Comments on: Color By Numbers: Lasting Legacy

By: Chyll Will

Chyll Will — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:41:10 +0000

[10] I remember Wakefield on the Pirates; I’m surprised he wasn’t with them longer than that. I always looked at him as a displaced Pirate. 17 years? Where did all the time go?

By: Sliced Bread

Sliced Bread — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:17:10 +0000

cool post, William.

I was surprised not to see Wakefield on the list. I didn’t know he played two seasons with the Pirates before his 17 years in Boston. I imagine he’s still considered a legacy player by Red Sox fans.

By: William J.

William J. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:41:02 +0000

[8] Ruth wanted to manage, and thought he had an implicit promise to do, but the Yankees weren’t interested in having him do that, so they parted ways. By most accounts, the Yankees treated Ruth very shabbily at the end of his career.

By: rbj

rbj — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:15:36 +0000

[3] Or when the Yankees no longer wanted Babe Ruth and he winds up on the Boston Braves. Didn’t the Yankees want him to retire, but Babe just didn’t want to hang up the spikes, despite the decline?

Not a legacy player, but certainly a legendary player.

By: William J.

William J. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:09:49 +0000

[5] If the distinction is “left”, the list is probably small. There are cases of teams selling stars, like Foxx, but those voluntarily leaving after more than 10 years has to be select. Not even Arod would qualify because he only played 7 seasons in Seattle. The Mariners do have Griffey and the Big Unit, however, which shows you how great that team could have been.

By: William J.

William J. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:03:00 +0000

[4] Or the Athletics decision to sell a 28-year old Jimmie Foxx to the Red Sox. For all the bellyaching about the curse of the Bambino, Boston was gifted the next best thing 15 years later, but never could take advantage.

By: ms october

ms october — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:00:31 +0000

[3] yeah good point.
pujols is also rare because he extended with his team the first chance he could have left and then was still great enough to be wanted when he hit free agency again.
who else are potential legacy players that left?
arod from seattle is the first candidate that i think of.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000

Think about when the Reds didn’t want Frank Robinson anymore…dopes.

By: William J.

William J. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:54:46 +0000

[1] I was going to make that part of the post, but baseball-reference couldn’t parse the data that way. My guess is the number is very large.

[2] I think what gets lost in the discussion is that when these legacy players depart, it’s usually because the team doesn’t want them (see Jorge Posada). That was true during the days of the reserve clause, and it’s true today. More rare is a case like Pujols in which the player decides to leave his team after over 10 years of service.

By: ms october

ms october — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:48:30 +0000

yea great stuff as usual william.
[1] that would be interesting too – like the “twilight” players – willie mays would be the star of that team.

the idea of a legacy player and tarnishing their reputation really seems like an extended backlash to free agency. was babe ruth’s legacy tarnished when the sox traded him? it’s really only when the player goes to another team that this notion is brought up.

the dynamics of player movement in mlb where there is no cap and max salary compared with what’s happening in the nba now is fascinating.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:41:37 +0000

I love any list that includes the likes of Stan the Man, Ernie Banks, Ed Kranepool, Robin Yount Mario Soto, Carl Hubbell and Paul Splitorff.

William, this is a great job, as always. Man, that Yankee legacy team is for real. I wonder how many guys were near-legacy players. Guys who spent most of their career in one place only to finish the last season or two in another uniform.