GA not among ESPN's Top 50 Free Agents?
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 9:33 AM PST
Email
PrintBefore anyone accuses me of being a GA-apologist I’ll just acknowledge, in advance, that I’m guilty as charged.
That being said, I still think people are a bit extreme in their opinions regarding G.A. How can GA not be among the top 50 available free agents? Seriously.
Even I can admit that there are plenty of better options for the Angels, or any team, in the outfield when it comes to available free agents. It seems dubious, though, for ESPN to not include a name like GA on its list of 50 free agents.
GA’s not a better free agent option than Felipe Lopez or Greg Zaun? What gives? Complaints about GA are often valid but, really, are we to believe that the guy won’t be signed before some of the guys on this list?
What gives?
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That is pretty ridiculous
Anderson is definitely in the top 50, if not top 25.
I was uncool before uncool was cool.
Greg Zaun? Really?
That hurts.
That's just Manny being..........a jackass
by autry's cowboys on Nov 14, 2008 11:00 AM PST reply actions
....and they're off!
Let the Law-hating begin! Let’s have some perspective, people. Zaun is a catcher with decent offense, and Lopez a middle infielder who can hit some. At this point in his career, GA is left fielder/DH who hits like a second basemen. Not a whole lot of value in that. I was a little surprised at first to see Griffey and Edmonds ahead of GA, but when you look at their OBP, its not as shocking. He’ll fit in with someone, somewhere, but he is not a top 50 guy at this point. Sorry.
Hmmm. Well,
Joe Crede is a 3B that hits like a player that should have been released long ago. He’s on the list somehow.
That’s but one example of “perspective.” You don’t have to like GA, you should just make some effort to be objective about it.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
whos not being objective?
While Crede has the same poor on-base skills as GA, plays an excellent 3rd base and has alot more power than him. Like it or not, a players’ position factors heavily in his value. Poor defensive corner outfielders have to flat out hit, bottom line. This has nothing to do with me liking Garrett – for the record, hes been one of my favorites since his rookie season almost 14 years ago. Objectively, an aging outfielder with diminishing offensive skills is not worth a whole lot on the open market. And I’m the one that needs to be objective?
Crede doesn't even get on base
as often as GA (Crede has a career OBP of .306 for chrissakes), produces similar power numbers and, oh yeah, has a back as frail as Bartolo Colon’s.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not debating that Crede is good
Honestly, I feel like a jackass having to defend either of those two guys over GA. I think its just being realistic that the industry is going to value those two guys, due to them being younger and playing positions that are higher in demand, over an aging, declining Garret. I hope I’m wrong, and I hope Garret has 2-3 more productive years, no matter where he plays. But please don’t accuse me of not being objective, when you yourself admitted in your first sentence that you’re a GA-apologist.
I try to be objective about GA despite being a fan of his...
I’ve said a few times that I’m not opposed to seeing GA go and that there are better offensive options at LF and DH. His OBP weakness is apparent even to me.
The text of my fanpost also says that I believe that that people are extreme in their opinions of GA. What I mean when I suggest that you aren’t being objective is that you’re being extreme in your opinion of GA. When GA is not ahead of Crede, Gabe Kapler, Felipe Lopez, or even Greg Zaun (a 38 year-old UTILITY catcher who only plays to favorable matchups) on any list, I have to wonder about the objectivity of the person crafting the list (in this case, Keith Law) or those that are willing to argue that any of those four are preferable to any GM (in relation to GA).
Relying on your gut impression of Felipe Lopez, without checking stats (and in fact asserting that I am the one in need of checking the stats) could be construed as an example of possibly not being objective in regard to GA’s worth.
I definitely want to avoid being personal or insulting about any of this but, straight up, if you “feel like a jackass having to defend either of those two guys over GA,” then maybe it could be worth admitting that GA might be the 48th highest ranked free agent instead of defending the list without really taking it into full consideration.
Again, I don’t mean to insult you or be an ass**** but that’s just the way I see it.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
OK, so what if he is top 50?
Lets say he finished 48, would that make you feel better? Or would you still be bitching about 4-5 other questionable players ranked ahead of him? The guy had to put together a list, and he had to decide one way or another to leave a bunch of people off. Keith Law is a professional scout and is usually pretty objective in his analysis, regardless of what the majority of this sites users think of him. I’m not calling him infallible by any stretch, but I do trust his opinion and think that as a whole, the list is pretty spot on. Really, after you get past the top 20, how in the world is one supposed to definitely rank the next 30? The differences (value-wise) of the players in the bottom half of the list seem pretty minor to me.
Realistically, I'm sure I could find 4-5 more to "bitch"
about.
Still, the fundamental question of the post was ‘should he have been excluded from that list?’ I don’t think so.
Next, of course, Keith Law isn’t a “professional scout,” he’s a professional writer for ESPN.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
Whether he should be 48 or 52, it's not worth bitching about.
A light hitting LF/DH isn’t going to rank high on anyone’s list. Do we really have to be offended or have our team feel slighted because he wasn’t on the damn list?
What else have we to do
in the off-season?
I actually didn’t think that I was “bitching” about anything. I was merely pointing out an interesting subject that relates to our favorite team and one of its hisoric players.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
This is the essence of sports blogs
Nit-picking invariably becomes “bitching” the more and more someone disgarees with you.
Duly noted.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
Interestingly, Keith Law has been flicking GA shit
since 1998. Back then, just before GA erupted with some very impressive seasons, Keith Law had this to say:
“It’s even harder to put a team with Garrett [sic] Anderson in the 5-hole anywhere but last.”
Of course, GA’s 1999-2003 years proved Keith Law more than wrong. I’m not sure that Keith Law is the most objective voice in regard to GA.
Perhaps Law’s views then muddle his views now. Just a thought.
Let’s remember, Law spent some time as an assistant to J.P. Ricciardi in Toronto. After that, he became a writer. Would it be Law’s preference to be in baseball front offices or moderating chats on ESPN?
The answer likely lies in Ricciardi’s opinion of Keith Law. You’ve got to love it: "He’s become a writer. It doesn’t take long. Keith Law is officially an idiot."
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
Okay, but what was his opinion of GA from 1999-2003?
Aren’t those the only years you really can consider him an elite hitter?
As objectively as possible, I think GA
has had only one season in his career (2003) in which he could be considered “elite.” I tend to add some weight to his 2002, too, since the Halos won the WS and he finished 4th in the MVP voting.
Other than absolutely hammering GA in a few ESPN chats, Law doesn’t have much to say about GA at all.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 15, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions
Agree
On the surface 2000 and 2001 look elite, but considering the high offensive totals others were putting up in those years his numbers actually can only be considered solid which is no knock on GA.
I wish GA would have stayed healthy post 2003. Since he wasn’t able to, I don’t feel anyone can definitively say that his 02 and 03 years were true anomalies like some people suggest.
by stolenbases on Nov 17, 2008 10:41 PM PST up reply actions
To answer your last question...
yes.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
BTW...
and of hair-splitting nature, GA is not, stastically, a “poor defensive corner outfielder.” He’s a very capable defensive LF, not great, not poor.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
Felipe Lopez can hit?
That’s certainly news to the baseball world.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
check the numbers, stud
For a middle infielder, he is well above average.
Numbers checked...
you may want to hang your hat elsewhere.
As for the patronizing tone, “stud,” lose it.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
maybe he's 51?
Miss you Kotch......Love you Trent
by norcaliangelsfan on Nov 14, 2008 12:25 PM PST reply actions
FA status
I see GA’s not being a type A or B free agent, which would put him in the top half of his position in the majors as a reason for not being in the top 50. I think he was 55. Funny thing was putting Kerry wood above Krod, who was like 18?
I thought GA had been classified as Type B.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
Ridiculous
Say what you will, the guy still hits .290 and still drives in the runs. He’s still a steal as your #6 lineup guy, serviceable as a #5 even, and worked out as #2 in the lineup for the Angels. GA is going to wind up not too far from 3K hits and I feel like he’ll be overlooked just he almost always has been his whole career.
.290
Only comes about when GA goes on an absolute tear after you’ve put up with him hitting .200 and generally being a vortex from which no hits escape throughout the first half of the season. Granted, he’s awesome when he’s on, but those on-periods are fewer and farther between.
Light Up That Halo!
Actually
you have to endure his first half career BA of .288 in order for him to hit .306 in the second half (career).
Another fascinating career split: GA in Angel wins (remember, this is a sample of well over 1,000 games)… .337/.369/.550. Kinda tough to say that GA hasn’t been an integral part of the Angels’ winning.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
Um
I’m not talking about his career.
I’m talking about the way he’s performed the last 2-3 seasons, and the way he will continue to perform in the future.
Hence, yes, you will have to put up with crap in the first half if you want any production from GA in the second half.
I love the guy, too, but fact is he’s not getting any better.
Light Up That Halo!
Again, relative to these stats...
GA’s last two seasons are consistent with his career. If you think GA will continue this trend, it might just be wise to sign him.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
No, they're not
You just told me that GA’s career first-half BA is .288. Fine.
His 2008 first-half BA was .222, if that. His 2007 BA was around there as well (though he was injured for much of that, so he gets some slack there).
That’s pretty inconsistent.
Light Up That Halo!
I was referring to W-L splits (and, in conext, that seems pretty clear)...
paint it however you wish though. Because if you’re relying on BA as an indicator, the guy still has a respectable BA…not really a good argument at all.
It’s the other stats people worry about (and rightfully so).
Again, and to the point, his W-L splits for ‘07 and ’08 combined aren’t much different than his career. That’s what I was referring to (but I think you know that).
Frankly, in what half or what month he produces, I really don’t care (though it is nice to see him produce down the stretch). Where is he at the end of the season? More importantly, where will the Angels get those numbers in the future?
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 9:55 PM PST up reply actions
Okay...
Here’s another one—GA’s OPS+ from 2004-2008 is an average of 101 (chronologically: 107, 97, 94, 114, 97). For comparison, his OPS+ for 1995-2003 was 107. Not a terrible slide, but GA has certainly gone from hovering around somewhat above/very above average in terms of getting on base and producing power, to now hovering around very average to slightly below average in those categories.
GA’s line in Angel wins proves absolutely nothing. You’re showing a great line, sure, that happened to come at times the Angels won. You have not shown the connection between the two. If you show me GA’s win-shares over this same period, that would be a different story.
Would you claim a guy who hits .180 in his team’s losses is largely responsible for those losses? It depends on the context—if he sat up there and whiffed with RISP, or failed to get on base in front of guys who could drive him in, then maybe he would be? But if he’s only coming up with the bases empty and batting in front of the pitcher, it’s much harder to argue that he IS actually responsible.
Light Up That Halo!
Did it "happen to come at times the Angels won,"
or did the Angels win (in part) because GA happened to hit?
I’ve perhaps over-emphasized the importance of the line, sure, but it is something to think about.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 15, 2008 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
A player who hits .200 half the time, and .380 the other half, to average out to .290 overall
is doing as much as a guy who is hitting .290 from April-September in terms of helping the team.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 14, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
Helllooooo....
Welcome to reality GA. He didn’t miss by much, he is about like the guys just above 50.
Like I said, nobody is going to give him 500 PA. But as soon as GA realizes it is what it is, then we can get back at a reasonable cost to be a part time OF.
Another fan of Joe Crede, Gabe Kapler, Felipe Lopez, and Greg Zaun.
We’ll assume that every pitcher on that list is ahead of GA. These four guys, however are not.
Please, please, please, explain how Gabe Kapler is preferable to GA. Would you really be willing to pay for Gabe Kapler based on his career year (in a part-time role) in 2008? That’s all he is…one decent year as a platoon player. You’d rank him higher than GA?
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
these lists will always have headscratchers
And yeah, that Kapler even made the cut is questionable for sure.
Can we ban whoever said he's not top-100?
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 14, 2008 1:57 PM PST reply actions
Perhaps lost in the mess above...
GA’s career statistics when his team wins (1,052 games): .337/.369/.550.
GA’s career statistics when his team loses (961 games): .250/.279/.376.
As Garret goes, so go the Halos.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 5:06 PM PST reply actions
Again
You can’t give career stats and infer that that’s what he’s going to do in the future. His performances in the most recent seasons are not at all representative of the numbers you’ve posted. He was great then, he ain’t as great now.
Light Up That Halo!
I'm amazed at how many people are willing
to pontificate without consulting the actual stats. The last two seasons combined are nearly identical to the career stats. I’ll leave the rest of the leg work to you but “recent seasons” (relative, specifically, to the categories noted above) are consistent with career stats. It’s that simple. Again, “you could look it up” (and should).
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 14, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
Are you talking about HRs?
Because that .550 SLG above came about somehow.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 15, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't put the number quite that high ;-)
It seems like he’s racked up about that many “BOTGs” in the last few years though.
Now, put Chris Pritchett at first, Bobby Rose at second, Pete Coachmen at third, and let's go win.
by GarretSaysSuckIt on Nov 15, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
GA didn't make the top 50
Because he didn’t play in New York or Boston, and therefore according to the Four-Letter-Network. by definition he CAN’T be good.
Angels fan since '67
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
