let's try this one more time...
<<What about players like Darin Erstadt or Jim Edmonds who play all out and are constantly mentioned by teammates as people who raise the level of play of everyone around them? >>
well, let's check.
Jim Edmonds last played for the Angels in 1998 (that was his last full year; he was hurt and only played about 55 games in 1999).
regular Angels in 1998
Walbeck (C) .684 OPS
Disarcina (SS) .706 OPS
Erstad (LF) .839 OPS
Anderson (RF) .780 OPS
Salmon (DH) .943 OPS
same regular Angels in 1999 (Edmonds hurt most of year)
Walbeck (C) .614 OPS
Disarcina (SS) .546 OPS
Erstad (LF) .682 OPS
Anderson (RF) .805 OPS
Salmon (DH) .862 OPS
regular Angels in 2000 (Edmonds traded to St Louis)
Molina (C) .739 OPS
Gil (SS) .669 OPS
Erstad (LF) .950 OPS
Anderson (RF) .826 OPS
Salmon (DH) .944 OPS
OK, so what I'm seeing here is basically random. The year Edmonds was hurt everybody on the Angels (except Garret Anderson) decided to have a crappy year (maybe they were sad that he was hurt). Then, when he was GONE, Erstad, Anderson and Salmon all had BETTER years, and the new C and SS did better than their prior counterparts. I fail to see convincing evidence that Edmonds made any of these guys 'better'.
OK, let's try the Cardinals
regular Cardinals in 1999 (before Edmonds arrived)
McGwire (1B) 1.121 OPS
Tatis (3B) .957 OPS
Renteria (SS) .734 OPS
Lankford (LF) .873 OPS
Drew (CF) .764 OPS
regular Cardinals in 2000 (after Edmonds arrived)
McGwire (1B) 1.229 OPS
Tatis (3B) .870 OPS
Renteria (SS) .769 OPS
Lankford (LF) .875 OPS
Drew (CF) .880 OPS
so Tatis and Lankford were largely unchanged; McGwire was a little better and Renteria and Drew were a lot better. However, Renteria and Drew were both only 24 the year before Edmonds arrived, so I could just as easily attribute their improvement to the natural progression good players make as they get older (and Drew and Renteria are both very good players) than to some 'intangible' that Jim Edmonds brought to the table. note that in 2001 Drew went to 1.027 but Renteria regressed to .685; so playing with Jim Edmonds a second year one young star got better but a second young star got worse. So does Edmonds influence this??
Note that during this whole time period Edmonds was putting up near 1000 OPSs. Edmonds doens't make players around him better, IMO; he makes them LOOK better because HE is AWESOME and is probably the single-most unappreciated player in baseball (just ahead of Garrett Anderson of the Angels).
It is much tougher to do this analyis w/ Erstad, as he has not changed teams and the core of the Angels (Salmon, Molina, Anderson, Vaughn, Glaus, Adam Kennedy) has been largely unchanged for a long time. I don't think he 'makes the players around him better' but I can't prove or disprove it. What I can prove is that with the exception of his 2000 year (when he was crazy good) he has been a below-average hitter for a center fielder, and while he is an excellent fielder his is no Torii Hunter.
one guy i know of who DOES raise the level of play (in at least one area of the game) of others around him is Rickey Henderson. Henderson has moved around a lot, and you can see that the teams that he goes to have a statistically significant increase in walks, and thus on-base-percentage and runs scored, the next year. Henderson of course is the all-time leader in walks and the best leadoff hitter ever, so it seems that maybe something is rubbing off on his team-mates. the funny thing about this is that Rickey Henderson is PERCEIVED to be a clubhouse cancer who only looks out for himself, while the STATISTICAL EVIDENCE points to him being a good team-mate who makes his teams better. go figure.
Cheers |
