Options
Does Larry Walker get into the Hall?
Elemenopeo
Posts: 2,577 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
I know it's Curt Schilling Week and all, but Walker seems a more borderline case. I'm thinking probably not on the 1st ballot, but eventually.
0
Comments
He was a great 5 tool player....hit over .300 for a carear, mvp, batting titles, decent hr's and rbi's, and gold gloves. A complete player and one who is NOT LINKED to the juice. He's no willie mays but I think he will eventually get in.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Steve
There's certainly a compelling case to be made. I really think the 5 ASG's will hurt him at the positions he played though. That's what the voters will say...but after reviewing that stuff...he's in if I had a vote.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Again, it's 2:00am as I post this. I may have missed someone. Happy to have someone correct me.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
He's in the canadian BB HOF for sure...most hr's ever by a canadian born player. He'll be in cooperstown.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
They are inducting him into the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame in Canada this summer (just minutes from my home and I hope to go and grab an autograph).
His career stats are below
G: 1988 AB: 6907 R: 1355 H: 2160 2B: 471 3B: 62 HR: 383 RBI: 1311 BB: 913 SO: 1231 SB: 230 CS: 76 AVG: .313 OBP: .400 SLG: .565 OPS: .965
mathew
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
Steve
Better than MANY in the Hall, even with the Coors Field advantage. OPS+ (which is supposed to take ballpark into consideration) is better than Reggie Jackson and just below Harmon Killebrew. I loved both of those guys, but Walker could do MUCH MUCH more than them in fielding (7 time Gold Glove), running (230 SB) and look at his assists! He was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in assists a total of 7 times! Top 15 all time.
I just can't believe so many people simply look at his hitting splits and say Coors Field did it. Look at ALL his numbers. No other player of his time comes close that didn't use steroids.
Yes Coors helped him a lot, but he did more than enough to make up for that!
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>Definitely a HOFer!
Better than MANY in the Hall, even with the Coors Field advantage. OPS+ (which is supposed to take ballpark into consideration) is better than Reggie Jackson and just below Harmon Killebrew. I loved both of those guys, but Walker could do MUCH MUCH more than them in fielding (7 time Gold Glove), running (230 SB) and look at his assists! He was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in assists a total of 7 times! Top 15 all time.
I just can't believe so many people simply look at his hitting splits and say Coors Field did it. Look at ALL his numbers. No other player of his time comes close that didn't use steroids.
Yes Coors helped him a lot, but he did more than enough to make up for that! >>
He hit .278 on the road and .348 at home. How can you possibly say he didn't get a HUGE boost from Coors?
Coors doesn't win him Gold Gloves or steal him bases, and by the way you CAN'T just throw out what he did at Coors and call him a .280 hitter.
He was able to hit as well or better a couple of years at on the road, how is that possible if Coors is the ONLY reason he had such good numbers.
Again, you are focusing on one single statistic road hitting, he was a SUPERIOR ballplayer in EVERY facet of the game, not just hitting at home.
In every sport the goal seems to be win at home and compete on the road, he excelled at that, why ignore the HUGE numbers at home?
<< <i>There's certainly a compelling case to be made. I really think the 5 ASG's will hurt him at the positions he played though. That's what the voters will say...but after reviewing that stuff...he's in if I had a vote. >>
How many years is he an All-Star if the steroids guys don't beat him out? He "deserved" to be an A.S. in '95 & 2002 if you look at MVP rankings, he was better than Dykstra in '94, in 2000 there were 2-3 steroid users in the A.S. outfield, but he should have gotten in on numbers alone, he was hurt at the start 2004, but still was better than just about everyone by the end of the year.
I think he is a 10 time A.S. if you look at the numbers, and after all, awards and other honors that are voted on are often suspect. You can see that by looking at some of the MVP awards that were given out over the years.
The only real problem I have is Larry missed a lot of games due to injury, but if you want to start looking at that stuff, it just gets worse, MANY guys in HOF with less years of service due to injuries, and WWII and Korea.
<< <i>Already said Coors helped him a lot, READ the post.
Coors doesn't win him Gold Gloves or steal him bases, and by the way you CAN'T just throw out what he did at Coors and call him a .280 hitter. >>
Gold Gloves are a popularity contest. When Raffy Palmeiro can win a 1B gold glove in a year in which he only played 30 games at the position? Yeah you can throw those 'awards' out the window. As far as stolen bases, what are you talking about? He averaged 19 SB a year, and the most he ever did in a year was 33. Try again, sparky.
<< <i>He was able to hit as well or better a couple of years at on the road, how is that possible if Coors is the ONLY reason he had such good numbers. >>
If you don't think Coors was a primary reason he hit so well, then you're simply unable to comprehend statistics whatsoever. Looking at his career home/away splits, anyone can rationally see the huge 'Coors Effect' on his numbers. Why can't you?
<< <i>Again, you are focusing on one single statistic road hitting, he was a SUPERIOR ballplayer in EVERY facet of the game, not just hitting at home. >>
Why are you speaking in generalities? Speak to specifics or you're just pulling random sentences out of your backside.
<< <i>In every sport the goal seems to be win at home and compete on the road, he excelled at that, why ignore the HUGE numbers at home? >>
So the goal isn't to win as many games as possible, regardless of location? I've never heard the saying 'win at home compete on the road', where did you get that from? Another made up reason to prop up your flimsy Larry Walker defense?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
"Why are you speaking in generalities? Speak to specifics or you're just pulling random sentences out of your backside."
Oh my gosh it's YOU! I have mentioned Gold Gloves (yeah they just give them to anyone by the way, I am tired of the Palmeiro example any others?) he won 7 so that should mean he was pretty good.
How about his assist totals, I see you ignore them.
He averaged better than 15 stolen bases a year for 12 years, pretty good for someone who wasn't a lead-off type hitter. You don't like his stolen base totals? Let's go with Power/Speed number. Only 29 players ahead of him ALL TIME.
If you have never heard that teams put more emphasis on winning at home than on the road, then it's obvious that I am correct in saying you live completely inside your own head.
Your pathetic arguing style(?) is simply a waste of time. I have granted he had a huge advantage in hitting at Coors Field. OPS+ which takes ballpark factor into effect says he still ends up with GREAT career numbers.
You on the other hand can only recite the now boring and incorrect theory that his ballpark effected stats keep him out.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO IGNORE THAT HE WAS A SUPERIOR DEFENSIVE PLAYER WHO COULD RUN WELL AND HAD A TREMENDOUS ARM!!!!
Go ahead and spew your idiotic, garbage. No one here can stop you. All you ever do is argue, criticize and demean unless you are championing a douchebag like A-Roid.
I will no longer waste my time replying to you as it is simply a waste of time.
Why don't you just GO AWAY!
<< <i>His numbers and stats are very impressive when you look at them in a vacuum (.313 BA, .400 OBP, OPS .965 and OPS+ 141 to go along with 383 HRs and 230 SBs), but he has to overcome both the Coors effect and the PED era, so probably not. >>
Please explain. I have been told by many on these boards that OPS+ takes ballpark effect into account, and does it very well. His career OPS+ should eliminate the argument that he only had offensive value while playing at Coors. Getting out of the vacuum seems to me to show he was not just good at the other aspects of the game, but GREAT.
He DID play home games at other ballparks that were not Coors field and put up some great numbers '92 & '94 with Montreal his OPS+ was 141 and 151, and in 2004 and 2005 at the end of his career, he was at 144 and 130 (Clemente's, Winfield's and Yasztremski's LIFETIME OPS+ were 130) in St. Louis.
I am also not sure that the PED era should hurt him, he seems to have never been accused or mentioned in any reports. Shouldn't that HELP him by showing he put up his numbers without any chemical assistance? I apologize if I missed where he was accused, I always thought that he was "clean".
I am just amazed at how ONE objection eliminates him from so many people's HOF thoughts. He was MUCH more than just a great hitter, he did EVERYTHING well.
He comes up a bit short on longevity and his Coors years were his prime ones, but those seem to be minor factors (to me) if you evaluate the entire career and all of his abilities.
Good night all
<< <i>"Why are you speaking in generalities? Speak to specifics or you're just pulling random sentences out of your backside."
Oh my gosh it's YOU! I have mentioned Gold Gloves (yeah they just give them to anyone by the way, I am tired of the Palmeiro example any others?) he won 7 so that should mean he was pretty good. >>
No, it means he was a popular player. Year in and year out Golden Gloves are not won by the most deserving player but the most popular. Derek Jeter winning multiple gold gloves despite being in the bottom half of every defensive metric should be reason enough not to trust these 'awards'.
<< <i>How about his assist totals, I see you ignore them. >>
How can I ignore something that wasn't even mentioned in the first place? You brought up STEALS and GOLDEN GLOVES and said he was deserving. I was speaking to YOUR point. As far as assists go, he had a TOTAL of 213 over 17 years. This averages just over 12 a year. TWELVE! When you resort to 'assists' as a reason to induct a player? You're out of ammo. Put the gun down, son.
<< <i>He averaged better than 15 stolen bases a year for 12 years, pretty good for someone who wasn't a lead-off type hitter. You don't like his stolen base totals? Let's go with Power/Speed number. Only 29 players ahead of him ALL TIME. >>
He stole 230 bases all time, and got caught 76 times. That's 76 outs he generated after he was already on base.
<< <i>If you have never heard that teams put more emphasis on winning at home than on the road, then it's obvious that I am correct in saying you live completely inside your own head. >>
That's NOT what you said. You said teams win at home and hope to compete on the road, which is completely different than THIS point you're now making. Good gravy you're a dense one. Do you even remember what you post or do you expunge it from your brain the second you type it down?
<< <i>Your pathetic arguing style(?) is simply a waste of time. I have granted he had a huge advantage in hitting at Coors Field. OPS+ which takes ballpark factor into effect says he still ends up with GREAT career numbers. >>
Again, that's NOT what you said. You want to dismiss the discrepancy in his road/away splits and not give credit to the Coors Effect.
<< <i>You on the other hand can only recite the now boring and incorrect theory that his ballpark effected stats keep him out.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO IGNORE THAT HE WAS A SUPERIOR DEFENSIVE PLAYER WHO COULD RUN WELL AND HAD A TREMENDOUS ARM!!!! >>
Who had 12 assists a year (and that includes him garnering 59 of his 230 career assists playing FIRST BASE!)
<< <i>Go ahead and spew your idiotic, garbage. No one here can stop you. All you ever do is argue, criticize and demean unless you are championing a douchebag like A-Roid. >>
Yeah those crazy things called 'logic' and 'reasoning' are tough for someone who doesn't understand either to comprehend. And saying Larry Walker is not a hall of famer because his numbers took a huge step down on the road is not 'criticizing' or 'demeaning'. That is, unless you are unable to separate critical thought from personal feelings.
<< <i>I will no longer waste my time replying to you as it is simply a waste of time. >>
Thank you!
<< <i>
<< <i>His numbers and stats are very impressive when you look at them in a vacuum (.313 BA, .400 OBP, OPS .965 and OPS+ 141 to go along with 383 HRs and 230 SBs), but he has to overcome both the Coors effect and the PED era, so probably not. >>
Please explain. I have been told by many on these boards that OPS+ takes ballpark effect into account, and does it very well. His career OPS+ should eliminate the argument that he only had offensive value while playing at Coors. Getting out of the vacuum seems to me to show he was not just good at the other aspects of the game, but GREAT.
He DID play home games at other ballparks that were not Coors field and put up some great numbers '92 & '94 with Montreal his OPS+ was 141 and 151, and in 2004 and 2005 at the end of his career, he was at 144 and 130 (Clemente's, Winfield's and Yasztremski's LIFETIME OPS+ were 130) in St. Louis.
I am also not sure that the PED era should hurt him, he seems to have never been accused or mentioned in any reports. Shouldn't that HELP him by showing he put up his numbers without any chemical assistance? I apologize if I missed where he was accused, I always thought that he was "clean".
I am just amazed at how ONE objection eliminates him from so many people's HOF thoughts. He was MUCH more than just a great hitter, he did EVERYTHING well.
He comes up a bit short on longevity and his Coors years were his prime ones, but those seem to be minor factors (to me) if you evaluate the entire career and all of his abilities.
Good night all >>
You are undersestimating the Coorts effect on his career stats. No one here is saying that Walker wasn't a very good player overall, but there is no question that his numbers were significantly enhanced by playing at Coors field. Here are his career splits:
Home 986 911 3996 3429 789 1193 268 39 215 747 121 34 444 546 .348 .431 .637 1.068 2184 82 82 4 37 69 34 .362 120
Away 1002 922 4034 3478 566 967 203 23 168 564 109 42 469 685 .278 .370 .495 .865 1720 71 56 3 28 48 38 .301 80
His career BA at home is SEVENTY POINTS higher than on the road and his tOPS+ which measures how much better a player performs at home vs on the road confirms this disparity, as his split of 120/80 is far greater than any of the other 3 players you mentioned (Winfield actually performed better on the road and Yaz and Clemente's tOPS splits were 106/93 and 106/94, respectively). The Coors effect was certainly not a minor factor in his carrer totals and the HOF voting thus far has essentially indicated this as well. Larry Walker was a very good player, but HOF? No.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>His numbers and stats are very impressive when you look at them in a vacuum (.313 BA, .400 OBP, OPS .965 and OPS+ 141 to go along with 383 HRs and 230 SBs), but he has to overcome both the Coors effect and the PED era, so probably not. >>
Please explain. I have been told by many on these boards that OPS+ takes ballpark effect into account, and does it very well. His career OPS+ should eliminate the argument that he only had offensive value while playing at Coors. Getting out of the vacuum seems to me to show he was not just good at the other aspects of the game, but GREAT.
He DID play home games at other ballparks that were not Coors field and put up some great numbers '92 & '94 with Montreal his OPS+ was 141 and 151, and in 2004 and 2005 at the end of his career, he was at 144 and 130 (Clemente's, Winfield's and Yasztremski's LIFETIME OPS+ were 130) in St. Louis.
I am also not sure that the PED era should hurt him, he seems to have never been accused or mentioned in any reports. Shouldn't that HELP him by showing he put up his numbers without any chemical assistance? I apologize if I missed where he was accused, I always thought that he was "clean".
I am just amazed at how ONE objection eliminates him from so many people's HOF thoughts. He was MUCH more than just a great hitter, he did EVERYTHING well.
He comes up a bit short on longevity and his Coors years were his prime ones, but those seem to be minor factors (to me) if you evaluate the entire career and all of his abilities.
Good night all >>
You are undersestimating the Coorts effect on his career stats. No one here is saying that Walker wasn't a very good player overall, but there is no question that his numbers were significantly enhanced by playing at Coors field. Here are his career splits:
Home 986 911 3996 3429 789 1193 268 39 215 747 121 34 444 546 .348 .431 .637 1.068 2184 82 82 4 37 69 34 .362 120
Away 1002 922 4034 3478 566 967 203 23 168 564 109 42 469 685 .278 .370 .495 .865 1720 71 56 3 28 48 38 .301 80
His career BA at home is SEVENTY POINTS higher than on the road and his tOPS+ which measures how much better a player performs at home vs on the road confirms this disparity, as his split of 120/80 is far greater than any of the other 3 players you mentioned (Winfield actually performed better on the road and Yaz and Clemente's tOPS splits were 106/93 and 106/94, respectively). The Coors effect was certainly not a minor factor in his carrer totals and the HOF voting thus far has essentially indicated this as well. Larry Walker was a very good player, but HOF? No. >>
Thank you for a good debate. Reasonable and no personal attacks.
I looked at his splits for every season of his career (except 1989 only played in 20 games) and he certainly hit better at home almost every year at every park, not just Coors Field.
There seems to be a problem with the numbers, or I am looking at the wrong charts or I just don't understand OPS+. Lifetime overall OPS+ 141, Lifetime at home 120, lifetime away 80.
Shouldn't his lifetime be figured home+away/2=141? His at bats were within 50 of home and away close enough to call equal.
In 1996 in 83 games Larry's OPS+ was an abysmal 38. However in every other year he was at 99 or above. How can he end up with a lifetime away number of 80?
He had (all away numbers)
5 years between 99 and 112 OPS+ in 601 games played
5 years between 127 and 149 OPS+ in 661 games played
5 years between 150 and 213 OPS+ in 633 games played
Please show me how he ends up with an away OPS+ of 80, I would then be more than happy to re-evaluate his Coors Field Advantage. While you are at it, how does he end up with a home OPS+ of 120 when he only had TWO years below 120 (109 & 118) and 12 seasons above 150, 7 of those above 189 and 4 above 200?
Lastly let's take Coors Field completely out of the equation! His .865 away OPS is better than at least 10 HOFers regular OPS including; Brett, Kaline, Reggie, Yaz, Puckett, Clemente and Winfield.
<< <i>Lastly let's take Coors Field completely out of the equation! His .865 away OPS is better than at least 10 HOFers regular OPS including; Brett, Kaline, Reggie, Yaz, Puckett, Clemente and Winfield. >>
It seems like you have to stretch a little to find reasons why he should be in. The simple smell test says NO.
I don't have time to look it up but you point to OPS but all of those players have more home runs (I am guessing) even though they played in a deader ball era. So while you can point at one stat you need to look at the body of work. It's really not close.
I just don't think Walker is even close to the HOF. 2,160 hits?
I would put Garvey in WAY before Walker.
Walker's career OPS+ is 141
Reggie's career OPS+ is 139
On the surface, it looks like Walker is better, but due to the inflated era that Walker played in, and due to the fact that he sat against lefties more to save his percentages, and that he played a shorter career to save his percentages, those figures take on a different meaning.
Reggie amassed that figure and did it in 3,400 MORE plate appearances.
A simple way to look at it is to see how well they did against their peers, based on their yearly ranks in their leagues, as opposed to their total OPS+
Walker's Best OPS+ Finishes: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 10th
Reggie's Best OPS+ Finishes: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th
That is a FAR different and more accurate perspective on how each truly measured up against their peers.
Plus, in many of those years, Walker missed 15-30 games, where his strong OPS+ was negated due to him not playing(part of that is due to sitting against lefties).
As for steroids, he doesn't get any pass in my eyes. Not sure how he gets one and others don't.
PS. His SB percent was .75, so some value from SB
As for HOF? In MY HOF? No. You need to have the combination of an elite player at your peak, and being able to play full time for a long time....with some variances on each of course.
The current HOF? Since they started letting lots of low credible guys in...anything is possible.
Sorry, but he's not HoF worthy.
You make the point that Reggie did better (hitting wise) against his peers in first place finishes, he also had fewer players to compete against, AND this is a HOF debate and that is different from how good he did against his peers, it's (to me) more about how he stacks up against all of the other players in the HOF.
OK, despite the fact that their OPS+ numbers are almost the same, I will grant you that Reggie was a better/more productive hitter. I'll also agree that hitting is the area that everyone looks to first. I will NOT grant you that he was a LOT better though. I know YOU don't have a problem with strikeouts, but you mention Reggie had 3400 more at bats, he also had 1366 more strikeouts. Four of Reggie's last five years were simply awful, he should have hung them up when he began to lose it, like Larry did.
Let's get to fielding; Assists as a RF, Reggie 4 times in top 3, Walker 7 times in the top 3. Double Plays turned as Right Fielder; Reggie 5 times top 5, Walker 11 times top 4. Fielding % Reggie 5 times top 5, Larry 7 times top 4. Gold Gloves (they do have SOME meaning) Reggie 0, Larry 7. Errors as an outfielder Reggie 10 times in top 5, Larry 1 time at #5. Fielding % RF; Reggie .968, Larry .986. Now your "how they did against their peers" is not only helping Larry, he had more players to compete against and still was a top defender.
Not saying Reggie was a bad defender, he was very good early in his career, Walker obliterates him in my opinion. Certainly less arguable than the hitting debate.
Stolen bases; Reggie had 228 and was caught 115 times, Larry had 230 and was caught 76 times. You have given that to Larry, he was better here.
Don't you HAVE to admit that Walker was a substantially better defensive player? Didn't you used to be (or still are for that matter) a pretty good ballplayer? I would think you would then value a great defensive player more than a casual (if rabid) fan that is only interested in hitting.
HOF Monitor and Standards also seem to be on Larry's side.
I think the general consensus is, he should be in. Most in this thread say he should go in (8-6) with winpitcher saying he is "on the cusp".
1997 makes the case that he didn't need help from Coors:
home: .384/20/68, OPS=1.169
away: .346/29/62, OPS=1.176
That season is an anomaly though. Take a look at 1999:
home: .461/26/70, OPS=1.410
away: .286/11/45, OPS=.894
Fact is, the guy was a .278 hitter away from home. Spin it, twist it, distort it any way you want, that's not a HOF number.
Put another way, including games with other teams, at Coors, Walker hit:
AVG: .381
Hits: 814
HRs: 154
RBI: 521
Games: 597
Away from Coors:
AVG: .282
Hits: 1346
HR: 229
RBI: 790
Games: 1391
So he had 2/3 the HR and 2/3 the RBI at Coors compared to the road - in 43% as many games. His average at Coors was 99 points higher than everywhere else - combined.
C'mon.
Reggie had less guys to compete with, and that made it harder for him to separate from the league average. Expansion and the overall erosion of baseball through modern time, makes Walker's competition easier to surpass league average. Not to mention that all the advantages that have gone toward the batter are far more helpful to power/elite hitters, than your Felix Fermine type. As a result, the elite hitters are able to separate from the league average easier.
Reggie's last five years(age 37-41), he had a combined 102 OPS+. Why on earth would that be held against him, compared to a guy who played a shorter career? THat is a benefit to Reggie, despite if it makes his lifetime OPS+ rate stat drop.
Also, his last three years his OPS+ was 114. I don't see at all where he should have hung them up. He was an above average hitter till the end.
It isn't a matter of what I care about strikeouts...the only thing that matters is their run equivalent in baseball. Basically, it is such a small difference over a standard out, that it really doesn't matter that much.
Sure, defense matters. However, I don't see the difference in defense outweighing the difference in offense between the two(once the proper era adjustment is made).
Absolutely he is on the cusp. However, he only was able to play over 140 games just four times in his career. In the end, that is what hurts him.
He's getting about 22% of the vote, and the odds of that number climbing to anything close to the 75% needed are slim and none and slim left the building 3 years ago. If he had played for any other team other than Colorado, he wouldn't even get that 22% and he'd have fallen off the ballot already. His numbers away from home are simply too poor in comparison to his Coors numbers to write off, and while he had a nice run, he just was far too dependent on the Coors Effect for a bulk of his offensive numbers.
When the argument descends to assists (and writing off the fact that he got 59 of his 200+ career assists while playing first base, and NOT in the outfield) and his stolen bases (when the guy in question only stole 230 in his entire career), then it's painfully obvious he's not deserving of the hall.
As far as his supposedly 'elite' level defense, for his career he posted a 9.6 defensive WAR, hardly merit for induction into Cooperstown.
He had a nice long career, made lots of money, and will have his number retired in Colorado, which a lot more than any of us have done. But the Hall of Fame? He'll be buying a ticket to get in like the rest of us.
Tabe I GET IT HE WAS A LOT BETTER AT COORS, I HAVE AGREED WITH THE FROM THE START.
"Fact is, the guy was a .278 hitter away from home. Spin it, twist it, distort it any way you want, that's not a HOF number." Out goes Killebrew, Jackson, McCovey and this includes home BA.
Finally, Skin, look at the competition Walker had in RF compared to Reggie! It's no wonder Reggie dominated. Reggie had one guy to compete with that was a great OPS+ man, Frank Robinson, there was also Tony Oliva and Al Kaline. Dewey Evans was pretty good too, then you have a lot of very average hitters, Reggie Smith was pretty good too. Had Robinson stayed in the NL, where the good RF were (Aaron, Clemente) Reggie becomes the greatest AL RF ever?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Who did Larry compete with? Tony Gwynn, Andre Dawson, Sammy Sosa, Darryl Strawberry, Gary Sheffield, Vlad Guerrero, Paul O'Neil, Dave Justice, Bobby Bonilla.
I would put him in, I understand the arguments against, I still think he did plenty to merit inclusion.
I guess there is no argument that he is better than quite a few already in?
Done defending Larry, have a nice night all!
<< <i>
I guess there is no argument that he is better than quite a few already in?
Done defending Larry, have a nice night all! >>
When your argument falls to 'he's better than guys already in!' your argument is lost.
<< <i>As for HOF? In MY HOF? No. You need to have the combination of an elite player at your peak, and being able to play full time for a long time....with some variances on each of course.
The current HOF? Since they started letting lots of low credible guys in...anything is possible. >>
With Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Bonds and Clemens all still on the ballot he really has no chance
No matter which side of the line you put Walker, he is much better than a lot of names that get brought up as Hall-of-Fame candidates: Garvey, Mattingly, Morris Munson, even Rice, Perez, Sutter. While I wouldn't vote for him, at least he wouldn't lower the standard like those players would (and do). Ahead of Parker who made the VC ballot, but behind Evans who couldn't get on
A 141 OPS+ from a top defensive player is so rare. Other than Bonds what other player has multiple Gold Gloves and an OPS+ any where near that without making the Hall-of-Fame? Minoso is 130. Under 2 000 games is a short career for the Hall-of-Fame, but 11 years playing in over 80% of his teams games, plus another five where he played in enough and well enough to be a very good help for the team. Had he hung around for another few years with a .800 ops he would look so much better, but should that really be the difference between making it and being completely ignored?
I put him with Will Clark and Edgar Martinez as great hitters I don't see as Hall-of-Famers, but definitely worthy of discussion. Again far more worthy than most who foolishly dominate this subject
<< <i>
<< <i>As for HOF? In MY HOF? No. You need to have the combination of an elite player at your peak, and being able to play full time for a long time....with some variances on each of course.
The current HOF? Since they started letting lots of low credible guys in...anything is possible. >>
With Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Bonds and Clemens all still on the ballot he really has no chance
No matter which side of the line you put Walker, he is much better than a lot of names that get brought up as Hall-of-Fame candidates: Garvey, Mattingly, Morris Munson, even Rice, Perez, Sutter. While I wouldn't vote for him, at least he wouldn't lower the standard like those players would (and do). Ahead of Parker who made the VC ballot, but behind Evans who couldn't get on
A 141 OPS+ from a top defensive player is so rare. Other than Bonds what other player has multiple Gold Gloves and an OPS+ any where near that without making the Hall-of-Fame? Minoso is 130. Under 2 000 games is a short career for the Hall-of-Fame, but 11 years playing in over 80% of his teams games, plus another five where he played in enough and well enough to be a very good help for the team. Had he hung around for another few years with a .800 ops he would look so much better, but should that really be the difference between making it and being completely ignored?
I put him with Will Clark and Edgar Martinez as great hitters I don't see as Hall-of-Famers, but definitely worthy of discussion. Again far more worthy than most who foolishly dominate this subject >>
He doesn't have a dominate enough peak, and that combination with his relatively 'short' amount of career plate appearances, hurts him...even though he is worth talking about. That is why I put his peak up with Reggie's to highlight who's star really shined brighter and had the more impactful peak.
Very well said, hard to argue with.
I really hate to punish Walker for being so good at home. I get the feeling if he did WORSE at Coors, perhaps 20 points lower in BA and OPS+ he would get MORE consideration.
Clark and Martinez were GREAT players, Edgar does have the "bad fielding" rap, but if good fielding doesn't help you, why should bad hurt you.
I am unsure why Will doesn't get more credit, why did he retire when he did? He seemed to be playing very well.
Larry Walker would be the same. 2 or 3 more good years.
<< <i>[QHad he hung around for another few years with a .800 ops he would look so much better, but should that really be the difference between making it and being completely ignored?
>>
There is often such a fine line for being in/out of the HOF, that the above example may certainly make a difference of being in. It does not explain being completely ignored though.
Same holds true for Fred Lynn. He got basically completely ignored, and somehow Jim Rice got in.
<< <i>
<< <i>[QHad he hung around for another few years with a .800 ops he would look so much better, but should that really be the difference between making it and being completely ignored?
>>
There is often such a fine line for being in/out of the HOF, that the above example may certainly make a difference of being in. It does not explain being completely ignored though.
Same holds true for Fred Lynn. He got basically completely ignored, and somehow Jim Rice got in. >>
Lynn was a terrific outfielder, but fielding doesn't carry much weight. He also missed a LOT of games, he only had 5 years where he didn't miss at least 30 games.
Lynn was also one of those rare "5-tool" players. Seems to me unless they "hang around" for a lot of below average years, the 5-tool guys don't get much recognition for being good at every aspect of the game.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[QHad he hung around for another few years with a .800 ops he would look so much better, but should that really be the difference between making it and being completely ignored?
>>
There is often such a fine line for being in/out of the HOF, that the above example may certainly make a difference of being in. It does not explain being completely ignored though.
Same holds true for Fred Lynn. He got basically completely ignored, and somehow Jim Rice got in. >>
Lynn was a terrific outfielder, but fielding doesn't carry much weight. He also missed a LOT of games, he only had 5 years where he didn't miss at least 30 games.
Lynn was also one of those rare "5-tool" players. Seems to me unless they "hang around" for a lot of below average years, the 5-tool guys don't get much recognition for being good at every aspect of the game. >>
Problem with 5 tool guys is that they are typically overrated due to that. Raul Mondesi was a 5 tool player, yet there are several 'one' or 'two' tool players who were better than him.
If a player creates 55 runs by virtue of mostly one tool, and another guy creates 30 runs by virtue of strong contributions from FIVE tools...the first guy is better or of more value, plain and simple, despite not being as 'well rounded'.
The problem many run into is giving the proper weight to everything to come up with the run value.
<< <i>Skin, I will agree he missed a lot of games, he played enough and very well when he played.
Tabe I GET IT HE WAS A LOT BETTER AT COORS, I HAVE AGREED WITH THE FROM THE START.
"Fact is, the guy was a .278 hitter away from home. Spin it, twist it, distort it any way you want, that's not a HOF number." Out goes Killebrew, Jackson, McCovey and this includes home BA. >>
Really? Now you're comparing Walker to guys who all hit well over 500 HRs during eras when 30 HRs meant something? Walker hit 383 - not even in the same universe as those three guys. C'mon, you can do better than that. Walker hit 229 HRs in 1400 games away from Coors, a rate of roughly 22 a year. You really gonna put a guy in the HOF that hits .278 with 22 HRs a year? C'mon.
The reality is that the only reason anybody gives Walker even a second look is because he put up ridiculous numbers at Coors Field. He was an average or slightly better offensive player away from Coors and that's just not good enough for a corner outfielder.
<< <i>You really gonna put a guy in the HOF that hits .278 with 22 HRs a year? C'mon. >>
Away from Coors, Walker averaged 27 home runs per 162 games with a .282 average. Carl Yastrzemski only averaged 21 home runs away from Fenway, with a .264 batting average. He hit well under 500 home runs. Jim Rice averaged 27 home runs with a .277 average and fewer career home runs than Walker. Wrigley provided a similar benefit. Billy Williams hit .278 on the road with 23 home runs per year. A mere .269 with 18 home runs for Ryne Sandberg
Playing baseball in Denver has been the ultimate offensive environment. Being inside that environment should not discredit anything Walker did. Being able to hit .381 there should be a huge credit to Walker when the entire league combined to hit "only" .298
<< <i>Problem with 5 tool guys is that they are typically overrated due to that. Raul Mondesi was a 5 tool player, yet there are several 'one' or 'two' tool players who were better than him. >>
What about Ozzie Smith? Why is he held so much higher than Trammell? Just like with Lynn and Rice, we've seen it these past two years with Cabrera and Trout. Similar distortions also happens with Mariano Rivera and Nolan Ryan, even if pitchers aren't held to the meaningless five-tool standard
If a player has one attribute that gives his team 50 runs, that's easy to see. If he does one thing better than anyone else, it's easy to understand what makes him great. But if he does five different things that all help contribute a few runs it is often harder to pick up on every subtlety
<< <i>
<< <i>Skin, I will agree he missed a lot of games, he played enough and very well when he played.
Tabe I GET IT HE WAS A LOT BETTER AT COORS, I HAVE AGREED WITH THE FROM THE START.
"Fact is, the guy was a .278 hitter away from home. Spin it, twist it, distort it any way you want, that's not a HOF number." Out goes Killebrew, Jackson, McCovey and this includes home BA. >>
Really? Now you're comparing Walker to guys who all hit well over 500 HRs during eras when 30 HRs meant something? Walker hit 383 - not even in the same universe as those three guys. C'mon, you can do better than that. Walker hit 229 HRs in 1400 games away from Coors, a rate of roughly 22 a year. You really gonna put a guy in the HOF that hits .278 with 22 HRs a year? C'mon.
The reality is that the only reason anybody gives Walker even a second look is because he put up ridiculous numbers at Coors Field. He was an average or slightly better offensive player away from Coors and that's just not good enough for a corner outfielder. >>
First you make the statement about his BA being too low away from home, that should IN ITSELF keep him out, well you were wrong there, next you bring in HRs per year and are wrong again.
Now your going with not enough career home runs. His career was not as long as the guys he is being compared with, we can only go with the numbers he put up while playing. I don't know why he retired when he did, or why he didn't go to the AL where he could have DHed for a few years, but it doesn't matter he qualifies time wise.
.278 plus 22/27 (looks to me like 27 is the correct number) home runs .370 OBP, .495 SLG% and .865 OPS are PLENTY good numbers!
Reggie's BA was .262 and he hit 32 HRs a year, his SLG was .490 his OBP was .356, .846OPS. Except for home runs Larry beats him in EVERY category using his HORRIBLE road numbers alone. Of course they were different era's, but not THAT different. Even if you still think Reggie was a better hitter, it's just not by a big margin. Find me ONE example, other than longevity, of his superiority.
He was also a much much better all around player and "better" personality than Reggie, who was disliked (hated) by many of his teammates and managers.
Let's bring in YAZ! Another 5 tool guy who is worshiped because he had 4 great seasons an about 42 average ones, and he played in Boston which was the Coors field of the 1060's. .285BA, .379OBP, .462SLG .841OPS, and averaged 22 HRs a year. Did you see that? 22 home runs a year, how on earth can he be in? Larry's almost as good BA and OBP and outslugs Yaz with a better OPS with those away numbers alone.
"You really gonna put a guy in the HOF that hits .278 with 22 HRs a year?" YES! PLENTY ARE IN ALREADY!
Larry is also better than Puckett (similar era) and Kaline and Clemente when looking at similar type outfielders in a different era.
The reality is he was a GREAT player away from Coors and a PHENOMENAL player at home. He was overshadowed by a bunch of CHEATERS during his playing days and we didn't realize how good he really was. Now I am basing my argument on him being CLEAN. I have never heard that he did PED's, if he did use, he's out of the HOF discussion.
Funny, the more I look at this guy the more I don't understand how any rational baseball fan can make an argument against his induction.
SKIN when I say Reggie and Mantle sucked at the end of their careers, you say those numbers are still very good to great. If they are very good to great while hitting .194-.230 with 20 HR and ops of .630, .699 and .706 (Reggie) and .237-.255BA and .782-.831OPS, 20 HR (Mantle) How are Larry's away numbers not great?
I have answered every criticism of Walkers and other than the era when he played which hurts him a LITTLE and the fact he missed more game than he should have, which shouldn't even be brought up, as he has PLENTY of time in, the guy got labeled as a Coors only guy UNFAIRLY and everyone just accepted it. Don't even start with the he sat against tough left handers stuff either for gosh sake, talk about a minute part of a career, and certainly no different than many other players.
He's not just better than 1 or 2 guys in the HOF, he's better than a hell of a lot of them.
NVBaseball you get it!