Originally posted by chancellor
View Post
But the idea that he didn't put up huge numbers until he was age 30, on the whole, is a little misleading. True, his age 30 year, 1997, was massive: .472/.720/1.172. Or, .366 average, 143 runs, 49 home runs, 130 ribbies, and 33 steals. I actually think the traditional stats make his year look more impressive.
But if you take that year as a centerpiece, and look at the five years on either side of it, here is the picture that emerges:
In the five years prior to Larry Walker's massive "age thirty" year of 1997, his totals were: 118 home runs, 424 ribbies, 400 runs and 96 steals.
In the five years following Larry Walker's massive "age thirty" year of 1997, his totals were: 133 home runs, 460 ribbies, 487 runs, and 60 steals.
Remarkably, the first three years of his "pre-30" period was with the Expos and their explosive offense.
Does this really show anything? I don't know, but it may indicate that Walker's 30s weren't huge statistical abnormalities indicating external factors such as steroids or extreme park factors. He was an unusual player who could do some amazing things in the field and at the plate.
Comment