It won't be out anymore for the next 10-15 years, and once he retires in 2023 or so the next season he'll get an Albert Pujols day in both Anaheim and St. Louis where both teams retire his number.

The way it should be.

I suppose it wouldn't be unprecedented for an all-time great who switched teams mid-career to not have his number retired by one of the teams. For instance, the Red Sox have not retired Wade Boggs' number. I dunno if that's because they don't like that Tampa Bay did it first, or because he doesn't get along with the team brass, or because they are notoriously reluctant to retire anyone's number, or what. I'm sure there are other examples. It'd be an interesting thing to research, but I'm too lazy to do so right now.

Anyway, it wouldn't be a first, but it would be lame. The fact that the fanbase doesn't like that Pujols left is not a reason at all (plus they'll probably be over it once he retires anyway). And honestly, as great a player as Boggs was, his contribution to the Red Sox is still dwarfed by Pujols' contribution to the Cardinals.

I am skeptical of this notion that someone like Medwick could be good enough for the Hall of Fame, but not good enough to have his number retired. Perhaps this is because I'm a Met fan and, unlike a team such as the Cardinals, we're in no danger of running out of numbers because we have so many guys wearing Met caps on their HOF plaques. But in my world, the discussion is whether Hall of Very Good guys should have their numbers retired, not whether Hall of Famers should. (So yes, "even Jim Edmonds" would certainly qualify for me. I don't think Willie McGee is at all qualified, but the fans sure seem to love the ugly bastard and it's not my team.)

The Reds didn't retire Frank Robinson's number until 1998, 32 years after they traded him and 16 years after he entered the HOF. Terrible. And he didn't even leave of his own volition, so there really was no excuse.

They still haven't retired Pete Rose, I guess because it would be awkward to have a ceremony he couldn't attend.

As for Pujols, I'm a Cardinals fan and I say, no way, not yet. Not until his career's over. I'm not bitter or anything, I just don't believe you ever retire an active player's number.

I thought that the Red Sox had some unusual rules for number retiring, and one of them was that the player had to retire as a member of the team. IIRC they broke some of these rules for Carlton Fisk.

As for Pujols, I'm a Cardinals fan and I say, no way, not yet. Not until his career's over. I'm not bitter or anything, I just don't believe you ever retire an active player's number.

If you retire his number, he can do a swan song on his last day in the majors.

I can think of one reason Boggs' number might not be retired.

The fact that the Rays have retired Boggs' number and the Red Sox haven't is bizarre to me.

As for Pujols, I'm a Cardinals fan and I say, no way, not yet. Not until his career's over. I'm not bitter or anything, I just don't believe you ever retire an active player's number.

The fascinating one to me is the White Sox retiring Baines' number after they traded him in 1999. They had to un-retire it on two separate occasions when he returned as a player, not counting him coming back to coach for them.

I think at one time the Orioles had five retired numbers and had to un-retire four of them. Earl Weaver came back for a second go-round, Frank Robinson became the team's manager, Jim Palmer had an abortive comeback attempt, and Eddie Murray came back to hit his 500th homer. Only Brooks Robinson's stayed retired.

I suppose it wouldn't be unprecedented for an all-time great who switched teams mid-career to not have his number retired by one of the teams.

The Dodgers have not retired Piazza's number, nor, I expect, will they.

Which raises the question, which franchise has the strictest standards for retiring numbers? I think the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs are probably the main contenders. Not the Yankees, that's for sure. The other three franchises seem to only retire the numbers of those who are both A) in the Hall of Fame, and B) Spent the vast majority of their careers with the franchise. The Dodgers have one exception in Junior Gilliam, who died during the 1978 World Series while still serving as a coach.

The loosest team, if that's the term, is pretty clearly the Astros. Although I guess the Angels could give them a run for their money.

Which raises the question, which franchise has the strictest standards for retiring numbers? I think the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs are probably the main contenders. Not the Yankees, that's for sure. The other three franchises seem to only retire the numbers of those who are both A) in the Hall of Fame, and B) Spent the vast majority of their careers with the franchise. The Dodgers have one exception in Junior Gilliam, who died during the 1978 World Series while still serving as a coach.

Hard to argue against the Mariners for having the strictest standards!

On the other side, the Padres haven't exactly been hardasses...

Harold Baines had two stints with the White Sox after the club had retired his number ('96-97, '00-01).

Fun fact: On the day that Babe Ruth died, his Yankees # 3 was being worn by the same player who was later wearing # 7 on the day that Mickey Mantle made his Major League debut.

Impossible trivia quiz: Try matching these Yankee numbers to the player or coach who wore them as a Yankee. And no, it's not a misprint that Crosetti's listed twice:

1 - Dimaggio
2 - Dressen
3 - Gehrig
4 - Crosetti
5 - Berra
6 - Robinson
7 - Selkirk
8 - Mantle
9 - Crosetti

Of course our favorite "Fenway South Virtual" website may not be the best place to post this little mental exercise, since only the Truest of True Yankee fans would ever be able to match the numbers correctly.

HINT: There's a not-so-subtle hint contained in one of those names that makes the test both easier and harder at the same time.

But some time in the next two decades months, when Pujols is finished as a player, the Cardinals need to give him his due because he earned it.

Fixed

Andy, I've read you post a dozen times and I'm still confused. Are the uniform numbers 1-9 and a players listed on the right the ones who wore them?

Andy, I've read you post a dozen times and I'm still confused. Are the uniform numbers 1-9 and a players listed on the right the ones who wore them?

That's right, and Crosetti wore two of them, though in this case it may be best not to use the first one that might pop into your head.

But here's a hint about one of those numbers: It was worn as a Yankee by both participants in one of baseball's greatest historic blood feuds, though that blood feud was only marginally related to the Yankees. It was first worn as a Yankee by a man who's not listed here, and later by one of the names I list above, who earlier had had his best year in the year that Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs. Does this help?

Pujols is doing his best to convince Cardinals fans that they got an exceptionally good deal in missing out on his services for the future.

OK,

1 - Selkirk
2 - Crosetti
3 - Dressen
4 - Gehrig
5 - Crosetti
6 - Mantle
7 - Robinson
8 - Berra
9 - DiMaggio

You got Gehrig (#4), one of the Crosettis (#5), Mantle (#6) and Dimaggio (#9) right. You also got three others not-wrong, including one I hadn't realized and one of your Crosettis, but the numbers you matched them with preclude getting the rest of the numbers right. And two of your answers are wrong-wrong, since no player with that name ever wore that Yankee number.

And two of your answers are wrong-wrong, since no player with that name ever wore that Yankee number.

? The only name and number I was unsure of was Dressen #3. All the rest are correct, as in the names and numbers match as Yankees

? The only name and number I was unsure of was Dressen #3. All the rest are correct, as in the names and numbers match as Yankees

As I said, in addition to your three correct matchups, you also got three more right (Selkirk, Crosetti's # 2, and Berra), but if you use those pairings, you can't match all nine numbers. And when did any Robinson wear # 7 as a Yankee?

Of course this is why I said that only the Truest of True Yankee fans would ever be able to match the numbers correctly. It also helps to think a bit outside the box for two of the answers.

when did any Robinson wear # 7 as a Yankee?

Aaron

Which Robinson are we talking about anyway?

Right Robinson, my mistake, which moves that from wrong-wrong to not-wrong. But that still leaves the odd number out problem. To summarize, here's what you've got: 4 right, 4 not-wrong, and 1 wrong-wrong.

1 - Selkirk not-wrong
2 - Crosetti not-wrong
3 - Dressen wrong-wrong
4 - Gehrig right
5 - Crosetti right
6 - Mantle right
7 - Robinson not-wrong
8 - Berra not-wrong
9 - DiMaggio right

OK.


Crosetti 1
Berra 2
Selkirk 3
Dressen 7
Robinson 8

edit: Given your hint, I'm pretty sure Dressen is correct, which makes all the rest correct as well.

Miserlou, you da man! Of course if either of us had been able to answer this before the Looney book or one of three websites, we'd both be in padded cells in the Looney Bin.

P.S. Dressen wore # 7 as a coach in 1947-48. I don't think that would show up on BB-Refernce, but it is in the book and on the Yankee Uniform # website.

Side note: the most amazing scorecard I have is the Senators-Yankees program for Clark Griffith Day in Griffith Stadium, held on August 17, 1948, the day after Babe Ruth died. It shows Cliff Mapes still wearing Babe Ruth's # 3. Talk about a different world.

The loosest team, if that's the term, is pretty clearly the Astros. Although I guess the Angels could give them a run for their money

Oddly enough, the two other 1961/62 franchises, the Mets and the Rangers, have been pretty chary of retiring numbers. Tom Seaver is really the only retired number of the five from those franchises who won the honor for a long and great career. Three others are managers (Casey Stengel, and the died-too-young Gil Hodges and Johnny Oates), and Nolan Ryan, whose 34 is retired in Arlington more as a piece of myth-building than a honor for his playing career here. The Rangers are otherwise unsentimental about numbers. Their greatest longterm position player is certainly Pudge Rodriguez. He got a "day" in Arlington earlier this year, but David Murphy is wearing his number.

I never figured out what this meant.

HINT: There's a not-so-subtle hint contained in one of those names that makes the test both easier and harder at the same time

The only thing remotely like a hint is not capitalizing the "M" in DiMaggio. Maybe writing Berra instead of Yogi?

I never figured out what this meant.

HINT: There's a not-so-subtle hint contained in one of those names that makes the test both easier and harder at the same time

The only thing remotely like a hint is not capitalizing the "M" in DiMaggio. Maybe writing Berra instead of Yogi?

I was referring to the fact that unlike the other 8 names, "Robinson" isn't one that's normally associated with the Yankees.** But once you see that, you also might realize (as you did) that there might have been a reason for not including the first names of either Robinson or Berra.

**Maybe not Dressen, either, but Robinson was more of an intentional diversion.

I am skeptical of this notion that someone like Medwick could be good enough for the Hall of Fame, but not good enough to have his number retired. Perhaps this is because I'm a Met fan and, unlike a team such as the Cardinals, we're in no danger of running out of numbers because we have so many guys wearing Met caps on their HOF plaques. But in my world, the discussion is whether Hall of Very Good guys should have their numbers retired, not whether Hall of Famers should.

The Cardinals' standard for retiring numbers has evolved over time.

Musial had his number retired in a ceremony before his final game in 1963. At the time Medwick was inducted into the HOF in 1968, Musial remained the only retired number.

Dizzy Dean was inducted into the HOF in 1953, but didn't have his number retired until his death in 1974. Joe Medwick died the following year, but did not have his number retired. Not being privy to the internal decisions of the 70s era Cardinals, I can only speculate that Dean's personality - and his career as a broadcaster - was a factor in his number being retired. It could have been as simple as Dean was a friend of Gussie Busch while Medwick was not.

Brock's number 20 was retired in 1979 upon his retirement. Gibson's 45 in 1981 upon his induction into the HOF.

Ken Boyer's 14 was dubiously retired in 1984 - he remains the only non-HOF Cardinals player to receive this distinction. That can be chalked up to sentiment following his dying of cancer in September 1982. Again, not privy to any inside info, but Boyer did help Gussie Busch win his first World Series, and Gussie probably felt bad that he had to fire him 2 years before he died.

1984 was also the year the club retired #85 for Gussie himself (who turned 85 that year).

Enos Slaughter was inducted into the HOF in 1985, but did not have his number retired. (note: Part of the problem with the HOF standard is that the Cardinals have a handful of dubious HOFers like Jessie Haines that the Frankie Frisch - who himself does not have his number retired - Veterans Committee let in in the 70s)

Red Schoendienst's number 2 was retired in 1990 following his induction into the HOF.

Ozzie had his number retired in 1996 upon his retirement. That was the first year of the new DeWitt ownership group, and they went back and retired Slaughter's number 9, but not Medwick's 7 - Probably because Slaughter was still alive. Following 1996, the team installed a new manual scoreboard into the upper deck at old Busch Stadium that featured a retired numbers section, with Rogers Hornsby included sans number.

Broadcaster Jack Buck was honored alongside the retired numbers in 2002 following his death.

Sutter was added (42 had already been retired) to the retired numbers section at the new Busch Stadium in 2006 following his HOF induction, and Whitey's number 24 was retired following his HOF induction on 2010.

So essentially, Medwick had 3 ideal opportunities to have his number retired (retirement, HOF induction, death) - and all came and went during periods when the standard for retiring numbers was extremely high. Considering the DeWitt ownership hasn't retired his #7 yet, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Boyer is certainly the type of Hall of Very Good-er whose number I'd fully support retiring.

Honestly, I understand that the deal with Medwick is that he's not all that famous, he's been dead for over 35 years, Joe Medwick Day wouldn't be an attendance draw, and just in general no one really cares. Even Bill James has often said that there's little point giving accolades to long-dead folks. I just totally don't see it that way. If even the commemoration of history isn't going to be based on history, then I don't know what.

Boyer is certainly the type of Hall of Very Good-er whose number I'd fully support retiring.

Honestly, I understand that the deal with Medwick is that he's not all that famous, he's been dead for over 35 years, Joe Medwick Day wouldn't be an attendance draw, and just in general no one really cares. Even Bill James has often said that there's little point giving accolades to long-dead folks. I just totally don't see it that way. If even the commemoration of history isn't going to be based on history, then I don't know what.

It's pretty hard to agree on standards for retiring numbers, but the fact that a player is long gone shouldn't have anything to do with it. IMO Medwick was an integral part of one of the most colorful teams in history, and if they can retire the number of a marginal HOFer like Bruce Sutter, the Cardinals should surely retire good old Ducky-Wucky's # 7.