to have just one of their careers. (Though, as people, I wouldn't want either of them on my team.)

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

That's too simplistic, and you know it. We don't know how good or bad Clark would have been in those extra games because HE DIDN'T PLAY THEM. Parker did, thus keeping some replacement level guy off the field for nearly 500 games more than Clark did. There's value in that, and until someone invents a time machine so Clark can go back to 1993 and continue his career through age 40, that value favors Parker. Throw in the defense and I would take Parker if I had to have just one of their careers. (Though, as people, I wouldn't want either of them on my team.)

But, we do know that, if we subtract Parker's totals from Clark's, to get what Parker did in his "extra time" in the majors, it's the equivalent of him being a few steps below terrible over the equivalent of a several year period.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

That's too simplistic, and you know it.

And don't tell me what I know.

99.999% of the time that somebody says "you know it", "you know that", "don't you know", they will tell me something that not only don't I know, the reason why I don't know it is because they are going to tell me something that I don't agree with.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

But, we do know that, if we subtract Parker's totals from Clark's, to get what Parker did in his "extra time" in the majors, it's the equivalent of him being a few steps below terrible over the equivalent of a several year period.

And we also know that Parker being terrible for that time was BETTER than what Clark contributed, which was nothing.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

And don't tell me what I know.

99.999% of the time that somebody says "you know it", "you know that", "don't you know", they will tell me something that not only don't I know, the reason why I don't know it is because they are going to tell me something that I don't agree with.

Sorry Lee, I didn't know that pointing out that focusing on offense only is an overly simplistic view of baseball would upset you.