Garret Anderson: immensely overrated
Posted by Andy on July 19, 2008
I've always felt that Garret Anderson was very overrated. Even at the peak of his career, 2000 to 2003 when he had at least 28 HR and 116 RBI each season, I felt his performances lacked punch and his numbers were, for the most part, a product of the offensive era he played in.
OPS+ is one of the most valuable stats we have today. OPS alone is incredibly useful, and correcting for yearly averages and park effects (which is basically what OPS+ is) lets us very easily compare players from different eras. True it involves some simplifications, including ignoring how style of game play may differ from team to team and era to era, but it's a much better metric than comparing just raw numbers.
Anyway, here are all players with at least 250 career HR, ranked by lowest OPS+
Cnt Player **OPS+** HR From To Ages G PA AB R H 2B 3B RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS Positions Teams +----+-----------------+--------+---+----+----+-----+----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+----+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+-----+-----+-----+-----+---------+-----------+ 1 Vinny Castilla 95 320 1991 2006 23-38 1854 7384 6822 902 1884 349 28 1105 423 64 1069 60 8 71 224 33 43 .276 .321 .476 .797 *56/43 ATL-COL-TBD-TOT-ATL-WSN 2 Gary Gaetti 97 360 1981 2000 22-41 2507 9817 8951 1130 2280 443 39 1341 634 57 1602 96 32 104 236 96 65 .255 .308 .434 .742 *53/D67149 MIN-CAL-TOT-KCR-STL-TOT-CHC-BOS 3 Bret Boone 101 252 1992 2005 23-36 1780 7432 6683 927 1775 366 28 1021 552 32 1295 69 55 73 168 94 53 .266 .325 .442 .767 *4/5D SEA-CIN-ATL-SDP-SEA-TOT 4 Tim Wallach 102 260 1980 1996 22-38 2212 8908 8099 908 2085 432 36 1125 649 89 1307 77 6 77 192 51 66 .257 .316 .416 .732 *5/39D7164 MON-LAD-TOT 5 Todd Zeile 103 253 1989 2004 23-38 2158 8649 7573 986 2004 397 23 1110 945 47 1279 42 8 81 223 53 51 .265 .346 .423 .769 *532/D71 STL-TOT-LAD-TEX-NYM-COL 6 Tony Armas 103 251 1976 1989 22-35 1432 5502 5164 614 1302 204 39 815 260 37 1201 15 11 52 149 18 20 .252 .287 .453 .740 987/D36 PIT-OAK-BOS-CAL 7 Steve Finley 104 304 1989 2007 24-42 2583 10460 9397 1443 2548 449 124 1167 844 69 1299 53 91 75 152 320 118 .271 .332 .442 .774 *89/7D1 BAL-HOU-SDP-ARI-TOT-LAA-SFG-COL 8 Brooks Robinson 104 268 1955 1977 18-40 2896 11782 10654 1232 2848 482 68 1357 860 120 990 53 101 114 297 28 22 .267 .322 .401 .723 *5/46 BAL 9 Garret Anderson 105 266 1994 2008 22-36 1954 8242 7763 995 2295 475 34 1257 387 99 1091 6 12 74 174 77 45 .296 .327 .468 .795 *78D9 CAL-ANA-LAA 10 Ruben Sierra 105 306 1986 2006 20-40 2186 8782 8044 1084 2152 428 59 1322 610 102 1239 7 1 120 193 142 52 .268 .315 .450 .765 *9D7/8 TEX-TOT-OAK-CHW-TEX-SEA-NYY-MIN 11 Joe Carter 105 396 1983 1998 23-38 2189 9154 8422 1170 2184 432 53 1445 527 86 1387 90 10 105 132 231 66 .259 .306 .464 .770 7983D/45 CHC-CLE-SDP-TOR-TOT 12 Dante Bichette 106 274 1988 2001 24-37 1704 6855 6381 934 1906 401 27 1141 355 32 1078 41 5 73 176 152 73 .299 .336 .499 .835 *97/D85 CAL-MIL-COL-TOT-BOS 13 Lance Parrish 106 324 1977 1995 21-39 1988 7797 7067 856 1782 305 27 1070 612 62 1527 37 23 58 197 28 37 .252 .313 .440 .753 *2D/397 DET-PHI-CAL-TOT-CLE-PIT-TOR 14 Tom Brunansky 106 271 1981 1994 20-33 1800 7169 6289 804 1543 306 33 919 770 43 1187 30 8 72 146 69 70 .245 .327 .434 .761 *9/78D3 CAL-MIN-TOT-STL-BOS-MIL-TOT 15 Eric Karros 107 284 1991 2004 23-36 1755 7100 6441 797 1724 324 11 1027 552 21 1167 31 0 76 181 59 30 .268 .325 .454 .779 *3/D LAD-CHC-OAK 16 Dean Palmer 107 275 1989 2003 20-34 1357 5513 4902 734 1229 231 15 849 502 21 1332 54 4 51 95 48 31 .251 .324 .472 .796 *5D/736 TEX-TOT-KCR-DET 17 Larry Parrish 107 256 1974 1988 20-34 1891 7450 6792 850 1789 360 33 992 529 79 1359 42 31 56 187 30 36 .263 .318 .439 .757 *59D/376 MON-TEX-TOT 18 Frank Thomas 107 286 1951 1966 22-37 1766 6916 6285 792 1671 262 31 962 484 55 894 51 26 70 191 15 22 .266 .320 .454 .774 7583/94 PIT-CIN-CHC-TOT-NYM-CHC 19 Graig Nettles 110 390 1967 1988 22-43 2700 10226 8986 1193 2225 328 28 1314 1088 94 1209 50 12 90 197 32 36 .248 .329 .421 .750 *5/739D68 MIN-CLE-NYY-SDP-ATL-MON 20 Vada Pinson 110 256 1958 1975 19-36 2469 10403 9645 1366 2757 485 127 1170 574 69 1196 54 52 78 164 305 122 .286 .327 .442 .769 *897/3D CIN-STL-CLE-CAL-KCR
Just as I suspected, Anderson checks in high on the list at #9. Three other guys who have also been hugely overrated--Vinny Castilla, Bret Boone, and Steve FInley--also make it ahead of Garret. And before you freak out, Frank Thomas at #18 is old-school Frank Thomas, not the current player. Current Frank Thomas has the 13th best OPS+ ever for a player with 250+ HR. The full list is right here.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Of course he is going to fare poorly on this list, his 266 HR are near the bottom of the field of players you selected. i.e. 250-762 career HR's (182nd of 190). He laso ranks 162 of 190 in HR. I ran a much narrower list, 250-275 HRs and came up with a list of 44 names. And while G.A. still ranks near the botto, (39th of 44) in OPS+ that is largely because he doesn't draw walks.
He is right in the middle of the pack (21 of 44) in SLG.
I also found he is 11 of 44 in Runs scored
5th of 44 in 2B
and most importantly of all 4th of 44 in RBI.
This isn't to say walks aren't important. I just want to make the point that there are different ways of rating players. and Anderson is more valuble than the OPS shows.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
spartanbill--your analysis just further proves my point, I think. He's an above-average player, for sure, but that's about as far as I can go. I'm not saying he's bad, just overrated.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
It's probably more likely that someone with that many homers will be overrated than underrated, so who are the most underrated players on that list? The ones near the top who struck me as underrated - not that I'm great at gauging public opinion - were Dick Allen , Ralph Kiner, and Bob Johnson.
I don't think that many people list Allen with Mays and Ott, the two who surround him on the list.
Even though Kiner is in the Hall of Fame, I don't hear much about his playing exploits, and, when I do, it's most just about his ability to hit home runs instead of about his overall offensive game.
Johnson, farther up (or down, depending on how you look at it) than the other two guys, is hardly remembered at all.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I guess are differences are about the term "overrated". It is tough to argue who is and who isn;t wuthot a standardized definition of that word. One could also argue that he is "underated" as he has so many more RBI than one would expect.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
As a resolute Red Sox fan who has been watching this guy kill my team for years, I cannot help but scoff at this post. If anything, Garret Anderson goes under the radar for someone who hits averages nearly .300 with 25+ hr and nearly 100 RBI a year. This is simply exceptional -- full-stop, no if's and's or but's about it. The fact that his OPS doesn't group him with Gehrig means virtually nothing (though Brooks Robinson and Joe Carter aren't bad company!).
He's no Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez, but his reputation pales in comparison. As someone suggested above, maybe my quibbling centers around a semantic squabble over the meaning of "overrated." I simply don't think the term applies at all to Mr. Anderson, who has so far put up career numbers that border on superstar status, without the acclaim that generally accompanies it.
LASTLY, you should note that Anderson's career BA is about .030 higher than the average player on your list above.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:30 am
Sorry, thebest, I disagree.
#1: Joe Carter was a bad player (perhaps the most overrated of all time), as has been discussed on this blog in many places. Brooks Robinson was a good player but was much better defensively than offensively. They are, in fact, good comps for Anderson--not too shabby, but not as great as people think.
#2: Yeah, Anderson's batting average is higher because he played entirely in the Steroids Era when overall league batting averages were much higher than the rest of baseball history taken as a whole.
#3: Looking at Anderson's career splits, his performance against Boston, OPS-wise, has been one of his worst. (See link below.) His career OPS+ against Boston is 100---league average.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=anderga01&year=00#oppon-oppon
That's what Anderson is--a league-average player. Not terrible, but also not great.
I scoff at your response--emotional not statistical.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:08 am
BunnyWrangler, there is a simple reason as to why Kiner and Bob Johnson aren't remembered too well: their teams were cellar dwellers. Johnson's Athletic teams followed a period of dominance (Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane, Lefty Grove) but were at the bottom of the standings. Kiner's Pirates teams were god-awful as well. Kiner's tenure with the Pirates famously ended when he demanded more money and his GM, Branch Rickey, said (as best as i can remember) "we finished last with you, we can finish last without you".
There's a simple explanation to why great guys on bad teams aren't remembered as well as they should be. Everybody remembers a winner. Garret Anderson and Joe Carter were both part of winning teams, but are considered overrated. If they were on mediocre teams or bad teams for their careers, i guarantee you they wouldn't be overrated, they wouldn't be remembered much at all.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Sorry Andy, but your conclusion is beyond laughable. Suggesting that Anderson, who is nearly .296 career hitter is "a league-average player," is utterly preposterous. The average starting player does not typically hit .300, 30 hr, and knock in 100 runs -- and to suggest that some highly dubious metric like OPS+ shows that Anderson is only slightly above average cannot be argued with a straight face.
The absurdity of your conclusion cannot be understated. You are maintaining, in effect, that a player who for six straight seasons was among the top 15 players in hits (1998-03) and for three of those years in the top six, in hits is "average." Moreover, during the prime of his career that you identified, Anderson was almost universally amongst the top 20 AL hitters in RBI and HR, and was amongst the top six in RBI for three consecutive years. This is FAR from average, sir, -- and to contend that Anderson's perennial ranking amongst the top hitters in the AL in significant offensive categories is somehow dispelled by some quirky formula utterly defies common sense.
I am not quite certain what to make of your second point. Are you alleging that Anderson has taken steroids? I, frankly, am privy to no such allegations. In the absence of suspicion, doesn't the fact that Anderson excelled amongst peers tainted by suspicions actually bolster his credentials? Surely, achieving 200 hits off of juiced modern day era pitchers is a more impressive feat than doing so against the likes of Grover Lowdermilk or Weldon Wyckoff. Unless you're going to forward such an allegation, or make an argument about mound height, I'm not sure how you can discount Anderson's .296 average. Which is, for the record, far above the average batting average, even in "the Steroids Era."
Basically, I think you need to reconsider the merit of your precious OPS+ statistic when it leads to conclude that one of the premier players in the game (Top 100 or so hitters over the past decade, undoubtedly) is "average." Arguing that Anderson is overrated is a far cry from concluding that he's "average," and it is factually false based on conventional notions (and statistical notions, though perhaps not OPS+) of the term.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Just to be clear, I am not alleging that Anderson took steroids. I am simply noting that he has played in an era when batting averages are much higher than in most other eras.
I find the rest of your post to be without merit and therefore won't respond to it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
I am perplexed.
Are you suggesting that I am arguing against a straw man or the like? To clarify, you are maintaining that Anderson is merely a "league average player" on account of his OPS+?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
I'm not suggesting anything. Both of your posts include personal attacks and too much emotion, and I'm not going to engage you anymore. At least I'm not deleting your comments.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Clearly, you're not going to continue to engage me on this topic; but, please at least indulge me and let me know whether or not I've distorted your claim.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Whoops, sorry I clearly didn't see your post before my response.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
And, for the record, there was not a single "personal attack" in either of my posts. Heated and "emotional" rhetoric, sure, but there is simply not a single instance of a personal attack.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I think Andy really overstates his case by calling Anderson "average" and Joe Carter "bad." In their primes they were both good players. Anderson was a good left fielder who played every single day, batted .300 with decent power. He was no superstar and he was overrated, but a very fine player for a while.
Thebest, the reason why we don't think Anderson was a great player is because the Triple Crown categories just don't give the whole measure of a player's offensive contributions. First, Anderson was a LF, which requires less defensive ability than any other position except perhaps 1B, and therefore demands more offense. Consequently, hitting 25-30 HR is nice, but not at all special. Secondly, Anderson's hit and RBI totals are inflated because he rarely walked. Therefore despite his good BA, he got on base less than average, which is revealed in his Run totals. I don't dismiss RBI like many statheads do, but equally as important as RBI are runs scored. Anderson topped 90 only twice in a season. For a corner outfielder in this high-scoring era, that's pathetic. So while Anderson drove in runs, you would find the guys batting behind him didn't get the chance to drive in as many. He did not contribute as much to the TEAM's scoring as his RBI totals would indicate.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Johnny, I agree with your assessment. To me, the issue is that Anderson gets way more credit than he deserves. Yes, he had a peak period where he was a great player, and overall he's good. (Mind you, I think there is some misconception about what I mean by "average"---being an "average" major league is nothing to sneeze at.)
But just like Steve Finley, Anderson gets a lot of credit for amassing certain career totals that he has achieved mainly through longevity and staying healthy. There's nothing wrong with longevity and staying healthy. Imagine if Mo Vaughn and Albert Belle could have had those traits. But he's simply very overrated as a hitter by the mainstream media.
To see just how soft Anderson is, check out this list (link below) of players over the last 15 years with at least 7000 PAs and a BA between .290 and .300. Anderson is right in the middle at .295. His 104 career OPS+ is truly pathetic, just ahead of lightweights like Jason Kendall and Mark Grudzielanek. He's even less productive than Kenny Lofton and is light years behind Bobby Abreu, Jeff Kent, and Brian Giles.
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/7khV
By the way, user "thebest" and I cleared the air in an off-line discussion.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I notice Renteria on that list....with Anderson slowing down, Renteria might be the player who now most threatens the 3000 hit plateau, despite not seeming to be a "great" player.
Incidentally, Andy, could you see if Sean has a way to link the most recent comments on the sidebar or something? Sometimes a post like this has been pushed way down the page, but the conversation remains interesting, but I bet a lot of people miss it because they don't realize new comments are still being added. You either have to click on every single post every time you visit, or kind of remember how many comments were there before and see if the # has changed.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Johnny, you can subscribe to the comments rss in the Meta section in the sidebar.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Will you dig Frank Howard at 142+. Who knew?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I dig him, pageup1000.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Oh, and Johnny, if you don't use a newsreader, you can still visit the page for the RSS feed for comments--it will always show the most recent comments on there. Or if you use Firefox you can use one of those fancy bookmarks that shows all updates.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Ooh, I don't know about all that stuff. I'll try to figure it out, thanks.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I'd like to second Johnny's call for a sidebar in comment 17, above. It's done that way at Hardball Times, and it's a good feature, and I prefer it to the alternatives Raphy & Andy suggest (although those are good ideas, too).
July 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
[...] last time I ripped a player, it caused a bit of a firestorm. Somehow I think I’ll get less resistance this [...]