best first basemen '85-95?

[rustystaub]

...a freind of mine recently asked me who i thought were some of the best first basemen who played that position during the 1985-95 era. I am presently drawing a blank and would appreciate any and all help. Thanks

[RuthMayBond]

WClark, McGwire, Raffy, Mattingly, Olerud, Grace ...

[BoSox Rule]

I have to say Will Clark with Mark McGwire pretty close but with injury-shortened seasons until 1996-2000.

[Pine Tar]

This is sort of a difficult question because many of the best first basemen of the era started in the early 90's. Notably firstbasemen who played the majority of those years include (the numbers to the right indicate the number of silver slugger awards each player won during 85-95):

Don Mattingly 3
Fred McGriff 3
Rafael Palmeiro 0
Mark Grace 0
Cecil Fielder 2
Will Clark 2
Andres Galarraga 1
Eddie Murray 0
Mark McGwire 1

So Mattingly and McGriff won the most silver slugger awards from 85-95 of those in this group, but Mattingly really didn't do anything after 1988 or so.
I would actually say that McGriff was easily the best first baseman from 85-95.
Beyond winning the most silver sluggers, he was consistently among the best players for all positions.

His first full season was 1988 and for the 8 years between 1988 and 1995, he was in the top 5 in OPS+ six times (75%) and in the top 10 seven times (88%)!

That is an amazing run and I don't see any other firstbaseman from that era even coming close to that.

I think a lot of people will say that McGwire was the best but he was injured a lot back then and was only in the top 5 in OPS+ twice and the top 10 three times during the 85-95 span.

[iPod]

His first full season was 1988 and for the 8 years between 1988 and 1995, he was in the top 5 in OPS+ six times (75%) and in the top 10 seven times (88%)!

That is an amazing run and I don't see any other firstbaseman from that era even coming close to that.

I think a lot of people will say that McGwire was the best but he was injured a lot back then and was only in the top 5 in OPS+ twice and the top 10 three times during the 85-95 span.

Clark was in the top 10 in OPS+ 6 times, and finished 2nd three times during that period.

They were both age 31 in 1995. Through age 31...
Clark: .302/.379/.497, 143 OPS+, 1543 hits, 300 2B, 42 3B, 205 HR
McGriff: .285/.386/.535, 149 OPS+, 1284 hits, 229 2B, 17 3B, 289 HR

Close call, could go either way. It's probably one of those 2 though.

[BoSox Rule]

Clark was in the top 10 in OPS+ 6 times, and finished 2nd three times during that period.

They were both age 31 in 1995. Through age 31...
Clark: .302/.379/.497, 143 OPS+, 1543 hits, 300 2B, 42 3B, 205 HR
McGriff: .285/.386/.535, 149 OPS+, 1284 hits, 229 2B, 17 3B, 289 HR

Close call, could go either way. It's probably one of those 2 though.

You also have to consider that Clark had one of the best gloves in the history of the game.

[KCGHOST]

I'd have to go with Clark, but McGriff is very close.

[Pine Tar]

Clark was in the top 10 in OPS+ 6 times, and finished 2nd three times during that period.

They were both age 31 in 1995. Through age 31...
Clark: .302/.379/.497, 143 OPS+, 1543 hits, 300 2B, 42 3B, 205 HR
McGriff: .285/.386/.535, 149 OPS+, 1284 hits, 229 2B, 17 3B, 289 HR

Close call, could go either way. It's probably one of those 2 though.

Yeah I agree that its between Clark and McGriff but I still give it to McGriff. He played a full season less than Clark so the totals mentioned above are a bit skewed against McGriff.

Here are the best ERA+ from 85-95 of the two players.
McGriff only played 8 full years and most of a 9th from 85-95 so I am including all 9:
165 161 157 157 157 147 142 130 120
Will Clark played 9 full seasons and most of a 10th so I include all 10:
175 160 153 152 150 140 127 125 121 118

Will Clark had the best year of the two players (with his era+ of 175) but McGriff had the better 10 years IMO.

I think Clark should get some credit for defense but I think it may be a stretch to say he was an all-time great defensive 1bman. I mean he was no Keith Hernandez and I don't see how he was any better than Mattingly or Olerud.

[Dontworry]

I'm going with Will Clark.


His numbers don't appear as awesome as they really are because 1988,89,92 were Three years where the National league averaged 3.8,3.9,and 3.9 runs per game. Three of the lowest averages in the history of the National league. Plus he was hitting at Candlestick Park, probably the worst hitter's Park at that time. To be able to hit .333 at Candlestick Park in 1989 was really an accomplishment. He went to a hitter's park too late in his career, plus he lost parts of two season with the Rangers because of the 94-95 strike.

Also,Bill James rates clark's 1989 season as the best offensive season of the 80's. He earned 44 that year. In terms of only batting WS, Clark's 1989 was 14th all time, incredible.

Just incase anyone wants to know, this is how James explains Clark's 44 win share season in 1989:

Clark hit .333, .407 on Base, .546 slugging
38 doubles, 9 triples, and 23 home runs
A very good year, but why is it worth 44 win shares.

1989 was a pitcher's league. The league ERA was 3.50, one of the lowest in the last 25 years. the league averaged 3.9 runs per game one of the lowest averages of the past 50 years. If you compare 1989 to 2000,2001 Clark is competing in a league with 30-40% fewer runs.

Clark played in a pitcher's park. The park factor for Candlestick in 1989 is .9110

He only grounded into 6 Double plays, He stole 8 bases and was only caught 3 times. good for a 77% stolen base average.

He hit .389 with runners in scoring position. He hit 13 of his 23 home runs, with men on base.

Scored 104 runs and drove in 111.

plus he was a terrific defensive first basemen.

[Edgartohof]

You know, I'm gonna have to give it up to the Crime Dog on this one. He was great in that time, his OPS+ was 150 and above from '87-'95, FIVE times, he had 7 consecutive seasons of 30+ HR's, when hitting 30 was actually good (and would have had 8 if it weren't for the shortened '95 season). During this time, he was in the top 5 in HR's seven times, was 2nd once, and led twice. That's good enough for me, but players such as Clark Mattingly,and Mcgwire are right there, with Olerud and crew not too far behind.

[Pine Tar]

I'm going with Will Clark.
His numbers don't appear as awesome as they really are because 1988,89,92 were Three years where the National league averaged 3.8,3.9,and 3.9 runs per game. Three of the lowest averages in the history of the National league. Plus he was hitting at Candlestick Park, probably the worst hitter's Park at that time. To be able to hit .333 at Candlestick Park in 1989 was really an accomplishment. He went to a hitter's park too late in his career, plus he lost parts of two season with the Rangers because of the 94-95 strike.

I agree with some of what you are saying. Its no secret that Will Clark's raw numbers are deflated due to the era and his ballpark.
But OPS+ accounts for park and era so you can compare McGriff and Clark and when you do so McGriff's OPS+ was better over the whole decade while Clark's was only better for the one year. Also, not sure what your point is with the strike comment considering all players lost games due to the strike not just Will Clark.

If you are going to put Clark above McGriff I think you have to do it because of defense. And considering these are first basemen we are talking about, I am not ready to do that. I would probably consider defense as a tie breaker but McGriff's offensive statistics are clearly ahead. I am not sure where I read this but I think that the only player with a higher ops+ than McGriff from 1985-95 was Barry Bonds.

[538280]

I agree with some of what you are saying. Its no secret that Will Clark's raw numbers are deflated due to the era and his ballpark.
But OPS+ accounts for park and era so you can compare McGriff and Clark and when you do so McGriff's OPS+ was better over the whole decade while Clark's was only better for the one year. Also, not sure what your point is with the strike comment considering all players lost games due to the strike not just Will Clark.

So, what do we have here? Win Shares says one thing, OPS+ says another. Which one would you go with? I think there's no question you'd be smart to got with Win Shares. Offensive Win Shares is a player's runs created, adjused for era and park, but it also contains a lot of smaller things that really can make a huge difference. Things like the player's BA with RISP, HRs with men on base, stolen base percentage, grounding into double plays. Those things, when put together, can make a huge difference. Clark was tremendous at all those "little things". James explains how Clark's 1989 year was the best year of all time for those factors. This makes in the best offensive year of the 1980s, and makes Clark a much more valuable hitter than OPS+, just OBP and SLG compared to league average, is able to realize.

[Pine Tar]

So, what do we have here? Win Shares says one thing, OPS+ says another. Which one would you go with? I think there's no question you'd be smart to got with Win Shares. Offensive Win Shares is a player's runs created, adjused for era and park, but it also contains a lot of smaller things that really can make a huge difference. Things like the player's BA with RISP, HRs with men on base, stolen base percentage, grounding into double plays. Those things, when put together, can make a huge difference. Clark was tremendous at all those "little things". James explains how Clark's 1989 year was the best year of all time for those factors. This makes in the best offensive year of the 1980s, and makes Clark a much more valuable hitter than OPS+, just OBP and SLG compared to league average, is able to realize.

Well then I guess I am not smart because I am not willing to put Clark's numbers from '85-'95 above McGriff's, especially considering you are only talking about 1989. The point of this discussion is to determine who was the best 1b from 85-95 not who had the best year. I think most would say that Clark did have the best year (89), including me. As an aside, I think James' rating of Clark's 1989 is more an indication of holes in the win-shares formula than it is of Clark's actual value. According to win-shares, Clark's 1989 was better than Ted Williams' 1941 I think you have already conceded this in a previous post so I am not sure why you are bringing it up now as evidence for Clark's value over all others.

[digglahhh]

Chris,

I feel like a broken record- but once again- Win Shares are measurements of accomplishment, not talent, skill, potential or necessarily greatness. Many of the nuances of Win Shares, batting average w/ RISP, homeruns with men on base, etc. are not discernable skills on their own. They are, here comes the four letter word- TEAM DEPENDENT. Is getting a hit with a man on second, or homering with two runners on, a discernalbe skill from just getting a hit, or hitting a homerun with nobody on? Those occurances reflect value, but don't necessarily make a player BETTER than another.

For all the team dependent stat bashing that goes on here, Win Shares seems to get a free pass- weird isn't it?

[Pine Tar]

Chris,

I feel like a broken record- but once again- Win Shares are measurements of accomplishment, not talent, skill, potential or necessarily greatness. Many of the nuances of Win Shares, batting average w/ RISP, homeruns with men on base, etc. are not discernable skills on their own. They are, here comes the four letter word- TEAM DEPENDENT. Is getting a hit with a man on second, or homering with two runners on, a discernalbe skill from just getting a hit, or hitting a homerun with nobody on? Those occurances reflect value, but don't necessarily make a player BETTER than another.

For all the team dependent stat bashing that goes on here, Win Shares seems to get a free pass- weird isn't it?

Great Post!