Is that a link?
The way I remember it, the Yankees were the first to put numbers on uniforms, and they just used the batting order when they did it. That’s why Ruth ended up with 3, and Gehrig with 4. Before that, we couldn’t tell 'em apart.
What about the NHL retiring the #99 for Gretzky? I don’t think league wide retirement diminishes the honor at all.
Jackie Robinson pretty much paved the way to integrate athletics. He was so much more than just a baseball player, he was, along with Branch Rickey, a kind of leader in the civil rights movement. If Rickey had picked someone like Josh Gibson (who was a very talented ball playher, but from what I understand had a temper) and failed by Gibson being baited into a fight could have set the civil rights movement back years. Rickey gambled and won big time. He picked Robinson because Robinson’s personality and skills could show the people that didn’t think of blacks as equals that they could be wrong.
If Robinson hadn’t been the one to do it, I’m sure someone would have eventually, but Robinson was the first one and he had to put up with all kinds harassment. I think he should be honored by every team, every team has non-white players, and Jackie Robinson helped make that possible.
About Gretzky, he didn’t have as large of an impact on society as a whole as Robinson did, but he did have a huge impact on hockey. The people with hockey teams in Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, and the rest of the sunbelt in general have Gretzky to thank. When Gretzky was traded to LA he brought name recognition and excitement to what was not exactly hockey country. He was in Hollywood and could handle the superstar kind of lifestyle that he got there. I’m sure people have heard all the statistics about the 90 some records he owns, about how if he’d never scored a goal he’d still have more points than any player ever, and how a rule was changed because of him (coincedental minors were made to stay 5-on-5 because he dominated 4-on-4 with all the open ice). With the way the game has turned more defense minded I doubt we will ever see a talent like Gretzky again. Some might make a case for Lemieux, he did save hockey in Pittsburgh (twice), but Gretzky had more appeal and name recognition. I’m pretty sure that there are two sports stars that most everyone in the nation could match their names to their sports and those are Gretzky and Jordan. 99 is a pretty obscure number anyway, I don’t think anyone in the NHL wore it while Gretzky did. I think eventually it turned into no one wanted to have the same number as Gretzky.
So with Robinson I think league wide retirement honors his contributions to all sports, and society. With Gretzky it honors his contributions to making hockey what it is today.
While I see your point, it must also be noted that Maris was Most Valuable Player not only in 1961, when he broke Ruth’s record, but 1960 as well.
Yes, I know he won back to back MVPs. But on the whole, IMHO, his career doesn’t make it up to the standards of the Hall.
Zev Steinhardt
If you need a number to tell Ruth and Gehrig apart, you might want to go check on those eyes of yours . . . Ruth was quite a bit heftier. Also played a different position:)
Oh, I quite agree. And while it isn’t really the subject of the thread, the more interesting hall of fame debates aren’t so much about individuals who had one or two great years, like Maris, but rather about those who had excellent qualitative career numbers, but whose careers were a bit short in comparison to other HOF members (for example, Sandy Koufax) or those who were not dominant ballplayers, but who performed at an above average (but not outstanding) level for a very long time (for example, Don Sutton).
This is kind of a funny interpretation of “retiring a name”. I can’t remember what they have at PacBell (except that the retired numbers are teeny and in a weird place), but at Candlestick, there were placards for McGraw and Mathewson, and where a number would normally be, it said “NY”. I think it’s a fine way of honoring a player who, by happenstance, didn’t have a number.
I agree with you, Kyla. It is a good way to honor a player without a number. I didn’t invent the term “retire his name,” it was what their press releases said at the time. I know, of course, that if (literally) another Christy Mathewson came along they wouldn’t pass, but it still makes the situation interesting…
Zev Steinhardt
Minnie Minoso was a terrific player. He was one of the fastest players of the day (Nobody stole bases in the 50’s; that’s why his numbers are low.), he played an excellent centerfield, he’s a lifetime .298 hitter who drew walks and hit doubles, triples and the occasional dinger.
The thing you have to know is this: Minnie didn’t play in the bigs until he was 28, which is right about the peak of a normal player’s career. He missed this time not because he wasn’t good enough: it’s because he was starring in the Negro leagues. Remember that baseball was not fully integrated for years after Jackie Robinsion.
Here’s the deal: from ages 28-38, he averaged 170 hits a year. If he had averaged the same from ages 22-27, he would have wound up with almost exactly 3000 hits. That’s more than “above average.” 
Hey, zev, didn’t you say in the OP that Maris didn’t deserve it? But maybe you were thinking of Phil Rizzuto, #10.
Refresh my memory here. Did the Yanks retire Maris’s number before or after his death at a young age in 1985? I thought after, in which case, I would say the sympathy factor played a big part in retiring his number. (Correct me if I am wrong.) And of course, the sympathy factor was dominant in Thurman Munson’s case. I don’t have too much of a problem with that, even if they shouldn’t qualify for the Hall of Fame.
I would probably agree with you on Reggie. OK, he was a real Hall of Famer on a couple of championship Yankee teams, but on that basis Enos Slaughter (5 years) and Johnny Mize (4 years) should probably have their numbers retired by the Yanks, too.
If Martin’s number is retired, then Joe McCarthy and even Miller Huggins have a better claim. (Though I don’t know if Huggins would have worn a number as manager in those days. Since he died an untimely death, these days he certainly would have had it retired - instead he got a monument in the outfield.)
BobT, you may be interested to learn that the columnist on the Yankees official website last year made a rather strong case that Mattingly should not go in the Hall of Fame - much to the outrage of many fans. So if Steingrabber thinks that, he at least wasn’t censoring the official webpage.
Even though I am a Yankee fan, I pretty much agree with you on Mattingly (and Munson regarding the HOF). The one thing that gave me pause is when someone pointed out that Donnie Baseball’s career stats were very similar to Kirby Puckett’s - who I thought from afar might be a Hall contender. So would you say that Kirby shouldn’t go in either? (And I’ll buy that too.)
Mattingly got his number retired I think as a consolation prize, for being the best (and longest serving) Yankee player since 1920 to never play on a pennant-winning team; and maybe also because he’ll never get in the Hall. And because of that I don’t have a problem with retiring his number either. (Steinbrenner may have other ideas - I’m not saying that he’s not playing politics by retiring Mattingly’s number.)
Given Stengel’s place in Met lore and team history, I really do think the retirement of his number is deserved, no matter how bad his record was. Davey Johnson’s number may not be retired because he’s still an active manager, and who knows, could come back to the team (if hell freezes over, of course).
**
To be clear: IMHO, Maris’ and Jackson’s numbers on the Yankees should not be retired. Rizzutto, IMHO, is acceptable. He played his entire career with the Yankees, was a dominant shortstop in his day and (I know this won’t count in some people’s eyes, but it does in mine), he (along with Mel Allen) were THE voices of the Yankees for a long long time. Put that all together, I felt the Yankees were justified in retiring his number.
**
Maris’ number was retired in 1984. He died in December 1985.
As for Munson, sure there was sympathy involved. However, I feel that his number would have been retired anyway. He was the team captain and an integral part of the team. He was probably the best catcher of his day this side of Johnny Bench. I don’t think Munson belongs in the Hall, but I do think it was legitimate for the Yankees to retire his number.
**
I think Martin’s number was retired more for the combination of his career as a player and manager, rather than just for his managerial career. I agree with you about Huggins and McCarthy. Huggins, of course, wore no number.
Zev Steinhardt
This thread hung around so long that I finally opened it.
The only thing I have to add is a comment on Bob T’s post ( the first reply in the thread ). So far as I know, the NFL teams do not need permision from the league office to retire uniform numbers. However, the official numbering system mandated by the league doesn’t make exceptions for retired numbers. The 80s represent receivers ( wideouts and tight ends ). After Jerry Rice has #80 retired for the Niners it must still be used when the team has more than 9 receivers on the team. In theory at least. Since every team has more than 9 recievers on their roster during training camp teams skirt the rule by listing some of them as kick return specialists. Specialists use numbers #1 - #19 so there is more room there.
Sorry for the interruption.
Please return to your exploration of baseball lore.
Jackie Robinson’s number should stay retired by every major league team forever. Not only for his outstanding play and dignity under the most adverse circumstances any player has ever faced. But also as a sad and shameful reminder that it took until 1947 for Major League Baseball to integrate.
I have to admit, my favorite team, the Yankees, has gone a bit overboard with FOURTEEN retired numbers. Here’s the list:
1- Billy Martin, 3- Babe Ruth, 4 - Lou Gehrig, 5- Joe DiMaggio, 7- Mickey Mantle, 8- Yogi Berra, 8- Bill Dickey, 9- Roger Maris, 10- Phil Rizzuto, 15- Thurman Munson, 16- Whitey Ford, 23- Don Mattingly, 32- Elston Howard, 37- Casey Stengel, 44- Reggie Jackson.
This could be seen as testiment to the number of great players who’ve played for the Yanks, but I think the honor is becoming diluted. As sacriligious as it sounds, I don’t think the Yanks should have retired numbers for Martin, Maris, Rizzuto, Howard, Jackson, and . . .gulp . . . Mattingly. All great players, no doubt. Deserving of their bronze plaques on the outfield wall, absolutely. But on a team that boasted the likes of Ruth, Gehrig and DiMaggio, should Billy Martin’s and Elston Howard’s number be hanging alongside them, never to be worn again? And why hasn’t Joe McCarthy, the manager of the great Yankee teams of the 1930’s, had his number retired? (Umm . . . what WAS his number, zev?)
And regarding Major League Baseball’s decision to retire Jackie Robinson’s #42 on all teams:
I think a more appropriate honor for a man whose contribution to the game superceded mere athletic prowness would have been to name an award or a baseball-sponsored scholarship after him. Do we really honor Jackie Robinson’s contibution to society by saying nobody on the Devil Rays will ever wear #42? Doesn’t seeing his number hanging in Fenway Park seem a bit out of place?
Now that I think about it I couldn’t agree more. Robinson is much more deserving of having an MVP award named after him than that communist dictator Kennesaw Mountain Landis. It’s unlikely that MLB would change the name of the MVP trophy, but I think that would have been a more fitting honor.
Thanks for the clarification. As I was living outside the country at the time I was a bit unsure.
As I said, I’m with you on Jackson. If the Yanks retired the number of every player with his qualifications, pretty soon they’d be needing triple digits on their uniforms. I think Jackson got it mostly because he was still associated with the Yankees front office.
Maris is a lot more debatable. Although he was only with the Yankees 7 years, that was more than half of his (brief) 12-year career. (And if you count his two years with Kansas City, he spent additional time in the Yankee’s farm system ;)). Maris is first and foremost identified as a Yankee, and everyone thinks of him as such. Reggie is quite different. He spent only five years out of his 21-year career in NY, and much more time with Oakland. People are just as likely to think of him as an A as a Yankee (and BTW, which cap does he wear on his plaque in the Hall?)
IMHO, I’d say that Maris was tolerable, but I agree that this selection would be pretty close to the limit of what should be acceptable. But I can see your point.
Ellie was no Hall of Famer, but he was a long-term Yankee and an important player on many pennant-winning and championship teams. But probably a big factor in why his number got retired is that he was the first black player on the team, and perhaps the Yankees wanted to atone for having been one of the last MLB teams to integrate.
Besides Joe McCarthy, other long term Yankees in the Hall of Fame (in the post-number era) who have not had their numbers retired include Lefty Gomez, Tony Lazzeri, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, and Red Ruffing. Ok, some of them might be marginal Hall of Famers, but they would sure beat out some of those whose numbers have been retired. But they will never get the honor, because their names have been forgotten by the average fan. Actually I admire the Giants for having the integrity to commemorate historical players/managers like Matthewson and McGraw, even if they didn’t have numbers.
I won’t contradict this, by why “of course”? blur said earlier that numbers on uniforms were first used about 1929. While I haven’t looked it up (and blur’s link doesn’t seem to work for me), this seems to be about right. Certainly it couldn’t have been much later. Since Huggins died near the end of the 1929 season, he could have worn one that year, if that is the year they started. But since the numbers originally signified batting order (and did all pitchers wear 9? ;)), I suppose it’s likely that at first managers didn’t wear numbers, even if the rest of the team did. Anyone know for sure?
Seeing that Dave Winfield was elected to the Hall of Fame today (along with Kirby Puckett, to my great surprise - at least that Puckett got in on the first ballot) for the sake of argument (and that’s what we’re here for), would the Yanks be justified in retiring his number? (Admittedly this is unlikely unless von Sterngrabber kicks the bucket - even if they have superficially patched things up - or unless Dave gets hit by a bus on his way to induction). How about San Diego? Winfield has already said he hasn’t decided which cap he might wear on his plaque.
zev- i hate to sorta hijack your thread, but I have had a question that I have always wanted to ask- and you are extremely qualified. I know there have been many great Jewish baseball players. BUT- have any of them been orthodox? Would Sat games make it impossible to be both? Is playing baseball “work”? And, if not MLB, do you know of any other pro sports with orthodox players? Sorry, but you can see how YOU would be the person to ask- and this is not WAY off topic.
Yes. And Roy Lee Jackson will be brought in to sing the national anthem.
To my knowledge, there have been no Orthodox Jewish baseball players. However, Edwin Correa (a young pitcher with the Rangers in the 80s whose career was ended by injuries) was a Seventh Day Adventest, who had it in his career that he didn’t have to pitch from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
As for Jewish law, there are complications that would need to be overcome. But, even if all the halachic problems could be solved, playing ball still violates the essence of Shabbos and should not be done, even if technically within the letter of the law.
Zev Steinhardt
Well, MLB did change the name of the Rookie of the Year award to the Jackie Robinson Rookie of the Year Award a few years ago. That being the case, I can’t see them naming the MVP award after him too.
Zev Steinhardt