Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 



Isn't it time to retire Tim Salmon's number?


Recommended Posts

I saw an article today about how the Rockies are going to retire Todd Helton's number.  Helton just retired.  Salmon retired in 2006 and the Angels have yet to give him that honor.  Isn't it time?  No one else has worn the number since and I would hate to see anyone else wear it in the future.  I think a case could be made for Garret Anderson as well.  These two own just about every significant offensive record for the Halos and these two players have had a bigger impact on the franchise than some of the numbers up on the wall in right field... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salmon's number definitely should've been retired.

It's hard to retire a lot of numbers though since you're basically starting to eliminate jersey numbers for players.

What if the team tailor (or whatever you call him/her) created the number accidentally and the player wore it? Fireable offense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list isn't long as to who's number the Angels retired.  





I was surprised with Fergosi.  Carew and Ryan are HOF'ers.  Autry is an obvious other choice.  Reese I guess sentimental.  


For Salmon, I'd personally wait.  Because I don't think he's done with his career with the Angels yet.  He could be a coach or in the broadcast booth.  If it's in the booth, then you could retire his number.  But if his path takes him towards the field, then they should hold off till his legacy is completely over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salmon is arguably the greatest Angel of all time - currently.


.282/.385/.498 (.884 OPS, 128 OPS+), .216 ISO, 130 wRC+, 13.8% BB rate, 19.3% K rate


1674 hits, 339 doubles, 299 HRs, 1016 RBIs, 986 runs scored, 970 BBs


His counting stats suffered because of his durability, but his productivity and slash line were incredible.


Big part of the reason why they won the World Series in 2002.


And the numbers are even more impressive when you consider that he played in the Steroid Era, and by all accounts he was clean.


He's the type of hitter organizations drool over now.

Edited by Llewyn Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you compare him to GA.


No way. All due respect to Garret Anderson, who was a good player, but unlike Salmon he was far from a complete hitter.


His career numbers with the Angels in 2013 games:


.296/.327/.469 (.796 OPS, 105 OPS+), 173 ISO, 4.7% BB rate, 13.2% K rate, 100 career wRC+


489 doubles, 272 HRs, 1292 RBIs, 1024 runs scored, 397 BBs


Salmon's wRC+ was 30 points higher than Anderson's. his OBP was 58 points higher, his slugging was 29 points higher, his OPS was 88 points higher, his ISO was 43 points higher, and his OPS+ was 23 points higher.


Anderson has him in counting stats, but he also played in 341 mores games with the Angels than Salmon. Give Salmon 341 more games, and his counting stats would dwarf Anderson's.


Longevity and durability are important. Anderson had that, but Salmon was a much better hitter overall.


Salmon is to Tim Raines as Anderson is to Lou Brock. Most people believe Brock was better than Raines. Most people are wrong.

Edited by Llewyn Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...