Retired Number Survey

[Frayed Knot]

We all know that the Mays/24 thing was the result of some kind of promise made to Willie from Joan Payson. Now with Payson long gone and her relatives no longer connected with the club, and with Willie not really having connections either nor much of a family to object (he just out-lived his 2nd wife) I wonder if they're waiting for him to die in order to feel that the promise was fulfilled and #24 is fair game again.

By contrast, Carter, dying young as he did, probably makes them less likely to re-issue #8 as it would look like jumping on the grave if you were to do it at this point. I'd prefer they inform the family that, following a specified period (X years after his passing) they're going to put it back in circulation.


Either way, this 'limbo' that those two numbers are in is the worst case scenario IMO.
Either retire them officially or start using them again (and don't retire them officially).

[Guest Swan Swan H]

1) 31

That's it for me. I think Piazza is worthy, and I have a feeling they're going to do it, especially since it hasn't been worn since Piazza took it off.

I've expressed my thoughts on 'limbo' numbers before - retire them or don't, but if not then reissue them. Issuing them sporadically (well, I guess Rickey is worthy...) makes no sense to me at all. Give 8 to your great catching prospect, and 24 to the centerfielder of the future. Mothballing numbers without retiring them seems like a slight rather than an honor.

[G-Fafif]

1) 31 2) 8 3) 17 4) 24. Though Willie Mays' time with the Mets was brief, he was on the NL Championship team and his time with the New York Giants, a team that is part of the Mets heritage (it said so at the Fan Fest), should be recognized by this honor. There is some precedent for the sort of thing you recommend for Mays, most specifically Hank Aaron's 44 being retired by the Milwaukee Brewers.

From the Brewers:

"Hammerin' Hank" had his famous No. 44 retired after the conclusion of the 1976 season. Hank Aaron played baseball in Milwaukee from 1954 through 1965 with the Braves and in 1975 and '76 with the Brewers. He was elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame in 1982 after closing out his career with a record 755 home runs. He was the National League's MVP in 1957, the year the Braves won the World Series. Aaron also hit 40-or-more home runs in eight seasons, drove in 100-or-more runs 16 times and had a .305 lifetime batting average.

By 1979, when coach Willie Mays was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, he had spent 14 of 29 seasons representing New York's National League interests (15, counting the year he was wearing Uncle Sam's uniform), almost all of them as one of the undisputed legends of the game -- which he was, really, by 1952, no later than 1954. If upon his election to Cooperstown it was announced no Met will ever again wear 24, for essentially the same reason no Milwaukee player would wear 44 again, it would have been easily understood and widely applauded. Since he was still using his uniform, and the Mets had never retired a number while it was still on the back of someone wearing it, there was no prevailing reason to make a thing of it.

Then came the Bally's job that took him officially out of baseball, the sale of the team to owners who had their own agenda, his eventual return to San Francisco's employ upon his reinstatement and, 30 years later -- with only 41 retired since 1979 -- it would be beyond the parameters of modern "if they didn't do it for this one, how could they do it for that one when he only did this as a Met?" sniping to retire 24 to honor a career and a man who touched multiple generations as National League New York's own.

That said, hell yes.

1) 24 (listed first because they better get on this soon if it's not to be posthumous; and invite Kelvin Torve to the ceremonies)
2) 17-8-18-16 (the greatest team and era in franchise history was defined at its topline by all four of them; Kid going into the HOF complicates my instinct to make it just 17, and from there, I can't leave out the homegrown yang of Darryl and Doc as it applies to Kid's and Mex's acquired yin)
3) 31 (hopefully academic to ownership once he's in the Hall with a fun little NY on his cap)

Save a space for 5.

[Guest 86-Dreamer]

1. 31
2. 36
3. 17
4. 18
5. 16

[Chad ochoseis]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: None. I don't want to have to drop $20 on a new Fafif t-shirt.

I was being a minor wiseass here, but I really would vote none. I like that Mets management has been conservative in retiring numbers.

It's tough to make a case for retiring 31 but not (ultimately) 15. Both were established stars who came to the Mets mid-career. Both had great careers as Mets, and both spent about the same amount of time as Mets. Both have a good chance of getting into the HOF, and both have a good chance of going in with Mets caps.

[Ceetar]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Chad Ochoseis wrote: None. I don't want to have to drop $20 on a new Fafif t-shirt. I was being a minor wiseass here, but I really would vote none. I like that Mets management has been conservative in retiring numbers. It's tough to make a case for retiring 31 but not (ultimately) 15. Both were established stars who came to the Mets mid-career. Both had great careers as Mets, and both spent about the same amount of time as Mets. Both have a good chance of getting into the HOF, and both have a good chance of going in with Mets caps.

Both were amazing in the postseason but didn't win rings. Both made the final outs.






I remember, i think anyway, when Derek Bell came to the Mets and specifically asked Gooden about wearing 16. That might be the route to go with 24 and 8. (hint, d'Arnaud, hint..) Have them ask permission, feed them a line about idolizing them or something. Give it to a top ranked guy like that and I think it'd be hard to say no, and you break the ice. then even if they suck you've broken the seal and can give it to the next schlub you call up.

[Edgy MD]

There are still PUH-lenty of ways to honor a guy without taking his number out of circulation. As far as I know, the Mets have never even made a public statement about unofficially retiring 8. So if Sandy or Kimmy would be unlikely to complain about d'Arnaud getting number 8 shortly after the Mets made a donation to the Gary Carter Foundation or named a field in St. Lucie after him. Any columnist that made a stink would look pretty foolish if the family is being gracious.

Mays is another matter, I think.

[dgwphotography]

Vic Sage wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: None. Talk to me in another decade about #5 And, while we're at it, put the unofficially retired 8 & 24 back into circulation. This... exactly this.

I couldn't say it better.

[Centerfield]

sharpie wrote: Retiring marginal numbers is a MFY thing to do.

I've heard this repeated many times, and some Met fans cite to the lack of numbers on the wall as a source of pride. "We don't just retire any number." I'm calling bullshit on this.

The Mets have retired three numbers: 37, 14 and 41. (42 as retired by MLB) Seaver is a no-brainer. The other two are marginal. That means two-thirds of our retired numbers are questionable.

Stengel won 175 games (19 fewer than Jerry Manuel) and posted a .302 win percentage. Colorful? Sure. He's a legend and people loved him. But retiring his number? Come on. This is silly. There is no way this would fly today.

Hodges is, at least, a stronger candidate coming in at 339 wins, good for third on the Mets' all-time list. He also has a World Series title. But his win percentage comes in at .523, which is lower than Willie Randolph and Bud Harrelson. By illustration, Davey Johnson has the most wins, the highest win percentage, and a World Series title. I've heard people say that Gil was the heart and soul of the '69 team, but this is a silly argument to retire his number. By any objective standard, if Davey Johnson's number is not retired, then Hodges' number shouldn't be either.

Whether or not to retire a number is obviously subjective, so there is no right or wrong answer. But pretending that the Mets hold to some higher standard and believing that this makes us better than the Yankees or any other franchise is a weak argument to me.

I guess, if you are reaching, you can make the distinction that the Mets hold a higher standard when it comes to players rather than managers. So I guess one can take pride that the Mets retire the numbers of marginal managers only.

I think it's going to become more and more rare that a player plays his whole career with one team (or at least as big a chunk as Seaver did with the Mets). I've often heard that this honor should be reserved for Hall of Famers who made their most significant contributions as a Met. That seems ok to me.

Personally, I have no set criteria, but I think Piazza should qualify. As much as I love Beltran, I don't think he hits my cutoff.

[metsmarathon]

i'm okay with not retiring any more numbers for a few more years. it would be cool and all, i suppose, but unnecessary.

i do wonder, though... are the mets now not allowed to have any players or coaches named shea? what if chipper's boy turns out to be a really good player?

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: Stengel won 175 games (19 fewer than Jerry Manuel) and posted a .302 win percentage. Colorful? Sure. He's a legend and people loved him. But retiring his number? Come on. This is silly. There is no way this would fly today.

Of course not. But it wasn't today. It was a choice made at a different time in a very different context.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: Stengel won 175 games (19 fewer than Jerry Manuel) and posted a .302 win percentage. Colorful? Sure. He's a legend and people loved him. But retiring his number? Come on. This is silly. There is no way this would fly today. Of course not. But it wasn't today. It was a choice made at a different time in a very different context.

Agreed. And many of the numbers retired by the MFY's and other franchises, that some Met fans mock as frivolous, were made at a different time, and a different context.

And those numbers look silly to us, just as someone without the base of knowledge can point to 37 and laugh.

[Edgy MD]

Well yeah, true. In context, the weakest cases for the Yankees (Phil Rizzutto, Elston Howard, Billy Martin, Ron Guidry, Roger Maris) are all probably as strong or stronger than Casey's.

But obviously, a newborn franchise has a low standard for what is historically significant.

[Centerfield]

Agreed. And this is not to say that retiring Casey's number was wrong in any way.

I just feel like some of us walk around with a haughtiness that we would never retire the likes of Rizzutto, and that the numbers on our wall are all no-brainers.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

This list of retired numbers from Baseball Reference shows quite a lot of range. Some of my favorite quirks or curiosities:

Steve Garvey and Wade Boggs numbers retired by their last team, not the ones they most famously played for.

Five sets of numbers retired for multiple players (Dickey/Berra, Staub/Dawson, Hershberger/Bench, Jenkins/Maddux, Sutter/Robinson, if you want to count that, and if so Rivera will join this list)

I thought there were more numbers retired to honor players who died suddenly and might not have warranted it otherwise, but Willard Hershberger of the Reds and Jim Umbricht of the Astros are the only ones I see. Roberto Clemente was certain to have his number retired in any case.

Several people have their number retired by more than one team, but Fisk (27/72), Ryan (30/34), Reggie Jackson (9/44) are the only players to have different numbers retired by different teams. Sparky Anderson had 10 and 11 retired by the Reds and Tigers.

[Zvon]

Without Casey the Mets have a totally different birth. He helped make those first few years bearable. He set a tone with the fans. No one else could have done what he did in the way he did it. That was important IMO.

1) 31
2) 17

[G-Fafif]

I'm down with the Angels retiring whoever they want to retire, the MFYs retiring whoever they want to retire, the Pirates retiring whoever they want to retire (even though they waited more than three decades to do right by Ralph). Family business. I'm also for mocking the MFYs, of course, but still.

Casey infiltrates the Mets conversation on a regular basis despite his not managing them since 1965 or vice presidenting them since 1975. Helluva successful tenth-place manager.

[Chad ochoseis]

This list of retired numbers from Baseball Reference shows quite a lot of range.

One trivia question I always meant to ask here is this: Name the five Mets not in the HOF who have had their numbers retired by a major league team.

One, of course, is Gil Hodges. And I'm counting Rusty Staub even though his number is now unretired. To avoid threadjacking, I'll just post the other three in tiny type below:

Ken Boyer - Cardinals
Jim F. Fregosi - Angels
Randy Freaking Jones - Padres

[batmagadanleadoff]

Spahn, Berra and Mays?

[Edgy MD]

"not in the HOF"

[Chad ochoseis]

Operative phrase is "not in the HOF"...answers can be cut and pasted from the post and blown up to normal size.

One was probably retired-number worthy.

The other two had good careers with '60s expansion teams, but nothing to retire a number over. And both of them absolutely sucked in blue and orange.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Boyer and Fregosi, the latter I got thanks to your hint.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

OK, the results are in, and it's a landslide not only for first place but for second as well. Several of you voted in a manner that was, let's say, contrary to the guidelines, but this is for fun so I tried to divvy up the points as I think you intended them to be allocated.

31 - 50.5 points
17 - 19.5 points
16 and 24 - 6 points each
8 - 5 points
15, 18 and 36 - 3 points each
1 - 2 points
62, 69 and 86 - A handful of Edgypoints and one Lunchbucket full of meats and cheeses

There were four votes for no additional retired numbers. 20 points for nil, which would be second in this poll.

Thanks for playing.