[stepay]

Jim Rome had Garret Anderson on his radio show yesterday, and he (Rome) mentioned that "if you keep going as you have been going, you could end up in the Hall of Fame."

That surprised me, so I looked up his stats.

.296 career average which is very good
282 home runs (ho hum)
but the big thing is 2463 hits

He just turned 37 in June. Assuming he could get to 2500 hits by the end of this year...

In three more years if he averaged 167 hits per season, he'd get to 3000 hits. Seeing how he hasn't had that many hits in a season since 2003, that seems unlikely. Let's do 4 more years. That's 125 per year, and he'd retire after the season in which he'd turn 41. Always a question about how rapidly a player declines at the end of their career, and will he be able to get the at bats necessary.

ALSO, would 3000 hits do it for Garret Anderson? He's never been one of the most feared players in MLB, and as a guy whose best stat is number of hits, he's only had one 200-hit season (201 in 2003).

I say he doesn't get to 3,000 hits and therefore does not make the Hall of Fame. This is a guy that MUST get 3,000 hits to be considered in my opinion.

Thoughts?

[Full Cougar]

I think he will get 2500. I highly doubt he gets to 3000. If he does, then yeah put him into the Hall of Fame, solely because if you can get 500+ hits when your already 37, you must be a special kind of player. This is what his resume will probably look like when he retires-

Hall of Fame Resume

• All-Star appearances in 2002, 2003, and 2006.
• Silver Slugger in 2002, and 2003.
• 2500+ hits.
• 300+ homeruns.
• 1500+ RBIs.
• 80+ SB.

That is pretty much it. I doubt he will get in.

[Lefty Noob]

Garret Anderson? Hall of Famer? Really? To me this doesn't even seem like seriously worthy of consideration. Numbers aside, can you honestly say at any point in his career that he was one of the 10 or 20 best players in the game? No? Then he doesn't belong.

[stepay]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Garret Anderson? Hall of Famer? Really? To me this doesn't even seem like seriously worthy of consideration. Numbers aside, can you honestly say at any point in his career that he was one of the 10 or 20 best players in the game? No? Then he doesn't belong.

I have a hard time imagining it too which is why I was surprised that Rome brought it up. I'd say Fred McGriff was a better player, and he's not in. McGriff though did not get 3,000 hits. I'm very much a numbers guy when looking at quality of players (not solely, but numbers are the biggest factor for me). If Anderson manages 3,000 hits, I think I'd have to put him in. That and 300 wins are the two most automatic stats there are in baseball.

I don't see him getting 3,000 hits though.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Garret Anderson? Hall of Famer? Really? To me this doesn't even seem like seriously worthy of consideration. Numbers aside, can you honestly say at any point in his career that he was one of the 10 or 20 best players in the game? No? Then he doesn't belong.

Nope...I would put in a dozen players over him...though a solid, solid hitter.

[stepay]

Originally Posted by stepay

I have a hard time imagining it too which is why I was surprised that Rome brought it up. I'd say Fred McGriff was a better player, and he's not in. McGriff though did not get 3,000 hits. I'm very much a numbers guy when looking at quality of players (not solely, but numbers are the biggest factor for me). If Anderson manages 3,000 hits, I think I'd have to put him in. That and 300 wins are the two most automatic stats there are in baseball.

I don't see him getting 3,000 hits though.

The other big thing is when looking at his career stats how they just fall off a cliff after 2003...hits, home runs, RBIs. What in the WORLD could have caused such a drop beginning in 2004? Of course he's just getting a bit older by then, but in today's world, PEDs have to be considered for everyone. If only there were a way to know for sure who did them and who didn't.

[Full Cougar]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Garret Anderson? Hall of Famer? Really? To me this doesn't even seem like seriously worthy of consideration. Numbers aside, can you honestly say at any point in his career that he was one of the 10 or 20 best players in the game? No? Then he doesn't belong.

In 2002 and 2003 I would place him top 20 players in the game.

2002-
AVG- .306
RBI- 123
HR- 29
H- 195
2B- 56

2003-
AVG- .315
RBI- 116
HR- 29
H- 201
2B- 49

In 2002 he was 4th in the MVP voting, in 2003 he was 14th in the voting. Those two years I would say were his two best without much argument. The years around that though were not bad either. Not to mention he was the king of doubles around that time. All-star appearances in both those years and later in 2005.

Also looked up some post-season stats and found that in the world series in 2002 he batted .281 and had 6 RBIs. He also batted .389 with a homerun in the ALDS of that year. His career fielding percentage as an outfielder is .989. I'm not saying he should be in the Hall of Fame. However I would say there was a time when this guy was real good.

He has no chance.