• A-Rod To Make It A Gang Of Four?

    Posted by on January 27th, 2007 · Comments (11)

    Thanks to the readers of WasWatching.com and Lee Sinins, I was able to put together a list of players who joined the Yankees after having a successful playing resume elsewhere. Here’s the list (of 67 players):

    67toYanks.jpg

    The next thing I wanted to know, off this list, was “How many of these stars joined the Yankees younger than or equal to age 36 – and went on to play with the Yankees for at least 3 seasons?” Here’s the answer:

    67toYanks36and3.jpg

    So, to date, there have been 26 stars in their prime (meaning before reaching their 37th birthday) to join the Yankees – who went on to stay in New York for at least 3 seasons. The next question that came to mind here was “How many of these 26 never won a World Series ring as a member of the Yankees?” Here’s the answer to that:

    67toYanks36and3noring.jpg

    The above 15 are guys who brought their “star” to New York, stayed a good while, and either left or are still there without a ring.

    Now, let us assume that Alex Rodriguez plays with the Yankees in 2007 – because he should, at this junction. Should A-Rod leave New York after this season, and the Yankees don’t win a ring in 2007, Alex Rodriguez would then become only the 4th “star” to join the Yankees under the age of 30 who would play with the team for at least 4 seasons, and never win a World Series ring while in New York – joining Rickey Henderson, Danny Tartabull and Dave Winfield.

    Now, Rickey and Winnie are Cooperstown material – as is A-Rod. That’s fine company. However, in terms of a “Yankees-legacy,” I’m not sure being in the Rickey-Tartabull-Winfield class is what Alex had in mind when he joined New York.

    Of course, winning a ring with the Yankees would make this all moot for A-Rod.

    Comments on A-Rod To Make It A Gang Of Four?

    1. brockdc
      January 27th, 2007 | 5:24 pm

      We had Tartabull for FOUR seaons? Really? Then again, those teams had such putrid pitching back then, it was hard for me to stomach watching more than a couple games a week…

      …Which brings me to my point. In all fairness, had A-Rod played on a Yankee team that included any three of Clemens, Pettite (in his prime), Wells, El Duque, Cone, or Jimmy Key, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    2. January 27th, 2007 | 5:35 pm

      I’d be quite content to ignore that, since arriving in New York in 2004, A-Rod has hit .299/.396/.549. His OPS is tops in the team in that time. He’s hit 119 HR, nearly 30 more than Jason Giambi who is number two on that list. And A-Rod has driven in 357 runs, tops on the team in that time.

      It ain’t his fault the Yanks haven’t won a ring in his time here. And I guarantee you that, outside of the Babe, nobody on that list has put together a better Bronx resume since coming to the Yankees. To compare A-Rod to Danny Tartabull seems a little not correct to me.

    3. January 27th, 2007 | 8:26 pm

      ~~~To compare A-Rod to Danny Tartabull seems a little not correct to me.~~~

      Where did I compare the production of A-Rod to Tartabull? Did I say they were the same? Did I say one was better? I don’t remember saying that?

      The only thing that I said about A-Rod and Tartabull was, assuming 2007 is a bust, that they both were “stars” to join the Yankees under the age of 30 who would play with the team for at least 4 seasons, and never win a World Series ring. They’re, again, assuming 2007 is a bust, only two of four to fill this bill.

      Show me where I said anything else than that here.

    4. Raf
      January 27th, 2007 | 9:00 pm

      However, in terms of a “Yankees-legacy,” I’m not sure being in the Rickey-Tartabull-Winfield class is what Alex had in mind when he joined New York.
      =============
      I don’t even think it registered on the radar…

      But they’ve all did what was expected when they were here. Rickey hit & ran, Tartabull hit, as did Winnie. That the Yanks didn’t win a WS isn’t their fault.

    5. RICH
      January 27th, 2007 | 10:26 pm

      Is there any special reason you’ve come up with these selectors? Did you have them in mind from the beginning or were they applied after you saw the pool? They seem arbitrary to me.

      I’m impressed with the number of HOF’ers: Winfield, Baker, Keeler, (is Griffith in the Hall?), and some probables as you mentioned like
      Arod, Rickey, and maybe some others with slight chances.

      I wonder if the numbers are similar for other teams that have been around as long as the Yankees.

    6. January 27th, 2007 | 10:52 pm

      ~~~Is there any special reason you’ve come up with these selectors? Did you have them in mind from the beginning or were they applied after you saw the pool? They seem arbitrary to me.~~~

      I used Roger Clemens as a baseline for the age, and Sheffield for a baseline on the service, hence, the <=36/3+ filter.

    7. January 28th, 2007 | 4:25 am

      Let me rephrase my earlier comment.

      I would say that it’s not fair to Alex to stick him in the same class as Tartabull. Sure, he joined the Yankees before he was thirty, could play for four years with the team and walk away with a ring. But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. It is simply indicative of the attitude of many fans who believe that a lack of indicates failure. I don’t think A-Rod’s been a failure here. He’s done everything he could to be as good as he can be. He wasn’t responsible for the Yanks losing to Detroit or the Angels or the Red Sox.

      But that’s just my view. And it’s an opinion. So I don’t think I’m more right than anyone else. Maybe A-Rod really belongs in that category of a perceived failure because of his seeming inability to get it done in October, but I would rather not judge him on that quite yet.

    8. January 28th, 2007 | 4:29 am

      By the way, Steve, I mean no disrespect with my comments. I’m just offering up my view on the situation. Yankee fans’ passions seem to run high when the topic turns to Alex Rodriguez.

    9. January 28th, 2007 | 9:58 am

      No sweat Ben – and, sorry if I seemed a little pissy here. It just seems that some always want to say that I said something that I did not say, and then get on my case about it. Every so often, I get a little thin skinned on it.

      Back to point, would you say it’s fair to Alex to stick him in the same class as Winfield?

      Come to think of it, there is something there with the Jeter/Donnie and A-Rod/Winny split, no?

    10. January 28th, 2007 | 10:10 pm

      I think it’s fair to stick him in the same class as Winfield to a point. A-Rod’s been _much_ better than Winfield was during the regular season. But because of his contract, A-Rod’s supposed struggles get magnified. It’s a tough one. I think the DJ/Mattingly and A-Rod/Winfield split is appropriate. Would you say though that Winfield may have had more fans in New York than A-Rod does though?

    11. Raf
      January 29th, 2007 | 11:15 am

      Not to mention Winnie had the wrath of the owner.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.