Halos Heaven: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Will Jon Fitch Open the Flood-gates? Bar-right-arrows



The 100 Greatest Angels: #10 Darin Erstad

#10 Darin Erstad, OF, 1B

Career Stats

A few years back, columnist/sub-literate Rob Neyer couldn't let Angel fans enjoy the World Series victory, so he twisted the knife into Darin Erstad's back. Erstad was making $8 million a year and was not performing up to the level of his monster 2000 season. I guess the glare from Darin's World Championship ring was blinding Rob to reality: If Darin Erstad were a Yankee, they would have renamed Central Park after him by now.

Before you yammer on with your stats and disbelief in the intangibles, the poetry and unquantifiable foggy grit that make great team players, look at your Rosetta Stone of sabermetric stats - Win Shares. Guess what Stat-Ass? Darin Erstad has the 8th most Win Shares in Angel history. So he is not overrated. He's Top Ten material all around.

Angel Lifer Brent Carter had a few thoughts on Erstad...

Darin's the only player in MLB history to win gold gloves in both the outfield and infield. His monster season in 2000 aside, his numbers don't begin to tell the story of his importance to the Angels. With Erstad you either get it or you don't, and if you don't it's just too bad for you.

Thanks Brent.

For more perspective on the role of Darin in Angel lore, retired Angel blogger Sean Smith revives the spirit and intelligence of his dearly departed Purgatory Online Blog for a look at the first player selected in the1995 amateur draft...

Take that 2000 season. Erstad was 26 that year, coming off a sub-par 1999, and no one was sure what to expect. What we got was the seemingly limitless stack of hits - singles, doubles, homers, even six triples. 240 of them in all, and 100 RBI and 121 runs scored thrown in for good measure. He destroyed the franchise single-season record for hits, previously 202 by Alex Johnson, and set new franchise records in runs, total bases, runs created, and times on base, and cracked the top ten in doubles, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. He was phenomenal; he seemed to get hits by sheer force of will while at the same time winning his first Gold Glove in an outfield that was missing the defensive genius of Jim Edmonds, who had been traded two years prior. He made the All-Star Team, and finished eighth in the Most Valuable Player voting despite being on a .500 club that finished third in a four-team division - just barely behind Edgar Martinez and Manny Ramirez, and ahead of Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter. It was a good year.

Like I said, take it. Take it, and put it away, because it's irrelevant. Worse, it's a distraction: it gives anyone who sees ballplayers as a collection of Microsoft Excel columns something to point at while they say, "that Darin Erstad - he just never lived up to that 2000 season." As if somhow failing to hit .355 every year was a personal insult to them. As if there was no value in defense, or in character, or in bringing a no-nonsense temperament to a franchise that had managed to fumble away every chance at glory they'd every possessed.

When Darin Erstad is long retired, I certainly won't remember him for that season. Those numbers - 240, .355 - they mean something, but they don't get anywhere near the heart of the matter. They don't capture Erstad, and they sure as hell don't capture what being a fan is about. What I'll remember most about him is that, when the Angels finally broke through to glory, finally drove a blade deep and fatally into the heart of their reputation, he was the guy holding the knife.

Scott Spiezio is rightly remembered for his three-run shot off of Felix Rodriguez to put the Angels back into Game 6 of the 2002 World Series. But the Giants escaped that inning - the seventh - without further damage. The Angels were still down 5-3, and had six outs left in their season. The real question was whether they could keep any momentum going, especially since the Giants had managed to get a couple of outs after the Spiezio homer the previous inning.

And it was Erstad who answered that question. What I will remember first about him is that he took that grim focus into the maelstrom and laid off a ball outside and a strike on the outside corner, then hammered a Tim Worrell changeup into right field and kept the Angels from slipping back into the role of prey. I'll remember Joe Buck shouting "smoked into right! It's a one-run ball game!" I'll remember that Erstad didn't strut down to first, he ran, and when he saw the ball was gone he put his head down and finished running around the bases without cracking a smile. In Game 7, he'd make a sensational diving catch and, later, catch Kenny Lofton's fly ball to center to end it all, but for my money that Game 6 home run, that bridge between Spiezio and the tying run, was the greatest single play in Angels history. From that moment on, the Angels weren't that cursed and forgotten club living in the shadows of the Dodgers and Donnie Moore, they were a team that could shoulder the pressure and not buckle. They were champions.

Thanks Sean, good luck in Law School. In the ballotting, Shredder Seitz ranked Darin 5th all-time Angel, I ranked him 7th and Brent ranked him 9th. I have to add that, with season seats directly behind the Centerfielder, I am looking forward to Erstad's return to the turf. And so will every pitcher.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

re: Erstad
Can't believe that I didn't notice that Darin hadn't been choosen yet.
I can certainly understand why is a fan favorite.  But being this high on the list is obviously more a factor of the particular fans ranking the players.  
And I think he was the greatest fielding CF of all time.

by Barca on Feb 20, 2006 11:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Erstad's position
Actually, Erstad ranks two slots ahead of his position here if you look expressly at Win Shares.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Feb 20, 2006 9:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

If you count Win Shares in a vacuum, sure
But it matters how much time it took to compile the damned things.

by mattwelch on Feb 20, 2006 10:53 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Why I ranked him fifth
It's been said before, but many of us who voted did not base this vote on numbers alone.  Let's not forget that the goal of the exercise is to win the World Series.  We have one.  That's it.  And this is a guy who practically willed them to it.  He hit a huge home and made a huge catch with a broken freaking hand.  It's easy to discount the "gamer" and "run through walls" attitude as so much empty rhetoric, but when you really look back at what he accomplished in that post-season, that stuff is real.  

So yeah, his being this high on the list is obviously based on those doing the rankings.  That was the whole point of asking us to do the rankings.  I doubt anyone who ranked him that high believes that in a vaccuum, his on field performance would make him the (in my case) fifth best Angel ever.  But the fact that I watched him play, unlike players on this list who played before I was old enough to remember, and the fact that he played a major role in the franchise's only World Championship, combined with his on field performance, place him in that upper echelon in my opinion.

I think that's what makes this more fun than, for example, someone like Rob Neyer (nothing against Rob) making a similar list.  We place importance on the things that are meaningful to us more than an objective observer would.  

by LA Seitz on Feb 21, 2006 9:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hear Hear
and i would like to add that OBJECTIVITY is a myth in these pursuits.

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 9:27 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Objectivity
As it is in any so-called "science."

by Jack Frost on Feb 22, 2006 10:53 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Here ya go...
I fixed Erstad's eyes.

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/3558/erstad6qx.jpg

They are freakin' me out.  Like I'm looking directly at the Devil himself.

by SABRJoe on Feb 20, 2006 10:46 AM PST   0 recs

One man's devil
is another man's Angel

by Rev Halofan on Feb 20, 2006 1:11 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Eyes
There are no Angels
There are devils in many ways
Take it like a man
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Feb 20, 2006 9:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

"Use Two Hands"
Here are several paragraphs about Erstad that I'll always remember:

'The din was never so great as it was at 8:19 PST on Sunday night, when Lofton, batting with two outs in the ninth, stroked a high fly ball into centerfield. As Erstad glided under it, suddenly he could not hear the noise from the crowd. He heard nothing except for one clear voice. It was the voice of his father, Chuck. It was not coming from the stands, where his father watched. It was coming from his childhood, far back to when his father taught him how to catch.

'"Use two hands," is what he heard.

'Said Erstad later, "That's what came to me. It had never happened before, but I heard him. It was pretty neat."

'And so the World Series ended as Doubleday would have liked, the Angels playing textbook baseball to the very last out.'

Link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/2002/year_in_review/angels/

by G Abbes on Feb 20, 2006 6:13 PM PST   0 recs

8th All-time in Win Shares ...
Yeah, impressive, way to beat out Chili Davis ... and Frank Tanana, he had 3 good seasons ... Mike Witt, though, he may only have had one actual good season, but he was routinely above average, that's a player for the ages.

by devo on Feb 21, 2006 11:17 AM PST   0 recs

Like I said, I usually lurk
But this is too much for me:

Before you yammer on with your stats and disbelief in the intangibles, the poetry and unquantifiable foggy grit that make great team players,

Stats don't tell the whole story - okay, fair enough, if that's your wont.

look at your Rosetta Stone of sabermetric stats - Win Shares.

I would hardly call them the Rosetta Stone of sabermetric stats, or even the Holy Grail.

Guess what Stat-Ass?

I'll take a guess: you're about to cherry-pick a statistic with no regard for context or interpretation to support your case.

Darin Erstad has the 8th most Win Shares in Angel history. So he is not overrated. He's Top Ten material all around.

Didn't you start by saying that stats don't tell the whole story in Darin Erstad's case?  And now you're using Win Shares, of all things, to justify his selection?

Rev, you can on occasion make a good point.  I think that Darin Erstad is a good selection for #10.  But I do take contention with the chain of logic you are using to rebut an argument that hasn't been made.  

Your dislike for statistics is your right, but I think it stems more from your inability to interpret and contextualize numbers than anything else.

Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 1:44 PM PST   0 recs

Interpret and contextualize
I can interpret and contextualize numbers just fine - but it is my refusal to PRIVILEGE said interpretations and contextualizations that really angers you true believers.

AT THE BASEBALL DINER, STATS ARE A VITAMIN, NOT THE FRIGGIN' MAIN COURSE.

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 1:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Great.
I take the time to write a thoughtful post, and all I get in response is sarcasm and sound bites, with capital letters to signal the important parts to my primordial brain.
Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 1:58 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Your're implying that i am mentally
incapacitated, was i supposed to roll out the red carpet?

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 2:15 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Perhaps the last sentence
went over the line.  But you didn't even bother with the rest of my post; namely, that you deride stats to no end and simultaneously use them to support your point.  

I don't disagree that Erstad is one of the top 10 Angels - hell, it's your list anyway - but I still maintain that there is some flawed logic at work.

Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 2:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Okay
so if Win Shares is not the best, most comprehensive stat to analyze players from different time periods and from different defensive positions and offensive contributions, WHAT STAT IS ?

And I do not deride stats, i deride those PEOPLE who would erase all experiential data that cannot be numerically quantified in favor of the limited data that can be compiled (and of course, manipulated to show the results they want in the first place).

Win Shares has Erstad all time #8, a sliver behind Nolan Ryan. All things considered, I think it was a coin toss of him being soemwhere between #15-#9.

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 3:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The problem is your straw man argument
is that there is no "definitive" statistic.  You can't knock statistical analysis for not having a definitive statistic because not only does one not exist, nobody is claiming that one does.  Do you believe that Win Shares is that statistic?

Erstad's ranking is based as much on "he intangibles, the poetry and unquantifiable foggy grit that make great team players," (your words) and that's okay.  But if Erstad's ranking is based as much on those unquantifiable factors than the quantifiable ones, then your Win Shares argument doesn't make any sense.  I don't know why you're rebutting an argument that isn't being made.

The claim that data is manipulated to show the biases of the analyst is laughable and unprovable.  Didn't you just cherry pick Win Shares to support your claims?  I could do the same and use OPS+ to deride Erstad - but I won't because (for the last time) I am not taking issue with your ranking of Darin Erstad.

Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 3:43 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

statty
I wrote what i wrote because Erstad tends to get knocked by fans of Baseball Statistics - I wanted to post a stat to giove him legitimacy in the other language, but I guess you can only use statistics if you have thrown away your eyeballs to the Temple of the Holy Spreadsheet.

I could have written that I had seen Erstad play, that no further justification was needed, but I threw in a stat (actually out of respect to people who might be on the fence as to why Ersad was so venerated by many Angel fans), but once I mention a stat, sure enough, the beast demands to be fed my soul for using its algebra.

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 4:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Legitimacy
You threw a stat in out of respect?  How do the words "yammer" and "Stat-ass" convey any amount of respect to those who care for statistics?  I'm calling you out for a contradiction, one that you haven't bothered to address in any of your replies or snarks.

You are right about one thing.  Once you use numbers to make a point, you darn well better be prepared to hear from others who can use other numbers in a counterargument.  I'm not doing that here because that's a pointless discussion to have with you.

Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 5:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

CONTRADICTION
Guilty as charged, I am a walking contradiction, welcome to PARADOXVILLE, can you handle two realities at once?

This is not rocket science - For example, can I critique passages of the Koran in a broader discussion of middle east foreign policy? Can I quuote form teh bible and still support teaching evolution n schools? Can I challenge the adherents of the cult of stats and still draw wisdom from their numbers?

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 5:05 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

FYI
in case you haven't heard how the rankings were determined, they were voted upon by Angel fans (myself included) who took into account more than stats -- and more than simply their stats in an Angel uni, too.

so if you are shocked by a particular ranking, it's probably because some jackass (probably me) voted that player higher simply because he has that player's autograph.

just an fyi...

by yeswecan on Feb 21, 2006 3:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hey Folks
Some families hide their crazy uncle in the attic, but not here at Halos Heaven, oh no...

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 3:18 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

that's right
Here we make him the blogmaster! Har har har.

Carewwwwwwww!

by yeswecan on Feb 21, 2006 3:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

GREAT
jesus wayne, you're worse than the Oakland trolls and the priests from the church of Our lady of the Perpetual Statistic.

But not quite Maryner territory.

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 3:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Like I said
I don't disagree with the ranking.  Not one bit.  For a player with his tenure, defensive ability, and importance in the franchise's only World Championship (352/361/507 in the 02 postseason), he's a fine and defensible choice.  Anyway, the list belongs to the Rev and he can rank 'em any way he likes.

My beef is with the contradictory "stats don't portray the whole Erstad / I will use Win Shares to defend my choice" part of the story.  The Rev has, so far, declined to address that.

Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 3:34 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I think we're making more of this than it is...
I don't want to put words into Rev's mouth, but I'm assuming he was saying Erstad is the ultimate guy that goes against measuring a player by statistics, but even if you are a stat guy, his 8th in win shares holds up.

by thewebb on Feb 21, 2006 5:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That may be what he means
but the words on the page don't translate that way to me.  It might be that the vitriol and failed attempts at cleverness are getting in the way.  It's too bad, though, since all the snark and sarcasm obscures Rev's actual points.

It's taken five back-and-forths between me the Rev, and rather than try to explain his thinking in a constructive manner, it took your de-obfuscation to make any sense of this conversation.  The Rev is apparently unwilling to do this, for reasons beyond the reach of my primitive brain.

Visiting A's fan - also from BtB, a sister SBNation site.

by salb918 on Feb 21, 2006 6:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

This ain't geometry class
BTF is an excellent place to attempt a hair-splitting, language-parsing, Scientific Method argument (though most people there, probably me included, use the capital-F facts to support what they believed anyway).... But this just ain't that site.

Even though plenty of us pray in the general direction of TangoTiger & even cranky ol' mgl, and use mucho chunky data when debating this or that, no one somehow "owes" anyone else to resolve their comments' contradictions, or tone down their mania, or show anything but gleeful contempt for Billy Beane even though he's a helluva general manager. Dig? Have fun, talk smack, and don't expect a seven-point proof, even though you'll get one now and then.

by mattwelch on Feb 21, 2006 8:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

One great thing about Ersty
Is that his great athleticism & work ethic gave the Angels great defensive flexibility, allowing them to flow him into holes, or to make room for incoming players. Check out where he's played, and the player he's enabled by moving to whatever new position.
  1. CF
  2. 1B (Anderson to LF)
  3. 1B/LF (Salmon to DH)
  4. 1B/LF (Edmonds to DL)
  5. LF (Edmonds to STL)
  6. CF (Anderson to LF)
  7. CF
  8. CF
  9. 1B (Vladi/Guillen to RF/LF)
  10. 1B
  11. CF (Kotchman to 1B)
Defensive flexibility is huge, and a fundamental tenet of the Scioscia philosophy.

by mattwelch on Feb 21, 2006 9:47 PM PST   0 recs

Thank Darin
for being hte one who put Edmonds in his place!

by Rev Halofan on Feb 21, 2006 9:49 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

not just good enough to play those positions...
He's one of the rare new age athletes that wouldn't say a word about getting moved from CF to 1b, or even CF to LF except stuff like 'whatever will help the team win.'  Even GA made a stink when getting moved from CF to LF, and you can imagine what Edmonds would have said.

by thewebb on Feb 22, 2006 7:14 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The reason we watch sports
Some people derive pleasure from crunching numbers and analysing statistics in baseball. Others seem to place more emphasis on the event itself, the witnessing of a great slide, a pitcher's expert pickoff move to first,a sparkling defensive play, or and expertly executed squeeze play.

Although I think one can appreciate both the numerical richness of baseball and the raw physical aspects of the sport, I find that most people tend to fit into one of these two camps. Similar to Jung's typology which identifies the polarity of Thinking and Feeling Types.

It seems to me that fans of Erstad tend to be more of the FEELING type. While I consider Erstad to have a very high baseball I.Q., his game is characterized by the feeling aspect. His emotional intensity, and verocity define him as a player. Herein lies his brilliance. Sean (above)describes these aspects of Erstad very well. But for me I think the one play that defines what Erstad is about was the bonejarring hit on Johnny Estrada of the Braves last year. This was to me without a doubt the "Play of the Year" for the Halos last year (and maybe the play of the year in baseball). What made it so great was that it came at a pivotal time, late in a close game, and essentially propelled the Angels to victory. And Erstad had to KNOW as he rounded third that there was going to be a collision on the play -- he had to be thinking it's either me or him and "I'm not gonna lose". This is sports at it's greatest to me. Contrary to what some Brave players said afterwards, this was not a "dirty" play. It was good, hard baseball, and it was exhilarting. I haven't enjoyed a moment in a baseball game that much since Bengie made his backhanded flip to a sliding Frankie to tag out Belliard at the plate (this was THE play of 2004). It is these type of plays that will always ellude the appreciation of the "stat heads" and "Beane eaters", and will continue to bring joy to us fans of Erstad. Cause' this is what the game is about.          
 

by Jack Frost on Feb 22, 2006 11:32 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The 59th Most Valuable Sports Blog on Earth. Boo-YAH!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Angels to hold off on Tex...for now

Recent FanPosts

Small
Mike Mussina to Retire. Hall of Famer?
2439_small
Teixeira
Tsjpg_small
Mariners found their man
Wvufieldrush_small
Excuse me while I puke
Small
Brandon Wood Gets Cut..
Motivator9137996_small
I cautiously ask, how 'bout a Tigers pitcher?
Small
ANGELS Prospect Rankings, 11-20
Tn96_small
Draft Efficiency
Zelda_mastersword_paper_small
Yankees Make CC a BIG Offer
Mia_small
manny is the answer

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Picpic_small Rev Halofan

ad

Site Meter