The Digital Underground

Post Reply
User avatar
Edgy MD
Posts: 32453
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:36 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

The Digital Underground

Post by Edgy MD » Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:04 pm

Things I noticed myself noticing as I noticed the roster numbers.

The proliferation of relievers cycled onto the roster as the season progresses has made numbers in the 50s more valuable real estate, and so numbers in the 60s are the new numbers in the 50s, and are the new standard for coaches to wear.

The proliferation of coaches also means some of the coaches' numbers are also being worn by players in camp, which utterly undermines the notion of numbers.

John Gibbons wore 8 as a player, and his return as a coach 38 years later would have been a GREAT time to put 8 back in circulation. Curiously enough, it was off of Gibbons' back that Gary Carter first took it.

Being on the 40-man roster and being out of options, Zach Short sure seemed to have the inside track on the last infield job, but now seeing him outfitted in 74, I'm thinking it may be an uphill climb for him yet, and maybe the Mets intend to break camp with both Baty and Vientos. José Iglesias, by contrast, is a non-roster infielder wearing 11. He's totally trying to be the Tom Veryzer of this team.

The number 44 on a hitter — especially an outfielder — is a statement. It has been since the days of Aaron, McCovey, and Jackson. Mike Cameron is probably the closest any Met has ever come to living up to that statement, but more typically, Jay Bell, John Mayberrry, and even Jason Bay have seen reality hit them right in the face as soon as they donned the number. But here Harrison Bader is, totally tempting the fates with the double-fours. He wore 22 as a Yankee, but of course, 44 is mothballed in the Bronx, so he couldn't have worn it if he wanted it, but the guy is either bold or crazy.

When you're the team's top prospect in your first camp, you're going to get a high number, and that is how it should be. But I tend to think they get something with a little bit more pizazz than Jett Williams' 90. I'd expect him in a more noticeable 77 or the like. Just a little more sexy and spottable for the autograph hounds.

I like my bullpen lefties in odd numbers, possibly ending in 7 if at all possible, but Diekman gets 30, like he belongs in the rotation or something.
User avatar
Benjamin Grimm
Posts: 8463
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:01 pm

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by Benjamin Grimm » Tue Feb 13, 2024 8:01 am

Jett Williams in 77 sounds good, but 747 would be better.
User avatar
Johnny Lunchbucket
Posts: 11489
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:02 am

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by Johnny Lunchbucket » Tue Feb 13, 2024 8:09 am

Good #analysis 👍
User avatar
Frayed Knot
Posts: 14908
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 pm

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by Frayed Knot » Tue Feb 13, 2024 8:14 am

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 8:01 am Jett Williams in 77 sounds good, but 747 would be better.
That's a jumbo jet. He needs something speedier, like maybe F-14



I'd be totally down with restricting lefty pitchers to odd numbers and righties to only evens.
Some expansion team needs to do that from the git-go and see how long it takes before
the public/media figures out what they're doing.
And maybe switch-hitters get a monopoly on double numbers since switching them around
still yields the same number.
Posting Covid-19 free since March of 2020
User avatar
A Boy Named Seo
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:49 am
Location: Nuevo Mehhico

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by A Boy Named Seo » Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:17 am

I was reading a piece in The Athletic this morning that indicated most teams are beefing up their Major League coaching staffs. This is due to rosters having so many young players ready to make an impact NOW!!!! but still needing a lot of instruction, a direct result of the most recent CBA that decentivized manipulating service time. With most teams hiring more MLB-level coaches, it feels past the time to get rid of coaches numbers. Give them all a Showalter windbreaker and be done with it.
great googly moogly!
User avatar
MFS62
Posts: 9511
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:08 am

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by MFS62 » Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:30 am

I hadn't realized it until I saw the ST roster list the other day that the bullpen catcher has a number.
I remember when the catcher not playing that day would be in the bullpen, so they would have a number.
But this isn't like hockey where the practice goalie might get into the game.
Have they always had one?


Later
I blame Susan Collins
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in a large group". George Carlin
I have never insulted anyone. I simply describe them, accurately.
User avatar
Edgy MD
Posts: 32453
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:36 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by Edgy MD » Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:24 pm

I don't know about "always," as the appearance of such an animal occurred gradually as teams stopped carrying multiple backup catchers, but Racaniello has been numbered a long time, perhaps since the start of his extensive Mets tenure.



Langill and he were 53 and 54 for a few years before numbers in the 50s became too precious a zip code to use up on backup catchers, and they've been 78 and 77 for a while since.

Here's Raca without a number-on-front in 2010.



But that same year, he's throwing BP with a number-on-back.

User avatar
Centerfield
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:28 am

Re: The Digital Underground

Post by Centerfield » Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:51 pm

Edgy MD wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:04 pm
I like my bullpen lefties in odd numbers, possibly ending in 7 if at all possible, but Diekman gets 30, like he belongs in the rotation or something.
The Orosco Principle. (Alternatively, the Dennis Cook Principle, or Darren Oliver Principle)
Post Reply