How perfect is it that Alex Rodriguez is having the greatest April in the history of baseball and his team is awful? Do you think he's having flashbacks to 2001-2003 with the Texas Rangers?
I don't think A-Rod was born a bad teammate. Like all monsters, he was created by -- you guessed it -- the contract. Since signing with the Rangers in 2001 has played on three teams with winning records (the Yankees from 2004-2006) and four teams with losing records (the Rangers from 2001-2003 and this year's 8-11 Yankees).
In roughly the same amount of time (he's had 171 more plate appearances for losing teams) Rodriguez has hit .299 with 119 home runs, 357 RBI and scored 349 runs for winning teams. For losing teams, he has hit .309 with 170 home runs, 429 RBI and 408 runs scored.
The stat-head statistics are even more alarming. While his on-base percentage hasn't changed much, .398 for losing teams and .396 for winning teams, his slugging percentage is drastically different. He's slugged .632 for losing teams and only .549 for winning teams.
The Yankees probably won't continue to be a below .500 team this year, but with that rotation you never know. The best it's going to get for them this year is Wang, Mussina, Pettite, Hughes and Igawa. Not one of those pitchers is without a question mark, whether it is injury, age or performance (looking at you Kei).
A-Rod is going to go down as statistically the greatest hitter in baseball, but for some reason, the better he plays, the worse his team plays. Maybe when Robert Horry retires we can give his intangibles to Rodriguez.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
How quickly we forget...
He was also on the Seattle Mariners at the begining of his career, and put up some monster numbers for them, especially in the post season.
Put simply, I can't believe in a thing called clutch because every time some choker is dismissed, he ends up winning something, see Peyton Manning.
Clutch I think is a lazy way to write "small sample size."
I can't judge a player by 14 AB's.
It's all nice and romantic, but it's also irresponsible.
Fun stat:
.315 .413 .611
.227 .298 .380
The first is ARod in LCS play.
The second line is Reggie-O's in LCS play.
Didn't say he wasn't clutch. I have no reason to believe that if A-Rod played 162 post season games he would hit .306 with 44 home runs and 126 RBI -- his regular season averages. A-Rod also had a GREAT LCS for the Yankees in 2004.
The point I was making is that ever since he signed the $250 million contract in 2001 (AFTER Seattle), the better he plays, the worse his team's record is. It's not a small sample size, either. It's six-plus seasons, almost half his career.
Perhaps it has more to do with the teams, than with A-Rod himself? I doubt anyone would call it a curse to lose playoff series to teams that would eventually go on to win the World Series?
Was it the Manning curse before he was winning, or was it simply a better overall team beating his squad at something they were better at?
Was it the curse of Johnny Stockton and Karl "I don't deliver on Sunday's" Malone, or was it simply the buzzsaw that was the Bulls dynasty?
Before we go doling out curse labels, let's evaluate the facts with respect to the circumstances. Where's the statistic that shows that as A-Rod improves, his team declines in production? I trust that it involves quantum-like computation, so we'll all simply grab a snickers in the meantime, and basque in the glory that is A-Rod's game!
Wow, I'm shocked at the A-Rod love. It's just odd that they guy played below his career averages for the three straight years on winning teams. This year he has an absolutely unreal month and his team is in last place BEHIND THE DEVIL RAYS!
The only problem with the Stockton and Malone comparison is that they never played on a losing team together. Not once. Their Hall of Fame stats led to victories, at least in the regular season.
And Peyton has only played on two losing teams in nine seasons. Not suprisingly, those two years ('98 and '01) he put up his lowest quarterback ratings. Again, the better he plays the more his team wins.
Like I said, A-Rod is going to have the greatest stats in MLB history, but unlike other superstars it doesn't translate into team victories.
The only two current hitters in baseball who compare to Rodriguez are Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds (the Giants version). Pujols has never played on a losing team. In the 13 full seasons Bonds has played with the Giants, only four ('94-96 and '06) of them were losing teams. The '94 and '95 teams played strike shortened seasons and Bonds missed 32 games because of injury for the '06 Giants.
A-Rod=stats, not wins.
I think that AROD does equal wins.
Are we going to discount his monster 05 year where he was the MVP.
meaning he was THE BEST PLAYER IN ALL OF BASEBALL.
also, in 06 he was second in NY HR's, behind Giambi, third in Adjusted OPS, behind Abreu and Giambi, and second in walks, behind Giambi.
While he was not the Yankee MVP, his being on base created opportunites for the boys behind him to drive him in.
Players don't win games, just like individual pitchers don't win ballgames.
Teams win games.
And if we are going to say "since the contract," shouldn't this post be titled "curse of the huge contract."
Cuz, guys like Richard Hidalgo and Adrian Beltre had huge contract years and got mega bucks and are teh suck now.
I thought A-Rod won games, too. That's why I looked up the numbers, and they simply show that over the past 6 years he has played below his career averages for winning teams and above his career averages for losing teams.
I believe that elite players such as Pujols and Bonds do win games, that's why they've been on an overwhelming amount of winning teams. And I think, at least statistically, A-Rod is as good as those players.
His 2005 season was incredible, but his it was no better than his 2001-2003 seasons with the Rangers. His 2005 WARP was lower than his 2001 and 2002 seasons and his 2003 season was essentially the same. And without a doubt, his 2004 and 2006 seasons were well below his career averages.
My basic point is that no elite player that I know of in any sport has this kind of trend.
His WARP was lower because he flipped positions to accomodate the lesser player.
Talent at 3B is deeper than Short.
I think you crafted this argument from the wrong basis Davey.
A-Rod has to play harder on the teams that have lesser talent, which isn't that hard of a thing to fathom.
Look at any great Superstar, and it's exactly the same.
Peyton's statistics were better during the years that the Colts didn't win the Superbowl.
Jordan's 63 point outpouring didn't happen when they went to the finals.
Crosby had a phenomenal year, but his team failed to reach the post season, because of the Cardinal rule, teams when championships, not players.
A-Rod is like any other superstar, in the fact that he's going to play his best when forced into such a role. That's what superstars do. Thus, if his team is struggling, then he's going to step out to the plate, but if his team is blossoming around him, then he's not going to be forced into taking over the game himself.
It's similar to the Lakers' big four when they got together. I'm certain that, that wasn't any one of their career years, but they were successful in getting to the World Championship with ease. That's because when you play on a great team, you're not going to be expected to carry the load all by yourself.
I would wager that when KG made the Western Conference finals, it was not a career year for him with respect to ppg, rebs, or any major statistical category. That's because when you have two other perrenial all-stars flanking you, there are less ppg, rpg, apg and every other per game statistic to go around.
The same holds true in baseball. When you're in a close game with the Yankees, you're going to walk A-Rod to get to someone else, but when the game is well under control, you'll take your chances with him even if you do believe he's going to burn you for it.
Take a look at A-Rod's walks during those years of success, as opposed to when he wasn't winning. Take a look at things like plate appearances, and average margin of loss. Those will tell you the true story.
It's like this, when I played in my recreational basketball league with this team of scrubs I averaged 41 points per game 14 rebounds 3 blocks and 6 steals, but the team only one 1 game. I went out and recruited a more talented team with my brothers and brother in law, and we jumped to 9 - 1 as a record while my averages decreased tremendously.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was because of the talent around me allowing me not to have to play as hard as opposed to me being cursed for playing hard when it was needed most. C'mon Davey, this post was completely rooted in a negative East Coast bias and was really weak!
Crosby did make the postseason this year. As for Manning and Jordan, you're just bringing up postseason success, and that's not a valid argument here. Like mrubio pointed out, A-Rod hasn't had enough postseason at-bats to truly gauge his talent. He has had enough regular season at-bats, so that's why I'm only citing regular season data. Also, baseball's postseason has a huge luck factor, as seen by my beloved Cardinals last year.
I'm not buying the basketball argument, either. It's his percentages that have gone down. Would your shooting percentages go down with better teammates? I would think not.
Look, I love A-Rod. I think he will go down as a top ten all-time player. I've just never seen a player of his caliber with the type of stat splits that I have already mentioned.
Post a Comment