Mets to Retire 16, 18 (merged with Oh Holy Hell, Retire #7 NOW!!!)

[Edgy MD]

But then there's the (a) historical deposit of the legacy of the lost team, and (b) the honor of Mrs. Payson's promise.

That's my point. If someone's gonna constantly make exceptions to the rule, then there really is no rule. Which, of course, there isn't. Once again: Where do these supposed rules come from?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I didn't know there was anything that could be referred to as an established "rule," so I'm not sure how my statement makes your point. I wasn't responding to anything you had written, and I was, in fact, repeating myself. I'm not sure if you understand my statement is a reinforcement of some rule or an exception. I'm just trying to respond to centerfield's statement that he doesn't understand it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I didn't know there was an established rule.

That's because there isn't one.

[Edgy MD]

Then what "rule" are you referring to when you quote my post?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Then what "rule" are you referring to when you quote my post?

Ohferchrissakes. Do we hafta have a variation of this discussion every other week? I quoted you only as a jumping off point because I thought it was convenient to segue off of your post. I was referring to the non existing rule that some posters believe exists or believe that it should exist or think that because the Red Sox only retire the numbers of HOFers that played solely for the Sox, that the Mets are somehow bound by that rule and are violating it all of the time by retiring anybody's number given that the Mets have no such players.

So of course they then come up with exceptions to justify retiring the numbers of their personal favorites while still maintaining "rules". Rules that are always being broken because there always seems to be an exception. You can't have the Red Sox rule and at the same time, have Seaver's number retired. And why the Mets should be bound by whatever the Red Sox do, or what any other team does is beyond me in any event.
This all has little or anything to do with anything you specifically posted.

[Edgy MD]

Ohferchrissakes. Do we hafta have a variation of this discussion every other week?

We don't.

This all has little or anything to do with anything you specifically posted.

Well, then, you probably shouldn't reference me. It's clearer that way.

[kcmets]

Why was the Krane thread merged with the Doc/Straw thread?

[A Boy Named Seo]

Now batting for your 2032 New York Mets,
number @ ...

There's an argument to made (I shall make it now) that coaches and managers don't need numbers anyway. So many managers just wear windbreakers or whatever. Just give them all a numberless uni or a windbreaker with the Mets logo on one side and their initials on the others side (soccer style) and boom, the Mets instantly have 12 more available numbers. And Buck and BS would be perfect.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Now batting for your 2032 New York Mets,
number @ ...

There's an argument to made (I shall make it now) that coaches and managers don't need numbers anyway. So many managers just wear windbreakers or whatever. Just give them all a numberless uni or a windbreaker with the Mets logo on one side and their initials on the others side (soccer style) and boom, the Mets instantly have 12 more available numbers. And Buck and BS would be perfect.

Suits are nice, too.

[Edgy MD]

Why was the Krane thread merged with the Doc/Straw thread?

Dunno. I hadn't noticed until now.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Now batting for your 2032 New York Mets,
number @ ...

There's an argument to made (I shall make it now) that coaches and managers don't need numbers anyway. So many managers just wear windbreakers or whatever. Just give them all a numberless uni or a windbreaker with the Mets logo on one side and their initials on the others side (soccer style) and boom, the Mets instantly have 12 more available numbers. And Buck and BS would be perfect.

Suits are nice, too.

They are nice. Aside from nostalgia, I'd have no real problem if baseball let the managers and coaches dress like coaches in every other sport. I do love the goofiness of making a 76-year old man wear a full baseball uniform but it's not necessary in any way.

[Edgy MD]

It largely hearkens back to the role of "manager" evolving from the "captain" role. Captains were frequently player/managers like Frank Chance whose managing career began while they were playing regularly, and their eventual retirement came softly, when folks realized a guy hadn't put himself into the lineup in a few weeks. Maybe he was still available to pinch-hit, and maybe he did on occasion.

But when he eventually didn't, by the start of the next season, he was understood to be retired, but as his role was only gradually changing, there was no moment that presented a particular impetus to change the clothes.

Plus, he was still taking the field before games, to throw batting practice and hit fungoes and play Pepper and shit. The uniform was considered to be athletic wear, and there was no other generic athletic wear as there is now. Grey sweats were sort of a thing, but not really dignified outside of the gym. He was still sorta/kinda an athlete, and so the duds persisted.

What's just as interesting as the uniform persisting as those factors grew less prominent is Connie Mack breaking with tradition all those years, and others not following him.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think I read that the Dodgers had a manager who wore a suit. Maybe it was Burt Shotton when he replaced the suspended Leo Durocher?

[batmagadanleadoff]

In terms of WAR as a Met (going by Baseball Reference), Gooden is second among pitchers and Strawberry is second among hitters. And they contributed to a world champion. They're both quite a bit higher than Carter or Hernandez, and Piazza as well. So you can disagree on where the line should be drawn, but I would argue the line has already been drawn below them.

I went ahead and ranked all 21 Mets HOF players by Mets career bWAR. It's one metric, if not the be-all and end-all of everything. But it's an important metric.

1. Tom Seaver - 76.1
2. Dwight Gooden - 41.6
3. Jerry Koosman - 39.5
4. Darryl Strawberry - 36.6
5. Edgardo Alfonzo - 29.6
6. Al Leiter - 28.0
7. Keith Hernandez - 26.6
7. Jon Matlack - 26.6
9. Mike Piazza - 24.6
10. Howard Johnson - 22.0
11. Mookie Wilson - 20.8
12. Bud Harrelson - 18.7
13. Cleon Jones - 18.1
14. Ron Darling - 16.0
15. Jerry Grote - 15.7
16. Tommie Agee - 14.0
17. Tug McGraw - 12.8
18. Gary Carter - 11.4
19. John Franco - 11.2
20. Rusty Staub - 6.8
21. Ed Kranepool - 4.2

Highest Mets career bWAR's - not in Mets HOF:

1. David Wright - 49.2
2. Jacob deGrom - 41.2
3. Carlos Beltran - 31.1
4. Jose Reyes - 28.2
5. Sid Fernandez - 27.6
6. Brandon Nimmo - 20.3
7. John Stearns - 19.6
8. David Cone - 19.4
9. Jeff McNeil - 18.6
10. John Olerud - 17.3
11. Pete Alonso - 17.0
12. Len Dykstra - 16.5
13. Rick Reed - 16.4
14. Kevin McReynolds - 15.8

[kcmets]

Why was the Krane thread merged with the Doc/Straw thread?

Dunno. I hadn't noticed until now.

Guess Ben did it. No biggie.

[nymr83]

There is nothing nice about wearing a suit in 100 degree summer heat. Basketball and Hockey coaches do their jobs in air conditioned arenas.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'd wager there's a considerable batch of fans who don't even remember what number Alfonzo wore.

[Frayed Knot]

I'd wager there's a considerable batch of fans who don't even remember what number Alfonzo wore.

I'm one of them.

OTOH, I also couldn't give you the numbers of most of the current squad so probably best not to make too much out of my (lack of) knowledge.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

I'd wager there's a considerable batch of fans who don't even remember what number Alfonzo wore.

I have a really cool reference book called “Mets by the Numbers” that tells me that!

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'm just saying, some guys are more connected to their number than others. Keith was very 17. Wright is no. 5. No doubt.

I think that matters when it comes to retirement

[kcmets]

I'd wager there's a considerable batch of fans who don't even remember what number Alfonzo wore.

I don't know if this makes sense to people but I'm better with
the numbers of guys no longer playing. If you walked up to me
with a twenty dollar bill on Fifth Ave and asked me what number
Edgardo wore you'd be out a twenty. But I'd buy you a beer so
you'd only be out a ten. If you asked me what number Pete Alonso
wears, there's a 50-50 chance I'd get it wrong

[whippoorwill]

13?

[Frayed Knot]

I would have guessed 13 also, and it turns out that is correct.
When dealing with a Venezualan infielder, 13 is always a strong guess.

[roger_that]

I think I read that the Dodgers had a manager who wore a suit. Maybe it was Burt Shotton when he replaced the suspended Leo Durocher?

Yes. Kindly Old Burt Shotton had promised his wife (so the story goes) that he'd never wear a baseball uniform again, so when he accepted the Dodgers' offer to manage, he refused to wear a uni, as if that were actually keeping his promise.

[Edgy MD]

Another fun thing about coaches and managers wearing uniforms is that, on rare occasions, they would take the field in the late innings of blowout games.

Johnny Evers retired at 35 but he got into one game at 40 and another at 47.

[Gwreck]

I don't want a set of rigid rules governing number retirement. But I'd like there to be some sort of guidelines and mine would look something like this:
1) a career NYM or at least a solid majority of his career as one
2) HoF inductee or at least pretty darn close to it
3) Was a member/citizen of good standing while a NYM

…

- Mookie, HoJo, Krane, Beltran, Cleon, etc.: Please stop

You might need to recheck your criteria on Beltran. Take another look at those numbers:

#1: a little short, but he ranks much higher than you think as a Met. Better Mets career than Piazza, certainly.

#2: yes

#3: yes

I’m not sure I’d retire Beltran’s number either but he’s a very close call.