PDA

View Full Version : Garrett Anderson + 3,000 hits = HOF??


soxinem1
03-06-2009, 12:42 PM
Here's an interesting dilemma.

Garrett Anderson is just 632 hits from 3,000. He's only 36, and could very well be productive in the NL, especially ATL, where he is now.

He could easily get the 632 in four years.

Question is, does this make him a Hall of Famer? Other than the hits, his other numbers are rather pedestrian.

Thoughts???

Lorenzo Barcelo
03-06-2009, 12:46 PM
I look at him the same way as Fred McGriff. He was like 7-8 hrs away from 500, but I still didn't think he was HOF material. It was pretty painful trying to get those last few HRs too. So I would lean toward no for Anderson.

Eddo144
03-06-2009, 12:47 PM
He'd need to average 158 hits per year during his age 37, 38, 39, and 40 seasons (per baseball-reference). That's a really tall order, especially considering I doubt he'll be playing full time past this year.

sox1970
03-06-2009, 12:49 PM
If he gets to 3000, he's a lock. But I don't think he'll get there. His playing time is going to be cut a lot, and he probably won't play past 40. It's interesting though...I didn't realize he had that many hits.

kittle42
03-06-2009, 12:49 PM
He doesn't pass the "I am going to ask myself if this guy is a HOFer" test.

A resounding no.

ChiSoxFan81
03-06-2009, 12:58 PM
Nope

Domeshot17
03-06-2009, 01:00 PM
he falls in the Fred Mcgriff category of hall of consistently good (for different reasons the same reason Harold will never get the call).

doublem23
03-06-2009, 01:01 PM
The 500 HR Club has been shamed in the past years, but I think 3,000 hits and 300 wins are still automatic locks for the Hall of Fame.

Now, that said, Anderson will need a miracle to collect another 600 hits. 623 isn't just a handful of hits, that's over 20% of 3,000.

jabrch
03-06-2009, 01:20 PM
3000 hits or not, if GA is in the HOF, then they need to publicly declare that they have lowered their standards.

That said, I'd be stunned if he gets to 3000 hits anyhow.

doublem23
03-06-2009, 01:36 PM
300 hits or not, if GA is in the HOF, then they need to publicly declare that they have lowered their standards.

That said, I'd be stunned if he gets to 3000 hits anyhow.

Well, he's not going to get 3,000 hits so I don't know why we're talking about this like it's even remotely possible, but no, admitting a guy with 3,000 hits, regardless of who he is, is not lowering the standards of the Hall of Fame.

Eddo144
03-06-2009, 01:44 PM
The 500 HR Club has been shamed in the past years, but I think 3,000 hits and 300 wins are still automatic locks for the Hall of Fame.

Now, that said, Anderson will need a miracle to collect another 600 hits. 623 isn't just a handful of hits, that's over 20% of 3,000.
I'm not so sure about that. Aside from the obvious case of Palmeiro, I think there's a non-zero chance that Biggio gets the shaft, on the perspective that he hung around his last few years to get to 3000, despite hurting his team in the process. (While he was a below-average player his last three years or so, I personally don't believe it should keep him out of the Hall of Fame. He was a terrific player, a doubles machine.)

munchman33
03-06-2009, 02:44 PM
If Garret Anderson retired now, I don't see how they could keep him out with Jim Rice being in.

LOLZ...I kid. Well, half kid. But no, GA is not a Hall of Famer. 3,000 hits makes an interesting argument, but I don't think he'll get there (and he's still borderline if he does).

Daver
03-06-2009, 02:56 PM
300 hits or not, if GA is in the HOF, then they need to publicly declare that they have lowered their standards.

That said, I'd be stunned if he gets to 3000 hits anyhow.

They already did declare it the day they put Jim Rice in.

Britt Burns
03-06-2009, 03:29 PM
No way he gets in. I don't think he'll hit 3000, although I didn't realize he had as many hits as he does.

jabrch
03-06-2009, 03:40 PM
They already did declare it the day they put Jim Rice in.


I agree on Rice - but GA is inferior to Rice in every way. He'd be a major step down even from Rice. He'd be a step down from Santo. He'd be a step down from Baines.

He's in the Don Mattingly category.

Huisj
03-06-2009, 06:16 PM
My first though about getting hits after 36 was to look at Baines' stats after that age. Through age 36, Harold needed 729 hits to get to 3000, and though he had some productive years, time just kind of ran out as playing time diminished and injuries hit, and he ended up 134 hits short.

Anderson's playing time into his mid 30s has been a little bit more consistent than Baines' was, but that's still a big tall order to get that many hits that late in a career.

jamokes
03-06-2009, 08:31 PM
He won't get to 3,000 hits but if he did, he should be a HOFer. He falls into the Vada Pinson type (from the last generation).

AZChiSoxFan
03-06-2009, 10:43 PM
Here's an interesting dilemma.

Garrett Anderson is just 632 hits from 3,000. He's only 36, and could very well be productive in the NL, especially ATL, where he is now.

He could easily get the 632 in four years.

Question is, does this make him a Hall of Famer? Other than the hits, his other numbers are rather pedestrian.

Thoughts???

IMHO, if you get 3K hits, you go to Cooperstown. End of story. Just my opinion though.

mccombe_35
03-07-2009, 02:04 PM
Another thing to think about:

If Anderson does play long enough to get to 3,000 hits he will also be well over 300 HRs & 1,500 career RBIs....

tstrike2000
03-08-2009, 06:09 PM
Great guy, good player, but no he won't be in the hall. He's kind of in that same boat numbers wise like Harold Baines, but with slightly better numbers. If he can hang out for 22 years like Baines did, which would be 6 more, then 3,000 is not as much out of the question. But he'll be 37 in a few months, so probably not going to happen.

Mohoney
03-17-2009, 04:16 AM
I look at him the same way as Fred McGriff. He was like 7-8 hrs away from 500, but I still didn't think he was HOF material. It was pretty painful trying to get those last few HRs too. So I would lean toward no for Anderson.

Fred McGriff was also a premier defender, albeit at 1st base. He's a guy that you never hear being accused of juicing, either. If it weren't for McGwire, McGriff probably would have played in many more All Star games than he actually did.

IMO, there actually is a plausible argument for Fred McGriff.

OmarLittle
03-17-2009, 07:08 AM
that .327 OBP screams HOF to me

Eddo144
03-17-2009, 09:39 AM
Fred McGriff was also a premier defender, albeit at 1st base. He's a guy that you never hear being accused of juicing, either. If it weren't for McGwire, McGriff probably would have played in many more All Star games than he actually did.

IMO, there actually is a plausible argument for Fred McGriff.
I'm not sure that's true. I always assumed so, but I think that was due to those hilarious Tom Emanski video commercials that McGriff was in. Lately, I've read a bunch of articles that say McGriff was an above-average defensive first baseman, but nothing special.

Billy Ashley
03-17-2009, 11:07 PM
that .327 OBP screams HOF to me

Wait till Andre Dawson get's in next year :rolleyes:

Them eyes aren't directed at you...

munchman33
03-17-2009, 11:32 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I always assumed so, but I think that was due to those hilarious Tom Emanski video commercials that McGriff was in. Lately, I've read a bunch of articles that say McGriff was an above-average defensive first baseman, but nothing special.

He was a better defender at first than anyone playing in baseball right now, fwiw.

Billy Ashley
03-17-2009, 11:33 PM
Garret Anderson is not only a bad candidate for the Hall of Fame, but he’s also a bad candidate for an All-Star game.

I’m going to go a little hot and heavy into SABR (so forgive me)

Over his career, he’s posted a career WARP 3 of 38.3. For a frame of reference, a typical MVP is around 10, during the year he won the MVP. Dustin Pedroia posted around 11 last year. Carlos Quentin, missing a month- posted near a 6.6 (I suspect if he didn’t miss so much time he’d have been around an 8). During his career, Anderson’s best number was an excellent 6.3. His second, a good but not so spectacular 4.5.

Mark Teixeira, who will be 29 this year (and isn’t on pace to be a Hall of Famer in my view) has a career WARP 3 around 30. Some Corner Outfielders in the hall- Ted Williams: 130, Clemente: 92, Billy Williams: 79, Jim Rice: 52, Stan Musial: 150.

So a guy who must of us don’t believe belongs in the Hall, kicks Andersons ass (Rice was out of baseball much earlier too).

How about guys that I think should be in the Hall? Dick Allen: 74.1, Dwight Evans: 83

How about good players who I think just miss: Dale Murphy: 57, Andre Dawson: 72, Albert Belle: 67*.

So according to WARP, he shouldn’t get close.

Don’t like WARP, fine- it’s an acceptable position for a person to take. Check out his career OPS+: 105.

That’s an awful career number for a left fielder. He’s literally been about 5% better than the average hitter, while playing a position at close to the bottom of the defensive spectrum. Jack Cust has an OPS+ of 131, Adam Dun as an OPS+ of 130, Pat Burrell- 119, Raul Ibanez- 113.

I purposely picked these players because 1) they’re far superior hitters to Anderson and 2) they’re all pretty awful fielders. Garret Anderson’s defense has been seen as poor to awful by scouts and statistical analysis alike. He’s a lousy fielder.

It is possible to be a great player and post an OPS around 105 and play left field. Carl Crawford is that player. The difference between the two is this- Anderson’s value is completely tied to his bat (which for the standards of the position is really unimpressive). Crawford on the other hand, is one of the games best outfielders because he’s an elite fielder and runs the bases well. He creates/ saves far many more runs than Anderson due to his glove and his feet. And yet, no one will be clamoring for Crawford a decade and a half from now unless something drastic changes. Or, like Anderson, he hangs around for 8 years beyond his usefulness as a major league ball player (say if Anderson plays until 2012, to get his 3k)
Everything I’ve ever read about Anderson makes him seem like a real nice guy- but you know what, that doesn’t matter. Ty Cobb was a sociopath, Ted Williams spat at reporters and Mickey Mantle acted like a raging frat boy during his career. The difference, personality or not, they belong in the hall.

* I've hated few players like I've hated Belle- but he should get some consideration. The guy was totally on track to be one of the all time greats before his hip fell apart.

Frater Perdurabo
03-18-2009, 07:31 AM
get's

:o:

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 09:22 AM
He was a better defender at first than anyone playing in baseball right now, fwiw.
Based on what? McGriff was a net positive defensively, but he's not in the same universe as Youkilis, Teixeira, or Pujols, all of whom could be playing more challenging positions if their teams needed it (3B, 3B, and OF, respectively).

thomas35forever
03-22-2009, 11:59 PM
He won't make it to 3,000 and he won't make the Hall of Fame either.

chisoxfanatic
03-23-2009, 12:06 AM
Even if he does make 3,000 hits, he should be HOF caliber in other stats as well. I'd say no.