7.19.25 for Wright5

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: I have a lot of affection for Jerry Koosman, but I never once looked at Grant Roberts or Colin McHugh in 36 and felt it was wrong that the number was still in circulation. Nor have I heard anybody anywhere voice such sentiments. What happened is Steve Cohen's research netted him not the opinion of the wisest fans, but the loudest, and those we're the ones projecting silly manufactured grievances over petty jealousies.

FWIW though, Koosman's was announced during the last vestiges of the Wilpon era, with the expectation of a ceremony during the 2020 season. At the same time the Seaver statue project was given the public greenlight. Both during the 50 Anniversary extravaganza of the 1969 Champions.



Also Mays' was more about making good on a long ago promise from nearly 50 years in the past.



So really we are just talking about the number retirements of Hernandez, Gooden, Strawberry (all had previously been enshrined in the Met Hall) and Wright (who is getting enshrined the same day) and finally being able to get around to adding a memorial Murphy mic to go next to Ralph's and SHEA in the retired numbers area.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: =whippoorwill post_id=181099 time=1734185583 user_id=79] Really you didn't think so? They stood at 5 or whatever until they finally got to Jerry Koosman

And what's wrong with five?



Personally I could have stopped at Seaver.

Could go either way on Piazza or Wright.

Wouldn't have endorsed Kooz, Straw, Gooden, or Keith.



And read Bucket's and Edgy's posts.

[G-Fafif]

I have a strong memory of an eighth-grade discussion, mid-June 1977, during one of the final ceramics classes of the year, all of us Mets fans. As we painted our clay mugs, we agreed that the now departed 41 would surely be retired someday. And 36. And 3. And 7. And probably 15. None of them had belonged to anybody except important, tenured Mets in our collective experience, so how could anybody else ever again wear them? We agreed we might have added 45 and 21 had they not been already reissued since their rightful bearers had been dispatched, which we assumed meant they couldn't be retired. (24 was a coach at the time, so it already appeared reserved in perpetuity.)



None of us in our 14-year-old demo knew what it looked or felt like for a Mets player to have a number retired, but we had a sense of what it should be. Of course 41 led our conversation, given the mid-June 1977 event that inspired it. When 41 indeed became the first, it set an impossibly high standard to match. Calibration was in order if you ever wanted to believe the Mets organization cared about any of its greats. We in ceramics had been ready to go with the numbers we knew sitting around that table. I'm glad that the Mets have more or less caught up to our little mug-painting posse in spirit, prorating for the fact that the franchise has a lot more seasons behind it now, and the realization that there are important Mets and there are vital Mets.



Two from the era of miracles. Three from the powerhouse days. One from a period of memorable successes. One whose significant lifetime achievement in baseball is a 100% match for his Met career. And one for the immortal of immortal players whose situation here is singular. Eight players as we near the midpoint of our seventh decade. I'm comfortable with every call the Mets have made.



Anyway, I'm https://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2024/12/13/highest-five/deighted for David.

[Gwreck]

Edgy MD wrote: What happened is Steve Cohen's research netted him not the opinion of the wisest fans, but the loudest, and those were the ones projecting silly manufactured grievances over petty jealousies.

It's worth remembering that the plan to increase number retirements is a Wilpon initiative. Koosman (and the plan to retire more) dates back that far — the actual Koosman retirement occurring in 2021 was a COVID delay.



As for the loudest and not necessarily wisest fans: Howie Rose is chief among them in championing the number retirements.

[Edgy MD]

=stevejrogers post_id=181108 time=1734195829 user_id=57] So really we are just talking about the number retirements of Hernandez, Gooden, Strawberry (all had previously been enshrined in the Met Hall) and Wright (who is getting enshrined the same day) and finally being able to get around to adding a memorial Murphy mic to go next to Ralph's and SHEA in the retired numbers area.

[Centerfield]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Wright deserves it. The other guys belong in the team Hall of Fame. That the Mets have a shitty history without a lot of truly great, long-tenured team-associated players is their fault and papering it over by elevating guys who don't meet the criteria isn't going to change that.

Exactly this.

[metirish]

https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-who-could-have-number-retired-in-futurehttps://www.mlb.com/news/mets-who-could-have-number-retired-in-future



Link

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think deGrom will get his number retired if he finishes his career with the Mets, or if he becomes part of the Mets community after he retires.



But if he stays in Texas and never looks back, I think it will be less likely.



I agree with DiComo's takes on Lindor and Alonso. Not so sure about Nimmo.



I think the next number that will go up there will be 12. But obviously not for quite a while.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Beltran's going in the Hall of Fame. If he goes in with a Mets cap, I think his No. 15 goes up on the wall.

[whippoorwill]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Wright deserves it. The other guys belong in the team Hall of Fame. That the Mets have a shitty history without a lot of truly great, long-tenured team-associated players is their fault and papering it over by elevating guys who don't meet the criteria isn't going to change that. Exactly this.

Explain Willie Mays

[Edgy MD]

Anthony DiKokomo wrote: After David Wright, which other Mets could have their numbers retired?

And there is the problem.

[metirish]

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=181309 time=1734534740 user_id=119]
Beltran's going in the Hall of Fame. If he goes in with a Mets cap, I think his No. 15 goes up on the wall.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think deGrom will get his number retired if he finishes his career with the Mets, or if he becomes part of the Mets community after he retires. But if he stays in Texas and never looks back, I think it will be less likely. I agree with DiComo's takes on Lindor and Alonso. Not so sure about Nimmo. I think the next number that will go up there will be 12. But obviously not for quite a while.

And Carter? That one stays in no-man's land? Jeez, the guy was a liability for the majority of his Mets career. Majority. As in most. As in more than half of it. For most of Carter's Mets stint, he was a below league average hitter, sucking up precious at-bats from the heart of the order on teams that had World Series aspirations. Yes, he had some memorable, wonderful accomplishments for the franchise. But so did many, many other Mets who will never be in the conversation to have their numbers retired. He had two good seasons and you'd think he was Mickey Fucking Mantle for the Mets the way he's worshipped.

[metirish]

[Bob Alpacadaca]

Danny Abriano of SNY weighs in on who might next have their number retired at Citi Field on No. 5 takes its rightful place.



https://sny.tv/articles/two-more-mets-number-retirement-david-wrighthttps://sny.tv/articles/two-more-mets-number-retirement-david-wright

[Frayed Knot]

Let's just retire the numbers of everyone who spends at least five years with the team. It'll be so much easier that way.

I mean, sure, you'll run out of numbers after a while, but at least they'll have one, and sometimes more, ceremonies each season and isn't that what this is all about?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, I disagree on both Carter and Beltran. It's time to put a pause on retired numbers. Let's wait until we can get some perspective on deGrom, and if not him, we'll wait even longer to see what we think, in retrospect, of Lindor and Nimmo and Alonso.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: and if not him, we'll wait even longer to see what we think, in retrospect, of Lindor and Nimmo and Alonso.

I realize that if he finishes up his contract with the Mets he will have spent 14 years here. But it will take a lot of retrospection for me to think that Nimmo deserves number retirement. .260 hitters don't usually get that honor unless you're a MLB Hall of Famer like Ozzie Smith.

Brandon will have to tack on some serious numbers for the rest of his contract to earn that.



Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

Give me a fucking break with this outsized credit this guy gets for the Mets winning it all in '86. He wasn't even the third best player on that championship squad. That team was such a juggernaut that Whitey Herzog, the manager of its most competitive rival Cards, was making concession speeches to his team before the fourth of July weekend and those speeches weren't psychological ploys. The divisional race was effectively over before the Summer even started and everybody knew it. That squad would've won the NL East even if the Carter trade never happebned and Mike Fitzgerald was still catching. Probably Mike Fitzgerald's mother, too. The idea that one guy gets that much credit for that title is lunacy.

Frayed Knot wrote: Let's just retire the numbers of everyone who spends at least five years with the team. It'll be so much easier that way.

Might as well if Carter's number is gonna be retired. And three year Mets who had twice the Mets career that Carter did. Like R.A. Dickey and John Olerud. It's a good thing that Carter was a five year Met. Those last two years, '88 and '89, when he was horseshit, are the essential years that should clinch his number retirement. Me, I'm not even convinced that Carter belongs in the Mets HOF.

[Frayed Knot]

This has become exactly what I long feared it would become, an exercise in retiring as many numbers as possible under the guise that any good NYM player without a retired number is being forgotten and/or insulted, or that team history isn't being "honored".

But each new player added doesn't 'fix' the problem in too many eyes or even slow down the process. Instead it speeds things up as, before the current nominee is even inducted, speculation immediately turns to 'Who's Next?'*. And 'Who' often isn't in the singular.



Some of the comments under that linked piece are even worse the the logic above it:

- Cleon hit .340 in 1969, so no WS without him ... PUT #21 UP NOW!!!! (someone immediately approved)

- Johnny Franco will be the only NYM Captain without a retired number (y'know, after we put Carter in) ... this is a wrong that needs to be righted!!

- Beltran, but only if he goes into the HoF as a Met



And once you start on the road to 'if-him-then-him-too' there are few he won't qualify

Cleon: 12 years, 4,730 PA; 93 HRs; 521 RBI; 111 OPS+

HoJo: 9 seasons: 4,591 PA; 192 HR; 629 RBI; 124 OPS+ ... and he has a Ring too!!

'I mean, How can we not?!?[/i]'



As if any reason that can be latched onto is not just a good enough reason but an unarguable one.

This isn't a lowering of standards, it's an erasure.





STOP!!! And maybe take a deep breath every once in a while.







* It makes me so mad I want to just go out and piss on a wall

[Centerfield]

Danny Abriano, the author of that article, has put out some of the dumbest things I've ever seen written about the Mets. Sometimes I'm shocked that someone so bad is the lead writer for SNY, then I remind myself who owns SNY.



Love this gem.

Carter's stint with the Mets (1985-1989) was relatively brief, but his impact might have been the greatest.

The greatest? The greatest of who? All time? Is this really something that a professional writer published? Mind boggling.



I'm on record in this thread of being against most of the numbers that have been retired. Even the ones that predated Cohen.



For the record, my wall would look like this.



[MetsBlue]41 31 5 48 15[/MetsBlue]

[Edgy MD]

Officially retiring 48 and installing it on the roof while its bearer is still active is some bold stuff, but the overall restraint is laudable.



I think I need to apply to SNY again.

[Frayed Knot]

[media=youtube]ElGz0tbfXuc[/media]

[Edgy MD]

If a guy gets a walkoff base hit with a runner on third, it goes down as a single, under the understanding that the game is over as soon as the winning run scores, and any extra bases the batter-runner takes are merely an after-the-fact burning of energy.



An exception to that rule is when the ball leaves the park, with the new understanding that, the winning run doesn't officially score until the umpire twirls his or her finger, indicating a homerun, implicitly granting the full four bases to the hitter. Over the wall is an automatic homer, assuming the batter can legally circle the bases.



So, under the thinking of that exception, does that mean that a once-bounce-over-the-wall game-winner with a runner on third counts as a double? Clearly, the runner scores from third with the winning run before the batter-runner reaches second, but does the one-bounce-over-the-wall automatic-two-bases-ness of the hit similarly grant him the right to take that second base, even after the winning run has been plated?

[Frayed Knot]

I thought the same thing about the GR Double when watching that clip, that it would count for the same reason the HR does.

Maybe it did and Gary just spoke too quickly.



Pre-1920 (?) rules did Not award the HR on walk-off HRs, only the amount of bases needed to get the winning run in even for balls leaving the yard.

When baseball records were first computerized (the original Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia came out in 1969) it was discovered that Ruth had

a 715th HR but it was ruled a single due to the winning run being on 3rd. A brief squabble ensued about whether the approaching Aaron would

need one more homer to tie/pass than we all thought before a ruling was made that contemporaneous rules should apply thus leaving Babe at 714.