Jack Clark or Dave Parker?

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

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

I do not focus only on offense. I give defense the weight I believe it deserves, which is very low.

[Wolf Hopper]

Seeing all the numbers, I'm voting for the Ripper now.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

I do not focus only on offense. I give defense the weight I believe it deserves, which is very low.

Fine with me, I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to express my view. In the future, could actually mention that in your posts, particularly after someone else raises the issue? All I saw was a focus on offensive numbers and no mention at all of anything else. That's where the "too simplistic" comment came from, which I still stand by. From your last post, it looks like you recognize it too, you just hadn't mentioned until now that you considered it but didn't feel it was enough to offset an offensive advantage.

[sweaver]

The behavior in this thread does not meet the NetShrine standards. Please refer to them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

Seeing all the numbers, I'm voting for the Ripper now.

The statistical evidence seems clear that Clark was the better player.

This is hard for me to accept, in that I understood Parker to be the best player in baseball from 1977-79. However, 1980-83 happened, and he really fell off, thanks to his little "time out for drugs" period.

The stats quoted in this thread do not, in my opinion, accurately factor in the injury time Clark incurred. This begs a question: If you have two (2) players, one of whom plays 160 games, while the other player plays 120 games, with better stats, but absent 40 games, who is more valuble? I am not sure that all of Lee's stats take into account Clark's regularly recurring injuries.

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

Many of these stats listed above do not take into account time on the DL. RC/G vs. league, OWP, OPS vs. league, SLG vs. league, OBA vs. league all do not take into account games missed to injury.

On the other hand, Parker's peak was early and short-lived, his fall was hard, and so the idea that Clark, who was never considered the best player in baseball, as Parker once was, had the better career may be a reflection on the observers of Parker's time from 1977-79, coupled with the idea that Parker, reputation-wise, has lived off a short span of time in his early career to enhance his reputation.

So maybe Clark was better. I'm convinced by this thread that Parker is not a deserving HOFer, at least in comparision to a number of players who are his near contemporaries who are still waiting outside the gates. I do think that Lee's system, while enlightening, does not penalize Clark enough for time on the DL.

[sweaver]

Clark for career, Parker for peak.

As Fuzzy points out, Parker was generally regarded in the late 1970s as the best player in the game. For a year or two there, he very possibly was, and this is an important point. He was a tremendous factor in the Pirates' championship in 1979. He was equally part and parcel to the collapse in the 1980s as drugs swept the Pittsburgh clubhouse, among others.

Clark was more a "little engine" type, never quite as spectacular, but consistently effective. While Parker was more impressive on defense, his defensive skills disintegrated as his speed faded and his strong arm became of less use (remember that laser beam throw in the All-Star Game?) over time. Clark was also a capable right fielder with a good arm in his youth, but his speed also left him by mid-career and he ended up at 1B and DH as Parker eventually drifted to DH.

Clark's injuries must be considered, as he played 140 games in a season just 6 times. He was finished by age 36. While my vision of him with the 1987 Cardinal pennant team is as a veteran on his last legs, he was just 31 then.

Parker batted .283 in 14 WS games, Clark .240 in 7 games in 1985, and his absence in the 1987 postseason may have cost the Cardinals against the Twins.

Parker won three Gold Gloves, 1977-79. It's a close race.

[JamesI]

I guess I'm in the minority here. PArker easily in my opinion.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by sweaver

Clark's injuries must be considered, as he played 140 games in a season just 6 times. He was finished by age 36. While my vision of him with the 1987 Cardinal pennant team is as a veteran on his last legs, he was just 31 then.

Parker batted .283 in 14 WS games, Clark .240 in 7 games in 1985, and his absence in the 1987 postseason may have cost the Cardinals against the Twins.

And Parker's equivalent of a .115 OBA in the extra playing time could have cost his teams some titles in the 7 times in which they finished 2nd.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

The stats quoted in this thread do not, in my opinion, accurately factor in the injury time Clark incurred. This begs a question: If you have two (2) players, one of whom plays 160 games, while the other player plays 120 games, with better stats, but absent 40 games, who is more valuble? I am not sure that all of Lee's stats take into account Clark's regularly recurring injuries.
...

Many of these stats listed above do not take into account time on the DL. RC/G vs. league, OWP, OPS vs. league, SLG vs. league, OBA vs. league all do not take into account games missed to injury.

In a closer case, I'd agree with your criticism of the use of those stats.

There was a recent race for the Babe Ruth Award (possibly Giambi vs. Delgado, in 2000) in which one player was better than the other in just about of the rate stats that I consider, but the other player had more playing time. In that particular case, subtracting one player's stats, in a greater playing time, from the other produced a statline that, while it brought the player down in the rate categories, was still a very productive player. In that case, the fact that remaining time still produced a very productive player was enough to swing the award into the player with more playing time's favor.

Or, let me put another one, making up some numbers--

Player A--1.000 OPS, 160 games
Player B--1.050 OPS, 120 games

Then, let's say that we subtracted A's stats from B and we were left with a stat line that produced a .925 OPS. Since a .925 OPS over the extra 40 games is still a very productive player, I could take A over B, even though his total ratio was lower.

But, in this particular case, I can't see it as even being close.

So maybe Clark was better. I'm convinced by this thread that Parker is not a deserving HOFer, at least in comparision to a number of players who are his near contemporaries who are still waiting outside the gates. I do think that Lee's system, while enlightening, does not penalize Clark enough for time on the DL.

And I just don't think you're penalizing Parker enough for an extreme amount of extra outs compared to the extra number of plate appearances.

[sweaver]

Part of this comes down to the average/replacement debate.

Career WARP3 (which measures from replacement, and includes defense)

Clark 93.8
Parker 88

[TGwynn19]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

And Parker's equivalent of a .115 OBA in the extra playing time could have cost his teams some titles in the 7 times in which they finished 2nd.

Lee,

That simply has never happened. There has never been a player who had a .115 OBA in that playing time. I have no idea why you continue to say this. You use RCAA and RSAA, but when you compare player A to player B you use a baseline comparison. That is not fair. To be fair you must use league replacement value to determine the difference.

.
TGwynn -- League replacement? Not league norm?
.

[TGwynn19]

Originally Posted by Batman

.
TGwynn -- League replacement? or league norm?
.

I guess league norm. but both are very close and I am not sure which is more important.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by TGwynn19

Lee,

That simply has never happened. There has never been a player who had a .115 OBA in that playing time. I have no idea why you continue to say this. You use RCAA and RSAA, but when you compare player A to player B you use a baseline comparison. That is not fair. To be fair you must use league replacement value to determine the difference.

Parker had 1959 more plate appearances and made 1707 more outs. That's an outmaking rate of .885, which is an OBA of .115. That is the equivalent OBA and remains the equivalent OBA, regardless of how many players had that figure.

As far as replacement value, I'm in favor of a federal law prohibiting the use of those words.

As I wrote in my player comments book--

I use league average figures to compare a player to. Other sabermetricians use “replacement level” as their basis for comparison. I can’t stand replacement level and have no use for it.

Replacement level is supposed to be the level of production that a team would get if they had to go outside of the majors to replace the player in question.

But, we shouldn't have to resort to theory to form our assumption as to what a replacement player would do.

Every single player in the major leagues shares the following thing in common—he was a replacement player. Each player has his job because someone who was in the majors lost their spot on the roster to someone who wasn't. So, what's the average level of a "replacement"? It's exactly the league average.

Meanwhile, if “replacement” players really stink, then it would necessarily follow from that premise that the talent level peaked with the first generation of players and then constantly eroded each time someone new came into the league.

Also, comparing a player to a made up awful one asks the wrong question. I’m not interested in trying to estimate how much better a player is than a hypothetical terrible one. And I really doubt that you are interested in that, either. What I’m interested in is trying to determine whether a player helps his team win or lose games, and how much does it that by. Whether a player helps your team win or lose—I’ll bet that’s what you’re really interested in, too.

League average isn’t just some abstract concept, rather it is the level that separates whether a player helps his team win or lose games. If, for example, the league averages 4.81 runs per team per game, like the 2002 AL, it means that a team has to score more than 4.81 runs to win the average game. So, a player who has 4.81 runs created per 27 outs is performing right an average level, not pushing his team more towards winning or losing, while 4.82+ moves his team more towards winning and 4.81 and below moves them more towards losing.

In Win Shares, James wrote—

The fatal error in the method of measuring players as better or worse than .500 is that it forces one into the assumption that value consists in being better than average. That is NOT what constitutes value in baseball. What constitutes value in baseball is being good enough to play at this level. What constitutes value is being good enough to help the team win some games.

In a plus/minus system, below-average players have no value. In real baseball, near-average players have tremendous value. What gives them value?

The fact that you’ll lose if they don’t have them.

Look, every year, pennants races are lost because teams can’t find a .500 pitcher when they need one. They can’t find .500 pitchers, so they send bad pitchers to the mound, and they lose. … [with similar examples given of average hitters].

I feel that I need to respond to this. As much as I admire James, I believe he is so far off base on this issue and that is a fatal flaw to Win Shares.

First, being better than average IS where the real value of a baseball player comes from. Being better than average is what allows a player contribute more to the positive ledger (to wins) than to the negative ledger (losses). Have you ever been consoled by your team’s loss by saying, “Well, our players were good enough to be in the major leagues?” Of course not. Have you ever seen your team finish in last place and were consoled by saying, “Our players were good enough to win some games this year?” I didn’t think so.

Below average players do not have “no value”. They have negative value. But, a player’s negative value can easily be better than another ones. The player can help you in the sense that a worse player would hurt you even more. However, merely being the lesser of two evils doesn’t make that evil a positive.

But, where James was absolutely correct was teams do lose pennant races because they can not find average players. The 2002 Seattle Mariners are the perfect example of this. If the Mariners could have just gotten league average performance, instead of awfulness from three players—Jeff Cirillo, James Baldwin and Paul Abbott, they very well may have successfully defended their divisional title and who knows what they could have done in October.

What a comparison to the league average allows us to see is how much Cirillo, Baldwin and Abbott cost the team. Cirillo’s –20 RCAA, Baldwin’s –19 RSAA, Abbott’s –23 RSAA all indicate how much they were pushing the team in the direction of losing games. To assign some positive numbers to them, when they failed at their job of adding more wins than they cost the team, does not make any sense to me.

So, a player with 0 RCAA, or 0 RSAA isn’t doing nothing. He merely balanced positives and negatives, resulting in no net gain or loss to the team. He certainly did better than a player with a double digit negative RCAA/RSAA and should be seen as a better player than such players. He should be accepted for what is he—average. That’s what the zero shows. To say it shows nothingness is a misinterpretation of what systems based on an average baseline try to measure.

[pwdennis]

I think Clark was better on peak, and some of his peak was masked by the ballparks he played in. Clark was indifferent (at best) on defense whereas Parker had some years, particularly early on, in which he was a very good defender. Neither of these guys is Cooperstown material IMHO