Ugh, I don’t recognize ONE of those names. What a sad, sad team.
If you can’t recognize any of those names, then perhaps you shouldn’t be insulting the team, as your basketball knowledge is clearly less than stellar. Which, of course, isn’t to say that they should have retired the numbers.
My biggest gripe: Fisk for the Red Sox. Come on. The Sox have retired the following numbers:
9 - Ted Williams To argue this would be just stupid.
8 - Yaz Same.
4 - Joe Cronin 24 years as player/manager. .301 hitter. Leads all Sox mangers in wins.
1 - Bobby Doer 9 time all star, really only his injury kept him from being all time best, or damned close.
27 - Fisk Uggh. .276 hitter with the Sox in 10 seasons. Hit that one HR in 76.
Who hasn’t been retired? Let’s list:
Ruth.
Cy Young.
Tris Speaker.
Jim Rice.
Lefty Grove.
Tony C.
Fred Lynn.
Johnny Pesky.
Does Fisk stand out above these players in Boston? No way.
Errr…“all time best 2B” for Doerr, not “all time best.”
How about Steve Garvey with the Padres!~ Give me a break!
Although I’m not positive on the year when uniforms started having numbers, I believe Babe Ruth, Cy Young and Tris Speaker played for the Sox before uniform numbers were used. I always thought Fred Lynn was an overrated ballplayer, but there is no excuse for Jim Rice being snubbed. I’m a Yankee fan, and I used to cringe when Rice came to bat.
according to this link: http://www.emazing.com/index.html uniform numbers were thought to have been used around 1929, so Ruth, Young and Speaker were with the Sox to early.
Hmm…very good point. I honestly hadn’t even thought of that.
I did find it interesting that on the http://www.redsox.com page, they say that to be eligible for Sox number retirement, you had to have finished your career in Boston. They managed to waive that one for good ole Carlton. Uggh. Stupid publicity stunt.
Oh well. This is the year, baby!
Did Carlton Fisk come back as a coach, maybe during spring training or in the minors? Then they could say he finished with the Red Sox.
That didn’t stop the Giants, however. They honored Christy Mathewson and John McGraw. The Giants “retired their names” in 1988. (So, what happenes if literally another Christy Mathewson comes around?? Do the Giants pass on him? Ask him to change his name? Nah!)
Zev Steinhardt
There’s just something about Carlton Fisk. Maybe he’s a really nice guy in person, but I don’t get the obsession with him. I don’t even know why he was elected to the Hall of Fame ahead of Gary Carter.
I mean, he was a Hall of Famer because he was a catcher and played for so long and did have some big years, but he wasn’t THAT great.
Flymaster, Bobby Doerr was a fine player, but all-time best second baseman? Even without an injury - no way. He was not the equal of Joe Morgan or Eddie Collins or Rogers Hornsby. The player who is by far the most similar to Doerr up to age 33 (the age Doerr quit) is Ryne Sandberg, who’s certainly a Hall of Famer but not the best of all time.
Zev, I agree the Jays could justify retiring Stieb’s number. Stieb was even a better pitcher than his 175 wins would suggest; I’d argue he’s better than some Hall of Famers. But Stieb isn’t as popular (or as well-remembered) here as some other players, so if they did that you’d have people screaming for them to retire George Bell’s number and Tony Fernandez’s number and Cito Gaston and Pat Hentgen and Lloyd Moseby and Alex Gonzalez. Before you know it, we’d be having Luis Leal Day. Which might be a nice distraction given the catastrophe the Buck Martinez Era will be (just you wait and see.)
I think the silliest in history was Wade Boggs’ number being retired in Tampa Bay. That’s almost as ironic as him hitting a home run for his 3000th hit.
Isn’t Jeter’s #2 the only single digit left in NY.
The Detroit Tigers have retired Kaline, Gehringer, Greenberg (no question on these 3), Newhouser (questionable HOFer) and Willie Horton(not the Dukakis one). Horton drew some laughter but he was a local boy who grew up in the city and is very beloved in this town.
I think a team’s decision is strictly between that team and the city. There shouldn’t be any national consideration. It’s not really the same thing as a hall of fame. The team is just saying “You meant so much to this team that we don’t want anybody to wear your number for us again”. They aren’t saying that the player is one of the best ever or is on an equal level of other team’s retired numbered personnel.
No. Number 6 is also still unretired. It is currently being worn by Joe Torre. However, the other single-digit numbers retired by the Yankees (except for Maris’) are, IMHO, legitimate retires.
(1 Martin, 3 Ruth, 4 Gehrig, 5 DiMaggio, 7 Mantle, 8 Berra/Dickey, 9 Maris)
Zev Steinhardt
Am I the only one who remembers that you can wear number 0? 
(Al Oliver, f’rinstance)
If they don’t retire Joe Torre’s number, I’m gonna kick up a stink.
And let’s not forget 3/8, if we’re talking “numbers less than 10.” Or was that outlawed after the Gaedel incident?
And Rick, I agree re: Torre. Good player, great manager. As much as it hurts me to say it, as a Sox fan.
I believe Jackie Robinson’s number (42) was retired from all MLB teams in 1997. Personally, I thought this was a little over the top…
I think the Yankees have a policy against the number 0. I do know for a fact that no Yankee has ever worn that number.
And Gaedel’s number was 1/8.
Zev Steinhardt
Well, maybe yes, maybe no.
The Cardinals retired Dizzy Dean’s number. Dean had an overpowering personality and an exceptional career – but even by pitching standards, it was cut exceedingly short. Still, can you really say he DIDN’T deserve the honor?
Regarding Maris, give the guy a break. He broke what is arguably the biggest, best-known record in all of sports, and he held it longer than Babe Ruth. He’s not in the Hall of Fame because he pissed off too many sportswriters. So does he deserve ANY special recognition?
Yes, I can still say that. I’ll also entertain the argument that Dean’s number shouldn’t be retired too. However, Dean, IMHO, has meant alot more to Cardinals history than Jackson has meant to the Yankees.
Yes, he deserves honor. However, there are several different types of honors:
[list]
[li]Honors for one or two game performances. Perfect games for example. Johnny Vander Meer. Roger Clemens/Kerry Wood striking out 20 batters.[/li]
[li]Honors for a season’s performance. Maris hitting 61 homers. DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. McGwire’s 70 homers. Denny McLain’s 31 win season in 1968. Jack Chesbro winning 41. Ted Williams hitting .406.[/li]
[li]Honors for an entire career. Winning 300 games, 500 home runs, etc.[/li]
Honors of the second category do not belong in the Hall of Fame. Ted Williams does not belong in the Hall because he hit .406 in 1941. He belongs in the Hall because he hit well over his entire career and was one of the best ever. Denny McLain doesn’t belong because he won 31 games in a season. Same thing with Maris. Yes, he deserves to be recognized for having held the record. But a one season performance does not make a HOF career.
The same holds true for retiring his number. IMHO, you don’t retire a player’s uniform number on the strength of a one season performance. You do it for many years of service to a team and it is an acknowledgement that this player was an integral part of the team for many years.
Zev Steinhardt
Why? And technically, it wasn’t retired from all MLB teams. Players who were wearing the number at the time of its retirement (Mo Vaughn, for instance) had the option of having its use grandfathered in.
Yeah, that’s true - it was retired with a grandfather clause.
As to why I think it’s “a little over the top”? It felt to me like MLB was coming up with every method it could to honor Jackie Robinson, and this league-wide “retirement” of his uniform number struck me, personally, as trying a bit too hard - make too big of a deal out of any commemoration, and the effect becomes comical or pathetic, IMHO. I think they worked their way in that direction with an MLB-wide number retirement (an extremely subjective judgement, I’ll freely allow).
Yes, Jackie Robinson’s contribution to baseball as a whole (rather than just to his own team) were tremendous, and I suspect that this is the main reason put forth for MLB-wide retirement. I agree with the sentiment, but league-wide mandated number retirements don’t strike me as a really effective way to commemorate anybody, no matter what he did or who he was.
Teams are free to refuse to issue any number they want, but to be told by the league that they have to refrain makes me uncomfortable: “You will honor this guy by retiring his number.” The dictated-from-above nature of the retirement of 42 serves to slightly diminish the impact, in my mind.
That’s all, really, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find that I’m in the minority in feeling this way.