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]

Originally Posted by Chancellor

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]

Originally Posted by digglahhh

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

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]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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]

Originally Posted by DoubleX

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

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]

Originally Posted by flash143817

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]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

....

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.