This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.

POLL: Larry Walker and the Hall of Fame

Posted by Andy on August 3, 2010

Larry Walker was one of the great young players with the early 1990s Expos and then became a star playing in numbers-inflating Coors Field. His stats are great even when correcting for ballpark effects--but are they good enough to get him into the Hall of Fame? Click through to discuss and vote.

Larry Walker had a fascinating career with three distinct phases:

  1. From 1989 to 1994, he was a young star with Montreal Expos teams loaded with good young talent, including Delino DeShields, Marquis Grissom, Moises Alou, Mark Gardner, John Vander Wal, Mike Lansing, Rondell White, Cliff Floyd, Wil Cordero, and others. (In 1992-1994, the Expos had a starting outfield of Walker, Alou, and Grissom. Also, check out this 1990 Upper Deck baseball card featuring 3 of the young Expos.)
  2. From 1994 to 2004, he was a superstar with the Rockies. This included leading them to their first franchise playoff appearance in 1995 as well as their only major seasonal award, the 1997 NL MVP (although that could change this year if Ubaldo Jimenez wins the NL Cy Young award), and 3 batting titles.
  3. From late 2004 through 2005, he was a strong veteran presence on the Cardinals, contributing a ton with his bat in important regular-season games and the post-season.

I'm not going to try to hide the fact that Walker was one of my favorite players. He was such a likable guy--one of the rare few who played with both fierce determination and also relaxed levity. He laughed and joked so often on the field and yet never failed to give amazing effort all the time. He didn't have the body of a star player and yet was maybe the best hitter for average of his era. He also went out with a bang, putting together very strong career numbers right up until the day he retired. Lastly, he was an incredibly smart player, doing things that few other players did (such as routinely throwing out lazy runners at first base--yes, from right field!)

Let's take a look at arguments for and against Walker in the Hall of Fame:

For the Hall of Fame:

  • On lists dominated by players from 50+ years ago, he still cracks the top 100 in career batting average (84th), OBP (58th), SLG (15th), and OPS (16th). He's also within the top 100 in HR, RBI, and doubles.
  • Over the years spanning his career (1989-2005) Walker is in the top 10 (well, 11) in batting average among players with at least 3,000 PAs:
    Rk Player BA PA From To Age
    1 Tony Gwynn .342 6384 1989 2001 29-41
    2 Todd Helton .337 5424 1997 2005 23-31
    3 Albert Pujols .332 3428 2001 2005 21-25
    4 Ichiro Suzuki .332 3692 2001 2005 27-31
    5 Vladimir Guerrero .324 5494 1996 2005 21-30
    6 Nomar Garciaparra .320 4777 1996 2005 22-31
    7 Kirby Puckett .316 4422 1989 1995 29-35
    8 Derek Jeter .314 6996 1995 2005 21-31
    9 Manny Ramirez .314 7225 1993 2005 21-33
    10 Larry Walker .313 8030 1989 2005 22-38
    11 Paul Molitor .313 6325 1989 1998 32-41
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 7/30/2010.

    And that's despite having a lot more plate appearances than anybody else on this list. If limiting the search to just Walker's peak years of 1994-2002, only one man beats him:

    Rk Player BA PA From To Age
    1 Tony Gwynn .356 3404 1994 2001 34-41
    2 Larry Walker .339 4545 1994 2002 27-35
    3 Todd Helton .333 3412 1997 2002 23-28
    4 Nomar Garciaparra .328 3457 1996 2002 22-28
    5 Vladimir Guerrero .322 3753 1996 2002 21-27
    6 Edgar Martinez .322 5271 1994 2002 31-39
    7 Mike Piazza .322 5058 1994 2002 25-33
    8 Bernie Williams .319 5578 1994 2002 25-33
    9 Derek Jeter .317 4981 1995 2002 21-28
    10 Manny Ramirez .317 5178 1994 2002 22-30
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 7/30/2010.

    Even then Walker had a lot more PAs than Gwynn over that period.

  • But, fair enough, Walker played in Coors Field, a park well known during that period to inflate offensive output, including batting averages, HR, and run-scoring. So then let's look at OPS+, which normalizes for ballpark conditions. His career OPS+ value of 140 puts him in the same ballpark as Reggie Jackson, Duke Snider, Eddie Collins, Jesse Burkett, and Gary Sheffield. Over his peak period of 1994-2002 Walker was one of just 13 players to amass an OPS+ of at least 150 (minimum 3,000 PAs):
    Rk Player OPS+ PA From To Age
    1 Barry Bonds 195 5488 1994 2002 29-37
    2 Mark McGwire 181 3826 1994 2001 30-37
    3 Jeff Bagwell 159 5971 1994 2002 26-34
    4 Edgar Martinez 158 5271 1994 2002 31-39
    5 Manny Ramirez 157 5178 1994 2002 22-30
    6 Gary Sheffield 157 4938 1994 2002 25-33
    7 Frank Thomas 157 5178 1994 2002 26-34
    8 Jim Thome 156 5296 1994 2002 23-31
    9 Mike Piazza 155 5058 1994 2002 25-33
    10 Jason Giambi 152 4772 1995 2002 24-31
    11 Brian Giles 150 3666 1995 2002 24-31
    12 Larry Walker 150 4545 1994 2002 27-35
    13 Albert Belle 150 4575 1994 2000 27-33
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 7/30/2010.

    Looking a bit more broadly, Walker's also one of only 13 players since 1980 with at least 6 batting-title-qualified seasons with an OPS+ of at least 150, a list that includes Mike Schmidt.

    Simply put, Walker was both one of the best power hitters and one of the best average hitters of his time.

  • Walker's defense was also excellent. He won 7 Gold Gloves, and he's also 7th in career assists at RF. His Total Zone Runs in RF is 8th all-time. Heck, even his fielding percentage is in the top 25. Any way you look at it, Walker was a stud in right field and one of the best around.
  • His hitting and fielding contributions combine to put him 67th all-time in Wins Above Replacement among position players. That might not sound all that impressive until you realize some of the players he's ahead of: Eddie Murray, Willie McCovey, Pee Wee Reese, Gary Carter, Ernie Banks, Home Run Baker, Ryne Sandberg, Harmon Killebrew, Yogi Berra...should I go on? A quick count reveals at least 80 HOFers among position players with a lower career WAR than Walker. (Once again, these numbers are corrected for Coors Field offense effects.)
  • On the subject of WAR, note that he gave the Cardinals a 1.0 WAR in 2004, in just 44 games after his trade from Colorado. The following year he gave them 2.9 WAR in just 100 games. Very good for a guy at the tail end of his career.
  • Walker had some great post-season performances. In the 2004 playoffs, he hit 2 homers each in the NLDS, NLCD, and World Series. He's one of only 16 players to hit 6 or more homers in a single post-season.
  • 230 career stolen bases with a 75% success rate. If you're in the "I can make a list" club, especially without contextualization, how about this one: all-time players with 300 HR, 200 SB, and a .300 BA. There are just five: Walker, A-Rod, Say Hey, Mullet, and Bad Henry.
  • His 10 most similar players includes some notable names--Joe DiMaggio, Chuck Klein, Johnny Mize, Duke Snider...

Against the Hall of Fame:

  • Alongside his great post-season performances were a bunch of poor ones, notably including an 0-fer in the 2005 NLDS (o-9, .000 BA, .250 OBP). He went to just one World Series, with the 2004 Cardinals, who got steamrolled by the Red Sox.
  • He was rarely regarded as the best player in baseball. Other than in 1997 when he won the MVP, he was always overshadowed by Barry Bonds, just like every other player but also the likes of McGwire, Bagwell, Pujols, Piazza, Sosa, Guerrero, and Helton, speaking just on National Leaguers. It's kind of weird--Walker is probably the second-best (behind Bonds) combo hitter of average + power of his era, but he probably was not among the top 5 guys in power alone or average alone, and that hurts his reputation.
  • Many folks are not convinced that even the adjusted numbers such as WAR and OPS+ properly account for Coors Field effects and think therefore that his numbers are still inflated. And while not park-corrected, his career splits are damning, with a 1.068 OPS at home and an .865 OPS on the road. That range of more than 200 points is enormous. FOr just his time in Montreal, the split was a  lot smaller (.864 OPS at home, .818 OPS on the road) than for the rest of his career (1.160 OPS at home and .892 OPS on the road.) It might help Walker, though, to know that during Dante Bichette's time with the Rockies (1993-1999), Bichette's home/road split is even bigger for OPS--1.038 vs .734. And in a raw sense, Walker's .892 road OPS blows Bichette's .734 road OPS out of the water.
  • His 10 most similar players includes some notable names--Ellis Burks, Moises Alou, Jim Edmonds...

Time to vote:


418 Responses to “POLL: Larry Walker and the Hall of Fame”

  1. Matt Y Says:

    His POLL results are pretty mixed as well.

  2. Mike Felber Says:

    A borderline player should only be given a legitimate credit. Hitting a milestone does not obviate that performance properly recorded will give him all the credit he deserves anyway, & era, team, line up, ball park, all make milestones very dubious, particularly in cases where we are using things that are often severely context dependent to decide HOF worthiness.

    It looks like 2/3 believe that Walker belongs in. I see him as clearly worthy, & some do not accept even reasonable park corrections. Many above have not credited his total game, just focusing upon offense.

  3. JeffW Says:

    Mike Felber,

    I think the reason why no one brings up his defense (and base running, to a lesser degree) is because they are already conceded. They are a given.

    The whole "Coors-effect" thing is the only thing anyone has against him (except maybe durability). I come off sounding like he's not a Hall of Famer in my posts, yet I said "yes" to the poll. His overall game is not in question.

    I simply took the moment to question how the data is crunched, and the degree to how much Coors did affect him.

  4. John Q Says:

    Matt,

    The list I put above with those 25 names all fall within the top 130 position players of all time and within the top 15 at their position. The top 19 fall ahead of the peak+career median which is better than 70 of the position players already in the HOF. And basically everybody thats close in WAR (peak+career) at their position is in the HOF.

    As far as Nettles is concerned there's more to him than just a .248 hitter. That's the problem with something like batting average. He did hit 390 hr in the big leagues, which was a fairly large number pre-steroid era. Also he was an excellent fielder who would have won 8-9 gold gloves if B. Robinson wasn't in the league.

  5. Sean Says:

    Conclusion: If you have to dig really deep to find reasons to put a player in the Hall of Fame, that player is most likely not Hall-worthy. I wonder how hard people are campaigning to put Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame, sense they are both clearly Hall of Famers who aren't being forgiven for making stupid mistakes. I understand that what Rose did was reprehensible, but he did it after his playing days were over and he's apologized for it. For years everyone was saying that if he would just apologize and admit his mistakes he will be allowed back in Baseball. He did that and, of course, true to form, he's not being forgiven by the self-righteous Baseball establisment. Same story goes for Joe Jackson, who was an uneducated simpleton and had no idea what he was doing when he accepted money for throwing the 1919 Series, even he batted .375.

  6. Johnny Twisto Says:

    "No idea what he was doing," the concept of money was beyond him...I hear Comiskey actually paid him in hot dogs and beer one season and Jackson didn't know the difference. Please.

  7. Johnny Twisto Says:

    Further, you don't know that Rose didn't bet when he was playing, and I'd actually be shocked if he didn't start until he retired. If you want to put him on the HOF ballot, fine, let the voters decide whether he deserves induction or not. There's absolutely no way he should ever be allowed to work in MLB again. He's a chronic gambler.

  8. Mike Felber Says:

    Some were clearly presenting his HOF credentials as being exclusively offensively based. And those of us "digging deeply" for evidence are arguing his case against detailed deniers-it does not mean the evidence sought is implausible or a reach. Just trying to make his case clear & rebut arguments presented.

    I think the general parameters of how much Coors helped him are known. Even absent a hangover effect, 8000 PA at his level of WAR should be adequate. Unless you find him doing it over more seasons that were less complete than they could have been is enough to deny him. I do not think it is.

  9. Matt Young Says:

    I mentioned Nettles OBP and OPS+ as well, both not stellar. He's short in my book like many of the others and I think most by a lot would agree.

    Mike,

    "A borderline player should only be given a legitimate credit". Sounds a little too lofty for my tastes. There's more ways than one to skin a chicken.

  10. Sean Says:

    ""No idea what he was doing," the concept of money was beyond him...I hear Comiskey actually paid him in hot dogs and beer one season and Jackson didn't know the difference. Please."

    He DIDN'T know what he was doing. Had he any inkling that he would be banned for life from Baseball for getting involved with Chick Gandil and his half-baked plan to get a large piece of the gambling pie that was already heavily prevalent in Baseball at the time, he would never had done it. Gambling and throwing games were a regular practice in Baseball up through the 1919 season, and everyone inside Baseball knew it. Hal Chase made a killing at doing just that. But suddenly because it finally reached the World Series, the Baseball owners and presidents decided it was time to clean up Baseball, and went on a crusade to make the eight White Sox players an example, and to show everyone that Baseball was not a corrupt sport. Jackson had an amazing career and was one of the greatest players to ever step on a Baseball field. He most likely never participated in gambling or any other illegal activity to that point. Someone waves $10,000 (a huge sum of money in those days) in his face and he gave in to the temptation, and paid for one foolish decision for the rest of his life. It all just doesn't seem justified in my opinion.

  11. Sean Says:

    "Further, you don't know that Rose didn't bet when he was playing, and I'd actually be shocked if he didn't start until he retired. If you want to put him on the HOF ballot, fine, let the voters decide whether he deserves induction or not. There's absolutely no way he should ever be allowed to work in MLB again. He's a chronic gambler."

    I don't think he gambled as a player. No one has ever come forward offering evidence or saying the he was seen gambling until he was a manager of the Reds. His life as a player was too obsessesed with being a good player and winning games. There's little chance he took the time to consort with gamblers at that time, at least not to bet on Baseball games or games he played in. He may have done some occassional gambling in the off-season, which is no crime. I agree he shouldn't be given a job in Baseball, but he should be at least allowed to be voted into the Hall of Fame, which isn't likely because the voters are too self-righteous.

  12. Matt Young Says:

    I agree Rose should be in the Hall, but I think you're giving Rose way too much of the benefit of the doubt Sean. To me, Rose is about as narcissistic as they come. They guy never really admitted to anything until recently, and even that was fairly hollow. I think it's a given he bet on baseball games at some point, it's still uncertain whether he bet on games he played in or managed in, but i think he bet on baseball games. As for self-righteous voters, Rose was about as self-righteous as they come.

  13. Josh Says:

    Sean says: "The borderline for catchers is, like you said, is about 45-50 WAR. The borderline for shortstop is about 50-55. The borderline for second base would be about 55-60. The borderline for thirdbase is around 60-65. The borderline for centerfield is about 65-70. The borderline for firstbase, leftfield, and rightfield is about 70-75. The borderline for pitchers is about 50-60."

    Sean, as others mentioned, WAR has a position adjustment built in that tries to to put players of all positions on an equal level. A 3B starts with something like a 1 win advantage per year over a 1B just because he plays 3B. This position adjustment is not arbitrary: it is based on equalizing the actual value that AAAA scrubs (or the bottom handful of players, depending on the system) tend to contribute at each position. The only really big issue I notice is with catchers, who have such short careers that their WARs wind up low compared to the other positions. Overall, it seems to me the WAR baseline should be pretty similar for all positions except catcher, or else you're double-penalizing. Take a look at the 1B/RF/LF with 70-75 WAR. They're really strong players, not borderliners -- Reggie Jackson, Mize, Ed Delahanty, and Waner.

  14. Mike Felber Says:

    Matt, I just do not see the justification for giving credit where it is already accounted for. And not only may the person be undeserving of an award, through no fault of their own-but those who were worthy & do not get an award are effectively penalized.

    I though rose admitted on betting on his team to win, as if that made it O.K. Rose was never a principled or mature guy, save for an excellent, though selfish, work ethic. Maybe he should be voted on, but he clearly came clean for the HOF he is desperate for the validation of, not principles.

  15. Matt Young Says:

    Sean,

    Yeah the WAR has adjustments built in for positions, but they are just that, adjustments. Catchers are obviously undervalued by WAR, as is probably SS to a degree. DH, 1B and corner outfielders are perhaps a bit overweighted. THey're better than what we use to have, but that doesn't mean the adjustments are 100% accurate. Just b/c you can have a good formula doesn't mean the results are 100% accurate --people forget that the statistics you get at the end are still based on a formula made by people --how things are weighted and to what degree is assigned by us. Computer models are also man-made too. Just b/c you have a statistic at the end doesn't mean there still isn't perception built in --yes, it's standardized, and you try to eliminate the perception as much as possible, but it's still in there to some small degree. How eras are weighed is dependent on the numbers we put into the formula --I agree they look pretty good. The formula or model is only as good as what we put into the formula. Yes, WAR does a really good job, but it is NOT gospel, never will be, nor should it be. I too hope it becomes the stat to look at, but the only stat to look at would be bad as well. I personally think context is important ,and for that, there's more than one way to skin a chicken.

  16. Matt Young Says:

    The problem I see with the WAR is with catchers they don't catch every day --most starting catchers catch b/w 120-140 games on average, So, basically a catcher loses 1/4 to 1/8 of the games each year. SS still largely play every game. I'd say it's the only position that has a certain amount of games not played built in. I believe the WAR tries to get at this, but it falls a bit short. You add up games missed and catcher will lose 2-4 years compared to other positions across a 16-18 years career. THat could amount to 4-10 WAR points across a career.

  17. Michael E Sullivan Says:

    I'm certainly open to the idea that the positional adjustment in WAR isn't perfect. It clearly seems to be amiss (at least as a HoF cutoff) for catchers. That said, the numbers you were quoting, seemed to put positions apart by just about what the positional adjustments do over a typical HoF length career of 15-20 years. That would be a *huge* difference from what the research leading to Rpos suggested, but could easily have been a misunderstanding where your intuition was roughly in line with the research but you just didn't realize those adjustments were built in.

    If you really think the adjustments are about 1/2 what they should be in general, it would be good to know what you're basing that judgement on, so I can check my own feeling that except for positions that tend to shorten a player's overall career (mostly catcher -- middle infield tends to move or DH when their defense fades), the numbers are pretty close to right.

  18. Sean Says:

    Michael, my positional adjustments for WAR are my own personal judgement, because I know how difficult is for players at certain positions to get into the Hall of Fame, especially Catcher, 3rd Base, and 2nd Base. I know that WAR already accounts for different positions, but to me there is something wrong in the voting when there are so many outfielders elected into the Hall compared to other positions. And I think catcher is probably even lower than what I stated, perhaps 40-45 being the borderline for catchers, because they have such short careers. A far as players moving to DH, that's only for players who played after 1973, and the DH really wasn't used in extending players careers until the 1980's. Also, if a player plays on a National League team, obviously he's not going to be moved to DH. Also, 1B, LF, and RF are often positions that players play that are poor fielders, expecially in the National League. An example of this is Manny Ramirez, who really shouldn't be playing in the field anymore, but since he's in left field the damage is minimized. It will be interesting to see if he moves to an American League team next year and DH's for another couple of seasons.