Garrett Anderson

[Etheridge2]

Is one of my favorite players but will he ever be Cooperstown worthy??? I would say he is close to a Palmiero in terms of what Palmiero was 8 years ago and he may yet develop more power.

If he plays 8 more years until heb is 38-39 he will be on or passed 3000 hits and have 3-400 HR at least. Could he be inducted some day???

[Brad Harris]

Eight years ago, Rafael Palmeiro had the following career numbers:

1,455 hits
296 doubles
194 home runs
706 runs batted in
758 runs scored
494 bases on balls
.300 batting average
.365 on base average
.491 slugging average
869 runs created
6.50 runs created per game
John Olerud was the most similar hitter
2 time all-star
1 time top ten MVP voting

These are Garret Anderson's career totals (thru 2002):

1,432 hits
300 doubles
164 home runs
756 runs batted in
623 runs scored
220 bases on balls
.297 batting average
.326 on base percentage
.471 slugging percentage
693 runs created
5.19 runs created per game
Brian Jordan is the most similar hitter
1 time all-star
1 time top ten MVP voting

While Anderson's numbers have a superficial resemblance to Palmeiro's numbers eight years ago, they are inferior. Perhaps not by much in most instances, but to a measurable extent, nonetheless.

Palmeiro's early career (1986-95) came before the high-offense era we're witnessing now whereas practically all of Anderson's career (1994-2002) has taken place in the midst of it.

For example, Palmeiro's .300 average from 1986-95 was 15% better than league average (and the 18th best mark for any player with 2,500 at bats during that period.)

Anderson's .297 average from 1994-2002 was only 10% better than the league average (and only the 46th best mark for any player with 2,500 at bats during that period.)

There's a big difference between being the 18th best hitter and being the 46th best hitter in the game.

Similar comparisons of their ability to reach base (OBP) and drive in runners (SLG) will yield even greater differences between the two.

So while Anderson's performance thru age 30 wasn't as valuable as Palmeiro's was thru the same age, their career totals are somewhat similar (which, I suppose is the point).

Palmeiro's Hall of Fame credentials, however, weren't based on an incredible early career, but on his amazing longevity. The fact that Palmeiro was among the league leaders for a while isn't particularly outstanding, rather it's the fact he's been among the league leaders his entire career which has earned him eventual induction.

In order for Garret Anderson to be a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame, he'd have to maintain his current pace for another decade, essentially. Truthfully, however, I don't think that'd be enough, considering the context in which Anderson's accomplishments are taking place.

For Anderson's career to have a similar value thru age 38 that Palmeiro's does, Anderson will actually have to raise his game to a higher level in addition to doing it over an extended (and health-filled) period of years.

Just maintaining the pace he's on, he'll fall short.

And how many players actually raise the level of their game after age 30? Practically none. (Of course, learning to take a walk would improve that a lot for Anderson.)

Perhaps Anderson's best bet, from a practical standpoint, would be his 1,432 hits thru age 30. That puts him on pretty good footing to reach 3,000, doesn't it? After all, if he can double that by the age of 40 and hang around for one or two more years, he's got a shot, right?

Well, maybe.

There are 144 other guys who had at least as many hits by that age. Only 24 of them - less than 17% - were able to get the other 1,568 before they retired.

Without those other 1,568 hits, I don't think Anderson has any more than a shot in the dark. And both his age and the odds are against him accomplishing that before his career is over.

One surprising piece of trivia is that both Palmeiro and Anderson had the same number of career steals - 60 - thru age 30. There's this picture I have of a speedy guy running the bases and playing the field that I associate with Anderson; a mental image that definately is not associated with Palmeiro. Yet Anderson, thru age 30, had exactly the same number of steals. Perhaps I need to see a few more Angels games and correct my mental imagery.

[insanefishpossay]

I'd say right now he's not a Hall of Famer. But he has a lot of time left in him, I think we'll have to wait and see what he can do in the next 8 or 9 years.

[Etheridge2]

I would disagree and say many players especially power hitters hit their prime in their early to mid 30's look at sosa, McGwire, Aaron...

Anderson should get better with age olus his first couple of years were nothing special and he is a hit machine..I am not saying he is at all cooperstown worthy but he is a guy a lot like Raffy who don't think of when you think of Cooperstown but when all is said and done he may well have a plaque..

It'll be interesting to see how players of this era are judged but Cooperstown


I mean guys like
Vlad Guerrero
Brian Giles
Nomar and Jeter
Giambi, Thome, Delgado, and Helton
Manny Ramirez Juan Gonzalez and Larry Walker


What if guys like Richie Sexson and Ryan Klesko get to 500 HR???
Will they make the hall???

It's going to be an interesting topic for years to come..

A guy like Garrett Anderson is to me a guy who probably would have been successful in earlier era's he isn't just a power guy but a pure hitter (and yeah he is slower then most people think) he also has a good glove (not great but good) and is a smart ballplayer (he makes the right throws, runs the bases well allbeit slow, knows when to take a pitch and when he must swing)

He is a long way from Cooperstown but he is on the right path to get there

[abolishthedh]

The fact that Anderson hasn't learned to walk much is the complicating factor. That isn't unusual for a player in his 20s. Players learn to walk more as they age, but the tendency to walk happens more like this: a strength becomes more of a strength, whereas a weakness seldom becomes a strength. It would be very unusual for Anderson to go from 23 walks per 500 AB (lower than I expected, actually) up to 100 walks per 500 ABs, as Palmeiro has done the past 3 years. On the other hand, Palmeiro has gone from about 60 walks per 500 to more than 100 each of the past three years.

The two players have similar swings, but they are completely different hitters. What is interesting about Anderson is that he has never struck out much. This helps his consistency, and because of his consistency he has a shot at 3000 hits.

[Shoeless]

Hey Ab...I don't know the current park factor values, but would that sway you a little? Palmeiro's been lucky in that regard.

[Cougar]

Chancellor has this one nailed. Anderson has got to be both lucky and maintain a high level of performance or improve a little to have a shot. He's not really a speed or a power guy, and he's just an ordinary fielder, so he's really got to do it all with hits. And that's really hard.

He'll be a multiple all-star, and he'll may be the best LF the Angels have ever had when he's done, but the HOF is a serious longshot.

[NOMAR22]

Eight years ago, Rafael Palmeiro had the following career numbers:

1,455 hits
296 doubles
194 home runs
706 runs batted in
758 runs scored
494 bases on balls
.300 batting average
.365 on base average
.491 slugging average
869 runs created
6.50 runs created per game
John Olerud was the most similar hitter
2 time all-star
1 time top ten MVP voting

These are Garret Anderson's career totals (thru 2002):

1,432 hits
300 doubles
164 home runs
756 runs batted in
623 runs scored
220 bases on balls
.297 batting average
.326 on base percentage
.471 slugging percentage
693 runs created
5.19 runs created per game
Brian Jordan is the most similar hitter
1 time all-star
1 time top ten MVP voting

While Anderson's numbers have a superficial resemblance to Palmeiro's numbers eight years ago, they are inferior. Perhaps not by much in most instances, but to a measurable extent, nonetheless.

Palmeiro's early career (1986-95) came before the high-offense era we're witnessing now whereas practically all of Anderson's career (1994-2002) has taken place in the midst of it.

For example, Palmeiro's .300 average from 1986-95 was 15% better than league average (and the 18th best mark for any player with 2,500 at bats during that period.)

Anderson's .297 average from 1994-2002 was only 10% better than the league average (and only the 46th best mark for any player with 2,500 at bats during that period.)

There's a big difference between being the 18th best hitter and being the 46th best hitter in the game.

Similar comparisons of their ability to reach base (OBP) and drive in runners (SLG) will yield even greater differences between the two.

So while Anderson's performance thru age 30 wasn't as valuable as Palmeiro's was thru the same age, their career totals are somewhat similar (which, I suppose is the point).

Palmeiro's Hall of Fame credentials, however, weren't based on an incredible early career, but on his amazing longevity. The fact that Palmeiro was among the league leaders for a while isn't particularly outstanding, rather it's the fact he's been among the league leaders his entire career which has earned him eventual induction.

In order for Garret Anderson to be a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame, he'd have to maintain his current pace for another decade, essentially. Truthfully, however, I don't think that'd be enough, considering the context in which Anderson's accomplishments are taking place.

For Anderson's career to have a similar value thru age 38 that Palmeiro's does, Anderson will actually have to raise his game to a higher level in addition to doing it over an extended (and health-filled) period of years.

Just maintaining the pace he's on, he'll fall short.

And how many players actually raise the level of their game after age 30? Practically none. (Of course, learning to take a walk would improve that a lot for Anderson.)

Perhaps Anderson's best bet, from a practical standpoint, would be his 1,432 hits thru age 30. That puts him on pretty good footing to reach 3,000, doesn't it? After all, if he can double that by the age of 40 and hang around for one or two more years, he's got a shot, right?

Well, maybe.

There are 144 other guys who had at least as many hits by that age. Only 24 of them - less than 17% - were able to get the other 1,568 before they retired.

Without those other 1,568 hits, I don't think Anderson has any more than a shot in the dark. And both his age and the odds are against him accomplishing that before his career is over.

One surprising piece of trivia is that both Palmeiro and Anderson had the same number of career steals - 60 - thru age 30. There's this picture I have of a speedy guy running the bases and playing the field that I associate with Anderson; a mental image that definately is not associated with Palmeiro. Yet Anderson, thru age 30, had exactly the same number of steals. Perhaps I need to see a few more Angels games and correct my mental imagery.

NEWS UPDATE: Rafael Palmiero was on steroids.

[digglahhh]

Isn't Anderson breaking down already?

[Cougar]

Sadly, yes. Which proves the point Chancellor and I both made -- projecting a guy to get 1500 hits in his 30's is a serious long shot.

[csh19792001]

Isn't Anderson breaking down already?

Out machines/hackers like Anderson also don't age well as a breed, irrespective of their personal aging pattern. Anderson was regularly making 450+ outs per year, and his OBP dropped to an atrocious .308 last year. He made the most outs in in the bigs over several diff 5 year spans.

303 career walks in 6849 PA? I'm far on the other end of the spectrum from the "walks are everything/OBP monger" crowd, but Anderson isn't putting up outstanding slugging numbers, and his K/BB ration is an atrocious 3:1,so he's certainly hurting his team overall.

[538280]

I have no personal grudge against Anderson (he seems like a good guy), but he's a player that's always been annoying to me. It seems every time he's playing a studio analyst or announcer always make a point to say how underappreciated and underrated he is. In reality, he's horrifically overrated.

Except for 2002 and 2003, which were pretty good years, I don't see this guy as anything but an average player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anderson will get into the HOF if he can stay in the game long enough to attain the 3,000 hit plateau. If he does that, he's in. If he doesn't, he's probably out.

It would help if Anderson had a .300 plus lifetime BA, but he's a bit short, and he's not likely to move in that direction.

Anderson turns 34 at the end of this month and will have 2,000 hits by then. He'll probably have 2,100 at the end of the season. He's really a longshot for 3,000 hits; I'd give him a 10% chance, but that could go up exponentially if he has the season he's on a path to, and follows it with a super season next year. Of course, if he goes out with a leg injury and misses most of the rest of this season, his chances of 3K go down to almost zero.

[RuthMayBond]

I'd say right now he's not a Hall of Famer. But he has a lot of time left in him, I think we'll have to wait and see what he can do in the next 8 or 9 years.You think he'll be playing until he's 42 or 43

[Fuzzy Bear]

You think he'll be playing until he's 42 or 43

I think Anderson will play until he's 40. He'd have to average 150 hits per season from next year on out to get his 3K. That's a lot of hits as you get older.

One thing helping Anderson is that he's holding down the CF slot. As long as he does that, he'll stay in the lineup more. If he were a career CF, his stats would be much more impressive.

[KCGHOST]

I don't think he has much of a shot unless he can somehow muster the 1000+ hits he needs to make 3000. He's been a fine player but not that fine.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think he has much of a shot unless he can somehow muster the 1000+ hits he needs to make 3000. He's been a fine player but not that fine.

In 1992, Bill James wrote an essay stating that Steve Sax had a 42% chance at getting 3,000 hits. He stated that this was an astonishing claim, because 3,000 hits would have put Sax in the HOF, but no one thought Sax to be a player of historical magintude. He also uttered what I consider a truism: "No one gets to 3,000 hits unless he is a great player."

Sax promptly fell apart; 1991 was his last productive year. He played regularly in 1992 and stunk, was a part timer in 1993 and cut in mid-1994.

If Anderson is NOT a great player, he'll go in the tank soon. If he hangs on to 3,000 hits, however, there needs to be a reassessment of his talent. That's not easy to do, and getting there requires retention of talent, a sign of a great player.

[ElHalo]

Sadly, yes. Which proves the point Chancellor and I both made -- projecting a guy to get 1500 hits in his 30's is a serious long shot.
Through age 30, Derek Jeter had 1734 hits. I don't think it's entirely impossible that he'll finish his career with over 3200. I don't necessarily think it's even all that unlikely.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Through age 30, Derek Jeter had 1734 hits. I don't think it's entirely impossible that he'll finish his career with over 3200. I don't necessarily think it's even all that unlikely.

Jeter is an All-Star, Gold Glove shortstop who hits with good power for a shortstop. He's a multiple all-star who's been, arguably, the best player on several pennant winners. Jeter doesn't need 3,000 hits to get into the HOF. Anderson does.

[ElHalo]

You think he'll be playing until he's 42 or 43
Check the date on that post. At the time it was made, Anderson was exactly 30 years old.

[DoubleX]

Through age 30, Derek Jeter had 1734 hits. I don't think it's entirely impossible that he'll finish his career with over 3200. I don't necessarily think it's even all that unlikely.

Jeter is about to turn 32 (next Monday) and has 2024 hits. Let's say he plays until he's 40 - 8.5 more seasons and averages a modest 160 hits during that time. I say modest because if healthy, Jeter could continue to pound out 190-210 hit seasons for a few more seasons; but still, injuries happen, as does the inevitable decline, so let's say 160. That would put Jeter close to 3400.

[ElHalo]

Jeter is about to turn 32 (next Monday) and has 2024 hits. Let's say he plays until he's 40 - 8.5 more seasons and averages a modest 160 hits during that time. I say modest because if healthy, Jeter could continue to pound out 190-210 hit seasons for a few more seasons; but still, injuries happen, as does the inevitable decline, so let's say 160. That would put Jeter close to 3400.
Which kind of irks me. It seems to me that Jeter has at least a 50/50 shot of finishing in the top 10 all time in R's and H's.

Assume for the sake of argument that Jeter hits his currently projected numbers for this season, and then plays till he's forty. He'd need to average 148 hits per year and 77 runs per year to hit the top ten in both categories.

And he does this from the SS position.

And I know of at least one person here who's consistently called Jeter no better than an average player.

How's that again?

[flash143817]

I have no personal grudge against Anderson (he seems like a good guy), but he's a player that's always been annoying to me. It seems every time he's playing a studio analyst or announcer always make a point to say how underappreciated and underrated he is. In reality, he's horrifically overrated.

Except for 2002 and 2003, which were pretty good years, I don't see this guy as anything but an average player.

Anderson is horrifically overrated in the LA area. They think he is a great all-around hitter and clutch performer. He's hit 3rd or 4th in the Angel lineup for years. I cringe every time him or Erstad come up to the plate. Anderson is basically a nearly average hitter that had a couple of solid years, like you said.



One thing helping Anderson is that he's holding down the CF slot. As long as he does that, he'll stay in the lineup more. If he were a career CF, his stats would be much more impressive.


Anderson has always been a LF. He used to see an occasional game in CF a couple years ago but he has always been overwhelmingly a LF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anderson has always been a LF. He used to see an occasional game in CF a couple years ago but he has always been overwhelmingly a LF.

Overall, true. But www.mlb.com currently (and to my surprise) lists Anderson as a center fielder.

I recognize it's a stretch to put Garrett in CF, but if he holds the position, this will enhance his career value.

The HOF has ALWAYS taken in the Garrett Andersons of the world. Not all of them; the Garrett Andersons of the world live in the HOF gray area. It's just that the idea of Garrett Anderson as a HOFer is hardly preposterous, given the players in the gray area that have found their way to a Cooperstown plaque.

[hellborn]

....

And I know of at least one person here who's consistently called Jeter no better than an average player.

....
I don't count myself as a Jeter fan, but anybody who's paying attention and is being honest has to say that he's a really good player. My issues with him include;
1. I think that he's a below average defensive SS, but certainly good enough to keep him there to get that kind of offense out of a SS. ARod should clearly be the SS on that team now, though. (I must admit that I love to watch Derek track down popups...excellent style)
2. His hitting numbers since 2000 have not been fantastic, but this draws very little notice or comment. No pointed questions about why he's not the offensive force he used to be.
3. The attention he gets for any play out of the ordinary that he makes is rather embarrassing...like, being treated as the second coming of Achilles for diving into the stands to get that popup against the Bosox, even though Pokey Reese made an almost identical play earlier in that game while being athletic enough to stop on a dime after making the catch instead of crashing face first into a seat.
4. Casual fans, and some announcers, act as if he's been the best player in the game for a decade. He just hasn't been, OK? Does everybody here agree with that? I'd love to hear an argument from somebody who doesn't, I will read it with an open mind.

That all being said, I would love to see him playing SS for the Bosox. 2B would be even better.

Anybody else think that it's crazy for Damon to be batting leadoff with Jeter around? Jeter was a fantastic leadoff man last year...Yanks needed a CF, but not a leadoff man, for 2006.

[baseball junkie]

Anderson has about as much a chance of getting into Cooperstown as Simon Cowell has of winning a politeness contest.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anderson didn't have a good year this year, and appears to have established that his recent decline is permanent, and represents a new, lowered level of performance.

Anderson got 154 hits this year, pushing his career total to 2,081. He'll be 35 next year, so the question of whether or not he can get to 3,000 is relevant.

It is POSSIBLE that Anderson can get to 3,000 hits. If he stays in CF and gets to 3,000 hits, he may well get to the HOF. He's got some power to go with those hits. But he can't decline any more than he has. If he does, he'll lose playing time, and lose his chance for 3K with it.

Anderson kept his chances at the HOF alive this year, but he's the kind of guy, like Olerud and a few others, that have a statistical chance at 3,000 hits, but go sour all at once. I expect Anderson's decline to continue, and I expect him to be done right around the 2,500 mark. That won't get it for him.

[machinehead11]

I like Anderson, but I believe that if he gets to 3000 hits, he'll be the first member of that club not to make the HOF. At least until the Veterans Committee votes him in.

[LUGZ]

I think he should get in. He should reach 3000 hits which is proof of longevity.

Here's how he compares to other hofers, and future hofers:
GA
rbi's 1/6.2 ab
hr 1/29.1 ab
k 1/7.1 ab
w 1/20.6 ab
2b 1/16.3 ab
3b 1/20.6 ab
hits 1 3.4 ab
runs 1/7.9 ab

ob% .327
slg% .470
ops .797

Fielding %
LF - .989
CF - .993
RF - .979

Willie Mays
rbi's 1/5.7 ab
hr 1/16.5 ab
k 1/7.1 ab
2b 1/20.1 ab
hits 1/3.3 ab
runs 1/5.3 ab

Lou Brock
rbi's 1/11.48 ab
hr 1/69.3 ab
k 1/6.0 ab
2b 1/21.3 ab
hits 1/3.4 ab
runs 1/6.4 ab

Jeter
rbi's 1/7.9 ab
hr 1/37.1 ab
k 1/5.7 ab
w 1/9.6 ab
2b 1/19.6 ab
3b 1/9.6 ab
hits 1/3.2 ab
runs 1/5.3 ab

ob% .388
slg% .463
ops .851

Fielding % - .975

I realize you cant compare Jeters numbers and Andersons numbers equally, but on a purely statistical basis GA is equal to Jeter.

He also has a higher fielding % than Joe Dimaggio and many other Hofers.

[jalbright]

I think your comment about 3000 hits is at least as much a fan speaking as an analyst--he's 919 away from that mark, and he's already 34. He might make it, but I sure wouldn't bet much on it unless I got nice odds.

More to the point, what's he done so far to make you think he's a HOF candidate? He might hang in there and make some longevity markers, at which point I'd have to reevaluate. But right now, at age 34, when a lot of guys are in or very near decline, he's got a thin resume for a HOF candidate:

3 time all-star
374th MVP shares
401st in career black ink
477th in career gray ink
344th in HOF standards
1 HOFer in his ten most similar players, despite having the advantage of playing in a relatively high offensive context.
Before this season, he had only 177 career win shares, never more than 25 in a season, and only 2 seasons of 20 or more. Just to get into the gray area, he needs to get to 300, or about half his total thus far in the remainder of his career.

You want to see a guy a lot closer to the top 200 all time and higher in win shares at age 34 to call him a serious candidate at this point. As I said, he might keep churning it out and make some milestones. But it seems to me at least as likely he'll either get hurt and not recover or basically just start playing like an old man in a young man's game.

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

If he got to 3K hits and somehow got elected he would be above and away the worst offensive player in the HoF. Six more season like an average of the last two would get him to 3K. That's a pretty tall order for a guy who will be 35. Projecting that out he will have an OPS+ of 105, an RCAA of, maybe, 50, and a WARP3 of 80 or so.

Considering Anderson plays a corner OF slot this would end up ranking as one of the worse BBWAA selections ever. If the VC lets him in then I don't care. I will be long gone.

Anderson has had a career for which he has nothing to be ashamed of, but HoF it is not.

[Colorado Express]

Not a chance.

[Edgartohof]

right now, I have to say no. He just doesn't have enough in his areeer to really even bring up the discussion. If he can reach 3,000 hits, then we cn bring this up again, but until then...

[CROM]

there are a lot of outfielders far ahead of him.. he may hold on long enough to hit some milestones which then he may get some attention but to be honest i dont see him averaging the numbers he will need over the next 6 years.. it seems that his peak ended in 2003 and hes declined every year since..

dale murphy, andre dawson, jim rice and a plethora of others are far ahead..

[plask_stirlac]

In a lot of ways he's a replacement LF or worse, average in the league. Better than average glove even capable at CF, but costs you in OBP. I don't think 3000 gets him in.

But he won't get there, he'll be replaced like Erstad.

Do you think HOF when Jeromy Burnitz crosses your mind? Marty Cordova with more average seasons? Rick Monday, etc.? Anderson's kind of a stretch for an AL West HOF, even.

[Charger567]

If you take a look at Jeter, his stats are looking worse.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Garret Anderson's chances for the HOF rest solely on his attaining 3,000 hits. Short of that, he will not get into the HOF.

If he DOES, however, get 3,000 hits, he will probably make the HOF. He is not likely to be the first 3,000 hit man to not make the Hall. That being said, he is not likely to last long enough as a regular to make 3,000 hits.

[plask_stirlac]

When would he get a vote with 3000 hits? By 2018 or so the voters could look at non-counting stats and reject him on having a freaking below-average OBP.

Go back to 1994, the likes of Olney, Neyer, Kurkjian etc. weren't nearly as prevalent with stat analysis ranging from OPS to VORP, etc. In 2018 HOF voting could follow, perhaps.

[538280]

Plask_stirlac, I don't really know much about Olney but I never thought he was a statistical guy at all. The main thing I remember him for is coming up with that bogus "Productive Out Percentage" and acting as if it was a key element to teams winning games. It actually had just about negative correlation with runs scored and winning percentage, and just about no players had any consistency in getting productive outs-meaning that they were just basically random events. Just curious about Olney, that's all I really remember about him.

Garret Anderson? One of the most overrated players of my lifetime. Even if he gets to 3000 he would not be deserving IMO. A lot like Joe Carter or Dante Bichette, and those types are always horribly overrated.

[mwiggins]

If you take a look at Jeter, his stats are looking worse.

Worse than who's? Certainly not Garret Anderson. Jeter's a SS and his offensive stats are far better than Anderson.

[Charger567]

Not far better. But people are saying that Jeter is in 100% and that Anderson has got nothing, but their stats are a lot closer than I thought.

[abacab]

Not far better. But people are saying that Jeter is in 100% and that Anderson has got nothing, but their stats are a lot closer than I thought.

That's because Jeter has a lot more defensive value. Also, he has a repuation as a great team leader and clutch hitter, and is about to win an MVP. Anderson has never even been close to the AL's best player.

[agent-g]

I accidentally voted yes, I wanted to vote no, could a moderator change it for me please?

I'll just say that he's already in the decline phase of his career and so far he is very far away from looking like a hall of fame player. If he can stick around till he's 40 then maybe, but he's a long way off as of now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Anderson could average 154 hits for six more seasons, he'd be at 3,000. If Anderson could average 180 hits for five more seasons, he'd be at 3,000.

I don't think he can do that. But if he did, his power stats and BA are such that he'd get in. Deserving or not.

[538280]

Not far better. But people are saying that Jeter is in 100% and that Anderson has got nothing, but their stats are a lot closer than I thought.

Their stats aren't really close, even paying no attention to Jeter being a SS. Their counting stats are somewhat similar, but those aren't always a good idea of a player's value. Anderson has more power, but that is negated somewhat by Jeter's BA advantage. The big difference is that Jeter just KILLS Anderson in the area of getting on base. Jeter's career OBP is .388 and Anderson's is .327. That is a huge difference, because of it Jeter is a MUCH better offensive player.

Jeter also has a lot more defensive value and plays a much more important defensive position, SS. Jeter should be a no questions asked HOFer and Anderson shouldn't get a vote IMO.

[antihipster]

Not a chance for Anderson. Producing more hits is going to be a key for him to reach the hall as time is running out for him. In the last three years, he has had 152, 162, & 133 hits in 442, 575, & 543 at bats.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Not a chance for Anderson. Producing more hits is going to be a key for him to reach the hall as time is running out for him. In the last three years, he has had 152, 162, & 133 hits in 442, 575, & 543 at bats.

If Anderson DOES make it to 3,000 hits, what would be the precedent for keeping him out?

He will have hit 3,000 hits with some power, and while putting some time in at the CF slot. He's not a banjo hitter who hung around.

Six years of averaging 152 hits would do it for Garret. I don't think he can do it, and if he only gets 120 hits this year, his chances go from about 20 percent to 5 percent instantly. But if he has a late career resurgence (not unheard of), he could well make 3K.

This year will tell the tale. Anderson looks like he's in decline, but Yaz did too at Garret's age, and turned it around. Anderson's no Yaz, but he's a better player than he gets credit for in some circles, and he certainly could regain some lost ground. He shouldn't be written off just yet. Of course, he's a dark horse, but the dark horses make for the liveliest discussions.

[538280]

If Anderson DOES make it to 3,000 hits, what would be the precedent for keeping him out?

He will have hit 3,000 hits with some power, and while putting some time in at the CF slot. He's not a banjo hitter who hung around.

Actually he is sort of. He does have some power so he's not really "banjo", but he's not really a good hitter, and certainly not a great one. His power is truly nothing more than pedestrian for this era, and his OBP is just plain god awful. His OPS+ is barely above average, and if he sticks around another five years to get 3000 is will probably drop below average. Do you really want corner OFs with, I don't know, 97 OPS+'s in the HOF?

[AlecBoy006]

I voted no. Close though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I like Anderson, but I believe that if he gets to 3000 hits, he'll be the first member of that club not to make the HOF. At least until the Veterans Committee votes him in.

Anderson now has 2,368 hits. He's turning out to be the new, improved Doc Cramer. He hits for about the same average, more power, fewer walks, and, of course, Cramer was a CF while Anderson is back in LF (while DHing occasionally).

I've said this earlier in this thread, and in other threads: 3,000 hits is a daunting goal. 3,000 hits is more than a counting stat; one truly has to be a great player to last long enough to get to 3,000 hits, particularly if there is no other aspect of one's game that is going to serve as a HOF qualification.

Garret Anderson is a guy that, except for drawing walks, has a broad base of skills, but none of those skills, in and of themselves, are at HOF level. He doesn't have HOF power. His BA is .296, but without great plate discipline. He has decent power, but not middle-of-the-order power. He's OK on defense, but he's a LEFT fielder, and when he's played center field, it's been something of a stretch.

Because of all of this, if Anderson ages normally, or even a little better than normal, he won't get to 3,000 hits. He's at 2,368 hits now, but he's 38 in June, 2009. 632 hits is a LOT of hits for a guy who'll be 38 next year. Given his current level of ability and likelihood of missing SOME time to injury, Anderson would have to play full-time to age 41 to get to 3,000 hits.

The only way Anderson could play full-time until age 41 is if a team keeps him in LF even if a team overlooks his declining VORP. Anderson's VORP last year was 15.3, not bad, but he's a LEFT fielder. At his age, Anderson could drop to near-replacement level quickly. Even if he were to continue playing, as a LF, he'd lose enough playing time to fail to get to 3,000 hits. More likely, Anderson could easily be replaced (Manny?) to where he'd have to accept a 4th OF role, in which he WON'T get to 3,000.

Does anyone really think, BTW, that Anderson is going to get to stay in the Angels lineup in LF/DH if he declines to .270-14-70 with his walk levels??? Does anyone think that a team will keep trotting Anderson out just so he can make it to the coveted 3,000 hits in THEIR uniform? If that's happened; if a player who is around replacement level gets to keep a regular position for a number of years, just to get to the 3,000 hit milestone, I'd like to see where this has happened. Every player who has made it to 3,000 hits justified staying in the lineup either because (A) they still hit well enough above replacement, (B) they played a key defensive position and retained defensive ability, or (C) their decline was swift. Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits.

[jalbright]

Does anyone really think, BTW, that Anderson is going to get to stay in the Angels lineup in LF/DH if he declines to .270-14-70 with his walk levels??? Does anyone think that a team will keep trotting Anderson out just so he can make it to the coveted 3,000 hits in THEIR uniform? If that's happened; if a player who is around replacement level gets to keep a regular position for a number of years, just to get to the 3,000 hit milestone, I'd like to see where this has happened. Every player who has made it to 3,000 hits justified staying in the lineup either because (A) they still hit well enough above replacement, (B) they played a key defensive position and retained defensive ability, or (C) their decline was swift. Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits.

To amplify Fuzzy's point, a guy of clear HOF stature or great popularity might get a full season for a cellar dweller/rebuilding team to get to a milestone like 3000 hits even if there are better options available, but that's about it. He might get to squeak out another season as a pinch hitter/bench player. So the guy would have to be within around 150 hits of 3000 to get such a chance--and have the requisite popularity.

[gwynnfan]

FB,
"Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits."

Wade Boggs? After his years with Boston and NYY do you think he really wanted to play for such a bad team as Tampa Bay. Signing for far less money then he had been making. He did hit a respectable average and OBP but .40 and .55 points lower then has career averages. IMO, the reason was 3000 hits.

[Fuzzy Bear]

To amplify Fuzzy's point, a guy of clear HOF stature or great popularity might get a full season for a cellar dweller/rebuilding team to get to a milestone like 3000 hits even if there are better options available, but that's about it. He might get to squeak out another season as a pinch hitter/bench player. So the guy would have to be within around 150 hits of 3000 to get such a chance--and have the requisite popularity.

And such a player, of course, would undoubtedly have some other stignificant qualifications for the HOF as well (near 500 HRs, BA over .300, execeptional number of runs scored, super defense, defense at a key defensive position).

Anderson is the kind of guy for whom 3,000 hits would be his sole qualification for the HOF. Such players need to be a bit better (at their peak) than Anderson, or retain a bit more of their ability.

For Anderson to make it to 3,000 hits, he'd have to improve his selectivity at the plate significantly. Such a case of extreme improvement in plate discipline is not unheard of with players of Anderson's age. If Anderson were, hypothetically, improve his walk total to where he drew 60-70 walks a season, his value would improve significantly to the point where he would be less likely to lose playing time in the next few years.

On the other hand, Anderson is what he is. Anderson's a guy who's had the ability to put the bat on the ball for a base hit, but who has never (and I mean NEVER) been selective at the plate. Anderson does retain the ability to hit for a .290 average, but that's an ability that will erode quickly at his age, and if Anderson hasn't even tried to bolster his offense with more walks by now, I've got to believe he's closed-minded to the concept.

A corner outfielder with an OWP of under .500 is a good candidate for reduction in playing time. That's where Anderson's at. That's how the weeding out process works. The part-time (due to injuries) 41 year old Willie Mays 1972 model still played CF and still posted a .636 OWP. Anderson's not there now, and he's not Willie Mays, so he's not going to get the chances to play in his old age as Mays did.

[leecemark]

--Looks like Anderson won't even end up good enough to be the best LFer in Angels history. Brian Downing was a better player and has a better Hall of Fame case - which is still pretty much none at all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--Looks like Anderson won't even end up good enough to be the best LFer in Angels history. Brian Downing was a better player and has a better Hall of Fame case - which is still pretty much none at all.

Anderson does hold a number of important Angel career batting marks:



Batting Average: Rod Carew (.314)
On Base Percentage: Rod Carew (.393)
Slugging Percentage: Tim Salmon (.500)
OPS: Tim Salmon (.886)
Games: Garret Anderson (1,962)(Current Player)
At Bats: Garret Anderson (7,790)(Current Player)
Runs: Garret Anderson (1,000)(Current Player)
Hits: Garret Anderson (2,302)(Current Player)
Total Bases: Garret Anderson (3,645)(Current Player)
Doubles: Garret Anderson (477)(Current Player)
Triples: Jim Fregosi (70)
Home Runs: Tim Salmon (299)
Runs Batted In: Garret Anderson (1,259)(Current Player)
Walks: Tim Salmon (941)
Strikeouts: Tim Salmon (1,316)
Stolen Bases: Chone Figgins (221) (Current Player)
Singles: Garret Anderson (1,525)(Current Player)
Runs Created: Tim Salmon (1,108)
Extra Base Hits: Garret Anderson (777)(Current Player)
Times on Base: Tim Salmon (2,623)
Hit by Pitch: Brian Downing (105)
Sacrifice Hits: Bob Boone (90)
Sacrifice Flies: Tim Salmon (67)
Intentional Walks: Chili Davis (76)
Grounded into Double Plays: Garret Anderson (153)(Current Player)
At Bats per Strikeout: Albie Pearson (14.7)
At Bats per Home Run: Troy Glaus (16.3)


He's close to the Angel career HR mark; he's 27 shy.

Of course, his Angel career GIDP mark puts the "Jim Rice" touch on his career. :laugh

[jalbright]

FB,
"Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits."

Wade Boggs? After his years with Boston and NYY do you think he really wanted to play for such a bad team as Tampa Bay. Signing for far less money then he had been making. He did hit a respectable average and OBP but .40 and .55 points lower then has career averages. IMO, the reason was 3000 hits.

Boggs really doesn't meet the requirements of Fuzzy. You're talking about two years of declining playing time, for a poor team. He only got 213 games in those two years, 817 PA. He was still in the range of guys who are reasonable starters at 3B, at least offensively, with 2 seasons of 94 OPS+ (or .462 and .457 OWP, if you prefer). Sure, he got some of that time due to 3000 hits, but even so, was he really clearly below replacement level, even taking his defense into account? I don't think so. Close to the mark, sure, but Fuzzy is positing a guy who spends several years as a clear replacement level guy. Also, as noted in my post, he got to 2800 hits before that point was reached, and played just well enough to get a little leeway to make the milestone.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Boggs really doesn't meet the requirements of Fuzzy. You're talking about two years of declining playing time, for a poor team. He only got 213 games in those two years, 817 PA. He was still in the range of guys who are reasonable starters at 3B, at least offensively, with 2 seasons of 94 OPS+ (or .462 and .457 OWP, if you prefer). Sure, he got some of that time due to 3000 hits, but even so, was he really clearly below replacement level, even taking his defense into account? I don't think so. Close to the mark, sure, but Fuzzy is positing a guy who spends several years as a clear replacement level guy. Also, as noted in my post, he got to 2800 hits before that point was reached, and played just well enough to get a little leeway to make the milestone.

Boggs is also a guy who didn't need 3,000 hits to make the HOF. A career 3B with a .677 OWP and a decent career length is a worthy HOFer. 3,000 hits is something Buddy Bell would need for the HOF, but not a guy like Boggs.

In addition, Boggs spent years in the minor leagues while the confused and tortured Red Sox gave playing time to Glenn Hoffman at 3B (.373 OWP lifetime) and Dave Stapleton at 1B (.443 OWP lifetime). Boggs was a 25 year old rookie in 1982 who hit .349 in a half a season. Does anyone think Boggs was not ready for prime time at least a full 1.5 years earlier?

[gwynnfan]

Boggs really doesn't meet the requirements of Fuzzy. You're talking about two years of declining playing time, for a poor team. He only got 213 games in those two years, 817 PA. He was still in the range of guys who are reasonable starters at 3B, at least offensively, with 2 seasons of 94 OPS+ (or .462 and .457 OWP, if you prefer). Sure, he got some of that time due to 3000 hits, but even so, was he really clearly below replacement level, even taking his defense into account? I don't think so. Close to the mark, sure, but Fuzzy is positing a guy who spends several years as a clear replacement level guy. Also, as noted in my post, he got to 2800 hits before that point was reached, and played just well enough to get a little leeway to make the milestone.


His question was
"Does anyone think that a team will keep trotting Anderson out just so he can make it to the coveted 3,000 hits in THEIR uniform?"
If that was not so why did the Devil Rays/Rays retire his uniform?

"If that's happened; if a player who is around replacement level gets to keep a regular position for a number of years, just to get to the 3,000 hit milestone, I'd like to see where this has happened. Every player who has made it to 3,000 hits justified staying in the lineup either because (A) they still hit well enough above replacement, (B) they played a key defensive position and retained defensive ability, or (C) their decline was swift. Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits."

He was a decent player for them. I stated "He did hit for a respectable average and OBP" But that team, except for McGriff were all prospects. They signed Boggs because he was a Hall of Fame candidate and would hit his 3000th in their jersey.

[RuthMayBond]

In addition, Boggs spent years in the minor leagues while the confused and tortured Red Sox gave playing time to Glenn Hoffman at 3B (.373 OWP lifetime) and Dave Stapleton at 1B (.443 OWP lifetime).
At least they didn't trade him (Jeff Bagwell says :waving :laugh

[jalbright]

His question was
"Does anyone think that a team will keep trotting Anderson out just so he can make it to the coveted 3,000 hits in THEIR uniform?"
If that was not so why did the Devil Rays/Rays retire his uniform?

"If that's happened; if a player who is around replacement level gets to keep a regular position for a number of years, just to get to the 3,000 hit milestone, I'd like to see where this has happened. Every player who has made it to 3,000 hits justified staying in the lineup either because (A) they still hit well enough above replacement, (B) they played a key defensive position and retained defensive ability, or (C) their decline was swift. Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits."

He was a decent player for them. I stated "He did hit for a respectable average and OBP" But that team, except for McGriff were all prospects. They signed Boggs because he was a Hall of Fame candidate and would hit his 3000th in their jersey.

The bolded section, repeated in the post of yours I responded to, is what I was reacting to. Note that the quoted question says the person still hit well enough above replacement, which I think Boggs meets. Also, the bolded question requires that the player play below replacement value. I think I indicated why that's not true, and many of your concessions support that idea. It seems you're confusing a guy who can still hold a major league job but well off his prime accomplishments with someone playing below replacement level. I don't, and I don't think Fuzzy does either, contend that there aren't guys who might retire rather than play in mediocrity or even a tad below were it not for a milestone. Sometimes, poor teams see a chance to draw fans for such a thing.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

FB,
"Please show me an example of a player who kept getting trotted out as a regular, year after year, playing below replacement value, just to get to 3,000 hits, that actually made it to 3,000 hits."

Wade Boggs? After his years with Boston and NYY do you think he really wanted to play for such a bad team as Tampa Bay. Signing for far less money then he had been making. He did hit a respectable average and OBP but .40 and .55 points lower then has career averages. IMO, the reason was 3000 hits.

I'm with Fuzzy Bear on this one. Wade Boggs would have gotten into the HOF without 3,000 hits. He was a HOFer long before that. Whether they need them or not, baseball gives guys like Boggs extra chances to reach milestones (in part because they are usually large drawing cards). The same courtesy doesn't get granted to the likes of Garrett Anderson. No disrespect to him, but nobody besides the Anderson family and a few Angels fans would be all that excited to see Garrett Anderson get his 3,000th hit. The only way Anderson gets 3,000 is by earning it via being worthy of a roster spot into his early 40s. I don't think he'll be able to do that. The only way Anderson gets into the HOF is by getting 3,000 hits, so, naturally, I don't think he'll get into the HOF either.

[Cowtipper]

These can be combined:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=53683&highlight=anderson

[jalbright]

Threads merged.