Dodgers Now

Steve Dilbeck and The Times' Dodgers reporters
give you all the news on the boys in blue

« Previous Post | Dodgers Now Home | Next Post »

Daily Dodger in review: The failed Garret Anderson experiment

GARRET ANDERSON, 38, outfielder

2010 stats: .181 batting average, two home runs, 12 runs batted in, .202 on-base percentage, .271 slugging percentage in 155 at-bats.

Contract status: Free agent.

The good: Yeah, this is a tough one. I was going to skip Anderson, not wanting to hammer him any further after the Dodgers released him Aug. 10. But he spent more than half the season with the team. Highlights? He was five for 10 in Boston? Was four for nine when swinging at the first pitch?

The bad: Ugh, where to start? I was willing to give the Anderson experiment a go, but he was consistently horrible all season. His across-the-board numbers are almost frighteningly bad.

They were so bad that when the Dodgers cast him adrift, Mike Petriello of MikeSciosciasTragicIllness.com dubbed it the worst offensive season in Los Angeles Dodgers history. He based this on a minimum of an admittedly arbitrary 160 plate appearances, but that’s a decent sample size. On his list of all-time worst OPS+ (combined on-base and slugging percentage adjusted for ballpark and league), Anderson is the only Dodger who played after World War I (the immortal Bill Bergen, career .170 hitter, appears seven times).

What’s next: Retirement, hopefully. Anderson hasn’t been heard from since the Dodgers released him, so you hope he’s ready to call it a career.

The take: Listen, I was going to skip Anderson because he had a wonderful career and didn’t deserve more harping on the worst season of his 17-year career. And throughout his difficult season, he remained a classy figure in the clubhouse, which partially explains why it took the Dodgers so long to waive him.

Still, there’s no denying it happened, or that the Dodgers allowed it to happen long after it was clear he just wasn’t going to get it done. Anderson was a starter throughout his career and never could make the adjustment as a part-time-player and pinch-hitter, although he hit slightly better as a pinch-hitter (.240).

His locker was next to Matt Kemp’s, so there was also the hope he would rub off in some professional way on the young outfielder. That did not appear to happen.

Anderson is a local product who oddly seemed much more relaxed during his brief time in the Dodgers clubhouse than the 15 seasons he spent with the Angels. He was, however, respected wherever he was. He has a career .293 batting average and 287 home runs. That’s a lot of great seasons to look back on, and only one to forget.

-- Steve Dilbeck

 
Comments () | Archives (9)

The comments to this entry are closed.

After looking over Mike Petriello's blog piece, I still think the Andrew Jones experience of a couple seasons back was far more detrimental to the team. Jones was counted on as a starter who could provide power in the middle of the lineup. As for Garret ending his career on a down note, it is a shame. But, not a terrible one. He was very fine player.

It was EVIDENT by May that this was a mistake. It was Torre and Colletti, not necessarily in that order, who dragged out the torture of LA and UNQUESTIONABLY hurt the team's long-term chances to at least do better than 4th. Too many losses of too many games with too many situations in which Garrett could not come through all the way into August. Ridiculous organizational constipation at the top.

Anderson's gone, Torre's gone. Suggestion: Colletti needs join them asap. He has outlived his quota of screw-ups. Time to elevate Kim Ng. SHE COULD NOT DO WORSE and would be on the spot to show she could perform better than her predecessor. I swear that would not be hard. In fact, with her smarts she should run circles around Mr Ned the Talking *ss, my nominee for the worst GM ever to disgrace Los Angeles. It isn't close. Yet another belabored McCourt blunder.

THIS is what we get for attempting to make something out of an ANGELS retread. I'm just saddened that someone with such a great career wouldn't let it die and that Ned Colletti wouldn't let a man retire when it was time.


NO MORE RETREADS!

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our Anderson, but in our Torre, that he was an idiot.


No comment necessary!

You forgot the most important part!!

He was cheap. That's all the dodgers care about.

Laziest Angel I ever encountered.

Anderson's prolonged failure was more Torre's than his own: every player reaches an end, and it is up to the coaching staff to recognize that, even when the player won't.

The person who would promote Ng on the grounds that "she could not do worse" than Colletti has a short memory. For proof that is indeed possible to do much, much worse, one need only recall Colletti's immediate predecessor, The Fountainhead.

The Garret Anderson was more of a hail Mary than an experiment.

It is called an experiment only if you're uncertain about the results.
If you stick your finger into an electrical socket to find out if you get shocked, that's not an experiment; it is an idiotic decision.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About the Blogger

Recent Posts

Categories


Archives
 


Bleacher Report | Dodgers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Dodgers on Bleacher Report »




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: