« Not So Fat Pussy Iguana? | Main | Ring-A-Ding-Ding »
March 16, 2007
Has A-Rod Seen His Best Days?
From Tim Marchman -
This makes me think that Rodriguez will indeed opt out after this season, and not because of the jeers of Yankees fans, but because he will make tens of millions of dollars more if he hits the market at age 31 than he will at age 34. And not only is tens of millions of dollars is a lot of money, hitting the market also makes sense because Rodriguez has likely seen his best days.
It doesn't take genius to see that Rodriguez is in a general decline. In his three years with the Yankees, only his 2005 MVP campaign has been in line with the years he routinely had when he was younger. In addition to sinking offensive numbers, his defense last year was downright awful, due largely, I think, to his carrying around too much weight in an attempt to offset slightly declining bat speed. A quick look at Rodriguez's historical peers, though, shows that we may not have likely seen the beginning of his decline.
Isolating Rodriguez's peers is tricky business, because he's a historically great player and thus, by definition, unique. For a somewhat arbitrary measure, though, consider this. In baseball history, he is one of nine players who through age 30 racked up at least 6,000 plate appearances with a park-adjusted OPS+ of 140 or better while not playing first base or one of the outfield corners. (OPS+ measures onbase plus slugging percentage on a scale where 100 is average.)
Of those nine, four — Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Mickey Mantle, and Tris Speaker — aren't truly comparable to Rodriguez, because they were much better hitters. Through his age 30, for instance, Speaker, the weakest hitter of the four, had an adjusted OPS+ of 166, about what Albert Pujols does in a typical year. Rodriguez, great as he is, isn't quite of that class. All four of these men hit better after turning 30 than Rodriguez has in his career.
The other four, though — Eddie Collins, Eddie Matthews, Ken Griffey Jr., and Duke Snider — are all comparable to Rodriguez. As you can see in the accompanying chart, all of them lost a tremendous amount as hitters after age 30, and all but Collins proved rather fragile as well. The destinies of four other players don't necessarily doom Rodriguez to a frustration-riddled second half of his career, but it's an ominous sign that Rodriguez has spent most of his career not only playing a more demanding defensive position than any of these four, and racked up almost a full season of playing time more than any of them did through the same age.
Marchman is right. A-Rod's pre-age-26 career to date relative production was no where near what players like Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and even Albert Pujols had in that same age range. Alex was closer to guys like Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas and Hank Aaron. When you look at ages 26 to 30, it's the same story for A-Rod, he's not in the Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Barry Bonds or Manny Ramirez class in terms of relative offensive production. More so, Alex is closer to guys like Albert Belle, Ken Griffey Jr., Jim Thome and Lance Berkman during that age range.
So, who are Rodriguez' historical peers? For the fun of it, I'm going to take a stab at finding the answer - using the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia.
We know that, through age 25, A-Rod had 4,247 PA and 289 RCAA. And, from age 26 through 30, Alex had 3,527 PA and 265 RCAA. So, what batters were close to Rodriguez in both of these snapshots? Here's the answer:
(Click on the thumbnails to see a larger view.)
What do the relative offensive numbers tell us here about A-Rod's career as a batter, to date?
First off, it's clear that Alex Rodriguez is no where near what Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Ted Williams, or Lou Gehrig did, in terms of relative batting production - and, in fact, A-Rod has not even been as good as Mel Ott.
Therefore, when people say that Alex Rodriguez may go down in history as the greatest player in the history of the game, please be sure to remind them of Mantle and Cobb, just for starters.
More importantly, look at the class of players around A-Rod in both these snapshots.
In the 25-or-younger group, the ones closest to Rodriguez, in terms of brand names that an average fan would know, are Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, and Ken Griffey Jr.
However, I would throw out Musial because he did his damage in a lot less PA - so, while his RCAA numbers are close, Stan the Man was much better than A-Rod (before they both turned 26).
In the 26-to-30 group, the ones closest to Rodriguez, in terms of brand names that an average fan would know, are Carl Yastrzemski, Mike Piazza and Jim Thome.
But, I would throw out Piazza, somewhat like Musial, because of the PA total differences between him and A-Rod.
In the end, this tells me that Alex Rodriguez started his career with the bat much the way that Hank Aaron and Ken Griffey Jr. did theirs, but, in the last 5 years, A-Rod has hit more like Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Thome have done when they were the same age. Yet, when you look at the way that Hank Aaron and Ken Griffey Jr. batted during ages 26-30, they too where somewhat close to Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Thome as well.
Therefore, I can see the broad likeness in the relative batting careers of Alex Rodriguez, Hank Aaron and Ken Griffey Jr. through age thirty. We know that Griffey, post-age-30, was ruined by injuries. Since A-Rod has never had such problems, it would not shock me to see his batting career to continue along the path of Aaron - where Alex would then have another ten years (or so) of good offensive production (albeit not near what he did prior to age 26).
Yes, A-Rod has seen his better days. But, it's not as if he's going to be a bust for the next decade either. Instead of being one of the five best hitters in the league, Alex will probably be one of the top fifteen hitters in the league from here out. Most teams would be happy to pay for that.
Posted by Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 07:51 AM
Comments
Call me crazy, but I have to think that moving from that bandbox in Texas to Yankee "death to RHB" Stadium is a major factor in why he "declined."
Posted by: Mike A. ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.waswatching.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 16, 2007 10:00 AM
FWIW, RCAA is park adjusted. And, based on RCAA, moving to YS did not cause a decline for A-Rod in 2005.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 10:12 AM
Come on, Steve. You're comparing a guy who has played shortstop most of his career with first basemen and outfielders. Even as a third baseman, he's further left on the defensive spectrum than those to whom you compare him.
Even beyond that, where's the adjustment for the period in which these players played?
I really appreciate the work and thought that go into your studies, but in order to tell me anything meaningful, you really have to cover all aspects of the argument. Most of what you posted lacks a lot of context.
Posted by: The Sporting Brews at March 16, 2007 10:15 AM
~~~where's the adjustment for the period in which these players played? ~~~
RCAA is adjusted for the different eras - that's why I used it.
~~~You're comparing a guy who has played shortstop most of his career with first basemen and outfielders. Even as a third baseman, he's further left on the defensive spectrum than those to whom you compare him.~~~
My answer here is that I'm comparing hitters in this study. And, when a player is in the batters box, it really doesn't matter what position he played.
I understand that many feel that you cannot compare the batting stats of an OF to that of, say, a catcher - because of the different demands of each defensive position, etc.
However, my point is that once you step into the batter's box, you're a hitter, and you should not be given extra credit (or lose something) because of the position you play in the field when you are not batting.
Giving someone "extra" or an "adjusted" offensive value is his relative batting results because of his position in the field implies that just playing that position in the field provides a batting benefit to his team.
This, in my opinion, is a mistake.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 10:34 AM
Oy. Again with the A-Rod.
Posted by: SteveB at March 16, 2007 10:39 AM
Giving someone "extra" or an "adjusted" offensive value is his relative batting results because of his position in the field implies that just playing that position in the field provides a batting benefit to his team.
This, in my opinion, is a mistake.
==============
Yep. Which is one of the reasons Ordonez isn't in the league anymore. Also is the reason you won't see a Jeter-Gonzalez left side of the infield... Of course this is assuming Gonzalez is all glove no stick.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 16, 2007 10:42 AM
True, Steve, but as much as you are alone in the batter's box, you are still a cog in a lineup.
The reason I mention the positional issue is this: you're going to have an advantage with a league-average first baseman and Alex at shortstop (or even third base) than by having Alex at first base and a league-average shortstop or third baseman.
Posted by: The Sporting Brews at March 16, 2007 10:44 AM
~~~you're going to have an advantage with a league-average first baseman and Alex at shortstop (or even third base) than by having Alex at first base and a league-average shortstop or third baseman.~~~
Then you're giving a batter extra or less credit because of the work of his GM.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 11:00 AM
Gee, a baseball player who's over 30 (and not a steroid user) might have seen his best days already? Does Bill James know about this?
How about doing the same study for Jeter or Giambi or Matsui or Posada or Mussina or Pettitte? Why single A-Rod out as you so often do here?
Posted by: rbj at March 16, 2007 11:30 AM
Hey guys
First time poster here and I love the site. I just thought I would weigh in on the Arod issue you guys are currently discussing.
I think Arod should get more credit for his offensive stats because he plays third base because it is much harder to find someone to replace those stats at third base then it would be to find someone to replace those stats if he played left field. There are far less players who can play third and put up those offensive stats than there are people who can lumber around the outfield or fumble around at first base(aka Giambi)
Posted by: BronxBunter at March 16, 2007 11:35 AM
"Then you're giving a batter extra or less credit because of the work of his GM."
It was more of an attempt to place the player in a vacuum. A team of league-average players with A-Rod at third would be better than a team of league-average players and A-Rod at first or in the outfield.
I guess it depends on how you want to look at it: if you want to take every batter as equal, or if you want to take their value in helping the team. As we've argued back and forth, both have their merits.
Posted by: The Sporting Brews at March 16, 2007 11:52 AM
I was pleased to see the Marchman argument, because it echoed some of the things that I wrote in the Roberto Alomar thread late last night.
Steve, this is not directly on topic, but I've seen some people (Cliff Corcoran, for example) describe RCAA as a flawed stat. Do you know why this is the case? I've never seen an explanation for why people think this.
Posted by: jonm at March 16, 2007 12:22 PM
Sorry for the lack of comments guys.
I'm having a TypeKey issue. I cannot comment to my own blog from home. TypeKey keeps asking me to SIGN IN. Over and over again.
So, I disabled it. But, the minute that I remove TypeKey from the blog, the mass auto-SPAMers start to hit it, hard.
So, to comment, I have to remove TypeKey, rebuild the entire blog, and then comment. But, once done, I need to restore TypeKey and then rebuild the blog again - to keep the SPAMers out.
That said, it's becoming a pain to comment here. FWIW, I am working on trying to get my TypeKey issue fixed.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 01:41 PM
~~~How about doing the same study for Jeter or Giambi or Matsui or Posada or Mussina or Pettitte? Why single A-Rod out as you so often do here?~~~
As I've said, many, many, times in the past, I'm responding to what's in the news. Tell Marchman to write about Giambi's decline and then I will comment on that.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 01:42 PM
~~~Steve, this is not directly on topic, but I've seen some people (Cliff Corcoran, for example) describe RCAA as a flawed stat. Do you know why this is the case? I've never seen an explanation for why people think this. ~~~
You would have to ask them. If I had to guess, I would say it's because it's comparing RC to what an average player does as opposed to a bench player or a minor leaguer. Some people prefer to see that margin of performance over the average. Me? I like the average - it's a good baseline, IMHO.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 01:46 PM
Personally, and this is just my little ole opinion and 2 cents, but I thought part of the problem with A-Rod was that when he switched to 3rd base, he bulked up a bit and it took away from his bat speed. I think he was a better player when he was leaner and quicker then when he gained some bulk and mass. I didn't think he was trying to compensate, I just figured he was doing the natural thing when you switch from certain positions to other positions.
Posted by: Sonny M at March 16, 2007 02:57 PM
I thought part of the problem with A-Rod was that when he switched to 3rd base, he bulked up a bit and it took away from his bat speed.
=============
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but if that were the case, it would be a bit difficult to explain 2004 & 2005.
Even so, 2006 was better than 04, but not as good as '05. No one was complaining about his supposed inability to play in NY then...
Posted by: Raf at March 16, 2007 03:26 PM
I find the A-Rod debate incredibly interesting.
Personally, I hope he does well because it helps the team and it frustrates me to see him flounder - but whatever, that's the fun of watching the game.
Anyways, I am relatively new to this blog and these stats and historical stats astound me. Where can I get definitions to all these abbreviations you all keep throwing around?
Thanks
Posted by: dave24s at March 16, 2007 03:40 PM
The stats: http://www.waswatching.com/archives/stat_glossary/index.html
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at March 16, 2007 04:15 PM