Please. In the strike shortened year of 96 Larry Walker was on fire and was close to 400 and a little over for early part of the season. He was having an amazing season then it just ended.
Walker's OPS+ isn't anywhere near comparable to Williams. Look at where Walker played. Compare his home and away numbers.
Walker was a great player in his generation. But he, more than most, benefitted greatly from the Coors field effect.
Let's put it into context: Walker's best adjusted OPS was 178. He never did better. Teddy Ballgame has an adjusted OPS over 200 an amazing 9 times in his career. In fact, Walker has had only two seasons that were BETTER than Williams' WORST season, when looking at adjusted OPS.
What is adjusted OPS? Here's an easy way to think about it. If you see an OPS+ of 180, it tells you that the player is likely to produce 80% more runs than the average player in the league (runs being the most important thing in baseball). So, an adjusted OPS of 200 means you'll produce 100% more runs than the average guy in a uniform.
Walker, in his best season, produced 78% more runs than the average guy. In his best year, Williams produced 135% more runs (the year he hit .400). So, if Walker were truly sniffing .400, how could his adjusted OPS have been so off-the-mark from Williams? The reason...he was never really in contention. He wasn't hitting well enough on the road to really be a .400 factor. He was a Coors field anomaly.
So Walker was never anywhere near as good, for as long, as Williams. So Walker, statistically speaking, never had a legit shot at .400. He sniffed it hitting .370, but that's with Coors field.
Walker, however, was a far better fielder than Williams could have ever hoped to be. Walker had a friggin cannon.