Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Top ten worst retired numbers in baseball

2 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Steve Grant

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 3:33:07 PM6/4/04
to
"wunnuy" <wun...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com...
>
> 8. Willie Horton, Tigers. A good player. Not a great player. Had two
> 100 RBI seasons and one season with more than 30 home runs. The other
> retired numbers for the Tigers are HOFers. In fact, looking at the
> top ten offensive stats for the Tigers, Horton can only be found in
> three positive lists; sac flies 8th, HBP 9th, and home runs 4th, plus
> was 4th all time in strike outs. Why Horton?

Two words: Michael Dukakis.


Paul G. Wenthold

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 3:47:03 PM6/4/04
to
wunnuy wrote:


> 8. Willie Horton, Tigers. A good player. Not a great player. Had two
> 100 RBI seasons and one season with more than 30 home runs. The other
> retired numbers for the Tigers are HOFers. In fact, looking at the
> top ten offensive stats for the Tigers, Horton can only be found in
> three positive lists; sac flies 8th, HBP 9th, and home runs 4th, plus
> was 4th all time in strike outs. Why Horton?

> 9. Kent Hrbek, Twins. Similar to Horton, Hrbek's number was retired
> because he was very popular, not because of stats. He only made one
> all star team and never but up big firstbaseman-like stats, but is
> beloved in Minnesota.

What's wrong with retiring the number of someone because they were very
popular? I don't know the story of Horton, but Hrbek is basically the
definition of "Mr. Twin" if there ever was one. Grew up in Bloomington,
and spent his days sneaking in to see the Twins at the old Met. Was one
of the big 3, along with Gaetti and Brunansky to usher in the new era of
the Metrodome, and was a key player in bringing the Twins back to
prominence. For about 10 years, he was Minnesota's favorite son, with
popularity rivaling that of Puckett. Moreover, you underestimate his
stats. He has a lifetime OPS+ of 127, which interestingly is exactly
the same that of his contemporary, Donnie Baseball. Granted, he didn't
have Mattingly's peak, but then Mattingly didn't have two World Series
titles under his belt, either.

A very good player who was the most popular Twin for the 1980s, and team
captain most of those years. Was a loyal player, and the Twins were
loyal in return. What's wrong with that? It is what retired numbers
should be about. Not for just the best players, but the players who are
special to the team.

paul

Alan S. Wales

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 3:50:57 PM6/4/04
to
>wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy)

>9. Kent Hrbek, Twins. Similar to Horton, Hrbek's number was retired
>because he was very popular, not because of stats. He only made one
>all star team and never but up big firstbaseman-like stats, but is
>beloved in Minnesota.

A lifetime .282/.367/.481 and averaged 22 HR per year. Born and raised in the
shadow of Met Stadium in Bloomington, MN.

Never put up 1B like numbers? The year the Twins first won the WS in 1987,
Hrbek hit 34 HRs and SLG .545.

Yes, I'm from Minnesota. ;-)

--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."

See how the pros get their power!
http://www.powrwrap.com/press.htm


Jester Syrup

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 4:07:19 PM6/4/04
to
Sparky Anderson for the Reds??? Didn't you just list 3 guys who were not
players and stated that nobody but players should have their number retired?
Did Sparky play for the Reds? ANd if he did, was he a great player?

I think the retiring of numbers is a bit Democratic - all fluff for show and
symbolism that really doesn't mean much in reality.
___________________________________________________________________
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the
rest is mere sheep-herding.

Ezra Pound

Mischa Gelman

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 4:41:36 PM6/4/04
to

Much worse than Hrbek or Horton - Billy Meyer, Pittsburgh - record of
317-452 in 5 seasons at the helm

--
The batter still hits a grounder. But in this case the first bounce is 360
feet away. - Dan Quisenberry, on what happens if a sinker isn't working


Dean

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 5:53:55 PM6/4/04
to
Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at least none of
the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired Michael Jordan's
number 23."


--
Disclaimer: This post is solely an individual opinion and does not speak on
behalf of any organization.


Stephan Lemonjello Jr.

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 6:09:17 PM6/4/04
to
>Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
>for them?

Jackie Robinson says hi. :)

Paul G. Wenthold

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 6:06:46 PM6/4/04
to
Dean wrote:

> Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
> for them?

All except the Dodgers, I think. And even the Dodgers may have, as far
as I know.

The league has retired the number 42.

paul

Mpoconnor7

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 6:10:30 PM6/4/04
to
>Sparky Anderson for the Reds??? Didn't you just list 3 guys who were not
>players and stated that nobody but players should have their number retired?
>Did Sparky play for the Reds? ANd if he did, was he a great player?
>

A manager wears a uniform; I don't have a problem with a team retiring a
manager's uniform number. He won two WS in four tries over a nine year span; I
think Sparky deserved to have his number retired.

Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man

"The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
James Mason from the movie "Heaven Can Wait".

Mpoconnor7

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 6:15:46 PM6/4/04
to
>Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
>for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at least none of
>the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired Michael Jordan's
>number 23."

As much money as Michael Jordan made for the entire NBA, in terms of attendance
and fan interest and merchandising that he had a lot to do with improving, I'm
surprised the NBA didn't retire 23 for all teams.

Colin Campbell

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 6:19:17 PM6/4/04
to
In article <5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com>,
wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:

> 8. Willie Horton, Tigers. A good player. Not a great player. Had two
> 100 RBI seasons and one season with more than 30 home runs. The other
> retired numbers for the Tigers are HOFers. In fact, looking at the
> top ten offensive stats for the Tigers, Horton can only be found in
> three positive lists; sac flies 8th, HBP 9th, and home runs 4th, plus
> was 4th all time in strike outs. Why Horton?

Horton had an MVP-style year in offense-starved 1968: 4th in batting
average, 2nd in home runs, 2nd in slugging percentage, 2nd in total
bases, 5th in RBI, 2nd in home run percentage. Denny McLain took the MVP
with his 31-6 record (while over in the National League, Bob Gibson had
an ERA of 1.12, and still lost 9 games).

The Tigers hadn't been into the post-season since 1945. The town was in
an uproar about this team. Plus, Horton was the first black star in
Detroit history. Detroit was the second-last team to integrate, in
1958.

In 1967 the city of Detroit was ravaged by the largest, most deadly race
riot in the nation's history. The spring of 1968 saw the assassination
of Martin Luther King, and riots broke out across the nation. In
Detroit, you could see smoke on the horizon and rumors were flying
everywhere, and the phone system collapsed and it looked like we were
about to undergo a second year of rioting in Detroit, but for some
reason things muttered down without bloodshed, and the Tigers took our
mind off of things by romping to a 103-win season, with big black Willie
Horton crushing the ball while the white boys scampered around the
basepaths in front of him.

Whites and blacks were united in sheer joy at Willie Horton's
performance. Detroit remembers.

James Kahn

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 7:19:27 PM6/4/04
to

>> 8. Willie Horton, Tigers. A good player. Not a great player. Had two
>> 100 RBI seasons and one season with more than 30 home runs. The other
>> retired numbers for the Tigers are HOFers. In fact, looking at the
>> top ten offensive stats for the Tigers, Horton can only be found in
>> three positive lists; sac flies 8th, HBP 9th, and home runs 4th, plus
>> was 4th all time in strike outs. Why Horton?

>Horton had an MVP-style year in offense-starved 1968: 4th in batting
>average, 2nd in home runs, 2nd in slugging percentage, 2nd in total
>bases, 5th in RBI, 2nd in home run percentage. Denny McLain took the MVP
>with his 31-6 record (while over in the National League, Bob Gibson had
>an ERA of 1.12, and still lost 9 games).

>The Tigers hadn't been into the post-season since 1945. The town was in
>an uproar about this team. Plus, Horton was the first black star in
>Detroit history. Detroit was the second-last team to integrate, in
>1958.

[snip]


>Whites and blacks were united in sheer joy at Willie Horton's
>performance. Detroit remembers.

Also, it's worth mentioning, Horton was a star at
Detroit's Northwestern High School, and drew considerable
attention when he hit a ball into the upper deck of Tiger
Stadium in the city championships.

All the same, I'm somewhat surprised they retired his number. It
must have been fairly recently, as Kirk Gibson was number 23
with the Tigers.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn

Chuck Hildebrandt

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 8:20:39 PM6/4/04
to

"wunnuy" <wun...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com...
> 8. Willie Horton, Tigers. A good player. Not a great player. Had two
> 100 RBI seasons and one season with more than 30 home runs. The other
> retired numbers for the Tigers are HOFers. In fact, looking at the
> top ten offensive stats for the Tigers, Horton can only be found in
> three positive lists; sac flies 8th, HBP 9th, and home runs 4th, plus
> was 4th all time in strike outs. Why Horton?

Oh, I wanted to tell you to take a flying leap when I read this one. Willie
was my absolute baseball hero when I first became aware of the game. I
loved it when Willie's number was retired. I was thrilled.

But I took a look through Lee's baseball encyclopedia, and did this run on
career RCAA in Tigers' history:

DETROIT TIGERS
CAREER

RCAA RCAA
1 Ty Cobb 1319
2 Harry Heilmann 624
3 Al Kaline 546
4 Hank Greenberg 531
5 Sam Crawford 492
6 Charlie Gehringer 444
7 Norm Cash 419
8 Lou Whitaker 266
9 Bobby Veach 243
10 Kirk Gibson 192
11 Rudy York 185
12 Willie Horton 167

I was so disappointed to see this, but you're definitely right. Willie was
not as deserving as several others in this list. But I'm still viscerally
pleased his number was retired.

Norm Cash's number should be the next one retired.

Chuck


Chuck Hildebrandt

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 8:22:57 PM6/4/04
to

"Paul G. Wenthold" <pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote in message
news:c9qjjr$q57$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...

> wunnuy wrote:
>
>
> > 8. Willie Horton, Tigers. A good player. Not a great player. Had two
> > 100 RBI seasons and one season with more than 30 home runs. The other
> > retired numbers for the Tigers are HOFers. In fact, looking at the
> > top ten offensive stats for the Tigers, Horton can only be found in
> > three positive lists; sac flies 8th, HBP 9th, and home runs 4th, plus
> > was 4th all time in strike outs. Why Horton?
> > 9. Kent Hrbek, Twins. Similar to Horton, Hrbek's number was retired
> > because he was very popular, not because of stats. He only made one
> > all star team and never but up big firstbaseman-like stats, but is
> > beloved in Minnesota.
>
> What's wrong with retiring the number of someone because they were very
> popular? I don't know the story of Horton, but Hrbek is basically the
> definition of "Mr. Twin" if there ever was one. Grew up in Bloomington,
> and spent his days sneaking in to see the Twins at the old Met. Was one
> of the big 3, along with Gaetti and Brunansky to usher in the new era of
> the Metrodome, and was a key player in bringing the Twins back to
> prominence. For about 10 years, he was Minnesota's favorite son, with
> popularity rivaling that of Puckett. Moreover, you underestimate his
> stats. He has a lifetime OPS+ of 127, which interestingly is exactly
> the same that of his contemporary, Donnie Baseball. Granted, he didn't
> have Mattingly's peak, but then Mattingly didn't have two World Series
> titles under his belt, either.
>

Willie is the prominent black baseball hero in Detroit, even though Lou's
numbers were better over the long term. Willie is purported to have had a
key role in calming the city's black community during the '67 riots. By
your definition, he was definitely deserving.

Chuck


Tarkus

unread,
Jun 4, 2004, 9:35:54 PM6/4/04
to
On 6/4/2004 3:15:46 PM, Mpoconnor7 wrote:

>>Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
>>for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at least none of
>>the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired Michael Jordan's
>>number 23."
>
> As much money as Michael Jordan made for the entire NBA, in terms of attendance
> and fan interest and merchandising that he had a lot to do with improving, I'm
> surprised the NBA didn't retire 23 for all teams.

They're holding out for his next comeback.
--
"He's Picasso with a slider." - M's manager Bob Melvin on John Smoltz

Now playing: the radio

Bill G

unread,
Jun 5, 2004, 2:19:22 AM6/5/04
to
"Mpoconnor7" <mpoco...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040604181546...@mb-m23.aol.com...

> >Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never
played
> >for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at least none
of
> >the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired Michael Jordan's
> >number 23."
>
> As much money as Michael Jordan made for the entire NBA, in terms of
attendance
> and fan interest and merchandising that he had a lot to do with improving,
I'm
> surprised the NBA didn't retire 23 for all teams.

Too much future revenue lost when only Jordan's jersey can have 23. The top
seller this year was LeBron James' #23.

Bill G


Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 5, 2004, 11:11:52 AM6/5/04
to

Why? Because of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? :-)

Tom

Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 5, 2004, 11:12:33 AM6/5/04
to
On 04 Jun 2004 22:09:17 GMT, newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan
Lemonjello Jr.) wrote:

Yeah, I knew that had to be it.

Tom

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Paul G. Wenthold

unread,
Jun 5, 2004, 3:08:23 PM6/5/04
to
wunnuy wrote:


>
>
> That was my first thought while looking over Tiger career numbers. If
> Horton's number is retired, shouldn't Cash's? Honestly, and without
> trying to come across as racist, I think his being black had a lot to
> do with it too. When you look at the other Tiger retired numbers,
> they're all white, including super-racist Ty Cobb. I think with a
> great African-American population supporting the Tigers, Horton was
> taken into consideration. But if you retire Horton, you DEFINITELY
> retire Whitaker (and Trammel when he retires).
>


I think that if you have Kirk Gibson's number retired, you definately
retire Whitaker and Trammel, but then, my view on retiring numbers is
not based solely on the best players, but the special ones.

Kirk Gibson is more associated with the Dodgers than with the Tigers.
W/T are Tigers through and through.


paul


Message has been deleted

Tarkus

unread,
Jun 6, 2004, 12:20:51 AM6/6/04
to
On 6/4/2004 11:19:22 PM, Bill G wrote:

> Too much future revenue lost when only Jordan's jersey can have 23.
> The top seller this year was LeBron James' #23.

So no one would buy a LeBron James jersey if it was another number?
--
"You don't like sitting next to hitters. They don't like to talk about
pitching and golf. They like to talk about hitting and other stuff."
- Greg Maddux

Now playing: "05 - Into the Void"

Bill G

unread,
Jun 6, 2004, 12:52:48 AM6/6/04
to

"Tarkus" <karn...@beer.com> wrote in message
news:p5flzsbx0vwu$.dlg@tarkus.karnevil9.com...

> On 6/4/2004 11:19:22 PM, Bill G wrote:
>
> > Too much future revenue lost when only Jordan's jersey can have 23.
> > The top seller this year was LeBron James' #23.
>
> So no one would buy a LeBron James jersey if it was another number?

Uhh, good point.

But I think alot of kids would want #23 no matter who's name is on it
because of Jordan. He put some "magic" into that number. But Jordan
jerseys are not going to sell that well anymore since he's not playing.
Can't come up with a logical explanation for it.

Bill G


James Dunlop

unread,
Jun 6, 2004, 12:20:32 PM6/6/04
to
>Subject: Re: Top ten worst retired numbers in baseball
>From: mpoco...@aol.comnojunk (Mpoconnor7)
>Date: 6/4/2004 6:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040604181546...@mb-m23.aol.com>

>
>>Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
>>for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at least none of
>>the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired Michael Jordan's
>>number 23."
>
>As much money as Michael Jordan made for the entire NBA, in terms of
>attendance
>and fan interest and merchandising that he had a lot to do with improving,
>I'm
>surprised the NBA didn't retire 23 for all teams.
>
IIRC, the NHL did retire number 99 for the Great One (no, not Jackie Gleason!)

Corby Gilmore

unread,
Jun 6, 2004, 7:12:27 PM6/6/04
to
wunnuy (wun...@netzero.net) writes:
>
> I didn't say Gibson's number should be retired, I don't think it
> should retired by any team, in fact, Gibson should not have been MVP
> in 88.

Other than David Cone or possibly Andres Galarraga, who would you have
picked?
--
Corby Gilmore
co...@ncf.ca

David Marc Nieporent

unread,
Jun 6, 2004, 7:35:07 PM6/6/04
to
In article <ca08cr$5f1$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,

ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Corby Gilmore) wrote:
>wunnuy (wun...@netzero.net) writes:

>> I didn't say Gibson's number should be retired, I don't think it
>> should retired by any team, in fact, Gibson should not have been MVP
>> in 88.

> Other than David Cone or possibly Andres Galarraga, who would you have
>picked?

Not that Gibson was necessarily a bad choice, but Strawberry is the obvious
answer to that question.

---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu

Tarkus

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 9:55:33 AM6/7/04
to

I can't imagine anyone buying a #23 just because Jordan wore it, unless
Jordan's name is on the back, so I agree that you can't come up with a
logical explanation for your theory.
--
"Today, the Twins wake up with zero chance to make next year's playoffs.
Like the Pittsburgh Pirates. Like the Montreal Expos. Like about all
but five or six teams." - Bill Plaschke, L.A. Times, Dec. 12, 2000

Now playing: the radio

Perry Sailor

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:32:45 AM6/7/04
to

"Tarkus" <karn...@beer.com> wrote in message
news:x8jp2uxa...@tarkus.karnevil9.com...

> On 6/4/2004 3:15:46 PM, Mpoconnor7 wrote:
>
> >>Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never
played
> >>for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at least none
of
> >>the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired Michael Jordan's
> >>number 23."
> >
> > As much money as Michael Jordan made for the entire NBA, in terms of
attendance
> > and fan interest and merchandising that he had a lot to do with
improving, I'm
> > surprised the NBA didn't retire 23 for all teams.
>
> They're holding out for his next comeback.
> --

The NHL retired Gretzky's 99 on similar grounds.
Perry


Message has been deleted

Corby Gilmore

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 3:29:21 PM6/7/04
to
David Marc Nieporent (niep...@alumni.princeton.edu) writes:
> In article <ca08cr$5f1$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Corby Gilmore) wrote:
>>wunnuy (wun...@netzero.net) writes:
>
>>> I didn't say Gibson's number should be retired, I don't think it
>>> should retired by any team, in fact, Gibson should not have been MVP
>>> in 88.
>
>> Other than David Cone or possibly Andres Galarraga, who would you have
>>picked?
>
> Not that Gibson was necessarily a bad choice, but Strawberry is the obvious
> answer to that question.

David, I dont necessarily disagree with you, but I would have had
difficulty voting for a .269 hitter for MVP, even if he did lead the
league with 39 homeruns that year. Had I had a vote, I believe that I
would have voted for David Cone.

--
Corby Gilmore
co...@ncf.ca

AresFC

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 3:31:41 PM6/7/04
to
wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote in message news:<5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan Lemonjello Jr.) wrote in message news:<20040604180917...@mb-m05.aol.com>...

> > >Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never played
> > >for them?
> >
> > Jackie Robinson says hi. :)
>
> Retiring Jackie's 42 across the board was one of the really GREAT
> things MLB has done during that buffoon's reign as commissioner. That
> one I totally agree with 100%. If there was ever a case that a number
> should be retired across the board, that was it. Read "Great Time
> Coming" by David Faulkner if you need more info.

Mariano Rivera still wears number 42 for the Yankees.

Perry Sailor

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 4:50:09 PM6/7/04
to

"AresFC" <are...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29e8c2ed.04060...@posting.google.com...

Active players were grandfathered.
Perry


Richard Gadsden

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:00:00 PM6/7/04
to
In article <5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com> on 5 Jun 2004
11:35:44 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:

> newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan Lemonjello Jr.) wrote in message
> news:<20040604180917...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> > >Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never
> > played
> > >for them?
> >
> > Jackie Robinson says hi. :)
>
> Retiring Jackie's 42 across the board was one of the really GREAT
> things MLB has done during that buffoon's reign as commissioner. That
> one I totally agree with 100%. If there was ever a case that a number
> should be retired across the board, that was it. Read "Great Time
> Coming" by David Faulkner if you need more info.
>

I saw a suggestion (ESPN.com, probably) to give one player the #42 each
season as an award for contribution to baseball and society or some such.
Seemed a bit naff to me.

Much better would be to start talking about the Jackie Robinson award,
rather than Rookie of the Year.

--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire

JPM III

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:05:33 PM6/7/04
to
Jackie Robinson, for every major league club he never played for.

I understand the value of his contribution to the game, and I would even
support a commerative day (such as his birthday or the anniversary of his
first game) in which every major league team annually celebrates his
contribution. But to disallow all future players from wearing his number?
That would be like removing January 15 from the calendar because it's MLK
Jr's birthday -- a bit extreme. A holiday? Fine. Taking it away from
everyone else? Too much.

...

And as a Braves fan, I have to say I think the Braves have done it right.
They've only retired the numbers of truly deserving players. They don't
simply retire numbers of long-time, crowd favorites. They make sure a player
earns the distinction first.

Braves numbers that will be retired after the persons wearing them retire:
6, Bobby Cox
10, Chipper Jones
29, John Smoltz
31, Greg Maddux
47, Tom Glavine

Andruw Jones is a maybe at this point. His will only be retired if longevity
allows him to boost his career numbers to 450+ home runs, or if he finally
figures out how to hit .300 consistently.

> Numbers that SHOULD be retired: Jim Rice Red Sox 14, Sparky Anderson
> Reds 10 and why why why in the wild world of sports does Rusty Staub
> get his number retired for the Expos and Fergie Jenkins, a Hall of
> Fame pitcher, wearing a Chicago C on his Hall of Fame plaque, does not
> have his 31 retired by the Cubs (Maddux wearing it now too)?

...because Maddux is still wearing it. When the Cubs retire that number in
the next few years, it will be retired for both Greg and Fergie.

The Braves will only retire it for Greg.


JPM III

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:19:10 PM6/7/04
to
Dean <news:c9qr1j$teu$1...@news01.intel.com>:

> Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that never
> played for them? If not, then I would make this statement: "Hey, at

> least none of the examples are as bad as the Miami Heat, who retired
> Michael Jordan's number 23."

Every team in baseball retired Jackie Robinson's number.


JPM III

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:21:53 PM6/7/04
to
Richard Gadsden
<news:memo.2004060...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk>:

> In article <5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com> on 5 Jun
> 2004 11:35:44 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:
>
> > newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan Lemonjello Jr.) wrote in message
> > news:<20040604180917...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> > > > Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that
> > > > never played for them?
> > >
> > > Jackie Robinson says hi. :)
> >
> > Retiring Jackie's 42 across the board was one of the really GREAT
> > things MLB has done during that buffoon's reign as commissioner.
> > That one I totally agree with 100%. If there was ever a case that a
> > number should be retired across the board, that was it. Read "Great
> > Time Coming" by David Faulkner if you need more info.
> >
> I saw a suggestion (ESPN.com, probably) to give one player the #42
> each season as an award for contribution to baseball and society or
> some such. Seemed a bit naff to me.

Not to mention that most players are already attached to their own numbers.
It's a silly idea.

> Much better would be to start talking about the Jackie Robinson award,
> rather than Rookie of the Year.

I'm tired of renaming awards after certain players. I'd rather have a hitter
of the year, pitcher of the year, rookie of the year, and MVP. But that's
just me.


Tarkus

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:23:56 PM6/7/04
to
On 6/8/2084 4:00:00 PM, Richard Gadsden wrote:

> I saw a suggestion (ESPN.com, probably) to give one player the #42 each
> season as an award for contribution to baseball and society or some such.
> Seemed a bit naff to me.

What if the player didn't want it? Most players are fairly attached to
their current numbers.

> Much better would be to start talking about the Jackie Robinson award,
> rather than Rookie of the Year.

Yep.
--
"Maybe I should get on the stuff, so I'd hold up better.
Get a bigger neck, get some zits on my back."
- Greg Maddux on the subject of steroids

Now playing: "12 - Symptom of the Universe"

JPM III

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 10:22:59 PM6/7/04
to
Tarkus <news:p5flzsbx0vwu$.d...@tarkus.karnevil9.com>:

> On 6/4/2004 11:19:22 PM, Bill G wrote:
>
> > Too much future revenue lost when only Jordan's jersey can have 23.
> > The top seller this year was LeBron James' #23.
>
> So no one would buy a LeBron James jersey if it was another number?

Quite the contrary... it would be a hotter item because he'd probably be the
last player to wear #23, because he'd be the only one good enough to play
long enough to keep wearing #23 after the others had retired.


David Marc Nieporent

unread,
Jun 7, 2004, 11:45:29 PM6/7/04
to
In article <2ikm63F...@uni-berlin.de>,
"JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Richard Gadsden:

>> Much better would be to start talking about the Jackie Robinson award,
>> rather than Rookie of the Year.

>I'm tired of renaming awards after certain players. I'd rather have a hitter
>of the year, pitcher of the year, rookie of the year, and MVP. But that's
>just me.

Er, I hope you're being funny. The award is *already* named the Jackie
Robinson award.

Eric Opperman

unread,
Jun 8, 2004, 12:29:19 PM6/8/04
to
JPM III wrote:
> Richard Gadsden
> <news:memo.2004060...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>>In article <5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com> on 5 Jun
>>2004 11:35:44 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan Lemonjello Jr.) wrote in message
>>>news:<20040604180917...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
>>>
>>>>>Have any baseball teams ever retired a number of a player that
>>>>>never played for them?
>>>>
>>>>Jackie Robinson says hi. :)
>>>
>>>Retiring Jackie's 42 across the board was one of the really GREAT
>>>things MLB has done during that buffoon's reign as commissioner.
>>>That one I totally agree with 100%. If there was ever a case that a
>>>number should be retired across the board, that was it. Read "Great
>>>Time Coming" by David Faulkner if you need more info.
>>>
>>
>>I saw a suggestion (ESPN.com, probably) to give one player the #42
>>each season as an award for contribution to baseball and society or
>>some such. Seemed a bit naff to me.
>
>
> Not to mention that most players are already attached to their own numbers.
> It's a silly idea.

In pro sports, yes. My college had a football player, one of the most
popular ones and an all-around exemplary person, drown the year before I
got there. So in his memory, the player of the week the week before
each home game wears his old number, 25. I think it works better in
college, high school, etc. than in the pros.

--
Thanks for your time,

Eric Opperman
"I knew we were in for a long season when we lined up for the national
anthem on opening day and one of my players said, 'Every time I hear
that song, I have a bad game,'" - Jim Leyland, about Opening Day 1986
with the Pirates

Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 8, 2004, 5:30:22 PM6/8/04
to
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:05:33 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Jackie Robinson, for every major league club he never played for.
>
>I understand the value of his contribution to the game, and I would even
>support a commerative day (such as his birthday or the anniversary of his
>first game) in which every major league team annually celebrates his
>contribution. But to disallow all future players from wearing his number?
>That would be like removing January 15 from the calendar because it's MLK
>Jr's birthday -- a bit extreme. A holiday? Fine. Taking it away from
>everyone else? Too much.

Since the calandar is based on a natural cycle of the universe, your
example is a bit much...however, if they added in a January 32, or a
February 29 and made Leap Year day February 30...sort of like the 13th
floor in tall buildings.

Tom

Message has been deleted

Eric Opperman

unread,
Jun 8, 2004, 7:09:06 PM6/8/04
to
wunnuy wrote:

> Eric Opperman <eri...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message news:<2im7t2F...@uni-berlin.de>...


>
>>JPM III wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Gadsden
>>><news:memo.2004060...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>
>

>>In pro sports, yes. My college had a football player, one of the most
>>popular ones and an all-around exemplary person, drown the year before I
>>got there. So in his memory, the player of the week the week before
>>each home game wears his old number, 25. I think it works better in
>>college, high school, etc. than in the pros.
>

> What if they're a line man?

That's rare, but the one time it did happen, they named two and had the
non-lineman wear it. Probably a good thing, because I'm not sure he
could have fit into the 25 jersey, regardless of whether it's legal.

JPM III

unread,
Jun 11, 2004, 12:55:09 AM6/11/04
to
> > > Much better would be to start talking about the Jackie Robinson
> > > award, rather than Rookie of the Year.
>
> > I'm tired of renaming awards after certain players. I'd rather have
> > a hitter of the year, pitcher of the year, rookie of the year, and
> > MVP. But that's just me.
>
> Er, I hope you're being funny. The award is *already* named the
> Jackie Robinson award.

Yes, and the Pitcher of the Year is *already* named the Cy Young award. I'm
saying get rid of that, or else why can't someone who was a better pitcher
get their name on it? Just because Cy's team scored more runs than he
allowed more than any other pitcher in history doesn't make him the best
ever. He just pitched a lot and stayed healthy. Good, definitely. Great,
maybe. Best ever, hardly.


JPM III

unread,
Jun 11, 2004, 12:56:04 AM6/11/04
to
Tom MacIntyre <news:2rbcc0lvcvrk098f6...@4ax.com>:

Or the 19th story in Sideways Stories from Wayside School.


Alan S. Wales

unread,
Jun 11, 2004, 10:48:03 AM6/11/04
to
>"JPM III" jpmc...@hotmail.com

[re: Cy Young]

> He just pitched a lot and stayed healthy. Good, definitely. Great,
>maybe. Best ever, hardly.

Hmmm. That is also my assessment of Pete Rose. Played a lot, stayed healthy,
hit a lot of singles. Good, definitely. Great, yeah, maybe. Best ever, ah, no.

--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."

See how the pros get their power!
http://www.powrwrap.com/press.htm


Ben

unread,
Jun 11, 2004, 11:13:29 AM6/11/04
to
> > He just pitched a lot and stayed healthy. Good, definitely. Great,
> >maybe. Best ever, hardly.
>
> Hmmm. That is also my assessment of Pete Rose. Played a lot, stayed healthy,
> hit a lot of singles. Good, definitely. Great, yeah, maybe. Best ever, ah, no.

but if they gave an award to the batter who created the most outs each season,
they should name it after pete rose.

by definition.

--
Ben


Message has been deleted

David Foss

unread,
Jun 12, 2004, 1:02:06 AM6/12/04
to
"Ben" <bbla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2iu0gqF...@uni-berlin.de>...

Rose does have the career out record:

OUTS OUTS
1 Pete Rose 10328
2 Hank Aaron 9136
3 Carl Yastrzemski 9126
4 Cal Ripken 8893
5 Eddie Murray 8570
6 Rickey Henderson 8510
7 Dave Winfield 8422
8 Robin Yount 8415
9 Brooks Robinson 8340
10 Luis Aparicio 8110

But like most of his other records, it's longevity that gives it to
him. His career high single season number is 499 in 1980. That's
only good for a tie for 149th all time. Players who can top 499 outs
in a season include Puckett, OSmith, MWills, BRobinson, Soriano,
Sierra, J** C*****, CRipken, Staub, A-Rod, Beltran, Jeter, Garciaparra
& Garvey.

OUTS YEAR OUTS
1 Omar Moreno 1980 560
2 Frank Taveras 1979 545
3 Horace Clarke 1970 542
T4 Sandy Alomar Sr. 1971 536
T4 Bobby Richardson 1964 536
T6 Omar Moreno 1982 535
T6 Omar Moreno 1979 535
T6 Sandy Alomar Sr. 1970 535
9 Alfredo Griffin 1980 533
T10 Juan Samuel 1984 532
T10 Ken Hubbs 1962 532

How about the Omar Moreno Award?

Dvd Avins

unread,
Jun 12, 2004, 4:42:08 AM6/12/04
to
"David Foss" <FossD...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1976b918.04061...@posting.google.com...

<snip>

> Rose does have the career out record:

<snip>

> But like most of his other records, it's longevity that gives it to
> him. His career high single season number is 499 in 1980. That's
> only good for a tie for 149th all time. Players who can top 499 outs
> in a season include Puckett, OSmith, MWills, BRobinson, Soriano,
> Sierra, J** C*****, CRipken, Staub, A-Rod, Beltran, Jeter, Garciaparra
> & Garvey.
>
> OUTS YEAR OUTS
> 1 Omar Moreno 1980 560
> 2 Frank Taveras 1979 545
> 3 Horace Clarke 1970 542
> T4 Sandy Alomar Sr. 1971 536
> T4 Bobby Richardson 1964 536
> T6 Omar Moreno 1982 535
> T6 Omar Moreno 1979 535
> T6 Sandy Alomar Sr. 1970 535

All of the top 8 except Moreno played part of their career for the Yankees.


--
Rather than working hard to create a Constitution for Iraq, why don't we
just give them ours? We're not using it.


James Dunlop

unread,
Jun 12, 2004, 5:08:01 PM6/12/04
to
>> OUTS YEAR OUTS
>> 1 Omar Moreno 1980 560
>> 2 Frank Taveras 1979 545
>> 3 Horace Clarke 1970 542
>> T4 Sandy Alomar Sr. 1971 536
>> T4 Bobby Richardson 1964 536
>> T6 Omar Moreno 1982 535
>> T6 Omar Moreno 1979 535
>> T6 Sandy Alomar Sr. 1970 535
>
>All of the top 8 except Moreno played part of their career for the Yankees.
>

Omar the Out Maker (what a friend who's a Pirates fan called him) most
certainly did play for the Yanks, I don't remember Taveras playing across town
(he did play for the Mets.)

Checking, that's correct. Omar in the Bronx, Frank in Queens (only.)

Dvd Avins

unread,
Jun 12, 2004, 5:43:05 PM6/12/04
to
"James Dunlop" <jdu...@aol.comasdfasdd> wrote in message
news:20040612170801...@mb-m22.aol.com...

Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant. I even checked Taveras the same way you
did before posting. And then I typed the wrong Pirate.


Pete Panaro

unread,
Jun 13, 2004, 1:19:30 AM6/13/04
to
>Just because Cy's team scored more runs than he
>allowed more than any other pitcher in history doesn't make him the best
>ever. He just pitched a lot and stayed healthy. Good, definitely. Great,
>maybe. Best ever, hardly.

Man, talk about selling Young short. Was he truly the best? I don't know.
But how do you argue with 511 wins, a .618 career winning percentage, 749 CG,
7300+ IP,
and 5 30-win seasons?

Tarkus

unread,
Jun 13, 2004, 3:01:10 AM6/13/04
to

By pointing out that he's the losingist pitcher of all time?
--
"You don't like sitting next to hitters. They don't like to talk about
pitching and golf. They like to talk about hitting and other stuff."
- Greg Maddux

Now playing: the radio

Bill G

unread,
Jun 13, 2004, 5:08:39 AM6/13/04
to
"Pete Panaro" <petep...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
news:20040613011930...@mb-m17.aol.com...

> >Just because Cy's team scored more runs than he
> >allowed more than any other pitcher in history doesn't make him the best
> >ever. He just pitched a lot and stayed healthy. Good, definitely. Great,
> >maybe. Best ever, hardly.
>
> Man, talk about selling Young short. Was he truly the best? I don't
know.
> But how do you argue with 511 wins,

and 316 losses ...

> a .618 career winning percentage

which is good for 72nd all-time ...

Walter Johnson won 417 games (.599 W%), and by some estimates, lost 50-60
wins because he played on crappy teams. Factor even 40 of those in, and
he's in the mid .650 range.

> 749 CG, 7300+ IP, and 5 30-win seasons?

Don't forget the 3 20-loss seasons (and 3 more with 19) ...

Gawdy numbers because of the era he pitched in. Many pitchers from that era
had seasons with huge innings, CG's, and far more than 30 wins (look at
Charley Radbourne's 1884 season). Young was just lucky enough to have an
arm that didn't fall off (see Silver King). He was good/great for a very,
very long time. But as for greatest, look at Walter Johnson.

Taking the stats you listed:
Young led the league in wins 5 times, Johnson 6.
Young in CG's 3 times, Johnson 6 times.
Young in innings twice, Johnson 5 times.

Also:
Young led in K's twice, Johnson 12 times. (Granted, Young was a control
specialist)
Young in ERA twice, Johnson 5 times.
Career shutouts, Young 76, Johnson 110 (1st all-time)

Triple Crowns: Young 1, Johnson 3.

HOF Monitor: Young 322, Johnson 365

Nobody's selling Young short, but there are a few pitchers that are more
worthy of "greatest" (Alexander, Mathewson)

Bill G


Roger Moore

unread,
Jun 13, 2004, 12:25:38 PM6/13/04
to
"Bill G" <rbat...@hotmail.com> writes:

>Gawdy numbers because of the era he pitched in. Many pitchers from that era
>had seasons with huge innings, CG's, and far more than 30 wins (look at
>Charley Radbourne's 1884 season).

Which was 6 years before Young's debut, and under radically different
pitching rules from those in effect for the vast majority of Young's career.

>Young was just lucky enough to have an
>arm that didn't fall off (see Silver King).

Young was essentially unique in how long he lasted. He threw more than
1000 innings more than any other pitcher in history, and solidly over 2000
more innings than anyone who could be counted as a true contemporary (i.e.
somebody whose career overlapped his by more than a handful of seasons).

>He was good/great for a very,
>very long time. But as for greatest, look at Walter Johnson.

It depends on what you want to count when doing your ranking. Young was
not quite as effective as Johnson was, either over his career as a whole
or when comparing best seasons. OTOH, Young had an extra 1400 or so
innings at a level of productivity better than the vast majority of
HOFers. That's enormously valuable, even if you count league average
pitching as valueless. In terms of career value above replacement or
value above average, it's a two horse race.

>Also:
>Young led in K's twice, Johnson 12 times. (Granted, Young was a control
>specialist)
>Young in ERA twice, Johnson 5 times.
>Career shutouts, Young 76, Johnson 110 (1st all-time)

Young led in fewest baserunners per 9 IP 7 times, to 6 for Johnson.
Young led in fewest walks per 9 ip 14 times, to 2 for Johnson.

>Nobody's selling Young short, but there are a few pitchers that are more
>worthy of "greatest" (Alexander, Mathewson)

No. Alexander and Mathewson don't belong in the discussion. Young was a
more effective pitcher, as measured by ERA relative to his league, than
either one and threw vastly more innings. Johnson is the only other
pitcher who really belongs in the discussion.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

Xavier Leclerc

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 11:10:17 AM6/16/04
to
wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote in message news:<5c3cdaf6.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > 5. Rusty Staub, Expos. Rusty, a nice guy, popular and a good player,
> had a total of three and one half seasons with the Expos. He hit .295
> with them but I guess since he represented them in the all star game
> for three seasons, he gets his number retired. Another case of a team
> retiring a number for the sake of retiring numbers. If all teams used
> this criteria for retiring numbers we'd be in triple digits by the
> year 2010.


Staub was the first superstar to play in Montreal (beside Jackie
Robinson who played for the MTL Royals of International League). He
helped launch the new major league franchise in 69 and drew
considerable crowds who packed old-style Jarry Park to see his great
batting and fielding. Staub was very amicable with everybody. His
nickname was "le Grand Orange", because of the color of his hair.
Moreover, he was the sole Expo player to make the effort to learn
French and could hold a conversation in that language both with the
fans and reporters.

Xavier Leclerc

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 11:39:06 AM6/16/04
to

Xavier Leclerc

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 2:27:42 PM6/16/04
to
Message has been deleted

Paul G. Wenthold

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 6:48:58 PM6/16/04
to
wunnuy wrote:

> xavier...@yahoo.ca (Xavier Leclerc) wrote in message news:<bf5b1821.04061...@posting.google.com>...

> Well, not denying Staub was popular, but one, he was NOT a superstar.
> Good player? You bet. And two, because he learned French, isn't a
> great reason to retire his number.
>
> My argument with stuff like this is that retiring a guy who had three
> good years or was an executive with a team lessens the greatness of
> retiring a player who played 15 or 20 years with a team and put
> together a hall of fame career. I mean, if you want to honor someone
> like Staub, name a section of the park after him or something like
> that (like the Giants did with Lon Simmons and Russ Hodges in SBC
> park). But don't retire his number along side Gary Carter's.


You are still making the mistake in thinking that retiring numbers is
reserved for only the best players. As soon as you recognize that
numbers are retired not just for the best, but also for _special_
players, then it makes much more sense.

Think about it. There is one number that is retired by MLB itself.
That is for Jackie Robinson. Was Jackie Robinson anywhere in the top 20
players of all time? Probably not, but then again, was Jackie Robinson
one of the most special players of all time? Inarguably yes. Hence, he
gets his number retired by MLB, whereas Ted Williams, who was a much,
much better player than Robinson, doesn't even get considered. And no
one is complaining.

(Interesting, I think there could be a case made that Ruth was also a
special player in terms of what he did for baseball, so I didn't use him
as an example)

paul

Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 8:59:49 PM6/16/04
to
On 16 Jun 2004 15:28:16 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:

>xavier...@yahoo.ca (Xavier Leclerc) wrote in message news:<bf5b1821.04061...@posting.google.com>...

>Well, not denying Staub was popular, but one, he was NOT a superstar.
>Good player? You bet. And two, because he learned French, isn't a
>great reason to retire his number.
>
>My argument with stuff like this is that retiring a guy who had three
>good years or was an executive with a team lessens the greatness of
>retiring a player who played 15 or 20 years with a team and put
>together a hall of fame career. I mean, if you want to honor someone
>like Staub, name a section of the park after him or something like
>that (like the Giants did with Lon Simmons and Russ Hodges in SBC
>park). But don't retire his number along side Gary Carter's.

Staub was "the" big guy on a new team, our (Canada's) first, for the
first few years. His being traded (a shock, I'll admit, at the time)
brought us more gold from the Mets. He was, as has been pointed out, a
special player. He deserves this honour.

Tom

Seapig

unread,
Jun 16, 2004, 9:54:41 PM6/16/04
to
wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote in message news:<5c3cdaf6.04061...@posting.google.com>...

> xavier...@yahoo.ca (Xavier Leclerc) wrote in message news:<bf5b1821.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> Well, not denying Staub was popular, but one, he was NOT a superstar.
> Good player? You bet. And two, because he learned French, isn't a
> great reason to retire his number.
>
> My argument with stuff like this is that retiring a guy who had three
> good years or was an executive with a team lessens the greatness of
> retiring a player who played 15 or 20 years with a team and put
> together a hall of fame career. I mean, if you want to honor someone
> like Staub, name a section of the park after him or something like
> that (like the Giants did with Lon Simmons and Russ Hodges in SBC
> park). But don't retire his number along side Gary Carter's.

Andre Dawson also wore number 10, that may have factored into the
decision to retire it.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Paul G. Wenthold

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 12:35:14 PM6/17/04
to
wunnuy wrote:

> "Paul G. Wenthold" <pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote in message news:<caqior$smn$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...

> I have no problems with 42 being retired, in fact, I think it's one of
> the few actual great things MLB has done in teh last few years (and
> Jackie is one of my all time favorite people). What he did without
> question is one of the great personal feats of the 20th century.
> Retiring his number across the board was a well deserved honor.
>
> I personally just can't accept the "special" players thing because
> then what honor is then reserved for the great players via their team
> (not talking about HOF)?

How about the HOF? Or a team's own "Hall of Greats"?

In the end, whether you can accept it or not, it is still true.
Retiring numbers is not only about recognizing the best players.


I mean, was Steve Garvey even special for the
> Padres? Was Boggs special for Tampa? And you can't tell me Gene Autry
> should have a number retired.

I have no problem with you making an argument based on whether someone
is "special" or not, trying to argue that they weren't special. My
objection is your assertion that certain retired numbers are bad because
the players weren't the best. There's more to it than that, and you can
be a "special" player without being the best.

Lastly, aside from the awkwardness about an owner having a number in the
first place, you have to admit that Gene Autry was an extremely special
person to the Angels. Hey, when the Statlers Brothers sing a song about
you (and mention the Angels), you know that it is good. Seeing that
"retiring numbers" is a way to recognize that special person, it makes
perfect sense that it would be the response.

paul


David Marc Nieporent

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 2:20:33 PM6/17/04
to
wunnuy wrote:
> Tom MacIntyre <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> On 16 Jun 2004 15:28:16 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:
>>> xavier...@yahoo.ca (Xavier Leclerc) wrote in message
>>>> wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote in message

[...]

>>> Well, not denying Staub was popular, but one, he was NOT a superstar.
>>> Good player? You bet. And two, because he learned French, isn't a
>>> great reason to retire his number.
>>> My argument with stuff like this is that retiring a guy who had three
>>> good years or was an executive with a team lessens the greatness of
>>> retiring a player who played 15 or 20 years with a team and put
>>> together a hall of fame career. I mean, if you want to honor someone
>>> like Staub, name a section of the park after him or something like
>>> that (like the Giants did with Lon Simmons and Russ Hodges in SBC
>>> park). But don't retire his number along side Gary Carter's.

>> Staub was "the" big guy on a new team, our (Canada's) first, for the
>> first few years. His being traded (a shock, I'll admit, at the time)
>> brought us more gold from the Mets. He was, as has been pointed out, a
>> special player. He deserves this honour.

> A few years being three. I certainly do not want to argue with you on
> the merits of a player you like, it's just my opinion retiring his
> number downgrades the retiring of numbers of players who've put in a
> lot of great years with one team. If the Spos retire Staub's number,
> who only played three-plus seasons with the team (three all star
> appearances) than you've got to retire Tim Raines, who was one of the
> all time greatest players with the team (and had seven all star
> appearances as an Expo) and is their SB leader, Vlad Guerrero (four
> all star appearances), Tim Wallach (five) and the Expos offensive hit
> leader in most catagories, Steve Rogers (five AS appearances) and all
> time leader in most pitching catagories, Dennis Martinez, who had as
> many AS appearances for the Expos as Staub, and Jeff Reardon the all
> time Expos save leader. You have to agree with me on that, I'd assume.

Of course we don't have to agree with you on that. We'd only have to agree
if we accept your implied premise that playing quality is the issue. If one
doesn't accept that premise, then the fact that those guys had more on-field
value or more ASG appearances for the Expos than Staub did is irrelevant.

(But of course they should retire Raines' number.)

--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 4:41:12 PM6/17/04
to
On 17 Jun 2004 08:52:48 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:

>"Paul G. Wenthold" <pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote in message news:<caqior$smn$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...

>I have no problems with 42 being retired, in fact, I think it's one of
>the few actual great things MLB has done in teh last few years (and
>Jackie is one of my all time favorite people). What he did without
>question is one of the great personal feats of the 20th century.
>Retiring his number across the board was a well deserved honor.
>
>I personally just can't accept the "special" players thing because
>then what honor is then reserved for the great players via their team

>(not talking about HOF)? I mean, was Steve Garvey even special for the


>Padres? Was Boggs special for Tampa? And you can't tell me Gene Autry
>should have a number retired.

Since it is up to the teams anyway...what's the argument?

Tom

Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 4:51:09 PM6/17/04
to
On 17 Jun 2004 09:03:38 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:

>Tom MacIntyre <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b4r1d0lrpoc0k4sm4...@4ax.com>...

>A few years being three. I certainly do not want to argue with you on
>the merits of a player you like, it's just my opinion retiring his
>number downgrades the retiring of numbers of players who've put in a
>lot of great years with one team. If the Spos retire Staub's number,
>who only played three-plus seasons with the team (three all star
>appearances) than you've got to retire Tim Raines, who was one of the
>all time greatest players with the team (and had seven all star
>appearances as an Expo) and is their SB leader, Vlad Guerrero (four
>all star appearances), Tim Wallach (five) and the Expos offensive hit
>leader in most catagories, Steve Rogers (five AS appearances) and all
>time leader in most pitching catagories, Dennis Martinez, who had as
>many AS appearances for the Expos as Staub, and Jeff Reardon the all
>time Expos save leader. You have to agree with me on that, I'd assume.

I agree with you on some, and I'd have to think it through on some. In
my opinion, Staub's pioneer role in a new team in a new country adds
significantly to the reason to retire his number, and those who are
close otherwise need not apply. Raines is a definite, a no-brainer.
Steve Rogers is also a definite for me. Wallach, my favourite Expo, is
just above borderline. Again, it's up to the team. They'll do what
they want to do. It is not all about numbers, it's about
sentimentality also.

Tom

James Dunlop

unread,
Jun 17, 2004, 9:36:07 PM6/17/04
to
>Subject: Re: Top ten worst retired numbers in baseball
>From: "David Marc Nieporent" niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
>Date: 6/17/2004 2:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2je5nkF...@uni-berlin.de>
>

>Of course we don't have to agree with you on that. We'd only have to agree
>if we accept your implied premise that playing quality is the issue. If one
>doesn't accept that premise, then the fact that those guys had more on-field
>value or more ASG appearances for the Expos than Staub did is irrelevant.
>
>(But of course they should retire Raines' number.)
>

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Expos DO retire Raines's number on
Saturday, which is "Tribute to Tim Raines Night" at le Stade olympique.


Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 18, 2004, 4:57:57 PM6/18/04
to
On 18 Jun 2004 01:36:07 GMT, jdu...@aol.comasdfasdd (James Dunlop)
wrote:

Thanks for the tip; I am somewhat out of touch with les Expos, and
baseball in general, these days. :-)

Tom

James Dunlop

unread,
Jun 18, 2004, 11:17:58 PM6/18/04
to
>Subject: Re: Top ten worst retired numbers in baseball
>From: Tom MacIntyre tom__ma...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/18/2004 4:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5ol6d09hskfj9dv8i...@4ax.com>
I only knew that because I'll be at the game. I'll post something tomorrow or
Sunday.

I wanted to "get" Olympic Stadium before the Expos finally move. I tried last
year, and had plane tickets (to Albany, in order to fit in a trip to
Cooperstown as well) but a "small" power outage the day before I was to leave
caused me to cancel. Fortunately, Bud's orphans had to stick around this year
(rather than moving to DC, Norfolk, Portland, Mexico, or oblivion) so I had
another chance.

When I made the reservations for this trip, I also made reservations for Philly
in August. At the new park, the best tickets I could get were in the second
level in center field. The best ticket available tomorrow for the Expos game?
The section right behind the plate. I think there were 3700 people there
Wednesday. Hopefully, a few more tomorrow.

As a side note, if you are planning on a trip to Cooperstown, you might want to
wait until next year. They have a major renovation project going on, and a
significant portion of the museum is closed. Really rather disappointing.
(The plaque room is still open, fortunately.)

JPM III

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 12:25:36 AM6/19/04
to
Ben <news:2iu0gqF...@uni-berlin.de>:

> > > He just pitched a lot and stayed healthy. Good, definitely. Great,
> > > maybe. Best ever, hardly.
> >
> > Hmmm. That is also my assessment of Pete Rose. Played a lot, stayed
> > healthy, hit a lot of singles. Good, definitely. Great, yeah,
> > maybe. Best ever, ah, no.
>
> but if they gave an award to the batter who created the most outs
> each season, they should name it after pete rose.
>
> by definition.

Garrett Anderson is working on that.


JPM III

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 12:28:05 AM6/19/04
to
Pete Panaro <news:20040613011930...@mb-m17.aol.com>:

Easy. Place half of it in the 19th century, when every pitcher pitched
complete games almost every time out there. Young's perceived greatness is a
result of sticking with the game for so long and having a good offense
behind him to earn the wins.

He's also the #1 loser of all time, you know. :-P


Tom MacIntyre

unread,
Jun 19, 2004, 8:01:18 AM6/19/04
to
On 19 Jun 2004 03:17:58 GMT, jdu...@aol.comasdfasdd (James Dunlop)
wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Top ten worst retired numbers in baseball
>>From: Tom MacIntyre tom__ma...@hotmail.com
>>Date: 6/18/2004 4:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <5ol6d09hskfj9dv8i...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 18 Jun 2004 01:36:07 GMT, jdu...@aol.comasdfasdd (James Dunlop)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Top ten worst retired numbers in baseball
>>>>From: "David Marc Nieporent" niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
>>>>Date: 6/17/2004 2:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <2je5nkF...@uni-berlin.de>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course we don't have to agree with you on that. We'd only have to agree
>>>>if we accept your implied premise that playing quality is the issue. If
>>one
>>>>doesn't accept that premise, then the fact that those guys had more
>>on-field
>>>>value or more ASG appearances for the Expos than Staub did is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>(But of course they should retire Raines' number.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Expos DO retire Raines's number on
>>>Saturday, which is "Tribute to Tim Raines Night" at le Stade olympique.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the tip; I am somewhat out of touch with les Expos, and
>>baseball in general, these days. :-)
>>
>I only knew that because I'll be at the game. I'll post something tomorrow or
>Sunday.

I overheard Warren Cromartie (I think) speaking on last night's
televised game, and it appears that Rock's number is going to be hung
up tonight, as you guessed. :-)

Tom

0 new messages