Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Life without A-Rod..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Life without A-Rod..

    One of my best friends for years is the biggest Yankees fan I know. No matter what, he's always backing up the Yankees, loves them to death. He absolutely DESPISES A-Rod, believes he's not a winner, that we'll never win with him, and that we're a much better team without him. With A-Rod out for the last 2 games (both being convincing wins), he has called me the past few days telling me "Life without A-Rod is good, isn't it?" He thinks the absence of A-Rod makes it more of a team with more chemistry and it just works. I disagree. Yes, A-Rod hasn't put up the huge numbers in the playoffs, but you cannot say that we're better off without the reigning MVP. Without A-Rod's ridiculous season last year, the Yankees DO NOT make the playoffs- there's just no way.

    Do you think A-Rod makes the Yankees less of a team?
    Does anyone think that the Yankees would be better off without A-Rod?
    Even if he continues to slump in the playoffs- aren't we better with him putting up MONSTER numbers all year every year?

  • #2
    I think that your friend forgets that A-Rod kept the Yankees in the race last year.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Yankeebiscuitfan View Post
      I think that your friend forgets that A-Rod kept the Yankees in the race last year.
      I agree with you YBF... if A-Rod was there, those games would have been even more convincing... 2 MVPs since he has been in New York and people still don't give him the respect he deserves...

      Comment


      • #4
        rodriguez is the best hitter on the team, arguably in the entire league,,,we are a much better team with him on it....to say otherwise is just silly.

        Comment


        • #5
          There is absolutely no question Arod has a crippling effect on any team he plays on. That has been factually shown in a previous thread in this forum. When Arod goes to a team, the team performs worse than it had been performing. when Arod leaves a team, the team wins more games and is better. Individual stats are some of the most meaningless statistics in baseball. It is NEVER how much a player attains for himself but far an away WHEN a player achieves for the team.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bigbadwolf View Post
            There is absolutely no question Arod has a crippling effect on any team he plays on. That has been factually shown in a previous thread in this forum. When Arod goes to a team, the team performs worse than it had been performing. when Arod leaves a team, the team wins more games and is better. Individual stats are some of the most meaningless statistics in baseball. It is NEVER how much a player attains for himself but far an away WHEN a player achieves for the team.
            Besides a teams win-loss record, which could be entirely conicendetal, how can you empirically show that A-rod makes a team worse? I don't understand how the enormous increase in offensive production as well as soldi defense he brings to a team somehow makes a team worse. With other teams, it could possibly be attributed to his large salary tying up the payroll, but that point is basically moot with the Yankees. Please provide some logical and statiscal evidence of his "crippling effect" besides "teams get better whenever he leaves." I am especially interested in your logical explanation of how the Yankees would be better off without him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bigbadwolf View Post
              Individual stats are some of the most meaningless statistics in baseball.
              This statement I agree with.
              Especialy when it pertains to individual fielding stats that don't reflect how detrimental a grossly inferior fielder is to a team. The stats are unable to show, for instance, that a fielder continualy costs his team hits, thus runs, thus pennants because he covers less ground than any other fielder in baseball. A player's "personal stats" do not reflect how dearly he ruins any hope his team has of winning due to his ineptitude at fielding. Such a player is nothing more than a falsly hyped, selfish, loser. Such players have teams with winning records only because of the supporting cast. They themselves are completely replacable.
              I totaly agree agree with you on this.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
                This statement I agree with.
                Especialy when it pertains to individual fielding stats that don't reflect how detrimental a grossly inferior fielder is to a team. The stats are unable to show, for instance, that a fielder continualy costs his team hits, thus runs, thus pennants because he covers less ground than any other fielder in baseball. A player's "personal stats" do not reflect how dearly he ruins any hope his team has of winning due to his ineptitude at fielding. Such a player is nothing more than a falsly hyped, selfish, loser. Such players have teams with winning records only because of the supporting cast. They themselves are completely replacable.
                I totaly agree agree with you on this.
                Except there are individual statistics that account for a players total contibution to his team on the field.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Your lack of trustworthy middle relievers and first basemen who can play defense would seem to be a greater problem than whatever demons haunt your third baseman.
                  4 5 (7) 8 20 22 33 42 (44)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bigtime39 View Post
                    Your lack of trustworthy middle relievers and first basemen who can play defense would seem to be a greater problem than whatever demons haunt your third baseman.
                    I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with one of your posts. :bowdown:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by YankeeDJW View Post
                      I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with one of your posts. :bowdown:
                      I'll try to make it an infrequent occurrence!
                      4 5 (7) 8 20 22 33 42 (44)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Trashing one of the best players in the game and one who will in all liklihood sit in the top 10 all-time as a hinderance to winning is not only bush but it displays an inability to render a clear judgment - best reserved for the bar where you'll spark some other great insights. It is also the prevailing argument why certain individuals run clubs and are employed in the game and others who believe they are as knowledgable merely stroke the keyboard.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bigbadwolf View Post
                          There is absolutely no question Arod has a crippling effect on any team he plays on.
                          He really dragged these teams down, didn't he?...

                          1993 SEA 4th place (without Arod)
                          1994 SEA 3rd place (17 games w/Arod)
                          1995 SEA 1st place (with ARod)
                          1996 SEA 2nd place (with ARod)
                          1997 SEA 1st place (with ARod)

                          2003 NYY 1st place (without ARod)
                          2004 NYY 1st place (with ARod)
                          2005 NYY 1st place (with ARod)
                          2006 NYY 1st place (with ARod)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This has previously been posted in another thread.

                            1998-2000 Seattle with Arod win average 82 games per year.

                            1998-2000 Texas without Arod win average 85 games per year.

                            2001-2003 Seattle without Arod win average of 101 games per year. Wow, what a significant improvement the instant Arod is gone. Right, it wasn't his fault.

                            2001-2003 Texas with Arod win average 72 games per year. Wow, what a significant demise the instant Arod appears. Right, it wasn't his fault.

                            2001-2003 Yankees without Arod win average 100 games per year.

                            2004-2006 Texas without Arod win average 83 games per year. Wow, what a significant instant improvement. Right, it wasn't Arods fault.

                            2004-2006 Yankees with Arod win average 98 games per year. In my opinion not a major difference or concern. Except for one fact, Arod was there with all his gaudy meaningless individual stats, but it didn't really help the team win any more games than the team had been doing. But it wasn't Arods fault. A small Throw in 2007 Yankee season and the team drops to 94 wins. But it wasn't Arods fault. All those teams, all those years, the highest individual stat player in MLB over that time span, and it not once bettered a team with his presence, but it sure aided a team when he was gone.

                            Now, all of you can blame every and any other factors, players or whatever you wish. But it can't change the facts or the teams records.

                            All the teams did better without Arods stats and did worse with them. Individual stats mean squat. Winning baseball is played by 25 men playing for the team to win as their ultimate goal, not any one of them playing to llok good on the stat sheet.

                            ONE QUESTION I WOULD LIKE ANY AND ALL OF YOU TO ANSWER.......................Would you rather go to the playoffs with your 'ace' pitcher going 20-5 and a 4.85 era, and your top hitter hitting 30HR, batting .290, and knocking in 90 runs...or would you rather not make the playoffs with your 'ace' going 15-10 and a 2.25 era, and your top hitter hitting 50HR, batting .320, and knocking in 130 runs?

                            In my opinion, the game is played to win, nothing in between.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How selfish of A-rod, all those HRs and such. What "team" stats do you like to use to measure and individuals success, high fives on the field (HFOTF), Pats on the Back (POTB), Hustle %? I guess Doug Mirabelli deserved the MVP award last year, the team he played on did win the World Championship. Anybody who watches A-rod hit .317, 54 HRs, and have a 177 OPS+ has some serious problems with facts if they are denying that doesn't help the team win a heckova lot of games. Unless A-rod is sneaking around the clubhouse putting nails in everyone's cleats, any lack of "hustle", "determination", or "clutchness" is being seriously outweighed by the 39 Win Shares and the 156 RBIs he picked up last year. You also have to ignore the fact that Penn State researchers looked at every ball put in play from 2002 through 2005 and concluded that A-rod was a much better SS then Jeter has ever been.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X