#55 = #22?

[calsnowskier]

Most of us on this board are of the opinion that #22 should be retired for the Giants. But the Giants have a policy that a player must be in the HOF to have their number retired. Therefore, Clark will never get his well-earned honor.

What about Timmeh? He is most likely not a HOFer. But is there any question that he is AT LEAST as worthy as Clark to get his number retired? While Clark is still my favorite Giant of all time (mainly because he was "The Guy" when I discovered the team), I acknowledge that Timmeh is in a different class.

The Giants REALLY need to reevaluate their stance on retired numbers and the HOF.

 

[Mays-Fan]

I dunno. There's already a wall of Fame, with incredibly low standards to get on it.

I mean, really:

Kirt Manwaring?
Marvin Benard?
Atlee Hammaker?
Johnnie LeMaster?

...just to mention a few.

If we start lowering the standards for number retirement, it will soon devolve to the lowest common denominator.

It's the nature of humanity. Need I say more. If there is no high-bar, objective standard, everyone just does what is relatively right in their own eyes. And if you try to uphold the standard, to object to the lowering of the standard, you are vilified in full-throated fashion.

 

[calsnowskier]

I understand the argument. But HOF is a league "award", not a team "award". Clark was the heart and soul of the org for his entire tenure, and began the long road back to relevance for the org.

Timmeh was the heart and soul got the org over that final hump into elite-status.

Does ANYONE deserve to have their number retired if Clark, Bonds and Timmeh do not have their numbers on the wall? You can still have a high bar without it requiring the HOF.

The wall of fame is a joke. There is no subjectivity involved at all. It is just a series of relatively low standards that a player can attain any number of ways. It is basically just about squatters rights.

 

[Mays-Fan]

I understand the argument. But HOF is a league "award", not a team "award". Clark was the heart and soul of the org for his entire tenure, and began the long road back to relevance for the org.

Timmeh was the heart and soul got the org over that final hump into elite-status.

Does ANYONE deserve to have their number retired if Clark, Bonds and Timmeh do not have their numbers on the wall? You can still have a high bar without it requiring the HOF.

The wall of fame is a joke. There is no subjectivity involved at all. It is just a series of relatively low standards that a player can attain any number of ways. It is basically just about squatters rights.

Yes, but this is what happens with mob psychology, aka "democracy'. We see it all around us. Everybody gets a trophy.

If we lower the standard for jersey retirements, the same thing will start to happen. And we'll have to print more jerseys, with bigger and bigger numbers on them. LOL.

 

[calsnowskier]

Yes, but this is what happens with mob psychology, aka "democracy'. We see it all around us. Everybody gets a trophy.

If we lower the standard for jersey retirements, the same thing will start to happen. And we'll have to print more jerseys, with bigger and bigger numbers on them. LOL.

I disagree. Retiring a number means that that player was special for THAT org. The HOF means that the player was a league-wide great.

Completely different standards.

Adding some subjectivity to the discussion does not necessarily equate to a complete bastardization of the process. On the contrary. I think they have completely bastardized the wall of fame by completely ignoring any subjectivity.

 

[calsnowskier]

There should only be about 1 or 2 retired numbers per generation.

I am not advocating retiring Kevin Mitchell, Jeff Kent, Matt Williams, Billy Swift, or Jason Schmidt. I am advocating Will Clark, Barry Bonds and Tim Lincecum (and maybe eventually Cain, Bum and Posey). There is still a very high bar being applied.

 

[Mays-Fan]

There should only be about 1 or 2 retired numbers per generation.

I am not advocating retiring Kevin Mitchell, Jeff Kent, Matt Williams, Billy Swift, or Jason Schmidt. I am advocating Will Clark, Barry Bonds and Tim Lincecum (and maybe eventually Cain, Bum and Posey). There is still a very high bar being applied.

I'm with you in principle, but once you start sliding down that slippery slope, soon you are slouching to Gomorrah. What are your objective criteria, and what's to stop the next person from applying a just slightly lower standard? And the next after that, and the next, and the next?

Without an objective truth, the mob just starts lowering the standards, and quickly.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm with you in principle, but once you start sliding down that slippery slope, soon you are slouching to Gomorrah. What are your objective criteria, and what's to stop the next person from applying a just slightly lower standard? And the next after that, and the next, and the next?

Without an objective truth, the mob just starts lowering the standards, and quickly.

The Giants are one of the only teams that have this standard (only team?). I can only think of TB that has bastardized the honor. Are there others? I know the Spanks are literally starting to run out of numbers, but they are a special case (even Yankee haters have to acknowledge that).

 

[Mays-Fan]

The Giants are one of the only teams that have this standard (only team?). I can only think of TB that has bastardized the honor. Are there others? I know the Spanks are literally starting to run out of numbers, but they are a special case (even Yankee haters have to acknowledge that).

I'm actually against the "honor" altogether. It gives the next player something to live up to. Don't give him (or her or it) that number unless they are willing to live up to it. Use it as a recruiting tool. "Sign with us and you can wear number 24!"

 

[Stokes1931]

Interesting. At Nationals Park, there are three sets of "retired numbers".

1. Washington Senators

2. Montreal Expos

3. Homestead Grays

There will need to be another at some point for the current Nationals team (Bryce Harper, anyone?)

I am with Cal on this one. I think Bonds, the Thrill, and Timmah are prime candidates for retired numbers, even if they are not in the HOF.

I can't think of any Giants not currently already in the HOF (Marichal, Ott, Mays, McCovey, etc) that had such a significant impact upon the team.

The two that come to mind are not all that worthy, but they were from my youth at the Stick: Hackman and the Count. They were the cornerstones of some very bad teams, but their performance didn't raise the level of the team play, and neither was around for many years with the Giants.

 

[Stokes1931]

Here are some of the numbers at Nationals Park. Notice the "G" for Hack Wilson of the Grays, and the rest are "W" from the Senators.

 

[Stokes1931]

Notice the "M" for the Montreal Expos for Carter.

 

[Stokes1931]

When I was there, I seem to recall they had a wall of numbers as well. Perhaps it was only the names.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm actually against the "honor" altogether. It gives the next player something to live up to. Don't give him (or her or it) that number unless they are willing to live up to it. Use it as a recruiting tool. "Sign with us and you can wear number 24!"

Guys like pierzynski and Stewert earned that honor?

 

[Mays-Fan]

Guys like pierzynski and Stewert earned that honor?

I didn't say give it to just anybody. But I think we should retire Michael Barrett's number: