Jesse Barfield vs. Joe Carter

85Jays · 10-12-2007, 01:20 PM

Who was better?

Joe was a World Series hero and an RBI machine, but if you believe that RBIs are a function of having players on base in front of you, Jesse's the clear winner.

Using each player's four best years (because Joe only had four seasons as a Jay when he had an OPS above league average), the OPS+ for each is as follows:

Jesse:

1983: 112
1984: 123
1985: 142
1986: 147

Joe:

1991: 124
1992: 119
1993: 111
1994: 113

Jesse comes out on top in 3 of 4 years, not matter how you shake it -- and yes, independent of league-wide comparisons, Jesse's OPS is higher in each of four years.

I could go beyond those four years ... but that would slant things even more in Jesse's favour.

Joe gets the nod for playoff stats, but he also had more opportunities.

In fact, I'd argue that without the World Series home run, Joe would be remembered as just a guy who had a lot of guys get on base in front of him so he could -- in the words of Jim Hunt -- "drive in more runs that don't matter than any player in history".

Discuss.

WilsonC · 10-13-2007, 04:40 PM

I think that Barfield was definitely the better player on a per-game basis. They had similar power, and hit for similar batting averages, but Barfield was appreciably better at getting on base, and a better fielder with a cannon for an arm. In fact, Carter's best OBP was identical to Barfield's career OBP of .335.

On the other hand, Carter has a pretty big advantage in durability. His RBI totals are in large part because he was consistently hitting after good table setters - but also because he was a consistent power hitter who did a good job of keeping himself in the lineup. Now, I'm not sure if it's a reflection of Barfield's ability to stay in the lineup or managerial tendencies cutting into his playing time, but it's definitely not a factor that can be ignored.

On a talent level and at their peak, Barfield was a better player no question, but if we're looking at who had the better career, Carter comes out ahead.

gojays2007 · 10-16-2007, 09:02 AM

well, I guess that settles that

gojays2007 · 10-24-2007, 09:35 AM

unless you consider barfield has spawn a mlb son while carter has not.

JaysFan · 01-08-2008, 09:34 PM

I have to go with Carter being the better player based solely on the fact that he was clutch and came through when needed most.

Barfield was notorious for hitting homeruns and collecting RBI's when the Jays were winning big.

gojays2007 · 03-04-2008, 11:47 AM

worst_forum_ever

adeel · 03-04-2008, 12:02 PM

I think you have to give Carter the edge for having the longer career. Barfield's numbers are better, he was better at getting on base and slightly better at hitting for power than Carter (.466/.464), but he only had 4759 career AB to Carter's 8422. At their best, however, Barfield was the better player. Interestingly, 1986 was the best year both players had. Barfield hit more home runs and had a higher OBP and slugging percentage.

Interesting debate. I never thought Barfield was that good.

10-12-2007, 01:20 PM	#1 (permalink)
85Jays Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 36	Jesse Barfield vs. Joe Carter Who was better? Joe was a World Series hero and an RBI machine, but if you believe that RBIs are a function of having players on base in front of you, Jesse's the clear winner. Using each player's four best years (because Joe only had four seasons as a Jay when he had an OPS above league average), the OPS+ for each is as follows: Jesse: 1983: 112 1984: 123 1985: 142 1986: 147 Joe: 1991: 124 1992: 119 1993: 111 1994: 113 Jesse comes out on top in 3 of 4 years, not matter how you shake it -- and yes, independent of league-wide comparisons, Jesse's OPS is higher in each of four years. I could go beyond those four years ... but that would slant things even more in Jesse's favour. Joe gets the nod for playoff stats, but he also had more opportunities. In fact, I'd argue that without the World Series home run, Joe would be remembered as just a guy who had a lot of guys get on base in front of him so he could -- in the words of Jim Hunt -- "drive in more runs that don't matter than any player in history". Discuss.

10-13-2007, 04:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	I think that Barfield was definitely the better player on a per-game basis. They had similar power, and hit for similar batting averages, but Barfield was appreciably better at getting on base, and a better fielder with a cannon for an arm. In fact, Carter's best OBP was identical to Barfield's career OBP of .335. On the other hand, Carter has a pretty big advantage in durability. His RBI totals are in large part because he was consistently hitting after good table setters - but also because he was a consistent power hitter who did a good job of keeping himself in the lineup. Now, I'm not sure if it's a reflection of Barfield's ability to stay in the lineup or managerial tendencies cutting into his playing time, but it's definitely not a factor that can be ignored. On a talent level and at their peak, Barfield was a better player no question, but if we're looking at who had the better career, Carter comes out ahead.

10-16-2007, 09:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
gojays2007 Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 177	well, I guess that settles that

10-24-2007, 09:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
gojays2007 Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 177	unless you consider barfield has spawn a mlb son while carter has not.

01-08-2008, 09:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
JaysFan New Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1	I have to go with Carter being the better player based solely on the fact that he was clutch and came through when needed most. Barfield was notorious for hitting homeruns and collecting RBI's when the Jays were winning big.

03-04-2008, 11:47 AM	#6 (permalink)
gojays2007 Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 177	worst_forum_ever

03-04-2008, 12:02 PM	#7 (permalink)
adeel Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 818	I think you have to give Carter the edge for having the longer career. Barfield's numbers are better, he was better at getting on base and slightly better at hitting for power than Carter (.466/.464), but he only had 4759 career AB to Carter's 8422. At their best, however, Barfield was the better player. Interestingly, 1986 was the best year both players had. Barfield hit more home runs and had a higher OBP and slugging percentage. Interesting debate. I never thought Barfield was that good.