Edgar Martinez vs Larry Walker

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok, simply question who do you think is the MORE deserving Hall of Famer? So no "I think both are deserving" or "I think neither of them are deserving" answers. You have to pick one. :D

[Seattle1]

Out of those two I would probably say Edgar Martinez.

[jjpm74]

Walker is a gold glove winning position player. Regardless of the fact that he played in a hitter friendly ballpark, Larry Walker gets the edge here because of his position playing. Edgar Martinez played too much of his career as a DH for me to consider him. He'd need 3000 hits or over 1800 RBIs as a DH before I'd consider him.

[OleMissCub]

Dang you and your no option for "neither".

So if I had to pick one, I'd go with Walker. As I stated in the other thread, I'm going with Walker mostly because he actually PLAYED the field, and did so extremely well. He had 155 OF assists, and after doing some research (not as detailed as I would have liked), it looks like the only contemporaries of his that have more OF assists are Bonds (174) & Gwynn (160).

But don't get me wrong, this isn't a knock at all on Edgar. Dude was an amazing hitter. I just don't think he's HOF worthy for 2 reasons: The quintessential HOF stats just aren't there: 309 homers, 2250 hits, 1260 rbi in 2055 games with .312/.418/.515.

Like I said in the other thread, that's "less" than Moises Alou: 332 homers, 2117 hits, 1278 rbi in 1927 games with .303/.369/.517.

Obviously, there are big differences, primarily with OPS+: 147 for Edgar, 128 for Alou, and WARP3: 107 for Edgar vs. 81 for Alou.

The other reason I don't think he's HOF worthy is that he sat on the bench 3/4th of the times that his team was on defense.

In my opinion, for a DH to make it into the HOF, he better have undeniable HOF stats, like Frank Thomas.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I'd take Walker. I would actually vote for him if I had a vote. An MVP, a three-time batting champ, and a seven-time Gold Glove winner, Walker was a great all-around player and had a dominant prime. He was certainly aided by his home park, but OPS+ is park-adjusted and he is still at 140 for his career. I'd say that his biggest knock is not the Coors factor, but rather his durability (or lack thereof). I see Walker as a modern-day Chuck Klein.

I'm really on the fence about Edgar. I'm not opposed to letting a DH into the HOF, but their standards are certainly higher. Edgar was such a good hitter, but he didn't truly stand out in any single respect as a hitter. He wasn't a .330 career hitter like Tony Gwynn and he didn't have enough power to hit 500 homers, so his counting numbers don't jump out at you. However, he is a class act and I have relatively low HOF standards compared to some of you, so he'd probably end up with my vote, but not before Walker.

[Edgartohof]

Do you need to ask who I voted for? Probably not. :)

[brett]

Walker and Martinez are among a rare group of players with a 140 OPS+ or better and at least 8000 plate appearances.

Walker is at 140 with just over 8000 and Edgar is at 147 with about 8600.

Walker was a legitimate gold glove fielder who could play centerfield, and who Tony Gwinn called "the best baserunner in the game" in the late 90s. He also stole 230 bases at a 75% clip.

Coors field creates issues with OPS+. On the one hand, players tended to have better OPS+ scores at home by more than would be expected, probably because they had a "Coors hangover" when the went on the road. Also, for the absolute best hitters, there was a limit in how well they could hit. No matter how good you are and how conducive your ballpark is, it is hard for anyone to bat .500 at home. At one point the Coors field averages were over .330/.400/.500 so someone would have to go about .480 on base and .600 slugging at home to have a home OPS+ of just 140. For a guy to put up Bonds like 260 OPS+ at home he would have to go about .700 on base and 1.500 slugging.

BUT I still think that when home runs rise, the best home run hitters get the biggest boost to OPS+. Raise the league home run rate 10% and a home run hitters home run rate by 10% and the home run hitter gets a bigger proportion of his total production. Still, the average guy at Coors was prorated to about 30 home runs per 162 games there so in this case it may have hurt him.

I personally don't like partial seasons. I like Walker, but I don't like partial seasons. Every time you looked up Walker was out with an injury.

[leecemark]

--I wouldn't vote for either, but Walker is a little closer than Martinez.

[Cowtipper]

Larry Walker.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

BUT I still think that when home runs rise, the best home run hitters get the biggest boost to OPS+. Raise the league home run rate 10% and a home run hitters home run rate by 10% and the home run hitter gets a bigger proportion of his total production. Still, the average guy at Coors was prorated to about 30 home runs per 162 games there so in this case it may have hurt him.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just asking an honest question: why was the home run rate higher at Coors? I've never understood that. Yes, the ball travels farther, but the dimensions at Coors are considerably larger than at most ballparks. More territory for outfielders to cover makes for higher batting averages, but where do the extra home runs come from?

Furthermore, I don't think home/away splits for Rockies players tell the whole story. Brett was correct when he talked about the "Coors hangover" (pun intended?). The splits are so drastic because players became accustomed to their environment when they were on homestands or roadtrips. They felt the difference when they changed venues, and that made the splits so huge. Larry Walker may have hit under .300 on the road in '99, but if he played all of his home games somewhere other than Denver, he certainly would've hit well above .300. He wouldn't have been a .379 hitter everywhere, but to be a .379 hitter anywhere is pretty impressive.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

BUT I still think that when home runs rise, the best home run hitters get the biggest boost to OPS+. Raise the league home run rate 10% and a home run hitters home run rate by 10% and the home run hitter gets a bigger proportion of his total production. Still, the average guy at Coors was prorated to about 30 home runs per 162 games there so in this case it may have hurt him.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just asking an honest question: why was the home run rate higher at Coors? I've never understood that. Yes, the ball traveled farther, but the dimensions at Coors are considerably larger than at most ballparks. More territory for outfielders to cover makes for higher batting averages, but where did the extra home runs come from?

Furthermore, I don't think home/away splits for Rockies players tell the whole story. Brett was correct when he talked about the "Coors hangover" (pun intended?). The splits are so drastic because players became accustomed to their environment when they were on homestands or roadtrips. They felt the difference when they changed venues, and that made the splits so huge. Larry Walker may have hit under .300 on the road in '99, but if he played all of his home games somewhere other than Denver, he certainly would've hit well above .300. He wouldn't have been a .379 hitter everywhere, but to be a .379 hitter anywhere is pretty impressive.

[brett]

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just asking an honest question: why was the home run rate higher at Coors?

I think it came down to the fact that Coors was so mentally tough on pitchers that they tried to throw a perfect pitch all the time, and basically hung far more breaking balls in the long run. Basic reason, breaking balls of all kinds dropped less and stayed up in the power region.

They should have gone after guys who got their "drop" exclusively from gravity, rather than break-a splitter and who knows-according to this theory a knuckler and a great changeup.

[philkid3]

It's a real tough call. I went with Martinez. Yes, he had the benefit of DHing, but the fact is he stayed more healthy than Walker, and has more career value and peak value. Walker closes in for me with his total package-ness, but doesn't quite make up the ground.


I don't have any sort of idealistic stance against anyone playing a position that is within the rules of baseball. The only thing I have against a DH is the low value of offense at the position and the potential edge it gives in games played. I'm not going to "penalize" someone for playing it.


I would vote for both, though.

[DoubleX]

It's a real tough call. I went with Martinez. Yes, he had the benefit of DHing, but the fact is he stayed more healthy than Walker, and has more career value and peak value. Walker closes in for me with his total package-ness, but doesn't quite make up the ground.


I don't have any sort of idealistic stance against anyone playing a position that is within the rules of baseball. The only thing I have against a DH is the low value of offense at the position and the potential edge it gives in games played. I'm not going to "penalize" someone for playing it.


I would vote for both, though.

I penalize people for playing DH because it allows a player to regularly be in the game when they likely wouldn't otherwise. Of course it is all conjecture, but we've seen so many great hitters decline and have to leave the game by their mid 30s because they no longer could help their teams in the field. Guys like Ralph Kiner, Frank Howard, Hank Greenberg, Eddie Mathews, and Mickey Mantle, just to name a few. The presence of the DH could have drastically changed their careers. Playing DH also greatly reduces the risk of injury. I know some will say "how does playing 1B expose one to injury?" It does - you try going out there day after day for 6 months and see if it takes a toll. It won't be as much as playing say SS or CF, but it does. 1B is in involved in a lot of plays, that means a lot of movement, a lot of pivoting, some diving after balls, some contact/collisions with runners some throwing, having to stand out there perhaps in the cold or heat for long periods at a time, all add up and provide for a lot more activity and strain than sitting on the bench and getting ready for your next AB.

Martinez was a terrific hitter for sure, but I also feel pretty confident that given his early injury history and inability to field and run the bases, he would not have had the kind of hitting career he had without the DH. He would likely not have been in the lineup regularly nor had as long a career. Without the DH, I think Martinez's career would have looked a lot like Ted Kluszewski's.

On the flipside there is Larry Walker and some different issues. First, Walker played in perhaps the best park for hitters in the modern era (and perhaps ever). His splits show him to be a monster at home (1.068), but he was also a pretty good hitter on the road (.865). He also was frequently injured and that is held against him. Nevertheless, he ended up with just about 650 less ABs than Martinez, and did so without the benefit of the DH to keep him in the lineup when sore. With that in mind, I ask these questions - how many games would he have missed if he DH'd full time like Martinez? I further ask, how much better would his offensive production been if he could DH fulltime, and presumably have been healthier and in the lineup more often? Given that Walker had a 140 OPS+ without DHing, while also adding great defense and was also a good baserunner, that puts him pretty comfortably ahead of Martinez in my book (who had a 147 OPS+).

In sum, for anyone picking Martinez, I'd ask you to ponder this hypothetical - what would Walker's numbers have looked like if he were a fulltime DH for the majority of his career, and on the flipside, what would Martinez's numbers have looked like if he couldn't play DH for the majority of his career?

This all being said, I likely wouldn't support either for the Hall.

[leecemark]

--Even leaviing the DH out of the equation Walker is the better player. Lets imagine Martinez played mostly if his career at 1B. Not well, but at least taking the field. He still has little defensive value and negative baserunning value. Meanwhile Walker was a terrific defensive outfielder and an exceleent baserunning. Is Edgar's 6 point lead in OPS+ and one seasons worth of PA really enough to offset Walker's huge advantage in defense and baserunning? I can't see that.
--When you factor the DH in then I don't see this as a particularly close comparison. I think if Martinez had been forced to play the field he would have missed at least as many games per season as Walker and his career would have been shorter. His longevity advantage is totally atributable to having the DH to fall back on.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Martinez doesn't have that big of an edge as a hitter. Accounting for everything else, it's Walker.

[GiambiJuice]

In order to overcome the weak counting stats, you had to have contributed in some other ways, which Walker did in the field and on the basepaths.

Edgar, for the most part, contributed with his bat and not much else. And as others have pointed out, his slight offensive edge isn't nearly enough to make up for the other differences between him and Larry Walker as all around players.

[digglahhh]

Furthermore, I don't think home/away splits for Rockies players tell the whole story. Brett was correct when he talked about the "Coors hangover" (pun intended?). The splits are so drastic because players became accustomed to their environment when they were on homestands or roadtrips. They felt the difference when they changed venues, and that made the splits so huge. Larry Walker may have hit under .300 on the road in '99, but if he played all of his home games somewhere other than Denver, he certainly would've hit well above .300. He wouldn't have been a .379 hitter everywhere, but to be a .379 hitter anywhere is pretty impressive.

It's not just that. Non Rockies get Coors Stats included in their road numbers. The imbalanced schedule dictates a ton on in-division games. The NL West has two of the most pitcher-friendly parks in the game, namely, LA and SD. If you're a Padre, your road stats include 9 games at Coors (over 10% of your total road games) and none at Petco. If you're a Rockie, you're road stats include 9 at Petco and none at Coors. With an imbalanced sked, and the extreme hitters' and pitchers' parks in the league in the same division, the it is predetermined that raw home/road splits will be exaggerated.

[KCGHOST]

Both players have some counting stat issues and both are going tobe highly debated players when there time comes. Their career win shares are virtually dead even. I went with Walker as he actually played quality defense and could run the bases.

My guess is that in real life Edgar will get elected and Walker will be bypassed (call it the Coors Expo effect).

[OleMissCub]

I went with Martinez. Yes, he had the benefit of DHing, but the fact is he stayed more healthy than Walker, and has more career value and peak value.

I wonder why....

[Paul Wendt]

Walker.
But I don't buy this.

I penalize people for playing DH because it allows a player to regularly be in the game when they likely wouldn't otherwise. Of course it is all conjecture, but we've seen so many great hitters decline and have to leave the game by their mid 30s because they no longer could help their teams in the field. Guys like Ralph Kiner, Frank Howard, Hank Greenberg, Eddie Mathews, and Mickey Mantle, just to name a few. The presence of the DH could have drastically changed their careers.

This seems to treat the DH as a temporary aberration. That Frank Howard might have extended his career if the DH arrived ten years earlier is irrelevant.

The DH is part of the game, like left/right imbalance or large/small foul territory in a home ballpark, which suits the game of some players better than others. Edgar Martinez's early injury problems were severe, like Paul Molitor's. If such a player is an outstanding batter in modern baseball, he is more valuable in the AL than in the NL. If his team doesn't trade or sell his rights early, he soon gets an opportunity to move as a free agent.

Note, Frank Howard did finish his career as a DH in 1973, and Orlando Cepeda moved from the NL to the AL that year to continue his career as a DH.

Plate Appearances and OPS+
name 1971 72 73 74
Frank Howard, age 36.8 in April 1973
PA 633 368 251 --
OPS+ 144 114 115 --
Orlando Cepeda, age 35.7 in April 1973
PA 276 94 608 117
OPS+ 125 119 117 62
Howard changed cities with the Washington Senators winter-1972 and changed teams mid'72. Cepeda changed teams mid'72 (to AL), winter'73, and winter'74.

Working with OPS+ and plate appearances alone, any penalty for play as a DH ("DH penalty") may be interpreted as the benchmark fielding value of all other players in the lineup, those who take the field.

Working with OPS+ and PA combined with a guesti-measure of fielding value, the only[no, see the closing paragraph] DH penalty that seems right to me is an adjustment of plate appearances for the greater number of PA available in the AL. But PA per team game varies with ballpark and teammates as well as the league rules. Indeed, those rules operate thru the teammate-composition of the batting order by putting the pitcher in there. The ballpark and teammate effects may be rolled into one, yielding adjusted PA or PA+ by analogy to OPS+. Alternatively, one might adjust based on shares of team-DH plate appearances by analogy to defensive innings for the fielding positions.

Working with some ubermeasure denominated in wins (eg, win shares) for discussions in the Hall of Fame family, it may be appropriate to adjust all batters (eg, batting win shares) for the absence/presence of the dh; that is, for the offense arranged or not arranged around the pitcher's #9 position.


. . . This all being said, I likely wouldn't support either for the Hall.

It looks like Jim Rice will go in next year, Andre Dawson soon after. I wouldn't mind seeing Walker and Martinez elected, although I don't expect it. They fit happily with the weaker but not blooper Hall of Fame selections: Hugh Duffy and Kiki Cuyler, not Tommy McCarthy and Lloyd Waner.



--Even leaviing the DH out of the equation Walker is the better player. Lets imagine Martinez played mostly if his career at 1B. Not well, but at least taking the field. He still has little defensive value and negative baserunning value. Meanwhile Walker was a terrific defensive outfielder and an exceleent baserunning. Is Edgar's 6 point lead in OPS+ and one seasons worth of PA really enough to offset Walker's huge advantage in defense and baserunning? I can't see that.

I agree.
Note, if you equalize the PA by dropping Edgar's last season --something many analysts do for all "negative" seasons at ends of careers-- the OPS+ difference is 10-11 points.

Probably we need some perspective, maybe more than the 5-year wait for BBWAA election provides. That's one rationale for voting No on new candidates who seem borderline, eventually voting Yes for some but not for others. How many batters will there be in the 1990s and 20-aughts with 8000 PA and OPS+ 160, or 150, or 140? We know those numbers are more common today than in the 1970s and 80s, but how much more common as a long career average?


--When you factor the DH in then I don't see this as a particularly close comparison. I think if Martinez had been forced to play the field he would have missed at least as many games per season as Walker and his career would have been shorter. His longevity advantage is totally attributable to having the DH to fall back on.

This seems irrelevant to me. If we credit career length measured in PA, however, we should adjust PA for ballpark and teammate effects. See above.

There may be another appropriate "DH penalty" in case of a player who cannot fill in on the field. That would represent the cost to the team in utilizing the DH for our player alone rather than for rehabbing or resting a teammate. I don't have any ideas how to quantify that, but for those of us who aren't actually quantifying anything else, it is unreasonable to complain much about any nod to this particular DH penalty.

[J W]

I don't really buy into the "penalize for DHing" routine... but for two batters who are in each others' top ten in similarity scores, I have to give the edge to the position player. Especially since he used to be Gold Glove caliber. Walker before Martinez.

And btw, I don't see the big difference between Walker and say, Harry Heilmann. Heilmann was a bit healthier (about +800 ABs, same 17 seasons) and Walker was the better defender. Both were in the MVP picture many seasons. Both carried devastating bats. Anybody have home/road splits for Heilmann?

[DoubleX]

Walker.
But I don't buy this.

Being a DH gives a player a distinct advantage to be a better hitter and to stay in the lineup with greater frequency than they would have otherwise. I referenced the players I did to point out that in the pre-DH days, even great hitters saw their production and careers curtailed when they could no longer be of service in the field. If they had the DH earlier in their careers, that could have assisted those players in being more productive longer by keeping them healthier and in the lineup.

Basically, to me, the DH presents and advantage to be a better hitter, so when we're comparing a DH to a position player with similar offensive production, I will very much hold the DH against the player because I doubt that he would have had the career production he did if not for the DH. I'm not going to essentially reward Edgar Martinez for playing during a time where he could get away with being useless in the field but could stay in the lineup through the DH, when generations of players before that did not have that same advantage to augment their production and careers. Like I said earlier, when talking about the DH, I think it's perfectly fair to wonder what that player's career would like like without the DH, and when comparing two players as we are here, what the other player's career would have looked like if they played the DH full time. I have little doubt that had Martinez been a full time fielder like Walker, he probably would have been out of baseball at a much earlier age, like Ralph Kiner, Frank Howard, Mickey Mantle, Hank Greenberg, Eddie Mathews and others; and conversely, had Larry Walker been a fulltime DH, he probably would have been healthier, thus in the lineup more, and had more production. I'm not going to just ignore the inherent advantages of playing a DH - to do so is to punish everyone else for not playing DH.

Also, mentioning that Frank Howard and Orlando Cepeda DH'd at the very end of their careers is unpersuasive, IMO. That's just a year or two after they were already run down from injuries. It's nothing like Martinez making an almost entire career out of playing DH. Had Howard and Cepeda played DH as early and as regularly as Martinez did, they too would likely have aged better and been more productive later in their career.

[Walt Zink]

i picked walker, but as with everyone else here, it was because he played the field. not to mention he had one of the best arms in the outfield for a long time.

however, if you look at his career stats, he hit about 70 points higher at home. by year in colorado (i left out '04 as he also oplayed in StL), it goes:

year - home BA, away BA

95 - .343, .268
96 - .393, .142 (only 83 games)
97 - .384, .346 (and 20 road HR to 29, so deserving of the MVP)
98 - .418, .302
99 - .461, .286
00 - .359, .259 (only 87 games)
01 - .406, .293
02 - .362, .312
03 - .338, .227

his HR totals in those 9 years, if my math is right, is 152 at home, 100 away. take away the mvp season, and that's now 132 to 71, almost 2 to 1. coors field certainly adds a little something for a lot of years, and i can't simply attribute that to "pitchers being too careful" alone. the humidifier has evened out the problems a bit. btw, when did they start using that for the balls?

but i am one of those people that takes away for the DH. i would most certainly vote for a DH that had a massive year (such as a couple of years david ortiz has had), and had plenty of key hits, etc. long-term? the DH is one that has given a lot of guys careers or extra years they otherwise wouldn't have. i loved edgar, but there's NO WAY i would put him in the hall. david ortiz is on the same path. a career DH, a popular player, and has some years with monster stats, but even with all that, the stats come up short even if they played the field.

[Paul Wendt]

I don't really buy into the "penalize for DHing" routine... but for two batters who are in each others' top ten in similarity scores, I have to give the edge to the position player.
There are good reasons not to use "Most Similar Batters" at all. For one, Walker benefits a lot more from playing 30% of his career at Coors Field than Martinez benefits from playing 70% of his career as designated hitter.

I suspect that Martinez benefits only in playing time and therefore in his totals, not at all in his rates. To rely on Similarity is to rely mainly on totals.

Being a DH gives a player a distinct advantage to be a better hitter and to stay in the lineup with greater frequency than they would have otherwise.
. . . I'm not going to just ignore the inherent advantages of playing a DH - to do so is to punish everyone else for not playing DH.
Yes it is easier to stay in the lineup.

Why is it easier to bat effectively?
Do we know that it is easier?
Sorry to say I don't have numbers, but I have read several references to a fielders premium, a DH disadvantage: players don't bat as well when they are designated hitters.

Does anyone discount base-stealing by George Case, Jackie Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, and Bert Campaneris? They enjoyed the advantages of playing in the middle and end of a time when few players were stealing, and soon after that time. The leagues had adapted to that style of play; pitchers and catchers were not very good at controlling the running game. That changed during the 1970s and 1980s, some time during the careers of Davy Lopes, Rickey Henderson, Ron Leflore, Tim Raines, Eric Davis, who were running wild c.1975 and c.1985.

[Paul Wendt]

A few hours ago I discussed an advantage from batting under DH rules, in the eyes of anyone who uses totals such as PAs in conjunction with OPS+ as the twin basis for assessing batting. That advantage and the corresponding adjustment I sketched (PA+) pertain to all batters in DH leagues in contrast to all batters in no-DH leagues. The DH brings everyone to the plate for more PAs. It isn't about the DH position at all and I should have emphasized that.

As I did say then, the same is true regarding the maybe-adjustment of "all batters (eg, batting win shares) . . . for the offense arranged or not arranged around the pitcher's #9 position." Essentially, that is adjustment for the fact that nine players divide all the credit for offense in a DH league, eight players divide almost all the credit for offense in a no-DH league.

[philkid3]

I penalize people for playing DH because it allows a player to regularly be in the game when they likely wouldn't otherwise.
That makes sense. But a lot of people knock down DH's because they don't like the rule and they have the idealistic idea that players have to play the field to count as baseball players. There's some functional loss of value that comes from a player playing DH, but there are many who take it too far just because they don't like the concept.

[DoubleX]

Why is it easier to bat effectively?
Do we know that it is easier?
Sorry to say I don't have numbers, but I have read several references to a fielders premium, a DH disadvantage: players don't bat as well when they are designated hitters.

Just by virtue of being in the lineup more frequently than the player would otherwise, helps a DH to be more productive over the long-term. I agree, that in the short-term, disrupting a player's routine and having him sit for long periods before batting, could be a hindrance. But over the long-term, the player likely gets used to it, can focus all his energies and concentration on hitting, and will not have to deal with the wear and tear that naturally comes from being in the field (even if it's just standing in the summer heat at 1B).


Does anyone discount base-stealing by George Case, Jackie Robinson, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, and Bert Campaneris? They enjoyed the advantages of playing in the middle and end of a time when few players were stealing, and soon after that time. The leagues had adapted to that style of play; pitchers and catchers were not very good at controlling the running game. That changed during the 1970s and 1980s, some time during the careers of Davy Lopes, Rickey Henderson, Ron Leflore, Tim Raines, Eric Davis, who were running wild c.1975 and c.1985.

You're comparing changes in style to changes in rules. It's like apples and oranges, IMO. Moreover, a style will apply broadly to the entire generation, the DH benefits a small few (well perhaps more when you start getting into lineup protection). Comparing a player that DH'd the vast majority of his career to one that didn't, is also like comparing apples and oranges to me, and some adjustment has to be made for that. Like I keep saying, imagine what the DH player would be like in a non-DH world, and imagine what the non-DH player would be like if he played mostly DH.

[OleMissCub]

players have to play the field to count as baseball players.

They do. As someone who played baseball at a competitive level for 16 years of my life, from the little league level to the collegiate level, it just irritates the heck out of me that some people can play the game and get paid millions of dollars to play it, and yet never have to play in the field. Playing the field to me is such an integral part of the game.


The DH should be abolished. I've used this example before, but to me it would be as if in Basketball the Center could just stay in his own paint the whole game, and when the ball went to the opposite goal, a designated defensive player would run onto the court and play defense until the offense got the ball again. It's ludicrous, and so is the DH.

[fenrir]

the big question is, was walker deserving of the NL mvp in 1997?

[OleMissCub]

the big question is, was walker deserving of the NL mvp in 1997?

Good God yes.

.366/.452/.720, 178 OPS+, 1.172 OPS, 33 stolen bases, 200+ hits, 46 doubles, 49 HR, 130 RBI, 143 runs & a Gold Glove year in RF with 12 assists and only 2 errors.

To be fair, however, Piazza did have probably the greatest offensive season a catcher has ever had.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

They do. As someone who played baseball at a competitive level for 16 years of my life, from the little league level to the collegiate level, it just irritates the heck out of me that some people can play the game and get paid millions of dollars to play it, and yet never have to play in the field. Playing the field to me is such an integral part of the game.


The DH should be abolished. I've used this example before, but to me it would be as if in Basketball the Center could just stay in his own paint the whole game, and when the ball went to the opposite goal, a designated defensive player would run onto the court and play defense until the offense got the ball again. It's ludicrous, and so is the DH.

By and large, baseball games are won on the pitcher's mound and in the batter's box, not in the field. Not that defense isn't important, but pitching and hitting are far more important. Anyone who can hit like Edgar at the Major League level will have a job PERIOD. Even in the National League, he'd have been thrown at first base just to get his bat in the lineup. I happen to like the DH. It's one thing that makes the two leagues different and keeps homefield advantage a factor in inter-league and World Series games. I understand why people don't like it, but it's not giving hitters like Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz spots on Major League rosters that they otherwise wouldn't have.

[philkid3]

They do.
The rules of the American League say otherwise.

[philkid3]

I understand why people don't like it, but it's not giving hitters like Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz spots on Major League rosters that they otherwise wouldn't have.

This is correct. It's giving the 9th best hitter playing he wouldn't have, not David Ortiz.

Doesn't really have to do with my previous point, but it is a good point.

[OleMissCub]

The rules of the American League say otherwise.

[OleMissCub]

I understand why people don't like it, but it's not giving hitters like Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz spots on Major League rosters that they otherwise wouldn't have.

So what? Do some people have a right to make an MLB roster?

If there was a designated runner, then there'd probably be some players on rosters who aren't there now. So should the National League get to implement that? I mean, hey, it adds more guys on the roster who wouldn't otherwise be there.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

So what? Do some people have a right to make an MLB roster?

No, the principle of Darwinism determines who makes MLB rosters and it favors guys who hit like Edgar Martinez.

[Walt Zink]

the big question is, was walker deserving of the NL mvp in 1997?

absolutely. it was the one year where walker hit more home runs on the road than at home (29 away, 20 at home). it was also his highest road BA (over .340). he EASILY earned that award, and i am BLATANTLY against giving the MVP to anyone playing for the rockies the MVP award that gets to hit in denver 81 games out of the year,

[Fuzzy Bear]

I was stunned to discover that Larry Walker had a .746 career Offensive Winning Percentage. That's absolutely excellent, on its face, and clearly in the MIDDLE of the HOF.

I am not sure how legit that figure is. I am not sure how much playing in Coors affects a stat like OWP. But let's say that Walker's real OWP wasn't .746. Let's say it was .700. Would THAT make him a HOFer?

Even if we cut Walker down to .650, we still have a marginal HOFer, and a guy better than Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, and a whole lot of people that get a lot of love around here.

Larry Walker may be one of the five most underrated players in MLB history. If his OWP really is in the neighborhood of .700, there is no precedent for keeping a corner outfielder who was a defensive plus out of the HOF.

[leecemark]

--The problem with that is nobody cares about OWP. Its an obscure stat that makes for a very weak centerpiece of anyone's HoF argument.

[Westlake]

They do.

If you've been under a rock the last 20 years, maybe. Traditionalists that cant even say guys like Edgar Martinez are baseball players. Ridiculous.

High school, college, minor leagues, and the AL all have the DH. All those DHs are baseball players. Maybe you want it abolished, but saying they aren't baseball players is just plain crazy IMO. Tell Edgar Martinez he's not a ballplayer to his face. Please.

[philkid3]

Larry Walker may be one of the five most underrated players in MLB history.

I agree with you there. He played for two teams that no one cares about who were almost never good, and his offense largely came in a park where, instead of looking at the numbers and taking them with a grain of salt, people just tend to throw out the numbers entirely as if they wouldn't even make the team if they played in Petco.

[OleMissCub]

If you've been under a rock the last 20 years, maybe. Traditionalists that cant even say guys like Edgar Martinez are baseball players. Ridiculous.

High school, college, minor leagues, and the AL all have the DH. All those DHs are baseball players. Maybe you want it abolished, but saying they aren't baseball players is just plain crazy IMO. Tell Edgar Martinez he's not a ballplayer to his face. Please.

Way to go crazy based on two words I wrote that were wrote in combative jest. Perhaps I should have put an "evil smiley" after it or something.

Look, I've played on teams that have had DH's most of my life. I've even DH'd before a few times in college. They are obviously "ballplayers".

I just DO NOT like the DH.

[Westlake]

Way to go crazy based on two words I wrote that were wrote in combative jest. Perhaps I should have put an "evil smiley" after it or something.

Look, I've played on teams that have had DH's most of my life. I've even DH'd before a few times in college. They are obviously "ballplayers".

I just DO NOT like the DH.

Yes, I went crazy. WOOOO!! AHHHH!!! :rofl:

You aren't the first person to say they aren't ballplayers before (even if it was a 'combative jest'). So I take back what I directed at you, and aim it at others that may want to say that... Watch out all, i'll go crazy on you, fools! :)

[philkid3]

Westlake, you almost made me spit milk on my screen. :laugh

[OleMissCub]

Yes, I went crazy. WOOOO!! AHHHH!!! :rofl:

[philkid3]

OleMiss isn't helping. :laugh

[ElHalo]

The DH should be abolished. I've used this example before, but to me it would be as if in Basketball the Center could just stay in his own paint the whole game, and when the ball went to the opposite goal, a designated defensive player would run onto the court and play defense until the offense got the ball again. It's ludicrous, and so is the DH.

I don't think that's true at all, of course. To me, having your pitcher hit is like having your goalie take penalty shots in hockey. Technically speaking it's possible, but it's certainly not enjoyable to watch, and if it can at all be avoided it should be.

[Westlake]

I don't think that's true at all, of course. To me, having your pitcher hit is like having your goalie take penalty shots in hockey. Technically speaking it's possible, but it's certainly not enjoyable to watch, and if it can at all be avoided it should be.

I tend to enjoy your analogies on this subject. It think it was you that also said you'd rather watch David Ortiz hit than some pitcher swinging like he's being attacked by a bee. Liked that one too.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I don't think that's true at all, of course. To me, having your pitcher hit is like having your goalie take penalty shots in hockey. Technically speaking it's possible, but it's certainly not enjoyable to watch, and if it can at all be avoided it should be.

QFT. :thumbsup:

[OleMissCub]

I tend to enjoy your analogies on this subject. It think it was you that also said you'd rather watch David Ortiz hit than some pitcher swinging like he's being attacked by a bee. Liked that one too.

That's awesome.

I do always find it funny how ridiculous and unathletic pitchers look when they go to bat. I'd wager that most pitchers were among the best athletes in their hometowns and were probably the best baseball players growing up. No doubt nearly all of them played other positions when they weren't pitching in high school or college. So when did they suddenly lose the ability to not look completely awkward up there?

Granted, it's been a while since I've faced 90 mph heat and great curveballs, but I'd imagine I wouldn't look completely helpless up there like some of them do.

This reminds me of a good trivia question. There were 4 (good/great) major leaguers that played on Mississippi State's 1985 College World Series team, among them Will Clark and Raffy Palmeiro. Who batted cleanup?

[ElHalo]

This reminds me of a good trivia question. There were 4 (good/great) major leaguers that played on Mississippi State's 1985 College World Series team, among them Will Clark and Raffy Palmeiro. Who batted cleanup?

Bobby Thigpen?

[OleMissCub]

Bobby Thigpen?

Great guess, it was Jeff Brantley.

[philkid3]

I don't think that's true at all, of course. To me, having your pitcher hit is like having your goalie take penalty shots in hockey. Technically speaking it's possible, but it's certainly not enjoyable to watch, and if it can at all be avoided it should be.

I agree with this. I also enjoy the "purity" and "strategy" that comes out of having a pitcher hit.

I like both versions of the game. If only there were some solution that would give me both. Like having the DH in one league and not in the other.

[MadHatter]

Personally, I'd say neither, but if I had to pick one gimme' Edgar

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

High school, college, minor leagues, and the AL all have the DH. All those DHs are baseball players. Maybe you want it abolished, but saying they aren't baseball players is just plain crazy IMO. Tell Edgar Martinez he's not a ballplayer to his face. Please.

Hahaha, amen.

[cavalier1968]

I Love Edgar, but lets see him do Larry's job in Right field......oh, I forgot...he cant.:eek:

Cav

[digglahhh]

Westlake, you almost made me spit milk on my screen. :laugh

Milk?

Please tell me there was at least Kahlua in it.

[philkid3]

Milk?

Please tell me there was at least Kahlua in it.

I actually enjoy drinking milk, tyvm!


I also enjoy drinking Kahlua, but the stuff is off limits right now. :(

[Brad Harris]

Walker, though both belong.

[ShawnB]

Edgar is 62 all-time in average,
54th in slugging,
11th in OBP,
37th in 2b's and the guy had absolutey no wheels (a major hamstring tear cost most of one year after his first batting title, and some of the year after that because it still wasn't right).
He is 149 all-time in hits, yet only 10 other people reached base at a better clip.

If you actually watched the guy you knew he was a clutch hitter.

He deserves to be in the HOF. But, his biggest contribution along with Randy Johnson, Jay Buhner, Ken Griffey Jr, Joey Cora, and the rest of the 1995 team is they made Washington/Seattle into a baseball state/city.

In the late 80's and early 90's you could drive to Seattle after work on a Friday night and buy any seat in the house. It looked like a glorified HS game (the crowd size). Then people started going in the early 90's when Randy Johnson started, because it was win day. He played a big part in turning the state/city into a baseball town/state. Then the 95 season happened, and the series with the Yankees showed everyone how great baseball could be when the stars align themselves. Although it started before that, in August, people everywhere was saying about those Mariners and it seemed like they hit grandslam after grandslam to pull off more wins then I could count.

When you go to game now, it doesn't matter if we are in first/last or 20 games out and you know your not going to the playoffs. There are plenty of fans in the seats enjoying the game.

[Old Sweater]

I voted Walker who without a doubt is the best all round player the Rockies have ever had.


It is not all Coors Field. There is such a thing as the constant Coors Field Hangover with the Rockies batters having to adjust to sea level every road series'


Larry Walker

Last Year with Expos .322/.394/.587/ OPS+151 1994


First Year with Rox .306/.381/.607/ OPS+130 1995


Same Player in the same league and near the same age


Last full year with the Rockies .284/.422/.476/ OPS+ 153 2003


First full year with the Cards .289/.384/.502/ OPS+ 130 2005


Same Player, same league and within 2 years of age


At Coors Field the Rockies do average 20% more contact and we do have the big outfield where a lot of Texas Leaguers fall but you will find out that all the sluggers we have had had a similar year in their raw stat the next season with their new club.


What a slugger averages with the Rockies counting the road games is close to what he will average playing at sea level all the time.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I dunno, I'd say the DH allowed Edgar to stay healthy and play longer. I hate the argument against any Colorado Rocky as "COORz FEEELD!!111!!1!" yet those people COMPLETELY ignore park effects anywhere else. However, Coors Field helped Walker; but wait, if you purely take Walker's roadstats and adjust them for a more "neutral" homepark (5% rise for each stat) here's what Walker's numbers look like .389/.520 which rounds out too a 127 OPS+, add in his baserunning value and he's about a 130 OPS, in about 2000 games. For a RF, I'm not so sure if that's enough to get into the Hall of Fame.

[Old Sweater]

take Walker's roadstats and adjust them for a more "neutral" homepark (5% rise for each stat)


How do you arrive at the 5% increase? To me you would have take the average of stats at Coors Field(road stats included which is the same as the yearly stats) and the average of stats with other clubs the Rockies player played with and the difference would show the true Coors Field advantage.


Do this with every Rockies player that has played for another MLB club and this is the only way that you could see the true Coors Field advantage instead of the bogus home and away splits that a Rockies player has at Coors Field.

[philkid3]

I think I've changed my mind on this, by the way. But I still put both of them in without thinking much more about it.