The Hall of Fame Case: Garret Anderson

[Taylor]

http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2016/01/04/160896610/?partnerId=as_mlb_20160105_56949806&adbid=684358809159008256&adbpl=tw&adbpr=241544156

 

When did Lyle Spencer change his name to Mike Bertha?

[Ohtaniland]

Case closed

[Kevin]

He became HOF worthy when he refused to acknowledge some weirdo 30 year old fan boy at the golf shop.

[Docwaukee]

He can key a car with the best of em. 

[Puget Sound Angel]

For the Angels HOF, sure.

[NrM]

GA was as average as it gets. He played a long time and was consistent though.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Poozy

[Stradling]

Poozy, how old are you?

[NrM]

Poozy, how old are you?

 

15.. I started following the angels in 2009..

[Ohtaniland]

Why is my age being questioned.

Halt right there.....you are being questioned by the @ngelswin Police Department. Sergeant Stradling asked you a question. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say here will be taken seriously and used against you.

[Guest]

15.. I started following the angels in 2009..

You joke, but I'm sure a few familiar faces here are actually 15.

Edited January 6, 2016 by failos

[Docwaukee]

It is interesting that watching Garret play all those years and in particular seeing him during his peak, I was left with the impression that he was well above average. 

 

Garret was a professed 'run producer'.  Supposedly sacrificing himself to drive in runs.  

 

here is an article that makes reference to his RBI prowess.  http://www.hardballtimes.com/confessions-of-an-rbi-fanatic/

 

It's an interesting question to ask about Garrett.  Was his low k, low bb approach purposeful to the point that he could have changed it if he wanted to and been a guy who drew 50-60 bbs per year thereby making him more 'valuable' from a statistical perspective?  

 

Of course we'll never know that for sure.  

 

Garret is pretty far from being a hall of famer but he had a nice long career and was fun to watch.  

 

BTW, putting up a league average ops+ for a 17 year career does not make Garrett Anderson an average player.   How long a player plays means something.  

[Angelsjunky]

Yes, I agree Doc. He is an above average player - but not a great one. Warts aside, WAR is probably the best overall stat that we have and it quite clearly says that 1) Garret, with 24 fWAR, had a pretty good career, and 2) He didn't have a Hall of Fame career, or anything remotely close. In fact, as I said up-thread, he is one of the worst outfielders in the history of the game with such a long career...that isn't an indictment, as playing 9000+ PA is impressive in its own right and means that you're pretty good in the first place. But it does put him in context.

 

Here's a list of relatively recent players with 8000+ PA and 20-28 WAR (+/- 4 WAR of Garret):

 

 

27.6 Willie McGee

27.4 Carlos Lee

26.4 Marquis Grissom

25.3 Adam Dunn

24.6 Orlando Cabrera

24.0 Garret Anderson

23.9 Juan Pierre

23.8 Michael Young

23.2 Paul Konerko

21.9 Todd Zeile

 

That isn't an exhaustive list, but includes players that people probably remember and gives a sense of who had a similar career in terms of overall value. These are players that weren't really stars, but were generally above average players who played a long time and contributed to their ball-clubs.

 

I was surprised to see Konerko so low, but his WAR count was greatly lowered by his poor defense.

[ten ocho recon scout]

There's one of these for Eckstein too, everyone on the ballot this year, so don't read too much into it. Clearly he's not a hall of famer, but he was still a very good hitter for a long time.

GA will never really get his due. He was a lot better than a lot of people like to gove him credit for. That said, those who give him credit probably overrate him

Not at all a hall of famer, but he was definitely a star player for a solid 4 year or so run. At minimum i think he and salmon should be in the discussion for having their numbers retired by the angels. Soto has pointed out how poor of a history we have, and i agree, but its exactly for that reason. In terms of angels history, those two are at the top of the hill.

[Angel Oracle]

I was the most surprised to see O.C. have a higher career WAR than GA.

[stormngt]

GA was as average as it gets. He played a long time and was consistent though.

People have a misunderstanding on what the word "average means".  GA was a good player not average.  He is a great Angel but not great in terms of MLB history or HOF. 

[Erstad Grit]

From 1996-2003 GA had a legitimate trajectory of the HOF if he continued his consistency for another 5 years. Like many injuries and age didn't allow him to do it. Calling him average is a bunch of $hit. 

[Stradling]

At one point Garret and Jeter were very close in career hits. With health GA would certainly have been a HOFer with 3,000 hits.

[Angelsjunky]

I disagree, Erstad Grit. From 1995 to 2003 Garret compiled 22.8 fWAR, good for 61st in the majors during that span. Among the 41 players who compiled at least 5000 PA during that span, he was 29th in fWAR. That's not bad but it isn't a Hall of Fame trajectory. He hit .299/.328/.480 during those years, which sounds good today, but was only good for a 104 wRC+ - which is slightly above average (100 being average).

 

Anyhow, the point being that when you look beyond memory and surface stats (and perhaps homerism), Garret had a good career but in most years was average or above average, with only two seasons that could be called very good (2002 and 2003).

[Angelsjunky]

At one point Garret and Jeter were very close in career hits. With health GA would certainly have been a HOFer with 3,000 hits.

 

A couple things. One, there are quite a few players in baseball history that if they were healthier or played longer or a bit lucker would have passed this or that milestone. Secondly, if Garret did reach 3,000 hits not only would his percentile stats have been worse than they were, but he probably would have made a good case for the first 3K hitter who didn't get voted in.

[Docwaukee]

At one point Garret and Jeter were very close in career hits. With health GA would certainly have been a HOFer with 3,000 hits.

after the 2003 all star game, he was a instantly a different player for the rest of his career.  

[Erstad Grit]

I disagree, Erstad Grit. From 1995 to 2003 Garret compiled 22.8 fWAR, good for 61st in the majors during that span. Among the 41 players who compiled at least 5000 PA during that span, he was 29th in fWAR. That's not bad but it isn't a Hall of Fame trajectory. He hit .299/.328/.480 during those years, which sounds good today, but was only good for a 104 wRC+ - which is slightly above average (100 being average).

 

Anyhow, the point being that when you look beyond memory and surface stats (and perhaps homerism), Garret had a good career but in most years was average or above average, with only two seasons that could be called very good (2002 and 2003).

 

I'll admit my assumption was 3000 hits = HOF. 

[NrM]

I disagree, Erstad Grit. From 1995 to 2003 Garret compiled 22.8 fWAR, good for 61st in the majors during that span. Among the 41 players who compiled at least 5000 PA during that span, he was 29th in fWAR. That's not bad but it isn't a Hall of Fame trajectory. He hit .299/.328/.480 during those years, which sounds good today, but was only good for a 104 wRC+ - which is slightly above average (100 being average).

 

Anyhow, the point being that when you look beyond memory and surface stats (and perhaps homerism), Garret had a good career but in most years was average or above average, with only two seasons that could be called very good (2002 and 2003).

 

how old are you?

[Angelsjunky]

how old are you?

 

14, so a year younger than you.

[NrM]

14, so a year younger than you.

 

lol get off this forum child..aint it your bedtime yet?