NFBC Message Boards

Retiring jersey numbers is becoming much more common place. In 2015 alone, at least 5 different players will be having their jersey number retired; three of them will be NY Yankees, and that doesn't even include Derek Jeter whom I sure will have his #2 number retired soon.

I'm not against retiring a players number. There are some players that perform at such a historic level of production or are so intrinsically valuable to a particular franchise that no fan can ever imagine any other player wearing said number. The idea that any other Cubs player could ever wear Ernie Banks' #14 is just ridiculous and the number is rightful retired.

But I think some teams have lowered the threshold just a touch on what it takes to put away a jersey forever.

In 1939, Lou Gehrig, #4, was the first player to have his number retired. He was followed by Carl Hubbell, #11; Babe Ruth, #3; Mel Ott, #4; and Honus Wagner, #33 over the next 13 years.

We don't have to match every player against the standards of Gehrig, Ruth and Ott (that would be a tall order), but I think some teams could have used a little more prudence when closeting numbers forever.

So with that in mind, here are my....................

Top 5 Jersey Numbers that shouldn't have been Retired..........

#5: Reggie Jackson, #44, NY Yankees ......................

I know he's Mr. October, I know he hit three HR's in one WS game, and I know he's the "straw that stirs the drink" but it's not enough. The Yankees are the storied franchise in MLB history, I don't think a guy that played just 5 seasons with the team has laid enough claim to forever have his number retired. Jackson does not rank among any top 10 Yankees in any offensive categories, and that includes strike-outs, something he did more of than anyone in the history of the game. He just wasn't there long enough.

#4: Rollie Fingers, #34, Milwaukee Brewers .................

Much like Reggie Jackson, Fingers is remembered mostly for his post-season play, and he did lead the Brewers to a WS appearance in 1981, but the guy only played FOUR seasons with Milwaukee, that's it. 4!!
I will give him some credit, he did win the league MVP and CY Awards in 1981, but one great season does not a retired number make, if it did, Darin Erstad should be calling up the Angels and getting his #17 shelved.

#3: Nolan Ryan, #34, Texas Rangers ...................

Retired Rangers numbers...Charlie Hough? No...Jim Sundberg? No......Ivan Rodriguez? No.....Michael Young? No........Jenkins, Bell, Harrah, Howard? No No No No. But a guy that was there 5 out of his 27 career seasons and won a total of 51 games for your team? Yes. There might be a reason the Rangers are one of a handful of teams never to have won the WS.

#2: Steve Garvey, #6, San Diego Padres................

Make sure you read that correctly, it wasn't the Dodgers that retired Garvey's number, it was the Friars.
Yes it's true, San Diego doesn't have a lot to choose from behind Tony Gwynn; and yes it's true that Garvey probably has the single greatest hit in Padres history with a walk-off, series tying HR to right off Lee Smith and the Cubs in 1984. But the guy only played a little over 600 games with SD, and we're talking about a guy that played every day as a thing, so it's really not that much.
In 5 seasons with SD, he hit .275 with 51 HR's. Those aren't exactly franchise leading numbers.

#1: Wade Boggs, #12, Tampa Bay Devil Rays..............

This one is just sad. At the end of his career, Boggs signed with Tampa. It was always rumored that part of the $2M deal that Wade signed included an "agreement" that his number would be retired and that he would "wear" a Tampa hat on his HOF plaque.
Whether or not that's true, I can't say. All I know is that Tampa retired his number and the HOF took away the hat-picking privileges from inductees just before Boggs went in........as a Red Sox.
Boggs played just 213 games for Tampa.

Never paid attention to such things, but can't disagree with any of them. Especially Garvey and Boggs.

Over 200 games for Boggs...

.286/91/9/81/4 line with Tampa.
Ugh.

Interesting on Boggs, I didn't know that.

I don't agree with the "limited years on team" argument. If you say that, then the Brewers retiring Hank Aaron's number has to be second-worse after Boggs. "Hammerin Hank" hit 755 HR (the record-holder at the time of his retirement), but only 22 HR over 2 years with the Brewers franchise. Those 2 seasons, after age 40, were the only two under 20 HR seasons Hank had since his rookie season. He played from 1954-1965 in Milwaukee, but that was with the Braves franchise, who then moved to Atlanta, and also retired his number.

Rollie Fingers is more of a Brewer than Hank Aaron is, and he accomplished more as a Brewer than Aaron did as a Brewer. WInning a Cy Young and MVP same season as a pitcher is rare, and he was the first reliever to do that.

I think the Brewers retired Aaron's number more to honor him for his time in Milwaukee, not as a member of their team. The key word there is "honor", so who decides what criteria someone can be honored by?? In my opinion, if a player performed at an all-star level for most of his career, perhaps was a key player on a team that won a pennant, and is a fan-favorite/role model/ gives back to the community kind of guy, I'm fine with a team honoring him. I find that more valuable than someone who was with the same team for a decade or so and produced mediocre stats and never accomplished much

morons wrote:Interesting on Boggs, I didn't know that.

I don't agree with the "limited years on team" argument. If you say that, then the Brewers retiring Hank Aaron's number has to be second-worse after Boggs. "Hammerin Hank" hit 755 HR (the record-holder at the time of his retirement), but only 22 HR over 2 years with the Brewers franchise. Those 2 seasons, after age 40, were the only two under 20 HR seasons Hank had since his rookie season. He played from 1954-1965 in Milwaukee, but that was with the Braves franchise, who then moved to Atlanta, and also retired his number.

Rollie Fingers is more of a Brewer than Hank Aaron is, and he accomplished more as a Brewer than Aaron did as a Brewer. WInning a Cy Young and MVP same season as a pitcher is rare, and he was the first reliever to do that.

I think the Brewers retired Aaron's number more to honor him for his time in Milwaukee, not as a member of their team. The key word there is "honor", so who decides what criteria someone can be honored by?? In my opinion, if a player performed at an all-star level for most of his career, perhaps was a key player on a team that won a pennant, and is a fan-favorite/role model/ gives back to the community kind of guy, I'm fine with a team honoring him. I find that more valuable than someone who was with the same team for a decade or so and produced mediocre stats and never accomplished much

I'm not opposed to any player being honored by their team. It's a TEAM honor, not all of MLB, I get that.
On the other hand, I do think teams should respect the long history of the game, not just as we look back, but looking forward as well.

I read the other day that B Williams, J Posada, and A Pettite were getting their numbers retired by the Yankees. Honestly, one of my first thoughts was that Posada was no Berra or Dickey, and that maybe retiring his number might be a stretch. That thought also made me think of Boggs.

I thought the topic of retired numbers might make an interesting Top 5 (at least, interesting to me ). I actually assumed off the top of my head that Posada would be on my list, but after looking at the list of retired numbers and examining Posada's career, I think his honor is deserved. Actually, most of the 150-something players and managers that have had their number retired should be rightfully honored.

When I came up with the list, I only had two automatics jump out at me, Boggs and Garvey. For the others I had to nit-pik a little, which is how I came up with Ryan, Jackson and Fingers. I actually did consider Aaron, but his over-all time in Milwaukee did sway me.

So like all the other lists that I have already posted, and the ones yet to come, they are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Now, one crazy side note.

Last night I was waiting to pick up my daughter from an event at school. I was reading Twitter because baseball's official historian, John Thorn, was doing a new feature via Twitter called #AskTheHistorian. As I was reading, I saw a post and responses (none from me) about Wade Boggs having his number retired.

I'll let you read what happened.