Options
Larry Walker and the HOF-Posnanski
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
You can see the entire article re Posnanski's ballot at: http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massive-hall-of-fame-post/
His ballot:
10. Tim Raines
9. Craig Biggio
8. Roger Clemens
7. Barry Bonds
6. Tom Glavine
5. Curt Schilling
4. Mike Piazza
3. Jeff Bagwel
2. Frank Thomas
1. Greg Maddux
FWIW-He thinks Walker is hall worthy, but did not vote for him-there were 12 better candidates in his opinion.
The Hall of Fame has honored players who took advantage of great home ballparks. I’ve done this before but it’s always fun. Let’s take a look at a typical Larry Walker season.
Home: .361/416//690, 28 homers, 75 RBIs.
Road: .269/.325/.512, 18 homers, 64 RBIs.
That’s a huge difference but … wait, that’s not Larry Walker. That’s Jim Rice at Fenway Park in 1978. OK, here’s a real Walker season.
Home: .467/.516/.789, 20 homers, 81 RBIs, 62 runs.
Road: .280/.338/.436, 8 homers, 39 RBIs, 39 runs.
That’s just ridiculous but … yeah, you didn’t fall for it that time. That’s Chuck Klein’s triple crown season in 1933. Let’s do one more.
Home: .358/.422/.673, 28 homers, 88 RBIs, 78 runs.
Road: .286/.359/.498, 14 homers, 41 RBIs, 59 runs.
No, not Walker. That’s Billy Williams in 1970 at hitter-haven Wrigley Field.
The career was short, yes. But Walker’s case is that he did everything well in a way only a handful of players ever have. He hit for average (.313 lifetime), hit for power (.565 slugging), got on base (.400 career OBP), ran the bases, stole bases, played first-class outfield and could throw like crazy. Think how many players could do all those things. Now think about how many are not in the Hall of Fame. Not many
His ballot:
10. Tim Raines
9. Craig Biggio
8. Roger Clemens
7. Barry Bonds
6. Tom Glavine
5. Curt Schilling
4. Mike Piazza
3. Jeff Bagwel
2. Frank Thomas
1. Greg Maddux
FWIW-He thinks Walker is hall worthy, but did not vote for him-there were 12 better candidates in his opinion.
The Hall of Fame has honored players who took advantage of great home ballparks. I’ve done this before but it’s always fun. Let’s take a look at a typical Larry Walker season.
Home: .361/416//690, 28 homers, 75 RBIs.
Road: .269/.325/.512, 18 homers, 64 RBIs.
That’s a huge difference but … wait, that’s not Larry Walker. That’s Jim Rice at Fenway Park in 1978. OK, here’s a real Walker season.
Home: .467/.516/.789, 20 homers, 81 RBIs, 62 runs.
Road: .280/.338/.436, 8 homers, 39 RBIs, 39 runs.
That’s just ridiculous but … yeah, you didn’t fall for it that time. That’s Chuck Klein’s triple crown season in 1933. Let’s do one more.
Home: .358/.422/.673, 28 homers, 88 RBIs, 78 runs.
Road: .286/.359/.498, 14 homers, 41 RBIs, 59 runs.
No, not Walker. That’s Billy Williams in 1970 at hitter-haven Wrigley Field.
The career was short, yes. But Walker’s case is that he did everything well in a way only a handful of players ever have. He hit for average (.313 lifetime), hit for power (.565 slugging), got on base (.400 career OBP), ran the bases, stole bases, played first-class outfield and could throw like crazy. Think how many players could do all those things. Now think about how many are not in the Hall of Fame. Not many
0
Comments
Fact is, the guy hit .381 at Coors. For his career. And .282 everywhere else.
Sorry, but if he didn't play at Coors, he wouldn't even get a sniff of the Hall.
<< <i>You are picking seasons. It seems you need to take a player's entire career for an apples to apples comparison. >>
Just to be clear-Posnanski make the argument, not me.
He did well enough on the road to get consideration and together with his home performance should get him in with out a doubt.
<< <i>You are picking seasons. It seems you need to take a player's entire career for an apples to apples comparison. >>
Info is available at baseball-reference.com. I would have copied it, but I could not figure out the formatting.
<< <i>Walker should be in. Look up the post from a week or so ago.
He did well enough on the road to get consideration and together with his home performance should get him in with out a doubt. >>
He hit .282 with 229 HRs at ballparks other than Coors at a rate of 26.7 HRs per 162 games. That's nice but not exactly HOF.
At Coors, he hit .381 and averaged almost 42 HRs per 162 games.
I just don't think he was good enough away from Denver.
<< <i>Walker should be in. Look up the post from a week or so ago.
He did well enough on the road to get consideration and together with his home performance should get him in with out a doubt. >>
No, he didn't, and he will once again be on the outside looking in. He was a mediocre player away from Coors, and his road/home splits bear this out. Posnanski bringing up other hall members trying to bolster his case only proves this even more.
<< <i>
No, he didn't, and he will once again be on the outside looking in. He was a mediocre player away from Coors, and his road/home splits bear this out. Posnanski bringing up other hall members trying to bolster his case only proves this even more. >>
In the past he has also brought up the fact that Walker has a higher road slugging percentage than Reggie Jackson had for his career and a higher career on-base percentage than George Brett for his entire career. But somehow that is even more proof that Walker was mediocre?
<< <i>In the past he has also brought up the fact that Walker has a higher road slugging percentage than Reggie Jackson had for his career and a higher career on-base percentage than George Brett for his entire career. But somehow that is even more proof that Walker was mediocre? >>
The simple fact of the matter is Walker is a LOT better than QUITE A FEW Hall-of-Famers that are well regarded, even if all we do is look at his ROAD numbers.
Bring in the fact that he was a TREMENDOUS defensive player and base runner with a cannon for an arm, and only a foolish child tries to find a reason to deny the FACTS.
This has been hashed and rehashed. The numbers are THERE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
No, he didn't, and he will once again be on the outside looking in. He was a mediocre player away from Coors, and his road/home splits bear this out. Posnanski bringing up other hall members trying to bolster his case only proves this even more. >>
In the past he has also brought up the fact that Walker has a higher road slugging percentage than Reggie Jackson had for his career and a higher career on-base percentage than George Brett for his entire career. But somehow that is even more proof that Walker was mediocre? >>
To be fair, Reggie and Brett weren't hitting in the live ball era like Walker...so Walker having higher road percentages is not taking the proper context of the events. Plus Reggie and Brett had much longer careers with far more old man at bats that drag down their overall percentages.
The live ball era was easier for stars to not only hit better, but to outdistance the league average(which includes ops+). Don't forget, that since hitting home runs became so easy in this era, it meant that pitchers were also walking those guys more often, thus bumping up their OB% and OPS.
In a nutshell, OPS+ isn't even accounting for the difference between Walker's era, compared to Reggie and Brett.
In a nutshell, OPS+ isn't even accounting for the difference between Walker's era, compared to Reggie and Brett. >>
WRONG.
OPS+ does account for the difference in eras.
On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+) has not gained as much widespread acceptance, but is a more informative metric than OPS. This statistic normalizes a player’s OPS — it adjusts for small variables that might affect OPS scores (e.g. park effects) and puts the statistic on an easy-to-understand scale. A 100 OPS+ is league average, and each point up or down is one percentage point above or below league average. In other words, if a player had a 90 OPS+ last season, that means their OPS was 10% below league average.
Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.
Now, all of a sudden it doesn't matter that much.
Skin states that "The live ball era was easier for stars to not only hit better, but to outdistance the league average(which includes ops+). Don't forget, that since hitting home runs became so easy in this era, it meant that pitchers were also walking those guys more often, thus bumping up their OB% and OPS."
That may be a good theory or it may be correct. Or it might just be that Larry Walker was able to produce the numbers he did because he was one of the best hitters (possibly even THE BEST) of his time. No steroid allegations, and AGAIN no one cares to bring up THREE of the five tools he had that were not affected by ballparks; speed, fielding and arm strength.
Now we are going to get into the "old man years" debate, that has been addressed as well. Larry's final year he slugged over .500, had an .886 OPS and a 130 OPS+. He's long gone from Coors and still producing very good numbers, on the decline, but still VERY good.
He may have had a couple of good years left, especially if he moved to the American League, where he could DH. He certainly wasn't "washed up". No way to prove it either way.
Some guys hang on too long(?) and their numbers suffer, some quit before this happens. Punishing a guy because he quit before he had to seems wrong.
His offensive numbers away from Coors and his other abilities make him AT LEAST borderline, his phenomenal home park production added to that puts him in. He is simply better than SEVERAL HOF outfielders including Jackson, Yaz, Brock, Billy Williams, Winfield, Puckett.
My goodness Yaz had six good years and seventeen average ones. Give me a break.
<< <i>That may be a good theory or it may be correct. Or it might just be that Larry Walker was able to produce the numbers he did because he was one of the best hitters (possibly even THE BEST) of his time. No steroid allegations, and AGAIN no one cares to bring up THREE of the five tools he had that were not affected by ballparks; speed, fielding and arm strength. >>
Speed? What speed? He had one, I repeat ONE top 10 finish in steals. ONE. He wasn't fast, and he wasn't a threat on the basepaths. Defense? I am sure you are going to talk about his 213 career assists, but let's ignore that 59 of them came as a first baseman, and over his 1800+ games in the outfield, had 154 assists, which works out to one every 14 games. A solid number no doubt, but let's not get crazy. And arm strength? Are you kidding me? Are you that desperate to prop this guy up that you're resorting to this? Something that can't even be measured?
<< <i>Now we are going to get into the "old man years" debate, that has been addressed as well. Larry's final year he slugged over .500, had an .886 OPS and a 130 OPS+. He's long gone from Coors and still producing very good numbers, on the decline, but still VERY good. >>
NL League Averages for 2005, Walkers final year: .414 SLG, .744 OPS. This is the ENTIRE NATIONAL LEAGUE we're talking about.
<< <i>He may have had a couple of good years left, especially if he moved to the American League, where he could DH. He certainly wasn't "washed up". No way to prove it either way. >>
Then why bring it up? He obviously felt he was done, and his numbers bear it out.
<< <i>Some guys hang on too long(?) and their numbers suffer, some quit before this happens. Punishing a guy because he quit before he had to seems wrong. >>
He's not being 'punished' for quitting, he's being rightfully criticized for benefitting in a great way from his home park, and his road numbers not being good enough to prove Coors didn't artifically bolster his numbers.
<< <i>His offensive numbers away from Coors and his other abilities make him AT LEAST borderline, his phenomenal home park production added to that puts him in. He is simply better than SEVERAL HOF outfielders including Jackson, Yaz, Brock, Billy Williams, Winfield, Puckett. >>
I've said this before, I'll say it again: when your argument rests upon trying to pick players already in the hall and say who they're better than, your argument is null, void, and entirely without merit. I will say this: if you're going to sit there and suggest Larry Walker was a better player than Reggie Jackson, who didn't benefit from hitting in the offensive era that Walker enjoyed, you're out of your mind. Yaz? You cannot be serious!
<< <i>My goodness Yaz had six good years and seventeen average ones. Give me a break. >>
Six good years? Get out of here...you're drunk.
<< <i>GO AWAY! >>
The truth hurts. Walker is not hall worthy.
<< <i>In a nutshell, OPS+ isn't even accounting for the difference between Walker's era, compared to Reggie and Brett. >>
WRONG.
OPS+ does account for the difference in eras.
On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+) has not gained as much widespread acceptance, but is a more informative metric than OPS. This statistic normalizes a player’s OPS — it adjusts for small variables that might affect OPS scores (e.g. park effects) and puts the statistic on an easy-to-understand scale. A 100 OPS+ is league average, and each point up or down is one percentage point above or below league average. In other words, if a player had a 90 OPS+ last season, that means their OPS was 10% below league average.
Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams. >>
OPS+ is MEANT to do cross era comparisons...but it doesn't do it justice. More on that another day, though I did show it several years ago. I used to beat up the Sabermatricians on that all the time! Same for ERA+. Unless you think the majority of the best pitchers in history pitched at the 1900 turn of the century
Banzi, Walker isn't even close to being the best hitter of his time. Bonds dwarfs him, Thomas, etc.. NOt even worth exploring as it isn't even close.
OPS+ is a good tool, far better than the typical back of the baseball card numbers. I never claimed it was the best. It is in the team photo though.
Banzi, you are losing some credibility by saying he is better than Reggie and Yaz. You are not accounting for their eras, dominance, and career length. Any evidence you put forth does not account for the era, dominance, or career length.
Yaz had two below average years. He was above average every other year of his career. In fact, his last four years from age 40-43 he averaged a 108 OPS+. The stuff you are saying is way off base.
Yaz for Win Probability Added had one below average year, and one average year. Aside from that, his other 'worst' years were .2, .5, .7, and 1.4 Wins ABOVE average. The rest of the years go up and up.
You tried to say that same stuff about Mantle's last few years(saying he was below average), and I showed how way off base it was.
Dan Brouthers 170
Pete Browning 163
Mark McGwire 163
Dave Orr 162
Are all better than Stan Musial 150.
Then those guys, plus these guys:
J. Mize 158
Dick Allen 156
Frank THomas 156
Are all better or equal to Willie Mays 156, Hank Aaron 155, Joe Dimaggio 155.
Then ALL the above, plus the following:
Roger Connor 153
Ed Delahanty 152
Charlie Keller 152
Gavvy Cravath 151
Charley Jones 150
Elmer Fick 149
Benny Kauff 149
Sam Thompson 147
Ryan Braun 146
Albert Bell 144
Lance Berkman 144
Mike Donlin 144
Tip Oneill 144
George Stone 144
Harry Stovey 144
Billy Joyce 143
Are all better than Harmon Killebrew 143, Duke Snider 140
And Brian Giles 136 is equal to Ken Griffey Jr 136(This one exemplifies career length disparity, plus platooning(to save one's percentages)).
You see, OPS+ is a great stat for measuring players who had the same amount of plate appearances and in the same era.
As you can see above, it does a terrible job of measuring cross era and players with varied career lengths.
I think the above list is obvious. Any further clarification, I may have to start charging money
Markj111, you sure you want to stick by your claim that OPS+ measures well across era??
Oh, and ERA+ for a career has Steve Carlton tied with 23 other pitchers for 200th all-time. Do you even want me to list the guys ahead of him??? Good lord. Again, ERA+ is a great stat, BUT only for pitchers in the same era with the same career length.
Boys, common sense is in order. Unless you believe all those guys are truly better than those elite players, then you should know right away that you are using that statistical measure INCORRECTLY! In fact, any rate stat has that problem. Even some of the hybrid rate stats have that probelm...hybrid meaning they are part rate and part career length. More on that another day too. But, tell Posanski, I may have to start charging.
The kind of analysis that Posanski and other are promoting is what gives these false impressions above, and stats a bad name. Why do you think average Joe scoffs at stats when somebody trumpets Carlton as tied for 200th best pitcher all-time, as ERA+ does?? Because those analysis aren't doing a proper rating of carlton. ERA+ is a great stat, like OPS+, but when used wrong, you get falsehoods, like the Walker one over Reggie and Yaz.
No way for Reggie and Yaz against Walker. It is ridiculous to claim Walker as even close to either one of them! When I pointed out before how Reggie was first so often in his league in that measure, while Walker NEVER had that type of dominance, it should have clued you in right there the difference. But you discounted it with some goofy comparison. Sorry, Walker is not in their league.
And yes, if he were so good, he should have hit better on the road. People have strong merit to claim that he is a product of Coors. If he were so good, then he should have been first or second in OPS+ like Reggie was, but he wasn't. His era pumped his OPS+, and if you don't believe that, then you believe that list above as gospel!!! Save me the Reggie comparison until you look at career length and era.
<< <i>I hope this thread gets lively, I truly enjoy watching skin in action
LOL. Thanks Perk.
I want to use you as an example, and I don't think you will take offense to it. You are a cool dude. Not a stat guy, you love sports, and are more old school in your thoughts...and I respect the he!! out of the way you go about it.
There was an old thread bumped up about ERA+, and in there you completely scoffed at the measure because it had guys like Dan Quisenberry well ahead of Tom Seaver...and that is exactly what I am talking about with the cross era comparisons, and more in this case, career length. You had every right to scoff at any measure that puts Dan Quisenberry's CAREER ahead of Tom Seaver, because you are correct. You are not a statistician, and it shouldn't take a statistician to figure that out.
ERA+ is a great stat, but it doesn't work in that comparison! This misuse of that stat caused a regular rabid sports guy like you to just discount that measurement, because it was used completely incorrectly in that post. That shouldn't happen.
The same for Walker vs Reggie or Yaz. It should be obvious that Walker is playing in an easy era to hit, and it should be easy to figure out that Walker was NEVER held in regard as the best hitter in his league at anytime...certainly nothing like Yaz or Reggie(Reggie may be a bad example for this because people discounted him unfairly for his strikeout totals). Reggie's and Yaz's yearly league rankings hold this true to strong evidence compared to Walker.
I'm not a math guy myself, however, I am a sport stat guy with lots of common sense, personal experience, and a lifelong love of watching pro sports.
Common sense says, that if someone believes Walker is better than Yaz or Reggie(and use OPS+ type stats to prove it), then that means all those guys on that list I posted above are better than Musial, Aaron, Mays, Snider, etc... Or, it means the OPS+ type stat is being used incorrectly. In fact, currently ALL sabermetric stats have big failings with cross era comparisons. OPS+ is just worse because career length also messes it up!
PS. I want to talk to that Posanski guy for taking the baseball stat world 30 years back with his awful comparisons.
<< <i>Absolutely. If your case for a player rests on picking and choosing individual stats against single players then your case is already lost. Walker had a nice career but all time great? Nope. Lets stop trying to dilute the hall with more players just because we happened to enjoy watching them play. >>
You're first sentence is correct. Except that the case for Walker is about being a very good baseball player. This is based on being able to hit very well in Colorado and in other places, along with very good defense. It is absolutely not picking and choosing individual stats, it is about the stats that best correlate with team success -- for both home and road
Interesting, though, that the entire case you ever make is to simply call someone "Mediocre" and never provide anything more than that. Also interesting that Walker has suddenly risen from "mediocre" to "nice player." The point the author of the article was making was that although he wasn't voting for Walker, he still considered him along the lines of a "nice player"
<< <i>Banzi, Walker isn't even close to being the best hitter of his time. Bonds dwarfs him, Thomas, etc.. NOt even worth exploring as it isn't even close.
OPS+ is a good tool, far better than the typical back of the baseball card numbers. I never claimed it was the best. It is in the team photo though.
Banzi, you are losing some credibility by saying he is better than Reggie and Yaz. You are not accounting for their eras, dominance, and career length. Any evidence you put forth does not account for the era, dominance, or career length.
Yaz had two below average years. He was above average every other year of his career. In fact, his last four years from age 40-43 he averaged a 108 OPS+. The stuff you are saying is way off base.
You tried to say that same stuff about Mantle's last few years(saying he was below average), and I showed how way off base it was. >>
Bonds certainly was a good guy to compare with Walker.....................up until it becomes obvious his PED use skewed his numbers. I eliminate the cheaters in a statistical comparison, as I would think someone as intelligent as you would. In fact, if all of the cheaters were eliminated from the picture, Larry would be the best of his time.
Name a better one from '94-'04, corner outfielder please.
Thomas may very well have been a better HITTER than Walker, but is there a position of less defensive value than first base? Come on, Larry was a much more valuable player in the other aspects of the game, bringing his value up when compared to a guy like Thomas. I was trying to compare players who were at least similar.
Yaz- 10 out of his last 12 years his OPS+ was at 116 or below (that might be above average, but we are talking about Hall of Famers here, not "above average" players) Walker had TWO YEARS at 116 or below IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER, and BOTH of those years were years he played in less than 90 games. Walkers LAST 3 years (half of them without the Coors home field advantage) his OPS+ was higher than Yaz's last NINE YEARS. Yaz had 4 years over 150 OPS+ Larry had 8. Both players were comparable in the field, so that part of the game I won't say one was a lot better than the other. I count about 14 years of "above average" years for Yaz out of 23 played. I count 4 out of 17 for Walker, using 125 as a differential between above average and great.
Reggie; pretty close here as hitters. You claim Reggie was more dominant. He led league 4 times in home runs, but only once, at 41, was he over 40 for a season. This was a time when there were not many good home run hitters. During the 1960's Killebrew did it 6 times, once in '59 and again in '70 THAT'S DOMINATION.
Reggie had 7 years over 150 OPS+ Larry edges him out by one. Reggie hung on a bit too long two of his last 6 years were above 116 Larry's lowest in his last 6 was 121, his last two years were as good as the BEST two of Reggies last 7. So these two are close. For the sake of argument (I said this before and was right then) I will agree that Reggie MIGHT have been a better hitter, but not by much. When we take the comparison out into the field, Walker is MUCH better, when we take the comparison to the HOF standards of sportsmanship etc. Walker leaves Reggie in the dust.
You seem to agree that OPS+ is the best way to compare across eras don't you? Not perfect, but the best we have to work with right now? So your claims saying that Reggie and Yaz were better by eras are unsupported by any statistic other than your opinion?
Doesn't look like the 1970's was filled with a lot of good players in their prime when Reggie "dominated", why does he then get credit for dominance when there was fewer good players to compete against?
You have me on career length. The fact of the matter is Larry more than qualifies here as well. Yes, it would be NICE if he had a longer career, but he was still putting up not above average OPS+ numbers his last two years, but GREAT numbers, so indications are he could have played more years at a very high level, had he chosen to.
Are you then going to argue against a player like Koufax, who had a short career and pitched in a pitcher friendly park? He had an unbelievable peak, but the other half of his career he wasn't anything special. I realize I am bringing in a totally different player, I am just trying to understand how much weight you put on longevity.
I really thought that you would use ALL of the "tools" the players we are looking at have to compare them, not just hitting. The era argument might have some validity, but by how much? You say it's considerable, I say not so much. If you are going to take away the defensive part of the game, the integrity/sportsmanship part and change the rules on career length, yes then I will agree that Larry doesn't get in.
On the Mantle thing, it was not that he wasn't able to put up "above average" OPS+ numbers, it was that he couldn't run, throw or play the field any longer.
AGAIN, I am surprised that you focus ONLY on hitting. I thought that was the "casual" fans mistake. It may be the most important and entertaining part of the game, but superior defensive ability combined with superior hitting ability is where the truly GREAT ballplayers rise above the very good.
Banzi, your offensive claims are still lacking, even in your above post. Reggie had plenty of players to compete against...they don't look as strong because the era. Walker's players all look stronger becasue of the era...and make no mistake, IT WAS THE era. The league 1991-1992 had an established level, then all of a sudden from 1993-1995(and on) the entire league went haywire. It wasn't because of better players, but because of environement changes(not steroids either, unless everyone in the league decided overnight to do them at the same time). So absolutely it was the era propping up every player from Walker's time. And all the changes that made for higher offense benefit the elite hitters of the league, more so than the Felix Fermin's of the league...hence easier for the higher OPS+ too.
IF you disagree with factors such as that(and career length), then you must also agree that this list is true, and that these players are better HITTERS than the guys they are above:
Dan Brouthers 170
Pete Browning 163
Mark McGwire 163
Dave Orr 162
Are all better than Stan Musial 150.
Then those guys, plus these guys:
J. Mize 158
Dick Allen 156
Frank THomas 156
Are all better or equal to Willie Mays 156, Hank Aaron 155, Joe Dimaggio 155.
Then ALL the above, plus the following:
Roger Connor 153
Ed Delahanty 152
Charlie Keller 152
Gavvy Cravath 151
Charley Jones 150
Elmer Fick 149
Benny Kauff 149
Sam Thompson 147
Ryan Braun 146
Albert Bell 144
Lance Berkman 144
Mike Donlin 144
Tip Oneill 144
George Stone 144
Harry Stovey 144
Billy Joyce 143
Are all better than Harmon Killebrew 143, Duke Snider 140
And Brian Giles 136 is equal to Ken Griffey Jr 136(This one exemplifies career length disparity, plus platooning(to save one's percentages)).
Banzi, so tell me right now, are David Orr and Mark McGwire better hitters than Musial? Allen better than Aaaron and Mays? ALL those guys better than Snider and Killebrew?? Because, if you discount the stuff I am telling you about Walker, then you must also discount it about these guys and agree that they ARE better than those greats!
Since you do not recognize career length(and platooning effect), then you must also agree that Brian Giles is better than Griffey
Maybe you also feel Ken Phelps 132 was a better hitter than Yaz 130. After all, you can't penalize Phelps for deciding to retire
PS:
As for defense, show me exactly how strong Walker was defensively. I would guess, without even looking, that his defensive replacements fared just as well in his stead.
As for his baserunning, I am not that impressed...that is why I don't brig it up. You talk as if he were Joe Morgan or Rickey Henderson on the bases. He stole 230 bases and got caught 76 times. That equates to abut an extra 25 runs for his career. Decent, but not a game changer.
I'll answer for you. No, I woulnd't consider him the man. He took the days off to prevent an 0 for 4. Otherwise, after already missing several of his teams games where they needed him, he would have no business taking ANY day off whenever he was healthy.
PS. This post has nothing to do with stats, but rather the "reputation" portion of the Hall of Fame criteria.
There are many elite players who played through minor injuries and played full time. This is a benefit to those guys...and maybe those guys did have their stats hurt a little by playing less than 100%.
It is very possible that the movie "unbreakable" should have looked to Larry Walker instead of Samuel Jackson to play the role of Mr. Glass.
And it is also possible that I still am angry at Walker for having him on my Fantasy Teams in the late 90's, as that guy would always take those days off when healthy...even though he already recently sat ten days for minor injuries.
<< <i>Banzi, you pulled an Axtell and completely glossed over a main point and question.
Banzi, your offensive claims are still lacking, even in your above post. Reggie had plenty of players to compete against...they don't look as strong because the era. Walker's players all look stronger becasue of the era...and make no mistake, IT WAS THE era. The league 1991-1992 had an established level, then all of a sudden from 1993-1995(and on) the entire league went haywire. It wasn't because of better players, but because of environement changes(not steroids either, unless everyone in the league decided overnight to do them at the same time). So absolutely it was the era propping up every player from Walker's time. And all the changes that made for higher offense benefit the elite hitters of the league, more so than the Felix Fermin's of the league...hence easier for the higher OPS+ too.
IF you disagree with factors such as that(and career length), then you must also agree that this list is true, and that these players are better HITTERS than the guys they are above:
Dan Brouthers 170
Pete Browning 163
Mark McGwire 163
Dave Orr 162
Are all better than Stan Musial 150.
Then those guys, plus these guys:
J. Mize 158
Dick Allen 156
Frank THomas 156
Are all better or equal to Willie Mays 156, Hank Aaron 155, Joe Dimaggio 155.
Then ALL the above, plus the following:
Roger Connor 153
Ed Delahanty 152
Charlie Keller 152
Gavvy Cravath 151
Charley Jones 150
Elmer Fick 149
Benny Kauff 149
Sam Thompson 147
Ryan Braun 146
Albert Bell 144
Lance Berkman 144
Mike Donlin 144
Tip Oneill 144
George Stone 144
Harry Stovey 144
Billy Joyce 143
Are all better than Harmon Killebrew 143, Duke Snider 140
And Brian Giles 136 is equal to Ken Griffey Jr 136(This one exemplifies career length disparity, plus platooning(to save one's percentages)).
Banzi, so tell me right now, are David Orr and Mark McGwire better hitters than Musial? Allen better than Aaaron and Mays? ALL those guys better than Snider and Killebrew?? Because, if you discount the stuff I am telling you about Walker, then you must also discount it about these guys and agree that they ARE better than those greats!
Since you do not recognize career length(and platooning effect), then you must also agree that Brian Giles is better than Griffey
Maybe you also feel Ken Phelps 132 was a better hitter than Yaz 130. After all, you can't penalize Phelps for deciding to retire
PS:
As for defense, show me exactly how strong Walker was defensively. I would guess, without even looking, that his defensive replacements fared just as well in his stead.
As for his baserunning, I am not that impressed...that is why I don't brig it up. You talk as if he were Joe Morgan or Rickey Henderson on the bases. He stole 230 bases and got caught 76 times. That equates to abut an extra 25 runs for his career. Decent, but not a game changer. >>
Comparing me to Axtel or 1985fan(?) that's hitting below the belt. I REALLY expect an apology.
Actually, I asked for a comparison of corner outfielders during Walkers time and you ignored that. I now do know about a helluva lot about great firstbasemen though.
Your argument "make no mistake it was the era" doesn't convince me. I can find four right fielders during Reggie's prime time that were good/great; Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, Dwight Evans and Dave Winfield. He isn't going to have much trouble dominating if this is the best of the best.
I am not too familiar with the players from 1879-1904 Dan Brouthers REALLY? Looked up his numbers today, he WAS pretty good, I am surprised you bring him in, but OK, he was better. He is in the HOF you know!?!?!?
McGwire? Steroid player and not even an outfielder. I am ignoring the cheaters, to be accurate in comparing players, I am surprised you continue to use them, they had an unfair advantage and fail the integrity/sportsmanship part of the game.
J. Mize, Dick Allen and Frank Thomas; I know these guys. FANTASTIC HITTERS! Dick Allen is mostly a first baseman, but I would put him in the HOF. Mize was fantastic as well AGAIN a first baseman.
I don't know why you continue to bring up first base, but YES these guys could HIT. They were great hitters, better than Walker no doubt. They WERE as good of hitters as Mays, Aaron and Dimaggio, but not as good overall when you factor in position.
Musial was a better PLAYER than the ones you mentioned. Home run hitting was the weakest area of his 5 tools so his OPS+ reflects that.
Here's the right fielders NOT FIRST BASE jaws leaders all time;
1 Babe Ruth
2 Hank Aaron
3 Stan Musial
4 Mel Ott
5 Frank Robinson
6 Roberto Clemente
7 Al Kaline
8 Reggie Jackson
9 Harry Heilmann
10 Larry Walker
This list looks pretty damn good to me.
I count at least 15 right fielders in the HOF with worse numbers.
For God's sake KEN PHELPS? He played in 761 games, but it does show you how much Yaz was overrated.
Walker's defense;
7 Gold Gloves (I do know some guy won one that didn't deserve it, 7 means something).
Assists as a RIGHT FIELDER; three 1st place finishes, two 2nds and two 3rds. 15th all time
Double plays turned as a RIGHT FIELDER; five 1sts, two 2nds, one 3rd and three 4ths. 9th all time
Fielding %; one 1st, one 2nd, one 3rd, four 4ths. 30th all time
Total zone runs as a right fielder; one 1st, two 2nds, two 3rds a 4th and two 5ths. 8th all time
Baserunning; I never said he was Joe Morgan or Rickey Henderson, MY GOD these were two of the best base stealers of all time! Why can't you attempt to compare him to SIMILAR players? Oh yeah, because he was SO MUCH BETTER THAN THEM! Of the players listed on the JAWS top 10 only Hank Aaron has more stolen bases than Larry, he has 240, 10 more, next is Frank Robby with 204, then Reggie with 145.
230 stolen bases is a very nice total for a number 3-4 hitter.
Just to bring it up before you do, Walker did not hit as many home runs as Aaron, or get on base as often as Ted Williams and didn't win as many GG as Jim Kaat.
At least you FINALLY admit you just don't like him because of his short career, and primarily because he screwed up your fantasy team a few times. You must have liked him if you had him on your team ;-)
I was never really aware of him during his career, but I like to look at guys I feel "belong" in the HOF instead of the other way around. Dick Allen and Tony Oliva are also guys I like, but not as much as Walker.
I am guessing we are not going to argue about Walkers integrity and sportsmanship? We should at this point try to find SOMETHING about him we agree on!
You missed the point of that list. It highlihgts the misuse of OPS+ thorugh career length and era.
Hitters are being compared to all hitters in the league...not just specific positions. RF doesn't take any extra defensive skill to play like a catcherr, 2B or SS does. So it is very fair to compare him to corner outfielders and infielders.
More on how the era plumped up the stars in Walker's era in another day. However, it has been easier for the stars of the live ball era to amass stats better than the league average, as opposed to players from the era just before...even in stats that are suppose to account for that(like OPS+).
Again, if you don't understand how the era can effect that, then those early century guys would be viewed as better than those elite hitters.
You really think Allen was as good a hitter as Aaron? Allen has a 156 to Aaron 155. You actually think Allen would sustain that had he played enough to muster up the 6,000 plate appearances he would need to catch aaron? How do you notice that with Ken Phelps, but not in that case?? I will answer it for you, no, Allen's numbers would just continue to drop in his decline phase...especially in his next 6,000 plate appearances.
I already pointed out previously how Reggie was at the top of his league so often, while Walker not. That helps right there to tackle the era problem. Walker may have had high OPS+'s but so did everybody else in the league...because they were a product of the environment.
Of course, then there is the Coors effect. More on that in a minute. So Walker has the era plumping his numbers AND the best hitting park in MLB history.
Larry Walker's lifetime OPS in those 5,500+ plate appearances outside of Coors is . 865. If you ignore the era, and compare that to Reggie Jackson, it will look good. BUT you cannot ignore the era, because the era is why it is so high. Also, the career length makes a difference.
Here are some outfielders with a better or similar career OPS to Larry Walker during HIS era....all of whom benefited from the live ball era too.
Berkman .943
Belle .933
Vlad .931
Edmonds .903
Giles .902
Alou .885
Salmon .884
Nomar .882. I lied. Not just outfielders...but Nomar at SS provides more defensive value than Walker in RF, so Nomar is in.
K. MItchell .880
Justice .878
Burks .875
Abreu .873
J.D. Drew .873
M. Ordonez .871
Klesko .870. Yes, Klesko.
R. Greer .865. Yes, Rusty Greer.
L. Walker .865
Tartabull .864
B. Williams .858
Beltran .854
A.Jones .823
Some of those guys, A. Jones, Edmonds, Vlda, B. Williams, Beltran, Abreu, are the in the ballpark defensively and/or better than Walker. Some of them have a large enough lead in offense, where Walker's defense and/or running doesn't close the gap(Berkamn, Belle, Giles, Alou)...because it isn't like those guys couldn't catch the ball themselves either.
But the most dam2@ing thing is that outside of Coors, Walker hit about as well as Ryan Klesko.
I suppose all those guys were better hitters than Reggie too
Ryan Klesko.
I suppose all those guys were better hitters than Reggie too
Ryan Klesko. >>
Larry Walker's OPS+-which is adjusted for park effects-is tied for 68th all time (with Chipper and others). Defensively, he won seven gold gloves. Seven times he was in the top three in assists, and in the top five in range factor.
Comparing him to Klesko is silly-he was an awful outfielder. Walker's home at bats do count.
I would vote for him, but I understand an argument him. I do not understand ignoring his home plate appearances.
<< <i>I suppose all those guys were better hitters than Reggie too
Ryan Klesko.
Larry Walker's OPS+-which is adjusted for park effects-is tied for 68th all time (with Chipper and others). Defensively, he won seven gold gloves. Seven times he was in the top three in assists, and in the top five in range factor.
Comparing him to Klesko is silly-he was an awful outfielder. Walker's home at bats do count.
I would vote for him, but I understand an argument him. I do not understand ignoring his home plate appearances. >>
One of your arguments was that his road OPS was better than Reggie Jacksons(and Yaz's) career OPS. As I just pointed out above, it is only because of the live ball era(AND CAREER LENGTH) why that is the case, and the moment that was brought into the arguement(the road OPS being better than Reggie), is the moment it went completely wrong. Do you finally see that point? Or are you going to say that Klesko was a better hitter than Reggie and Yaz too?
Comparing him to Klesko just shows how silly that point is about Walker's road OPS being better than Reggie's and Yaz's...because that would mean Klesko was a better hitter too, which is obviously not the case, just as it is obvious not the case with Walker.
Tell posanski that his point about htat is wrong
I'm not ignoring all his home at bats, I am simply showing how he hits when he has the same advantages/disadvantage as the rest of the league. Coors is a known offense inflater, so it isn't inflated out of a statistical outlier...it is inflated because of the park.
He had 5,500 plate apperances to show that it wasn't the park...and he showed that he hit as well as Ryan Klesko without that tremendous advantage of Coors.
HIs 865 road OPS may look nice compared to Reggie and Yaz and co...but that is only because they played in a much harder era to hit in. Again, unless you think ALL those other hitters are also better than Reggie and Yaz, and if you do, then this is where we part ways.
PS. In some cases, those park adjustments simply do not work...and in Walker's case, I have 5,500 reasons why
<< <i> However, looking outside of Coors and all those at bats Walker had to prove that it WASN'T coors, you see where he truly falls.
Ryan Klesko. >>
Though to be fair if you look outside of Coors, Klesko's ops is .856
It is very clear to see Walker took advantage of the greatest hitting environment in history. What is completely unclear is how much of a credit should that be to him. Koufax did virtually the same thing, with a 3.38 ERA away from Dodger Stadium, but instead of comparing him to Johnny Antonelli and Milt Pappas, we give him a huge amount of credit for what he did do there. Why isn't the same credit extended to Walker?
<< <i>
<< <i> However, looking outside of Coors and all those at bats Walker had to prove that it WASN'T coors, you see where he truly falls.
Ryan Klesko. >>
Though to be fair if you look outside of Coors, Klesko's ops is .851
It is very clear to see Walker took advantage of the greatest hitting environment in history. What is completely unclear is how much of a credit should that be to him. Koufax did virtually the same thing, with a 3.38 ERA away from Dodger Stadium, but instead of comparing him to Johnny Antonelli and Milt Pappas, we give him a huge amount of credit for what he did do there. Why isn't the same credit extended to Walker? >>
I will tell you the main reason why, because Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball for a few of those years(including the park effect). Walker was not in that company in his league.
That is true about Klesko adding Coors. Doing that to all the guys close the gap some more. Good point...but doesn't change the company he is in, and is still behind many of those guys(some of whom are also Centerfielders).
When you account for his innings in addition to his ERA+, he was the best pitcher in ALL of MLB Twice, and second Twice. That is pretty dominant, and in his last year when he retired he was first in all of MLB...and I think people recognize he had a lot more in him.
However, point is taken about Koufax.
11.5 - L. Walker
10.0 - McGwire
Unlike most of the guys mentioned Walker was a complete player and a dominant one as well, with three batting titles two times leading in OBP and two times leading in OPS, one doubles title (471 lifetime) one HR title and one TB title.
Wow, never knew much about Berkman, but he could flat out hit, you complain about Walker's career, Berkman only played about 12 full seasons. I love Vlad and would think he will eventually get in, Belle was considered an absolute LOCK for a portion of his career, but hip, and attitude problems hurt him bad, he played in a little over 10 years.
Here AGAIN you are not making good comparisons, just looking up OPS numbers and listing them. That is not digging deep enough.
If you want to play that way fine OPS+ only accounts for ballpark factor Larry is at 141 and you still haven't mentioned ONE player who didn't take PEDs that is clearly a better player ALL AROUND.
You have found some great hitters, but not all around players. Walker beats Klesko, Vlad and Lance because he hit as well as they did and was a SUPERIOR DEFENSIVE PLAYER. Vlad led the league in errors in RF NINE TIMES and was second twice.
Nomar started out fantastic but he only had TWO YEARS above 141 (Larry's average for entire career) in OPS+. Really too bad he got injured early in his career, his last six years his OPS+ averaged BELOW 100.
Since you want to take the lazy way of looking at things, you admitted you haven't even looked at Walker's defensive stats, we are just spinning our wheels. I am surprised that a knowledgeable guy and someone who played a lot of ball himself, doesn't appreciate a superior defender.
Other posters have said Walker deserves credit for his defense, but you are ignoring that. Since you refuse to look at ALL the evidence, we should just call it a day. You guys who love statistics can't have it both ways. The numbers clearly prove Walker should be in, not to mention the 15 Right Fielders in already who aren't as good as he is. If we expand it to the entire outfield
One of your arguments was that his road OPS was better than Reggie Jacksons(and Yaz's) career OPS. As I just pointed out above, it is only because of the live ball era(AND CAREER LENGTH) why that is the case, and the moment that was brought into the arguement(the road OPS being better than Reggie), is the moment it went completely wrong. Do you finally see that point? Or are you going to say that Klesko was a better hitter than Reggie and Yaz too?
Comparing him to Klesko just shows how silly that point is about Walker's road OPS being better than Reggie's and Yaz's...because that would mean Klesko was a better hitter too, which is obviously not the case, just as it is obvious not the case with Walker.
Lets talk hitting FIRST, because hitting is where nearly all the value comes from a corner fielder.
In HItting, you are still ignoring the era...because you said Walker's road OPS was beter than Reggie and Yaz, yet you as you see on the list above, it is only better because the era plumped it up.
So one point at a time...do you not see that, or are you also saying that Klesko, Rusty Greer and all those guys were better HITTERS than Yaz and Reggie since their OPS was higher?? If you believe that, then this is where we part ways.
Also, you keep bringing up Walker's OPS+, but even with the ballpark factor added, it STILL does not reflect well enough for his Coors effect. As you see, in 5,500 plate appearances away from Coors, he is a WORSE hitter than several outfiedlers....(some of whom those outfielders ran and fielded close enough or better for Walker to NOT overcome the deficit he has in hitting). The ballpark factor applied isn't accurate. The 5,500 plate appearances away from Coors tell you what kind of hitter he was without the aide of the park all those other guys never got like him.
PS. Berkman played 15 years, not the 12 you suggested, and he is within 200 plate appearances from Walker for their careers.
With the Coors factor(and proof how Walker really hit without the aide of Coors), and with the live ball era plumping up his(and all the elite hitter's stats of the era), and his short career(saving his rate stats from the decline phase), he is NOT anywhere the caliber of Reggie Jackson or Yaz. It is ridiculous to even say that he is. That is the main thing I am arguing against. The fact that you used his road OPS and measured it against the career of Reggie and Yaz...while ignoring key factors as I pointed out, makes that entire premise of him being as good, just plain false.
Without the aide of Coors, Walker hit about as well as Klesko, Rusty Greer, and worse than another dozen NON Hall of Famers from his era(some of whom were as good defensively and/or played more valuable defensive positions.
Finally, if you can PROVE he was without the aide of PED and that the rest of the league was with the aide of PED, then you have more of a case. However, Walker also had his best years in his 30's(even with the ballpark effect added), so either that ballpark effect is off, or he too had a curious jump in performance in his 30's that lend to the belief that PED's were in the mix. Not to mention how often he broke down as more evidence.
But really, if he gets lumped in with the roid users, he himself had a chance to prove that he was not a user, YET HE DID NOTHING to do so. He could have offered himself to all the real tests, but he did not. Instead, he, and the rest of the union resisted all those efforts, which means it is entirely his fault if he gets lumped in with the users.
QUESTION!!!!!!Before we move on and I respond to anymore of your posts, you have to clarify one thing! You used Walker's career road OPS as evidence that he was better hitter than Yaz and Reggie(based on their career OPS). You ignored KEY factors as to why that method was faulty. So, if you are going to stick to that main point of yours, then that means Klesko and Rusty Greer(who also have a higher career OPS than REggie and Yaz) are also better hitters than Reggie and Yaz.
So, are Klesko and Greer better hitters than Reggie and Yaz, OR, is your method of using Walker's road OPS vs. the career OPS of Reggie and Yaz as evidence that he was a better hitter than them, just flat out wrong??
<< <i>Koufax had these rankings in ERA+ in his league; 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. >>
Away from Dodger Stadium, his ERA+ for that six year span was "only" 137 (including all of 1961 when the Dodgers played in Memorial Coliseum). His ERA+ at Dodger Stadium was 183
(may be slightly off on that calculation)
If Koufax earns credit for being a great pitcher taking advantage of his environment, to not offer the same credit to Walker for doing the same is disingenuous
Berkman probably is a great comparison for Walker as a hitter. Walker has slightly more playing time and lost some time to the strike. Better base runner with 150 more steals at a better rate.
Defensively, it isn't even close. An all-time great right fielder compared to one of the worst in the league until Bagwell left and the Astros could put him at first. Zone rating has Walker taking away about 25 extra hits per 162 games as a corner outfielder. Even if we cut that in half, it's still a huge difference
NV, that has been said about Koufax many times in the past, and there is some merit to it. It is possible he was tailor made to Dodger stadium and the high mound.
I like Walker as a good all-around player.
However, the notion of using his Road OPS and comparing to Reggie and Yaz's career OPS, and then using that as evidence that he is a better hitter, is simply way off line. It is NOT accounting for the era and career length...and that list of players from Walker's era who had better OPS than Walker, should lay rest to that ridiculous method and claim(Walker's road OPS being better than Yaz and Reggie)...because that would mean all those players were better hitters too. They weren't, they were all inflated due to the live ball era(not just steroids either).
OPS+ for Walker has a few problems too.
1) Even in OPS+ his era STILL has the elite hitters benefiting more from the environment that created the offensive explosion in the mid 90's on. If you study it, you will see that the elite players were able to separate themselves from league average in the live ball era, as opposed to the era just before. For one, the stats show it, and two, common sense says it. When you introduce a lively ball, bring the fences in closer, add expansion pitchers, and shrink the strike zone, then those things will help guys like McGwire types more so than the Felix Fermine types. So that allows the elite to separate further from the peasants...and the league average represents the figures of the peasants too...hence higher OPS+ for the elite that measure vs league average.
One simple way around this is to do a quick top ten measure. While you see Walker with a higher career OPS+ than Reggie, you will see that Reggie had superior league rankings in that measure, including a few first place finishes. Walker was never of that ilk hitting wise among his league, yet his OPS+ is higher.
2)His OPS+ is suppose to account for Coors. However, while ballpark effects are indeed a great tool, they represent an average effect on a player. Not all players are effected the same by a park. Walker has such drastic stats outside of Coors, that it should make EVERYBODY pause. It isn't like sample size is a problem either. He has 5,500 plate appearances away from Coors for his career, and that is a very telling difference. I believe those 5,500 real plate appearances reflect much more strongly on how Walker truly was as a hitter(independent of Coors), than does a ballpark adjustment formula that just shoots at the average player.
We know EXACTLY how well Walker hits outside of Coors(with 5,500 pieces of evidence to support it)...and that is at a level below several outfielders from his era that are NOT Hall of Fame bound...and light years below the true HOF elite hitters of his era.
3)Walker never experienced full-time old man years, where he would certainly lower ALL of his career percentages, including OPS+.
Until those real factors are taken into account, it isn't even worth going into his defense value. Because his numbers without Coors, FOR HIS LIVE BALL ERA, would need an Ozzie Smith like defensive value to put him at Hall of Fame level. Especially with a shorter career.
I simply looked at his AWAY numbers and saw he was comparable to some HOF players numbers (that also as it turns out, some were not great defenders) that in itself DISPROVES the "Coors Factor" elimination argument. He WAS good enough on the road.
Yes, he hit much better at home, instead of improving his numbers and gaining him a better reputation, he gets ripped for doing a fantastic job at home. In addition Walker was a SUPERIOR defender.
I am comparing him to players in the BEST way, using the numbers that are available and limiting opinions. The era argument is unprovable, the 1970's there were a lot of old men and rookies that were great, but not many great players in their primes.
You scoff at Klesko, that's because there were so many good HITTERS while he was in his prime. Did you take a look at his numbers, or just throw his name out there? Klesko had several outstanding years as a hitter, yet you mock him because he is "Ryan Klesko". The guy could rake! All of your arguments have been based on OPS/OPS+, that only looks at offense.
Now you bring up years that didn't happen; Walkers "old man years". Larry was putting up GREAT OPS+ numbers at the very end of his career, in a park not named Coors field. Numbers BETTER THAN ANY of the players that hung on for 3-5-7 more "above average" seasons. The whole argument is moot, it's an opinion either way. He could have tanked, or played for three or four, or more years at a high level, we will never know. So if he plays three more years, good or bad, ends up with 2500 hits, 500 doubles and 400 HRs, he's in?
You just keep pounding away with the era argument, there is simply no PROOF the guys that played against Reggie were better than the CLEAN players who played against Walker. In fact, using your guys, Bonds and McGwire, in the discussion clearly shows there were better players in Larry's era. Bonds rates as one of the best of all time and McGwire hit home runs faster than any one, even Babe Ruth! Of course they had to cheat to beat Larry!!!!!!!
The thing that's most hard for me to figure is you completely disregard his wonderful defensive ability and compare him to a bunch of plodding firstbasemen. Anyone who knows about sluggers that can't play the field, knows they end up at first base or DH. When their entire career is first base they are usually not good defenders.
The other thing you refuse to address is his (and others like Reggie) character, a huge part of HOF requirement. Most of the guys that APPEAR to be better than him while he played were cheating bums and racists (Bonds, what a tool).
Ever see Larry almost get in a fist fight with his manager? It's so easy to knock Reggie down below Larry using defensive abilities and character that even if you are correct about the eras, Walker is a MUCH more deserving player to be enshrined.
Yaz is simply the MOST over rated player in the history of baseball. You don't bring up Fenway with Yaz!
Is Carl's OPS+ AWAY from Fenway actually 86??????????????????????? Away batting average .264??????????????????? Can I be reading this right? Lots of old man years here pal.
The only LEGITIMATE argument against Walker is his somewhat short career, but I don't think that's enough to keep him out of the hall. You may believe that along with him sitting against Randy Johnson a few times and having a relatively short career keeps him out, but the rest is fluff.
I am going to stop now, this has gone on long enough and for the second time. You will probably end up being correct as the writers will be blinded by the Coors field nonsense, but Larry is the kind of player, like Harmon, Brooks, Henry, Ernie and Stan that I want in MY HOF, you can have Reggie, Sammy, Bonds and McGwire. You can have Belle and Manny too. Your guys may have better numbers, but my guys are great and are cool dudes as well. Your guys will probably kill each other.
Have a great day! Hope it's warmer where you are.
<< <i>
I simply looked at his AWAY numbers and saw he was comparable to some HOF players numbers (that also as it turns out, some were not great defenders) that in itself DISPROVES the "Coors Factor" elimination argument. He WAS good enough on the road.
>>
WRONG. He was not good enough on the road. You looked at his road numbers, but you forgot a huge step of accounting for the live ball era, and his short career. Again, if you take those road numbers without accounting for the era, then that means Klesko and Rusty Greer were also better hitters than Reggie.
I ask you again!. Do you believe Klesko and Greer were better hitters than Reggie?? Because if you are sticking to your road argument with Walker(and excluding the era factor), then you must also believe Greer and Klesko are better HITTERS than Reggie.
That is a pure Axtell move by dodging this key question. I hate to say that to you, but If you don't like the Axtell reference, then don't act like him...and you are when you ignore the era factor and this question.
When you put Walker's road numbers into proper context against his peers, you will see several NON Hall of Fame Outfielders that were better than him. You are forgetting to do that.
Yes, I just put up a thread showing the problem with the era comparison.
Walker still has the Coors problem. Once you come to your senses and see that Klesko and Greer are NOT better hitters than Reggie(as you seem to think they are)...you will then see that over 5,500 plate appearances independent of Coors, how good of a hitter Walker truly was(or wasn't).
Yes, Yaz away from Fenway hurts him too. However, in your numbers you need to account for era, as Yaz played in a much more offensively starved era.
Defense is another point, and there is no need to move onto that if you still insist on the nonsense above. When looking at Walker's true hitting(independent of Coors like everyone else he is being compared to), then you can add all his defensive value and he will still come up short from some of those NON Hall of Famers from his era....and be light years behind the elite players of his era.
PS. If you are throwing stones at all the steroid users in Walker's era, and are convinced he was clean, well, he has some odd performances too.
His OPS+ in his prime years age 25-29 is 133
His OPS+ in his later years age 34-38 is 144
Whether or not you or I believe Walker is clean or not...he needs to be compared to all the players in his league, not just your suspected guys(or the guys who got caught). Walker was part of that union that resisted testing.
Of course, those figures have a poor park performance factor in them...but it is in both sets of numbers.
<< <i>Is Carl's OPS+ AWAY from Fenway actually 86??????????????????????? Away batting average .264??????????????????? Can I be reading this right? Lots of old man years here pal. >>
No, that's his tOPS+ which is a relative measure against his own numbers.
<< <i>
Nomar started out fantastic but he only had TWO YEARS above 141 (Larry's average for entire career) in OPS+. Really too bad he got injured early in his career, his last six years his OPS+ averaged BELOW 100.
>>
Just noticed this.
Nomar's last six years his OPS+ was 102.
Besides the point though...
as you still need to answer to your premise that Rusty Greer and Ryan Klesko were better hitters than Reggie???
<< <i>Whether or not you or I believe Walker is clean or not...he needs to be compared to all the players in his league, not just your suspected guys(or the guys who got caught). Walker was part of that union that resisted testing. >>
No sense EVER debating someone who really believes this. Stupidest thing ever written on any message board anywhere, although bringing Greer into the argument was close. You MUST actually be an alt for 1985fan.
Goodbye and enjoy life in your strange world.
<< <i>
<< <i>Whether or not you or I believe Walker is clean or not...he needs to be compared to all the players in his league, not just your suspected guys(or the guys who got caught). Walker was part of that union that resisted testing. >>
No sense EVER debating someone who really believes this. Stupidest thing ever written on any message board anywhere, although bringing Greer into the argument was close (being Joebanzi's method that said Greer was a better hitter than Reggie). You MUST actually be an alt for 1985fan.
Goodbye and enjoy life in your strange world. >>
Banzi, taking the easiest way out. Any opinion on steroids is merely an opinion(mine is actually still evolving on the issue, so it isn't set yet).
Lets be clear, IT IS YOUR METHOD that puts Rusty Greer ahead of Reggie Jackson as a hitter. YOUR method. In fact, your method puts all those guys on that list ahead of Reggie as a hitter.
Reggie Jackson is light years better hitter than Rusty Greer, however, in your attempt to use stats to show Larry Walker being superior than Reggie, you ALSO showed(in YOUR attempt) that Greer was a better hitter than him. Which is what I am pointing out, the ERROR in your method. It is a big error too.
Do you still not see that? The moment your method put Rusty Greer as a better hitter than Reggie, you should have had alarm bells going off in your head that you had made a mistake. Instead, YOU STILL do not see the error, and continue to trumpet that method.
I can see why Baseball(from this board), got fed up with you in your horrible attempt at claiming Mantle was no good his last few years. You don't see obvious points. At least 1985fan has homerism to blame, not sure what causes yours.
Hey, despite being annoying at times(and a littler homerism)1985fan has potential, and in this thread he thoroughly beat your brains in.
Back on topic after your insult attempt.
Coors field. That is the reason why Walker is even viewed in any league elite terms. Do you think Coors effects each hitter the same? Ground ball hitters vs Fly Ball. Excellent vs. poor. Left vs right. Guys who put the ball in play vs guys who strike out more. Guys who hit the ball on the proper HR trajectory often vs guys who don't.
Think about it. We don't have to guess how well Walker would hit without the aide of Coors. We saw 5,500 examples to show us EXACTLY how he hits without that aide. And when you measure that verse his peers in the live ball era, it just isn't that impressive.