PDA

View Full Version : Arod's net effect on a team


ja1022
10-23-2004, 12:49 PM
I heard some mention of this on one of the sports talk shows (Dan Patrick I think) and thought it was interesting. They were talking about intangibles like team dynamics and how certain guys can drain a team.

Arod, one of the best players in the game, changes teams in 2001 and 2004, and the teams he leaves improve their win totals by 27 and 25 percent their first year without him. That would be Seattle with 91 wins and a wild card in 2000 improving to 116 wins in 2001. This year, the Rangers improved to 89 wins from 71 last year. It's kind of like Nomar leaving Boston, and their season turning around.

I have no clue if Arod is a good teamate or not, but found the whole addition by subtraction thing to be interesting.

P. S. I'd still take my chances with him on the left side of my infield.

MRKARNO
10-23-2004, 01:27 PM
As far as the Rangers are concerned:

At first, Teixeira was the best 1B in the AL according to VORP
At Second, Soriano was the best 2B in the AL
At short, Mike Young was the 3rd best SS in the AL (only behind Tejada and Carlos Guillen)
At Third, Blalock was the 5th best 3B in the AL

The outfield kinda sucked except for Mench in RF (4th best in AL), but here's what put them over the top this year:

The bullpen.

It all just came together this year and they really only needed 5 innings from their starters when they had Shouse, Almanzar, Francisco, Cordero, Borcail, Ricardo Rodriguez, Mahay and Erasmo Ramirez providing average to amazing bullpen work, depending on the reliever. ARod's loss had nothing to do with their success this year except that they didnt really get much worse from the deal.

The Mariners:
Bret Boone had an insane season. The starting pitching was a lot better (2001 was Garcia's AL leading ERA year). The bullpen was much better. And the most important reason...........ICHIRO!

So to answer your question, no there is no direct correlation between ARod leaving a team and that team getting better. It was just a coincidence that it happened twice.

ja1022
10-26-2004, 10:38 AM
As far as the Rangers are concerned:

At first, Teixeira was the best 1B in the AL according to VORP
At Second, Soriano was the best 2B in the AL
At short, Mike Young was the 3rd best SS in the AL (only behind Tejada and Carlos Guillen)
At Third, Blalock was the 5th best 3B in the AL

The outfield kinda sucked except for Mench in RF (4th best in AL), but here's what put them over the top this year:

The bullpen.

It all just came together this year and they really only needed 5 innings from their starters when they had Shouse, Almanzar, Francisco, Cordero, Borcail, Ricardo Rodriguez, Mahay and Erasmo Ramirez providing average to amazing bullpen work, depending on the reliever. ARod's loss had nothing to do with their success this year except that they didnt really get much worse from the deal.

The Mariners:
Bret Boone had an insane season. The starting pitching was a lot better (2001 was Garcia's AL leading ERA year). The bullpen was much better. And the most important reason...........ICHIRO!

So to answer your question, no there is no direct correlation between ARod leaving a team and that team getting better. It was just a coincidence that it happened twice.The 2004 Rangers added Soriano and subtracted Rodriguez, but other than that, the team was as you point out, largely unchanged. The Mariners added Ichiro and subtracted Rodriguez in 2001, again most of the rest of the 2000 team was carried over to 2001.

I think the question Dibble and Patrick and others were trying to raise was whether the teams over achieved without Arod, or under achieved, in the case of the 2003 Rangers, with him. Why did these guys step up after he left? Was it coincidence, or some other intangible?

daveeym
10-26-2004, 05:28 PM
The 2004 Rangers added Soriano and subtracted Rodriguez, but other than that, the team was as you point out, largely unchanged. The Mariners added Ichiro and subtracted Rodriguez in 2001, again most of the rest of the 2000 team was carried over to 2001.

I think the question Dibble and Patrick and others were trying to raise was whether the teams over achieved without Arod, or under achieved, in the case of the 2003 Rangers, with him. Why did these guys step up after he left? Was it coincidence, or some other intangible? I don't remember as much about the mariners back when the trade was made but texas was loaded with YOUNG YOUNG talent arod's last year. They frickin were a wsox killing machine that year. So i think it was a combination of them developing, expectations eased and a solid return in soriano for arod that sparked them. The expectations were the only part that was a negative about arod.