I fully understand that there was sentiment driving the retirement of 14 and 37. My point is that this type of sentiment is precisely what should be disregarded when retiring numbers. Being heartbroken over losing NL baseball then seeing your childhood hero back in town is a terrible reason to retire a number. Being a legendary manager for a different team then giving a new team “identity” is silly.
There are no rules for retiring numbers. But if you want the honor to mean something, and not be ridiculed like the Rays retiring Boggs number, you have to set the criteria first, then apply them objectively. There is no set of objective criteria that would justify Stengel or Hodges. And that’s why I say the Mets botched the number retirements from the beginning.
I didn’t realize it was the Wilpons that decided to retire Koosman. If so then they set the wheels in motion for further diluting the honor to the point it is now. I mean Willie Mays? What are we even doing.
And with each undeserving honoree, it’s used as justification to bring the bar even lower. “Well if you’re going to retire 14, you have to retire 24”.
”if 24 is retired, you have to retire 8”
Lenny Dykstra is a world champion and has more WAR with the Mets than Carter. Retire 4.
There’s no championship in 86 without Sid. Retire 50.
Did we forget who the WS MVP was? Tell Soto to get a new number.