For my High Heat Stats debut, I’m continuing a series I started on my personal blog, Left Field, in which I’m naming an all-time team for each of the 30 current MLB franchises, and in the process, offering my opinion as to their greatest eligible player who is not in the Hall of Fame.
I’m going to pick up where I left off on my blog, going alphabetically by geographic location. Then, I’ll circle back to the beginning and revisit/update the teams I’ve previously done. Fittingly, since I’d like to show there’s no east coast bias from this writer, I’m starting out west with the franchise that currently calls itself the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
1979 Topps #477 – Bobby Grich
Franchise History
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2005- )
Anaheim Angels (1997-2004)
California Angels (1965-1996)
Los Angeles Angels (1961-1964)
An asterisk (*) denotes a Hall of Famer.
Statistics referenced for each player are plate appearances (for hitters), innings pitched (for pitchers), Baseball-Reference WAR and Wins Above Average (WAA), OPS+ (for hitters) and ERA+ (for pitchers).
Starters
C – Brian Downing (1978-1990, 6912 PA, 35.3 WAR, 15.8 WAA, 126 OPS+)
He only caught for two-plus seasons with the Angels, but I had to find a place in the starting lineup for the player who ranks third in team history in position player WAR and among the top five in numerous offensive categories (including OBP, runs, hits, total bases, home runs, RBI, and OPS+).
1B – Darin Erstad (1996-2006, 5789 PA, 30.4 WAR, 12.9 WAA, 96 OPS+)
Erstad just as easily could have been the center fielder, but I opted for him here, because I liked this team’s other center field option better than its remaining first base options.
2B – Bobby Grich (1977-1986, 4876 PA, 32.9 WAR, 19.1 WAA, 124 OPS+)
The greatest player who should be wearing an Angels cap on a Hall of Fame plaque, in my opinion, and certainly that of a lot of other folks. Grich ranks 7th among eligible non-Hall of Famers in wWAR. [He’s actually 6th–not counting Pete Rose and Joe Jackson–on the list this link directs to, but I believe he’s now 7th based on the as-yet-unpublished newest calculation of wWAR.]
SS – Jim Fregosi (1961-1971, 5945 PA, 43.3 WAR, 26.5 WAA, 116 OPS+)
Maybe somewhat surprisingly, Fregosi is the Angels’ all-time leader in position player WAR.
3B – Troy Glaus (1998-2004, 3479 PA, 20.8 WAR, 10.3 WAA, 120 OPS+)
The 2002 World Series MVP earns the nod at the hot corner.
LF – Garret Anderson (1994-2008, 8480 PA, 23.7 WAR, -1.7 WAA, 105 OPS+)
The advanced metrics don’t think as highly of the Angels’ all-time leader in numerous categories (including runs, hits, total bases and RBI) as he was regarded when he was hitting 3rd, 4th and 5th in the team’s lineup all those years, but he’s still good enough to earn a starting job.
CF – Jim Edmonds (1993-1999, 2951 PA, 19.1 WAR, 10.3 WAA, 119 OPS+)
Edmonds was better in St. Louis than Anaheim, but he still played well enough for the Angels to make the starting nine.
RF – Tim Salmon (1992-2004, 2006; 7039 PA, 37.1 WAR, 16.1 WAA, 128 OPS+)
The team’s career home runs leader is also the longest tenured career Angel on this team.
DH – Vladimir Guerrero (2004-2009, 3606 PA, 20.9 WAR, 10.0 WAA, 141 OPS+)
Since almost 80% of the team’s existence has been in the DH era, this lineup needs a DH, and the Angels’ all-time leader in OPS+ is the perfect candidate for the job.
Rotation
Chuck Finley (1986-1999, 2675 IP, 48.7 WAR, 27.1 WAA, 118 ERA+)
The underrated Finley is the team’s career leader in pitching WAR and wins, and earns the spot as the ace of the rotation.
Nolan Ryan* (1972-1979, 2181 IP, 37.6 WAR, 20.3 WAA, 115 ERA+)
No offense to Texas, but Ryan should be wearing an Angels cap on his Hall of Fame plaque.
Frank Tanana (1973-1980, 1615 IP, 32.5 WAR, 19.7 WAA, 118 ERA+)
I had Frank Tanana’s autograph as a kid, but that didn’t influence my decision. He seriously deserves to be here.
Jered Weaver (2006- , 1292 IP, 27.2 WAR, 16.5 WAA, 128 ERA+)
The only active Angel among the starters on this team is under contract until 2016, so if he keeps it up, we could eventually see him at or near the top of this rotation.
Mark Langston (1990-1997, 1445 IP, 24.4 WAR, 12.6 WAA, 109 ERA+)
Langston still carries around the dubious distinction of being the key piece the Expos got in return when they traded a young Randy Johnson, but he had a nice career otherwise.
Closer
Francisco Rodriguez (2002-2008, 452 IP, 15.5 WAR, 8.9 WAA, 189 ERA+)
I’ll wonder aloud if Percival would be the popular pick among Angels fans, but I can’t help but favor K-Rod’s 189 to 157 ERA+ advantage as the deciding factor, considering the two are virtually equal based on the value metrics.
Reserves
C – Bob Boone (1982-1988, 3391 PA, 10.8 WAR, 1.2 WAA, 71 OPS+)
1B – Rod Carew* (1979-1985, 3570 PA, 16.2 WAR, 6.2 WAA, 119 OPS+)
IF/OF – Chone Figgins (2002-2009, 4075 PA, 20.8 WAR, 8.5 WAA, 99 OPS+)
3B – Doug DeCinces (1982-1987, 3268 PA, 17.5 WAR, 8.5 WAA, 117 OPS+)
OF – Torii Hunter (2008- , 2913 PA, 18.7 WAR, 9.8 WAA, 121 OPS+)
I’m sure there are some who would have Boone and Carew as starters. But, I prefer Downing’s offense to Boone’s defense, and Carew provides a good example of my all-time team philosophy of not letting a player’s entire career overshadow his performance with the team in question. Figgins’ inclusion might seem a bit surprising at first, but his Angels years were quite good and his versatility was invaluable.
Bullpen
John Lackey (2002-2009, 1501 IP, 22.9 WAR, 10.5 WAA, 116 ERA+)
Troy Percival (1995-2004, 587 IP, 16.2 WAR, 8.2 WAA, 157 ERA+)
Dean Chance (1961-1966, 1237 IP, 19.1 WAR, 10.3 WAA, 122 ERA+)
Jarrod Washburn (1998-2005, 1153 IP, 18.7 WAR, 9.2 WAA, 114 ERA+)
Scot Shields (2001-2010, 697 IP, 11.4 WAR, 5.5 WAA, 139 ERA+)
I should explain my philosophy with bullpens here. They generally will only consist of one or two actual relief pitchers, in addition to the closer. Most of the time–and this is especially true with the older franchises–a team’s sixth, seventh, and even eighth best starting pitcher had a career more worthy of celebration than their third, fourth of fifth best relief pitcher.
Manager
Mike Scioscia (2000- , 1143-943 W-L, 1 WS)
Scioscia’s teams haven’t had much postseason success, other than winning the 2002 World Series, but he could be building himself a nice Hall of Fame case.
So, there you have it. My all-time team for the American League’s 10th oldest franchise.
Let me know what you think in the comments. Who would you add? Who would you subtract? Would you not change a thing? Or, tell me who would make up your all-time Los Angeles/California/Anaheim/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim team.
Welcome aboard! I like the format you are using for your lists. I’m looking forward to reading your take on other teams.
I’m not a regular follower of the Angels, but I like a lot of your selections from the 70’s, when I did keep up with them more closely. Bobby Grich is a great choice, as is Jim Fregosi, and Frank Tanana was all too often lost in the shadow of Nolan Ryan.
I’ve got to acknowledge my first comment as a High Heat Stats author.
Thanks for reading, Steven, and thanks for the kind words.
Grich certainly is a good choice…as far as HOF goes, he’s deserving but unfortunately in the same boat as Lou Whitaker. Both were superb-fielding, high-on base second basemen who are major HOF snubs after falling off the ballot after one year with less than three percent of the vote.
Welcome Dan, and great post!
I really liked the format as well. The bold, larger type separating the different parts of the team is easy on the eyes. Thorough examination, well done!
Thanks James and bstar.
@bstar: I tried to set it up so that, while I hope everyone reads all my comments on the players, you could also just browse the names rather easily, if that’s what you preferred to do.
I think I wouldn´t change anything, you got it right on the money. Also, I like the fact that you used a 1970´s baseball card. Great post.
I think a pretty decent argument could be made for Wally Joyner as the reserve at 1B: 17.4 WAR, 6.6 WAA, 121 OPS+ over 3774 PAs. Better numbers in more plate appearances than Rod Carew.
I would put Wally Joyner on the bench over Carew. They’re pretty similar in OPS+ and WAR, with Joyner having the slight edge in both. It’s more that I remember when Joyner’s rookie cards were a big deal.
As a Vermont homer, I’d also put in UVM’s own Kirk McCaskill, over whom I’m not sure, probably Shields.
Also, Mike Trout is already in the top 25 in position WAR for the Angels. I would say the kid can play.
Nick, you and I were on the same page there, posting about Joyner at the same time.
Never mind the fact that I used to call him “Wally Groiner”.
Heh heh, groin.
And to think I expected people to take exception with me leaving Carew out of the starting lineup. 🙂
You guys are right. I could have easily taken Joyner over Carew. Joyner actually edges him out in the primary categories I was using for evaluating players, but it was close and I decided to throw a subjective element in there. That could mean a guy was more important to the team’s history or was their leader in a lot of counting stats (a la Garret Anderson) or, in this case, because he was a Hall of Famer. Maybe that’s wrong. I don’t know, but I’m glad you guys brought Joyner’s name into the discussion.
@Nick: Of all the outfielders who I left off this team, I ranked Mike Trout #2, a hair behind Devon White, but not for long.
There was a great piece recently on Joe Posnanski’s blog about how Tom Tango said you should choose a framework for evaluation and stick with it. I’m guessing Tango wouldn’t agree with adding the subjective element, because essentially that allows me to go outside my framework when it suits me, since the criticism was that people choose the data that supports their argument, and they do so inconsistently.
However, Bill James always threw a subjective element into his evaluations. I’m a little torn. I totally agree with Tango, but I just can’t make it 100% based on a rigid framework.
I’m curious what other people think about this.
When I do rankings like this, I often find that I need to use a subjective element. However it seems that subjective element is often required for something sort of like cognitive dissonance to explain something that doesn’t seem to make sense from the numbers. And so I often think that the subjective element is a crutch or an excuse for why I think the way I do, rather than going back and reevaluating my thinking once I have looked at the actual numbers.
Dan, a lot of times when creating a list like this players will be so close one will have to use some subjectivity. If strict numbers were used, there would be no room for discussion, and where’s the fun in that.
I, obviously, love my wWAR framework. That said, I do keep tweaking it to make it better. So, there’s that aspect.
When building lists like this, I think it is important to look at the limitations of your framework. For wWAR, that includes things like time lost to war, because of the color line, misuse, etc.
If I’m interpreting correctly, I think what Adam is doing with his wWAR tweaking is pretty much exactly what Andy is suggesting. That is, things don’t seem quite right with the framework, so you look for the reasons why and adjust accordingly. But, once you do so, you live with all the other changes that result. At least, until the next time you tweak it. 🙂
Right. There are some things about the latest wWAR results that bug me, even though overall I feel it is the best version ever. But in many cases, I know WHY the results are the way they are.
I know why Roy Campanella no longer rates as a Hall of Famer.
I know why Sandy Koufax appears right on the borderline.
I also know that if my borderline is 100, it doesn’t mean that all guys above 100 belong and that all guys below 100 don’t. It really just means that something like 90–110 or 95–105 represents the borderline. Anyone above it should be a sure thing. Anyone below it should probably be out (unless there are other circumstances). But those guys in the middle, that’s where we have fun discussing things.
Not to hijack, but just grabbing guys between 95 and 105 gives you this list: Jeff Kent, Bob Johnson, Darrell Evans, Whitey Ford, Early Wynn, Ichiro Suzuki, Joe Medwick, Willie Stargell, Silver King, Gene Tenace, Monte Ward, Elmer Flick, Joe Tinker, Tim Hudson, Tommy John, Charlie Bennett, Larry Doby, Will Clark, Willie Davis, Billy Pierce, Wilbur Cooper, King Kelly, Thurman Munson, Wilbur Wood, Sandy Koufax, Orel Hershiser, Nap Rucker, Red Ruffing, Cesar Cedeno, John Olerud, Robin Ventura, Jimmy Collins, Ernie Lombardi, Minnie Minoso, Andy Pettitte, Billy Herman, Eppa Rixey, Ron Cey, Brian Giles, David Wells, Paul Hines, Jerry Koosman, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley, John McGraw, Eddie Rommel, Ted Breitenstein, Bobby Doerr, Lance Berkman, Jose Cruz, Tommy Bridges, Art Fletcher, Bid McPhee, CC Sabathia.
Debating guys like that is just SO. MUCH. FUN.
Dan, I think Tango’s statement, and Joe Poz’ subsequent article, were more about choosing rWAR over fWAR, or the reverse, or a combination of the two, whatever. But make that choice, and be consistent with it. Don’t quote your favorite player’s fWAR because it’s higher than his rWAR, then use rWAR for another player you like. I don’t think adding subjectivity really violates this.
Ouch! Joyner probably should be the back-up 1st Baseman…to Carew! Erstad and Edmonds can be the CF combo.
I have loved this series and recommending reading the rest over at Dan’s Left Field blog. Great stuff.
I love the format used here, too.
In particular, I love that rotation. Talk about a bunch of underrated arms. I mean, how many people really realize how good Chuck Finley, Frank Tanana, and Mark Langston were? My framework has Finley as a deserving Hall of Famer with Tanana and Langston right below the borderline. There are several Hall of Fame pitchers below them.
Thanks Adam. I knew, going into this, that Finley and Tanana were on the borderline, but I definitely had Langston underrated until I took a closer look.
NO. NOBODY MAY CLICK AWAY FROM HIGH HEAT STATS.
Um, yes sir. By the way, is the HHS RSS feed dead? I was wondering why, despite the injection of several new writers, there were no new articles being posted. Looks like the RSS feed got stuck a few days ago.
Try http://highheatstats.com/feed/
As you mention, Troy Glaus was the 2002 World Series MVP. But he also put up amazing numbers in the Angels’ 2002 Division Series, in the 2002 ALCS and then again in the Angels’ 2004 Division Series. A total of 348 men have accumulated at least 50 career PAs in post-season games for American League teams. The top career OPS numbers for those guys in those games:
1. Troy Glaus 1.246
2. Babe Ruth 1.211
3. Lou Gehrig 1.208
Thanks for the nice article Dan. Now let’s fight 🙂
Surely you’re not putting Darin Erstad above Rod Carew as your all-time Angels first sacker are you? Just because Carew was off the charts as a Twin doesn’t mean he wasn’t great as an Angel also. In 7 years–and the last of his career– he averaged a .314 BA, nearly .400 OBP and a 119 OPS+. I mean, the guy was an instant HOF pick for a reason.
Now, this is what I love about this kind of post. I have people telling me that Carew shouldn’t be on the team at all, and I have people telling me he should be the starter. I think I deftly anticipated such a scenario and came up with the perfect compromise: taking him as a reserve. 🙂
Seriously, though, I think you got this point, but I’ll say it again just for good measure. I don’t care about Carew’s HOF career for the purposes of this exercise. I only care about how well he played in an Angels uniform. In my opinion, if he retired after his Twins days, he’d still be a Hall of Famer, but he didn’t do that much to bolster his case after that.
Carew’s OBP with the Angels is excellent, but it’s the total lack of power in his later years and the fact that he wasn’t a particularly good defensive first baseman that hurts him.
Now, the potential flaw with putting Erstad at 1B is I’m giving him credit for the value he accumulated at a much more important position (CF), then slotting him in at a spot where his offense doesn’t really stand out. I’ll have to think about how much this should have been a factor.
The mention of the HOF was just an afterthought. I’m not sure what numbers you’re looking at, but what I see, for an Angels tenure, for Erstad and Carew are:
BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
.286 .341 .416 .756 96
.314 .393 .392 .784 119
And Carew was doing that at the *end* of his career, while Erstad was doing it in the prime of his. The fact that Erstad won a single gold glove at 1B hardly compensates for this difference in my view.
One of those two guys was one of the greatest hitters MLB has ever seen, the last person to seriously challenge the .400 mark, while the other was a somewhat above average player. I just don’t think it’s close, no matter how you cut it.
The numbers I primarily looked at are in the post:
Erstad: 5789 PA, 30.4 WAR, 12.9 WAA, 96 OPS+
Carew: 3570 PA, 16.2 WAR, 6.2 WAA, 119 OPS+
It’s mainly the value numbers I’m looking at, especially when we’re comparing anyone to a player like Erstad, whose value goes beyond his ability with the bat (base running, defense).
Erstad was worth 14 more WAR and almost 7 more WAA (wins above average), but in my previous comment, I pointed out there might have been a flaw in the idea of putting Erstad at 1B. A lot of the value he accumulated in his career was because of his defense in CF and the fact that CF is a much more important position. Yeah, he was a good first baseman, but that isn’t as valuable.
So, I’m re-thinking if I need to take this into consideration and by how much. If I simply tweaked his WAR and WAA numbers to hypothetically assume he played 1B his entire career with the Angels, where would that leave him? And, would that make for a fair comparison?
I’m open to suggestions from anyone who cares to chime in on this subject.
Might the solution be that WAR isn’t the answer in cases like this one?
The positional differences render WAR ineffective in making the comparison, so it seems necessary to me to look instead at the components that comprise WAR. Jim pointed out above that Carew had the better offensive numbers, and by a wide enough margin that I don’t think any baserunning or fielding advantage Erstad may have had makes up for the difference. Maybe the plate appearance difference would have, though I’m not sure. It’s awfully hard to accumulate WAR as a first baseman with a sub-100 OPS+. It seems to me that had Erstad offered his same level of production exclusively at first base, his WAR as Angel would be lower than Carew’s.
I guess the alternative would be to recreate the WAR calculation using an estimated positional adjustment, perhaps based on a 1B-playing contemporary of Erstad’s. I’m not familiar enough with the WAR formula to know if this would work, let alone how to do it, but I imagine someone here is.
Erstad is such an unusual player that I hadn’t considered such a circumstance. Most players who move back and forth between 1B and the OF are playing corner outfield positions, not CF.
I think I can recreate the WAR components, and that it will make the comparison close because of Erstad’s better defense and the plate appearance difference. If I were to move Erstad off of 1B, though, he’d become the starter in CF, with Edmonds moving to the bench.
But more fundamentally, WAR is a cumulative statistic. You have to normalize it somehow, either by games played or plate apprearances.
@Jim #31: I don’t think so. I’m not trying to say Darin Erstad is better than Rod Carew here. I’m just trying to decide who contributed the most to the history of the Angels.
Also, WAR can be negative, so it’s not entirely cumulative, and using WAA in addition to WAR helps to offset the cumulativeness (so to speak) of WAR.
Take Garret Anderson, for example. He was a slightly below average over the course of his Angels career, assuming you agree with the valuation statistics, but considering he played LF (not particulary well) and his OPS+ was only 105, this sounds about right.
Should Garret Anderson not be on this team, considering he’s their all-time leader in so many relevant cumulative categories? I think it would feel strange to leave him off.
I’m neither an Angels fan nor a follower of the team—or not until this year when Pujols and Trout grabbed my attention for differing reasons—but I do have an opinion on one player, Dean Chance. He was the first true pitching star of any magnitude whose career developed exclusively on an expansion team, the first to win a major award, and his stats are fairly interchangeable with those of Langston, considering his somewhat shorter career with the Angels. I’d swap the two.
Speaking of Dean Chance…he has the lowest career batting average of anyone with 300+ PAs. His slash line is truly something to behold: .066/.113/.069. Only 44 hits in 759 PA (662 ABs) and only two of his hits were for extra bases (both doubles). His career OPS+ is -46 and his career batting WAR is -4.9.
I did a similar all-time teams series over at the quiz site Sporcle. My version for the Angels is here:
http://www.sporcle.com/games/redsoxfan24/all-time-orange-county-ballclub-team
My teams were assembled using a method centered on WAR. I made this awhile go, so WAR has been considerably updated by then, and I don’t quite remember how I did it, so it can’t be updated. However, what results is a team quite similar to Dan’s.
I have versions for all 30 teams, all of which (among other quizzes) can be found between these 2 pages, which are for my two user accounts at Sporcle:
http://www.sporcle.com/user/redsoxfan34/contributed
http://www.sporcle.com/user/redsoxfan24/contributed
Nicely done, mate. My “All-Time Best Prog Rock Lineups” series will be starting soon as well.
Thanks Lee. Definitely looking forward to that series.
@Jim Bouldin (or anyone else who is still paying attention): I appreciate the friendly debate. Our difference of opinion is probably just philosophical, but your input has influenced me to look at things a little differently.
My approach to these all-time teams has evolved since I started this project. I definitely look back and question some of my early decisions. I’ll use this discussion to inform my opinions moving forward. Thanks.