 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Garret Anderson
| Poll: Garret Anderson | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 5 |
| No | 4 |
farfetched
I was thinking about this myself, and looking at his recent numbers, he's beginning to look a lot like Eddie Murray in his stats. He's not spectacular but solid with homerun totals, he can hit at or around the .300 level and he produces runs. Hell, he's even got a ring to show for it.
Garret Anderson
November 20, 2003 at 08:41PM View BBCode
If his current production continues for the next 3-4 years before he supposedly starts his 'downturn' at 35-36, does he deserve a look when he is HoF eligible?I was thinking about this myself, and looking at his recent numbers, he's beginning to look a lot like Eddie Murray in his stats. He's not spectacular but solid with homerun totals, he can hit at or around the .300 level and he produces runs. Hell, he's even got a ring to show for it.
skierdude44
November 20, 2003 at 08:46PM View BBCode
yes i think so. he is one of the best hitters, just plain all around hitters, in the game today. he rarely gets any props for that though. do i think that he is HoF eligible, yea, but will the voters agree, thats a tough question to answer.
FuriousGiorge
November 20, 2003 at 09:44PM View BBCode
He does have 1600+ hits, and I don't think it's impossible for him to get to 2500-3000 by the time he's done. The voters, of course, love crap like that. In reality, he's a left fielder (a very good one at that, who could play center field) with an 807 career OPS in a hitter's era. He's not one of the 10 or 15 best players in the game. Maybe he'd crack the top 20, or the top 25. He's a good player who's constantly being described as "underrated" to the point that he's actually probably overrated now by the mainstream press. He does some things well, plays hard, seems like a nice guy, and should only get into the Hall of Fame if he purchases a ticket like the rest of us.
skierdude44
November 21, 2003 at 02:50AM View BBCode
isnt it like if u get 3000 hits or 500 homers its sort of like an automatic pass to the HoF. i think anderson deserves to go but he definetly wont be a 1st ballot guy and he will prolly get snubbed.
farfetched
Yes, he's only averaged 28 walks over the last 4 seasons, but I feel that's only the sign of an aggressive hitter. He's managed to get on base 30% of the time practically without the aid of walks. Not only that, he's managed to manufacture runs due to that aggressive hitting, even if he isn't crossing the plate himself.
By the way, what's the record for consecutive 600-AB seasons?
November 21, 2003 at 03:18AM View BBCode
.299 BA, 31 HR, 122 RBI for his triple crown stats over the past 4 seasons. They're a bit inflated due to the fact they're based on a per-162 game basis. He didn't play all 162 games in any of the past 4 seasons, but he came darn close. Durability, I believe, should be looked into even if you're not the greatest player in the books. If he logs that 10k AB total that he's looking to break into within the next 7-8 years, considering he plays for that long, he'll have my vote, regardless of the woeful OPS due to his stubornness to take a walk.Yes, he's only averaged 28 walks over the last 4 seasons, but I feel that's only the sign of an aggressive hitter. He's managed to get on base 30% of the time practically without the aid of walks. Not only that, he's managed to manufacture runs due to that aggressive hitting, even if he isn't crossing the plate himself.
By the way, what's the record for consecutive 600-AB seasons?
hobos
November 21, 2003 at 03:32AM View BBCode
he won the home run derby so he has some pop to his bat. that BB number is ugly. that's only a walk every 6 games or so. the actual number is something like 5.78 and he averages .17 walks a game
FuriousGiorge
November 21, 2003 at 05:29AM View BBCode
Garret Anderson HAS had a pretty impressive stretch over the past few years, better than I or a lot of people thought he could have. If he could keep that production up for the next 6-8 years, then yes, maybe he'd be a Hall of Famer. Not an clear and obvious one, but a guy who put up just enough to merit induction. He's also 31: the chance he can keep up this level of production for that period is not great. Look at his comps on baseball-reference.com...Pedro Guerrero, Rico Carty, Jeff Conine, Moises Alou. He COULD turn out better than any of those guys, but the chances are greater that that's about where he'll end up. A great career, yes, and someone worthy of praise, but just not someone who you can put in the Hall with any sort of credibility.
BravesLuver
November 21, 2003 at 03:54PM View BBCode
First of all that's IF he keeps up the pace. He's 31, older usually means you degrade. Good numbers as a 31 year old though.
FuriousGiorge
November 21, 2003 at 04:35PM View BBCode
Actually, Garret Anderson's closest comp by age through age 31 is Steve Garvey, which is probably very unfair to him as a man but extremely fair to him as a player. Garvey has mostly been forgotten by time, but he was another player who hardly walked at all but who could hit the ball out of the ballpark. When a guy like that is hitting .300 he's an asset, when he's not then he's really not helping your team that much as an everyday player. Garvey did hit .300 for most of his career, and finished with 2599 hits, which I'm guessing is about where Anderson will end up. Garvey also managed to win an MVP award (one he didn't really deserve). For a while there was a lot of talk about putting Garvey in the Hall of Fame, which has died down to pretty much nothing now. Steve Garvey is clearly not a Hall of Famer (revelations about his personal life didn't help his cause), and if Garret Anderson ends up where Garvey did, he won't be a Hall of Famer either.
happy
November 21, 2003 at 04:38PM View BBCode
he is a quiet guy, no one will notice him unless he puts up eithe 500 or 3000. he is like palmero. no one realizes how good he is until he gets to 500
ME
November 21, 2003 at 05:35PM View BBCode
He will have to keep going at this pace until he is 40, and get 3000 hits, in which case he will get in, whether by his other stats he deserves it or not. He is a good #4-5 hitter, one that can finish a rally with a HR or double but will never start one cause he has a crappy on-base.
skierdude44
November 21, 2003 at 08:06PM View BBCode
i think that he deserves to be in the HoF but only just squeak by. that is of course assuming that he doesnt do a major nose dive.
FuriousGiorge
At some point, though, you have to ask yourself if you really want to put every single good player into the Hall of Fame. Some people would like to do that, just take all the guys with long careers who were relatively productive and give 'em a plaque. I, for one, hope the Hall can be a little more selective. Garret Anderson, as far as career value, cannot possibly be considered one of the best outfielders in the game over the course of his career so far. Here's a list of outfielders who have clearly been better than Anderson since his rookie year in 1995:
Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Gary Sheffield, Larry Walker, Ken Griffey Jr. (even with the injuries), Bernie Williams, Magglio Ordonez, Shawn Green, Tim Salmon, Vladimir Guerrero, Brian Giles, Andruw Jones, Luis Gonzalez, Jim Edmonds, Bob Abreu.
I don't believe that every single one of those players should be a Hall of Famer, yet every one has been better than Anderson over that period of time. Some of them are older than him, but some are also the same age or younger. In short, you'd have to put a hell of a lot of outfielders from this generation into the Hall of Fame if you want to claim that Anderson meets that criteria and still retain any sort of credibility. I don't see it happening. There are a lot of players who are remembered as great who are not, and should not be in the Hall of Fame: there's nothing wrong with that. Anderson, it seems to me, is one of those guys.
November 21, 2003 at 09:10PM View BBCode
Obviously, his career is far from over and he could go in many different directions from here, some of which would get him into the Hall.At some point, though, you have to ask yourself if you really want to put every single good player into the Hall of Fame. Some people would like to do that, just take all the guys with long careers who were relatively productive and give 'em a plaque. I, for one, hope the Hall can be a little more selective. Garret Anderson, as far as career value, cannot possibly be considered one of the best outfielders in the game over the course of his career so far. Here's a list of outfielders who have clearly been better than Anderson since his rookie year in 1995:
Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Gary Sheffield, Larry Walker, Ken Griffey Jr. (even with the injuries), Bernie Williams, Magglio Ordonez, Shawn Green, Tim Salmon, Vladimir Guerrero, Brian Giles, Andruw Jones, Luis Gonzalez, Jim Edmonds, Bob Abreu.
I don't believe that every single one of those players should be a Hall of Famer, yet every one has been better than Anderson over that period of time. Some of them are older than him, but some are also the same age or younger. In short, you'd have to put a hell of a lot of outfielders from this generation into the Hall of Fame if you want to claim that Anderson meets that criteria and still retain any sort of credibility. I don't see it happening. There are a lot of players who are remembered as great who are not, and should not be in the Hall of Fame: there's nothing wrong with that. Anderson, it seems to me, is one of those guys.
skierdude44
November 21, 2003 at 09:18PM View BBCode
i agree with u on most of those things but i think that there r guys in the hall of anderson's caliber that prolly shouldnt be in there and if they r in there than so should anderson. of course it is too early to tell and if his career ended right now than no he definetly doesnt belong in the hall.
andrew
November 21, 2003 at 09:30PM View BBCode
As much as I love Anderson, I don't think he is a HOF type player, unless he has a Barry Bonds type, late career.
happy
November 21, 2003 at 10:31PM View BBCode
is he HOF quality in my view, and it appears everyone heres view? no. is he equal to or better than other people in the hall? for sure. we need to kick some people out, AND WE ARE STARTING WITH YANKEE PLAYERS. it should be harder to get into the HOF if you are a yankee, because there are just too many of them clogging up the hall.
FuriousGiorge
November 21, 2003 at 10:56PM View BBCode
Actually, the Giants probably have the most bad Hall of Famers. The Yankees don't really have that many bad ones.
ME
November 22, 2003 at 12:15AM View BBCode
Phil Rizzuto only got in cause he won a bunch of rings. The guys who got in just because they were on good teams are the ones that need to be thrown out first.
skierdude44
November 22, 2003 at 12:22AM View BBCode
dont hate on the yanks just cuz they have had good players. if ur around 100 years ur gonna have some great players. and the reason the teams won rings is cuz they had good players not cuz they got lucky. why should their be a double standard for everything in ur view happy?Pages: 1