What Cost MIA A-Rod?
Posted by Steve L. on May 18th, 2008 · Comments (3)
In the Yankees first 27 games this season, they averaged 4.41 runs per game. Since Alex Rodriguez has been unavailable due to aggravating his quad (April 29th) the Yankees have averaged 3.63 runs per game.
The difference?
Simple math tells us that it’s minus .78 runs per game. Or, over the Yankees last 16 games, it’s cost the team 12.5 runs.
I’ve read that, in VORP theory, 10 additional runs are worth about one win. So, does this mean that A-Rod’s bat being MIA the last 16 games has cost the Yankees about one win?
I’m not sabermetrically trained enough to offer the answer. But, if anyone has some input on this, please do share it in the comments section below.
I have also heard the 10 runs = 1 win hypothesis, and I think it’s supported with a lot of data. Having an effect of ten runs over just 16 games is huge; it pro-rates to a VORP of 101.6, which is greater than A-Rod’s amazing 2007 (96.6). However you also have to factor in that Posada has been missing from the lineup as well for the same amount of time.
Small sample warnings apply to both the runs-scored before and after the injuries, of course. However, I think it would be safe to say that the absence Posada and A-Rod have cost the team about two wins over the last two weeks.
Also, 3.63 runs per game is pathetic. The Yankees are on a pace to score only 623 runs, which would be the worst team offense since the 2004 Diamondbacks.
Steve,
It’s not “VORP theory,” it’s sabermetruc theory. Someone as opposed to VORP as I am would still agree with the 10 run theory.
As to whether this stat means Rodriguez’s absence has cost the Yankees a full win, it would only be the case if you attribute the entire drop to Rodriguez’s absence. Well, since it’s 12.5 runs, it doesn’t have to literally be 100%, it could be 10/12.5, which comes to 80%.
It could even be the case that Rodriguez’s absence has actually cost the Yankees more than 12.5 runs. That would be the case if increased production by other players raised the overall total. In other words, it could be the case that the Rodriguez’s absence resulted in a 1.00 runs/game drop, but the rest of the team compensated enough to get the actual down a little bit. Unfortunately, since the team as a whole isn’t doing well, this whole paragraph is more of a thereoretical comment.
There’s also the fact that the comparision between the pre- and post- injury periods presumes that Rodriguez would have continued to hit at his 2008 rates, which are below his career norms. Which Rodriguez would have shown up during the missing games is also a highly revelant factor in accessing his absence.
Good input. Thanks guys.