This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Just Give Him a Gold Watch Already

celts.jpg

Yesterday I noted that Paul Pierce had worn a “2” on his headband on Wednesday night, because that’s the number the Celtics have retired for Red Auerbach. (I mistakenly thought Pierce had inscribed the numeral onto the fabric himself with a Magic Marker, but it turns out it was wovern into the headband.) This is one of two numbers that the Celtics have retired in honor of people who never actually wore the team’s uniform: In 1964 they retired No. 1 for team founder/owner Walter Brown, to commemorate his unrivaled importance in team history; and in 1985 they retired No. 2 for Auerbach. According to the team’s web site, “The number signifies the fact that Auerbach is second only to Walter Brown as the most significant person in the history of the Boston Celtics organization.”

Am I the only one who thinks this is total bullshit? Uniform numbers are, y’know, numbers worn on uniforms — how can you retire a number for somebody who wore a suit? (Hmmm, maybe they could retire the number of his suit size.) Depite the seemingly self-evident incongruity of this practice, it has gained a small but apparently secure foothold in the sports world. Among the other examples:

• The Knicks have retired No. 613, the number of victories compiled by former coach Red Holtzman.

• The Sacramento Kings have retired No. 6, in honor of their fans, who serve as the team’s “sixth man.”

• Similarly, the Angels retired No. 26 for former owner Gene Autry, because he was the team’s “26th man.”

• The Cardinals retired No. 85 for team owner August A. Busch, Jr., on his 85th birthday. (Also note the retired non-number for Rogers Hornsby, who played before the uni-numbered era.)

• Before the Marlins ever played a game, they retired No. 5 in honor of team executive Carl Barger, whose favorite player was Joe DiMaggio.

• In an even lamer move, when the Wild came into being in 2000, the team immediately retired No. 1, as a “You’re number one!” message to Minnesota hockey fans.

I’m sure there are other examples out there, but the whole thing is so annoying that I had to stop researching. Look, I’m not against honoring important people — this is nice, and so is this, and even this. But the whole point of retiring a number is that the number has become emotionally and culturally connected to the person wearing it — that’s why it’s taken out of circulation, because it would be unthinkable for anyone else to wear it. That doesn’t work for people who never wore a number to begin with.

Picture12.jpg

4-Gone Conclusion: Turning to a completely different type of retired number, reader H. Beezy has generously provided some screen shots of Charlie Bell’s wardrobe malfunction from Wednesday night’s Bucks/Pistons game. I especially like this one. Not exactly the most auspicious debut for Milwaukee’s new unis.

Now if we could just get some pics of Terry Glenn’s contraband Ohio State buckeye helmet decal from the October 23rd Cowboys/Giants game — shaping up as the holy grail of 2006 screen shots — then we’d really be up to date. If anyone from the NFL Network is reading this, kindly hook us up, post-haste.

Uni Watch News Ticker: What is Mike Miller wearing in his hair? … Matthew Spencer notes that the Oklahoma basketball team is wearing a jersey patch, which appears to be a version of the Oklahoma centennial logo (which, if you look closely, is incorrectly using a single open-quote, instead of an apostrophe, to mark the year). … Mark Bryan sent along some shots of Georgia wearing alternate pant colors that I’d forgotten about: red in 1980 (looks pretty cool, no?) and black in 1998 (looks like crap, no?). … Good post over on Chris Creamer‘s board about MLB’s new 5950 caps for next season. According to someone whose store just got a shipment of them, the new caps are, as expected, 100% polyester instead of wool, have a black underbill and sweatband and a raised MLB logo, and look like this on the inner crown. … The iconic Lower Trenton Delaware River Bridge has been incorporated into the Trenton Titans’ logo and jersey yoke (here’s a rear view). Love the local civic reference, but the execution leaves a bit to be desired. (Thanks to Tony Senese for the tip.) … The horror, the horror. … Chad Johnson’s “Ocho Cinco” stunt earned him a $5000 fine (which seems kinda unnecessary — I mean, jeez, it was only during pregame warm-ups). … Helmet Hut has a very sharp-looking new line of Miami reproduction helmets. … If you couldn’t access the Bolding Sports Research links in yesterday’s blog because we’d maxed out the site’s bandwidth, scroll down and try again — the site is back up (at least until we crash it again) and is essential viewing for anyone reading this.

 

242 comments to Just Give Him a Gold Watch Already

  • Robert | November 3, 2006 at 8:04 am |

    I was unaware that the Marlins retired Joe D’s No. 5. This is so incredibly weak.

    Though this may not be p.c., I did not think that it was right of MLB to force every team to retire Jackie Robinson’s number. Yes, he is an incredibly important figure in the history of the game, but this set a bad precedent, and there are plenty of other ways to honor him.

    Wasn’t it better when there were players who would state that they wore Robinson’s number expressly because of Robinson? Put up a Jackie R. banner in every park, don’t universally retire his number.

  • Ray | November 3, 2006 at 8:06 am |

    Still kind of bummed on the whole change over for the 5950 hats. I think they lose their personality in polyester. I’m also willing to bet they take longer to break in not being wool.

  • amr | November 3, 2006 at 8:11 am |

    That thing in Mike Miller’s hair looks to be the small headband thingy that female athletes use a lot. I’ve never seen one up close, and I don’t know what they’re called, but just watch NCAA Softball or Women’s Basketball, and you’ll see that device a ton. It’s to keep your hair out of your face and is typically brown (camoflaged).

  • Andy from KC | November 3, 2006 at 8:19 am |

    I had no idea so many teams have retired numbers for people who have nothing to do with them–and I agree with the lameness. Retiring a number should only be reserved for a PLAYER who is indelibly linked with that number. There are other ways to honor fans, coaches, owners, etc. (like putting them in the team Hall of Fame or putting up statues or something).

    Oh, and I think Mike Miller is just wearing one of these dealies in his hair. I don’t know what they’re called, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a guy wear one before.

  • The Original Lee | November 3, 2006 at 8:44 am |

    Mike Miller is not wearing that.
    most likely its something along the lines of this
    http://www.soccer.co...

    Its not unpopular to see guys wear them in soccer.
    Beckham
    http://i22.ebayimg.c...
    Ronaldinho
    http://i16.ebayimg.c...
    Xavi Alonso
    http://i12.ebayimg.c...
    totti
    http://i24.ebayimg.c...

  • New Orleans | November 3, 2006 at 8:49 am |

    Thank you for the reference to the Miami reproduction helmets. The George Mira helmet brought back many memories. As a kid I was a fan of George Mira and I wore #10 from youth league to high school and even a short while in college. I remember that Mira gave LSU fits trying to contain his scrambling.

    As an aside, back in the early sixties LSU’s purple jerseys were considered bad luck and they hated wearing them because they seemed to lose on the rare occasions they had to wear them. The LSU uniform (still basically the same one they wear today) which was introduced in 1956 was designed to be worn with white jerseys… and by contract or other agreement with opponenets LSU insisted on wearing white on the road. However, every now and then an opponent would insist on wearing white at home, forcing LSU to wear what LSU pundits called “purple poison”. Miami was one of those teams.

    Back then LSU’s purple jerseys were a lighter shade of purple (and the gold was a little darker)and frankly they didn’t look very good with the uniform. (Think Dallas Cowboys and the royal blue jerseys they wore with the metallic blue pants which they eventually changed.) When Bill Arnsparger took over as head coach at LSU he changed the purple to a deep shade of bluish purple. Shortly afterwards the NCAA enacted a rule that home teams had to wear dark jerseys. LSU unsuccessfully sought an exemption and had to wear purple jerseys at home for a number of years.
    The present purple jersey, gold pants combination today looks pretty sharp and people have gotten used to LSU wearing purple instead of white. But that wasn’t always the case.

    Thanks again for the trip down memory lane.

  • moten21 | November 3, 2006 at 8:51 am |

    Small note: The picture of the Liverpool player above is former striker Milan Baros, not Xabi Alonso.

  • DJ | November 3, 2006 at 8:52 am |

    I’m going to go against the grain on this one: I think retiring a number for someone like Red is a very classy thing to do – after all, the reason why it was done is very valid, and makes plenty of sense. I really don’t think it matters that he never officially wore a number 2, he did much more than that; he lived it. Now I do agree the Wild #1 is pretty bad, but for someone that important to a franchise and even the sport in general, I think “bullshit” is a pretty stupid claim and very disrespectful at that.

  • Joey Zaza | November 3, 2006 at 8:53 am |

    Tom Landry was inducted into the Cowboys’ Ring of Honor by retiring his trademark fedora, rather than a uni number.

  • Robert | November 3, 2006 at 8:59 am |

    Those hair thingies are very effeminate. Yikes.

  • Original Jim | November 3, 2006 at 9:01 am |

    I have no problem with the Celtics retiring #1 and #2 for non-players. If you look in the banners, you’ll also see a square for “LOSCY”, for Jim Loscatoff. I can’t remember the specific reason why his name is there, he may have been wearing a number at the time that was honored for someone else.

    Any idea what was the first team to retire a number for a non-player?

  • New Orleans | November 3, 2006 at 9:02 am |

    The LSU uniform (still basically the same one they wear today) which was introduced in 1956 was designed to be worn with white jerseys

    Here’s a picture of Billy Cannon and coach Paul Dietzel from a 1959 issue of Sport magazine showing the original version of the LSU uniform they wear today…

  • matt in the nati | November 3, 2006 at 9:04 am |

    this is what is mike miller’s hair… it serves the same purpose as this but is more functional for athletes becasue its elastic and wraps around the entire head…

  • Chris Hilf | November 3, 2006 at 9:07 am |

    [quote comment=”18739″]Tom Landry was inducted into the Cowboys’ Ring of Honor by retiring his trademark fedora, rather than a uni number.[/quote]
    So what does that mean? Tuna isn’t allowed to wear a fedora?

    Think I’d pay to see that….

  • New Orleans | November 3, 2006 at 9:08 am |
  • matt in the nati | November 3, 2006 at 9:10 am |

    on the subject of non-uniform retired numbers…

    the indians retired 455 for the consecutive sell outs of jacobs field….

    tigers have no number up for cobb much like hornsby and tha cardinals

  • Andy Head | November 3, 2006 at 9:11 am |

    The Everett Silvertips of the WHL did the exact same thing as the Wild, retiring no. 1 in honor of “the best fans in the entire WHL” after their inagural season. Since the team has only been around 3+ years, this is the only retired number so far at the Everett Events Center.

  • betheball | November 3, 2006 at 9:11 am |

    Loscatoff specifically asked that his number (# 18) not be retired so a future player could wear it. Turns out Dave Cowens ended up wearing # 18, and we all know where it is now.

    My favorite “retirement” is the Celtics’ retiring Johnny Most’s microphone “high above courtside” in 1990.

  • Joe M. | November 3, 2006 at 9:14 am |

    [quote comment=”18743″] If you look in the banners, you’ll also see a square for “LOSCY”, for Jim Loscatoff. I can’t remember the specific reason why his name is there, he may have been wearing a number at the time that was honored for someone else.[/quote]

    Loscutoff wore number 18. By the time the Celtics were ready to retire his number, it was being worn by another Celtic great, Dave Cowens. So instead of having Cowens change his number, the Celtics put Jim’s nickname, “Loscy” on the banner.

  • Joe M. | November 3, 2006 at 9:15 am |

    I knew someone would beat me to the Loscy story. Oh well.

  • skott | November 3, 2006 at 9:24 am |

    i don’t mind the #’s for people who didn’t play.
    didn’t the seahawks retire number 12 for “the fans”?

    thats silly. i don’t like the pandering, but i do like honoring people who contributed to the sport/team.

    gretzky’s 99.
    robinson’s 42.
    very classy.
    i’m surprised the MLBPA didn’t ask for Curt Flood’s number to be perpetually retired, too!

    i do not think its disrespectful to call the number thing bullshit, though. i think your point is solid, i just think the opposite.

    i DEFINATELY like the logo on the parquet, though. very cool.

    i don’t like the idea of trying to take down one fo the only ways teams can actually be individual in their leagues anymore.

    speaking of retired numbers, the Ray Bourque thing was the best tribute ever. CLASS. too bad he had to go to Colorado to win a Cup.

  • Kel | November 3, 2006 at 9:24 am |

    Maybe the “wawrdrobe malfunction” from Charlie Bell was his way of saying that he wants his own number retired.

    One question on the Knicks’ retirement choice: do players even wear 3-digits numbers? I haven’t found any examples in my admittedly brief search, so I thought I’d ask the experts.

  • JohnnyBoy | November 3, 2006 at 9:26 am |

    Retiring a number for a legend (Red) is reasonable. I mean, he was part of the Celticss for 100 years or so. The “#1 fans” is BS. Be creative like Texas A&M’s “12th man”, or win some games to show that coming out means something.

  • Surly | November 3, 2006 at 9:26 am |

    [quote comment=”18750″]The Everett Silvertips of the WHL did the exact same thing as the Wild, retiring no. 1 in honor of “the best fans in the entire WHL” after their inagural season. Since the team has only been around 3+ years, this is the only retired number so far at the Everett Events Center.[/quote]

    Kitchener Rangers of the OHL has also done that with number 1. a huge banner with “Fans” on the bottom right next to the league championship and memorial cup banners. nice.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 9:31 am |

    good morning all…

    a. http://www.bk-nets-s...

    hmm, and all this time i thought the bulls didnt issue #4 because of johnny kilroy (nikeheads will get that one)

    b. Now if we could just get some pics of Terry Glenn’s contraband Ohio State buckeye helmet decal from the October 23rd Cowboys/Giants game — shaping up as the holy grail of 2006 screen shots — then we’d really be up to date.

    i still want to see a screen grab of rutgers kicker jeremy ito’s jersey during the pitt game…the R was reversed…

    c. What is Mike Miller wearing in his hair?

    the proper name for that is an alice band.
    http://en.wikipedia....

    d. does anyone else find something very alfred hitchcock about the auerbach floor logo?

    e. pistons retired 2 for chuck daly in detroit… 2 nba titles…

  • Joe Hilseberg | November 3, 2006 at 9:32 am |

    My company is giving out mini football helmets for a promotion next week, so I have been spending the last couple of days applying decals of our logo to them. They have the same exact logo on both sides, but some other not sports familiar employees mentioned that the logo looked strange on both sides of the helmet because it is not symmetrical, and like some teams, it can not be reversed because it has words in it.

    It got me thinking…most teams use a mirror image of their logo for both sides of their helmet, and a few use the same exact logo. However, I realized that the Ravens have actually designed a secondary logo for the opposite side of their helmet (notice the direction of the “B”) and for any other instance where the bird needs to be looking in the other direction. (I have seen it used for stadium art around the base of the wall)

    During my research I noticed that Oregon State does this as well by reversing which way the beaver is looking. Do any other teams do this?

  • Ian K | November 3, 2006 at 9:38 am |

    I thought West Virginia’s all white unis looked real good last night. The yellow striping down the side of the jersey and pants is a little too Swoosh-y for my tastes though.

    And I had to do some research to discover that all WVU unis, blue or white, have the italicized numbers on the jerseys. Very cool. And I’m sure all this has been mentioned but being on national TV, I actually noticed this time.

  • Peter Wunsch | November 3, 2006 at 9:40 am |

    The Toronto Maple Leafs have the best practice. They do not retire. They hang banners, with the uniform numbers, from the rafters, but refer to them as “honoured numbers.” Some numbers are there muliple times and are still being used. Remember when Ray Bourque changed uniform numbers in the middle of the Phil Esposito ceremony. he went from # 7 to #77 so the Bruins could retire Phil’s number.

    The lamest banner however is Madison Square Garden having a JOEL 12 banner hanging above the Garden for Billy Joel’s 12 sold-out performances. Why not a number for Ringling Bros. circus or, more fitting, a five for Billy Joel for the numnber of postponements of his concerts while he went into rehab?

  • Pat | November 3, 2006 at 9:41 am |

    About Red and Mr. Brown being given numbers. It seems all the more representative of their impact on the team since they never wanted to put any player or person before the team. Having their name plastered everywhere would have been too extravagent for them. This is also before they did cute things like the Heat retiring number 23 for Michael Jordan even though I don’t think I can remember MJ playing for Miami.

    About Loscy. This is from the Celtics website:
    [quote]He asked that his jersey number (#18) not be retired so that a future Celtic could wear it – the number 18 was later retired in honor of Dave Cowens.[/quote]

  • Phil | November 3, 2006 at 9:41 am |

    I don’t have a problem with the Knicks retiring number 613, because noone will ever be able to wear that number, so its wasteful.

    Basketball has a limited supply of numbers (you need special permision to wear any number where the second digit is over 6,7,8, or 9 so the refs can hold up your number in one motion) so it seems silly to retire a number that can be worn for someone who didn’t wear it.

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?

  • Jason | November 3, 2006 at 9:42 am |

    The Pacers retired #529 in honor of ABA/NBA Pacers coach Slick Leonard. Leonard now serves as the long time color commentator for Pacers radio broadcasts and is the one that coined the “Boom baby!” term that became popular during the Reggie Miller era of the Pacers.
    http://www.nba.com/m...

  • Pat | November 3, 2006 at 9:43 am |

    Sorry looks like two people beat me to Loscy. But it wasn’t because Cowens was already wearing it. It’s because Jim asked for the number to be left open.

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 9:47 am |

    FROM YESTERDAY:

    [quote comment=”18636″]To me, Loisville looks better than WVU tonight, even with there black unitard. When will teams understand that when you wear white on white you either have to wear low socks or dark socks, not high whites.[/quote]

    They were probably doing the opposite of the black out

  • matt in the nati | November 3, 2006 at 9:50 am |

    [quote comment=”18764″]

    The lamest banner however is Madison Square Garden having a JOEL 12 banner hanging above the Garden for Billy Joel’s 12 sold-out performances. Why not a number for Ringling Bros. circus or, more fitting, a five for Billy Joel for the numnber of postponements of his concerts while he went into rehab?[/quote]

    is it a knicks or a ranger jersey? either way… LAME-O

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 9:50 am |

    while researching old wvu unis (who could argue with the understated and simple look of the don nehlen-jeff hostetler-major harris era unis) aka. junior varsity michigan and cal “the game” era uni’s, i came across this wvu baseball pic…
    interesting logo…symbol…emblem…whatever, enjoy…
    http://i52.photobuck...
    (pic is of Stan Posluszny. yeah, the brother of paul)

  • Anthony the Rutgers Fan | November 3, 2006 at 9:52 am |

    I doubt anyone actually cares about the Trenton Titans of the ECHL, except me. However, I will discuss them since they were mentioned in today’s blog. The “Trenton Makes” uniform/logo design is being presented to Uni Watch readers as brand new, but thats not the case. They’ve been using that logo and jersey in some form since their inception.

  • Riley | November 3, 2006 at 9:54 am |

    I, too, am bummed about the new 5950s. They may be impossible to break in. My impression of breaking in a 5950 has always been that it slowly shrinks down to conform to my head (but not so much to give me a headache like poor, poor Kenny). Polyester will not shrink. This is going to make it tough as hell to buy a hat because now it has to be pretty much the perfect size; I can’t buy them a little big anymore. On the bright side at least it seems that they’ve a) stuck with pro-fit and b) maintained the shape and ‘look’ of the hat.

  • Daniel | November 3, 2006 at 9:55 am |

    I noticed that on that picture of Georgia wearing black pants in the Outback Bowl, it really looks like Georgia is wearing two bowl patches, while Wisconson is wearing one (because of the W on the other side). Why is that?

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment=”18767″]The Pacers retired #529 in honor of ABA/NBA Pacers coach Slick Leonard. Leonard now serves as the long time color commentator for Pacers radio broadcasts and is the one that coined the “Boom baby!” term that became popular during the Reggie Miller era of the Pacers.
    http://www.nba.com/m...

    a. i wonder if the pacers will retire the microphone of the brian “boom goes the dynamite” collins, the ball state sports reporter. for more watch here, if you havent seen it, priceless.
    http://youtube.com/w...

    b. UNC has a strict criteria set up for retiring numbers and honoring numbers.

    Players who are consensus National Players of the Year have their jerseys retired.

    Honored players are players who were first-team All-Americans, the most valuable player of an NCAA championship team, or any member of a gold-medal-winning Olympic squad.

  • Jason | November 3, 2006 at 9:59 am |

    Wow, I’m too young to have realized Miami ever had green helmets. Those are outstanding! Something they should definitley “throw back” to on occation.

  • tedkerwin | November 3, 2006 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”18764″]The Toronto Maple Leafs have the best practice. They do not retire. They hang banners, with the uniform numbers, from the rafters, but refer to them as “honoured numbers.” Some numbers are there muliple times and are still being used. Remember when Ray Bourque changed uniform numbers in the middle of the Phil Esposito ceremony. he went from # 7 to #77 so the Bruins could retire Phil’s number.

    The lamest banner however is Madison Square Garden having a JOEL 12 banner hanging above the Garden for Billy Joel’s 12 sold-out performances. Why not a number for Ringling Bros. circus or, more fitting, a five for Billy Joel for the numnber of postponements of his concerts while he went into rehab?[/quote]

    I agree that is lame, I did not know they had done that. Philly has dueling banners between Bruce and Billy Joel in the Wachovia with the number of sell outs, the Meadowlands had a banner depicting the circus for years until the Devils started winning cups.

  • Robert | November 3, 2006 at 10:00 am |

    An Alice band? Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me.

  • Kyle Joecken | November 3, 2006 at 10:03 am |

    [quote comment=”18730″]
    Though this may not be p.c., I did not think that it was right of MLB to force every team to retire Jackie Robinson’s number. Yes, he is an incredibly important figure in the history of the game, but this set a bad precedent, and there are plenty of other ways to honor him.

    Wasn’t it better when there were players who would state that they wore Robinson’s number expressly because of Robinson? Put up a Jackie R. banner in every park, don’t universally retire his number.[/quote]

    Another interesting side effect of this is caused by the fact that they waited so long to retire it. As I’m sure many of you know, this means they allowed Bruce Sutter to wear 42, so that when the Cardinals retired his number this year they had to take some… interesting steps. This won’t be an issue for Gretzky, obviously.

  • Steve Flack | November 3, 2006 at 10:04 am |

    Worst retired number in all of basketball?

    The Miami have only retired one number: 23. Why? Because of Micheal Jordan.

    http://sportsillustr...

    Remember all those great seasons when Micheal Jordan wore #23 for the Miami Heat.

    No, neither do I.

    -Steve!

  • DarkAudit | November 3, 2006 at 10:05 am |

    [quote comment=”18771″]while researching old wvu unis (who could argue with the understated and simple look of the don nehlen-jeff hostetler-major harris era unis) aka. junior varsity michigan and cal “the game” era uni’s, i came across this wvu baseball pic…
    interesting logo…symbol…emblem…whatever, enjoy…
    http://i52.photobuck...
    (pic is of Stan Posluszny. yeah, the brother of paul)[/quote]
    That’s been the baseball team’s logo for as long as I can remember.

    The band (among others) also used to use a wVu logo into the early 80s.

  • matt in the nati | November 3, 2006 at 10:08 am |

    [quote comment=”18780″][quote comment=”18730″]
    Though this may not be p.c., I did not think that it was right of MLB to force every team to retire Jackie Robinson’s number. Yes, he is an incredibly important figure in the history of the game, but this set a bad precedent, and there are plenty of other ways to honor him.

    Wasn’t it better when there were players who would state that they wore Robinson’s number expressly because of Robinson? Put up a Jackie R. banner in every park, don’t universally retire his number.[/quote]

    Another interesting side effect of this is caused by the fact that they waited so long to retire it. As I’m sure many of you know, this means they allowed Bruce Sutter to wear 42, so that when the Cardinals retired his number this year they had to take some… interesting steps. This won’t be an issue for Gretzky, obviously.[/quote]

    yeah the mets will have to do that for butch huskey (sarcastic)

  • Rich | November 3, 2006 at 10:15 am |

    [quote comment=”18760″]My company is giving out mini football helmets for a promotion next week, so I have been spending the last couple of days applying decals of our logo to them. They have the same exact logo on both sides, but some other not sports familiar employees mentioned that the logo looked strange on both sides of the helmet because it is not symmetrical, and like some teams, it can not be reversed because it has words in it.

    It got me thinking…most teams use a mirror image of their logo for both sides of their helmet, and a few use the same exact logo. However, I realized that the Ravens have actually designed a secondary logo for the opposite side of their helmet (notice the direction of the “B”) and for any other instance where the bird needs to be looking in the other direction. (I have seen it used for stadium art around the base of the wall)

    During my research I noticed that Oregon State does this as well by reversing which way the beaver is looking. Do any other teams do this?[/quote]

    I never liked that Ravens logo, I’ve always preferred this one

  • BtotheE | November 3, 2006 at 10:16 am |

    Retiring numbers can be a touchy thing, at Florida State some numbers are retired while others just have the jersey on display, for people to look at in the stadium.Here. But some numbers just have to be retired for a program or team. There are plenty of numbers out there, people will just have to make their own history with it. Be selective, but be consistant. Sidenote to this, Vince Carter has like #15 since he waws young, and never wanted to wear another number, trying to make his own mark (in his era). I can’t say I like anything about him, after a great high school career, but I will give him this, he made the number 15 popular for a new generation. It just also seems a bit wrong for a Heisman winner (Chris Weinke), to have three players wearing his number not long after he left. Chris Rix did not wait anytime to switch to his old number, (started of 15 while he got red-shirted and went to 16) after Weinke left. Sorry I am all over the place, but I just think some numbers should get retired, and players should have to deal with it, there are pleanty of numbers still left, even with different leagues and NCAA rules to around, players should have numbers retired, but I feel that is were it should end.

  • Stu | November 3, 2006 at 10:16 am |

    The Jackie Robinson number retirement is what I first thought of when I read this. I understand the social significance and contribution of the player and the man. As a Giants fan, though, I can’t see retiring a Dodger player’s number, period.

  • jesse | November 3, 2006 at 10:18 am |

    They may fince Chad Johnson $5,000 for the Ocho Cinco stunt, but they will still sell you the jersey for $285.

    ocho cinco

  • Doug | November 3, 2006 at 10:23 am |

    I am surprised no one has mentioned this…

    Watching the highlights from the Louisvile – West Virginia game I noticed Slaton, number 10, was wearing one of those new nike shirts under his uni, but had only his left arm sleaved. If you watch the clip, he has two fumbles in the 2nd quarter, looks like he might of injured his wrist, and then comes back with no sleaves. Reminds me of the middle of the inning de-sleaving of mlb pitchers. You can view the clip at espn.com.

  • Lou | November 3, 2006 at 10:25 am |

    [quote comment=”18783″][quote comment=”18780″][quote comment=”18730″]
    Though this may not be p.c., I did not think that it was right of MLB to force every team to retire Jackie Robinson’s number. Yes, he is an incredibly important figure in the history of the game, but this set a bad precedent, and there are plenty of other ways to honor him.

    Wasn’t it better when there were players who would state that they wore Robinson’s number expressly because of Robinson? Put up a Jackie R. banner in every park, don’t universally retire his number.[/quote]

    Another interesting side effect of this is caused by the fact that they waited so long to retire it. As I’m sure many of you know, this means they allowed Bruce Sutter to wear 42, so that when the Cardinals retired his number this year they had to take some… interesting steps. This won’t be an issue for Gretzky, obviously.[/quote]

    yeah the mets will have to do that for butch huskey (sarcastic)[/quote]

    Mariano Rivera will be the last MLB player to ever wear #42 and I can guarantee that when the Yankees retire his number it will be just for him. Although they have all of their retired uniform numbers on display in Monument Park the Yankees have never made any special acknowledgement of the Robinson number retirement.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 10:28 am |

    [quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!!

  • BtotheE | November 3, 2006 at 10:35 am |

    I also feel some players are bigger than the game, but that does not mean that their numbers have to be retired throughout the league. It is a good gesture, but not needed. I am sure that the great ones (not just a throw to Mr. Gretzkey) would all agree that their numbers should be retired for the teams that they played for and contributed greatly to. That should be requried for number retirment, everything else is more for show, and I say this with all respect for Jackie Robinson an all the others that have changed not just the game and the country we live in.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 10:35 am |

    [quote comment=”18792″]They may fince Chad Johnson $5,000 for the Ocho Cinco stunt, but they will still sell you the jersey for $285.

    ocho cinco[/quote]

    I bet they won’t . . .the NFL shop has pretty strict restrictions on what they will and will not put on the back of a jersey. Remember all the Falcons fans (or anti-fans) who couldn’t get #7 “Mexico” jerseys during the Michael Vick incident

  • BtotheE | November 3, 2006 at 10:36 am |

    [quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]
    He is there, bottom right corner.

  • Kyle | November 3, 2006 at 10:37 am |

    [quote comment=”18756″]Maybe the “wawrdrobe malfunction” from Charlie Bell was his way of saying that he wants his own number retired.

    One question on the Knicks’ retirement choice: do players even wear 3-digits numbers? I haven’t found any examples in my admittedly brief search, so I thought I’d ask the experts.[/quote]

    I can’t find any examples now, but I know I’ve seen Swedish soccer and hockey players wearing number 100 to celebrate centenial seasons for certain clubs.

  • Pat | November 3, 2006 at 10:39 am |

    [quote comment=”18805″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]
    He is there, bottom right corner.[/quote]

    It’s up there. That’s an old picture. They’ve added Parish (00) and Cedric Maxwell (31) since.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 10:40 am |

    [quote comment=”18805″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]
    He is there, bottom right corner.[/quote]

    Must be an old picture of the banners, because unless I’m hallucinating, there’s no “00” in this picture. I thought the Celts had retired the number (like in the last year or two . . .)

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 10:41 am |

    [quote comment=”18809″][quote comment=”18805″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]
    He is there, bottom right corner.[/quote]

    It’s up there. That’s an old picture. They’ve added Parish (00) and Cedric Maxwell (31) since.[/quote]

    Thanks, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me. And I was just at the Garden for a Bruins game too . . .Don’t get me started on that debacle, though.

  • BtotheE | November 3, 2006 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”18811″][quote comment=”18809″][quote comment=”18805″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]

    He is there, bottom right corner.[/quote]

    It’s up there. That’s an old picture. They’ve added Parish (00) and Cedric Maxwell (31) since.[/quote]

    Thanks, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me. And I was just at the Garden for a Bruins game too . . .Don’t get me started on that debacle, though.[/quote]
    I was looking at the pic at the top of the page, sorry if it confused anyone

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”18813″]
    I was looking at the pic at the top of the page, sorry if it confused anyone[/quote]

    No harm ,no foul . . .

    To make it worse the pic at the top of the page isn’t updated either. Pat’s right, Cedric Maxwell’s #31 should be up there too . . .

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 10:51 am |

    i feel it is a bigger show of respect when people dont wear a number out of respect for the wearer/innovator of that number,
    ie. nobody was ever going to wear 99 in hockey on any team, ever, whether it was officially retired or not…
    it just didnt and wasnt going to happen because people just respected wayne that much…

    plus gretzkys wife had 5 to 1 odds with all the nhl equipment managers that they wouldnt give out #99

  • norb | November 3, 2006 at 10:52 am |

    Marquette retired 77 for Al McGuire, who won the NCAA championship that year. Also, some NBA team retired the number 6 for the fans (as in “sixth man”); i had thought it was the Celtics but i’m probably just confused by the fact that the Celtics have 58 numbers retired or something…

  • Stu | November 3, 2006 at 10:52 am |

    The SF Giants only retire a number if the player has been inducted into the HOF. Even Orlando Cepeda (#30) who only played 8 seasons with the team but has a Cha-Cha Bowl concession stand (don’t ask) at Pac-Bell/SBC/AT&T Park.

    Also, they have honored John McGraw and Christy Mathewson with an ‘NY’ instead of a number.

  • DrBear | November 3, 2006 at 10:52 am |

    I’ve got a topper – in 1970, Marquette University retired the No. 11 for the Apollo 11 moon flight crew. The team even wore the Apollo 11 patch on its warmups for that season.

    From the media guide:
    Marquette has honored seven outstanding players by retiring their jersey numbers, the highest honor a player can receive
    from the university. Earl Tatum is the latest Marquette great to receive this honor. His jersey number (#43) was
    retired on February 20, 2005.
    The university also retired the number 11, in honor of the Apollo 11 crew, and the number 38, in honor of the 38 years
    the late Robert Weingart served as Marquette’s athletic trainer.
    On November 21, 1997, the number 77 was retired in honor of legendary head coach Al McGuire, who led the 1977
    team to the NCAA Championship.

  • PBJ | November 3, 2006 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”18810″][quote comment=”18805″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]
    He is there, bottom right corner.[/quote]

    Must be an old picture of the banners, because unless I’m hallucinating, there’s no “00” in this picture. I thought the Celts had retired the number (like in the last year or two . . .)[/quote]

    Yeah thats an old pic, if you look at the Bruins Neeley is missing too.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 10:55 am |

    [quote comment=”18817″]Marquette retired 77 for Al McGuire, who won the NCAA championship that year. Also, some NBA team retired the number 6 for the fans (as in “sixth man”); i had thought it was the Celtics but i’m probably just confused by the fact that the Celtics have 58 numbers retired or something…[/quote]

    The Celtics have retired number 6, but it was probably for Bill Russell (just guessing here) not the fans as the 6th man . . .

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 10:59 am |

    OK, couple things I retired number:

    1. Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky

    2. As far as the Red Auerbach thing goes, couldn’t they retire a suit like someone said or maybe a cigar or retire a jersey, but not a number

    I know we covered this before but retiring a jersey is different than retiring a number. Teams could do this for non-players.

  • Pat | November 3, 2006 at 10:59 am |

    [quote comment=”18821″][quote comment=”18817″]Marquette retired 77 for Al McGuire, who won the NCAA championship that year. Also, some NBA team retired the number 6 for the fans (as in “sixth man”); i had thought it was the Celtics but i’m probably just confused by the fact that the Celtics have 58 numbers retired or something…[/quote]

    The Celtics have retired number 6, but it was probably for Bill Russell (just guessing here) not the fans as the 6th man . . .[/quote]

    Thank god SOMEONE knows their basketball history. Russell was only the greatest winner in the history of organized basketball.

  • norb | November 3, 2006 at 11:00 am |

    Duh, Bill Russell. It was the Kings i think.

  • Kelli | November 3, 2006 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”18742″]Those hair thingies are very effeminate. Yikes.[/quote]

    I can see the Spice Girl, aka Mrs Beckham, coming to beat you mercilessly with her $500 stiletto heels for saying that about her husband.

  • Paul Lukas | November 3, 2006 at 11:04 am |

    [quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.

  • a arauz | November 3, 2006 at 11:08 am |

    [quote comment=”18764″]The Toronto Maple Leafs have the best practice. They do not retire. They hang banners, with the uniform numbers, from the rafters, but refer to them as “honoured numbers.” Some numbers are there muliple times and are still being used. Remember when Ray Bourque changed uniform numbers in the middle of the Phil Esposito ceremony. he went from # 7 to #77 so the Bruins could retire Phil’s number.

    The lamest banner however is Madison Square Garden having a JOEL 12 banner hanging above the Garden for Billy Joel’s 12 sold-out performances. Why not a number for Ringling Bros. circus or, more fitting, a five for Billy Joel for the numnber of postponements of his concerts while he went into rehab?[/quote]
    Or the number of cars he’s totalled in Drunk Driving accidents in the past 10 year ?

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 11:09 am |

    [quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    Shows how much I follow hockey! Completely forgot about that

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 11:10 am |

    But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten!

  • David | November 3, 2006 at 11:13 am |

    [quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]

    They lost a shootout to Atlanta. Therefore, they are not unbeaten.

  • a arauz | November 3, 2006 at 11:15 am |

    [quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]

    It’s there… all the way to the right ….
    Open yer eyes !!!!!! :)

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]
    Can we NOT talk about this . . .my head hurts from watching the Bruins cough up a 3 goal lead in the last nine minutes and them lose the shootout.

  • Eriq Jaffe | November 3, 2006 at 11:17 am |

    The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.

  • jesse | November 3, 2006 at 11:24 am |

    [quote comment=”18802″][quote comment=”18792″]They may fince Chad Johnson $5,000 for the Ocho Cinco stunt, but they will still sell you the jersey for $285.

    ocho cinco[/quote]

    I bet they won’t . . .the NFL shop has pretty strict restrictions on what they will and will not put on the back of a jersey. Remember all the Falcons fans (or anti-fans) who couldn’t get #7 “Mexico” jerseys during the Michael Vick incident[/quote]

    As of this morning they were still allowing you to go to the order screen (not telling you to try another entry) when you entered “ocho cinco” I tried before I posted it.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 11:28 am |

    [quote comment=”18865″][quote comment=”18802″][quote comment=”18792″]They may fince Chad Johnson $5,000 for the Ocho Cinco stunt, but they will still sell you the jersey for $285.

    ocho cinco[/quote]

    I bet they won’t . . .the NFL shop has pretty strict restrictions on what they will and will not put on the back of a jersey. Remember all the Falcons fans (or anti-fans) who couldn’t get #7 “Mexico” jerseys during the Michael Vick incident[/quote]

    As of this morning they were still allowing you to go to the order screen (not telling you to try another entry) when you entered “ocho cinco” I tried before I posted it.[/quote]

    I guess I lost that bet, then . . .

  • Mark in Shiga | November 3, 2006 at 11:34 am |

    Add my vote to the chorus of people who are against all this excessive retirement of numbers, particulartly the league-wide things for Robinson and Gretzky.

    Retiring #42 foe every team is particularly problematic because, in addition to reasons mentioned earlier, it’s something that can never be undone. Any future commissioner or team owner who wants to overturn this won’t be able to without being called a racist.

    I applaud the Maple Leafs and their honoring of jerseys and numbers without taking the numbers out of circulation.

    Do team owners not expect to be in business for many years to come? If I were a team owner, I would be expecting my franchise to remain in existence for centuries in the future, and would thus hesitate to permanently retire any number. By 2200 some teams will be running out!

    What MLB should have done with 42, if they had to do something league-wide, was to retire it for the 1997 season only, with no exceptions. Seeing Mariano Rivera interrupt his #42 career and wear #14, or whatever, for just that one season, would be just as meaningful and wouldn’t cause problems later on. Then future generations of players could still wear the number to honor Robinson, or any other player who’d worn it, or for any reason they chose.

    Who came up with the idea of retiring #42 for every team? Was it Selig himself?

    (Incidentally, many foreign players, such as Derrick May, Julio Zuleta, and Dan Serafini, wear #42 in Japan. The Japanese players don’t like it because 4 is unlucky — a homonym for death, “shi” — and I suspect that playing in Japan makes them appreciate Robinson’s travails a bit more as well.)

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 11:35 am |

    [quote comment=”18853″]The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.[/quote]

    Does anyone else think that it is stupid for baseball teams to put the retired players/numbers on their outfield fences? Why don’t teams do something nice like the Red Sox, Yankees, and how the Cardinals used to but not now. Also, I think it is ridiculous to retire a players number league wide. It diminishes what that player accomplished and does not bring honor to that person.

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 11:43 am |

    [quote comment=”18850″][quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]

    They lost a shootout to Atlanta. Therefore, they are not unbeaten.[/quote]

    That’s weird that there is a 0 in the Loss column then

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”18872″][quote comment=”18850″][quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]

    They lost a shootout to Atlanta. Therefore, they are not unbeaten.[/quote]

    That’s weird that there is a 0 in the Loss column then[/quote]

    Then funny how the next column with a 1 in it is OTL for over-time LOSS.

  • Alex | November 3, 2006 at 11:46 am |

    The new polyester New Era hats are most definitely not going to fit as well. There was just something great about the wool ones when they got worn in and conformed to your head. Kinda made your hat personal to you (ever try wearing someone else’s worn in hat?, doesn’t quite fit right). Needless to say, I’m not looking forward to the feel of the new ones. I might go stock up on wool Braves hats now.

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”18852″][quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]
    Can we NOT talk about this . . .my head hurts from watching the Bruins cough up a 3 goal lead in the last nine minutes and them lose the shootout.[/quote]

    Sorry but at least they are not the Blackhawks

  • Shawn Knowles | November 3, 2006 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?

  • Rich | November 3, 2006 at 11:48 am |

    [quote comment=”18770″][quote comment=”18764″]

    The lamest banner however is Madison Square Garden having a JOEL 12 banner hanging above the Garden for Billy Joel’s 12 sold-out performances. Why not a number for Ringling Bros. circus or, more fitting, a five for Billy Joel for the numnber of postponements of his concerts while he went into rehab?[/quote]

    is it a knicks or a ranger jersey? either way… LAME-O[/quote]

    Speaking of lame, in DC’s MCI Center (oops, Verizon Center) the Washington Mystics have a banner for….attendance. I can’t find a pic, but here’s an article that mentions it.

  • redemske | November 3, 2006 at 11:49 am |

    Derrick May, Julio Zuleta and Dan Serafini? All former Cubs! Maybe that 4 really is unlucky…

  • Pat | November 3, 2006 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”18874″]The new polyester New Era hats are most definitely not going to fit as well. There was just something great about the wool ones when they got worn in and conformed to your head. Kinda made your hat personal to you (ever try wearing someone else’s worn in hat?, doesn’t quite fit right). Needless to say, I’m not looking forward to the feel of the new ones. I might go stock up on wool Braves hats now.[/quote]

    Agree, wholeheartedly. I don’t ussually wear other people’s hats though, as I don’t let them wear mine either. Seeing as how I wear a 7-5/8 most people don’t fit into my hat and I don’t fit into their’s.

    I won’t miss when you finally get your hat to fit properly and then you wear it to the game in the summer and your sweat causes it to shrink even more. Rendering it useless.

    I think the polyester will be ok. Comfort may be better at first. I just have to say that I am so glad they didn’t resort to own of those one-size-fits-all systems like the Stretch Fit or the Z-Fit because, from personal experience, one size definitley does not fit all.

  • Kyle Joecken | November 3, 2006 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”18870″][quote comment=”18853″]The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.[/quote]

    Does anyone else think that it is stupid for baseball teams to put the retired players/numbers on their outfield fences? Why don’t teams do something nice like the Red Sox, Yankees, and how the Cardinals used to but not now. Also, I think it is ridiculous to retire a players number league wide. It diminishes what that player accomplished and does not bring honor to that person.[/quote]

    I understand why some people find it difficult to justify a league-wide number retirement, but I think you’re going to have a difficult time convincing someone that having every team in their league retire their number is diminishing or dishonorable in any way.

    I do agree with you that the Cardinals should go back to the old method of displaying retired numbers. It was much cooler then than it is now.

  • Patrick O'Donnell | November 3, 2006 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”18872″][quote comment=”18850″][quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]

    They lost a shootout to Atlanta. Therefore, they are not unbeaten.[/quote]

    That’s weird that there is a 0 in the Loss column then[/quote]

    I can’t believe you are actually defending that. A loss is a loss no matter if it’s in OT or not. Just because the NHL jacks up their standings doesn’t make them unbeaten.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 12:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”18876″][quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    Through a little research on these four teams retired jerseys, I found that Gretzky’s 99 is only retired by the Oilers and the Kings. The Blues and the Rangers just have the league wide retirement and not an individual team retirement. So, technically Gretzky’s number is only retired by two teams so Paul is correct with Ryan holding the most retirements.

  • Mark in Shiga | November 3, 2006 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”18878″]Derrick May, Julio Zuleta and Dan Serafini? All former Cubs! Maybe that 4 really is unlucky…[/quote]

    Well, I’m a Cub fan, so those are the guys whose numbers I recall easily!

    Actually I realized after I posted it that Darrell May was #42; Derrick May wore #00.

    Alex Cabrera, Tony Fernandez, and Jeremy Powell are some more 42s. Four, 44, and 49 are similarly unlucky; the Hanshin Tigers gave 44 to a succession of extremely successful foreign batters: George Altman, Randy Bass, and Cecil Fielder.

  • Banker Bill | November 3, 2006 at 12:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”18876″][quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    I have to take exception to that for one reason – Gretzky was in St. Louis for only part of one season, and really didn’t do much there. I hardly think the Blues would arrant retiring 99 based on his Blues career – the Rangers might have only because he retired as a Ranger, and Wayne actually had a few decent seasons in NY – including that incredible Hat Trick in the playoffs against the Panthers that nobody expected.

  • Josh | November 3, 2006 at 12:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”18735″]Mike Miller is not wearing that.
    most likely its something along the lines of this
    http://www.soccer.co...

    Its not unpopular to see guys wear them in soccer.
    Beckham
    http://i22.ebayimg.c...
    Ronaldinho
    http://i16.ebayimg.c...
    Xavi Alonso
    http://i12.ebayimg.c...
    totti
    http://i24.ebayimg.c...

    Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.

    By the way, Miller isn’t the only girly NBA player.
    Mike Dunleavy Jr is wearing the girlish headband as well.
    Maybe he’s trying to get the Bay Area a WNBA expansion team.

  • Leigh | November 3, 2006 at 12:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”18764″]The Toronto Maple Leafs have the best practice. They do not retire. They hang banners, with the uniform numbers, from the rafters, but refer to them as “honoured numbers.” Some numbers are there muliple times and are still being used.quote]

    This is not true. The Maple Leafs have 2 retired numbers..(Other than the league-wide 99) Bill Barilko (No. 5) and Irvine (Ace) Bailey (No. 6). One of the stipulations of having your number retired is you have to die while under contract.

    “The Leafs historically only retired numbers of distinguished players that have died or had their career shortened due to tragic or catastrophic circumstances while being a member of the team. Irvine (Ace) Bailey (No. 6) and Bill Barilko (No. 5) are the two represented in this category.”–from mapleleafs.com

    All of the honoured banners at the Air Canada Centre are white, and Barilko’s and Bailey’s retired number banners are grey. All the banners also show a picture of each player at the bottom of each banner.

    Here is the full explaination of honoured and retired number system for the Leafs.

    And here’s the best picture I could find in the amount of time I wanted to spend looking for one.

  • Leigh | November 3, 2006 at 12:13 pm |

    wow, how’d I do that?

  • Banker Bill | November 3, 2006 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”18887″][quote comment=”18876″][quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    I have to take exception to that for one reason – Gretzky was in St. Louis for only part of one season, and really didn’t do much there. I hardly think the Blues would arrant retiring 99 based on his Blues career – the Rangers might have only because he retired as a Ranger, and Wayne actually had a few decent seasons in NY – including that incredible Hat Trick in the playoffs against the Panthers that nobody expected.[/quote]

    Just a quick addition – Gretzky didn’t even want a CEREMONY in NY until Mark Messier’s #11 was raised to the rafters.

    I actually sent an idea to the Rangers through their website that when the Blues come to town this year, they raise a banner that has “JD” on it for John Davidson for all the years he was the Rangers color man and general ambassador and professor of the game. They never got back to me. If it happens, I’ll be highly upset that nobody told me about it. I did this the day the schedules came out and I saw the Blues visiting MSG.

  • Troy Ragsdale | November 3, 2006 at 12:15 pm |

    The Seahawks did retire number 12 for the fans as The 12th Man. Silly or not, Texas A&M beat them to it and claimed copy right infringement by the Seahaws.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”18880″][quote comment=”18870″][quote comment=”18853″]The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.[/quote]

    Does anyone else think that it is stupid for baseball teams to put the retired players/numbers on their outfield fences? Why don’t teams do something nice like the Red Sox, Yankees, and how the Cardinals used to but not now. Also, I think it is ridiculous to retire a players number league wide. It diminishes what that player accomplished and does not bring honor to that person.[/quote]

    I understand why some people find it difficult to justify a league-wide number retirement, but I think you’re going to have a difficult time convincing someone that having every team in their league retire their number is diminishing or dishonorable in any way.

    I do agree with you that the Cardinals should go back to the old method of displaying retired numbers. It was much cooler then than it is now.[/quote]

    I think it does diminish that persons feat. What Jackie Robinson did was special for him, the Dodgers, baseball, African-Americans, and all Americans. It was tremendous one of the best accomplishments in history. But if we do a league wide retirement of just his number we do a disservice to him and a lot of other people. What about Branch Richey? Through his efforts Robinson was given the chance to play. Without Richey Robinson would have never played for the Dodgers. Robinson when he signed his Major League contract with Richie thought that he was going to be playing for an “All-Black” team owned by the Dodgers called the Brown Dodgers. He didn’t even know that it was for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Richie also wanted Roy Campanella to play for Brooklyn before Robinson but decided that Robinson had the better personality to break the color barrier than Campanella. Richie thought that Campanella was a better player than Robinson but knew that Campanella’s personality would not have been good enough to be the first. I think then if Robinson’s number is retired league-wide than so should the title General Manager in honor of Richie. Also, they should change the name of catcher to something else in honor of Campanella. All of those things are ridiculous. That is why it can’t be done league wide. Give him a special place in the hall of fame and the history books but to make every organization retire his number is not the best way to honor him. It takes away.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 12:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”18887″][quote comment=”18876″][quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    I have to take exception to that for one reason – Gretzky was in St. Louis for only part of one season, and really didn’t do much there. I hardly think the Blues would arrant retiring 99 based on his Blues career – the Rangers might have only because he retired as a Ranger, and Wayne actually had a few decent seasons in NY – including that incredible Hat Trick in the playoffs against the Panthers that nobody expected.[/quote]

    The Rangers don’t even have a banner for Gretzky in MSG.

  • Forrest | November 3, 2006 at 12:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”18883″][quote comment=”18872″][quote comment=”18850″][quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]

    They lost a shootout to Atlanta. Therefore, they are not unbeaten.[/quote]

    That’s weird that there is a 0 in the Loss column then[/quote]

    I can’t believe you are actually defending that. A loss is a loss no matter if it’s in OT or not. Just because the NHL jacks up their standings doesn’t make them unbeaten.[/quote]

    OMG the Duck are unbeaten to lol.
    Seriously. A loss is a loss. Deal with it.
    Regarding the retired numbers, I’m feel a quadruple retirement next year for the Colorado Rockies. Now that Vinny is retired, they can but away Dante’s, Walker’s, Galarraga’s and Vinny’s, all in one fell swoop. That would be awesome. Does anyone have a picture of the Darryl Kile number in the Rockies bullpen?

  • Miguel | November 3, 2006 at 12:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”18896″]

    I think it does diminish that persons feat. What Jackie Robinson did was special for him, the Dodgers, baseball, African-Americans, and all Americans. It was tremendous one of the best accomplishments in history. But if we do a league wide retirement of just his number we do a disservice to him and a lot of other people. What about Branch Richey? Through his efforts Robinson was given the chance to play. Without Richey Robinson would have never played for the Dodgers. Robinson when he signed his Major League contract with Richie thought that he was going to be playing for an “All-Black” team owned by the Dodgers called the Brown Dodgers. He didn’t even know that it was for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Richie also wanted Roy Campanella to play for Brooklyn before Robinson but decided that Robinson had the better personality to break the color barrier than Campanella. Richie thought that Campanella was a better player than Robinson but knew that Campanella’s personality would not have been good enough to be the first. I think then if Robinson’s number is retired league-wide than so should the title General Manager in honor of Richie. Also, they should change the name of catcher to something else in honor of Campanella. All of those things are ridiculous. That is why it can’t be done league wide. Give him a special place in the hall of fame and the history books but to make every organization retire his number is not the best way to honor him. It takes away.[/quote]

    I’m pretty sure more people go to major league baseball stadiums every year than go to Cooperstown or read history books.

    I have never in my 28 years heard that a league wide retirement of a number was a disservice to a player. That’s like saying Mount Rushmore does a disservice to Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt.

    Wow.

  • Kevin | November 3, 2006 at 12:33 pm |

    Speaking of retired numbers and such, here is a listing of the St. Louis Blues banners, note the one for Dan Kelly, former play-by-play man, I personally think this is better than assigning them a number they have never worn.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”18899″][quote comment=”18896″]

    I think it does diminish that persons feat. What Jackie Robinson did was special for him, the Dodgers, baseball, African-Americans, and all Americans. It was tremendous one of the best accomplishments in history. But if we do a league wide retirement of just his number we do a disservice to him and a lot of other people. What about Branch Richey? Through his efforts Robinson was given the chance to play. Without Richey Robinson would have never played for the Dodgers. Robinson when he signed his Major League contract with Richie thought that he was going to be playing for an “All-Black” team owned by the Dodgers called the Brown Dodgers. He didn’t even know that it was for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Richie also wanted Roy Campanella to play for Brooklyn before Robinson but decided that Robinson had the better personality to break the color barrier than Campanella. Richie thought that Campanella was a better player than Robinson but knew that Campanella’s personality would not have been good enough to be the first. I think then if Robinson’s number is retired league-wide than so should the title General Manager in honor of Richie. Also, they should change the name of catcher to something else in honor of Campanella. All of those things are ridiculous. That is why it can’t be done league wide. Give him a special place in the hall of fame and the history books but to make every organization retire his number is not the best way to honor him. It takes away.[/quote]

    I’m pretty sure more people go to major league baseball stadiums every year than go to Cooperstown or read history books.

    I have never in my 28 years heard that a league wide retirement of a number was a disservice to a player. That’s like saying Mount Rushmore does a disservice to Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt.

    Wow.[/quote]

    Miguel, do you think that the title General Manager should be retired in honor of Branch Richey?

  • Josh | November 3, 2006 at 12:35 pm |

    Here’s an annoying NBA trend
    Padded compression shorts.
    Derek Fisher
    Rajon Rondo
    Gilbert Arenas with a football pad
    Maurice Williams
    Eddie Jones
    Jason Kidd
    Damon Stoudamire
    And last but not least:
    The king of all padding

  • Tom | November 3, 2006 at 12:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”18770″][quote comment=”18764″]

    The lamest banner however is Madison Square Garden having a JOEL 12 banner hanging above the Garden for Billy Joel’s 12 sold-out performances. Why not a number for Ringling Bros. circus or, more fitting, a five for Billy Joel for the numnber of postponements of his concerts while he went into rehab?[/quote]

    is it a knicks or a ranger jersey? either way… LAME-O[/quote]

    Continental Airlines Arena has a similar banner:
    Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band, “Sold Out” 15 shows, 1999.

    I think one of the arenas in Philly “retired” Bruce’s number as well.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 12:41 pm |

    do a flickr search under retired numbers…
    there are some really nice photos of these areas in many arenas and ballparks

  • justin | November 3, 2006 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”18894″]The Seahawks did retire number 12 for the fans as The 12th Man. Silly or not, Texas A&M beat them to it and claimed copy right infringement by the Seahaws.[/quote]

    The Seahawks retired the #12 for the fans in 1984.

    If Texas A&M was so protective of their 12th Man, why did it take them 22 years to sue the Seahawks? In any case, that was settled…with no money paid to A&M, just recognition that “the 12th Man” is a Texas A&M trademark.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”18876″]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    St. Louis made no effort to retire his jersey based upon the fact that he played 18 games there. Therefore, Edmonton, NY Rangers and LA would only be eligible for the honour. However, since his number is retired league-wide, no one will have a retirement ceremony for him because the number is already retired. Only the Kings and Oilers officially have retired his number, as “dchis” pointed out, so he stands at two teams.

    The reason Wayne has his number retired by the league is because he is the greatest player (arguably) to ever play the game. He holds most of the major individual accomplishments, and he revolutionized the game. While Bobby Orr set amazing records for a defenceman, no one will ever touch Gretzky’s records of the 80s. There are few players who can take journeymen linemates and make them into superstars. If you don’t believe me, ask Bernie Nicholls or Jari Kurri. They’ll tell you exactly how good Gretzky was.

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”18883″][quote comment=”18872″][quote comment=”18850″][quote comment=”18832″]But I do know the Buffaslugs are still unbeaten![/quote]

    They lost a shootout to Atlanta. Therefore, they are not unbeaten.[/quote]

    That’s weird that there is a 0 in the Loss column then[/quote]

    I can’t believe you are actually defending that. A loss is a loss no matter if it’s in OT or not. Just because the NHL jacks up their standings doesn’t make them unbeaten.[/quote]

    Look I’m not defending them…As I said earlier I don’t follow the NHL, let alone hockey at all. I thought that they didn’t count the shootout losses as “losses”, dumb yes i know. If a loss is a loss, then put it in the loss column with a separate column for shootout or OT losses.

  • Nolan | November 3, 2006 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”18828″][quote comment=”18742″]Those hair thingies are very effeminate. Yikes.[/quote]

    I can see the Spice Girl, aka Mrs Beckham, coming to beat you mercilessly with her $500 stiletto heels for saying that about her husband.[/quote]

    The head band might be one of the least effeminat things he’s worn.

    Nice skirt Becks.

  • MetsFan AZ | November 3, 2006 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”18902″]Here’s an annoying NBA trend
    Padded compression shorts.
    Derek Fisher
    Rajon Rondo
    Gilbert Arenas with a football pad
    Maurice Williams
    Eddie Jones
    Jason Kidd
    Damon Stoudamire
    And last but not least:
    The king of all padding[/quote]
    funny how you see lots of NFL guys (mostly DB’s) forgoing thigh pads and now the NBA is picking them up. Can’t blame someone who wants a little cushion though.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”18908″] If a loss is a loss, then put it in the loss column with a separate column for shootout or OT losses.[/quote]

    The NHL already records losses and OT losses in the loss column. Shootout losses are a seperate way to track losses. It was supposed to be an experiment, but since the fans like it so much, it’s here to stay. Hence the third column to replace ties. Technically, it represents the one point for ties. In today’s NHL, an overtime loss = a tie.

  • Josh | November 3, 2006 at 12:49 pm |

    The Suns have a nice way of retiring numbers.
    Suns Ring of honor
    They used to just retire numbers. In 1989 when they retired Paul Westphal’s #44, it was being worn by Kenny Gattison. They made him switch numbers during the season (he changed to #45).
    However, in 1999, they retired Tom Chambers #24, but it was being worn by Tom Gugliotta. Googs got to keep wearing the number for the remainder of his Suns career, and the Suns policy was to place honorees in the “ring of honor.” Officially the numbers are now not considered retired, but I don’t think they will ever issue those numbers again.

    They also have two non players up there, former trainer Joe Proski, who was with the team for 32 years, and the late coach Cotton Fitzsimmons.

  • Gene F | November 3, 2006 at 12:51 pm |

    Remember when Ray Bourque changed uniform numbers in the middle of the Phil Esposito ceremony. he went from # 7 to #77 so the Bruins could retire Phil’s number.

    Mike LaValliere of the Pirates did something similar when Ralph Kiner’s number 4 was retired.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”18901″]

    Miguel, do you think that the title General Manager should be retired in honor of Branch Richey?[/quote]

    Or even Branch RICKEY

    Probably hypocritical of me here, but I think that picking on spelling and grammar is infantile. We’re all posting because we enjoy the discourse, not because we’re professional writers (except for you, Paul!) Relax a little everyone. If you get the point or the post, just go with it.

  • Robert | November 3, 2006 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”18870″][quote comment=”18853″]The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.[/quote]

    Does anyone else think that it is stupid for baseball teams to put the retired players/numbers on their outfield fences? Why don’t teams do something nice like the Red Sox, Yankees, and how the Cardinals used to but not now. Also, I think it is ridiculous to retire a players number league wide. It diminishes what that player accomplished and does not bring honor to that person.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. I do not mind advertisements on fences, but I hate when they are decorated with players’ photos or numbers.

  • Bowen | November 3, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    Although the Bucks uni’s weren’t manufactured that well, it’s a HUGE improvement to the nasty purple. I was ashamed to like the Bucks because of it. Next year, I hope to see a red alternate for the Bucks. Being from Wisconsin, I know hideous uni’s. The Pack’s yellow pants. And for the love of sports, bring back the Brewers’ glove logo full-time. And finally, The Patriots need a red alternate, not that silver that looks like dirty white on TV.

  • Kenny | November 3, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    Teebz, I was waiting for you to weigh in. I knew that was there to replace the tie column, but to me it just doesn’t make much sense. Oh well.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”18915″]
    Probably hypocritical of me here, but I think that picking on spelling and grammar is infantile. We’re all posting because we enjoy the discourse, not because we’re professional writers (except for you, Paul!) Relax a little everyone. If you get the point or the post, just go with it.[/quote]

    Names are important. Normally, I don’t have a problem with people misspelling words, but to misspell a name is careless and slightly disrespectful. If you aren’t sure of the spelling, look it up. It’s not like we all don’t have access to the internet. I’m not a writer, but if a reporter misspells a name in an article, there is always a notice in the next day’s newspaper about a correction, along with an apology.

  • Sean | November 3, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    The New York Islanders have retired the Number 739 for the amount of victories Al Arbour achieved as Head Coach. The have also retired a “Bow Tie” in honor of Bill Torrey the architect of the Islander dynasty of the late 70’s and early 80’s.
    Their other numbers hanging from the rafters:
    5 – Denis Potvin
    9 – Clark Gilles
    19 – Bryan Trottier
    22 – Michael Bossy
    23 – Bob Nystrom
    31 – Billy Smith

    The Nassau Coliseum also has a Billy Joel retirement banner hanging.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 1:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”18918″]Teebz, I was waiting for you to weigh in. I knew that was there to replace the tie column, but to me it just doesn’t make much sense. Oh well.[/quote]

    The NHL views it as “losses outside of regulation NHL time”. In other words, you lost the game after time expired. It’s another meaningless stat that has to be tracked in its own right. :o)

    Not to worry, Kenny… I’m sure it will change again in 10-15 years time once everyone has gotten used to it.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 1:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”18919″][quote comment=”18915″]
    Probably hypocritical of me here, but I think that picking on spelling and grammar is infantile. We’re all posting because we enjoy the discourse, not because we’re professional writers (except for you, Paul!) Relax a little everyone. If you get the point or the post, just go with it.[/quote]

    Names are important. Normally, I don’t have a problem with people misspelling words, but to misspell a name is careless and slightly disrespectful. If you aren’t sure of the spelling, look it up. It’s not like we all don’t have access to the internet. I’m not a writer, but if a reporter misspells a name in an article, there is always a notice in the next day’s newspaper about a correction, along with an apology.[/quote]

    I submit my apology now. I goofed it.

  • MetsFan AZ | November 3, 2006 at 1:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”18916″][quote comment=”18870″][quote comment=”18853″]The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.[/quote]

    Does anyone else think that it is stupid for baseball teams to put the retired players/numbers on their outfield fences? Why don’t teams do something nice like the Red Sox, Yankees, and how the Cardinals used to but not now. Also, I think it is ridiculous to retire a players number league wide. It diminishes what that player accomplished and does not bring honor to that person.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. I do not mind advertisements on fences, but I hate when they are decorated with players’ photos or numbers.[/quote]
    I feel exactly the opposite. there are plety of other places on the concourse to advertise and the stadium already has corporate name in most cases. the pics and numbers on the fence are a great way to pass on the history of the team. i really like the statues/busts/plaques in Yankee stadium, but not everyone can have them. That’s why I agree with the earlier post about old Busch stadium having a unique tribute. I doubt that many stadiums have room to do something similar.

  • Kevin | November 3, 2006 at 1:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”18912″][quote comment=”18908″] If a loss is a loss, then put it in the loss column with a separate column for shootout or OT losses.[/quote]

    The NHL already records losses and OT losses in the loss column. Shootout losses are a seperate way to track losses. It was supposed to be an experiment, but since the fans like it so much, it’s here to stay. Hence the third column to replace ties. Technically, it represents the one point for ties. In today’s NHL, an overtime loss = a tie.[/quote]

    Just a clarification, the NHL tracks overtime and shootout losses in the OTL column of the standings. Wins are wins no matter if they come in regulation or OT. The loss column is regulation time only. 1 point is awarded for an OT or shootout loss. I personally wish they would have just went to W/L and scrapped the extra column.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 1:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”18923″][quote comment=”18916″][quote comment=”18870″][quote comment=”18853″]The White Sox have Robinson’s number retired, but they have moved it from a position with the rest of the retired numbers to the opposite right field wall to make room for a Pioneer ad.

    I had thought they had Joe Jackson up there at one point, but I may just be thinking of the “All Century Team” banners they had hanging outside the park a couple seasons ago.[/quote]

    Does anyone else think that it is stupid for baseball teams to put the retired players/numbers on their outfield fences? Why don’t teams do something nice like the Red Sox, Yankees, and how the Cardinals used to but not now. Also, I think it is ridiculous to retire a players number league wide. It diminishes what that player accomplished and does not bring honor to that person.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. I do not mind advertisements on fences, but I hate when they are decorated with players’ photos or numbers.[/quote]
    I feel exactly the opposite. there are plety of other places on the concourse to advertise and the stadium already has corporate name in most cases. the pics and numbers on the fence are a great way to pass on the history of the team. i really like the statues/busts/plaques in Yankee stadium, but not everyone can have them. That’s why I agree with the earlier post about old Busch stadium having a unique tribute. I doubt that many stadiums have room to do something similar.[/quote]

    The Tigers did very well with Comerica Park.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 1:11 pm |

    Terry Frei writes a good article about the shootout on ESPN.com today. You can read it here.

    Terry Frei’s shootout view

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”18925″][quote comment=”18912″][quote comment=”18908″] If a loss is a loss, then put it in the loss column with a separate column for shootout or OT losses.[/quote]

    The NHL already records losses and OT losses in the loss column. Shootout losses are a seperate way to track losses. It was supposed to be an experiment, but since the fans like it so much, it’s here to stay. Hence the third column to replace ties. Technically, it represents the one point for ties. In today’s NHL, an overtime loss = a tie.[/quote]

    Just a clarification, the NHL tracks overtime and shootout losses in the OTL column of the standings. Wins are wins no matter if they come in regulation or OT. The loss column is regulation time only. 1 point is awarded for an OT or shootout loss. I personally wish they would have just went to W/L and scrapped the extra column.[/quote]

    My bad. Good pick up, Kevin. OT losses and shootout losses account for one point, and are tracked as ties since ties used to equal one point in the old NHL. The need to be tracked seperately to account for the point total.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”18930″]

    My bad. Good pick up, Kevin. OT losses and shootout losses account for one point, and are tracked as ties since ties used to equal one point in the old NHL. The need to be tracked seperately to account for the point total.[/quote]

    Mathematically speaking, shouldn’t a win be worth 3 points (regulation or OT), a shootout win be worth 2, a shootout loss be worth 1 and a loss (Regulation or OT) be worth zero. Why should a team get any credit for losing a game on a “legitimate” (read: non-shootout, I just can’t come up with a better adjective right now) goal?
    The Hockey East Association used this system when they tested the shootout back in the mid-nieties

  • Luke | November 3, 2006 at 1:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”18879″][quote comment=”18874″]The new polyester New Era hats are most definitely not going to fit as well. There was just something great about the wool ones when they got worn in and conformed to your head. Kinda made your hat personal to you (ever try wearing someone else’s worn in hat?, doesn’t quite fit right). Needless to say, I’m not looking forward to the feel of the new ones. I might go stock up on wool Braves hats now.[/quote]
    Despite the fact we all agree they’ll probably suck, does anyone know when the new 5950’s will be available for me to waste 30 bucks on?

    Agree, wholeheartedly. I don’t ussually wear other people’s hats though, as I don’t let them wear mine either. Seeing as how I wear a 7-5/8 most people don’t fit into my hat and I don’t fit into their’s.

    I won’t miss when you finally get your hat to fit properly and then you wear it to the game in the summer and your sweat causes it to shrink even more. Rendering it useless.

    I think the polyester will be ok. Comfort may be better at first. I just have to say that I am so glad they didn’t resort to own of those one-size-fits-all systems like the Stretch Fit or the Z-Fit because, from personal experience, one size definitley does not fit all.[/quote]

  • Luke | November 3, 2006 at 1:29 pm |

    Well my last post there included the quote, but not what I said. Oh well, what I wanted to know was when the new 5950’s will be in stores for me to blow 30 bucks on?

  • Andy from KC | November 3, 2006 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”18926″]The Tigers did very well with Comerica Park.[/quote]

    Looking closely, I see statues of the players above their respective retired numbers. Very cool.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”18932″][quote comment=”18930″]

    My bad. Good pick up, Kevin. OT losses and shootout losses account for one point, and are tracked as ties since ties used to equal one point in the old NHL. The need to be tracked seperately to account for the point total.[/quote]

    Mathematically speaking, shouldn’t a win be worth 3 points (regulation or OT), a shootout win be worth 2, a shootout loss be worth 1 and a loss (Regulation or OT) be worth zero. Why should a team get any credit for losing a game on a “legitimate” (read: non-shootout, I just can’t come up with a better adjective right now) goal?
    The Hockey East Association used this system when they tested the shootout back in the mid-nieties[/quote]

    Because the NHL did away with ties, there was some thought given to going to a 3-2-1-0 point system. However, since the NHL awarded 2 points for a win already, the thought was that if you were tied after 60 minuites of play, both teams earned one point. If you prevailed in OT, you earned the second point. If you were still tied after OT, you went to a shootout (a little kicker of the fans – a nice “thanks for coming out”). If you won in the shootout, you earned that second point.

    Apparently, no one in the NHL can multiply by more than two.

  • Original Jim | November 3, 2006 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”18760″]My company is giving out mini football helmets for a promotion next week, so I have been spending the last couple of days applying decals of our logo to them. They have the same exact logo on both sides, but some other not sports familiar employees mentioned that the logo looked strange on both sides of the helmet because it is not symmetrical, and like some teams, it can not be reversed because it has words in it.

    It got me thinking…most teams use a mirror image of their logo for both sides of their helmet, and a few use the same exact logo. However, I realized that the Ravens have actually designed a secondary logo for the opposite side of their helmet (notice the direction of the “B”) and for any other instance where the bird needs to be looking in the other direction. (I have seen it used for stadium art around the base of the wall)

    During my research I noticed that Oregon State does this as well by reversing which way the beaver is looking. Do any other teams do this?[/quote]

    Iowa State Cyclones. The rooster (or whatever it is) faces toward the front of the helmet, but the location of the ISU initials changes depending on the side.

    I think New Hampshire does as well, if the helmet logo also includes the UNH initials. Here’s a graphic I made: http://img.photobuck...

    (don’t get me started on the different font for home and away ether).

  • Brian from Short Island | November 3, 2006 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”18920″]The New York Islanders have retired the Number 739 for the amount of victories Al Arbour achieved as Head Coach. The have also retired a “Bow Tie” in honor of Bill Torrey the architect of the Islander dynasty of the late 70’s and early 80’s.
    Their other numbers hanging from the rafters:
    5 – Denis Potvin
    9 – Clark Gilles
    19 – Bryan Trottier
    22 – Michael Bossy
    23 – Bob Nystrom
    31 – Billy Smith

    The Nassau Coliseum also has a Billy Joel retirement banner hanging.[/quote]
    That Billy Joel banner hasn’t been hanging for at least a few years now.

  • Scott Held | November 3, 2006 at 1:52 pm |

    The Pistons retired No. 2 for Chuck Daly, who won two titles there. Don’t hold your breath for the retirement of Larry Brown’s No. 1, however.

  • Banker Bill | November 3, 2006 at 2:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”18939″]The Pistons retired No. 2 for Chuck Daly, who won two titles there. Don’t hold your breath for the retirement of Larry Brown’s No. 1, however.[/quote]

    Maybe the Knicks can retire 40,000,000 – the amount of dollars Brown “earned” in his one season in NY – only because nobody will leak the amount of his “settlement”

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 2:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”18899″]

    I’m pretty sure more people go to major league baseball stadiums every year than go to Cooperstown or read history books.

    I have never in my 28 years heard that a league wide retirement of a number was a disservice to a player. That’s like saying Mount Rushmore does a disservice to Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt.

    Wow.[/quote]

    Mount Rushmore aside, I agree with Miguel completely. Before you ask, dchis, no, the general manager should not be commemorated, no matter how you spell his name. If it weren’t him, it would have been someone else. What he did was significant, but not as important as what Robinson did.

    While I understand the arguments against the league-wide retirement of #42, I am strongly for the retirement.

    Robinson transcended baseball as the first African American to play in the MLB. He endured death threats, taunts and humiliation on a level most af us cannot even comprehend. He did it without saying much about his abhorrent treatment, just doing his job. Which, by the way, he did splendidly. He changed the game so completely, retiring his number league-wide is the least baseball can do.

    If every team could find a way to PERMANENTLY honor him at their stadiums—because I agree with Miguel that the exposure is greatest in stadiums—I would say, fine, forgo the retirement. One year is not enough, Mark in Shiga. For what he did, Robinson deserves a lasting tribute.

    Stepping gingerly off my soapbox now.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”18793″]I am surprised no one has mentioned this…

    Watching the highlights from the Louisvile – West Virginia game I noticed Slaton, number 10, was wearing one of those new nike shirts under his uni, but had only his left arm sleaved. If you watch the clip, he has two fumbles in the 2nd quarter, looks like he might of injured his wrist, and then comes back with no sleaves. Reminds me of the middle of the inning de-sleaving of mlb pitchers. You can view the clip at espn.com.[/quote]

    Doug, people mentioned it last night. Go to yesterday’s post and scroll to the bottom. You’ll even see a pic from Mark Mihlik of the one sleeve.

    Mike Miller—what else is he going to do to keep his bangs out of his eyes?

  • nastykjn | November 3, 2006 at 2:18 pm |

    Can the Cubs retire a bottle whiskey for Harry Caray?

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”18759″]

    d. does anyone else find something very alfred hitchcock about the auerbach floor logo? [/quote]

    todd k., that’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the logo. It has to be deliberate, don’t you think? I like it, though. Very sharp.

    I also like the statues above the numbers at Comerica Park. Nice!

  • Al | November 3, 2006 at 2:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”18889″][quote comment=”18735″]Mike Miller is not wearing that.
    most likely its something along the lines of this
    http://www.soccer.co...

    Its not unpopular to see guys wear them in soccer.
    Beckham
    http://i22.ebayimg.c...
    Ronaldinho
    http://i16.ebayimg.c...
    Xavi Alonso
    http://i12.ebayimg.c...
    totti
    http://i24.ebayimg.c...

    Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.

    By the way, Miller isn’t the only girly NBA player.
    Mike Dunleavy Jr is wearing the girlish headband as well.
    Maybe he’s trying to get the Bay Area a WNBA expansion team.[/quote]
    ‘Proving once again why soccer is so lame’..
    good one- especially coming from someone named ‘Josh’. :) keep ’em coming.

  • Jeff I | November 3, 2006 at 2:21 pm |

    Don’t know if this has been covered yet, but Marc Savard the Boston Bruins forward, has changed his number from #71 to #91

    from boston.com:

    “Savard, who wanted to wear No. 9 (retired for John Bucyk), was given No. 71 at the start of the season. He chose 91 because daughter Isabella was born on the ninth.”

  • nomuskles | November 3, 2006 at 2:22 pm |

    Maurice Evans is doing something interesting with his footwear here and here.

    The shoes appear to be Dwyane Wade’s signature shoes (Converse) from last year. I seem to remember Evans wearing Jordan Brand shoes when he was with the Kings and Pistons.

  • Al | November 3, 2006 at 2:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”18893″][quote comment=”18887″][quote comment=”18876″][quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    I have to take exception to that for one reason – Gretzky was in St. Louis for only part of one season, and really didn’t do much there. I hardly think the Blues would arrant retiring 99 based on his Blues career – the Rangers might have only because he retired as a Ranger, and Wayne actually had a few decent seasons in NY – including that incredible Hat Trick in the playoffs against the Panthers that nobody expected.[/quote]

    Just a quick addition – Gretzky didn’t even want a CEREMONY in NY until Mark Messier’s #11 was raised to the rafters.

    I actually sent an idea to the Rangers through their website that when the Blues come to town this year, they raise a banner that has “JD” on it for John Davidson for all the years he was the Rangers color man and general ambassador and professor of the game. They never got back to me. If it happens, I’ll be highly upset that nobody told me about it. I did this the day the schedules came out and I saw the Blues visiting MSG.[/quote]
    That was a good idea, BB… i’m trying to score some tickets for that game… I miss JD something awful.. Hockey in NY just isn’t the same- but then again, I felt that way when The Big Whistle left, too.

  • John B. | November 3, 2006 at 2:26 pm |

    Cubs did a great tribute to Hall-of-Fame announcer Jack Brickhouse and his signature “Hey Hey” after a Cubs home run by stacking the slogan in red on the yellow right field foul pole in Wrigley Field.

    http://www.wgnam.com...

    Cubs also did it right for their other Hall of fame announcer Harry Caray when upon his passing the Cubs added a Harry illustration patch on the left sleeve.

    http://static.zoovy....

    I tend to agree with Paul and think that giving numbers to non-playing legends/contributors misses the point of giving your all on the field of competition.

    And to begin the whole number on jersey topic again, who was first credited with adding numbers onto jerseys?

    Urban legend says it was the 1929 NY Yankees to designate their place in the batting order…

    Ruth #3
    Gehrig #4
    Lazerri #6

    Has this ever been substantiated?

  • ACC | November 3, 2006 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”18781″]Worst retired number in all of basketball?

    The Miami have only retired one number: 23. Why? Because of Micheal Jordan.

    http://sportsillustr...

    Remember all those great seasons when Micheal Jordan wore #23 for the Miami Heat.

    No, neither do I.

    -Steve![/quote]

    That is idiotic!

    I would love it if there was a rash of jerseys coming out of retirement in great numbers. A team second -guessing it’s decision to retire a jersey would have to be done subtly for PR reasons.

    If Junior Seau can un-retire why not dozens of jerseys?

  • Chris Hilf | November 3, 2006 at 2:36 pm |

    The Penguins have two great banners for their two retired numbers. a Blue and White 21 for Michel Briere (top left) and a Black and Gold 66 for Mario.

    And just because I feel like it, a picture of Mellon Arena opened up when it was still the Civic Arena.

  • Shane | November 3, 2006 at 2:37 pm |

    Along the lines of the Leafs, the Oshawa Generals of the OHL also “honor”, but don’t retire numbers by not giving them to players.

    Currently, their only honored numbers are #2 (Bobby Orr), and #9 (Bruce Melanson)

  • Shane | November 3, 2006 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”18950″]

    Urban legend says it was the 1929 NY Yankees to designate their place in the batting order…

    Ruth #3
    Gehrig #4
    Lazerri #6

    Has this ever been substantiated?[/quote]

    the links on the side are your friend, dude.

  • dchis | November 3, 2006 at 2:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”18941″][quote comment=”18899″]

    I’m pretty sure more people go to major league baseball stadiums every year than go to Cooperstown or read history books.

    I have never in my 28 years heard that a league wide retirement of a number was a disservice to a player. That’s like saying Mount Rushmore does a disservice to Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt.

    Wow.[/quote]

    Mount Rushmore aside, I agree with Miguel completely. Before you ask, dchis, no, the general manager should not be commemorated, no matter how you spell his name. If it weren’t him, it would have been someone else. What he did was significant, but not as important as what Robinson did.

    While I understand the arguments against the league-wide retirement of #42, I am strongly for the retirement.

    Robinson transcended baseball as the first African American to play in the MLB. He endured death threats, taunts and humiliation on a level most af us cannot even comprehend. He did it without saying much about his abhorrent treatment, just doing his job. Which, by the way, he did splendidly. He changed the game so completely, retiring his number league-wide is the least baseball can do.

    If every team could find a way to PERMANENTLY honor him at their stadiums—because I agree with Miguel that the exposure is greatest in stadiums—I would say, fine, forgo the retirement. One year is not enough, Mark in Shiga. For what he did, Robinson deserves a lasting tribute.

    Stepping gingerly off my soapbox now.[/quote]

    Minna H, I am sorry about the misspelling. I try to make sure that everything that I type is accurate as most of us do here, and I just messed up. I looked up the spelling and still messed it up. I think that is worse than just trying to remember and not remembering but I just got it wrong. I’m sorry for that. I agree that something should be done in every stadium for Jackie Robinson. He was a tremendous person to do what he did. I don’t think that retiring his number for every team is a good tribute. To me numbers should be reserved for players of that franchise that impacted that franchise in a very signicant way to be retired. So, when I see the number 42 next to a lin of another teams retired numbers it makes me resent that the number is up there. I wish there wazs some sort of memorial that was done for him in every stadium without his number being retired. But, if that is the best than they should do it. He was a great man. You ,Minna H, are absolutely correct.

  • GoTerriers | November 3, 2006 at 2:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”18953″]Along the lines of the Leafs, the Oshawa Generals of the OHL also “honor”, but don’t retire numbers by not giving them to players.

    Currently, their only honored numbers are #2 (Bobby Orr), and #9 (Bruce Melanson)[/quote]

    Nothing for Mr. L’Enfant Terrible” Lindros?

  • Alex | November 3, 2006 at 2:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”18879″][quote comment=”18874″]The new polyester New Era hats are most definitely not going to fit as well. There was just something great about the wool ones when they got worn in and conformed to your head. Kinda made your hat personal to you (ever try wearing someone else’s worn in hat?, doesn’t quite fit right). Needless to say, I’m not looking forward to the feel of the new ones. I might go stock up on wool Braves hats now.[/quote]

    Agree, wholeheartedly. I don’t ussually wear other people’s hats though, as I don’t let them wear mine either. Seeing as how I wear a 7-5/8 most people don’t fit into my hat and I don’t fit into their’s.

    I won’t miss when you finally get your hat to fit properly and then you wear it to the game in the summer and your sweat causes it to shrink even more. Rendering it useless.

    I think the polyester will be ok. Comfort may be better at first. I just have to say that I am so glad they didn’t resort to own of those one-size-fits-all systems like the Stretch Fit or the Z-Fit because, from personal experience, one size definitley does not fit all.[/quote]

    yeah, the day the MLB goes to a flex-fit will be the day i stop wearing MLB hats….terrible fit, terrible look and terrible shape….

  • Banker Bill | November 3, 2006 at 2:50 pm |

    I actually sent an idea to the Rangers through their website that when the Blues come to town this year, they raise a banner that has “JD” on it for John Davidson for all the years he was the Rangers color man and general ambassador and professor of the game. They never got back to me. If it happens, I’ll be highly upset that nobody told me about it. I did this the day the schedules came out and I saw the Blues visiting MSG.[/quote]
    That was a good idea, BB… i’m trying to score some tickets for that game… I miss JD something awful.. Hockey in NY just isn’t the same- but then again, I felt that way when The Big Whistle left, too.[/quote]

    MSG plays the old games on their “From the Vault” feature and to hear Jim Gordon and “The Big Whistle” Bill Chadwick is music to my ears. I love Sam Rosen – loved JD – and really like Joe Micheletti so far, but I cut my teeth on WOR – Channel 9 – with Jim Gordon and Bill Chadwick. I loved the Big Whistle so much, the name of one of my fantasy hockey teams is “SHOOT THE PUCK BARRY!”

  • Leigh | November 3, 2006 at 2:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”18953″]Along the lines of the Leafs, the Oshawa Generals of the OHL also “honor”, but don’t retire numbers by not giving them to players.

    Currently, their only honored numbers are #2 (Bobby Orr), and #9 (Bruce Melanson)[/quote]

    Post #99–the Leafs do retire and have retired numbers

  • Leigh | November 3, 2006 at 2:57 pm |

    If the player to have his number retired by the most teams is in fact 3 times, how about Wilt Chamberlain? I think his number 13 is retired by the 76ers, Lakers, and Warriors.

  • Al | November 3, 2006 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”18960″]I actually sent an idea to the Rangers through their website that when the Blues come to town this year, they raise a banner that has “JD” on it for John Davidson for all the years he was the Rangers color man and general ambassador and professor of the game. They never got back to me. If it happens, I’ll be highly upset that nobody told me about it. I did this the day the schedules came out and I saw the Blues visiting MSG.[/quote]
    That was a good idea, BB… i’m trying to score some tickets for that game… I miss JD something awful.. Hockey in NY just isn’t the same- but then again, I felt that way when The Big Whistle left, too.[/quote]

    MSG plays the old games on their “From the Vault” feature and to hear Jim Gordon and “The Big Whistle” Bill Chadwick is music to my ears. I love Sam Rosen – loved JD – and really like Joe Micheletti so far, but I cut my teeth on WOR – Channel 9 – with Jim Gordon and Bill Chadwick. I loved the Big Whistle so much, the name of one of my fantasy hockey teams is “SHOOT THE PUCK BARRY!”[/quote]

    Oh man, Jim Gordon !!! I loved his take on Giants’ games…. great NY voice. I remember the series (vs. Isles?) in which the Big Whistle claimed to tell Barry Beck to shoot the puck more often over dinner. Good times, you must be a 40 ish geezer as well… LOL

  • Leigh | November 3, 2006 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”18962″]If the player to have his number retired by the most teams is in fact 3 times, how about Wilt Chamberlain? I think his number 13 is retired by the 76ers, Lakers, and Warriors.[/quote]

    My bad…Wilt has had his number retired 4 times, the 4th being the Harlem Globetrotters, 5 if you count his U of Kansas number retirement. I’m guessing college and junior leagues don’t count for this question, so I’ll say Wilt with 4 jerseys retired.

  • Rich | November 3, 2006 at 3:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”18954″][quote comment=”18950″]

    Urban legend says it was the 1929 NY Yankees to designate their place in the batting order…

    Ruth #3
    Gehrig #4
    Lazerri #6

    Has this ever been substantiated?[/quote]

    the links on the side are your friend, dude.[/quote]

    I like the Johnny Neves pic, I never knew about that!

  • Dan | November 3, 2006 at 3:08 pm |

    There is also a push to retire Clemente’s 21 throughout MLB. Even though Jackie Robinson’s relatives are being very mean spirited about the issue. I think that 21 should be retired league wide as he did for hispanics what Robinson did for african americans. With out Clemente there would not be the number of hispanic ball players there is currently.

  • Kevin | November 3, 2006 at 3:10 pm |

    New Busch Stadium in St. Louis only had these (see the circles below the scoreboard) retired numbers up at first. However, later on they added the numbers/images on the left-field wall that have already been linked to. Not sure if it was due to fans griping that the original numbers were too small to see or if it was just a timing thing with the new stadium opening.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 3:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”18956]

    Minna H, I am sorry about the misspelling. I try to make sure that everything that I type is accurate as most of us do here, and I just messed up. I looked up the spelling and still messed it up. I think that is worse than just trying to remember and not remembering but I just got it wrong. I’m sorry for that. I agree that something should be done in every stadium for Jackie Robinson. He was a tremendous person to do what he did. I don’t think that retiring his number for every team is a good tribute. To me numbers should be reserved for players of that franchise that impacted that franchise in a very signicant way to be retired. So, when I see the number 42 next to a lin of another teams retired numbers it makes me resent that the number is up there. I wish there wazs some sort of memorial that was done for him in every stadium without his number being retired. But, if that is the best than they should do it. He was a great man. You ,Minna H, are absolutely correct.[/quote]

    dchis, I wasn’t dissing you for the misspelling. I am impressed you knew his name at all as I had not a clue. Also, I am glad you wrote this post as I totally misinterpreted your first post to mean that you didn’t think Robinson was worthy enough of a commemoration, rather than you objected to his number being retired. Knowing that it was the latter rather than the former makes me see that our opinions are more similar than not. It also helps me understand why you said retiring his number diminished his accomplishments—too easy to do with too little thought. Better to come up with something unique.

    So, dchis, I apologize for jumping to conclusions, and thank you for being the bigger person in this debate and making the effort to elaborate your point.

  • Taylor | November 3, 2006 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”18851″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]

    It’s there… all the way to the right ….
    Open yer eyes !!!!!! :)[/quote]

    Wasn’t Len Bian’s number retired? I thought I remembered something about that, but I’m not sure. Does anybody know?

  • nastykjn | November 3, 2006 at 3:21 pm |

    If we go with teams that also “honor” numbers but keep them in circulation then we need to mention Warren Moon:
    Houston Oilers (Titans)
    Kansas City Chiefs (bogus)
    Edmonton Eskimos

  • PFGuay | November 3, 2006 at 3:26 pm |

    Numbers 5 and 6 are retired for the Leafs. The rest honored.

    The Blue Jays have retired 4,306 for Tom Cheek

    Cheek announced every single Blue Jays game from the first game on April 7, 1977 until June 3, 2004, when he took two games off following the death of his father – a streak of 4,303 consecutive regular season games and 41 postseason games. During the 2004 season, the Jays raised a banner to the Skydome’s (now the Rogers Centre) “Level of Excellence” bearing his name and, in place of a jersey number, 4,306 – his streak of straight regular-season broadcasts, and incredible feat; the difference represents three rainouts that were also counted.

  • Steve Flack | November 3, 2006 at 3:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”18967″]I think that 21 should be retired league wide as he did for hispanics what Robinson did for african americans. With out Clemente there would not be the number of hispanic ball players there is currently.[/quote]

    If they get that one passed, I’ll be pushing for a league wide retirement of 16 in honor of Hideo Nomo.

    -Steve!

  • specs | November 3, 2006 at 3:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.

  • Mark in Shiga | November 3, 2006 at 3:42 pm |

    Dchis and Minna, what do you think about leaving the number available to players, but keeping the Robinson 42″ signs and banners that are in alll the ballparks? I think it’s a great idea to remind fans of who Robinson was and what he did for the game, but the number shouldn’t be forever forbidden as every athlete has his or her own reasons for choosing a number.

    I think I’ve figured out what irks me so much about the permanent sealing away of the number 42. From 1885 until 1946 (correct me if that’s wrong), no black players were permitted in MLB. Jackie Robinson’s entry into the major leagues represented the breaking of the biggest barrier keeping MLB from being open to anyone. To celebrate this by permanently banning a number from the jerseys of future players seems, well, wrong: a symbolic opposite of what Robinson accomplished.

    The MLB-wide sleeve patches were great, the banners and statues are great too. But closing off a number isn’t. Let’s keep the “42” signs on the outfield walls, but let future generations wear the digits. Sound good?

  • Steve Flack | November 3, 2006 at 3:43 pm |

    Are there any “unoffically retired” numbers out there? For example, no other Yankee has worn 21 since Paul O’Neill retired. A few years ago, Eseban Loaiza asked for it when he was traded for midseason, but was not given it. I just assume they are going to officially retire it eventually, but to this day, they have neither “ofically” retired it, but also not allowed another player to wear it.

    Anything else like that? I thought I head no one on the Red Sox has ever worn Roger Clemens’ number since he left, but I could be wrong.

    -Steve!

  • Mark in Shiga | November 3, 2006 at 3:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”18977″][quote comment=”18967″]I think that 21 should be retired league wide as he did for hispanics what Robinson did for african americans. With out Clemente there would not be the number of hispanic ball players there is currently.[/quote]

    If they get that one passed, I’ll be pushing for a league wide retirement of 16 in honor of Hideo Nomo.

    -Steve![/quote]

    Masanori Murakami, number 37, will not be signing your petition! ^_^;

  • BStu | November 3, 2006 at 3:50 pm |

    I don’t mind teams honoring owners or front office guys by retiring numbers in their name. I don’t think it should get out of hand, but Red Auberach is clearly one of the people worthy of that kind of acknowledgement. That said, retiring numbers for fans or retiring silly numbers (triple digit BB jerseys?), or in honor of players who didn’t play for your team doesn’t make much sense to me. I do make an exception for 42, though, as I thought that was a very exceptional circumstance and I don’t think enough can be done to recognize Jackie Robinsons contribution to baseball. Retiring 99 in Hockey is just a marketing stunt.

    As to how to display retired numbers in baseball, I have always been partial to the outfield wall though I do think what the Red Sox and Tigers do is pretty nifty. That said, I don’t like the big graphics with players pictures on outfield walls. Make it a circle or a jersey. Extra points if the font/color for the retired number matches the one worn by the player during his career for the few cases where that’s appropriate.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”18978″][quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.[/quote]

    and how! dan patrick always talks of his man crush on leo dicaprio because of how he rolls. dude, i’d love to live like becks!

  • Chris Hilf | November 3, 2006 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”18980″]Are there any “unoffically retired” numbers out there? For example, no other Yankee has worn 21 since Paul O’Neill retired. A few years ago, Eseban Loaiza asked for it when he was traded for midseason, but was not given it. I just assume they are going to officially retire it eventually, but to this day, they have neither “ofically” retired it, but also not allowed another player to wear it.

    Anything else like that? I thought I head no one on the Red Sox has ever worn Roger Clemens’ number since he left, but I could be wrong.

    -Steve![/quote]

    I don’t think any Steeler is allowed to wear 12 (Bradshaw), 32 (Harris), 58 (Lambert), 59 (Ham), or 75 (Greene).

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”18979″]Dchis and Minna, what do you think about leaving the number available to players, but keeping the Robinson 42″ signs and banners that are in alll the ballparks? I think it’s a great idea to remind fans of who Robinson was and what he did for the game, but the number shouldn’t be forever forbidden as every athlete has his or her own reasons for choosing a number.

    I think I’ve figured out what irks me so much about the permanent sealing away of the number 42. From 1885 until 1946 (correct me if that’s wrong), no black players were permitted in MLB. Jackie Robinson’s entry into the major leagues represented the breaking of the biggest barrier keeping MLB from being open to anyone. To celebrate this by permanently banning a number from the jerseys of future players seems, well, wrong: a symbolic opposite of what Robinson accomplished.

    The MLB-wide sleeve patches were great, the banners and statues are great too. But closing off a number isn’t. Let’s keep the “42” signs on the outfield walls, but let future generations wear the digits. Sound good?[/quote]

    Mark in Shiga—I like. I have no problem with his number being in use, but there has to be something in every stadium honoring him. I see where you’re coming from with the permanent banning of his number from use, and it does seem a but antithetical to all Robinson’s accomplishment stood for.

    I like your compromise, Mark. Paul should forward it to the MLB along with this entire thread.

  • Pat | November 3, 2006 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”18970″][quote comment=”18851″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]

    It’s there… all the way to the right ….
    Open yer eyes !!!!!! :)[/quote]

    Wasn’t Len Bian’s number retired? I thought I remembered something about that, but I’m not sure. Does anybody know?[/quote]

    Nope. No Len Bias in the rafters. Maybe you were thinking of when they retired Reggie Lewis’ #35.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 4:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”18980″]Are there any “unoffically retired” numbers out there? For example, no other Yankee has worn 21 since Paul O’Neill retired. A few years ago, Eseban Loaiza asked for it when he was traded for midseason, but was not given it. I just assume they are going to officially retire it eventually, but to this day, they have neither “ofically” retired it, but also not allowed another player to wear it.

    Anything else like that? I thought I head no one on the Red Sox has ever worn Roger Clemens’ number since he left, but I could be wrong.

    -Steve![/quote]

    Steve!, if this link is accurate, then you are correct about Clemens.

  • Kerry | November 3, 2006 at 4:04 pm |

    How about this:

    The New Orleans Saints have 6 banners hanging in the Superdome honoring individuals. Between these 6 banners, they represent 3 different organizations as well as a individual un-related to a specific franchise.

    Look HERE and you’ll see the 6 blue banners hanging from the rafters next to the Budweiser sign.

    HERE is a better view of the banners.

    They represent the following individuals:
    #8 – Archie Manning – New Orleans Saints QB
    #7 – Pete Maravich – New Orleans Jazz Star
    Jim Finks – The Late GM of the Saints during the 80’s & early 90’s.
    #57 – Ricky Jackson – New Orleans Saints LB
    Dave Dixon – “Father of the Superdome”
    Eddie Robinson – Legendary Grambling State University head football coach

  • ard | November 3, 2006 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”18978″][quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.[/quote]
    looks pretty lame to me

  • Matthew S. | November 3, 2006 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”18943″]Can the Cubs retire a bottle whiskey for Harry Caray?[/quote]

    Or maybe a “nice cool Budweiser” as Will Ferrell put it while doing this Harry Caray impression on SNL. That was one of the funniest sketches ever on that show.

  • Rob Hinkle | November 3, 2006 at 4:09 pm |

    The Philadelphia Flyers will currently not hand out #31, which had been worn by Pelle Lindbergh. Some have called for his number to be retired but due to the way that he died it is a very remote possibility.

  • Matt Bonnett | November 3, 2006 at 4:13 pm |

    West Ham United retired Bobby Moore’s #6 for one game after he died in 1993.

    West Ham v Wolves 6th March 1993
    This was the one and only game in the history of English football that a shirt was retired (only for one game). The number 6 shirt was not worn and Ian Bishop played the whole game wearing the number 12.
    Source

    In those days teams wore 1-11 (at least in the league west ham were playing in) so retiring jersey numbers was unheard of, nowadays squad numbers are almost universal, so this is more common. Here is a wiki link with a list of them clicky

  • Jeff | November 3, 2006 at 4:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”18990″][quote comment=”18980″]Are there any “unoffically retired” numbers out there? For example, no other Yankee has worn 21 since Paul O’Neill retired. A few years ago, Eseban Loaiza asked for it when he was traded for midseason, but was not given it. I just assume they are going to officially retire it eventually, but to this day, they have neither “ofically” retired it, but also not allowed another player to wear it.

    Anything else like that? I thought I head no one on the Red Sox has ever worn Roger Clemens’ number since he left, but I could be wrong.

    -Steve![/quote]

    Steve!, if this link is accurate, then you are correct about Clemens.[/quote]

    And #14 has not been worn by a Red Sox player since Jim Rice. He meets all the team’s criteria for retirement except induction into the HOF. He still has a year or two of eligibility, no?

    And although it will never be retired, I’d bet you won’t see anyone wearing #5 for a long time! Too much bitterness at the end for Nomar.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 4:23 pm |

    bias was to wear #30 for the celts…
    http://celtics.playi...

  • Chris Doran | November 3, 2006 at 4:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”18995″]The Philadelphia Flyers will currently not hand out #31, which had been worn by Pelle Lindbergh. Some have called for his number to be retired but due to the way that he died it is a very remote possibility.[/quote]

    Beat me to it…

    I also believe that Ed Snider willnot allow that number to be worn. A bit of urban myth I heard somewhere….

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”18992″][quote comment=”18978″][quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.[/quote]
    looks pretty lame to me[/quote]

    I have a question for all you Posh lovers: do you really think she’s attractive face-wise, or is it just the (fake) body? Not strictly uni-related (sorry, Paul), but I’m curious.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 5:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”19003″][quote comment=”18992″][quote comment=”18978″][quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.[/quote]
    looks pretty lame to me[/quote]

    I have a question for all you Posh lovers: do you really think she’s attractive face-wise, or is it just the (fake) body? Not strictly uni-related (sorry, Paul), but I’m curious.[/quote]

    i am. im a sucker for short hair too though. so when she had it like this…
    http://images.photog...
    and this
    http://members.tripo...
    i was realed in…
    solid.

  • Banker Bill | November 3, 2006 at 5:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”18964″][quote comment=”18960″]I actually sent an idea to the Rangers through their website that when the Blues come to town this year, they raise a banner that has “JD” on it for John Davidson for all the years he was the Rangers color man and general ambassador and professor of the game. They never got back to me. If it happens, I’ll be highly upset that nobody told me about it. I did this the day the schedules came out and I saw the Blues visiting MSG.[/quote]
    That was a good idea, BB… i’m trying to score some tickets for that game… I miss JD something awful.. Hockey in NY just isn’t the same- but then again, I felt that way when The Big Whistle left, too.[/quote]

    MSG plays the old games on their “From the Vault” feature and to hear Jim Gordon and “The Big Whistle” Bill Chadwick is music to my ears. I love Sam Rosen – loved JD – and really like Joe Micheletti so far, but I cut my teeth on WOR – Channel 9 – with Jim Gordon and Bill Chadwick. I loved the Big Whistle so much, the name of one of my fantasy hockey teams is “SHOOT THE PUCK BARRY!”[/quote]

    Oh man, Jim Gordon !!! I loved his take on Giants’ games…. great NY voice. I remember the series (vs. Isles?) in which the Big Whistle claimed to tell Barry Beck to shoot the puck more often over dinner. Good times, you must be a 40 ish geezer as well… LOL[/quote]

    Not quite – 36 with a good memory of when I was 9 watching the Rangers and Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Final on Channel 9 – darn Ken Dryden!

  • Mike | November 3, 2006 at 5:02 pm |

    A lot of comments today, no? 190 already today at 5:00pm. That’s awesome.

    Anyways, I couldn’t figure out the reference in the title of the post today, “Just give him a gold watch already”, can anybody enlighten me?

    BTW, Paul, don’t be embarrassed when you’re posting links in your posts or in the emails that are about you or Uni Watch, I love reading about what the newspapers have written. I wouldn’t necessarily be able to find them if you didn’t direct us to them.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | November 3, 2006 at 5:03 pm |

    sorry,
    here was the second pic…
    http://i11.tinypic.c...
    cough, cough, solid!

  • Kyle O. | November 3, 2006 at 5:07 pm |

    Hey. I dont know if this has already been mentioned but cleveland indians have also honored a large number for the longest consecutive sellout streak

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 5:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”19011″]A lot of comments today, no? 190 already today at 5:00pm. That’s awesome.

    Anyways, I couldn’t figure out the reference in the title of the post today, “Just give him a gold watch already”, can anybody enlighten me?

    [/quote]

    Mike, as a contributor to that high number, I will answer. A gold watch is what companies used to give valuable employees when they retired after many years of exemplary service. Paul was being sarcastic, I presume.

  • Matthew S. | November 3, 2006 at 5:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”19003″][quote comment=”18992″][quote comment=”18978″][quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.[/quote]
    looks pretty lame to me[/quote]

    I have a question for all you Posh lovers: do you really think she’s attractive face-wise, or is it just the (fake) body? Not strictly uni-related (sorry, Paul), but I’m curious.[/quote]

    Minna, she’s just a smoking hottie, plain and simple. She’s got everything, pretty face, great body, sexy voice…aren’t these things self evident to girls too?

  • nastykjn | November 3, 2006 at 5:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”19003″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.

    looks pretty lame to me

    I have a question for all you Posh lovers: do you really think she’s attractive face-wise, or is it just the (fake) body? Not strictly uni-related (sorry, Paul), but I’m curious.
    [/quote]

    She has a face? Strange, I never noticed…..

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 5:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”18982″] Retiring 99 in Hockey is just a marketing stunt.
    [/quote]

    Can you elaborate on this revelation? If it’s a marketing stunt, who is benefitting from the marketing dollars?

    If you think he wasn’t the greatest player ever, just say so. How you equate retiring the number of the greatest player in the history of the game to a marketing stunt is beyond me. Next time, why don’t you just slap the guy in the face and give him the old “thanks for nothing” routine when he basically gave hockey in the southern US a name? He has done more as an ambassador for the game than any other player. I’m not a Gretzky fan, but the man changed hockey like no one else.

    But it’s all a marketing stunt. My mistake.

    And Minna, Posh is hella-ugly. Too thin, too fake, too plastic.

  • AMS | November 3, 2006 at 5:53 pm |

    the pens actually hung an updated banner for mario’s re-retirement this year.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 5:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”19019″]

    And Minna, Posh is hella-ugly. Too thin, too fake, too plastic.[/quote]

    Thank you Teebz for saying what I was thinking and for making me laugh. I can always count on you.

    Matthew S. says:

    Minna, she’s just a smoking hottie, plain and simple. She’s got everything, pretty face, great body, sexy voice…aren’t these things self evident to girls too?

    Yes, women can see another woman’s hotness and even admit it, unlike most men. I just don’t think Posh Spice is hot—she looks like a live version of a Barbie doll.

    Lucy is hot, especially as Xena.

    Gong Li is hot—and can really act.

    And, in a nod to todd k., Sue Bird is hot.

    Posh Spice? Not so hot.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 5:56 pm |

    And Sue Bird can ball.

  • Matthew S. | November 3, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”19023″][quote comment=”19019″]

    And Minna, Posh is hella-ugly. Too thin, too fake, too plastic.[/quote]

    Thank you Teebz for saying what I was thinking and for making me laugh. I can always count on you.

    Matthew S. says:

    Minna, she’s just a smoking hottie, plain and simple. She’s got everything, pretty face, great body, sexy voice…aren’t these things self evident to girls too?

    Yes, women can see another woman’s hotness and even admit it, unlike most men. I just don’t think Posh Spice is hot—she looks like a live version of a Barbie doll.

    Lucy is hot, especially as Xena.

    Gong Li is hot—and can really act.

    And, in a nod to todd k., Sue Bird is hot.

    Posh Spice? Not so hot.[/quote]

    Fair enough. I think the rest of those women are hot too. On Posh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Todd K. said he’s a sucker for girls with short hair, well I’m a sucker for girls with an English (or Australian, or New Zealand, not so much Canadian though) accent. She’s definitely not in my top 10 list, but she’s up there. Scarlet Johansson is still my ideal.

    I bring up Scarlet because someone put a picture of her in the comments section earlier this week where she was both really amazing looking (of course) and wearing awesome striped socks like basketball players used to wear in the 50s and 60s (there, this whole comment is now uni-related).

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 6:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”19026]

    Fair enough. I think the rest of those women are hot too. On Posh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Todd K. said he’s a sucker for girls with short hair, well I’m a sucker for girls with an English (or Australian, or New Zealand, not so much Canadian though) accent. She’s definitely not in my top 10 list, but she’s up there. Scarlet Johansson is still my ideal.

    I bring up Scarlet because someone put a picture of her in the comments section earlier this week where she was both really amazing looking (of course) and wearing awesome striped socks like basketball players used to wear in the 50s and 60s (there, this whole comment is now uni-related).[/quote]

    Matthew S., then… hot, hotter, hottest.

    Oops. Got carried away with the last. I don’t think Scarlet is hot, not even when she wears striped socks.

  • Matthew S. | November 3, 2006 at 6:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”19027″][quote comment=”19026]

    Fair enough. I think the rest of those women are hot too. On Posh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Todd K. said he’s a sucker for girls with short hair, well I’m a sucker for girls with an English (or Australian, or New Zealand, not so much Canadian though) accent. She’s definitely not in my top 10 list, but she’s up there. Scarlet Johansson is still my ideal.

    I bring up Scarlet because someone put a picture of her in the comments section earlier this week where she was both really amazing looking (of course) and wearing awesome striped socks like basketball players used to wear in the 50s and 60s (there, this whole comment is now uni-related).[/quote]

    Matthew S., then… hot, hotter, hottest.

    Oops. Got carried away with the last. I don’t think Scarlet is hot, not even when she wears striped socks.[/quote]

    That’s cool. I’m not a huge Cate Blanchett fan. Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Just out of curiousity though, what do you think of her? http://www.girlskick...

    She’s right after Scarlet for me…Minna I won’t hold it against you, different strokes for different folks make the world go ’round (hey, that was a song I think….)

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 6:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”19028″]

    That’s cool. I’m not a huge Cate Blanchett fan. Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Just out of curiousity though, what do you think of her? http://www.girlskick...

    She’s right after Scarlet for me…Minna I won’t hold it against you, different strokes for different folks make the world go ’round (hey, that was a song I think….)[/quote]

    Nope. Her face is odd. Your faves are safe from me.

    Striving mightily to turn back to unis—I think the Red logo should be his commemorative patch—I really like it.

    Retiring numbers of non-players is not a good thing, especially the Wild! with the #1 thing.

    The bridge on the Trenton Titans’ logo looks like a cobweb—and we’re back on track!

  • Kevin | November 3, 2006 at 6:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”19028″][quote comment=”19027″][quote comment=”19026]

    Fair enough. I think the rest of those women are hot too. On Posh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Todd K. said he’s a sucker for girls with short hair, well I’m a sucker for girls with an English (or Australian, or New Zealand, not so much Canadian though) accent. She’s definitely not in my top 10 list, but she’s up there. Scarlet Johansson is still my ideal.

    I bring up Scarlet because someone put a picture of her in the comments section earlier this week where she was both really amazing looking (of course) and wearing awesome striped socks like basketball players used to wear in the 50s and 60s (there, this whole comment is now uni-related).[/quote]

    Matthew S., then… hot, hotter, hottest.

    Oops. Got carried away with the last. I don’t think Scarlet is hot, not even when she wears striped socks.[/quote]

    That’s cool. I’m not a huge Cate Blanchett fan. Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Just out of curiousity though, what do you think of her? http://www.girlskick...

    She’s right after Scarlet for me…Minna I won’t hold it against you, different strokes for different folks make the world go ’round (hey, that was a song I think….)[/quote]

    JLH is definitely hot, but for English accents I have to go with her.

  • Kevin | November 3, 2006 at 6:50 pm |

    OK, that last one isn’t working so well, here’s another.

  • Matthew S. | November 3, 2006 at 6:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”19033″]OK, that last one isn’t working so well, here’s another.[/quote]

    Completely agree.

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 7:15 pm |

    Ironically, if we’re talking about stars who follow teams, I’m surprised that no one has hit back with this picture.

    Wildcats’ hockey has never looked better!

    And people wonder why I’m such a huge hockey nut. :o)

  • Shane | November 3, 2006 at 8:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”18997″]Here is a wiki link with a list of them clicky[/quote]

    I could’ve sworn Man City retired 23 for Marc-Vivien Foe, but I guess I’m wrong.

  • Shane | November 3, 2006 at 8:25 pm |

    a. screwed up my html

    b. Oh yeah there it is.

  • Ian | November 3, 2006 at 8:26 pm |

    When I own Madison Square Garden in about ten years, besides cracking down on ticket scalpers, I shall have banners for Marv Albert and another banner to be shared by Sam Rosen and John Davidson.

    And about Jackie Robinson, as much as I’m against it, I think the Yankees are wrong to not have #42 in Monument Park. Yes, I know that Mariano will likely have that honor, but that would potentially be a decade after MLB retired the number.

  • TD | November 3, 2006 at 8:38 pm |

    Nuggets #432 for Doug Moe,
    Pacers #529 for Slick Leonard,
    Knicks #613 for Red Holtzman,
    Suns #832 for Cotton Fitzsimmons,
    all for coaching wins.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 8:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”19035″]Ironically, if we’re talking about stars who follow teams, I’m surprised that no one has hit back with this picture.

    Wildcats’ hockey has never looked better!

    And people wonder why I’m such a huge hockey nut. :o)[/quote]

    Teebz, my man, she’s hot. Ironically, she’s better known for supporting the men’s b-ball team, but I don’t think she’s done the same kind of picture for them.

    Nice usage of hemline striping—that jersey is a classic.

  • Ajax | November 3, 2006 at 8:57 pm |

    I forgot who wrote it a few years ago (thought I remember it being on ESPN.com) the suggestion that instead of retring Jackie Robinson’s number, a sportsman award be named after him instead, where the winner would wear “42” as his number for an entire season, that way it could remain in circulation forver.

  • Hward | November 3, 2006 at 9:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”18810″][quote comment=”18805″][quote comment=”18796″][quote comment=”18766″]

    Look at that picture at the top, do Celtics players even have a choice? What’s left?[/quote]

    Better question is why isn’t Robert Parrish’s “00” up there yet??? Hail the “The Chief”!![/quote]
    He is there, bottom right corner.[/quote]

    Must be an old picture of the banners, because unless I’m hallucinating, there’s no “00” in this picture. I thought the Celts had retired the number (like in the last year or two . . .)[/quote]
    This is an old picture from the Old Boston Garden (I can tell because the Bruins banners in the background are diferent in the new Garden). Parish’s number 00 has been retired.

  • Vincent A. Cipollone | November 3, 2006 at 9:19 pm |

    As I was watching the Air Force – Army game, I noticed that Army’s guys wear their division patch on their jerseys.

    There’s some examples on this site:
    http://www.nationalc...

    Just copy and paste it. It doesn’t want to work with the tag.

  • Vincent A. Cipollone | November 3, 2006 at 9:19 pm |

    I guess it did want to work. Never mind

  • Teebz | November 3, 2006 at 9:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”19045″][quote comment=”19035″]Ironically, if we’re talking about stars who follow teams, I’m surprised that no one has hit back with this picture.

    Wildcats’ hockey has never looked better!

    And people wonder why I’m such a huge hockey nut. :o)[/quote]

    Teebz, my man, she’s hot. Ironically, she’s better known for supporting the men’s b-ball team, but I don’t think she’s done the same kind of picture for them.

    Nice usage of hemline striping—that jersey is a classic.[/quote]

    I know she’s a March Madness mainstay, but she makes hockey look good.

    And the biggest surprise? Sean Avery, everyone’s favorite hockey jackass from the LA Kings is currently dating this Hollywood heartthrob:

    Avery’s squeeze!!!

    Todd, eat your heart out with the shorter hair. If Avery can get that, you can surely score yourself a Hollywood babe. ;o)

  • Shane | November 3, 2006 at 9:54 pm |

    Is anyone watching the end of the Yale – Brown game on Fox Soccer Channel? It looks like all of the ballboys are wearing Bayern Munich replica jerseys for some unexplained reason.

  • Eriq Jaffe | November 3, 2006 at 9:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”18923″]i really like the statues/busts/plaques in Yankee stadium, but not everyone can have them. That’s why I agree with the earlier post about old Busch stadium having a unique tribute. I doubt that many stadiums have room to do something similar.[/quote]

    For what it’s worth, the Pale Hose also have statues around the outfield concourse of Minnie Minoso, Charles Comiskey, Carlton Fisk, and a really nice one of Luis Aparicio and Nellie Fox turning a double play.

    The statues are (as you can tell by the pictures) right where people can walk up to them…of course, that can lead to problems, like when the Minoso statue was vandalized by somebody

  • Eriq Jaffe | November 3, 2006 at 10:01 pm |

    Sorry, here’s a working link to the Fisk statue (and, no, that’s not me with the mullet).

  • Sm | November 3, 2006 at 11:16 pm |

    Anybody else notice that ESPN hasn’t changed their NBA logo thing from the old ball to the new one. If you can grab a shot of it, it was at about 10 15 central time.

  • Sammy | November 3, 2006 at 11:17 pm |

    IMO, The Auerbach tribute on the jersey is simple, and well done. A solid way to pay tribute without hurting the aesthetic of the uniform.

    In non-uni related news, the parquet logo is nice looking, but way too small. I just watched the Pistons/Celtics game, and if I hadn’t just read the blog, I wouldn’t have know what it was.

  • Minna H | November 3, 2006 at 11:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”19051″]

    I know she’s a March Madness mainstay, but she makes hockey look good.

    And the biggest surprise? Sean Avery, everyone’s favorite hockey jackass from the LA Kings is currently dating this Hollywood heartthrob:

    Avery’s squeeze!!!

    Todd, eat your heart out with the shorter hair. If Avery can get that, you can surely score yourself a Hollywood babe. ;o)[/quote]

    Oh, Teebz. You and I were getting along so nicely. Sigh. I guess I can give you a mulligan for this one.

    T’wolves wore the blacks tonight. Definitely better than the whites. Don’t like Denver’s baby blues at all.

  • Andy from KC | November 3, 2006 at 11:54 pm |

    Posh Spice IS nasty, and I wasn’t going to get into this because it isn’t uni-related, but this puts it more eloquently (and in much greater detail) than I could.

  • Mike Miller | November 4, 2006 at 12:28 am |

    [quote comment=”18976″]Numbers 5 and 6 are retired for the Leafs. The rest honored.

    The Blue Jays have retired 4,306 for Tom Cheek

    Cheek announced every single Blue Jays game from the first game on April 7, 1977 until June 3, 2004, when he took two games off following the death of his father – a streak of 4,303 consecutive regular season games and 41 postseason games. During the 2004 season, the Jays raised a banner to the Skydome’s (now the Rogers Centre) “Level of Excellence” bearing his name and, in place of a jersey number, 4,306 – his streak of straight regular-season broadcasts, and incredible feat; the difference represents three rainouts that were also counted.[/quote]

    Level of Excellence

    The Level of Excellence are not retired numbers. #1 is currently worn by Bengie Molina (Tony Fernandez) and #37 is worn by Scott Downs (Dave Stieb). Eric Hinske wore #11 (George Bell) prior to being traded.

  • Mike Miller | November 4, 2006 at 12:35 am |

    [quote comment=”19035″]Ironically, if we’re talking about stars who follow teams, I’m surprised that no one has hit back with this picture.

    Wildcats’ hockey has never looked better!

    And people wonder why I’m such a huge hockey nut. :o)[/quote]

    I have a friend who has that poster, he played on Butler’s hockey team. Until now, I never noticed that “Lexington” is misspelled on the poster.

    Their web site has some other fine posters too, including one with Rebecca Gayheart and this year with Miss USA.

  • Josh | November 4, 2006 at 12:46 am |

    [quote comment=”18992″][quote comment=”18978″][quote comment=”18889″]Proving once again, why soccer is so lame.[/quote]

    Indeed. Because I’m sure that if there’s anything all the staright males on this message board can agree on, its that being married to Posh Spice (and being able to get just about any other woman in the world) would be incredibly “lame”.[/quote]
    looks pretty lame to me[/quote]

    If you are into anorexic looking girls with doggy ugly faces, fake breasts, and a man’s haricut, then I guess she’s ok for you.

  • Jeff | November 4, 2006 at 2:33 am |

    [quote comment=”19064″][quote comment=”19035″]Ironically, if we’re talking about stars who follow teams, I’m surprised that no one has hit back with this picture.

    Wildcats’ hockey has never looked better!

    And people wonder why I’m such a huge hockey nut. :o)[/quote]

    I have a friend who has that poster, he played on Butler’s hockey team. Until now, I never noticed that “Lexington” is misspelled on the poster.

    Their web site has some other fine posters too, including one with Rebecca Gayheart and this year with Miss USA.[/quote]

    While we’re nitpicking, she technically should be referred to as a UK “alumna“!

  • Teebz | November 4, 2006 at 2:55 am |

    [quote comment=”19060″]

    Oh, Teebz. You and I were getting along so nicely. Sigh. I guess I can give you a mulligan for this one.

    [/quote]

    Minna, it was more for Todd than for me. Besides, she’s Canadian. We generally don’t show off our hot girls very often.

    Personally, brunettes get more of a look from me. But since this isn’t a dating site, I won’t say much more about my preferences. Excuse my blushing face. :o)

    Speaking of blushing faces, how about Mick McGeough in the Edmonton-Dallas NHL game? I’m thinking he’s gonna be given some time off. Brutal call to cost Edmonton at least one point.

  • Minna H | November 4, 2006 at 3:11 am |

    [quote comment=”19069″][quote comment=”19060″]

    Oh, Teebz. You and I were getting along so nicely. Sigh. I guess I can give you a mulligan for this one.

    [/quote]

    Minna, it was more for Todd than for me. Besides, she’s Canadian. We generally don’t show off our hot girls very often.

    Personally, brunettes get more of a look from me. But since this isn’t a dating site, I won’t say much more about my preferences. Excuse my blushing face. :o)

    Speaking of blushing faces, how about Mick McGeough in the Edmonton-Dallas NHL game? I’m thinking he’s gonna be given some time off. Brutal call to cost Edmonton at least one point.[/quote]

    Last call before I crash! Teebz, we can be friends again now that I know you were just helping out our boy, todd k. with that one.

    Since you are one of our resident ice gurus, maybe you can tell me why, in the two Wild! home games I’ve watched, they wore the whites one time and the reds the other. That confused me, but since they won both games, it’s all good.

    p.s. I agreed that brunettes, in general, are hotter than blondes. Forever the hottest of them all:

    Sigh

  • Kris McInnis | November 4, 2006 at 9:42 am |

    [quote comment=”18943″]Can the Cubs retire a bottle whiskey for Harry Caray?[/quote]

    That statue always disturbed me. I mean, no disrespect and all, but I always thought it was weird that the artist chose to commit to a creepy-old-man look with small children emerging from his pants…

  • Dan | November 4, 2006 at 9:43 am |

    [quote comment=”18977″][quote comment=”18967″]I think that 21 should be retired league wide as he did for hispanics what Robinson did for african americans. With out Clemente there would not be the number of hispanic ball players there is currently.[/quote]

    If they get that one passed, I’ll be pushing for a league wide retirement of 16 in honor of Hideo Nomo.

    -Steve![/quote]

    There is alittle more to it than that. Not only did Clemente face racial bigotry but also had a language barrier to deal with also. And he perservered to become on of the greatest persons in sports history and change the face of baseball

  • Kelli | November 4, 2006 at 9:56 am |

    [quote comment=”19055″]Sorry, here’s a working link to the Fisk statue (and, no, that’s not me with the mullet).[/quote]

    That guy doesn’t have a mullet. That’s someone standing behind him. Look at the way the shadows are falling. The sun is to his right and slightly behind.

  • The Ol Goaler | November 4, 2006 at 10:06 am |

    [quote comment=”18876″][quote comment=”18829″][quote comment=”18825″]Who’s number is retired by the most teams(not including Robinson)? My guess is Gretzky[/quote]

    Not counting Gretzky or Robinson (both of whose numbers were retired on a league-wide basis), I think the record is held by Nolan Ryan. His No. 30 was retired by the Angels, and his No. 34 declared off-limits by the Astros and Rangers. So he’s a three-time retiree.[/quote]

    I would say that technically Gretzky’s jersey is retired by the most teams. If you exclude the league wide retirement, he still would have had his jersey retired for all 4 teams he played for: Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and New York.

    Would that not count?[/quote]

    FWIW, Gretz’ #99 is NOT hanging from the rafters in St. Louis… he only played there a couple of months (with the deranged Mike Keenan as coach), and left via free-agency for the Rangers as soon as he could.

    The Blues have retired #2, Al MacInnis; #3, Bob Gassoff; #8, Barclay Plager; #11, Brian Sutter; and #24, Bernie Federko. Broadcaster Dan Kelly is honored with a “shamrock” banner; Bob Plager is honored with his #5 superimposed over a blue heart (for his oft-quoted quip, “Number 5 in your program, Number One in your heart,”) and the late Doug Wickenheiser is honored with a picture of a candle with his #14 above the flame. (The Blues’ charitable arm is named “The 14 Fund” in his honor.) Brett Hull’s #16 will be retired next month… so Gretzky joins Ryan with three teams retiring his number.

  • Kyle | November 4, 2006 at 10:13 am |

    Kudos to the guy who drew up the National College Football Day poster. Also, kudos to the cause that poster stands for.

    National College Football Day

  • TD | November 4, 2006 at 10:38 am |

    I’ve always believed – from the minute that Walter Payton left us – that the city of Chicago should retire the number 34 across the board. Bears, Cubs, ChiSox, Bulls, ‘Hawks, Wolves, CTA, street signs, you name it.

    I’ve never lived anywhere near Chicago nor have I ever been a fan, but everyone I’ve ever mentioned that to who cares seem to think that would be perfect.

    Kerry Wood can deal. :)

  • John B | November 6, 2006 at 2:09 pm |

    I’ve always believed – from the minute that Walter Payton left us – that the city of Chicago should retire the number 34 across the board. Bears, Cubs, ChiSox, Bulls, ‘Hawks, Wolves, CTA, street signs, you name it.

    I’ve never lived anywhere near Chicago nor have I ever been a fan, but everyone I’ve ever mentioned that to who cares seem to think that would be perfect.

    Kerry Wood can deal. :)

    TD, you have the right idea but the wrong number.

    Try good old #23 for Michael Jordan. The greatest team athlete (and maybe competitor) of all-time.

    Plus, the Cubs retired #23 for Ryne Sandberg already so it’s two down and only 3 to go!!!

    I guess that opens up the next question of what number is retired the most of all-time???

    I’m too busy to look into it.

  • Joe | November 8, 2006 at 3:16 am |

    Next time, why don’t you just slap the guy in the face and give him the old “thanks for nothing” routine when he basically gave hockey in the southern US a name?

    And this is a good thing?

  • Brian C | November 10, 2006 at 10:25 am |

    [quote comment=”18731″]Still kind of bummed on the whole change over for the 5950 hats. I think they lose their personality in polyester. I’m also willing to bet they take longer to break in not being wool.[/quote]

    Plus it’s so minor (even bush) league. What’s next, the “one size fits all” strap in the back?

  • Cliff | November 10, 2006 at 5:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”18980″]Are there any “unoffically retired” numbers out there? For example, no other Yankee has worn 21 since Paul O’Neill retired. A few years ago, Eseban Loaiza asked for it when he was traded for midseason, but was not given it. I just assume they are going to officially retire it eventually, but to this day, they have neither “ofically” retired it, but also not allowed another player to wear it.

    Anything else like that? I thought I head no one on the Red Sox has ever worn Roger Clemens’ number since he left, but I could be wrong.

    -Steve![/quote]
    Larry Aurie’s #6 and Vladimir Konstantinov’s #16 are both unofficially retired by the Red Wings.