Larry Walker

[micsmith]

I tried looking in the archive for a thread about Walker but couldn't find one. Do you think Larry Walker is a future hall of famer?

[ElHalo]

I'm all for him, but it's unlikely that any Rockies position player will make the Hall until the Rockies lower their field by 5000 feet.

[J W]

I completely disagree. 2500 feet should do it. :p

There are two players who we think of as Rockies, who have/will have a HOF shot: Larry Walker, and Todd Helton. Of the two, Helton has been a lifetime Rockie (Rocky?), while Walker has played significant time in Montreal, and is now with the Cardinals.

I think it will depend on what he does with the Cards as to whether or not he will make it to the Hall. I assume they're going to keep him around, ESPECIALLY if they win the World Series this year. His defense was fairly important in today's game 6 win over the Astros, getting to a few balls, and keeping Carlos Beltran to two singles instead of two doubles.

And that's the thing about Walker that I pay more attention to, because of today's bat-happy era. Dude can hit, but dude can also field, and he's got a cannon-arm.

I must say I'm really rooting for him to make it. I've always enjoyed watching him and I feel he hasn't gotten enough attention while being stowed away in Coors Field.

** Here's a stat I would love someone to do for me: What are Walker's home/road splits as a Rockie, and how are they in relation to the average Rockies player?

[dgarza]

His GGs DO give him more cred.

I want to know who the 1st Rockies HOF pitcher will be...

[Cougar]

As a five-tool player, Walker is second among his contemporaries only to Bonds and perhaps Griffey. ARod too, if you want to call him a contemporary. Still, pretty great company.

The knock, very legitimately, is his durability. Walker has had 500 AB twice in 16 seasons. If Walker wasn't constantly hurt, this wouldn't be a debate -- he'd be a first-ballot, 90%+ HOFer.

He probably deserves it already, but in order to allay people's doubts, he really needs one highly productive 140-game season away from Coors Field. Whether he has it in him at age 38 is anyone's guess.

[MudvilleMike]

Guys, even the Rockies play 81 games outside of Coors. Walker is definitely not a HOFer outside of Coors. Helton is.

[Gooch]

The Cardinals' Larry Walker may retire after this season -- is he a Hall of Famer in your opinion?
I think that he's a borderline candidate (and I like the guy). Even though he has won some batting titles and several Gold Gloves, the knock on Walker was that the huge numbers he produced in the 1990s were "inflated" by playing in Coors Field for the Rockies.
For his career, he has a .313 average, just under 400 homers, and around 2100 hits. I think his numbers compare favorably with Hall of Famers like Cepeda and Tony Perez, but Walker played in an era of "augmented" offense.

[STLCards2]

Coors + inflated offensive era + injuries = no HOF for Walker.

[oscargamblesfro]

larry is a solid, likeable, hardworking player, a good all around player. a very good fielder. he was a good hitter before coors too, a smart baserunner.

however, he just isn't quite a hall of famer, largely due to the effects of coors. while walker is easily the best all-around player in the history of the rockies ( helton doesn't have quite as many different skills) he's a little short of true greatness..

in some ways, he reminds me of dwight evans, though evans was an even better fielder.

[digglahhh]

Walker probably falls into that group of players who I categorize as being as "good as you can be without being deserving of the HOF." Bernie Williams is probably around that group too. Larry was quite a player, a hard worker and a stand-up guy. He had a great career and milked Coors for all it was worth.

If it is any consolation to him, he would easily be elected to the Fantasy Baseball HOF on the first ballot, if there was such a thing. His 1997 could have been the fantasy season ever (if you count from when fantasy kind of took off in the early 80's.)

[mattresell]

Walker is going to be one of those borderline guys, much like Martinez from last year. The difference is Walker played great D (7 gold gloves) while Edgar didn't play D at all. I think he'll get in, but it's up to the voters, not me. I wrote a more convincing arguement on my website if you care to read it.

http://unrestrictedview.blogspot.com/

[mattresell]

I think he desreves to be in. The question will be how much voters feel his numbers are related to Coors Field. Even his park adjusted numbers are pretty good. Check out my arguement for walker on my site.

http://unrestrictedview.blogspot.com/

[jalbright]

If he really does retire at the end of 2005, he's a really tough call in my book, and I think I'd come down on the no side.

I don't know his 2005 win shares, but without them, he had 297 career, 82 in his top three years, and 109 in his top five consecutive. Close, but no cigar in my book for an outfielder. Coors Field undoubtedly knocks down his win share numbers. Eighty-two for a top three isn't much at all for a HOF outfielder nor is 109 in the top five consecutive.

Coors Field should have helped him rack up some black ink and gray ink numbers, right? Maybe in black ink, where his 24 points are 78th best all time. But not in gray ink, where his 116 points are 169th all-time. That would be outside the HOF cutoff in that category, and he's not a middle infielder or catcher whose defense should overcome that deficit. He's darned close, but Coors, his lack of durability, and his underwhelming gray ink numbers despite having the advantage of Denver for much of his career are enough for me to say no if he doesn't have another couple of solid to decent years. OTOH, if he makes it, he'd hardly be an embarrassing choice.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

If he really does retire at the end of 2005, he's a really tough call in my book, and I think I'd come down on the no side.

I don't know his 2005 win shares, but without them, he had 297 career, 82 in his top three years, and 109 in his top five consecutive. Close, but no cigar in my book for an outfielder. Coors Field undoubtedly knocks down his win share numbers. Eighty-two for a top three isn't much at all for a HOF outfielder nor is 109 in the top five consecutive.

Coors Field should have helped him rack up some black ink and gray ink numbers, right? Maybe in black ink, where his 24 points are 78th best all time. But not in gray ink, where his 116 points are 169th all-time. That would be outside the HOF cutoff in that category, and he's not a middle infielder or catcher whose defense should overcome that deficit. He's darned close, but Coors, his lack of durability, and his underwhelming gray ink numbers despite having the advantage of Denver for much of his career are enough for me to say no if he doesn't have another couple of solid to decent years. OTOH, if he makes it, he'd hardly be an embarrassing choice.

Jim Albright

[Chisox]

I'll agree to that. Why is it that I'm constantly finding myself stating that same line?

[Chisox]

I tried looking in the archive for a thread about Walker but couldn't find one. Do you think Larry Walker is a future hall of famer?

Why didn't you just add to the one started by Gooch a few days before yours?

Can we get a mod to merge those two?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Threads merged.

[sweaver]

Walker is a classic gray-area guy, with a good career that just wasn't quite long enough. I wouldn't necessarily vote for him, but neither would I stand in his way.

[Chisox]

Threads merged.

Thank you.
I wouldn't vote for Walker, either, but you certainly can make a strong case in his favor. Injury free, would we be even having this discussion.

[runningshoes]

larry is a solid, likeable, hardworking player, a good all around player. a very good fielder. he was a good hitter before coors too, a smart baserunner.

Of course he is. He's Canadian. :waving

[Twinskoop]

I don't buy the idea that Walker is not a HoFer on the basis of where he played most of his home games. His career league-relative, park-adjusted OPS+ was 140. If you search the career leaders in that category on baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml), you'll note that there aren't many players with a higher number that are not in the HoF, though many (including recent first-ballot inductees Wade Boggs, Paul Molitor, and Kirby Puckett) HoFers are significantly behind Walker in that category. And it's very difficult to make a case for most of the guys ahead of Walker on that list; the one exception is Dick Allen, who should be in the Hall. Most of them either played in a different era, or didn't play long enough. For others, like Frank Howard, it comes down to defense, and the lack of award recognition like MVP voting.

The argument that Walker's lack of durability keeps him out is a stronger one. But we should keep in mind that while he was definitely fragile, his aggregate numbers are still quite good, and by no means out of place in the Hall. Kirby Puckett provided less quality production in fewer games than Walker, and is in on the first ballot. Defensive position can't make up for all of that discrepancy, especially considering Walker is a 7-time Gold Glove winner. I'm a lifelong Twins fan, and love Kirby, but he should not get more credit for his shortened career than Walker gets for his injury-riddled career.

If Walker is left out, he will be unarguably among the top 4 or 5 hitters not in the Hall. Whereas, if he is enshrined, there will be dozens upon dozens of less productive hitters below him.

Make him wait a few years, but let him in.

[digglahhh]

You know, if Walker was the only guy on those Rockies teams with monster numbers it would be a lot easier to minimize the Coors effect when considering him.

When you see Dante Bichette, Ellis Burks, Vinny Castilla, and Andres Gallaraga (actually an under appreciated player) putting up the gaudy numbers year after year you have to question it.

Helton on the other hand is really more of a shines brighter because of circumstance, as he didn't have two other guys hitting 40+ homers on his team year after year and therefore appears more of a standout.

The park factor is 128!

[Twinskoop]

You know, if Walker was the only guy on those Rockies teams with monster numbers it would be a lot easier to minimize the Coors effect when considering him.

When you see Dante Bichette, Ellis Burks, Vinny Castilla, and Andres Gallaraga (actually an under appreciated player) putting up the gaudy numbers year after year you have to question it.

Helton on the other hand is really more of a shines brighter because of circumstance, as he didn't have two other guys hitting 40+ homers on his team year after year and therefore appears more of a standout.

The park factor is 128!

A) OPS+ accounts for park factor. And as I said, Dick Allen is really the only eligible guy with a better OPS+ not in the Hall.

B) Regarding those other players - Helton is the only decent analogy, and he may be a HoFer as well, if he puts up 4 or 5 more solid years. Castilla's best OPS+ year in Coors was only 128 (as opposed to Walker's 177 in his MVP year, 1997). Bichette's best was 130 in '95. Galarraga's best was 155 in '98 in Atlanta. (His second best was 149 in '88 in Montreal). Burks' best season was 2000, in SF, with a 166. Though Walker did have his best OPS+ years in Coors, he also posted an OPS+ over 120 in 5 of his 6 non-Coors years, including 151 ('94) and 142 ('92). Paul Molitor's (first ballot HoFer) career OPS+ was 122.

The point is, unless you're paying careful attention, it's very easy to overstate what the park factor of Coors Field does to Walker's HoF case. The legitimate knock on Walker is durability, not production.

[digglahhh]

I was talking perception and not reality. Walker was obviously the best of those players, by a considerable margin. Whether or not he's a HOFer is the issue, and among general consensus here, Walker is in pergatory.

[Twinskoop]

I was talking perception and not reality. Walker was obviously the best of those players, by a considerable margin. Whether or not he's a HOFer is the issue, and among general consensus here, Walker is in pergatory.

OK. I'm just trying to modify perception to conform to reality. :cool:

[bluejaysfan4ever]

What do you think?

Born: Maple Ridge, Canada, 1966

AB:6907
Hits: 2160
Home Runs: 383
RBI: 1311
BA: .313

[mtortolero]

He probably will become in the best hitter non HOF out of Dick Allen by some time. A really terrific hitter in his prime who was MVP once and a permanent name in the leaderboards of almost any important offensive stats in the NL by a decade. Beside this he was a defensive reference in his possition.
However we are talking about the first great hitter which the core of his numbers came of his years playing in planet Coors and perhaps this beside the lack of any milestone in those stats that he usually was surrounding, as hits, Hrs or RBI, looks as weird issue for someone with that kind of resume, Other negative is the fact that he only played more than 140 games four times during his 17 years carrer.
Tough case that could be a collateral victim of roids scandal around McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro election and the quality of baseball in the 90´s.

[brett]

Walker probably should get in. As a Colorado fan and Larry Walker fan I was not too keen on him as a Hall of Famer because of Coors, and the incomplete seasons, but the truth is that the ballpark adjusted hitting stats make him a strong case.

1) He has a career OPS+ of 140 for 1988 games and 6907 at bats. That ALONE puts him in almost exclusively hall of fame company. Here's a list of guys with at least 5000 abs and a 140 OPS+:

2) He won 7 gold gloves and probably deserved 7. He had center fielder talent and a great arm and even got snubbed three straight years in the middle of his gold glove run. Right field is more challenging than first base or left field, and more valuable. Of the handfull of 140 OPS+ guys with 500 at bats who are not in, he is probably above all of them when defense is considered. Frank Howard, and Babe Herman for example were quantifiably BAD defensive players and Edgar Martinez was a DH.

3) He also 230 bases on 306 attempts which is a shade over 75%, and was considered to be one of the best pure base runners of his time-often referred to as the best.

[Solair Wright]

If he doesn't make it to the Hall of Fame, the Rockies can retire his number (33) because of he played most of his career in Colorado. In addition, he had a pretty good offensive year in 1993, when he was with le Montreal Expos, but his best years were in Colorado.

[DoWnWiThTheSiCkNeSs]

yea , i think he deserves 33 retired by the Rockies, but i dont think hes a HOFer

[yankillaz]

He was among the top 10 players in the NL in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2001. Period. Galarraga was among the best in 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997. Bichette was in 1995, 1996 and 1997. Castilla goes to 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998and 2004.

How about a Colorado Cooperstown???

The only Colorado player that will go to Cooperstown will be Todd Helton.

[CardinalsForever]

I think Walker should be in...yes he got a lot of his hits at Coors, but he was also dominant on the road. Walker put up awsome numbers in Montreal and in St. Louis.

I do admit that I am extreamly biased because I live in Maple Ridge. BC and he is a local hero, therefore my vote shouldn't count.

But I still think he should be in the HOF as a baseball fan.

Cards4ever

[jalbright]

He probably will become in the best hitter non HOF out of Dick Allen by some time. A really terrific hitter in his prime who was MVP once and a permanent name in the leaderboards of almost any important offensive stats in the NL by a decade. Beside this he was a defensive reference in his possition.
However we are talking about the first great hitter which the core of his numbers came of his years playing in planet Coors and perhaps this beside the lack of any milestone in those stats that he usually was surrounding, as hits, Hrs or RBI, looks as weird issue for someone with that kind of resume, Other negative is the fact that he only played more than 140 games four times during his 17 years carrer.Tough case that could be a collateral victim of roids scandal around McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro election and the quality of baseball in the 90´s.

The sentence I highlighted from mtortolero's post is really what I think undoes his candidacy, even more than Coors. If he could have stayed healthy, I think he'd get my support. But he couldn't.

Jim Albright

[538280]

His case is stronger than I thought. Even park adjusted, the 140 OPS+ is rather impressive. That along with his great baserunning rep and awesome fielding make for a good case. I'm not sold, because 1.I'm not sure if the park adjustments really are a big enough adjustment in this case, and 2.His durability is a concern. But I think he's been an underrated player and deserves consideration.

[iPod]

Walker's H/R splits are pretty ugly. In 1998 for example, he hit .302/.403/.488 with 6 HR in 215 AB. At home he hit .418/.483/.757 with 17 HR in 239 AB. The only seasons where Walker didn't have a huge difference in production between home and road were 1997 when he won MVP and the first half of 2004, after which he got traded.

[Skin & Bones]

Nah, for many of the same reasons mentioned above.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I can't believe the vote is this close (14-6 right now). Just look at his home-road splits in the Colorado years. Case closed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted "no" in that I wouldn't vote for him, but he's better than a number of HOF outfielders.

I consider him in the class of Mattingly and Will Clark. Whether he's above or below depends on how much credit you give him for defense and how much you penalize him for Coors.

[Cougar]

I voted yes, based on the rate stats and the all-around game.

I think he's highly comparable to Tony Oliva, with more power (how much more is hard to say with Coors in the equation).

That said, the durability concerns are huge. It's the best argument for keeping him out. The stat MTortelero raised where he only played 140 games in 4 seasons is devastating.

[brett]

His case is stronger than I thought. Even park adjusted, the 140 OPS+ is rather impressive. That along with his great baserunning rep and awesome fielding make for a good case. I'm not sold, because 1.I'm not sure if the park adjustments really are a big enough adjustment in this case, and 2.His durability is a concern. But I think he's been an underrated player and deserves consideration.

538280, I would agree that his adjusted numbers were higher than I thought, and a bit of a suprise, however, I have tended to observe that the very best hitters in Coors do not get as much of a percentage boost as Mr. Average. A typical .270 hitter elsewhere was astonishingly around .325 at Coors. The average hitter batted 18% better and hit 37% more home runs in Coors than projected for an average park! When you get a truly good hitter, there is just only so high that they can go. Its secondary, but I also feel that hitting half your games at Coors messes you up somewhat for other parks. The Rockies always went on massive hitting slumps the first 2-3 games after an extended homestretch.

[brett]

I can't believe the vote is this close (14-6 right now). Just look at his home-road splits in the Colorado years. Case closed.

I actually come up with total road average of .400 on base and .500 slugging. The thing is that Colorado hitters struggled more on the road because of the habits they got into at home. Still, again, even being a Walker fan, I never quite thought he put together a HOF career. Another issue is that the 140 OPS+ is really brought up by the double effect of his batting average during the Colorado years.

[DodgerBlue8188]

Thats a tough one for me. If he doesnt make it in he should be about the closest thing to a HOF. IMO, if you put Walker in the HOF a lot of other guys are deserving too but the hall can only take a select few each year to keep it a high status selection

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Let me add this:

I don't think Todd Helton is subject to the same level of criticism as Walker. Yes, Helton would never have joined Gehrig (a legitimate member) and Klein (a fellow fraud, courtesy of the Baker Bowl) as the only 2-time members of the 100-XBH-in-a-season club, had not he been playing in Colorado. But Helton's road numbers have been good enough to suggest he's a real HOF'er.

Not Walker. The last I knew, his road OBP in the Coors years was about .370 and his slugging average in the Coors years was below .500. Even assuming he's not a member of his generation's enormous Fraud Squad, those are not HOF numbers, and they suggest his gaudy stats at Coors don't mean a whole lot.

BHN

[mtortolero]

Something I like is to see is how OPS+ home/road splits are.
In Walker's carrer case these are the numbers:

Home .348 avg .431 obp .637 slg 165 OPS+
Away .278 avg .370 obp .495 slg 115 OPS+
Total .313 avg .400 obp .565 slg 140 OPS+
Lgue. .283 avg .356 obp .444 slg

The fact that the core of his figures are from the Rockies years hurts him a lot.

[J W]

It's really tough to judge Walker's HOF case because you don't really know how much credit to give him while playing in Coors. You can't just discard his 165 OPS+ at home. Here's what we know:

- he was consistently the best or second best (Helton) hitter on the Rockies.

- his road splits aren't spectacular, but they're a lot better than many of the other Rockies players who rounded out the lineup.

- a lot of hitters have historically had trouble adjusting to other ballparks while playing home games at Coors.

- His five significant years in Montreal: OPS+ 151, 142, 127, 120, 112

...I can't really say one way or the other, but since I agree he'd be better than a number of OFers already in Cooperstown, I'll tentatively say yes.

[The Big C]

Barely a no. His stats are nice, but with the Coors factor I just can't see him as a HoFer.

[rockiesfan4ever]

God look at his defensive stats and you'll see he belongs

[Ubiquitous]

Even if we pretend Coors Field doesn't exist Larry doesn't really have the numbers to get in. 3 batting titles, one double, one homer, and that is it. Nor does he have any career milestones that when you look back you could say wow that is a great career. Under 400 homers, playing right field, under 500 doubles, a little over 2100 hits, under 1500 RBIS and runs.

Then when you throw in the fragility and Coors and I just don't see a HoF'er.

[runningshoes]

Canadian baseball Hall of Fame if he's not already in there.

[baseball junkie]

If he had played his whole career as an Expo and tried to convince other players not to leave town like Marquis Grisson, Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, Vlad Guerero, Javier Vazquez, Rondell White, Jose Vidro, Orlando Cabrera, Carl Pavano and the Expos had went on like a 10-year run of Division and World Championships then I'd say yes. But since he virtually lead the exodus out of Montreal, I say no.

[brett]

Something I like is to see is how OPS+ home/road splits are.
In Walker's carrer case these are the numbers:

Home .348 avg .431 obp .637 slg 165 OPS+
Away .278 avg .370 obp .495 slg 115 OPS+
Total .313 avg .400 obp .565 slg 140 OPS+
Lgue. .283 avg .356 obp .444 slg

The fact that the core of his figures are from the Rockies years hurts him a lot.

My question first is doesn't a 140 OPS+ for almost 2000 games put him almost exclusively in hall of fame company and second, of the few in that company not in, doesn't he top them all in defense and baserunning?

His splits are huge, but many players have split difference just do to the home field. Also, as I pointed out, Rockies hitters did worse on the road because of the contrast with the home effects, and that doesn't just effect him, it also raises the Coors adjusted numbers because his teammates all did better at Coors proportionatley, and their stats go into determining the park effects.

Still, I don't see how he put up a 170 OPS+ at Coors, or 140 overall. Using the standard Coors field adjustment down to a neutral ballpark I come up with the following triple crown numbers for his years in CO

95-.275/31/81
96-.248/15/46
97-.331/39/96
98-.327/20/54
99-.341/31/92
00-.278/8/41
01-.315/30/98
02-.304/22/83
03-.256/14/63

3 real good years there, and with a lot of walks, and keep in mind that Coors yielded very FEW walks because people were swinging wild there, but still, only 3 real good years, and 2 more borderline all star. The 140 OPS+ just doesn't make sense.

[Ubiquitous]

According to B-Ref the 140 OPS+ puts him at 78th place in history of baseball.

Of those not in the hall for reasons other then cheating or still playing the biggest name would be Dick Allen.

[Pine Tar]

The sentence I highlighted from mtortolero's post is really what I think undoes his candidacy, even more than Coors. If he could have stayed healthy, I think he'd get my support. But he couldn't.

Jim Albright
Not sure I agree with this. I think what may undo his candicacy is that his career was relatively short, not that he couldn't stay healthy. From 1990 to 2003 he played less than a full season only twice. He was no iron man or anything but he certainly wasn't any less likely to play a full season than Dick Allen. The way I see it, Walker had only two years from 1990 - 2003 when he didn't play full seasons, its not his fault that 1994 and 1995 were strike shortened. Other than 96 and 200, he missed an average of less than 20 games a year. Nothing to be embarassed about.
Also, great defense, great baserunning, no off the field problems, no steroid rumors, over 300 win shares, over 100 WARP3, and even considering the Coors factor and I think he should eventually get in.
Black Ink: Batting - 24 (78) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 116 (169) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 57.8 (33) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 147.0 (80) (Likely HOFer > 100)
These look like HOF numbers to me.

[mtortolero]

My question first is doesn't a 140 OPS+ for almost 2000 games put him almost exclusively in hall of fame company and second, of the few in that company not in, doesn't he top them all in defense and baserunning?

His splits are huge, but many players have split difference just do to the home field. Also, as I pointed out, Rockies hitters did worse on the road because of the contrast with the home effects, and that doesn't just effect him, it also raises the Coors adjusted numbers because his teammates all did better at Coors proportionatley, and their stats go into determining the park effects.

Still, I don't see how he put up a 170 OPS+ at Coors, or 140 overall. Using the standard Coors field adjustment down to a neutral ballpark I come up with the following triple crown numbers for his years in CO

95-.275/31/81
96-.248/15/46
97-.331/39/96
98-.327/20/54
99-.341/31/92
00-.278/8/41
01-.315/30/98
02-.304/22/83
03-.256/14/63

3 real good years there, and with a lot of walks, and keep in mind that Coors yielded very FEW walks because people were swinging wild there, but still, only 3 real good years, and 2 more borderline all star. The 140 OPS+ just doesn't make sense.

Year by Year splits in Co:

Year AB HR RBI AVG OBP SLG OPS

2003 124 OPS+ (LEAGUE 809 OPS)
Home 234 8 50 .338 .469 .551 1.020
Road 220 8 29 .227 .370 .395 .765

2002 146 OPS+ (LEAGUE 826 OPS)
Home 243 18 66 .362 .453 .671 1.124
Road 234 8 38 .312 .387 .530 .917

2001 160 OPS+ (LEAGUE 847 OPS)
Home 251 20 74 .406 .483 .773 1.256
Road 246 18 49 .293 .416 .549 .965

2000 106 OPS+ (LEAGUE 891 OPS)
Home 156 7 36 .359 .446 .615 1.061
Road 158 2 15 .259 .371 .399 .770

1999 162 OPS+ (LEAGUE 882 OPS)
Home 232 26 70 .461 .531 .879 1.410
Road 206 11 45 .286 .375 .519 .894

1998 160 OPS+ (LEAGUE 821 OPS)
Home 239 17 44 .418 .483 .757 1.240
Road 215 6 23 .302 .403 .488 .891

1997 177 OPS+ (LEAGUE 836 OPS)
Home 302 20 68 .384 .460 .709 1.169
Road 266 29 62 .346 .443 .733 1.176

1996 112 OPS+ (LEAGUE 846 OPS)
Home 145 12 45 .393 .448 .800 1.248
Road 127 6 13 .142 .216 .307 .523

1995 131 OPS+ (LEAGUE 843 OPS)
Home 248 24 59 .343 .401 .730 1.131
Road 246 12 42 .268 .361 .484 .845

Out of his monster carrer year 1997, when he was MVP, and 2001 and 2002 years, his splits in the other six years shows a wide margin of offensive production between home and road and in fact looks as he was at least in five of those years (1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003) an average or above average player, specially by his Hrs.

[Pine Tar]

Year by Year splits in Co:

Year AB HR RBI AVG OBP SLG OPS

2003 124 OPS+ (LEAGUE 809 OPS)
Home 234 8 50 .338 .469 .551 1.020
Road 220 8 29 .227 .370 .395 .765

2002 146 OPS+ (LEAGUE 826 OPS)
Home 243 18 66 .362 .453 .671 1.124
Road 234 8 38 .312 .387 .530 .917

2001 160 OPS+ (LEAGUE 847 OPS)
Home 251 20 74 .406 .483 .773 1.256
Road 246 18 49 .293 .416 .549 .965

2000 106 OPS+ (LEAGUE 891 OPS)
Home 156 7 36 .359 .446 .615 1.061
Road 158 2 15 .259 .371 .399 .770

1999 162 OPS+ (LEAGUE 882 OPS)
Home 232 26 70 .461 .531 .879 1.410
Road 206 11 45 .286 .375 .519 .894

1998 160 OPS+ (LEAGUE 821 OPS)
Home 239 17 44 .418 .483 .757 1.240
Road 215 6 23 .302 .403 .488 .891

1997 177 OPS+ (LEAGUE 836 OPS)
Home 302 20 68 .384 .460 .709 1.169
Road 266 29 62 .346 .443 .733 1.176

1996 112 OPS+ (LEAGUE 846 OPS)
Home 145 12 45 .393 .448 .800 1.248
Road 127 6 13 .142 .216 .307 .523

1995 131 OPS+ (LEAGUE 843 OPS)
Home 248 24 59 .343 .401 .730 1.131
Road 246 12 42 .268 .361 .484 .845

Out of his monster carrer year 1997, when he was MVP, and 2001 and 2002 years, his splits in the other six years shows a wide margin of offensive production between home and road and in fact looks as he was at least in five of those years (1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003) an average or above average player, specially by his Hrs.
1. If you are just looking at road stats then there really isn't a difference between 2002, which you identify a road .917 OPS as better then most other years, and 1998 and 1999 with road OPSs of .891 and .894.
2. If count 1998 and 1999 as years with excellent road stats as well then that makes 5 years out of 9 where Walker's stats were at least excellent on the road.
3. Two of the years you count, 1996 and 2000, Walker played less than half a season so I really don't think its fair to count these on the same par as say 1997 where he had more PAs than both those years combined.
4. So out of the SEVEN full seasons Walker played from 1995 to 2003, he had FIVE where his road OPS was around .9 or better. For Walker, that usually meant an OBP around .400 and slugging around .500. Those sound like John Olerud type stats.
5. So his stats were comparable to Olerud on the road, but at home they were comparable to who? I mean he batted over .400 at home three times and had a slugging over .700 five times in the seven full seasons he played at Coors.

Some people support Olerud for the hall, but Walker was better than him on every aspect of the game; defense, baserunning, hitting for average, power. So even considering the Coors factor, I vote for Walker.

[jalbright]

Not sure I agree with this. I think what may undo his candicacy is that his career was relatively short, not that he couldn't stay healthy. From 1990 to 2003 he played less than a full season only twice. He was no iron man or anything but he certainly wasn't any less likely to play a full season than Dick Allen. The way I see it, Walker had only two years from 1990 - 2003 when he didn't play full seasons, its not his fault that 1994 and 1995 were strike shortened. Other than 96 and 200, he missed an average of less than 20 games a year. Nothing to be embarassed about.
Also, great defense, great baserunning, no off the field problems, no steroid rumors, over 300 win shares, over 100 WARP3, and even considering the Coors factor and I think he should eventually get in.

Coors is clearly regarded as a hitter's park with good reason, and that causes some problems for Walker's candidacy. He played 17 years, which I wouldn't regard as particularly short by HOF standards, but only 8030 plate appearances, which is. I attribute it largley to his inability to stay healthy (though he probably missed at least 50 games and 225 or so PA to the strikes), you don't--but we agree on the key point there. However, missing 20 games a year so often hurts him in league leaderships and kept his stats from looking eye-popping to the casual fan, and if he had more of league leaderships or seasons casual fans would rave about, it would clearly help him overcome the bias against Coors.

I would concede that even with his short career or lack of durability(pick whichever explanation you prefer), he's one of those guys in the gray area who you can make a decent case for. However, since one of my critical yardsticks is career value, that hurts his case in my estimation. Others don't put such a premium of career value, and then he looks more attractive.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Coors is clearly regarded as a hitter's park with good reason, and that causes some problems for Walker's candidacy. He played 17 years, which I wouldn't regard as particularly short by HOF standards, but only 8030 plate appearances, which is. I attribute it largley to his inability to stay healthy (though he probably missed at least 50 games and 225 or so PA to the strikes), you don't--but we agree on the key point there. However, missing 20 games a year so often hurts him in league leaderships and kept his stats from looking eye-popping to the casual fan, and if he had more of league leaderships or seasons casual fans would rave about, it would clearly help him overcome the bias against Coors.

I would concede that even with his short career or lack of durability(pick whichever explanation you prefer), he's one of those guys in the gray area who you can make a decent case for. However, since one of my critical yardsticks is career value, that hurts his case in my estimation. Others don't put such a premium of career value, and then he looks more attractive.

Jim Albright

I have to talk about league leaderships here for a second-I won't hold it against Walker at all. Walker is playing in an era where there are about twice as many teams as there was for most of baseball history. This means finishing in the top 20 today means just about the same as finishing in the top 10 did back then. Look at the black ink of most modern stars-dominant players like Gary Sheffield and Brian Giles hardly get any black ink. Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, Jeff Bagwell, and Frank Thomas can hardly get above the HOF average in both ink categories. If you ask me, ink is basically useless anyway, but it's particularly useless IMO when looking at 1990s and 2000s players.

[brett]

Ink also works against players with balanced skills. You walk a lot, you don't lead the league in hits, total bases etc.

I have to talk about league leaderships here for a second-I won't hold it against Walker at all. Walker is playing in an era where there are about twice as many teams as there was for most of baseball history. This means finishing in the top 20 today means just about the same as finishing in the top 10 did back then. Look at the black ink of most modern stars-dominant players like Gary Sheffield and Brian Giles hardly get any black ink. Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, Jeff Bagwell, and Frank Thomas can hardly get above the HOF average in both ink categories. If you ask me, ink is basically useless anyway, but it's particularly useless IMO when looking at 1990s and 2000s players.

[brett]

According to B-Ref the 140 OPS+ puts him at 78th place in history of baseball.


And much higher if you stick to players with 5000 at bats.

[538280]

Ink also works against players with balanced skills. You walk a lot, you don't lead the league in hits, total bases etc.

ABsolutely true. I just started a thread in the history forum about how black/gray ink are a HORRIBLE way to evaluate players. No player better exemplifies this than Joe Morgan, really.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Does he belong in the hall?

[jwkfs]

I predict (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=48589&highlight=Larry+Walker) 65% of people will vote no. :D

[DoubleX]

Very talented all around player who might go underrated, but he has a number of things going against him:

1) His career wasn't all that long. Technically he played in 17 seasons, but almost all were injury plagued. He ended up with 6907 ABs - that's really not a lot, and I don't think he was stellar enough at peak to overcome his longevity shortcomings.

2) Injuries - I know I already said this, but this is an important element. Not only does the fact that he missed significant time just about every year hurt his case, but it unfortunately leads to speculation of steroids use, which is just about unavoidable in my mind for all players of the last 15-20 years, especially power hitters that seemed to always have some nagging injuries related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments.

3) His career totals aren't that impressive by Hall of Fame corner OF standards. He has 2160 hits and 383 homeruns. Good numbers but not that great, especially when you consider...

4) He played in the greatest offensive haven ever in one of the greatest offensive eras ever. For a guy with these kind of benefits, you'd expect some better totals in order to be a viable Hall of Fame candidate.

[EvanAparra]

Good points, XX. The small number of ABs is staggering for someone with a 17 year career. Place that with park adjustments, era adjustments, and the position he played, I dont think he should be in.

[Edgartohof]

1. I do not think he deserves to be in the HOF

2. I do not think he will actually get into the HOF

He was a very good player who happened to have his best years at Coors Field. And his injuries did in fact hurt him (no pun intended). He only played in 150+ games once in his career and over 140 games 3 other times.

Also, his HR totals are not as impressive as you would think. His career high of 49 in 1997 is great, but he never again hit 40+ HR's in a season. In fact, he only had three other 30+ HR seasons - largely in part to his injury shortened seasons.

I think, that if he had been able to stay healthier (much healthier) during his career, thereby playing more, then I think he would have a legitimate shot at the Hall, even with his playing at Coors.

At his best, he was a tremendous 5-tool player, and he had that no matter where he played.

What I wonder (on a slightly different note), what it would have been like if he had stayed in Montreal, and played with Vlad - '98 on would have been great for that team- with Walker and Vlad in the outfield. I doubt they would have stayed a 4th place team. But anyways... let's get back to the topic on hand.

[CROM]

it seems all points regarding this subject have already been made..
i consider myself a fan of larry walker but even with that said, he does not belong in the HOF..
fun to watch, all around player.. played a hell of an out field and could run the bases better than almost anyone..
unfortunately injuries will keep him out..

[hudsonharden]

mmmmmmmmm...No. Very nice career, but I don't think so.

[Los Bravos]

I always thought of Larry as a high batting average, line drive type hitter with solid power as a bonus, rather than a focal point of his offensive game. A batter of that style probably needs more hits than that.

[mac195]

I vote yes. With a career 140 OPS+, Walker was clearly a good enough hitter for the HOF, even after adjusting for Coors. He was also a great defensive right fielder in his prime. He played in 1988 games, not a huge amount by HOF player standards but enough IMO.

[The Toy Cannon]

I think he's better than a lot of guys already in the Hall of Fame. Maybe that's not much of an argument, I don't know.

A very good, but not "very great" player, and I tend to think the HOF should be reserved for the latter(though it quite clearly isn't).

[Captain Cold Nose]

Great numbers in an era of extreme offense. The mistakes that were made for 20's and 30's players should not be repeated, so I'm leaning toward no.

[Gee Walker]

Larry Walker is the new Chuck Klein. The same apparently awesome hitting stats helped by an extreme home park bias in a hitter's era, the same short career - Klein had 6486 AB's, the same lack of durability - Klein had one injury-free season after the age of 28.

Klein made the Hall of Fame - and he's not the worst outfielder in there, not by a long shot. But there's a backlog of better outfielders that aren't getting a shot, including Wlaker's former teammate, Tim Raines.

[brett]

The era can be factored out. Walker is still worth +71 offensive games in my system, and very close in other systems. This is hall of fame production even with the league and ballpark factored in. He was an excellent defensive rightfielder who could play center field, and was a plus base-runner (although steals go into the system already).

Dale Murphy, as a matter of comparison was +49 offensive games in my system. Joe Dimaggio is +79.

A 140 OPS+ through 8000 PA's is almost exclusively hall of fame numbers, and is ball-park adjusted. I also factor out the effects that a high batting average has on OPS+ (effectively counting double) and Walker is still there.

Now, I am a Walker fan. I lived in Colorado during much of his time there. I DON'T actually think he should get in and that is a bias I have against players who do not produce full seasons on a regular basis. I believe that it is very hard for a team to get maximum value out of a player who consistently misses 30-50 games a season and so even though he would get in solely on relative offensive production and defense, I hold him out because of incomplete seasons.

Great numbers in an era of extreme offense. The mistakes that were made for 20's and 30's players should not be repeated, so I'm leaning toward no.

[The Kid]

mmmmmmmmm...No. Very nice career, but I don't think so.
Same thing with Vida Blue and Bobby Bonds. Also, I think Coors majorly affects his chances because, c'mon, the Rockies are the most boring team in baseball.

[mac195]

Larry Walker is the new Chuck Klein
They are somewhat similar. Klein had a great peak, but Walker was the better career hitter, a much better fielder and he played in 235 more games. He is clearly more qualified for the HOF.

Klein made the Hall of Fame - and he's not the worst outfielder in there, not by a long shot. But there's a backlog of better outfielders that aren't getting a shot, including Wlaker's former teammate, Tim Raines.
Raines will get in without much trouble. If there is a list of outfielders better than Walker who have been rejected by the voters, I'd like to see it.

[rockiesfan4ever]

I Will Vote For Him!!!!!!!

[Old Sweater]

Had to vote no. He just carried that 240lbs. at to high of speed for to long.

Definite Rockie HOF.

[Joe Dodger]

We wouldn't be having this conversation had he stayed away from the roids.

[Old Sweater]

We wouldn't be having this conversation had he stayed away from the roids.

Cm'on now! The media and whistle blowers are bad enough.

[KCGHOST]

The guy has some things to make up a fair case.

ROY
MVP
5 time all-star
3 silver sluggers
OPS+140
RCAA 536 (Every player who has been retired 5 years with this many RCAA is in the HoF except Pete Browning a 19th Century slugger in the AA)
Above average HoF Monitor & Standards scores.

Unfortunately, his injuries hold his WARP3 down to 107 and that is well below the HoF level.

My guess is the voters won't remember the great Montreal years and will discount the great Colorado years.

[Brad Harris]

- Three batting titles
- Sixth most GG by an outfielder
- First "sabermetric" triple crown since 1980 (BA/OBP/SLG)

OPS was more than 40% above league average after park adjustments?

You're kidding me, right?

Guy has better credentials than Mark McGwire. Big Mac is a shoo-in.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I really like larry walker, he was fun to watch and a dangerous hitter, he was one of my favorite players. I personally would LOVE to see him in the HoF, but i really would not be suprised if he doesn't get in.

[plask_stirlac]

Man he really was a homebody, 1.068 OPS v. .865. OTOH his peak was tremendous.

He was a truly excellent player. HOF might be just out of his reach. They've kept Rice out pretty stiffly, right? Current HOF voting probably isn't going to give him boosts for his great OBPs over Rice's similar power totals.

Edit: ROY? He didn't have a great rookie year and came in 7th.

[mac195]

Man he really was a homebody, 1.068 OPS v. .865.
Yes, but .865 is a darn good career road OPS considering that all the Rockies' division rivals played in pitcher's parks. Walker was probably also hurt by the "rocky road effect", coming off every Rockies homestand a little less sharp vs. good breaking balls.

[iamdiesel18]

- Three batting titles
- Sixth most GG by an outfielder
- First "sabermetric" triple crown since 1980 (BA/OBP/SLG)

OPS was more than 40% above league average after park adjustments?

You're kidding me, right?

Guy has better credentials than Mark McGwire. Big Mac is a shoo-in.

I don't think that Mac is the shoo-in you think him to be. Many writers are coming out and saying that they will not vote for him simply because of his appearance before the Congressional committee. As for Walker, he's going to have to wait for a while. I think that eventually the Veteran's committee votes him in even though most baseball fans would be against it.

As much as I hate to see it, the Hall of Fame is getting watered down. At most there should be maybe one or two guys a year....AT MOST! The initial standard was to be the first class inducted. If that was the case, there would be onlt a select few players from the current era that make it in...Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Pedro, Griffey, maybe Bonds, A-Rod, Jeter, and Pujols if he can keep it up.

[AG2004]

I decided to create a Keltner List for Larry Walker.

Case to Consider: WALKER, Larry

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Except for 1997, there was always a teammate who had more win shares than Walker. Often, Walker didn’t even lead the team’s outfielders in win shares.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He was among the three best OF in the National League in 1994 and 1997, at least according to win shares. However, 1994 was the only season he led NL right fielders in win shares, and the AL’s Paul O’Neill had more win shares than Walker that year. For any multi-year period, the answer is no.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

If the end of the 1994 season had not been cancelled, he would have had an impact there. Otherwise, not really.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

By similarity scores, the most comparable players are: Duke Snider, Ellis Burks, Joe DiMaggio, Johnny Mize, Manny Ramirez, Chuck Klein, Edgar Martinez, Chipper Jones, Bob Johnson, and Bernie Williams. Three of the ten are in the BBFHOF. Of the five players eligible for Cooperstown, four are in.

Career win shares, RF: Andre Dawson 340, Sam Rice 327, Reggie Smith 325, Harry Hooper 321, Jack Clark 316, WALKER 311, Bobby Bonds 302, Ken Singleton 302, Kiki Cuyler 292, Elmer Flick 291. This is not BBFHOF territory, but Cooperstown has been more accepting of players of this level.

For the two peak measures, we’ll give Walker credit for the games cancelled by strikes in 1994 and 1995.

Peak three seasons, win shares, RF: Roberto Clemente 94, Bobby Bonds 94, Rocky Colavito 94, Jack Clark 94, Al Kaline 92, Dave Winfield 92, Roger Maris 92, Gavy Gravath 92, Tony Oliva 91, Rusty Staub 90, Johnny Callison 89, Kiki Cuyler 89, Chick Klein 89, Ross Youngs 89, WALKER 88, Fielder Jones 88, Dixie Walker 88, Dwight Evans 86, Felipe Alou 85, Babe Herman 84, Roy Cullenbine 83, Tommy Henrich 82. Walker is a little below the cutoff line for Cooperstown.

Best five consecutive seasons, RF: Reggie Smith 129, Tommy Holmes 125, Roy Cullenbine 125, Dwight Evans 122, Tommy Henrich 122, WALKER 120, Harry Hooper 118, Jim Titus 118, Jack Clark 118, Kiki Cuyler 116, Sam Rice 115, Bob Allison 115, Bobby Thomson 112, Ken Griffey Sr. 111. This is not Hall of Fame territory.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

His black ink score of 24 is good for 78th place overall. His gray ink score of 116 places him 171st, which is marginal at best. His HOF Standards score of 58.0 is a very good 36th best overall. Walker also won seven gold gloves; as a corner outfielder, though, he wasn’t able to overtake the center fielders to earn even one Win Share Gold Glove.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Walker played in Coors Field during the 1990s, which boosted his offensive numbers. Lifetime, he hit .348/.431/.637 at home and .278/.370/.495 on the road. In 1999, he hit .461/.531/.879 at Coors Field and .286/.375/.519 on the road, but that’s one of the more extreme splits. With the exception of the 1994 doubles crown, all of Walker’s black ink came during his Colorado years.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. There are a lot of better right fielders who aren’t in the BBFHOF or, for that matter, in Cooperstown.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Walker won the NL MVP Award in 1997. He finished fifth in 1992 and in the top ten two other times. However, he had just two seasons of 30+ win shares (including 1994, where his actual 21 win shares projects to 30 win shares over 162 games).

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Walker was an All-Star just 5 times, which is low for a position player. He had 9 seasons with 20+ win shares (including the 18-win-share season in 1995, which projects to 20 win shares over 162 games), which is somewhat good.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

No; he was too inconsistent and injury-plagued.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Not that I know of.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

As far as I can tell.

CONCLUSION: Walker is no Hall of Famer.

[Gee Walker]

I'm glad someone did the Keltner list for him. I only have one additional point to add on it.





14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Batters who hit "singles" to right field definitely hustled down to first base when Walker was playing.

[mac195]

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Except for 1997, there was always a teammate who had more win shares than Walker. Often, Walker didn’t even lead the team’s outfielders in win shares.
Helton had some great years with him, but Walker was usually the best player on his team over the course of his career. Injuries cut into his season win share totals, but if he was getting 30 WS in 130 games, he was clearly a better player than someone getting 31 WS in 160 games. He was also more valuable. Your analysis relies too heavily on accumulated season totals.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. There are a lot of better right fielders who aren’t in the BBFHOF or, for that matter, in Cooperstown.
I'd like to see a list of right fielders better than Walker who have been rejected by BBWAA voters. Maybe Evans, if you give him lots of credit for longevity. Who else?

[538280]

I'd like to see a list of right fielders better than Walker who have been rejected by BBWAA voters. Maybe Evans, if you give him lots of credit for longevity. Who else?

Dave Parker
Bobby Bonds
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

Maybe Andre Dawson, Bobby Murcer, Tony Oliva, Dwight Evans.

I'd take the first four over Walker, probably not the 2nd three. Walker has a pretty impressive skill set, he did everything well and had no real weakness. But, his lack of durability and very short career still make his HOF chances up in the air. His WS peak is significantly behind Parker's, for one, and he had a much shorter career. Walker is probably about as good as Ken Singleton, IMO.

[leecemark]

--I'd like Walker alot better if he had the same playing time in fewer years. His career length is less of a problem than the fact his teams couldn't count on him to be in the lineup on a regular basis.

[mac195]

Dave Parker - as good as Walker in his prime, but that was only five years. Walker was very good almost his entire career, at least when he was on the field.

Bobby Bonds - packed a lot of ABs into a short career. He was good, but never as good as Walker.

Ken Singleton - not much in the field

Reggie Smith - underrated, pretty similar career to Walker, near HOF caliber.

Andre Dawson - will be voted in

Bobby Murcer - two great years, that's about it.

Tony Oliva - much shorter career

Dwight Evans - wasn't as good, but had great longevity. He might also belong in the HOF.

[The Toy Cannon]

Reggie Smith wasn't very durable, either. He and Walker played almost the exact same number of games, and recorded nearly the same number of PA's. Walker has the higher OPS+, more unintentional walks, more stolen bases, and six more Gold Gloves.

How is Smith better? At the very best, they're the same.

Bobby Bonds didn't have a terribly long career, either.

Dave Parker and Dwight Evans are the only guys I'd say have a good argument for being in the Hall instead of Walker, due to their longevity. The rest...probably not. I think Dawson was a fine player, but is massively overrated.

[mac195]

--I'd like Walker alot better if he had the same playing time in fewer years. His career length is less of a problem than the fact his teams couldn't count on him to be in the lineup on a regular basis.
If you compressed his career into 13 years, with mostly 155+ game seasons, there wouldn't be much doubt in people's minds abut his HOF qualifications. He would have all the black and gray ink you could want, and probably 2 or 3 MVPs. Having played his 1988 games over 18 years his value was less, but how much less?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think he's better than a lot of guys already in the Hall of Fame. Maybe that's not much of an argument, I don't know.

A very good, but not "very great" player, and I tend to think the HOF should be reserved for the latter(though it quite clearly isn't).

I agree with this assessment. I also think that Walker ranks behind Will Clark and Don Mattingly. He's about even with Dwight Evans, IMO, except that Dewey played much, much longer and was even better on defense.

[Pine Tar]

If you compressed his career into 13 years, with mostly 155+ game seasons, there wouldn't be much doubt in people's minds abut his HOF qualifications. He would have all the black and gray ink you could want, and probably 2 or 3 MVPs. Having played his 1988 games over 18 years his value was less, but how much less?
Unless of course he changed his name to Albert Belle.

[Pine Tar]

I don't know but I think I am a bit more appreciative of Walker.
I mean, these look like hall of fame numbers to me.
Black Ink: Batting - 24 (78) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 116 (171) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 57.8 (36) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 147.0 (81) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Also, revisiting some of the previous analyses.
Was he the best player on his team? Who was better than him in Montreal?
Who was consistantly better than him in Colorado?

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Yes he was. Of course he wasn't when he wasn't playing but while playing I think you can make the case that he was as good if not better than any other right fielders in the game. You would at least have to make a case for an alternative with stronger evidence beyond just win shares.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? Yes IMO.
1994 is an obvious choice but in 1995 the Rockies made the playoffs and Walker was big part of that. You could also make the case that Walker had a big impact on the 2004 and 2005 races. In the two stints with St. Louis Walker has an 146 OPS+ and 129 OPS+. Both years they won the pennant. In the year before he got there they finsihed 3rd.

[538280]

Reggie Smith wasn't very durable, either. He and Walker played almost the exact same number of games, and recorded nearly the same number of PA's. Walker has the higher OPS+, more unintentional walks, more stolen bases, and six more Gold Gloves.

How is Smith better? At the very best, they're the same.

Smith wasn't very durable, you're right. He actually reminds me of Walker a lot. Walker was a better fielder for his position but then Smith was good enough to be a CF for half his career (and even won a GG there). Defensively they're probably about equal. Offensively Walker was probably a bit better, though I tend to think Smith played against better competition. I think they're very comparable and about the same. Walker may be a hair better, you're right.

Dave Parker and Dwight Evans are the only guys I'd say have a good argument for being in the Hall instead of Walker, due to their longevity. The rest...probably not. I think Dawson was a fine player, but is massively overrated.

I agree about Dawson. I'm definitely not a supporter of his. He's certainly no Jimmy Wynn. (and if you don't know he's one of my favorite players also) :)

[The Toy Cannon]

Heh, I think you mentioned that after one of my first posts on this message board. He was a great one.

I like Reggie Smith a lot as well, actually. I think it's a shame that he's been essentially forgotten, partly because of Yaz, partly because of Jim Rice(which is sad, because Reggie was a good deal better than Rice), and partly because of another guy named Reggie who played right field around that time. He's worth remembering.

[rugbyfreak]

This is a tough one for me. Since I am in full agreement with the poster who opposes the "watering down" of the HOF, I am voting no on Walker. He is a classic entry in the "What could've been" thread, since injuries surely robbed Larry of better numbers.

Even in spite of the injuries, what a career anyway! My summary: HOF talent (for sure!!), non-HOF numbers. And since I am on record all over this site as supporting an objective look at the numbers (and am ashamed of sportswriting colleagues who allow personal BS to creep into their HUGE HOF voting prvilege), I must stick to my guns.

Let me conclude by saying: Very few players in my time excited me with their 5-tool talent as did Walker, a truly marvelous package. (Bobby Bonds is on that short list as well.) I would go so far as to watch late-night Met-Rocks games just to see Walker! As a Yankee fan, no less!

Larry is one of those players who, when I'm talkin' baseball with a grandchild on my knee someday, will elicit both a slightly sad shaking of my head, and also a brightening of my eye that says, "You should have SEEN this man play the game!"

Thanks for listening!

freak

[538280]

Heh, I think you mentioned that after one of my first posts on this message board. He was a great one.

I like Reggie Smith a lot as well, actually. I think it's a shame that he's been essentially forgotten, partly because of Yaz, partly because of Jim Rice(which is sad, because Reggie was a good deal better than Rice), and partly because of another guy named Reggie who played right field around that time. He's worth remembering.

Absolutely he is worth remembering, as is the Toy Cannon. Reggie Smith actually owns a large amount of baseball camps throughout the nation now:

http://www.reggiesmithbaseball.com/

Wynn is currently working as a treasurer for the MLB Player's Allumni Association.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

While Walker was in his prime( and even after) he was a fun player to watch, he was feared hitter, and tough out. it really will be something, in thirty to fifty years to tell others about the forgotten talent and greatness of Larry Walker, and tell them the stories, tell them about a great player that just barely missed the hall of fame... He a great example of hall of fame talent hindered by injuries, if had two to three more good years I would have voted Yes, but unfortunatly he didn't so in my book he is not hall of famer just another great player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dave Parker
Bobby Bonds
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

Maybe Andre Dawson, Bobby Murcer, Tony Oliva, Dwight Evans.

I'd take the first four over Walker, probably not the 2nd three. Walker has a pretty impressive skill set, he did everything well and had no real weakness. But, his lack of durability and very short career still make his HOF chances up in the air. His WS peak is significantly behind Parker's, for one, and he had a much shorter career. Walker is probably about as good as Ken Singleton, IMO.

The only guy here that I'd take over Walker is Tony Oliva.

Dave Parker is a player that, for a few years, was the best player in baseball, but he screwed that up with a prolonged "time out for drugs".

I support Oliva's election to the HOF. The others, well . . .

[rugbyfreak]

Dave Parker
Bobby Bonds
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

Maybe Andre Dawson, Bobby Murcer, Tony Oliva, Dwight Evans.

I'd take the first four over Walker, probably not the 2nd three. Walker has a pretty impressive skill set, he did everything well and had no real weakness. But, his lack of durability and very short career still make his HOF chances up in the air. His WS peak is significantly behind Parker's, for one, and he had a much shorter career. Walker is probably about as good as Ken Singleton, IMO.

It's a rarity for me to get involved in deep HOF talk-especially trying to "remove" those already in--but once in a while a player fires me up, like Walker here.

I have already posted that, in spite of my great admiration for his game, I can't give him the nod. But in comparing him to your above list, 538, I do have a few comments (but not really HOF-type comments, since I don't believe any of the above should get in).

--I would rate only Oliva in this group of seven over Walker. I caught Oliva on the downside of his career (I began following MLB in '68), when he had become quite gimpy-kneed (few players I have seen have had worse knee problems), but still a formidable swinger and still with one batting title in him ('71). Were it not for the DH (which seemed to have been tailor-made for him), his career would have been over after '72, when he had yet another bad injury. But the Twins were able to get three more solid, full seasons out of him (though below his previous standard) before he was finally through. All things considered, I don't place him in the "What could've been" category like, say, a Herb Score, but rather, almost like Mantle, where, yes, he had debilitating injuries that compromised his fulfilling his true potential, and yet, he did show the world quite a bit nonetheless (just look at his black-ink factor--pretty good). I think we saw enough of Tony to see what he was about, just that, tragically, the injuries hampered those counting numbers you usually need for the HOF (unless you're Koufax or Dean).

--I'm sorry, definitely NOT with you that Singleton comes any where near Walker. For one thing, his numbers are better, and Singleton, while solid, was basically a DH after '76. He was also one of the slowest players ever to walk the earth. Walker played in the NL and, in spite of injuries, was a GG as recently as '02. And even if Kenny's numbers compared (or were better) anyone who saw both play will agree that there was no comparison in terms of talent.

--Evans: Always a favorite of mine (even if grudgingly, as a Bosox player). I'm one who is more inclined to give credit for durability and longevity, rather than discounting injury- (or war-) shortened terms, or in "crediting" those deprived players with that intellectual brouha of "what might have been." So Dewey earns high marks for being an excellent player for quite a long time. But as many have said, it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of the Very Good, and Dewey's career numbers don't quite measure up for having played a position where offense is simply a must. Larry's blank-ink blows Dewey's away, and, if you wish to bring defense into it, will anyone say he was any WORSE than Evans? I think not.

--Parker: Like Walker, a towering talent, but Larry did a bit more with it.

--Bonds, Smith, Dawson: Matter of opinion. I wouldn't dispute anyone who chose to put these three over Larry, and I might even put Bonds over him.

--Murcer: A childhood hero of mine, but today I say fuhgeddabouddit.

That's all I have. Thanks for listening!

freak

[DoubleX]

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

I think a strong case could be made that he was the best player in the game in 1997. First and foremost, he won the NL MVP Award 1997 - you usually don't win the MVP unless you're considered among the best in the game at that time. I remember people considering Walker at one point to have the best chance to win the Triple Crown. In 1997, he came 10 RBI and .006 points away from the Triple Crown. He also stole 33 bases and won the Gold Glove. I'd say an all around tremendous season, even when you consider that he was helped by Coors Field because he still had the second highest OPS+ in the league (behind Mike Piazza). I think Walker's speed and defense probably were enough to make up for what he loses in park adjustments, the only question left for me is whether it's enough to make up positional adjustments on Piazza. It's a good question because Piazza's offense was tremendously valuable as a catcher, but he didn't bring as much to the table as Walker.

There were other years in the late 90s in which talent-wise, Walker was certainly in the discussion of best all around player, but he just couldn't stay healthy (for whatever myserious reason....).

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Except for 1997, there was always a teammate who had more win shares than Walker. Often, Walker didn’t even lead the team’s outfielders in win shares.

Walker often had teammates that put up big offensive numbers similar to Walker's, and Walker's injury troubles do hurt him when it comes to win shares, but none of his teammates could match the all around game that Walker brought - Walker could hit just as well as any of them, but also provide some of the best RF defense in the game while also providing speed on the bases. If believe he was healthy enough to have been the best player on the Expos in '92, arguably the best in '93 and '94, then arguably the best on the Rockies in '95, and then the best on his team from '97-'99, and then arguably again in '01 and '02. So I count 8 seasons in which Walker has a good claim for being the best player on his team, and at least four seasons in which he has a very strong claim.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He was among the three best OF in the National League in 1994 and 1997, at least according to win shares. However, 1994 was the only season he led NL right fielders in win shares, and the AL’s Paul O’Neill had more win shares than Walker that year. For any multi-year period, the answer is no.

I don't think win shares are telling the whole story here because Walker had the injury troubles. When healthy, Walker was among the best OFers and most diversely talented OFers in the game, and I remember him being largely considered as such for a time being. If you're going by win shares, you'll find players that had better seasons, but most weren't better players.

Walker's biggest problem is injuries - he just couldn't stay healthy nearly enough, and that's why I don't consider him a Hall of Famer, but it's not for a lack of ability.

[leecemark]

--XX don't you think being able to stay on the field is part of being a better player? Walker may have been the most talented player in the NL for a couple years between Bonds real peak and his Balco one, but 1997 was the only year he could have been considered the BEST one. I don't think the question "was he ever considered the best player in baseball" should be interpreted as "was he ever considered to have had the best season" (and I would have taken Piazza in 1997), otherwise anyone who ever won an MVP would get a yes.

[DoubleX]

--XX don't you think being able to stay on the field is part of being a better player? Walker may have been the most talented player in the NL for a couple years between Bonds real peak and his Balco one, but 1997 was the only year he could have been considered the BEST one. I don't think the question "was he ever considered the best player in baseball" should be interpreted as "was he ever considered to have had the best season" (and I would have taken Piazza in 1997), otherwise anyone who ever won an MVP would get a yes.

I think I pretty much said so much. I said in '97 he had a strong case for best player (while acknowledging that Piazza was stiff competition), and then there were a few other years where his ability got him in the discussion, but injuries kept it from being a reality.

I do not, however, believe injuries stopped him from having a number of seasons in which he was the best player on his team.

[ESPNFan]

From Bill James' 2001 historical abstract in his asessment of Larry Walker's hitting .350 for three straight seasons. (and also listed in Bryants book)


"It will be interesting to see, as time goes by, how well the hall of fame voters will can see through the phoney batting stats of the 1994-2000 era, and pick out the truely great players from those who piled up numbers because of the unusual conditions in which they played."

Sounds like Mr. James wasn't a big Larry Walker backer if he uses him as a lead in for a rant on "phoney batting stats".

[Pine Tar]

From Bill James' 2001 historical abstract in his asessment of Larry Walker's hitting .350 for three straight seasons. (and also listed in Bryants book)


"It will be interesting to see, as time goes by, how well the hall of fame voters will can see through the phoney batting stats of the 1994-2000 era, and pick out the truely great players from those who piled up numbers because of the unusual conditions in which they played."

Sounds like Mr. James wasn't a big Larry Walker backer if he uses him as a lead in for a rant on "phoney batting stats".
You know that's an interesting quote to analyze. If that was from 2001 then it was before most of the steroid controversy happenned. I somehow doubt that Walker is still the poster child for "phoney batting stats" anymore. Which leads me to my point: If Mark McGwire eventually gets into the hall, then I think a really strong case could/should be made for Walker. Both were injury prone. Both have "phoney batting stats."
Walker's career OBP is .400 and his slugging is .565.
McGwire's is .394 and .588.

Plus walker was a great baserunner, defender, and he didn't cheat!

[DoubleX]

Plus walker was a great baserunner, defender, and he didn't cheat!

How do you know he didn't cheat. I've come to suspect everyone, particularly players putting up huge offensive numbers who also battled countless lingering injuries throughout their careers dealing with muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Fair or not, Walker's career to me, sends up all sorts of red flags.

[ESPNFan]

Not only that but just because by 2001 the Steroid issue hadn't hit the media doesn't mean that people with the right access didn't see what was going on.

[Pine Tar]

How do you know he didn't cheat. I've come to suspect everyone, particularly players putting up huge offensive numbers who also battled countless lingering injuries throughout their careers dealing with muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Fair or not, Walker's career to me, sends up all sorts of red flags.
1. Walker's offensice production was pretty much constant throughout his career.
2. Walker was an outfielder and not a firstbaseman.
3. He played his first 6 seasons as an outfielder playing on Montreal's infamous synthetic turf, which could easily explain many of his injury problems later. I mean was Andre Dawson juicing too?
4. Who says that nagging injuries are a sign of steroid use. I thought that catestrophic season ending type injuries like the ones that ended McGwire's career, Mo Vaughn's?? career, or that Bonds has gone through are more closely linked to steroid use. Bonds never had nagging injuries, neither did Palmeiro

I don't know, but I think we can all say that we are much more sure that McGwire used steroids than did Walker. That distinction has to be factored into the evaluation of players from the 90's somehow, especially if we are going to dock players who played in Coors field.

[DoubleX]

1. Walker's offensice production was pretty much constant throughout his career.
2. Walker was an outfielder and not a firstbaseman.
3. He played his first 6 seasons as an outfielder playing on Montreal's infamous synthetic turf, which could easily explain many of his injury problems later. I mean was Andre Dawson juicing too?
4. Who says that nagging injuries are a sign of steroid use. I thought that catestrophic season ending type injuries like the ones that ended McGwire's career, Mo Vaughn's?? career, or that Bonds has gone through are more closely linked to steroid use. Bonds never had nagging injuries, neither did Palmeiro

I don't know, but I think we can all say that we are much more sure that McGwire used steroids than did Walker. That distinction has to be factored into the evaluation of players from the 90's somehow, especially if we are going to dock players who played in Coors field.

1) His numbers were not consistent, they were astronomically higher when he went to the Rockies. Of course, that could be entirely explained because of the thin air, but the injuries raise suspicion.

2) What does position have anything to do with this? We've seen pitchers get caught. We've seen skinny speedster OFers get caught. There isn't a prototype in terms of position - players of all types in the game have been caught. What position does Barry Bonds play? Jose Canseco? Sammy Sosa? Jason Grimsley? Alex Sanchez? Matt Lawton? Ryan Franklin? The list goes on.

3) That is a valid point, but Dawson never missed as much time as Walker did. Walker was seemingly incessantly plagued by nagging injuries, and the type of nagging injuries that do raise some suspicion. Dawson also spent a lot more time playing on the turf than Walker did and in the more demanding CF, and yet he was still not nearly as injury prone as Walker was after leaving Montreal.

4) The effect on the body is not the same for everyone as everyone's body is different. Also, things such as what was used and how much was used and how frequently can have an effect.

I'd agree and say there is much more evidence against McGwire, but if I were to make a list of the 20 players I suspect the most, Walker would probably be on it. Steroids was just so pervasive in baseball - players of all types were using, so when you get a guy putting up huge offensive numbers, irrespective of ballpark, and constantly battling lingering injuries, knowing how pervasive steroids was, I can't help but suspect that player.

[Pine Tar]

1) His numbers were not consistent, they were astronomically higher when he went to the Rockies. Of course, that could be entirely explained because of the thin air, but the injuries raise suspicion.

2) What does position have anything to do with this? We've seen pitchers get caught. We've seen skinny speedster OFers get caught. There isn't a prototype in terms of position - players of all types in the game have been caught. What position does Barry Bonds play? Jose Canseco? Sammy Sosa? Jason Grimsley? Alex Sanchez? Matt Lawton? Ryan Franklin? The list goes on.

3) That is a valid point, but Dawson never missed as much time as Walker did. Walker was seemingly incessantly plagued by nagging injuries, and the type of nagging injuries that do raise some suspicion. Dawson also spent a lot more time playing on the turf than Walker did and in the more demanding CF, and yet he was still not nearly as injury prone as Walker was after leaving Montreal.

4) The effect on the body is not the same for everyone as everyone's body is different. Also, things such as what was used and how much was used and how frequently can have an effect.

I'd agree and say there is much more evidence against McGwire, but if I were to make a list of the 20 players I suspect the most, Walker would probably be on it. Steroids was just so pervasive in baseball - players of all types were using, so when you get a guy putting up huge offensive numbers, irrespective of ballpark, and constantly battling lingering injuries, knowing how pervasive steroids was, I can't help but suspect that player.

1. Walker's quality of play was consistant throughout his career. Check out is adjusted OPS+.
2. I was really referring to the wear and tear on a body. Outfielders playing on artificial turf get injured a lot. There is a lot of wear and tear on the body especially for outfielders. Much more so than 1b playing on grass.
3. Dawson stopped playing cf after 1983 and moved to RF. Certainly the impact would be great still on Dawson, I have read that Dawson could barely run around the bases at all later in his career, but it would still affect Walker.
4. Yes well so does playing baseball. I mean different players get injured at different rates based on how they play the game and their physique.
Here's Larry Walker, a moderately sized player, known as someone that plays hard, steals bases, is an excellent fielder and has a great OBP (so is always running around the bases) who has nagging injuries. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Redondos]

I don't think that Mac is the shoo-in you think him to be. Many writers are coming out and saying that they will not vote for him simply because of his appearance before the Congressional committee. As for Walker, he's going to have to wait for a while. I think that eventually the Veteran's committee votes him in even though most baseball fans would be against it.

McGwire will eventually get in, although there's a good chance he won't get in on the first ballot. Besides the steroids issue, the presence of first-time eligibles Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. (both sure-fire 1st ballot HOFers) next year will further rob him of support.

I agree with you that Walker will end up being passed over the BBWAA. But even the Veteran's Committee route will be a long shot for him.

[leecemark]

--I voted no on both guys, but I don't understand why Walker is such a resounding no and Edgar Martinez is drawing about 50% yes in his current poll. They are virtually the same as hitter. The injury knock is the same on both, but Walker was a Gold Glove outfielder and very good baserunner to Edgar's DH/base clogger. What am I missing?

[DoubleX]

--I voted no on both guys, but I don't understand why Walker is such a resounding no and Edgar Martinez is drawing about 50% yes in his current poll. They are virtually the same as hitter. The injury knock is the same on both, but Walker was a Gold Glove outfielder and very good baserunner to Edgar's DH/base clogger. What am I missing?

Bias against Coors is bigger than the bias against the DH? I don't get it either. They were very similar as hitters and both had advantages to get there. The difference is that Walker was a much more complete ballplayer that did not need the DH to get in the lineup, despite his injuries.

[brett]

I think I voted "no", or I didn't vote, but the fact remains that:

Walker and Martinez would be the ONLY two players in history with 8000 plate appearances and 140 OPS+ not in (or likely to get in among recent players.) That's BALLPARK ADJUSTED OPS versus the LEAGUE. It's not my favorite stat, but it has Coors field factored out for Walker.

(not to mention that it was largely believed that the best hitters in Colorado were HURT by the relative adjustment, because there is an upper limit to how high your stats can go, AND it was generally believed that playing half your games in CO HURT your hitting for the first 2-3 games of a road stretch because you had to adapt to NOT swinging at pitches that could be off the wall in Coors by deep flyes anywhere else.) Still, even if you don't buy that Walker didn't get the boost indicated by Coors (and it shouldn't really matter because its value we are talking about anyway and simply suggests that its better to have several above average hitters than 1 great one in CO).

Larry and Edgar would be the only two guys with 8000 PAs and 140 OPS+ not in, and that should remove Coors from the conversation completely.

Given that Larry is a plus right fielder played a slightly minus position, he would rank as the second or third greatest career value player not in with #1 being Ron Santo, and #2 being either Walker or Allen depending on how you see Allen as a fielder.

The thing, as I stated before that would keep Walker out for me is that I do not give a partial season as much credit (per game) as a full season because a team NEEDS its best players on a daily basis.

Still, Walker had 10 seasons with over 500 plate appearances and with the follwing (fully Coors field or other home field adjusted) OPS+:

127
142
120
131
177
160
162
160
146
124

So if you want a challenge, find a player with 10 seasons of 500+ PAs and OPS+ to match those listed above.

I suspect that you would have a hard time finding many with 4 years of 160!

The only 3 I can find with 4 years of 500 PAs and 160 OPS+ not in are Allen, Edgar Martinez and possibly eventually Sheffield (who should get in).

Mattingly didn't do it, and his "increadible" 4 year peak has some suggesting he should be in.

[yankeesfan8926]

What do you guys think of Larry Walker's chances at the Hall of Fame?

[STLCards2]

Hitter's era + rash of injuries + Coors Field = just on the outside looking in.

[jalbright]

I've merged the four threads discussing Walker's candidacy.

[Brad Harris]

He's got a case, but the voters will overreact to Coors Field and he won't get in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's got a case, but the voters will overreact to Coors Field and he won't get in.

The effect on Coors Field, in Walker's case, is balanced off by the counter-effect playing in Olympic Stadium had on his career in his years with Montreal.

I'm loath to advocate for Walker, fine player that he was, while Tony Oliva, who was, for a time, the best player in the AL, remains outside the Hall.

[willshad]

I think this is a case where OPS+ is misleading , because Walker was SO MUCH better at home in Coors field than on the road, that even adjusted, his home stats are very good. That said, it is obvious that the only reason we are even having this discussion is because he played in Coors field. If he had played anywhere else then he would not even be considered for the hall.

Career road stats:
Away
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI AVG OB SLG OPS
1002 3478 566 967 203 23 168 564 .278 .370 .495 .865

A good player, to be sure. Double those numbers and you have Fred Lynn....NOT a hall of famer

[bluejaysfan4ever]

His numbers:

BA: .313
Hits: 2160
RBI: 1311
Home Runs: 383

Not too shabby, especially considering he was in the National League (where pitching has dominance over hitting) but I think he could make it in as a borderline hall of famer.

What do you say?

[jjpm74]

I'd vote, but my choice would be maybe/undecided.

[jalbright]

thread merge time.

[BlueBlood]

He's borderline. His OPS+ (which is park adjusted) is 140 so it's not like Coors Field was a crutch, he'd have still had that 140 elsewhere. It's just that his superficial stats are inflated. For example, he had a great 1997 campaign as you're certainly aware. His slugging was .720 and his OBP was .452 yet his OPS+ is 178 which shows that the park accounted for those other marks to swing high.

And that's really the problem for him and many other Coors players. Voters will just see a batting line, not bother to see how much of it was inflated, and then immediately right the player off. In this case, the guy is borderline but he definitely does deserve a closer look than expected. If anything, he proved himself in St. Louis.

thread merge time.

You just got me, heh. Had I known the new one would be merging with the old one...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Walker's career OWP is .746. That's actually in the no-questions-asked range.

OWP is a somewhat criticized stat, and I don't take it as gospel. It's supposed to factor in park adjustments, but given how rare it is for a player to hit the .700 mark in OWP for a career, one has to question Walker's ranking.

Still, Walker posted OWPs of .699 and .739 while in Montreal. That's pretty impressive. The .739 was an age 27 season, but the .699 was an age 25 season. That's not inconsistent with a viable HOF candidate, although with a no-questions-asked HOF corner outfielder, one would expect to see a peak OWP in the upper .700s to low .800s. (Walker's mid-.800 seasons totalled four (4), but all were posted while in Colorado.)

If you can convince me that Walker's REAL OWP was .700 or greater, I'll sign off on his HOF candidacy.

[OleMissCub]

Walker's WARP3 is only 96.3. That seems to fall short of the HOF to me.

[partydude1377]

Career .300ba; .400obp; .500slug%
Ted Williams-------.344 batting average-- .482 OBP- ---.634 SLUG%
Babe Ruth-----------.342 batting average-- .474 OBP ----.690 SLUG%
Lou Gehrig ---------.340 batting average-- .447 OBP ----.632 SLUG%
Rogers Hornsby----.358 batting average-- .434 OBP ----.577 SLUG%
Ty Cobb-------------.366 batting average-- .433 OBP----- .512 SLUG%
Jimmy Foxx--------.325 batting average-- .428 OBP -----.609 SLUG%
Tris Speaker--------.345 batting average-- .428 OBP -----.500 SLUG%
Larry Walker-------.313 batting average-- .400 OBP---- .565 SLUG%
Chipper Jones(A)------.310 batting average-- .406 OBP-----.548 SLUG%
Manny Ramirez(A)----.313 batting average--.409 OBP -----.591 SLUG%
Harry Heilmann----.342 batting average-- .410 OBP -----.520 SLUG%
Hank Greenberg----.313 batting average-- .412 OBP----- 605 SLUG%
Lefty O’Doul--------.349 batting average-- .413 OBP----.532 SLUG%
Lance Berkman(A)-----.303 batting average-- .414 OBP ----.562 SLUG%
Mel Ott- -------------.304 batting average-- .414 OBP----.533 SLUG%
Stan Musial----------.331 batting average-- .417 OBP----.559 SLUG%
Edgar Martinez- ----.312 batting average-- .418 OBP----.515 SLUG%
Frank Thomas(A)------.302 batting average-- .420 OBP ----.557 SLUG%
Joe Jackson----------.356 batting average-- .423 OBP---- .517 SLUG%
Albert Pujols(A)--------.333 batting average-- -.424 OBP ----.620 SLUG%
Todd Helton(A)--------.328 batting average-- -.428 OBP----- .574 SLUG%

Larry Walker is 1 of 21 players with a career batting average above .300, a career OBP above .400, and a career SLUGGING% above .500

[Brad Harris]

Something I give credit for which I know a lot of people don't is time missed due to labor conflicts. I credit 1972, 1981 and 1994-95 players for time missed.

That could inch Walker closer to the "over" half of the line for some people.

People also forget that Walker was a good baserunner and an incredible fielder in his time.

He's a better corner outfielder than similar value players from pre-WWII by virtue of the era in which he competed.

I saw all these guys in their primes and I'd take Walker over Dale Murphy, Jim Rice or Andre Dawson any day of the week and those are all candidates the BBWAA takes (relatively) seriously.

[JDD]

It really is too bad that Larry Walker only had two seasons with only 500 at-bats.

It's not often that I vote no on a .300/.400/.500 guy, but the value to his team must take into account the bench player who played the other thirty games when he could only run out there 130 games a season.

Nice career, but not a HOF career. He'll get lumped in with all the other steroid era hitters.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Larry Walker was a heck of a hitter, not to mention a darn good right fielder and baserunner. His biggest problem isn't that his numbers were inflated by Coors, it was that he couldn't stay healthy. Even in his prime, 130-140 games per season was his norm. Although he still ended up with decent counting numbers, that won't be his ticket to the HOF. His ticket will be:

1. His rate stats - .313/.400/.565, 140 OPS+, this has already been discussed pretty extensively

2. His peak - an MVP, three batting titles, '97 (.366/.452/.720) and '99 (.379/.458/.710) were monster seasons no matter where they were acheived

3. To a lesser extent, his all-around game - seven gold gloves and a solid track record on the basepaths certainly don't hurt

If it were up to me, I'd put him in, but I doubt the writers will.

[Paul Wendt]

I give him the short 1994 and 1995 seasons. Indeed those four seasons 1994-95, 1997, 2001 represent 600+ pa which is better than 500+ ab. But it's a good point. He played 90% of his team games only three times 1994-95, 97 (90%, 90%, 94%). Ouch!

[Brad Harris]

Look at the list of "sabermetric" triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG) winners.

[henrich]

Larry Walker would get my vote. As Classic mentioned he had a great arm and was known to stop people from even wanting to run on him. While I fear the steroids debate, nothing that I know of links him to it, which benefit of the doubt...he's in the HOF with the score of 11155 in the H-Factor-not first ballot, but he'll get in.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I was looking at Larry Walker's list of similar players recently. It contains mostly HOFers and future HOFers (Chipper Jones, Duke Snider, Joe DiMaggio, Johnny Mize, Manny Ramirez, Chuck Klein) and a few non-HOFers (Ellis Burks, Moises Alou). I don't think these lists account for league and park conditions, which is worth noting, since Walker's prime seasons were spent with the Rockies in the late 90s. However, two names on the list got me thinking more than the rest...

The first was Chipper Jones. Chipper is the only player who is "truly similar" to Walker by Bill James standards (similarity score of at least 900). Granted, Chipper is still adding to his HOF resume, but I think these two are truly similar. Walker's prime looks superficially better, and, although it was achieved at Coors Field, I think it actually was slightly better. Conversely, Chipper's counting stats will be better by the time he retires. They each won an MVP. Walker won three batting titles, and Chipper is working on his first as we speak. They have roughly equal black/grey ink scores and HOF standards/monitor scores. Chipper played a more important defensive position, but Walker was a better right fielder than Chipper is a third baseman. Walker was also a better baserunner. Chipper is considered a slam dunk HOFer at this point. Why not Walker?

The second player was Chuck Klein. Though not as statistically similar to Walker as Jones is, I think he and Walker have a common bond. They each have rate stats and peaks that were significantly inflated by the conditions they played in. For Walker, those conditions were Coors Field in the late 90s. For Klein, they were the offensively inclined early 30s. They also both had short careers (relative to most HOFers) and fell short of the traditional counting stats and milestones the HOF likes. Is Klein a worthy HOFer? It's debatable, but I think he is on the basis of his peak. He won a Triple Crown, an MVP (in a different season than his Triple Crown strangely), put up decent counting stats (300 homers and 1,200 RBIs) and maintained a 137 OPS+ over 1,753 games. That being said, I think Walker has a better case than Klein. He won an MVP, three batting titles, had better counting stats (383 homers and 1,300 RBIs), and maintained a 140 OPS+ over 1,988 games. He was also a better fielder and baserunner. Klein had to wait a while, and I suspect, if Walker ever gets in, he will too. But, to those of you who are skeptical of Walker's case, do you think Chuck Klein is a worthy HOFer? If so, then why not Walker?

I'm becoming more and more sold on Walker's case every day.

[Cougar]

I was looking at Larry Walker's list of similar players recently. It contains mostly HOFers and future HOFers (Chipper Jones, Duke Snider, Joe DiMaggio, Johnny Mize, Manny Ramirez, Chuck Klein) and a few non-HOFers (Ellis Burks, Moises Alou). I don't think these lists account for league and park conditions, which is worth noting, since Walker's prime seasons were spent with the Rockies in the late 90s. However, two names on the list got me thinking more than the rest...

The first was Chipper Jones. Chipper is the only player who is "truly similar" to Walker by Bill James standards (similarity score of at least 900). Granted, Chipper is still adding to his HOF resume, but I think these two are truly similar. Walker's prime looks superficially better, and, although it was achieved at Coors Field, I think it actually was slightly better. Conversely, Chipper's counting stats will be better by the time he retires. They each won an MVP. Walker won three batting titles, and Chipper is working on his first as we speak. They have roughly equal black/grey ink scores and HOF standards/monitor scores. Chipper played a more important defensive position, but Walker was a better right fielder than Chipper is a third baseman. Walker was also a better baserunner. Chipper is considered a slam dunk HOFer at this point. Why not Walker?

The second player was Chuck Klein. Though not as statistically similar to Walker as Jones is, I think he and Walker have a common bond. They each have rate stats and peaks that were significantly inflated by the conditions they played in. For Walker, those conditions were Coors Field in the late 90s. For Klein, they were the offensively inclined early 30s AND THE BAKER BOWL. They also both had short careers (relative to most HOFers) and fell short of the traditional counting stats and milestones the HOF likes. Is Klein a worthy HOFer? It's debatable, but I think he is on the basis of his peak. He won a Triple Crown, an MVP (in a different season than his Triple Crown strangely), put up decent counting stats (300 homers and 1,200 RBIs) and maintained a 137 OPS+ over 1,753 games. That being said, I think Walker has a better case than Klein. He won an MVP, three batting titles, had better counting stats (383 homers and 1,300 RBIs), and maintained a 140 OPS+ over 1,988 games. He was also a better fielder and baserunner. Klein had to wait a while, and I suspect, if Walker ever gets in, he will too. But, to those of you who are skeptical of Walker's case, do you think Chuck Klein is a worthy HOFer? If so, then why not Walker?

I'm becoming more and more sold on Walker's case every day.

Please note the Bolded Caps and Underlined -- Walker and Klein are more similar than you first indicated. The Baker Bowl was the Coors Field of its time...it was an incredible bandbox, especially down the lines.

[Paul Wendt]

. . .
[Klein] and Walker have a common bond. They each have rate stats and peaks that were significantly inflated by the conditions they played in. For Walker, those conditions were Coors Field in the late 90s. For Klein, they were the offensively inclined early 30s. They also both had short careers (relative to most HOFers)
Not so short. Larry Walker played 12.64 full seasons. Discarding the primary pitchers and catchers and the Negro Leaguers, I have 125 major leaguers classifed as "players", 87 or 70% who played more than Walker and 38 or 30% who played less. The first five in the 30% are Pie Traynor, Billy Herman, Hugh Duffy, Joe Sewell, and Kiki Cuyler. (That is Duffy and four guys from the 1930s.)

Chuck Klein played only 11.41 full seasons which ranks 101 of the 125 or 19 percentile. The next five who played less than Klein are Kirby Puckett, Tony Lazzeri, Joe DiMaggio, Bill Terry, and Earl Averill. DiMaggio lost a lot of time to the war. Pass over him if you wish, and get Travis Jackson. (That is Puckett and four guys from the 1930s.)

Learn something every day. We all know that Cooperstown honors lots of players from the 1920s and 1930s. I didn't know until this hour that so many of the "short careers" measured by playing time are from that era. Walker cannot expect to be compared with that generation so, yes, in a relevant sense he does have a short career.

[Brad Harris]

Not so short. Larry Walker played 12.64 full seasons. Discarding the primary pitchers and catchers and the Negro Leaguers, I have 125 major leaguers classifed as "players", 87 or 70% who played more than Walker and 38 or 30% who played less. The first five in the 30% are Pie Traynor, Billy Herman, Hugh Duffy, Joe Sewell, and Kiki Cuyler. (That is Duffy and four guys from the 1930s.)

Chuck Klein played only 11.41 full seasons which ranks 101 of the 125 or 19 percentile. The next five who played less than Klein are Kirby Puckett, Tony Lazzeri, Joe DiMaggio, Bill Terry, and Earl Averill. DiMaggio lost a lot of time to the war. Pass over him if you wish, and get Travis Jackson. (That is Puckett and four guys from the 1930s.)

Learn something every day. We all know that Cooperstown honors lots of players from the 1920s and 1930s. I didn't know until this hour that so many of the "short careers" measured by playing time are from that era. Walker cannot expect to be compared with that generation so, yes, in a relevant sense he does have a short career.

The Hall of Fame only requires a 10-season career, however, and Walker was a starter for his teams for more years than that. That he played through injuries rather than have one big career-ending injury (e.g. Kirby Puckett) shouldn't be a debilitating factor in his candidacy.

Walker played enough and very few men performed at his level in the amount of plate appearances/innings played as he did.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Hall of Fame only requires a 10-season career, however, and Walker was a starter for his teams for more years than that. That he played through injuries rather than have one big career-ending injury (e.g. Kirby Puckett) shouldn't be a debilitating factor in his candidacy.

Walker played enough and very few men performed at his level in the amount of plate appearances/innings played as he did.

I would suggest that Puckett's career-ending glaucoma was unrelated to his style of play. In crediting players to compensate them for "injuries", weight should be given to players who suffer freak injuries, or illnesses that bear little or no relation to factors they have control of.

Pete Reiser's injuries, for example, don't give him extra credit. His reckless style of play is what made him memorable; without it, he'd have been a fairly ordinary player. Puckett's glaucoma just happened; it bore no relation to the fact that he was a baseball player.

[Brad Harris]

I would suggest that Puckett's career-ending glaucoma was unrelated to his style of play. In crediting players to compensate them for "injuries", weight should be given to players who suffer freak injuries, or illnesses that bear little or no relation to factors they have control of.

Pete Reiser's injuries, for example, don't give him extra credit. His reckless style of play is what made him memorable; without it, he'd have been a fairly ordinary player. Puckett's glaucoma just happened; it bore no relation to the fact that he was a baseball player.

That's an interesting point and I don't necessarily disagree, but did Walker have a "reckless" style of play? If his injuries weren't the result of recklessness and were merely a matter of his body not holding up under the sustained duress that a 162-game season places, should that be considered differently?

[jalbright]

I would suggest that Puckett's career-ending glaucoma was unrelated to his style of play. In crediting players to compensate them for "injuries", weight should be given to players who suffer freak injuries, or illnesses that bear little or no relation to factors they have control of.

Pete Reiser's injuries, for example, don't give him extra credit. His reckless style of play is what made him memorable; without it, he'd have been a fairly ordinary player. Puckett's glaucoma just happened; it bore no relation to the fact that he was a baseball player.

That's an interesting point and I don't necessarily disagree, but did Walker have a "reckless" style of play? If his injuries weren't the result of recklessness and were merely a matter of his body not holding up under the sustained duress that a 162-game season places, should that be considered differently?

Hey, if a guy can't stay healthy, that's the breaks. Maybe I could have been a good ballplayer without horrible nearsightedness and too many pounds to lug around. Major league ballplayers have some freakish athletic skills in terms of the general population in order to be able to make it to that level and succeed. Nobody docks them for that--and if their bodies don't hold up to the grind of professional athletics, I see that as the other side of the coin. Otherwise, we're playing too many "what-if" games. The Addie Josses and Kirby Pucketts are a little different, but I find it hard to draw a logical line between them and the Larry Walkers and Pete Reisers and Lord knows how many pitchers. So I'm not going to try and distinguish the two groups.

[philkid3]

The more I come to learn the more I'm convinced Larry Walker is not a borderline case; he's an obvious case.

For instance, today FanGraphs unveiled sortable career stats. Larry Walker ranks 35th all-time in weighted runs above average. (http://www.fangraphs.com/careerleaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&type=1&min=1000) As in: FanGraphs has only 34 players in the history of baseball who have contributed more runs above average to their teams in their careers than Larry Walker. That's actually not park adjusted, but it's also ignoring his defense.

As another recent statty note, Walker ranks 35th since 1955 in Sean Smith's WAR (http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top300.htm) with 68.6 wins above replacement over his career. Even in the years he missed time, he was about average or better every year of his career except for his rookie year and 2004 when he had only 178 PA (and was still pretty close). He was pretty much a 4 win or better player 10 times -- and those years were more or less strung together -- a 6 win player four times, a 7.5 win player twice and a 9.2 win player once. And he did it in every facet of the game, being a plus player in the field on the bases and at the plate almost every year of his career.

I already thought he probably belonged, but at this point I'm convinced he belongs. Maybe not inner circle, but definitely in.

[Brad Harris]

I'll openly admit I want Walker to be Hall-worthy. He was one of my favorite players when he was active - a true five-tool talent who was an underappreciated star - and was the kind of player I always tried to draft in fantasy leagues and/or computer games.

More recently, however, I find myself wondering just how different he is from similar players of ages past and trying to sort out whether or not I lean more heavily towards Walker because he's a better candidate/player or simply because I liked and followed him first hand and never saw his "comps" from previous generations. Food for thought.

Still developing....

[Phish]

I would state why I would take Walker for the hall, but since he was a favorite of mine growing up, my opinion would be a bit biased. I feel like the hall should give him the nod because him and Helton are the Rockies only shots at a HoF for a very long time.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

He's was an MVP, a three-time batting titleist, and a seven-time Gold Glover with a 140 OPS+ over almost 2,000 games. He was also a sabermetric stud and had a reputation as an excellent baserunner. That's enough for me. Walker has my support. I don't think his odds of actually getting in are particularly good though.

[redban]

I wouldn't vote for Larry Walker.

He was one of the elite players. But he wasn't a Hall of Famer.

[Domenic]

I voted yes.

Neutralizing Walker's career numbers give him a career line of .299/.384/.539, 1201 R, 365 HR, and 1175 RBI. In my mind, the neutralized line is probably close to what he could have produced without the benefit of Coors Field - after all, he did hit .322/.394/.587 in his last season in Montreal and .286/.387/.520 in a season-plus with the Cardinals at 38. His power numbers may not have been as great, but I do feel that his line-drive stroke was suited for most any park.

Further, Walker was a very good baserunner and an historically great right-fielder - he was a true five-tool talent, a fact which seems to be overlooked by many.

When I consider Walker's candidacy, the only real negative I see is his lack of durability - which is a fairly big negative, to be sure. However, his fantastic all-around play is enough to outweigh that and make him a clear Hall of Famer.

[brett]

8000 plate appearances with a 140 OPS+ is pretty much exclusive hall of fame territory.

[Brad Harris]

8000 plate appearances with a 140 OPS+ is pretty much exclusive hall of fame territory.

I'm still can't see how 8,000 plate appearances is viewed as not enough for a Hall of Famer.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'm still can't see how 8,000 plate appearances is viewed as not enough for a Hall of Famer.

I know. 249 players in all of baseball history right now have 8,000+ plate appearances.

[Domenic]

I'm still can't see how 8,000 plate appearances is viewed as not enough for a Hall of Famer.

For me, it has a bit more to do with games played. Walker missed at least 19 games in all but one season, missed at least 25 games nine times, and missed over 50 five times. He was fantastic whenever he was on the field, but I cannot help but feel that his teams probably suffered as a result of his inability to stay on the field for a full season.

That being said, I think he has a sure-fire Hall of Fame resume, regardless.

[Mike Hoban]

Does Larry Walker have Hall of Fame numbers? Well, according to the CAWS Career Gauge, here are some right fielders who are among the top 25 right fielders of the 20th century and who are NOT YET in the Hall. The first number is career win shares, the second is core value and the third is the CAWS score (280 needed for obvious HOF numbers).

Rusty Staub 354 254 279
Bobby Bonds 302 264 274
Vladimir Guerrero 294 266 273
Sammy Sosa 325 255 273
Bobby Abreu 289 265 271
Ken Singleton 302 260 271
Reggie Smith 325 250 269
Dave Parker 327 248 268
Jack Clark 316 247 264
Dwight Evans 347 234 262

So, where is Larry Walker? He is NOT among the top 25 right fielders.

Larry Walker 311 234 253

He does not appear to have HOF numbers.

If anyone wants more info on the CAWS Career Gauge, just drop me a note at
mike_hoban@msn.com

[OleMissCub]

A 63.8 WARP3 is really, really low for a Hall of Famer and would put him barely above Jim Rice as regards HOFers and WARP3.

[Domenic]

A 63.8 WARP3 is really, really low for a Hall of Famer and would put him barely above Jim Rice as regards HOFers and WARP3.

WARP-3 has always struck me as a metric that undervalues defense, and this may be a strong example of that. By most every offensive measure, Walker was a much greater hitter than Rice:

By OPS+
Walker - 140
Rice - 128

By OWP
Walker - .746
Rice - .627

By EQA
Walker - .303
Rice - .293

Walker appears to be significantly greater than Rice offensively, and the defensive edge is probably greater. PCA sees Walker as a top-twelve RF'er, I believe, and he was consistently great in the field. Rice, on the other-hand, was average at best and spent his fair share of time at DH.

Walker's WARP-3 is about eight wins greater than Rice, which is significant (considering that he had about 1000 less PA's), but I feel that the gap between the two is much more significant.

[OleMissCub]

I would MUCH rather have Walker in the HOF than Rice. No doubt.