The 100 Greatest Angels: #10 Darin Erstad
#10 Darin Erstad, OF, 1B
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 |
37 comments
Comments
re: Erstad
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Erstad's position
by scareduck on
Feb 20, 2006 9:07 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you count Win Shares in a vacuum, sure
by mattwelch on
Feb 20, 2006 10:53 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why I ranked him fifth
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hear Hear
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 21, 2006 9:27 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Objectivity
by Jack Frost on
Feb 22, 2006 10:53 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here ya go...
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
reply
actions
0 recs
One man's devil
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 20, 2006 1:11 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Use Two Hands"
'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
reply
actions
0 recs
8th All-time in Win Shares ...
by devo on
Feb 21, 2006 11:17 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Like I said, I usually lurk
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.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 1:44 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Interpret and contextualize
AT THE BASEBALL DINER, STATS ARE A VITAMIN, NOT THE FRIGGIN' MAIN COURSE.
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 21, 2006 1:54 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Great.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 1:58 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Your're implying that i am mentally
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 21, 2006 2:15 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Perhaps the last sentence
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.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 2:21 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Okay
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The problem is your straw man argument
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.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 3:43 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
statty
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Legitimacy
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.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 5:01 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
CONTRADICTION
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
FYI
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey Folks
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 21, 2006 3:18 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's right
Carewwwwwwww!
by yeswecan on
Feb 21, 2006 3:22 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
GREAT
But not quite Maryner territory.
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 21, 2006 3:25 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Like I said
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.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 3:34 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we're making more of this than it is...
by thewebb on
Feb 21, 2006 5:23 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That may be what he means
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.
by salb918 on
Feb 21, 2006 6:09 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This ain't geometry class
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
One great thing about Ersty
- CF
- 1B (Anderson to LF)
- 1B/LF (Salmon to DH)
- 1B/LF (Edmonds to DL)
- LF (Edmonds to STL)
- CF (Anderson to LF)
- CF
- CF
- 1B (Vladi/Guillen to RF/LF)
- 1B
- CF (Kotchman to 1B)
by mattwelch on
Feb 21, 2006 9:47 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank Darin
by Rev Halofan on
Feb 21, 2006 9:49 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
not just good enough to play those positions...
by thewebb on
Feb 22, 2006 7:14 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The reason we watch sports
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs















