Will Clark for Cooperstown

[Brad Harris]

Take a peek in the Stats/Sabermetrics forum at the thread entitled "Bill James and the NHBA Ratings" for more information.

After running some preliminary numbers, if you remove James' opinions as expressed in the subject element (and, often, in the player comments) from the equation, then his ratings system as expressed in the Abstract shows Will Clark to be the 5th-greatest first baseman in history (just behind Gehrig, Dick Allen, Foxx and Bagwell.) I'll say that again.

According to Bill James' formula, Will Clark is the 5th greatest first baseman in history.

That shouts "Hall of Fame" to me, especially considering he's already a solid borderline candidate. If you put any faith in win shares, you've got to agree that Clark is a Hall of Famer.

I was an unsteady supporter of Clark's already, but now that my faith has been reassured, my doubts are gone. :laugh

Hop on board the bandwagon now. Destination Cooperstown, starting in 2006!

[Ram Man]

My opinion? Not a chance.

[rockin500]

no way. he doesnt deserve to be in. i dont care how you crunch bill james' numbers, will clark does not deserve to be in. He was a good player for a number of years, but definitely not hallworthy.

[Biggtone23]

He will be the 3rd best firstbaseman on the ballot that year. . Mattingly and Hernandez are waiting until they make it on to veterans committie ballot and Clark will have to the same and may have to wait until the middle or end of this century when some special committie on late 20th century players takes a look at him

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Biggtone23
He will be the 3rd best firstbaseman on the ballot that year. . Mattingly and Hernandez are waiting until they make it on to veterans committie ballot and Clark will have to the same and may have to wait until the middle or end of this century when some special committie on late 20th century players takes a look at him

Whoa...wherever you want to draw the line for entry to Cooperstown, Will Clark is definately ahead of Don Mattingly in the line. Mattingly has a weaker case.

[The Commissioner]

Chancellor, while I wouldn't necessarily argue with the idea of Clark being a Hall of Famer, the fact that James ranked him as "the 5th greatest first baseman" in history shouldn't be used as a factor. That speaks more to what kind of an "expert" James is than to how great of ballplayer Clark was.

[BoSox Rule]

Originally posted by Chancellor
According to Bill James' formula, Will Clark is the 5th greatest first baseman in history.


Damn, I wan't James as far away possible from the Red Sox after reading that. :laugh

[cubbieinexile]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Take a peek in the Stats/Sabermetrics forum at the thread entitled "Bill James and the NHBA Ratings" for more information.

After running some preliminary numbers, if you remove James' opinions as expressed in the subject element (and, often, in the player comments) from the equation, then his ratings system as expressed in the Abstract shows Will Clark to be the 5th-greatest first baseman in history (just behind Gehrig, Dick Allen, Foxx and Bagwell.) I'll say that again.

According to Bill James' formula, Will Clark is the 5th greatest first baseman in history.

That shouts "Hall of Fame" to me, especially considering he's already a solid borderline candidate. If you put any faith in win shares, you've got to agree that Clark is a Hall of Famer.

I was an unsteady supporter of Clark's already, but now that my faith has been reassured, my doubts are gone. :laugh

Hop on board the bandwagon now. Destination Cooperstown, starting in 2006!

How did Bill James ranks Will Clark as the 5th greatest first basemen of all time? If you look at just Win Shares then Will ranks 11th or 12th. I forget which. While his personal opinion has him ranked 14th.
Plus I think you are doing the Win Shares wrong. If the subjective element is a 50 point system than all of your win shares totals should be within 50 points of the totals Bill James gives. Yours do not. For instance you have Lou Gehrig listed at 160.92 win shares. While James gives him 489 Win Shares. A difference 328 Win Shares. So like I said I think you are calculating wrong.

[cubbieinexile]

One more thing,
The subjective element is part of Win Shares it had to do with the rankings. Meaning your win shares should match up to the ones Bill lists in the book. So for Will Clark you should have gotten 330 not 140. Because the subjective element was something that Bill added after the Win Shares compilation to flesh out the players. For instance a team leader who motivates his team would be more valuable than a sullen player who stays in the back even if they have the same stats. Or if a player lost time to the war this is his way of keeping them from being unfairly penalized.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
How did Bill James ranks Will Clark as the 5th greatest first basemen of all time? If you look at just Win Shares then Will ranks 11th or 12th. I forget which. While his personal opinion has him ranked 14th. Plus I think you are doing the Win Shares wrong. If the subjective element is a 50 point system than all of your win shares totals should be within 50 points of the totals Bill James gives. Yours do not. For instance you have Lou Gehrig listed at 160.92 win shares. While James gives him 489 Win Shares. A difference 328 Win Shares. So like I said I think you are calculating wrong.

Either I you haven't read how his rating system (in the Almanac) worked or I have failed to communicate as much in the other thread.

I went through the first base position - the top 100 players - as rated by James in his Almanac.

Though his ratings are based on the win shares method, they are not based on career win shares.

In fact, James' system heavily favors (to the tune of around 75%) great performers with shorter careers over merely good performers with longer careers (which isn't necessarily wrong.) This is before he makes subjective adjustments for time and place and for the "intangibles."

James uses four criteria, pretty much equally weighted, for the objective side of his ratings. They are:

1. Career value.
2. Average value of three best seasons.
3. Average value of best 5-year run.
4. Career average.

The numbers you are thowing at me are the career totals, not the number James uses to establish his rankings, but only a small part in that equation.

The final number James arrives at doesn't really have a name. He doesn't publish it anywhere. I had to do all the calculations myself based on the component data James did provide in the Almanac.

I'll do Lou Gehrig here so you can understand better.

James ranks Gehrig as the greatest first baseman in history in his Almanac. Let's look at how he arrived at that conclusion.

James has six factors which went into these ratings.

1. Career Value
Lou Gehrig does, indeed, have 489 win shares. As described in the Almanac, James divides that number by ten, with a result of 48.9 and finds the harmonic mean between 25 and 48.9; this gives Gehrig's career value a weight of 33.09.

This doesn't mean Gehrig's career value is 33.09 win shares. It's simply 33.09 in terms of this formula. That number (33.09) represents his career win shares, but it isn't win shares as a unit of measurement.

2. Best 3 Seasons
Found on page 476 of the Almanac, if you don't feel like taking the time to pour through Gehrig's season-by-season totals in Win Shares, Gehrig's 3 best seasons netted totals of 44, 42 and 41 win shares.

That's a total of 127. Divide by 3 and our value for the second component is 42.33.

3. Best 5-year Run
Same page, total of 193 in shares in five consecutive years. This translates into an average of 38.60.

4. Career average
Again, this value is listed on the same page in the Almanac and is given as 36.61.


Add all these components together and you arrive at 150.63; there are two components remaining.

5. Timeline adjustement
James defines this as year of birth minus 1800, divided by 10.

Gehrig was born in 1903. That would give him a timeline adjustment of 10.3.

Add that to our sub-total and we see that Gehrig (minus the sixth and final, subjective element) has a score of 160.93 (I mis-typed it on the other post, where I put 160.92).

This does not say that 160.93 represents 160.93 win shares, but just a rating number of 160.93 which is based on win shares (plus the timeline adjustment.)

Now...what I'm able to do, thanks to what information James has provided is to calculate that 160.93 represents all the data James put into his rankings except for the subjective element (which we know is between 1 and 50 points.)

All I can do is calculate the individual elements and the sub-total without the subjective element.

Personally, I think adding the subjective element to this list was something of a mistake, at least without attempting to defend (in the player comments) what those scores were and why he selected them.

Now...empirically (as this particular win shares-based system suggests), Will Clark rates as the 5th greatest first baseman in history.

What infuriates me is how Will Clark rates significantly higher than Don Mattingly, yet Mattingly is given a higher subjective element to the point that James can say, in the Almanac that Mattingly was better than Clark, but not bother explaining why.

The only conclusion one can draw, from James' own numbers, is that James just thinks/feels he is. And that's too subjective to be included in a stats-based system.

As someone else pointed out (and this is the whole point of my doing this exercise), this should demonstrate, not that win shares is a crummy system per se, but that James' rankings are as biased as yours or mine would be.

However, these are James' numbers.

[yellowdog]

My opinion on Will Clark is that he had a very nice career. He was also a fierce competitor who gave everything he had. A clutch hitter who had one of the sweetest swings for a power hitter I`ve ever seen.

But as far as the HOF, my gut tells me...close, but no cigar.

[cubbieinexile]

Now I see where you got your ratings. But I don't think you can stop before the subjective part to make your case for Will. I understand that Bill leaves out that critical info but to leave that part out in your arguement for Will is wrong. The elements that are subjective in nature are in fact very important to the Hall of Fame voters. For instance World Series performance and Leadership two key qualities for voters. Evidently if your ratings are correct then Bill feels that 6 or 7 players below Will were better at the 5 or 6 elements he was looking at.

Basically what I am saying is that the whole formula should be looked at and examine not part of it. That would be like stopping half way in a algebraic formula. It just doesn't work. For Bill James Rating system it A+B+C+D+E=F, and your stopping at D and calling it a day. I understand why you are doing it, but we also just as easily take A away or B if we wanted too and get different results and use that to make a case for some other player.

I understand that Bill makes it difficult to fully understand his ratings, but I don't think that means his partial answer should be used as evidence for Will's induction.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
Now I see where you got your ratings. But I don't think you can stop before the subjective part to make your case for Will. I understand that Bill leaves out that critical info but to leave that part out in your arguement for Will is wrong. The elements that are subjective in nature are in fact very important to the Hall of Fame voters. For instance World Series performance and Leadership two key qualities for voters. Evidently if your ratings are correct then Bill feels that 6 or 7 players below Will were better at the 5 or 6 elements he was looking at.

Basically what I am saying is that the whole formula should be looked at and examine not part of it. That would be like stopping half way in a algebraic formula. It just doesn't work. For Bill James Rating system it A+B+C+D+E=F, and your stopping at D and calling it a day. I understand why you are doing it, but we also just as easily take A away or B if we wanted too and get different results and use that to make a case for some other player.

I understand that Bill makes it difficult to fully understand his ratings, but I don't think that means his partial answer should be used as evidence for Will's induction.

The only part I'm leaving out is that which cannot be calculated without James providing more information than what he has.

Personally, I believe the criteria of "greatest" should be determined by stats, primarily. Win shares does a great job of removing the relativity of time and place from those numbers and putting everyone on a level playing field. If you've got two players who are 5% apart, say, in the final ranking...then you might apply the subjective content.

James, however, wraps all "intangibles" into one - everything from clutch hitting to post-season performance to time lost to WWII - and gives it a number of his choosing (which, by the way, has the potential of being a larger component than 99.99% of all other individual components for all players so rated).

The point is that Bill James isn't any more qualified than you or I to assign a 1-50 point value to the "subjective" criteria he uses for each of those players. Perhaps James placed a little more emphasis on the value of World Series play while you or I might place a little more emphasis on the importance of being perceived in your own era as being the best in the game? Perhaps James felt that winning a gold glove was more impressive in this regard than leading the league in defensive win shares? Who knows? And that's the point.

Going solely by the evidence that is provided is all I can do and nothing more.

And that makes a whole lot more sense to me than just accepting that "Bill James ranks Will Clark 14th all-time."

[cubbieinexile]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that the rankings are Bill Jame's opinion. But at the beginning of this thread you used Bill Jame's formula to state that Bill Jame's formula has Will Clark as the 5th greatest 1B. You then proceeded to use the partial information to support Will's case for the HOF and blur the lines between (which is where you got me) win shares and ratings. The subjective element is part of the rating system, it is that what cannot be statistically measured by Win Shares. And those things are important. If anything you should fill in blanks with your own opinion on those things that Win Shares do not measure. Follow Bill's criteria for the subjective element and then see where these players land.
Bill never intended his rankings to be based on only the win share element. If he did he would have published that part or put it in the book somewhere. He did not because Bill understands that Win Shares does not cover all the ground that is required to fully rank players.

Finally to look back at your original statement you said that if you have any faith in Win Shares then you got to agree that Will Clark is a HOF'er. I disagree because the ratings even without the subjective element is not Win Shares. It is a formula based on Win Shares. Which is a big difference. The formula itself is a matter of opinion. Why is 5 consecutive seasons used? Why is it three best seasons overall? Why use the Harmonic Mean? Plus like you said Bill Jame's favors peak over career and a lot of times his step for best 3 seasons will be higher than his number for career total (since he uses Harmonic mean and the baseline of 25 it lowers the importance of a long productive career). Which as you probably have noticed tends to hurt players like Eddie Murray. Consistently good players who don't have a lot of peaks and valleys are hurt the most in his formula. Bill's formula rewards greatness but limits the penalty on mediocrity by minimizing offseasons and injuries. Which is why the subjective element is so important.

If we look only at win shares and in no-formula ways. Such as total, yearly total, and seasonal average it shows Will Clark to be a very good player though I don't think one that should go into the hall. Especially since he played first base.

In a nutshell what I am saying is for you to finish the equation and then make the case.

[cubbieinexile]

The study of Bill Jame's rankings have intrigued me.

Bill's formula really likes peak over career and I tend to disagree with that to a point. For instance if we break down Bill's formula into part likes you did I see some things I disagree with.

Take Ty Cobb for instance.
Ty Cobbs Career total numbers comes out to 37.19
His three best season average comes out to 47.67
Right there I see something I disagree with. Bill's formula weights three seasons of a players career more heavily than the players entire career.
The next step is 5 consecutive and Cobbs comes out to 43.00
Now I don't totally disagree with this one in that he is measuring sustained greatness or lack there of. So in some ways this step helps reward players that are continually good instead of the peaks and valley type player. But why stop at 5? If we are measuring the greatest of all time shouldn't we hold them to a higher standard? Also in a lot of cases this step doubly awards players from there 3 best season step.
4th step is Career Wins per season and Cobb comes to 38.76
I have some problems with this step but overall I like it. The only problem with this step to me is that it minimizes the penalty a player has by missing time. The first step penalizes players with short careers or players that missed chunks of time, but this step can give some of those points back by factoring lost time out. Since this step only measures total Win Shares/ total games. Perhaps a better method would have factored in total seasons into the equation. Perhaps an average of the two.
The Final Non-subjective step is Time-Line adjustment is 8.6
I understand this part, but this part is really subjective. He just happens to have come up with a formula for it. So that we can all see it instead of having him lump it into the misc pile. The only problem I have with this is we really don't know if it is all that accurate. For instance becuase of this Griffey gets twice the bonus that Cobb did on this. Is the competition and difficulty level in Grffey's day twice as competitive and twice as difficult then Cobb's day? I don't know but I think I would like to see some statistical work to go along with part of the formula. Perhaps a plateau at some point. Players who played after 1970 are treated like they were born in 1940 or something like that. I can't really believe that the game gets more and more difficult as years go on. Nor can I believe that there were not periods in time when baseball was less competitive then in years gone by. For instance what about the expansion era 60's? Was that decade really more difficult and more competitive than say the 20's? Should players from 60's get a 4 point advantage over players from the 20's? Also as years go by the youth bonus is going to get so large as to be higher than the other steps! For instance a player born in 1980 is getting a 18 point bonus in his total.
The last part is the unknowable on our part. And I would agree with Chancellor and say that not knowing the total for this part makes it hard to really get behind these rankings. For instance is each element weighted evenly? Does he have full possession of the facts to be able to properly identify true leaders and disrupters? For instance he thinks Dick Allen was a clubhouse cancer. Some of Dick former teammates and coaches disagree with that view. Plus who really knows how in detail he got on all these players for this part. Does he really know if a player from 1892 was a clubhouse leader or not? Then of course there is the fielding element he puts in there. Bill James has been wrong before about fielding and there is no reason to think he can't be wrong now.

That is about all, If I were to create a system of ranking based on Win Shares I think I would increase the consecutive seasons part from 5 to 8 and change the three best seasons to 5. Also I think I would get rid of the first part (Like Bill himself said, to get that part he had jump through a lot of hoops. Which to me means it shouldn't be done) and try to find some other way. The more I think about it I don't know why this is necessary anyway. While I haven't crunch the numebrs for all the players looking at the numbers Bill provides the harmonic mean and the WS/162 games closely resemble each other. Perhaps just using WS/162 and then in the subjective element removing points for injuries would be best.
By doing it this way I think you would better balance the two type of players measured. The ones with great peaks and the ones who are consistently good.

[Biggtone23]

Anyone else hate Bill James for trying to turn baseball into Math class?

[The Commissioner]

I do, but not so much for trying to turn it into a math class as much as for trying to turn it into a math class using flawed, skewed, and subjective numbers. Professor James seems to believe that his is the only correct answer key.

[J W]

...except I keep reading disclaimers quoted BY HIM that his word is not the gospel.

Could be that what you don't like is the use of his formulas as the #1 basis for everything in the sport.

I think cubbie's points ring a lot of truth. the numbers... 3 and 5, and the harmonic mean as opposed to straight averages--they can be tinkered with to produce different results.

But I like Bill James' work... I think the Win Shares system is better than nothing (though some other systems have advantages elsewhere--I haven't thoroughly studied the others).

...and I LIKE MATH. It's the universal language. So there. :D

[Cougar]

I like math too.

James doesn't get everything right. No one does. What James does best is ask good questions. He then tries to answer them, and usually comes up with a pretty good response. Sometimes he doesn't, but no one who takes intellectual risks bats 1.000, and that's OK.

I agree that his subjective rankings should be a little more transparent. That is a fair criticism. I also think Chancellor did a terrific job deconstructing James's method, adjusting it to trim it of most of the obvious subjectivity, and then scrutinizing the results.

And yeah, it's a heck of a statement when you're fifth all time on such a scale. This takes into account things that get overlooked easily. Clark put up his best seasons in Candlestick -- a truly lousy hitters park. And, he was an incredibly solid player. First basemen who hit for average and power, plus field their position well, and do it over a fairly long career, just don't come along that often. When you look at the record, there's very few guys like that.

I thought Clark belonged before, but I thought he was borderline. This tells me that he's a solid pick for the Hall.

That said, a system that ranks Dick Allen ahead of Jimmie Foxx sort of lacks some face validity. With all due respect to Richie, there's just no way you can defend that to anyone who knows the history of the game. I don't blame James for adding an extra wrinkle to fix results like that -- the system needed it. But you get unintended consequences with a fix like that, like nudging Mattingly ahead of Clark. (Of course, Mattingly & Clark is a heck of a lot closer call than Allen & Foxx; I'd rather err on the former than the latter.)

[rockin500]

i have little use for bill james.

[BigRedMachine]

I don't think Will 'The Thrill' Clark has a prayer of a chance to get in the HOF.

What impresses me the most about Clark is his lifetime .303 batting average. He just did not have enough of an impact on the game to be a serious HOF candidate.

The following players are not in the HOF as well:

Dick Allen
Don Mattingly
Keith Hernandez
Al Oliver
Bill Buckner
Steve Garvey

Clark can't be in the HOF without these guys going in too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since this thread, Will Clark has been relegated to "one and done" status by the BBWAA. He did not get enough support to stay on the ballot.

There were several reasons for this, IMO:

(A) Clark did not play in 140 games after age 29, except for 1998.
(B) The reason for this was that Clark became frequently affected with injuries.
(C) Clark was not a home run slugger; he was Mark Grace with more power.
(D) Clark retired a bit early; he had a good 2000 season, but packed it in after that. Had he been able to stay at his career norms a bit longer, and keep his BA over .300, he might have been able to stay on the ballot.

I have come to regard Clark as superior to Mattingly, all things considered, although my perception may stem from Mattingly finishing poorly.

[538280]

Will Clark should be in the HOF. He was a truly great hitter at his peak, and a very, very good one through his career. Bill James addresses in his book Win Shares why exactly Clark's 1989 season (44 Win Shares) rates so well. Because looking at it in the Encyclopedia it looks like a very, very good but not truly great season. I think his explanation makes sense. Basically Clark starts out with MVP type numbers (.333 average, 23 HRs, 111 RBI, .407 OBP), and every extra step you take to evaluate him more closely he comes out just a bit better. Let's say Clark starts out at what James says is the borderline MVP candidate level (30 WS), and with each extra step he jumps up about 2 more WS.

-He only grounded into 6 double plays, a great total for a guy who played 159 games

-He was 8 for 11 as a basestealer

-The 1989 NL, especially in Candlestick Park, was an extreme pitchers' environment. The league averages were .250/.317/.373, reminescent of the "2nd deadball era" in the 1960s. We don't tend to think of that when looking at the season, because the 1980s in general were not really a tough decade for hitters. Nor were the seasons around 1989 particularly extreme (offensive levels jumped up quite a bit the next year in 1990). Candlestick in 1989 was also particlarly tough on hitters, James says the park factor was 91 (for some reason BBRef lists 97, but James definitely says in his book it was 91).

-Clark did particularly well in clutch situations (James doesn't think that clutch hitting is a real skill, but he does think that players who do better in the clutch in a particlar season are more valuable in that season). Clark batted .389 with runners in scoring position and hit 13 of his 23 homers with men on base.

-Clark was an outstanding defensive 1Bman.

I think when you factor all of those things in, you find Clark raises significantly above the marginal MVP level, and becomes a truly great player for that season. 44 WS may be slightly overstating his greatness, but I think Clark was a legitimately tremendous player in 1989.

-

[thecoach]

Will (The Thrill) Clark would get my vote. He was a team player and gave it his all. And he had the sweetest swing in memory!

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would vote for Clark ahead of Mattingly, but behind Keith Hernandez and Dick Allen.

Keith Hernandez has a surprisingly strong case, IMO, and I am surprised that his candidacy generates so little interest.

[538280]

Keith Hernandez has a surprisingly strong case, IMO, and I am surprised that his candidacy generates so little interest.

I have Hernandez as the 7th best player outside the Hall (behind Allen, Santo, Wynn, Grich, Torre, Dahlen). His case gets plenty of respect for me. Great OBP type hitter and best fielding 1Bman of all time. Should make an easy HOFer. I think he may miss out on some hype because he clearly isn't hte best 1Bman not in the Hall, that title goes to Dick Allen.

[Yankwood]

I'm wondering if Will Clark is even the 5th best of his era? All time? Please.

[yankillaz]

Take a peek in the Stats/Sabermetrics forum at the thread entitled "Bill James and the NHBA Ratings" for more information.

After running some preliminary numbers, if you remove James' opinions as expressed in the subject element (and, often, in the player comments) from the equation, then his ratings system as expressed in the Abstract shows Will Clark to be the 5th-greatest first baseman in history (just behind Gehrig, Dick Allen, Foxx and Bagwell.) I'll say that again.

According to Bill James' formula, Will Clark is the 5th greatest first baseman in history.

That shouts "Hall of Fame" to me, especially considering he's already a solid borderline candidate. If you put any faith in win shares, you've got to agree that Clark is a Hall of Famer.

I was an unsteady supporter of Clark's already, but now that my faith has been reassured, my doubts are gone. :laugh

Hop on board the bandwagon now. Destination Cooperstown, starting in 2006!

If Dick Allen is ahead of Clark, and he's not in the Hall...don't you think we better wait for Allen to get in first?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Will Clark should be in the HOF. He was a truly great hitter at his peak, and a very, very good one through his career. Bill James addresses in his book Win Shares why exactly Clark's 1989 season (44 Win Shares) rates so well. Because looking at it in the Encyclopedia it looks like a very, very good but not truly great season. I think his explanation makes sense. Basically Clark starts out with MVP type numbers (.333 average, 23 HRs, 111 RBI, .407 OBP), and every extra step you take to evaluate him more closely he comes out just a bit better. Let's say Clark starts out at what James says is the borderline MVP candidate level (30 WS), and with each extra step he jumps up about 2 more WS.

-He only grounded into 6 double plays, a great total for a guy who played 159 games

-He was 8 for 11 as a basestealer

-The 1989 NL, especially in Candlestick Park, was an extreme pitchers' environment. The league averages were .250/.317/.373, reminescent of the "2nd deadball era" in the 1960s. We don't tend to think of that when looking at the season, because the 1980s in general were not really a tough decade for hitters. Nor were the seasons around 1989 particularly extreme (offensive levels jumped up quite a bit the next year in 1990). Candlestick in 1989 was also particlarly tough on hitters, James says the park factor was 91 (for some reason BBRef lists 97, but James definitely says in his book it was 91).

-Clark did particularly well in clutch situations (James doesn't think that clutch hitting is a real skill, but he does think that players who do better in the clutch in a particlar season are more valuable in that season). Clark batted .389 with runners in scoring position and hit 13 of his 23 homers with men on base.

-Clark was an outstanding defensive 1Bman.

I think when you factor all of those things in, you find Clark raises significantly above the marginal MVP level, and becomes a truly great player for that season. 44 WS may be slightly overstating his greatness, but I think Clark was a legitimately tremendous player in 1989.

-
Ok, Chris, I think now you go too far. Yes, Clark was awesome in 1989. He had a great 4-5 year run with he Giants. But he never came close to replicating his 1989 season. Give Clark's relaltively short career he would have needed at least 4-5 1989 seasons to have any chance at the HoF. He didn't.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I do, but not so much for trying to turn it into a math class as much as for trying to turn it into a math class using flawed, skewed, and subjective numbers. Professor James seems to believe that his is the only correct answer key.
We all know you hate Bill James, Commish...;)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Anyone else hate Bill James for trying to turn baseball into Math class?
How is this so? And what's wrong with math? I love math. :D

Seriously, thought, the reason I like Bill James is because he is trying to find answers to baseball questions. The one thing James keeps saying over and over is that most baseball questions have complex answers and the process at arriving at those answers is even more complex. Baseball throughout most of history has been tied down by bias, folklore, "conventional" wisdom, and the "book". I call this the baseball "orthodoxy". Is it wrong to see if baseball's accepted knowledge is true? One classic example is Lou Aparicio. As a youth James kept hearing over and over that Aparicio was a great leadoff man becuase he can steal bases. Everyone would say this about Aparicio. It turns out that Aparico was a horrible leadoff man because he had an extemely low OBP. He rarely scored 100 runs in a season and rarely led his own team in runs scored.

Now Bill James is not always right but the one thing I admire about him is that he will admit when he is wrong, unlike some BBF members I know. ;)

[538280]

Ok, Chris, I think now you go too far. Yes, Clark was awesome in 1889. He had a great 4-5 year run with he Giants. But he never came close to replicating his 1989 season. Give Clark's relaltively short career he would have needed at least 4-5 1989 seasons to have any chance at the HoF. He didn't.

I think Clark's 1989 is a truly all time great offensive season, HWR, perhaps the best of the 1980s. That 5 year run with the Giants isn't his whole career, either, he was a very good fielding 1Bman who could hit well as well with the Rangers. I would agree he was not a truly great player then, but he was very, very good. Along with his monster offensive performances with the Giants early in his career I think that should make a HOFer. Win Shares doesn't think his only great season was 1989, you know, they have him with a solid HOF caliber 331 career total and he had three MVP type seasons (30+ WS). The WS system really does see him as the 5th best 1Bman of all time, that's not a joke. It also sees him being the 25th best player of all time. I don't always trust Win Shares, but I do think they're pretty well crafted and make sense just about all the time. I think they overstate Clark's greatness, but if they see Clark being the 25th greatest player of all time then it's hard for me to say he's not a HOFer.

It's too bad Clark didn't stick in baseball for longer. He was still a very good hitter in 2000, his last year. Has anyone ever retired after having a full season with an OPS+ above 140?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think Clark's 1989 is a truly all time great offensive season, HWR, perhaps the best of the 1980s. That 5 year run with the Giants isn't his whole career, either, he was a very good fielding 1Bman who could hit well as well with the Rangers. I would agree he was not a truly great player then, but he was very, very good. Along with his monster offensive performances with the Giants early in his career I think that should make a HOFer. Win Shares doesn't think his only great season was 1989, you know, they have him with a solid HOF caliber 331 career total and he had three MVP type seasons (30+ WS). The WS system really does see him as the 5th best 1Bman of all time, that's not a joke. It also sees him being the 25th best player of all time. I don't always trust Win Shares, but I do think they're pretty well crafted and make sense just about all the time. I think they overstate Clark's greatness, but if they see Clark being the 25th greatest player of all time then it's hard for me to say he's not a HOFer.

It's too bad Clark didn't stick in baseball for longer. He was still a very good hitter in 2000, his last year. Has anyone ever retired after having a full season with an OPS+ above 140?
Ok, let's put sabermetrics stuff aside. I know you are well read in baseball history. I know you know about all the great first basemen in baseball history. You are telling me that you, Chris, believe that Will Clark is the 5th greatest first baseman of all time basically on par with Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell? What does your "gut instinct" tell you? Does that make any sense to you? Clark was a great player for a short time. He simply didn't put up enough 1989 level seasons to justify a #5 ranking no matter what win shares tells us. Here's how I see them:

1. Gehrig
2. Fox
~3. Mize. Thomas, Bagwell, Greenberg, Oh, McCovey, McGwire

Are you saying that Clark is at the 3T level?

And fo the record I am huge Will Clark fan. As a Giants' fan I got to see him do some awesome things for the Giants. But after he left the Giants he had many injuries and medicore seasons.

Here are Clarks OPS+ from 1987-92: 153, 160, 175, 125, 152, 150

After 1992: 118, 140, 127, 106, 128, 126, 124, 145

I cannot reconcile this kind of performance with being the 5th greatest first baseman. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay he went 8/11 in steals but what was that worth? You don't hear anybody ever say, "Hey player X went 8 for 11 at the plate in the last 3 games series" do you? Yes its nice, yes it has value. But it doesn't have a whole lot of value. 8 steals over a 162 game season is just not that huge.

6 GIDP okay again nice but how do GIDP's happen? That is right somebody has to be on base for you to hit into a double play. So then a big chunk of your GIDP are going to be dealing with your fellow teammates. The #2 hitter for the Giants that year had an OBP of .308. The leadoff hitter was Brett Butler, who while fast (which helps prevent DP's) was not getting on at a great clip. Clark that year had 115 AB's that year with runner just on first base. I have no idea how many of those were with 2 outs but I will say 1/3 of them are. So in about 76 at bats he ground into 6 double plays, or one every 12.7 at bats. Now then Joe Carter who got the reputation for hitting into the double play ground into 1 double play per 19 at bats following the same formula as above for the same year.

Candlestick PArk: This right here is the real reason why Will looks so good. The Park Factor adjusts his stats upward.

Clutch Factor: This one is a bit unfair because Bill incorporates the data into modern players but he cannot do the same for players in which he does not have the data on. Nor do we know how far back he took it. When he wrote the book and published his Win Shares did he go back to 1960? Go back to 1970? 1980? We don't know. So now Will gets a bonus to his numbers compared greats of the past who do not get the bonus, so it becomes Will Clark 40 some odd win shares and that ranks here on this list. When if all the data was known that season could very well be moved down the list. Perhaps by a lot.

[538280]

Ok, let's put sabermetrics stuff aside. I know you are well read in baseball history. I know you know about all the great first basemen in baseball history. You are telling me that you, Chris, believe that Will Clark is the 5th greatest first baseman of all time basically on par with Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell? What does your "gut instinct" tell you? Does that make any sense to you? Clark was a great player for a short time. He simply didn't put up enough 1989 level seasons to justify a #5 ranking no matter what win shares tells us. Here's how I see them:

1. Gehrig
2. Fox
~3. Mize. Thomas, Bagwell, Greenberg, Oh, McCovey, McGwire

Are you saying that Clark is at the 3T level?

And fo the record I am huge Will Clark fan. As a Giants' fan I got to see him do some awesome things for the Giants. But after he left the Giants he had many injuries and medicore seasons.

Here are Clarks OPS+ from 1987-92: 153, 160, 175, 125, 152, 150

After 1992: 118, 140, 127, 106, 128, 126, 124, 145

I cannot reconcile this kind of performance with being the 5th greatest first baseman. It just doesn't make any sense.

I don't have Clark 5th among 1Bmen, HWR. I have him 13th. I think James' system is weighted far too much to peak performance, rather than career value, and that his system probably does overrate Clark a bit. I DO think his WS system is seeing something in Clark though, I think he is a truly great player and HOF caliber. I think 13th is an accurate ranking, and that is still good for the HOF. This is my top 20 1Bmen, in case you're interested:

1.Lou Gehrig
2.Jimmie Foxx
3.Frank Thomas
4.Jeff Bagwell
5.Willie McCovey
6.Johnny Mize
7.Dick Allen
8.Eddie Murray
9.Buck Leonard
10.Harmon Killebrew
11.Roger Connor
12.Dan Brouthers
13.Will Clark
14.Hank Greenberg
15.Mark McGwire
16.Keith Hernandez
17.Tony Perez
18.Cap Anson
19.Orlando Cepeda
20.Norm Cash


I have no qualms with rating any of the 1Bmen behind Clark where they are. Greenberg wasn't nearly as good a fiedler as Clark, and he never posted an OPS+ as high as Clark. Granted, he has more seasons at or near the level of his best, but his career is also still slightly shorter even when we give him war credit, and it gets knocked down a bit by LQ adjustments as well. I also think James' system probably got it right in calling Greenberg's peak not nearly as good as people have believed.

[AstrosFan]

I don't have Clark 5th among 1Bmen, HWR. I have him 13th. I think James' system is weighted far too much to peak performance, rather than career value, and that his system probably does overrate Clark a bit. I DO think his WS system is seeing something in Clark though, I think he is a truly great player and HOF caliber. I think 13th is an accurate ranking, and that is still good for the HOF. This is my top 20 1Bmen, in case you're interested:

1.Lou Gehrig
2.Jimmie Foxx
3.Frank Thomas
4.Jeff Bagwell
5.Willie McCovey
6.Johnny Mize
7.Dick Allen
8.Eddie Murray
9.Buck Leonard
10.Harmon Killebrew
11.Roger Connor
12.Dan Brouthers
13.Will Clark
14.Hank Greenberg
15.Mark McGwire
16.Keith Hernandez
17.Tony Perez
18.Cap Anson
19.Orlando Cepeda
20.Norm Cash


I have no qualms with rating any of the 1Bmen behind Clark where they are. Greenberg wasn't nearly as good a fiedler as Clark, and he never posted an OPS+ as high as Clark. Granted, he has more seasons at or near the level of his best, but his career is also still slightly shorter even when we give him war credit, and it gets knocked down a bit by LQ adjustments as well. I also think James' system probably got it right in calling Greenberg's peak not nearly as good as people have believed.


Out of the non-Astros, Clark was my all-time favorite player. I remember his 1989 season well, and thought he deserved the MVP even before Win Shares said so.
538280, that looks like a very reasonable list. A couple of things I am curious about:
I was surprised to see Clark rate below Connor and Brouthers. With the attention you pay to league quality adjustments, I would have figured Clark would rate ahead of even the best 19th century first basemen. As for Connor and Brouthers rating ahead of Anson, I agree 100%.
Secondly, you mentioned in a previous post that you had Keith Hernandez seventh among players not in the Hall. Will Clark was not one of the six ahead of him, but your list of top first basemen rates Clark ahead. Who truly ranks as the better player in your opinion?

[538280]

I was surprised to see Clark rate below Connor and Brouthers. With the attention you pay to league quality adjustments, I would have figured Clark would rate ahead of even the best 19th century first basemen. As for Connor and Brouthers rating ahead of Anson, I agree 100%.

I'm glad you agree on Connor Brouthers over Anson. Once I demonstrated how when they were both active, they both completely dominated Cap. I rate Connor the edge on Brouthers because of his fantastic glove and a bit more longevity.

I like LQ adjustments, of course, but I don't abuse them. Clark was a great player in his time, but Connor and Brouthers were the best of their entire decade probably, and true dominators for a long period. 19th century guys have to get their due in my rankings, I try not to abuse the LQ too much. I do also think Win Shares does overrate Clark a bit, though I think they're right in saying he's truly great.

[quote]Secondly, you mentioned in a previous post that you had Keith Hernandez seventh among players not in the Hall. Will Clark was not one of the six ahead of him, but your list of top first basemen rates Clark

Better player? Clark. More Hall deserving? Hernandez. They're not always the same thing. The HOF has a lot to do with being famous, being respected in your time, being truly special. Hernandez's title as the best fielding 1Bman of all time gives him some of that. Clark may have HOF type numbers, and he's deserving because of that, but he didn't do anything particluarly special, and it's hard to really see what true impact he had on the game outside of just being a great player. I do still think he's Hall worthy, but that knocks him down.

[AstrosFan]

I think what you're measuring is not which player is more Hall deserving, but which is more likely to make the Hall. Hernandez was not a more special player than Clark, he just had a skill that he was better at than everyone else, that is, his defense. If we want to make the best choice for the Hall, we should look at the best player.
I didn't think you placed every high quality modern player over those of the early years of baseball, but I figured Clark might make the cut. Oh well.

[romanos72]

I hear ya, Biggtone23...I bet there's a formula that would make the very mediocre Tim Foli the greatest shortstop in the last 50 years...that doesn't make it so. Especially in the last 15 years, we need to look past formulas and big numbers...Simply, being a dominant player for 3-4 years just doesn't cut it unless you changed the way they play the game like Koufax and Gibson did. Will Clark's name just shouldn't be enshrined on the same wall as guys like Gehrig, Sisler, or Murray. Did Clark lead his team to a World series championship? Did he win a batting crown, HR title, or RBI crown? Was he elected to 10 All-Star games? We need to be more selective of our newly enshrined and guys like Santo and Blyleven deserve the nod well before guys like Clark. Good is not great.

[romanos72]

Hey 538280,

You put Clark ahead of Anson, Cepeda, and Greenberg?!? :confused: On what basis? I believe Anson batted in almost 2,000 RBIs in a deadball era and Greenberg was a dominant hitter with an abbreviated career--a first ballot HOFer. Hell, Steve Garvey is comparable to Clark and neither deserve enshrinement. At least Garvey won some WS rings and a couple All-Star MVPs. I need a drink...

[Pine Tar]

I think people get too excited with Clark's 1989 season and his 40 something win-shares. While it was certainly his best season, assigning that number of win-shares to Clark's 1989 season points out a flaw in the win-shares metric. Win-shares do not adequately take into account the players hitting around a player or their place in the batting order.
In 1989 Kevin Mitchell protected Clark in the lineup, and had one of the biggest offensive seasons in the last 30 years, with an OPS+ of 192. So, if you walk Clark, you have to pitch to Mitchell. That is why Clark had such a large decrease in IBB from 1988 to 1989 despite having a better year in 1989. In 1988 he was intentionally walked 27 times with an OPS+ of 160, while in 1989 just 14 times with an OPS+ of 175.
So again, while Clark's 1989 year was indeed a hall of fame caliber season, it was not some season for the ages as many would have us believe.

Just if you are curious, Mitchell was intentionally walked 32 times in 1989.

[538280]

Hey 538280,

You put Clark ahead of Anson, Cepeda, and Greenberg?!? :confused: On what basis? I believe Anson batted in almost 2,000 RBIs in a deadball era and Greenberg was a dominant hitter with an abbreviated career--a first ballot HOFer

I explained Greenberg above. Anson lasted a real long time, but was never a really dominant player in his league, and that league was the weakest of all time. Cepeda lasted about the same length of time as Clark and while he was more of a power hitter his average and OBP were much worse, more than enough to make up for the power difference. OPS tends to weigh SLG too much in comparison with OBP, but Clark still has an OPS+ 5 points higher. Clark also was a more dominating hitter in his peak.


Hell, Steve Garvey is comparable to Clark and neither deserve enshrinement. At least Garvey won some WS rings and a couple All-Star MVPs. I need a drink...

Steve Garvey's OPS+ is 22 points lower. Other than that, yeah, I guess they're comparable. :rolleyes:

[538280]

I think people get too excited with Clark's 1989 season and his 40 something win-shares. While it was certainly his best season, assigning that number of win-shares to Clark's 1989 season points out a flaw in the win-shares metric. Win-shares do not adequately take into account the players hitting around a player or their place in the batting order.
In 1989 Kevin Mitchell protected Clark in the lineup, and had one of the biggest offensive seasons in the last 30 years, with an OPS+ of 192. So, if you walk Clark, you have to pitch to Mitchell. That is why Clark had such a large decrease in IBB from 1988 to 1989 despite having a better year in 1989. In 1988 he was intentionally walked 27 times with an OPS+ of 160, while in 1989 just 14 times with an OPS+ of 175.
So again, while Clark's 1989 year was indeed a hall of fame caliber season, it was not some season for the ages as many would have us believe.

Just if you are curious, Mitchell was intentionally walked 32 times in 1989.

So, the fact Clark was intentionally walked less, giving another chance where most likely he would make an out, makes him less productive?

I think you just worded that the wrong way, but I know what you're saying, lineup protection. I think it is reasonable that some players may benifit from hitting before or after a great hitter, but that is a factor that is often thought to be far more important than it really is. Studies have actually been done about this:

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

That is a very good article, really, and I think it shows that at the MLB level the thought that a great hitter hitting in the lineup does not have much influence at all on another hitter in the lineup.

Another thing, while Kevin Mitchell was certainly having a great hitting season, there have been others just as good or better recently, and not every one results in another hitter having an almost equally great season.

Second, Win Shares actually shows it being Clark who was the best hitter on the 1989 Giants, not Mitchell. That suggests that if your theory was true about lineup protection (which it isn't, but anyway) that it actually may have had more of an effect on Mitchell than it did on Clark (Clark protecting Mitchell, instead of the other way around).

[Pine Tar]

So, the fact Clark was intentionally walked less, giving another chance where most likely he would make an out, makes him less productive?

I think you just worded that the wrong way, but I know what you're saying, lineup protection. I think it is reasonable that some players may benifit from hitting before or after a great hitter, but that is a factor that is often thought to be far more important than it really is. Studies have actually been done about this:

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

That is a very good article, really, and I think it shows that at the MLB level the thought that a great hitter hitting in the lineup does not have much influence at all on another hitter in the lineup.

Another thing, while Kevin Mitchell was certainly having a great hitting season, there have been others just as good or better recently, and not every one results in another hitter having an almost equally great season.

Second, Win Shares actually shows it being Clark who was the best hitter on the 1989 Giants, not Mitchell. That suggests that if your theory was true about lineup protection (which it isn't, but anyway) that it actually may have had more of an effect on Mitchell than it did on Clark (Clark protecting Mitchell, instead of the other way around).

I am already familiar with that particular study and it does not discount the potential that protecting a hitter would result in a better season for that hitter. If you look at the actual specific cases, when a truly great hitter like Frank Thomas or Griffey Jr. was protecting a hitter, that hitter did in fact perform much better. The problem with the "study" is that is groups these players with the Wally Joyners and Danny Tartabulls of the world, and concludes that overall there doesn't seem to be an impact.

I don't think I worded the IBB situation incorrectly, perhaps you read it incorrectly. I bring it up as evidence that Clark was more protected in the linup in 1989 than 1988. It is a classic example of protection. In 1989, there were less scenarios when you wanted to walk Clark because you would have to pitch to Mitchell, even though Clark was having a great year. In 1988 Mitchell had a pretty mediocre year and Clark was intentially walked twice as often as he was in 1989. This is in spite of the fact that Clark's 1988 was not as good as his 1989 season.

So a basic question to ask yourself is "Why would you be less likely to intentionally walk a player one year, even if that player is having a better season that the year before?" This is a question that win-shares do not answer.

I don't want to get all hung up on IBB either. I bring them up because they are indicative of a phenomena where a player is protected in the lineup. The actual protection is pervasive to how a player is approached on every at-bat, not just those where he is intentionally walked.

Finally, your point that other players recently have had monster seasons without another player piggy-backing on their season is true to some extent (See Jeff Kent's MVP season), but then again maybe Clark was a better hitter than most other players hitting in front of other great players. I mean, he was certainly a better hitter than Robin Ventura. Its not like his 1989 season came out of nowhere, its just that I don't think it would have been as good without Mitchell's influence. And there is some evidence that supports this idea.

[538280]

I am already familiar with that particular study and it does not discount the potential that protecting a hitter would result in a better season for that hitter. If you look at the actual specific cases, when a truly great hitter like Frank Thomas or Griffey Jr. was protecting a hitter, that hitter did in fact perform much better. The problem with the "study" is that is groups these players with the Wally Joyners and Danny Tartabulls of the world, and concludes that overall there doesn't seem to be an impact.

You very well may be right about this. Perhaps a better study would be a truly great seasons (say 180 or so OPS+ or higher), and not just the Joyners and Tartabulls like you said.


I don't think I worded the IBB situation incorrectly, perhaps you read it incorrectly. I bring it up as evidence that Clark was more protected in the linup in 1989 than 1988. It is a classic example of protection. In 1989, there were less scenarios when you wanted to walk Clark because you would have to pitch to Mitchell, even though Clark was having a great year. In 1988 Mitchell had a pretty mediocre year and Clark was intentially walked twice as often as he was in 1989. This is in spite of the fact that Clark's 1988 was not as good as his 1989 season.

So a basic question to ask yourself is "Why would you be less likely to intentionally walk a player one year, even if that player is having a better season that the year before?" This is a question that win-shares do not answer.

You would be less likely because Kevin Mitchell was hitting great in 1989, that's easy to answer. But how that leads to WS overrating Clark I don't understand. Clark got more intentional walks in 1988, because he lacked protection from Mitchell. That also has to do with why he walked 100 times in 1988 as opposed to only 74 in 1988 (I suspect he got many walks where they pitched around him, but it wasn't really intentional). With the presence of Mitchell in 1989, they didn't do that. But, if anything, that would seem to me to be a reason why WS would underrate Clark in 1989 as opposed to 1988, because in 1988 he may have been picking up extra walks that had little to do with his skill as a hitter and more to do with his relative lack of protection. I don't understand how the fact other teams were forced to intentionaly walk Clark more in 1989 would lead to WS overrating that season.

I do understand what you're saying, the IBBs give evidence that Clark was more protected in 1989. But, any extra hitting he may do because of Mitchell's protection would probably be offset by the extra walks he drew without the presence of Mitchell, as is also evidenced by his higher walk total in 1988 (some were intentional, some were probably un-intentional, but still sort of intentional).


Finally, your point that other players recently have had monster seasons without another player piggy-backing on their season is true to some extent (See Jeff Kent's MVP season), but then again maybe Clark was a better hitter than most other players hitting in front of other great players. I mean, he was certainly a better hitter than Robin Ventura. Its not like his 1989 season came out of nowhere, its just that I don't think it would have been as good without Mitchell's influence. And there is some evidence that supports this idea.

I'm not willing to dismiss that Mitchell may have helped Clark a little bit. But, WS has Clark's 1989 at 44 WS. How much did Mitchell help him? I can imagine anyone would subtract more than 4 WS just because of another hitter's influence. 40 WS is a "historic" season. I think any reaosnable deduction from Clark's WS for Mitchell's presence would still end up arriving at the conclusion that Clark's 1989 was still a really, really, really great year.

[Rose4theHall]

Whoa...wherever you want to draw the line for entry to Cooperstown, Will Clark is definately ahead of Don Mattingly in the line. Mattingly has a weaker case.

But he was a Yankee. They practically forced Phil Rizzuto in, so I could see it happening again to the guy that they called "Donnie Baseball". Sad but true :(

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I hear ya, Biggtone23...I bet there's a formula that would make the very mediocre Tim Foli the greatest shortstop in the last 50 years...that doesn't make it so. Especially in the last 15 years, we need to look past formulas and big numbers...Simply, being a dominant player for 3-4 years just doesn't cut it unless you changed the way they play the game like Koufax and Gibson did. Will Clark's name just shouldn't be enshrined on the same wall as guys like Gehrig, Sisler, or Murray.

How about on the same wall as Frank Chance, Tony Perez, or Jim Bottomley?



Did Clark lead his team to a World series championship?
He led a rather average Giants team to the 1989 NL pennant and the 1987 Giants to the NL West crown.



Did he win a batting crown, HR title, or RBI crown?
He finished a close second to Tony Gywnn for the 1989 batting title (.336-.333). Clark actually led Gywnn going into the last game. No Giant ever won a batting playing in Candlestick Park, Clark was the closest. Clark did lead the NL in RBI in 1988, finished second in 1991 and 3rd in 1989.


Was he elected to 10 All-Star games?
He was elected to six All-Star games in a seven year period. (1988-94)



We need to be more selective of our newly enshrined and guys like Santo and Blyleven deserve the nod well before guys like Clark. Good is not great.

I must agree. If Clark could have stayed at his 1987-92 level for another five years he would have been a HoFer.

[romanos72]

I explained Greenberg above. Anson lasted a real long time, but was never a really dominant player in his league, and that league was the weakest of all time. Cepeda lasted about the same length of time as Clark and while he was more of a power hitter his average and OBP were much worse, more than enough to make up for the power difference. OPS tends to weigh SLG too much in comparison with OBP, but Clark still has an OPS+ 5 points higher. Clark also was a more dominating hitter in his peak.



Steve Garvey's OPS+ is 22 points lower. Other than that, yeah, I guess they're comparable. :rolleyes:


That's a lot of acronyms:crazy . I get what you're saying, but I just don't think he dominated his era in the same fashion as the aforementioned guys. Anson WAS baseball prior to the turn of the century. Greenberg was a historically great player who, if he played longer, may have had near Gehrig #s (maybe). OPS and OBP are important, yet somewhat contextual statistics. How important is getting a base hit, reaching on a fielder's choice, or drawing a walk with two outs and the bases empty? Oops...I should save these comments for the Sabermetrics threads...Clark--no Famer...

[romanos72]

[QUOTE=Honus Wagner Rules]How about on the same wall as Frank Chance, Tony Perez, or Jim Bottomley?


Nice:clapping . Ozzie Smith's, Joe Tinker's, and Red Shoendiest's wall is pretty close.

[thecoach]

If I had a vote he would get mine. His swing was text book and his glove work was wonderful. There are 1b in the Hall now who don't come close to Will the Thrill.;)

[538280]

That's a lot of acronyms:crazy . I get what you're saying, but I just don't think he dominated his era in the same fashion as the aforementioned guys. Anson WAS baseball prior to the turn of the century. Greenberg was a historically great player who, if he played longer, may have had near Gehrig #s (maybe).

I can definitely see Anson over Clark, if you give a lot of weight to longevity and aren't really that hard on 19th century guys (I tend to be skeptical of them). Greenberg's super numbers (and reputation as a true all time great) comes mostly from the context he played under. Like I said, Greenberg never had an OPS+ as high as Clark's 175 in 1989, and though Greenberg was consistent at an OPS+ level above 160, with LQ adjustments that's brought down more to Clark's level with several seasons over 150 OPS+. Context is everything. Clark's numbers aren't that far off from Greenberg in context, and when you take into account that Clark was superior in the field, on the basepaths, and lasted a little bit longer I think you have a superior player.


OPS and OBP are important, yet somewhat contextual statistics. How important is getting a base hit, reaching on a fielder's choice, or drawing a walk with two outs and the bases empty? Oops...I should save these comments for the Sabermetrics threads...Clark--no Famer...

First, getting on on an FC is not counted as a positive in OBP, just to let you know.

Second, I'm not really interested in situational stats all that much. I'm worried about how good a hitter the guy is, and in order to do that I think it is better to look at things in a vacuum as if all offensive events were contributed in the same context, it gives you a better idea of how good the player is, rather than being held down by situational data that really is just pure chance and tells very little about the player's true ability.

[Pine Tar]

Second, I'm not really interested in situational stats all that much. I'm worried about how good a hitter the guy is, and in order to do that I think it is better to look at things in a vacuum as if all offensive events were contributed in the same context, it gives you a better idea of how good the player is, rather than being held down by situational data that really is just pure chance and tells very little about the player's true ability.
How do you know that differences due to situations are by chance alone if you don't look at the situations? It seems to me that there are potentially additional factors that could be used to adjust a player's statistics if one were interested in leveling the statistics of different players of different eras, teams, home ballparks, lineups, etc. But, if you don't look at them, then you are making a leap that mat not be warranted.

Also, you mentioned before that Greenberg wasn't as good as Clark because of a few factors, one of which was because his career was shorter, even after giving him credit for WWII. Well, that's just not true. Greenberg had 2200 fewer PAs than Clark, but missed 4 full seasons and half of a fifth because of WWII. In the four seasons prior to going to war, he averaged 660 PAs. If you multiply that by 4.5, you get 2970. It is reasonable to assume that Greenberg would have gotten over 700 more PAs than Clark had he not gone to serve in WWII.

As for LQ adjustments, I haven't heard a lot about the AL in the 30's being much of a lower quality league than those that Clark played in. Sure there were no African AMericans playing in the time of Greenberg, but there were only 16 teams in the league. At the height of invovlement of African Americans in baseball, they still only make up 25% of the players. When Clark entered the league, there were 26 teams, and when he left there were 30 teams, signficantly watering down the talent pool, even considering the involvment of African Americans. Another thing to consider is that during Greenberg's time, the ONLY sport that was really popular was baseball. Football and basketball were not around to attract gifted athletes away from baseball like they did in Clark's time.

So I guess I don't agree that it is reasonable to say that Clark's career OPS+ of 138 is anywhere as good as Greenberg's 158.

[538280]

How do you know that differences due to situations are by chance alone if you don't look at the situations? It seems to me that there are potentially additional factors that could be used to adjust a player's statistics if one were interested in leveling the statistics of different players of different eras, teams, home ballparks, lineups, etc. But, if you don't look at them, then you are making a leap that mat not be warranted.

So, you're saying Clark may or may not have been "clutch" in 1989? All situational stats say that he was.

If I'm looking for how much ability a player has, no, I'm not worried about the situation in which he contributed his offense. I don't recognize clutch hitting as a legitimate skill, so offensive ability is quantified as if a player is playing in a vacuum, not worrying about the situation in which he comes up. If you want to know about a hitter's ability, that's the best way to look at it. It doesn't matter to me if a player hits a HR in the 9th inning of a game where the other team is ahead 10-0 or if they hit a walk off HR to win the game. Sure, the accomplishments have different meanings, but if we want to know how good the hitter is we should not differentiate. Clutch hitting is not a legitimate skill.


Also, you mentioned before that Greenberg wasn't as good as Clark because of a few factors, one of which was because his career was shorter, even after giving him credit for WWII. Well, that's just not true. Greenberg had 2200 fewer PAs than Clark, but missed 4 full seasons and half of a fifth because of WWII. In the four seasons prior to going to war, he averaged 660 PAs. If you multiply that by 4.5, you get 2970. It is reasonable to assume that Greenberg would have gotten over 700 more PAs than Clark had he not gone to serve in WWII.

I don't give credit for a true full season over the war, I don't think it's right to be extremely generous. Usually I give about 500 PAs for a missed season. I feel that is more right. Since Greenberg played in an offensive era I think PAs may be very friendly to him as well.


As for LQ adjustments, I haven't heard a lot about the AL in the 30's being much of a lower quality league than those that Clark played in. Sure there were no African AMericans playing in the time of Greenberg, but there were only 16 teams in the league. At the height of invovlement of African Americans in baseball, they still only make up 25% of the players. When Clark entered the league, there were 26 teams, and when he left there were 30 teams, signficantly watering down the talent pool, even considering the involvment of African Americans. Another thing to consider is that during Greenberg's time, the ONLY sport that was really popular was baseball. Football and basketball were not around to attract gifted athletes away from baseball like they did in Clark's time.

But baseball wasn't nearly as popular as it is now, and often it wasn't even considered a credible career (ever hear those stories about how Lou Gehrig's parents never wanted him to play baseball because they thought he could do so much more for the world?). The game is far more organized now, weight training is rampant, blacks and international players are all over the game, there is more competition for MLB rosters than there ever was, players come through farm systems, standard deviations of performances have decreased by a ton, I think it is completely unrealistic to claim that the 1930s AL was a better league than Clark played in.

[Pine Tar]

I don't give credit for a true full season over the war, I don't think it's right to be extremely generous. Usually I give about 500 PAs for a missed season. I feel that is more right. Since Greenberg played in an offensive era I think PAs may be very friendly to him as well.

You do realize that from 94-00 the league was just as much an offensive era as Greenberg played in. The late 40's were also very comparable to the late 80's to early nineties.
Why is averaging out the number of PAs he played in to account for war years "extremely generous?" In my book, if a player misses time because of serving his country they should probably be MORE likely to go to the hall, not less according to your 500 PAs. Also, what about the fact that Greenberg played less games per season than did Clark? I mean, the schedule was 5% shorter in the 30's and 40's. So should Greenberg get penalized for that as well?
And another thing, even if you only give him 500 PAs per year for service, that still makes Greenberg's PAs at least equal to CLark's. 4.5 times 500 = 2250. If you add 2250 to Greenberg's career numbers, he has 50 more than Clark. That isn't even considering 1. the shortened schedule, 2. That Greenberg really averaged 660 PAs per year.

[hubkittel]

The following players are not in the HOF as well:

Dick Allen
Don Mattingly
Keith Hernandez
Al Oliver
Bill Buckner
Steve Garvey

Clark can't be in the HOF without these guys going in too.

math is useful and bill james is great but i think this the right arguement to make. are there players out there, and specificly 1st basemen, who were better than clark and not in the hof? clark was a very good ballplayer but there are better players than him not in the hof. i think he's pretty far back in the line and not getting in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think what you're measuring is not which player is more Hall deserving, but which is more likely to make the Hall. Hernandez was not a more special player than Clark, he just had a skill that he was better at than everyone else, that is, his defense. If we want to make the best choice for the Hall, we should look at the best player.
I didn't think you placed every high quality modern player over those of the early years of baseball, but I figured Clark might make the cut. Oh well.

Hernandez, IMO, rates above Clark; he was more consistent from year to year, and more able to stay in the lineup from year to year (although he did have a rapid decline, due to injuries). Not by all that much, though. Hernandez' defense was extremely valuable, and his offense was HOF caliber as well; he had walks and extra-base power. While he didn't have HR power, he was far from a banjo hitter.

[538280]

You do realize that from 94-00 the league was just as much an offensive era as Greenberg played in. The late 40's were also very comparable to the late 80's to early nineties.
Why is averaging out the number of PAs he played in to account for war years "extremely generous?" In my book, if a player misses time because of serving his country they should probably be MORE likely to go to the hall, not less according to your 500 PAs. Also, what about the fact that Greenberg played less games per season than did Clark? I mean, the schedule was 5% shorter in the 30's and 40's. So should Greenberg get penalized for that as well?
And another thing, even if you only give him 500 PAs per year for service, that still makes Greenberg's PAs at least equal to CLark's. 4.5 times 500 = 2250. If you add 2250 to Greenberg's career numbers, he has 50 more than Clark. That isn't even considering 1. the shortened schedule, 2. That Greenberg really averaged 660 PAs per year.

All right, it appears you're right in the fact that with war credit they do have about the same longevity. I"ll reexamine Greenberg/Clark a little more closely, I still think Clark was the better player at his peak, but Greenberg had more seasons at or near the level of his peak. I'm still inclined to go with Clark, but it's probably closer than I originally thought.