Right now Helton has the same number of hits and 140 fewer HR.

Uhh... Helton has 325 HR. Apart from that, though, I agree entirely.

Walker won an MVP. Helton has never finished higher than 5th in the voting.

Walker never placed higher than 5th in any other voting, besides having some great years. Both of them played on bad teams, where neither had a realistic shot of winning. IIRC, Walker's MVP from the BBWAA had to do with a weak field, at least among the playoff teams. Going to look at the top MVP voters that year, appears the '97 Astros did win the division, and Bagwell had a great year, so that shoots a big hole in my theory.

I could be wrong, and I don't care enough either way to argue. I doubt either of them has a realistic shot at making it, esp when the back-logging starts.

Right now Helton has the same number of hits and 140 fewer HR.

Helton only has 58 fewer homers than Walker, not 140. 383 to 325

Whoops. I read that as 225.

Helton was perceived to have the higher peak, because of his chase at .400.

I doubt it. It's not like he just missed it. He finished at .372. Walker once batted .379.

Could helton hang aorund long enough to get 3000 hits? The writers love that sh*t.

He has 2134 and is 35. IT would take him another ~6 years (6 * 145H per season), which I guess is possible.

He has 2134 and is 35. IT would take him another ~6 years (6 * 145H per season), which I guess is possible.

Imagine he signs with some AL team to DH. He could reasonably play quite awhile and collect his 3000 hits.

I doubt it. It's not like he just missed it. He finished at .372. Walker once batted .379.

Yeah you're right, but I"m talking about perception.

On August 30th he was hitting .395, but he had a terrible September (.274) to fall way off the cliff. People were talking about his chase for .400 for a while.

Walker's average in 99 fluctuated from .355-.380 for most of the summer. He was ONLY hitting .357 on August 20th. There was never any suspense or excitement about Walker chasing .400.

Going to look at the top MVP voters that year, appears the '97 Astros did win the division, and Bagwell had a great year, so that shoots a big hole in my theory.

Biggio had an even better one, not that there was ever a chance of the writers noticing. Also, the Dodgers finished 4 games out of the playoffs, and Piazza hit .362/40/124, which is respectable for a catcher. And then of course there was that Bonds guy having his usual boring .291/.446/.585, 40 HR, 37 SB...

All that being said, I have no idea how Walker's MVP is perceived by the voters.

Helton has, right now, a higher career batting average than Wade Boggs or Rod Carew. We may not take that all that seriously, but a lot of writers will. He'll probably slip a bit before retiring, but if he sticks around long enough to drop below any post-war players other than those two, he'll almost certainly amass some really nice counting numbers.

All that being said, I have no idea how Walker's MVP is perceived by the voters.

Yeah I dont' either. I thought I did when I started writing, but that was based on faulty Memory of my younger days. Once I researched it, I realized my assumptions were way off.

Also, the Dodgers finished 4 games out of the playoffs, and Piazza hit .362/40/124, which is respectable for a catcher.

My own MVP vote (and I wrote it up for some friends at the time) would have been Piazza - along with the claim that if Piazza had played his home games in Coors Field, he would have batted well over .400 and possibly hit 60 HR.

Helton has, right now, a higher career batting average than Wade Boggs or Rod Carew. We may not take that all that seriously, but a lot of writers will. He'll probably slip a bit before retiring, but if he sticks around long enough to drop below any post-war players other than those two, he'll almost certainly amass some really nice counting numbers.

I agree. Helton has a perfectly reasonable (say 33%) chance of making the Hall someday. That's why the Rockies are #6 on my list (not 4 as I mistyped originally). They probably have the best chance of any team that's not at least a near slam dunk. Certainly no one would argue that he has a better chance than Pedro, Unit, Jeter, Biggio, Pudge...

And should he fail, the Rockies have a couple of insurance policies. I think they will eventually get one, which is more than I can say for the top (bottom?) 5.

My own MVP vote (and I wrote it up for some friends at the time) would have been Piazza - along with the claim that if Piazza had played his home games in Coors Field, he would have batted well over .400 and possibly hit 60 HR.

Now that the humidor is in, and Coors is a normal good hitters' park, we've lost the chance to see a true great hitter go there and win a Triple Crown. Could you imagine the numbers someone like Piazza or Manny Ramirez would have put up there?

Now that the humidor is in, and Coors is a normal good hitters' park

Mmm, not really. The humidor has had an extremely significant impact, but Coors remains an historically great hitters' park, still far and away the best in the majors every year. It's still far from a "normal good hitters' park."

Yeah but you used to be able to put someone like Johnny Gomes on the Rox and bank on 100 RBIs.

Mmm, not really. The humidor has had an extremely significant impact, but Coors remains an historically great hitters' park, still far and away the best in the majors every year. It's still far from a "normal good hitters' park."

I think if you had dropped Manny or Piazza or Vlad Guerrero in the old Coors for a decade, you'd have expected about 2 Triple Crowns. I don't think you could say that about anyone playing there now, even Pujols and Cabrera.

Of the WS participants since 1981 without a current HOF, my top 10 of teams from least likely (1) to most likely (10) of eventually getting one:

I did something similar to this before the '08 Series, which featured no obvious Hall of Famers at the time it was played. I checked to see if any other Series matchups had the same lack of a player about whom you could clearly say "This guy will be in someday." (Obviously, I worked under the assumption that an observer in 1907 anticipated the existence of a Hall of Fame.) Here are the years I came up with:

1905
1916
1918
1944
1967
1988
1997
2008

Not sure I'd agree with all of the calls I made at the time, but there it is.

1905
1916
1918
1944
1967
1988
1997
2008

The 1988 Series had Rickey Henderson for the A's and Don Sutton for the Dodgers. That was Sutton's last year, so he had already won 324 games. I think there was little doubt that both would eventually go in.

The 1967 Cardinals ended up with a bunch, but you're right that the best bet at the time was probably Cepeda. The 1967 Red Sox ended up with only Yastrzemski. I think you'd put Yaz in 1967 where you'd put Miguel Cabrera now, if Cabrera didn't have conditioning and drinking problems. It was pretty obvious that only a catastrophic drop in performance would stop Yaz.

I think if you had dropped Manny or Piazza or Vlad Guerrero in the old Coors for a decade, you'd have expected about 2 Triple Crowns. I don't think you could say that about anyone playing there now, even Pujols and Cabrera.

Perhaps not, but they sure might. The place is still delivering a bb-ref Park Factor of 109 or so every year; that's a terrific hitters' park, the best in the majors. Put it this way: they'd have a far better chance of it playing at Coors than anyplace else.

The 1988 Series had Rickey Henderson for the A's

No it didn't - they re-traded for him in mid '89. Sutton is a good point, though.

It was pretty obvious that only a catastrophic drop in performance would stop Yaz.

Through '67, Yaz had only two seasons of 5 WAR or more. It wasn't entirely clear at the time whether he'd maintain his performance increase of that year or not; if he didn't, he could conceivably have been Norm Cash. If we were looking at the end of 1970, I'd count him. Maybe even at the end of '68. But '67 doesn't wrap it up for him by itself.

The 1988 Series had Rickey Henderson for the A's

No it didn't - they re-traded for him in mid '89. Sutton is a good point, though.

My faulty memory.

Through '67, Yaz had only two seasons of 5 WAR or more. It wasn't entirely clear at the time whether he'd maintain his performance increase of that year or not; if he didn't, he could conceivably have been Norm Cash. If we were looking at the end of 1970, I'd count him. Maybe even at the end of '68. But '67 doesn't wrap it up for him by itself.

OK. But whether this is relevant on its own or not, no live ball era triple crown winner has failed to make the Hall.

But whether this is relevant on its own or not, no live ball era triple crown winner has failed to make the Hall.

I was actually going to write this, but to be fair, looking it up, Joe Medwick didn't actually make the Hall of Fame until 1968.

Let's see... years I could have picked and didn't, and why. Be warned, some of these are likely stupid:

1906: George Davis
1907-08: Sam Crawford
1910: Three-Finger Brown
1921-23: Babe Ruth (When, exactly, did Ruth become a Future Hall of Famer (TM)?)
1933: Goose Goslin (Possibly also Bill Terry)
1946: Ted Williams (See Ruth)
1972: Pete Rose (oh, the irony)
1973: Tom Seaver
1974: Reggie Jackson
1982: Rollie Fingers
1984: Goose Gossage
1991: Kirby Puckett
2006: Albert Pujols (See Williams, Ruth)

The 1967 Cardinals ended up with a bunch, but you're right that the best bet at the time was probably Cepeda.

Two points:

1. Bob Gibson already had an outsized reputation and was greatly respected. True, he hadn't objectively accomplished as much by then as he would afterwards (with a great leap forward for the next season), and he wasn't young. But even without the great leap forward, it's not that hard to imagine a Drysdale-ish marginal HoF case for him.

2. Remember that Roger Maris peaked at over 40% in the BBWAA vote. The sentiments and conditions to produce that were already in place; '67 was the tail end of his career.

And Brock was already famous, of course, especially for what he'd done in '64. But it would have been a long-odds bet that he'd have as long and steady a career as he did. And Carlton was a highly visible young talent who hadn't really done much yet. Betting on him would be like betting on someone like Clayton Kershaw now, or maybe Rick Ankiel in 2000.

Yeah but you used to be able to put someone like Johnny Gomes on the Rox and bank on 100 RBIs.

Dante Bichette? Vinny Castilla?

For that matter, when did Musial become a Future Hall of Famer? Or Johnny Bench?

OCF - all true. An observer at the time almost certainly would have said that there was at least one future HOFer on that Cardinals team. I'm just not sure there would have been a consensus as to who he was.

It strikes me as reasonable to bestow the future HOFer tag after 5 years of HOF level performance, particularly when they take place in consecutive years or with one skipped year for a player under 30. Of course, a lot of us were talking about David Wright as a future HOFer after 2008. He seemed a lock to put up similar or better performance for the first ten years of his career, which would have cinched it, IMO, even with a Dale Murphy like swandive. Now, who knows.

As for Helton's chances, his OPS at Coors is 1100. Away, it's a very earthly 885. Even adjusting his stats for a 144 game slate of away stats with 18 more at Coors (which I'll guess multiplies his away OPS+ by no more than 1.04), he's far from a lock even with a normal decline. How the writers will see it is anyone's guess, but I suspect in the absence of Helton playing productively until he's 40 the difference between his home and away numbers will mark him as a Coors creature and he won't be able to overcome that.

His BA at home is .361. Away it's .294. I'm almost certain he'll be punished by the writers for that.

His BA at home is .361. Away it's .294. I'm almost certain he'll be punished by the writers for that.

Sure, but no retired player except Edgar Martinez with a batting average above .311 in 1600 games has failed to make the Hall of Fame (and no, I'm not forgetting about Shoeless Joe Jackson, since he didn't play 1500 games). Bing Miller is the first guy who fails as you move down in batting average. There are a couple guys like Babe Herman and Jack Fournier who have games totals in the 1500s. Martinez was a .312 hitter, and still has some kind of a chance.

Below that level, but down to .300, most of the players are still in, but some of the guys with shorter careers, and little else going for them, have failed to make it. I think most people realize that almost all batters hit better at home than on the road, even if it's not 60 points better. The Rockies might have to do some supporting work - e.g. Wade Boggs hit .354 at home, .302 on the road. At age 35, Helton hit .325 last year with the humidor in place at Coors.

Maybe I'm wrong, and he'll face an uphill battle, but I think the batting average is so high that, barring a sea change in voting habits, Helton will skate in.