User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4988 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: January 29, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4049009)David Wright will shed a silent tear during the ceremony, thinking "They'll remember me. I know they will!"
I wonder how many people out here (Colorado) remember him. University of Colorado dropped their program about 30 yrs ago and he was probably the most notable alum.
He would have hit more home runs if he didn't bat with his back to the outfield. :)
Don't get me wrong, I liked him well enough as a player, although frankly my memory is hazy because I was pretty much ignoring the team for most of his best years as a Met, from the time of the Seaver trade until the Cashen regime took over. But an above-average catcher with just over 3000 PAs for the franchise? I'd rather keep the team HOF thinly populated until there's genuine reason to fill it to the brim, to tell you the truth. Indeed, the very fact Howard cites -- that Stearns trails John Olerud in WAR as a Met, even though Olerud played only three seasons as a Met, tells you everything you need to know about why Stearns was just a good solid player. Nothing more.
Pass.
Why not just show appreciation for the Met's best players? Stearns was a good player, overall, a catcher with an OPS+ of 102, but in the equivalent of only five full time seasons. That's not enough.
If you put in Stearns you're putting in Cleon Jones. A lot of us have fond memories of their time with the Mets, but these aren't even Team Hall of Famers. You can include them in your team museum, but they just aren't anywhere near the class that includes guys like Seaver, Piazza, Hernandez, Strawberry, Reyes, Wright...
They've never had a player reach 1,500 hits for them (the immortal Ed Kranepool had 1,418. David Wright is only 170 shy of Kranepool, but may meet the same fate as 1,300-hit Jose Reyes and depart too soon).
No one has ever knocked in 750 runs for them (Strawberry had 733, and Wright at 725 will change this fact before he leaves, at least).
A whopping 3 pitchers have won 100 games, and two of them were 1960s-1970s guys (Seaver 198, Gooden 157, Koosman 140).
All-time HR:
Frank Thomas 448
Paul Konerko 389
Harold Baines 221
Carlton Fisk 214
Others in the top ten: Bill Melton, Ron Kittle
Hits:
Luke Appling 2,749
Nellie Fox 2,470
Frank Thomas 2,136
Eddie Collins 2,007
Others in top ten: Ozzie Guillen, Ray Schalk
RBI:
Frank Thomas 1,465
Paul Konerko 1,232
Luke Appling 1.116
Harold Baines 981
Others in top ten: Robin Ventura, Magglio Ordonez
Runs:
Frank Thomas 1,327
Luke Appling 1,319
Nellie Fox 1,187
Eddie Collins 1,065
Others in top ten: Ray Durham, Fielder Jones
Steals:
Eddie Collins 368
Luis Aparicio 318
Frank Isbell 250
Lance Johnson 226
Others in top ten: Shano Collins, Johnny Mostil
Wins:
Ted Lyons 260
Red Faber 254
Ed Walsh 195
Billy Pierce 186
Others in top ten: Joe Horlen, Frank Smith
Strikeouts:
Billy Pierce 1,796
Ed Walsh 1,732
Red Faber 1,471
Mark Buehrle 1,396
Others in top ten: Wilbur Wood, Gary Peters
The Mets won't have been around for half as long as the White Sox until around 2022.
don't get it.
sure it's a century-old franchise, but HRs weren't as available in the first 50 yrs. Since the Mets arrived, the White Sox have added 4 big HR hitters.
I'm with Howie. While the White Sox all-time leaderboard is undeniably unimpressive, even with the headstart it's still more impressive than the Mets (unless you believe the leader in each category should have 60 percent more of whatever, which I don't think is the proper way to look at it).
Ed Kranepool is all over the Mets all-time leaderboard. And Ed Kranepool was, generally speaking, terrible.
Honestly, as a non-Mets fan, I'm surprised if Jones isn't in the team's HoF. His career with the Mets came to an ugly end, but he played 12 years for them, and was the leading hitter on the 1969 World Series winner. At .340, no less. Cleon Jones is one of those players I always considered one of the catalysts for turning around the Mets image - not a Seaver or Koosman, obviously, but a very good major league ballplayer worthy of much respect. Perhaps I've overrated him, but I've always thought of him as one of the more important players in their late-60s rise to respectability...
They are, but I think Howard Johnson needs a little consideration. Certainly before a guy like Stearns.
I think Stearns (along with HoJo) might be carrying a grudge with the org for firing them as coaches.
in 1970, a 25 year old struggling Kranepool was sent down to Tidewater, and considered retiring (but he didn't). He was in his 9th year as a Met (and then he played another 9 years)
There have been a 53 17-year olds to play in the majors, but none since 1964, when there were 2 (quick--name them)
That said, teams have plenty of numbers, and if they want to retire the number of a beloved second- or third-tier player, it won't really hurt anything. I mean, the Pirates retired Billy Meyer's number, and he never played in Pittsburgh at all.
The Mets won't even retire Gary Carter's number.
There's nothing wrong with separate levels of accomplishment for each of these. A player may be good/significant enough to be inducted into the team's Hall of Fame, but not good enough to get his number retired. Personally, I don't think Stearns was good enough for either, but if you're more of a Big Mets Hall kind of guy, there's no harm in inducting him and players of comparable merit.
What, really? Why the hell not?
Dude's got cancer. If he dies before they do it, they're going to regret that down the road.
I also remember Steve Dillard and Britt Burns from that pack. Burns was going to be a big star, but then he injured himself rather than play for the Yankees.
I think it's probably already too late for that. It doesn't sound like he's in any kind of condition to attend a ceremony. I don't know whether he has any real capacity to appreciate the gesture or not, but if he does, then I guess that changes things. (I have to imagine that if I were him, sticking my name and number on a wall would seem kind of unimportant at this point, but obviously I've never been in that situation.)
I'm with Howie. While the White Sox all-time leaderboard is undeniably unimpressive, even with the headstart it's still more impressive than the Mets (unless you believe the leader in each category should have 60 percent more of whatever, which I don't think is the proper way to look at it).
Several teams have pre-1962 power hitters high on their all-time lists. Strawberry would rank 3rd on the White Sox in home runs, Piazza is one HR behind Baines, and they combined for 15 seasons with the Mets. Add in Comiskey vs. Shea Stadium. And it's not that every White Sox leader should have 60% greater totals than the equivalent Met. It's that the White Sox have had 60 more years in which to find another given player or two to excel at a given statistic, but pretty much haven't. I just don't see that the Mets, lame though they are, represent the go-to team for stinky career leaders.
I think you can make a case either way (and pre-Frank Thomas, there was no doubt who had the lamest).
"Pales (or soars)," however was a bit of a reach.
EDIT: Oops. You were discussing retired numbers. In that case, I would add that Koos should have his number retired too.
Sorry, but I believe that honors of this type should be reserved for the very, very best. They should be kept extremely exclusive so they retain their significance. If it were up to me, one number and one number only would be on the outfield wall at Citi Field: 41. Not Casey, not Gil. The Mets have had one HOF-worthy performer, as a Met. Only his number should be retired. If there was going to be a second number, it should be Davey Johnson's, who was by far and away the best manager in Mets' history. But his isn't up there, and it's not going to be.
Heck, at least he hasn’t seen his number worn by the likes of Mr. Koo, David Newhan, and Jose Lima.
To retire his number? Maybe so, but I think that honor is just the Mt. Olympus -- only the absolute giants of the game, and of a franchise's history should receive it. 40 WAR is outstanding, but it's nobody's idea of an all-time great.
As for the fact that he was traded for Jesse Orosco? Really? Trades like that are what get GM's into the HOF; they don't get the player's number retired. But hey -- if you insist. I guess Neil Allen is next!
Not to mention Rick Ownbey! (I know the Cards were anxious to get rid of Keith, but it still boggles the mind that they were willing to accept so little in return.)
I agree with Sam. You don't want to retire the number of every two-bit player who happened to put together a few nice seasons with the club, the way lameass franchises such as the Astros and Yankees do. Have some standards.
Comiskey Park was designed by Ed Walsh for pitchers. It was always a place where long fly balls went to die.
That's pretty easy to say coming from a fan of a franchise with more than twice as much history and numerous HOFers. I am all for "standards," but having Seaver as the ONLY player honored for a 50-year-old franchise screams futility.
EDIT: And who said anything about "every two-bit player?"
OK, then just compare the Sox leaders since 1962 to the Mets. Thomas and Konerko blow away Strawberry in HR's. Thomas, Konerko, Baines, and Guillen top Kranepool in hits. Thomas, Konerko, Baines, Fisk, and Ventura top Straw in RBI. Thomas, Konerko, Baines, and Durham top Reyes in runs. Reyes tops any Sox in SB, before or after 1962, and their pitching still rules. But the hitting accomplishments are just sad.
That's a problem with the franchise, not the standards. The club developed or acquired a number of players that, with a different turn of events, would have been perfectly fine candidates for the ultimate honor of a retired number. That hasn't happened, which is why a player as crappy as Ed Kranepool is still the damn franchise's all-time hits leader (and, as far as I can tell, the greatest player to play his entire career in a Mets uniform).
But the fact the franchise has a history of ineptness is no reason to pretend otherwise and retire numbers that, 50 years from now, look obviously out of place. Bring in some competent ownership, hang on to your greats and you'll have some better choices in the decades to come. No need to artificially goose the process.
That's a knock at your crosstown rival's oddly liberal policy toward retired numbers.
Fair enough. Got a toll-free number I can call?
IMHO, recognizing Koosman -- and Carter, for that matter -- doesn't significantly cheapen the honor. (I admit that the tax evasion controversy doesn't help his case.) He played 11 full seasons with the club, had five very good-to-excellent seasons (including being one of the '69 team's heroes), three good ones, and one that was mediocre.
Which is a resume good enough to get yourself in one of the first couple classes of Mets Hall of Famers.
But permanently setting aside your number so that no future player can wear it? I'm with the Mets. You gotta do better than that.
Part of me thinks that, with Nos. 14 and 37 already stapled to the outfield wall, the exclusivity ship left port a long time ago.
So, who do you pick?
Doug Sisk.
Davey Johnson.
John Franco?
I've known a few people who've self-destructed along those lines. It's like watching a slo-mo train wreck and you just can't stop it. I had a buddy rack up $60,000 in legal fees in a dispute with his landlord over a couple of rabbits my buddy wanted to keep in the yard. That's sixty thousand dollars. Nothing I said got through to him.
If the Mets are seriously considering honoring Carter I hope they do it now. It would be a perfect Wilpon to do so a few months after Gary dies. "Let's see, how can we get the maximum negative fallout from a decisions?"
He wasn't. He was a perfectly cromulent LH-hitting half of a platoon at 1B - he just could not hit left-handed pitching at all.
-- MWE
2013 inductees into the Mets Wall of Honor:
The late Gary Carter
Jerry Koosman, live on video feed from the state penitentiary
Francisco Rodriguez
Armando Benitez
Jeff Kent
Lenny Dykstra
Kevin McReynolds
David Cone
Grant Roberts
Oliver Perez
Victor Zambrano
All surviving Brooklyn Dodgers
I disagree. If you're lot in the game is as the lefthanded bat in a first base platoon, you'd better hit righties a lot better than Kranepool did.
2013 inductees into the Mets Wall of Honor:
Vince Coleman
Shawn Abner
Bobby Bonilla
Steve Chilcott
George Foster
Derek Jeter
Lorinda DeRoulet
M. Donald Grant
Dick Young
Fred Wilpon
Jeff Wilpon
I mean, if you're going to provoke a boycott, really go for it!
For some reason the fact that the woman in question had recently been arrested for possession of marijuana made the story worse.
As I said, very odd. Charges were dropped.
That's a knock at your crosstown rival's oddly liberal policy toward retired numbers.
You're right. The Yankees know nothing about building a brand or fan loyalty. What were they thinking honoring all those players, and making the alumni feel special, and the fans feel good about the history of the team?
Edit: HTF do Dewey Evans and Wade Boggs not have their numbers retired in Boston? That's freaking absurd.
Clemens, I can give a pass b/c of the steroid furor and his general ass-holishness.
But Boggs is in the HoF, has 2000+ hits in Boston, and doesn't get his number retired? Evans plays 19 years with an (at least) borderline HoF career (and better than Rice), and doesn't get his number retired?
Totally freaking absurd.
You know who else built fan loyalty and made people feel good about their history? That's right.
The Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Yeah, the 27 World Series titles aren't enough to make fans feel good about the history of the team. They need to retire the number of Ron frigging Guidry to put them over the top.
Seven-year Yankee Roger Maris does not belong in the same club as Mantle, Dimaggio, Ruth and Gehrig. That's the kind of silliness teams that don't have dozen no-doubt Hall of Famers among their legion do, not the most storied franchise in American sport.
Seven-year Yankee Roger Maris does not belong in the same club as Mantle, Dimaggio, Ruth and Gehrig. That's the kind of silliness teams that don't have dozen no-doubt Hall of Famers among their legion do, not the most storied franchise in American sport.
It's all of one piece.
Guidry was a critical part of 5 pennants and 2 World Series. Retiring his number reminds the fans of that success. Seeing his numer on the wall does likewise.
I fail to see the harm. Do you think anyone is unaware that Maris, Guidry, Mattingly and Elston Howard weren't as good as Mantle, Ruth, Gehrig and DiMaggio?
Four pennants. Five division titles.
For the same reason we don't want to see HoVG players elected to the Hall of Fame. Retiring a player's number forever should be reserved for the franchise's true greats. The latter were. The former weren't.
And that's the only reason Germany has yet to retire Leni Riefenstahl's number.
Correct. On 5, but contibutor to 4.
For the same reason we don't want to see HoVG players elected to the Hall of Fame. Retiring a player's number forever should be reserved for the franchise's true greats. The latter were. The former weren't.
But where are you getting that standard for retiring numbers? The Yankees invented the practice, and that hasn't been their standard. They also have the lesser honor of having a plaque in monument park, but not a retired number (Gomez, Reynolds, Ruffing).
But, if it's just going to be HoFers, what's the point? It's duplicative.
Having it as a larger circle makes more sense, to me.
It doesn't just have to be duplicative. Munson makes sense, due to circumstances. If Scooter had never gotten inducted into the Hall of Fame, he'd still have made an appropriate number retiree due to his long-time connection to the club after his playing days were over (in the same way Pesky's number should never be worn again in Boston). And Hall of Famers who only spent a percentage of their careers in pinstripes aren't necessarily worthy of the honor.
But Maris? Guidry? Neither was good enough to hang with the franchise's greats. It cheapens the honor when you give it to players of that ilk.
Octavio Dotel?
Of course, I am also a Bernie Williams fanboy and would like to see the Yanks retire his number, as much as I acknowledge that he's not quite good enough for Cooperstown.
I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm only claiming that the Yankees practice has been, in my estimation, too loose. And specifically, it's gotten too loose in the last 30 years. Prior to George's ownership, the Yankees didn't just retire the number of any old Maris, and in fact not every Yankee great earned the distinction (Ruffing or Lazzeri, for instance, were not honored that way). That's part of the problem. You can't really justify Maris' selection (or Guidry's or Howard's or Mattingly's) when much better players, who contributed more to the Yankees, weren't granted it.
Germany has announced that in honor of Leni Riefenstahl, no other female documentary filmmaker will be allowed to die at the age of 101.
Maybe it's just a question of who was relevent when the standard was applied? By the time George took over, their were no fans with a deep connection to Lazzeri or Ruffing left. The Steinbrenner honorees are:
1976 McCarthy, Stengel
1980 Munson
1984 Howard, Maris
1985 Rizzuto
1986 Martin
1987 Ford, Gomez
1988 Berra, Dickey
1989 Reynolds
1997 Mattingly
1998 Mel Allen
2000 Bob Shephard
2002 Jackson
2003 Guidry
2005 Ruffing
2007 Jackie Robinson
Ruffing, Reynolds and Gomez are interesting b/c they got plaques, but not retired numbers. Of the managers, only Stengel has his # retired. McCarthy and Huggins don't.
Lazzeri is an interesting omission. Gossage and Joe Gordon would seem to belong as well.
Or, none of them do. And the old standard was the correct one. The Yankees had a rather high standard for that distinction (as I believe teams' should). George arrived and dramatically lowered the bar for admission to the club. And for a franchise with as much genuine history of greatness as the Yankees, such grade inflation was wholly unnecessary.
There are plenty of ways to honor the guys who have contributed to your franchise (and milk that for publiciity/attendance benefits). But I believe the retired number should be reserved for the greatest of the greats to the franchise, and the Yankees have expanded well beyond that.
The numbers don't really tell the story in his case. At age 19, when he should have been honing his craft in the minors, he was playing full-time for a terrible team - and not playing all that badly given his age (although in 1964 there was one famous sign at Shea that read "Is Ed Kranepool over the hill?" - at 19!!) and his absolutely inability to hit lefty pitching. By the time Gil Hodges arrived in 1968, Kranepool - at age 23 - was the senior Met in terms of service, and in many ways still an immature kid. He and Hodges butted heads from the start, and it didn't help matters any that (a) Kranepool was active in the fledgling MLBPA in an environment that was strongly anti-union; (b) the Mets had another, similar player coming up in Mike Jorgensen, plus veteran Art Shamsky, who was also a lefty-hitting first baseman platooning in right field; and (c) Kranepool, coming off two down years, held out in 1970 for a big raise, which he eventually got. Hodges wound up moving Shamsky into Kranepool's platoon role at first, using Jorgensen for late-inning defense, and nailing Kranepool to the bench before sending him to the minors in mid-season; Kranepool got only 52 plate appearances all season with the 1970 Mets, mostly in low-leverage PH roles. This is a guy who was *still* only 25, who hadn't had any real minor league time in his career. To Kranepool's credit, he forced his way back into a platoon role in 1971.
He wasn't a great player, to be sure, but calling him terrible is a huge overstatement. Kranepool was a useful player for most of his career.
-- MWE
Well, we're going to disagree there Mike. I saw most of Eddie's career. Whatever the reasons behind it, he was a corner infielder/outfielder who had neither much of a glove nor much of a bat. Useful isn't how I'd describe such a ballplayer.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main