Manny in Boston - was added to a team that had already been to the post season in two of the previous 3 seasons. In 2000, they won 85 games, and after adding Manny they won 82.
Vlad to Anaheim was AFTER they had become a winning team.
AGON to Boston - AFTER getting good.
Every team Beni mentions except San Fran was already a very good team before adding the stars. But, San Fran didn't add stars. They added cheap journeyman who had great seasons - (like Pendleton added to Atlanta).
I'm really wanting to let this go ... but clearly I haven't communicated well, since almost every intended counter-example presented is actually more data to support my position - that superstars do not make bad teams better - at best they make good teams better - and even in that aspect they are not great.
I guess the primary reason I'm not letting this go is the more 'counter' arguments I get, the more research I do, the more I am convinced that my original position wasn't nearly as extreme as the reality. At this point, yes, I believe that a 2012 team with Fielder will win fewer games than a 2012 team without him. And I get how dumb that sounds on the surface.
At this point, based on previous data, I would expect a 2012 with Fielder to actually win 1 LESS game than the 2011 Ms won. I get that arguing Seattle will win only 66 games if they add Fielder sounds insane - especially since I'd probably peg them into the high 70s in Ws at the moment without him.
My premise is that adding superstar bats to a bad team does not improve the team. I have lots of examples to support that theory and outside of Barry Bonds to San Fran none to seriously refute it.
If someone wants to find a list of superstar, already proven bats who went to BAD teams that got better, I'm all ears.
Add new comment
1