Will Clark vs Ozzie Smith [Archive]

BigandUgly

07-09-2009, 10:36 AM

PIck one and give reasons why..........
Ozzie Smith - hands down. Probably because I grew up in the era when Ozzie was considered the best at fielding his position. When I think of a shortstop I think of Ozzie. He had a smooth style and grace in the field and an ability to make the great play. He even learned how to be a decent player on offense.

Will Clark had a fine career. Far better than most, but I don't feel that when you think of the great first basemen of his era he jumps into your mind, either offensively or defensively.

Jsquared83

07-09-2009, 10:36 AM

PIck one and give reasons why..........

Apples and oranges.. One made the HOF as purely a defensive force, the other had the misfortune playing with the PEDers of the 90s and deserves way more recognition than he gets from the writers.

brett

07-09-2009, 10:53 AM

Ozzie because along with being possibly the greatest fielder ever, he also was an above average all-around offensive player, given his on base%, his steals and his baserunning.

538280

07-09-2009, 10:59 AM

Ozzie is a much better offensive player than he is often thought to be, given his steals and an OBP that in some years was very good and over his career above average. Along with being if not the best one of the best fielders ever, and having a long career, he's better than Will Clark. Clark is very good and underrated, though, he is one of the better offensive players not in the HOF, and has a great peak. There are a lot of players in the HOF far worse than him.

BigandUgly

07-09-2009, 11:00 AM

To be honest there are several first basemen from Clark's playing days that I would rather have including John Olerud, Don Mattingly and Andres Galaraga.

Jsquared83

07-09-2009, 11:04 AM

To be honest there are several first basemen from Clark's playing days that I would rather have including John Olerud, Don Mattingly and Andres Galaraga.

1984-89 Mattingly, yes by far. Olerud is debatable but I'd still take Clark. Gallaraga's #s were enhanced by Coors and Clark was way better defensively.

Honus Wagner Rules

07-09-2009, 12:15 PM

1984-89 Mattingly, yes by far. Olerud is debatable but I'd still take Clark. Gallaraga's #s were enhanced by Coors and Clark was way better defensively.

Mattingly's peak was far shorter than that. From 1987-89 Clark was clearly the better hitter.

. Year G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
W. Clark 1987 150 588 529 89 163 29 5 35 91 49 98 .308 .371 .580 .951 152 307
Mattingly 1987 141 629 569 93 186 38 2 30 115 51 38 .327 .378 .559 .937 146 318

W. Clark 1988 162 689 575 102 162 31 6 29 109 100 129 .282 .386 .508 .894 160 292
Mattingly 1988 144 651 599 94 186 37 0 18 88 41 29 .311 .353 .462 .816 128 277

W. Clark 1989 159 675 588 104 196 38 9 23 111 74 103 .333 .407 .546 .953 175 321
Mattingly 1989 158 693 631 79 191 37 2 23 113 51 30 .303 .351 .477 .828 133 301

Three year average
. G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
W. Clark 157 650 564 98 173 32 6 29 103 74 110 .308 .389 .544 .933 163 306
Mattingly 142 640 584 93 186 37 1 24 101 46 33 .318 .366 .509 .875 137 297

nerfan

07-09-2009, 12:25 PM

Jsquared83

07-09-2009, 12:29 PM

Mattingly's peak was far shorter than that. From 1987-89 Clark was clearly the better hitter.

. Year G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
W. Clark 1987 150 588 529 89 163 29 5 35 91 49 98 .308 .371 .580 .951 152 307
Mattingly 1987 141 629 569 93 186 38 2 30 115 51 38 .327 .378 .559 .937 146 318

W. Clark 1988 162 689 575 102 162 31 6 29 109 100 129 .282 .386 .508 .894 160 292
Mattingly 1988 144 651 599 94 186 37 0 18 88 41 29 .311 .353 .462 .816 128 277

W. Clark 1989 159 675 588 104 196 38 9 23 111 74 103 .333 .407 .546 .953 175 321
Mattingly 1989 158 693 631 79 191 37 2 23 113 51 30 .303 .351 .477 .828 133 301

Three year average
. G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
W. Clark 157 650 564 98 173 32 6 29 103 74 110 .308 .389 .544 .933 163 306
Mattingly 142 640 584 93 186 37 1 24 101 46 33 .318 .366 .509 .875 137 297

How does Clark's 87-89 stack up against Mattingly's 84-86 if we're talking 3 year peaks.. Plus I'd give the glove edge to Mattingly even though Clark was no slouch in the field.

nerfan

07-09-2009, 12:30 PM

How does Clark's 87-89 stack up against Mattingly's 84-86 if we're talking 3 year peaks.. Plus I'd give the glove edge to Mattingly even though Clark was no slouch in the field.

Yankees fan?

Jsquared83

07-09-2009, 12:46 PM

Yankees fan?

Haha it's that obvious isnt it.. :D

Honus Wagner Rules

07-09-2009, 01:04 PM

How does Clark's 87-89 stack up against Mattingly's 84-86 if we're talking 3 year peaks.. Plus I'd give the glove edge to Mattingly even though Clark was no slouch in the field.

You said Mattingly 1984-89 by far. I was responding that in 1987-89 Clark was better than Mattingly. Why does it matter about 1984-86? Will Clark wasn't in the major leagues in 1984-85 and only played 111 games in '86 (rookie year) due to elbow surgery. Mattingly's 1984-86 was probably better than Clark's 1987-89. I need to look more into.

BigandUgly

07-09-2009, 01:20 PM

Clark was better than all three of those guys.

Gallaraga = Coors Field
Mattingly = Peak not as good, career not as good
Olerud = sissy. also not as good at fielding.

Anyway, push comes to shove, I take Will the Thrill.

Olerud had 3 GG to Clark's 1. Had a higher fileder percentage and RTOT/yr. How can you say he wasn't as good at fielding? Offensive numbers were very similar.

Gallaraga's first year in ATL was very similar to his Coors field numbers. I think the impact of Coors is over exaggerated.

Mattingly's offensive numbers were similar to Clark's and had much better defense.

I still think I'd rather have any of these 3 over Clark, not to mention other first basemen that played overlapping years (Thomas, McGwire, Hernandez to start). Will Clark certainly wasn't a negative to his team, had a damn fine career, just wasn't the best, or even top 5.

Can't think of a SS I'd rather have than Ozzie during that era. Very few would say he wasn't the best. Don't think anyone can believe he isn't top 5.

SABR Matt

07-09-2009, 01:26 PM

BigandUgly

07-09-2009, 01:40 PM

Personally...I'd rather have Ozzie Smith than Will Clark, because I think it's harder to find the greatest defensive infielder of all time than it is to find a solidly above average hitting first baseman who can also field his position pretty well...

VERY well said.

cavalier1968

07-09-2009, 01:47 PM

My team of 8 Will Clarks would destroy your team of 8 Ozzie Smiths

Cav

BigandUgly

07-09-2009, 02:38 PM

My team of 8 Will Clarks would destroy your team of 8 Ozzie Smiths.

Maybe, but my dad can beat up your dad...

jalbright

07-09-2009, 06:46 PM

My team of 8 Will Clarks would destroy your team of 8 Ozzie Smiths

I doubt it, because the Ozzie team will help his pitchers in the field. The Clarks will be slow in the outfield, and the middle infielding will be atrocious. The pitchers would love the bats but hate the gloves of the Clarks. They won't love the bats of the Ozzies, but they'll love the gloves. The Clarks might well win 55% of the games, but I doubt they'll win a lot more. I know this: the Clark team will win way more blowouts, but the Ozzies will win the lion's share of the close ones.

9RoyHobbsRF

07-09-2009, 06:49 PM

This thread might as well be entitled "earmuffs vs. elephants"

Your position on this question will depends entirely on how important you believe defense and position scarcity to be in defining a player's greatness and value to his franchise.

Personally...I'd rather have Ozzie Smith than Will Clark, because I think it's harder to find the greatest defensive infielder of all time than it is to find a solidly above average hitting first baseman who can also field his position pretty well...

i agree very well said

I would take smith in a heartbeat

a related story

I went to a high school in San Jose (freshman soph years) that produced a few major leaguers (Dave Stieb, Mike Brown, Randy Kramer) and a ton of great baseball talent

from 1973 to 1974 the school won 2 straight league championships (alos won in 1975 and 1976) and had a core group of sophomores that played frm 1972 to 1974, including an excellent SS who made all leaguie at least twice, maybe 3 times

he went to a small socal college and never got a chance to play

the guy ahead of him was ozzie smith

SABR Matt

07-09-2009, 07:32 PM

LOL...talk about your bad luck and bad timing...getting beat to your position by Ozzie freakin' Smith...OUCH!

Smith, BTW, was not that bad a hitter...over his full career, he was basically one tick below MLB average in terms of total production. He ran the bases very well as he matured, he learned to draw some walks, and he slapped the ball around alright. Nothing wrong with that.

cavalier1968

07-09-2009, 09:18 PM

I doubt it, because the Ozzie team will help his pitchers in the field. The Clarks will be slow in the outfield, and the middle infielding will be atrocious. The pitchers would love the bats but hate the gloves of the Clarks. They won't love the bats of the Ozzies, but they'll love the gloves. The Clarks might well win 55% of the games, but I doubt they'll win a lot more. I know this: the Clark team will win way more blowouts, but the Ozzies will win the lion's share of the close ones.

I cannot say how much I disagree.......no way fielding can make up a 50 point difference in OPS+..............in a 100 game match WIll Clarks team wins 75 times.......its hard to field a double in the gap or a 3 run shot......and the wizard might average 3 runs a game....:waving:waving

Think Clark would hit into a ton of DP's???? Think again...the wizard hit into 67 more......:laugh:laugh

Should I bring up post season????:laugh:laugh

Cav

Brad Harris

07-09-2009, 11:06 PM

To be honest there are several first basemen from Clark's playing days that I would rather have including John Olerud, Don Mattingly and Andres Galaraga.
"mostly clueless..."

SABR Matt

07-09-2009, 11:29 PM

I'd take Olerud over Clark...but not Mattingly or Galarraga.

Fielding Marshall

07-10-2009, 01:16 AM

Ozzie Smith or Will Clark...I think you know my answer...

I'd take Olerud over Clark...but not Mattingly or Galarraga.

Agreed.

And Mattingly and Galarraga, though they had nice careers, simply aren't comparable to Olerud and Clark (though if Mattingly hadn't injured his back, he might have been).

Lars1220

07-10-2009, 03:24 AM

I'll take Palmeroids over Clark.

jalbright

07-10-2009, 07:33 AM

I cannot say how much I disagree.......no way fielding can make up a 50 point difference in OPS+..............in a 100 game match WIll Clarks team wins 75 times.......its hard to field a double in the gap or a 3 run shot......and the wizard might average 3 runs a game....:waving:waving

Think Clark would hit into a ton of DP's???? Think again...the wizard hit into 67 more......:laugh:laugh

Should I bring up post season????:laugh:laugh

Cav

No way Clark wins 75% of the time. The career offensive winning percentage of Ozzie is .481, Clark is at .685. If defense were even, that suggests Clark would win about 70% of the time. One you count defense, Clark might win 60%, but no more--and maybe around the 55% figure I threw around without looking this up.

The thing to remember is Ozzie has the skills to play defense everywhere, and Clark doesn't. Ozzie would steal the Clark catcher blind, and Clark would rarely turn a double play. He might not boot a lot of balls, but there would be a ton of balls up the middle or in the outfield he simply wouldn't get to. The Ozzie's would run on him a lot (they'd need to, given the offensive disparity). The Ozzie team would not take a lot away from Clark because of their defense, but they'd take some. The Clark defensive team would make Ozzie more formidable offensively.

BigandUgly

07-10-2009, 07:39 AM

Clark may have been a little better than Mattingly on offense, but Mattingly was far superior on defense. I wouldn't mind clark on my team, but I'd still rather have Mattingly.

BigandUgly

07-10-2009, 07:43 AM

Think Clark would hit into a ton of DP's???? Think again...the wizard hit into 67 more.

Yeah, but how many double plays would Clark to Clark to Clark be able to turn.

nerfan

07-10-2009, 07:52 AM

I'll take Palmeroids over Clark.

Me too. And welcome to BBF.

Anyway Olerud probably was a little better than Clark.

And as to a team of Ozzies versus a team of Clarks, I say the Ozzies have a better staff and defense but it doesn't quite make up for the Clark's offense.

davewashere

07-10-2009, 08:26 AM

Yeah, but how many double plays would Clark to Clark to Clark be able to turn.

I think that's where Team Smith would really have a huge advantage in this bizarre scenario, assuming they didn't just steal on every pitch (and why wouldn't they?). Team Clark would move station to station about the same way any major league lineup does, while Team Smith would turn every single or walk into a triple within a couple pitches.

nerfan

07-10-2009, 08:29 AM

cavalier1968

07-10-2009, 09:02 AM

I think that's where Team Smith would really have a huge advantage in this bizarre scenario, assuming they didn't just steal on every pitch (and why wouldn't they?). Team Clark would move station to station about the same way any major league lineup does, while Team Smith would turn every single or walk into a triple within a couple pitches.

A......Will would walk tons more.....so he would be on base far more with tons of more power and tons of more clutch..and tons of more........u get it:waving

b.... Outfield defense is silly because the wizard was a ground ball hitter

c.....If a 3 run homer is station to station.......ok:laugh:laugh

Cav

BigandUgly

07-10-2009, 09:56 AM

A......Will would walk tons more.....so he would be on base far more with tons of more power and tons of more clutch..and tons of more........u get it:waving

b.... Outfield defense is silly because the wizard was a ground ball hitter

c.....If a 3 run homer is station to station.......ok:laugh:laugh

Cav

The Clarks would have occasional big innings. The Smiths would have frequent one run innings.

I think you're over-estimating Clark's offense though. In 8283 plate appearences he got a hit, BB or HBP 3172 times, or 38.2%. At this rate, in a 9 inning game he'd make his 27 outs in 44 at bats, reaching safely a little over 16 times per game, assuming average fielding. He hit a homerun a less than 1 of every 25 at bats and on average he'd have less than 1 runner on base. A typical game he'd have less than 2 homeruns.

Further, most of the time that he reached base it would be on a walk or a single. Without an extra base hit Clark doesn't have the speed to score from first. Even on doubles he'd be unlikely to score from first. Most innings there would be a runner or two stranded with no scoring.

On the Wizard's side, He'd get about 41 at bats per game, with an insignificant number or homeruns. He would however get into scoring position through stolen bases, FC, etc then score on the singles that Clark couldn't score on.

All-in-all I think the offensive side of the Smith's vs. Clarks would be much closer than expected.

jalbright

07-10-2009, 10:11 AM

b.... Outfield defense is silly because the wizard was a ground ball hitter

Almost 500 of Ozzie's 2460 career hits went for extra bases. Most were doubles and triples, obviously. He'd have had a lot more in the park types against your all-Will-the-Thrill defense. Ever heard of cutting balls off from getting to the wall? I've seen balls that hit the ground before they left the infield roll all the way to the wall (especially on artificial turf)--and with that mythical Clark defense, you'd see it many times a season. How about the roller down the line that gets past the corner baseman? Somebody in the outfield has to chase those down, right? Don't you agree that the vast majority of Ozzie's hits were first fielded by an outfielder? Also, with Clark at second and short, lots more balls will get through the defense to the outfield. How about bloop hits? I'm sure an the Ozzie team would get way more than we're used to seeing against an all-Clark defense. Maybe the outfielders could play up to cut off some singles, but then the extra base hits go up. Bottom line is, you can't ignore outfield defense in your mythical eight versus eight scenario.

nerfan

07-10-2009, 10:16 AM

Almost 500 of Ozzie's 2460 career hits went for extra bases. Most were doubles and triples, obviously. He'd have had a lot more in the park types against your all-Will-the-Thrill defense. Ever heard of cutting balls off from getting to the wall? I've seen balls that hit the ground before they left the infield roll all the way to the wall (especially on artificial turf)--and with that mythical Clark defense, you'd see it many times a season. How about the roller down the line that gets past the corner baseman? Somebody in the outfield has to chase those down, right? Don't you agree that the vast majority of Ozzie's hits were first fielded by an outfielder? Also, with Clark at second and short, lots more balls will get through the defense to the outfield. How about bloop hits? I'm sure an the Ozzie team would get way more than we're used to seeing against an all-Clark defense. Maybe the outfielders could play up to cut off some singles, but then the extra base hits go up. Bottom line is, you can't ignore outfield defense in your mythical eight versus eight scenario.

How about we make a compromise. We stick Will at first, DH, and LF and let Ozzie play the rest.

jalbright

07-10-2009, 10:30 AM

How about we make a compromise. We stick Will at first, DH, and LF and let Ozzie play the rest.

Sounds good to me--though if we don't have a DH, I might stretch it to put Will in right or at third.

BigandUgly

07-10-2009, 10:35 AM

9RoyHobbsRF

07-10-2009, 10:39 AM

How about we make a compromise. We stick Will at first, DH, and LF and let Ozzie play the rest.

that is basically the 1985-1987 cardinals

nerfan

07-10-2009, 10:46 AM

Now that I've thought about it more I'd have to say I'd rather not have Will Clark on my team. Looking deeper into the number it's become painfully obvious that he used illegal PEDs at the end of his career.

z0mg Ted Williams = steriods b/c he was t00 g00d f1nal season????!!!oneoneone

Please, refrain from throwing wild accusations.

jalbright

07-10-2009, 10:50 AM

Mr Hobbs added this:

How about we make a compromise. We stick Will at first, DH, and LF and let Ozzie play the rest.

that is basically the 1985-1987 cardinals

Same general idea, but even without the DH, two Will Clarks beat one Jack Clark--I'd really have to go through the other position players to decide which group is better. I'd rather have a real catcher, but on first thought, it would be close overall.

nerfan

07-10-2009, 10:58 AM

Mr Hobbs added this:

Same general idea, but even without the DH, two Will Clarks beat one Jack Clark--I'd really have to go through the other position players to decide which group is better. I'd rather have a real catcher, but on first thought, it would be close overall.

I think I'd go with the Will/Ozzie team.

It might not be a downgrade at catcher, even, given that besides Darrell Porter, Cardinals catchers were awful from 1985-1987

1B- Will over Jack
2B- Ozzie over Herr
SS- same
3B- Either Will or Ozzie over Pendleton
LF- Will over Coleman easily
CF- Based on 1985 alone McGee, I'll probably take him '86-'87 over Ozzie as well
RF- Van Slyke over Ozzie or Will (playing out of position)

BigandUgly

07-10-2009, 11:35 AM

0mg Ted Williams = steriods b/c he was t00 g00d f1nal season????!!!oneoneone

Please, refrain from throwing wild accusations.

I contend that in his last year with SFG he met a new guy on the team named Barry Bonds. Bonds' personal trainer began working with Clark and introduced him to PEDs.

Will Clark then met Rafael Pamiero as he was leaving Texas to begin the 1993 season. Will Clark spent the 1994-1998 seasons using Pamiero's left over vitamin B12 shots. The Texas Rangers were well known for their drug use in the late 90's with players like IRod being in Canseco's book and Juan Gonzalez being caught in an airport with roids. Believing that will Clark could be in that environment and not use is believing in fairy tales.

Will Clark left Texas to go to Baltimore in 1999, where the left over drugs from 1996 powerhouse team were still available. Palmiero departed in 1999 leaving a fresh supply of Vitamin B12.

Through this point will Clark had a good, but unspectacular career. Part way through the 2000 season he goes to St. Louis where he meets Mark McGwire and learns about Andro and puts it all together with the highest OPS and lowest AB/HR of his career at the age of 36.

Realizing that his squeaky clean image will be tarnished when great baseball historians such as myself put all the clues together he decides to retire and break association with McGwire as quickly as possible to avoid detection.

It all makes perfect sense, and this has been the kind of thought process that has been used to "convict" many other "users." Why can't it be valid for Will Clark?

-----
(I really hope I don't have to say that this is very sarcastic.)

Brad Harris

07-10-2009, 11:59 AM

Someone evidently has a great knack for fiction. :laugh :laugh :laugh

BigandUgly

07-10-2009, 12:34 PM

Someone evidently has a great knack for fiction.

My post is the truth as best as I can describe it. It's not my fault if nobody else wants to acknowledge it.

Jsquared83

07-10-2009, 05:52 PM

You said Mattingly 1984-89 by far. I was responding that in 1987-89 Clark was better than Mattingly. Why does it matter about 1984-86? Will Clark wasn't in the major leagues in 1984-85 and only played 111 games in '86 (rookie year) due to elbow surgery. Mattingly's 1984-86 was probably better than Clark's 1987-89. I need to look more into.

Oh no, I understand where you're coming from. I know Clark wasnt in the league yet in 84 but I just wanted to point out that Mattingly's best 3 were better than Clark's. Clark's best three however, does have the edge over Mattingly's second best group of 3 years. As a total career, Clark had the edge offensively with consistent counting numbers. Mattingly's edge was with the glove and the better 3-4 year peak.

9RoyHobbsRF

07-10-2009, 11:43 PM

who can forget the immortal line from jose canseco about will clark

"he is a three toed sloth with no arms"

meaning slow and no muscles

cavalier1968

07-11-2009, 01:21 AM

:laughIt hard to compete with that wonderful slick fielding shortstop playing for the Padres.......and his robust 66+ OPS :laugh:laugh:laugh

Cav

cavalier1968

07-11-2009, 01:42 AM

The Clarks would have occasional big innings. The Smiths would have frequent one run innings.

I think you're over-estimating Clark's offense though. In 8283 plate appearences he got a hit, BB or HBP 3172 times, or 38.2%. At this rate, in a 9 inning game he'd make his 27 outs in 44 at bats, reaching safely a little over 16 times per game, assuming average fielding. He hit a homerun a less than 1 of every 25 at bats and on average he'd have less than 1 runner on base. A typical game he'd have less than 2 homeruns.

Further, most of the time that he reached base it would be on a walk or a single. Without an extra base hit Clark doesn't have the speed to score from first. Even on doubles he'd be unlikely to score from first. Most innings there would be a runner or two stranded with no scoring.

On the Wizard's side, He'd get about 41 at bats per game, with an insignificant number or homeruns. He would however get into scoring position through stolen bases, FC, etc then score on the singles that Clark couldn't score on.

All-in-all I think the offensive side of the Smith's vs. Clarks would be much closer than expected.

Let me get this straight.....The Clarks would hit 1 hr a game and get on base 15 more times.........Ozzie would hit a homer every....what....100 games......:nod::nod: BTW in offensive winning pct......Will is near top 100 players ever ahead of Boggs, Griffey Jr, Yaz, Brett, Carew....The Wizard is not in top 1000!

ANd Lastly....forget the notion that the Wizard wins close games......The Thrill exceeds in close game (i checked) While The Wiz was.....:laugh

Melottfan

07-11-2009, 07:12 AM

Will. He has better stats than any of these so-called HOF's.

dominik

07-11-2009, 07:22 AM