Who would you rather have Garrett Anderson or Darin Erstad?

[WiredTiger]

I saw an article on this somewhere and the author was arguing that even though it was counter intuitive he would rather have Garrett Anderson because Garrett played 160 games a year and didn't get hurt.

To me that is a tough call, do you take the guy who has less talent and paces himself? or do you take the guy with more talent that will run through walls but gets injured all the time?

I take Garrett and his every day production.

[SmedIndy]

I don't know if I want either one. Anderson makes a lot of outs, and you can't count on Erstad year over year.

Sometimes I like the unknown over the known, but Erstad takes that to the ridiculous.

[KCBOOMER]

This is a tough comparison. The raw numbers are on an annualized basis are like this:


Erstad Anderson

Games 157 150
Hits 174 177
HR's 16 19
rbi 90 75
runs 76 95
obp .352 .325

I suspect the "stat" oriented numbers are just as close. They both are very serviceable players. Erstad's numbers are based on the last five years while Anderson's are on the last seven.

[sweaver]

Well, neither, thanks. If I was the Angels, I would be trying to trade both of them.

Anderson is very consistent, and he is what he is. A good defensive left fielder, stretched in center, good power but weak strike zone judgment. He would be a good #6 hitter, but his rep as an RBI man means he usually hits higher.

Erstad is not quite a CF, but unless he brings his offense back up to peak levels, he is not a good enough hitter to be an everyday LF or 1B.

I think both have perceived values higher than their actual values, so that is why I would try to trade them.

[spitball]

As I've stated in other threads , the Angels are a team to be watched everyday. Not observed from afar with only a stat sheet as your guide.
I wouldn't trade either.
Garret Anderson is 6'5". He's always getting the rap that he doesn't go 100% . After seeing him alot you notice that he covers a lot of ground with few steps. Kind of like Dave Winfield.
Erstad is the best athlete on the team. He looks kind of herky jerky out in the field but he makes alot of plays that others would not by sheer determination and hustle.
The points about his hitting I can't disagree with . But it looks like he's getting it together. He's been going the other way more this year and not grounding in to too many 4-3's.
Back to topic.
If push came to shove I'd trade Erstad.
The Angels almost traded him to the White Sox for Singleton and Garland . I could have lived with that.
Thanks for starting this thread. Any Angel related talk is cool by me. Tigers and Angels tonite.

[poorme]

At their best, Erstad is much better. And he is a good defensive CF, from what I've seen and heard. I'm a risk taker, so I'd take Erstad.

[Craig S.]

Anderson can be fun to watch because he really scorches the ball. Unfortunately, he needs how to "take" a ball once in a while instead of hitting it every time. He had 190 walks coming into this season, or 13 more than Bonds did in 2001.

Erstad doesn't have the power numbers, but he gets on base more often (still needs more patience) and he's a better baserunner.

In the end, I'd take Erstad, but it's a tough call.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by spitball
As I've stated in other threads , the Angels are a team to be watched everyday. Not observed from afar with only a stat sheet as your guide.
Spit, that's the kind of argument anyone can make about his own team and leads to myths like 'derek jeter is a good defensive shortstop.'
If you see someone everyday, you do get a better feel for what a player is capable of, but you also tend to become less and less objective. That's what the numbers are for - to give you a basis of comparison among player A, who you watch every day, and players B-Z, who you don't.

[indychamps]

he was down for sure last year but there were circumstances

He had injuries that he never rested and he had a ton of personal problems that supposedly hit himharder than they would most others

He has been hitting .333 since he last came off the DL this year and I feel he can be a hell of a hitter, almost on par with two years ago.

[spitball]

Originally posted by gyb13

Spit, that's the kind of argument anyone can make about his own team and leads to myths like 'derek jeter is a good defensive shortstop.'
If you see someone everyday, you do get a better feel for what a player is capable of, but you also tend to become less and less objective. That's what the numbers are for - to give you a basis of comparison among player A, who you watch every day, and players B-Z, who you don't.
Agreed gyb13.Good point.

That's all I can say to that.:)

[Sound2TheBay]

Originally posted by WiredTiger
I take Garrett and his every day production.

[spitball]

Originally posted by indychamps
he was down for sure last year but there were circumstances

He had injuries that he never rested and he had a ton of personal problems that supposedly hit himharder than they would most others

He has been hitting .333 since he last came off the DL this year and I feel he can be a hell of a hitter, almost on par with two years ago.
Erstad went through a messy divorce . He had a lingering knee problem as well as a back injury.
Anyone who has a tricky back ( Me ) knows the hell that can wreak.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'd rather have Erstad, although the window on his chance at greatness is closing.

I view Erstad as a guy who has been grossly mismanaged. He has gone from position to position, including positions where his offensive production would be considered disappointing (1B).
He has also been shifted around in the lineup enough to confuse him about his offensive role.

Erstad is, in my opinion, most valuble if he can hit in the #2 slot and play CF regularly. Such a role would take advantage of his ability to hit for average, as well as the power he does have. I believe Erstad would develop more plate discipline if he settled into such a role. He'd have STAR value if this happened.

Switching Erstad from position to position, and role to role is not how to develop a supposed potential star, and give us insigned as to why the Angels just plain stink.

[spitball]

Erstad had been going back and forth between 1st and center field voluntarily and also due to injury. He's been batting in the 2 hole since Eckstein came on board . Which is all of last year and this season so far.
Saying the Angels stink is a tad harsh considering that they're the hottest team in baseball.
Granted, I know this streak could come to a screaching halt in a heartbeat. This is the way the team SHOULD be playing with the talent and coaching staff that this team has.
Back on subject...Anderson has been the most consistant of the two. He's never on the D.L. which is a plus . That's why if I had to choose I'd keep Anderson.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by spitball

Saying the Angels stink is a tad harsh considering that they're the hottest team in baseball.

The Angels, year to year, are on a par with the Cubs as a big market team with resources that doesn't win.

A certain amount of this was due to their free-agent spending sprees which caused them to pay too much for declining talent. Dave Winfield and Reggie Jackson are two famous decline-phase free agents.

The Angels have developed talent, but can't mold it into a winner. Erstad and Anderson are examples of this. Erstad is not given a role, and Anderson is much maligned, while Salmon declines and Jim Edmonds plays somewhere else. The Angels are a drifting organization, wasting the opportunity to contend that comes with the convergence of young players' careers.

[Doobster779]

In terms of raw and total production, Garret Anderson is your man

But nobody, i repeat nobody, plays with more heart than Darin Erstad.

-Chris

[indychamps]

I'll take Erstad and his laying out for every catch and his crashing the walls any day

Heart goes a long way in this day and age in my mind

[spitball]

After tonights game and as a matter of fact the last month's worth of games I'll keep them both.
Erstad's at.300 plus and going the other way with authority.That means his stroke is back.
G.A. is doing what he always does. Hit anything that's remotely around the plate and drive in runs.
I'm on cloud 9.

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by Doobster779
In terms of raw and total production, Garret Anderson is your man

But nobody, i repeat nobody, plays with more heart than Darin Erstad.

-Chris

This is the quandry of the day. You know Erstad is probably a better player when healthy. But Erstad is often hurt and Anderson stays fairly healthy. Does Erstad + his replacement player exceed Anderson's production? I don't think they do.

[SmedIndy]

I was just reading a Bill James compendium, and he was commenting on Butch Hobson, and basically saying that those who seem to play "all out" all the time are the ones who get hurt and thus hurt the team - he mentioned Molitor and George Brett (kind of shows when this was written).

Erstad may be in that mode - if he toned down a notch - he wouldn't have the perceived "heart" but may stay in for 150+ games.

[spitball]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I was just reading a Bill James compendium, and he was commenting on Butch Hobson, and basically saying that those who seem to play "all out" all the time are the ones who get hurt and thus hurt the team - he mentioned Molitor and George Brett (kind of shows when this was written).

Erstad may be in that mode - if he toned down a notch - he wouldn't have the perceived "heart" but may stay in for 150+ games.
A great point smed. But Erstad has it in his head that he's not as skilled as other players so he has to give it"110%" .
Which is why he's so loved by us Angel fans. It's also his downfall because he always plays through nagging injuries and it affects his numbers. Last years back and knee injuries are a prime example. They were downplayed by him so it left the impression that he was just a flash in the pan that played way over his head in 2000.