I have no idea if this is a good place to ask, but does anybody know what Fernando's first language was? In his part of Navojoa, especially rurally, there were and are a lot of Mayo speakers (language related to Yaqui). His Spanish was apparently perfectly fine when he got to LA, but he was probably educated in Spanish, and if you've ever seen a kindergartener walk in in September with no English knowledge at all and walk out in June without even an accent, you know how amazing the human brain is at that age.

@1, his wiki page specifically says his parents "are of Mayo ancestry." Take this for what it is as far as what language they'd have spoken. There are two citations in the wiki article about this if you're genuinely curious, and want to translate old sources from probably Spanish into English (perhaps with Google translate....perhaps manually since may not be digitized).

Maybe this is akin to a "small Hall vs big Hall" kind of argument, but Fernando's number being retired strikes me as really great. It is impossible to tell the story of baseball in the 1980s without spending some time talking about Fernando. His performance on the field from 1980-1986, the charisma and style, his uniqueness, his impact on bringing in a new generation of Latino (and particularly Mexican) fans into the sport, the obvious ongoing love between Fernando and the Dodgers' fans and organization - just one of a kind.

I wonder how is career would have gone after 1986 if he hadn't been worked so hard in his early 20s. He was a very high-pitch count guy, with a ton of walks and strikeouts, so he was always going deep into counts. He also was throwing a ton of innings between age 20-26, but then he kept pitching for anybody who would sign him through age 36. I believe he even went back to Mexico for a year in the middle of his career.

Anyway, if you believe that retiring numbers should be for the greatest players in a franchise's history - Koufax, Robinson, Snider, Campanella, etc. - then Valenzuela doesn't make the cut. But if you think there are a handful of special players beyond the all-time greats that most long-standing franchises have that deserve to be recognized, then this is a fitting honor. I think Fernando is a great example of this.

The only thing that surprises me about the story is that it wasn't already retired.

That said, they're in a spot where they might actually run short of acceptable numbers. Not immediately of course, but it's not hard to see it happening in today's roster churn plus the number of iconic Dodger players.

Back in my youth the Maple Leafs had to unretire number 6 (for Ron Ellis) but that was in the days when number assignment was pretty rigid (#1 for starting goalie, #30 for the backup and no numbers above 30).

Tony Esposito had more to do with breaking that -- first prominent player to have a number beyond 30 -- than anybody else. And that was because he was a 3rd stringer made good (Same with Dryden's 29. 1 and 30 were taken when he came up and he didn't want to change after establishing himself as #1)

I still have a hard time believing Fernando was born in 1960. Add two years and his career arc makes a lot more sense.

From 1982-86 he averaged 35 starts, 269 IP, and 15 complete games per season, going 17-12 with a 3.04 ERA. That's not out of line with the top 1970s' starter workloads, but it structurally didn't work in 1980s baseball. Dave Stieb and Jack Morris had similar inflection points (after 1985 and 1987 respectively).

Maybe this is akin to a "small Hall vs big Hall" kind of argument, but Fernando's number being retired strikes me as really great. It is impossible to tell the story of baseball in the 1980s without spending some time talking about Fernando. His performance on the field from 1980-1986, the charisma and style, his uniqueness, his impact on bringing in a new generation of Latino (and particularly Mexican) fans into the sport, the obvious ongoing love between Fernando and the Dodgers' fans and organization - just one of a kind.

Well, big hall speaking -- and I'm OK with "indelible mark on half a decade"... There's a chunk of Gen Xers a certain age - like me - who agrees wholeheartedly that you really cannot talk about the first half of 80s baseball and skip Fernando.

Is that enough to make up for the fairly paltry 37 WAR/12 WAA and a pedestrian 103 ERA+? Well... I guess you can add another 4 WAR for his bat -- and he was really good in the postseason (albeit - only 63 IP).

Of course, you can make it a lot easier by simply using the If/then construction... Jack Morris is pretty close to career value of Fernando (and certainly laps the closers going in), so...

He'd be in my Hall -- even if his peak is too short/not peakish enough and his career value can't bridge the gap. I have to give him plenty of "indelible mark" credit to get him there, but whatever.

This is awesome. When I first started collecting cards (86-87), I thought Fernando was the bomb.com: lots of Black Ink, a cool windup, a Cy Young winner. He won ROY, Cy Young, and was on a WS champion-I'd wager that nearly every player with that resume with one team has their number retired.

"I still have a hard time believing Fernando was born in 1960. Add two years and his career arc makes a lot more sense."

I was going to write something contrary to this, using Barry Zito as an example of another soft-tossing lefthander with one really good pitch, who lost it in his mid-20's. But Zito's last good year was when he was 28, and Valenzuela's last good year was when he was 26. So maybe the analysis is correct. Zito's problem was his velocity dropped below the theshold and his ability to spot the curveball diminished at the same time. My Dad always said that the umps just stopped calling strikes on the outside corner for Valenzuela.

Anyhow, I am so happy they are retiring his number, and I wouldn't necessarily object to Valenzuela being in the Hall of Fame, but I'm a large-hall person who does value narrative.

I'd wager that nearly every player with that resume with one team has their number retired.

As far as I can tell, he'll be the second. Tom Seaver did it. But Don Newcombe and Dwight Gooden have not had their numbers retired. Among active players, Jacob deGrom will need to return to NY and win a WS title before we can rule on him.

Of course there aren't many guys with that resume -- solid period of excellence and very little else.

I'm a "small hall" guy but retired numbers ain't the hall and impotantly they are local. Even if he wasn't an HoF-worthy player I'd have had little problem** with retiring Santo's number with the Cubs as a nod to his career and all his broadcasting and becoming beloved by fans. Who could object to, say, Johnny Pesky's number being retired? If the Yanks want to honor Don Zimmer's bald head out in Monument Park, be my guest. Whether his Dodger playing career is "worthy" of a retired number is debatable but add everything else in and I can' see a serious objection to Fernando. (And it was a lot of fun.)

** The only "issue" would have been that the Cubs' tradition to date has been only HoF members have had numbers retired and I do like traditions like that.

Actually, Fernando technically won two World Series with the Dodgers, though he wasn't on the postseason roster in 1988, he still threw 142 innings.

** The only "issue" would have been that the Cubs' tradition to date has been only HoF members have had numbers retired and I do like traditions like that.

I hate that, tradition or not*. You're outsourcing your team's highest honor to the BBWAA/Vet's Committee. And you end up with a lot of situations where you honor a player because he did a lot of great things in an opponent's uniform but won't honor a guy who was vastly better for you (Alomar vs. Dave Stieb, for instance).

* And, obviously, that wasn't the Cubs tradition, as Santo's number was retired in 2003.

Of course there aren't many guys with that resume -- solid period of excellence and very little else.

I'm a "small hall" guy but retired numbers ain't the hall and impotantly they are local. Even if he wasn't an HoF-worthy player I'd have had little problem** with retiring Santo's number with the Cubs as a nod to his career and all his broadcasting and becoming beloved by fans. Who could object to, say, Johnny Pesky's number being retired? If the Yanks want to honor Don Zimmer's bald head out in Monument Park, be my guest. Whether his Dodger playing career is "worthy" of a retired number is debatable but add everything else in and I can' see a serious objection to Fernando. (And it was a lot of fun.)

** The only "issue" would have been that the Cubs' tradition to date has been only HoF members have had numbers retired and I do like traditions like that.

So, given recent retirements...

Any way you retire Dexter Fowler's 24?

Fun fact -- that was also Lou Brock's number as a Cub.

Other than Sexy Dexy and Brock -- you've got long-forgotten 50s era innings eater Paul Minner and maybe Jerry Morales, who was something of a minor celebrity in Cubdom during some bad periods. Beyond them, it's a lot of Henry Blancos, Luis Valbuenas, Gary Varshos, etc.

Dexter's time in Chicago is probably too brief to retire 24... but I have to say - it wouldn't upset me. #24 will always be Dexter to me.

I'm just glad to see that the Yankees retired both numbers of my boyhood hero, Cliff Mapes. Those 892 dingers ain't nothing to sneeze at.

I'm just glad to see that the Yankees retired both numbers of my boyhood hero, Cliff Mapes. Those 892 dingers ain't nothing to sneeze at.

I didn't realize any Yankee wore Babe's number after him. When did the number retirement practice start?

That's a really good question. After Ruth retired, George "Twinkletoes" Selkirk took his #3, but then Bud Metheny also had it from 1943-46, Allie Clark wore it in 1947, and Cliff Mapes inherited it in 1948. The Yankees officially retired #3 on June 13th, 1948, during a special ceremony, but here's what's strange: I have a Senators program dated August 17th, 1948, the day after Ruth died, and on the Yankees side of the scorecard insert Mapes is still listed as wearing #3.

I assume that this was just a printer's error, but more than 2 months after the official retirement seems like a long time for the word to get around.

Oh, and to answer your question: Gehrig's #4 was the first retired number, on July 4th, 1939. That was the day of his "luckiest man" speech.

Oh, and to answer your question: Gehrig's #4 was the first retired number, on July 4th, 1939. That was the day of his "luckiest man" speech.

I assume Gehrig was the first for any team. It would make sense.

I'm assuming you're right about that, if for no other reason that if he weren't, we would have known about it long ago.

It looks like Fernando will only be the second exclusively LA (non-Brooklyn) Dodger to get his number retired, after Don Sutton. Jaime Jarrin was LA exclusively too.

As far as I can tell, he'll be the second. Tom Seaver did it. But Don Newcombe and Dwight Gooden have not had their numbers retired. Among active players, Jacob deGrom will need to return to NY and win a WS title before we can rule on him.

Thanks for that research....I thought the list would be longer. Gooden probably doesn't have it retired for off the field reasons?

Well, until 1983 the Cubs tradition was nobody's number got retired. That year they retired Ernie's, 6 years after his induction. Williams was inducted into the HoF in 87 and his number retired a couple of weeks later. Then no numbers retired until Santo in 2003 -- in part because the HoF wouldn't get off its ass and the Cubs were tired of waiting. Sandberg was inducted in 2005 and number retired a couple weeks later. Fergie was the wild card, waiting until 2009 after Maddux retired but before he was inducted.

So sure, the Cubs were not gonna let Ronnie die before retiring his number just because the HoF were soulless morons. But the connection betweeh the HoF and Cub number retirement is pretty clear. I think they all have a statue now except Maddux. It's interesting that (at least as far as I know) there's been zero push to retire Hartnett's number. Bryant and Rizzo may finally test the Cubs' resolve.

Gooden probably doesn't have it retired for off the field reasons?

The Mets let literally anyone wear #16. They gave it to a guy I've never heard of a few years ago (Kevin Kaczmarski).

the Cubs were not gonna let Ronnie die before retiring his number

I saw "Ronnie" and immediately thought of "Ronnie Woo Woo," a super-fan fixture at Cubs games since the 1950s.

When I was making annual pilgrimages to Wrigley Field in the late 1980s, I thought he was a senior citizen.

so imagine my surprise to see him again only about 10 years ago.

so I looked him up, to see when he had passed.

he has NOT !

WOO! WOO !

he's only 81 years young, somehow, and apparently still attends games. incredible.

so thanks for that trip down memory lane, Walt
:)

They gave it to a guy I've never heard of a few years ago (Kevin Kaczmarski).

I loved him on "Malcolm In The Middle"

I believe you're thinking of Frankie Montas, but he never played for the Mets.

No, you're thinking of Walter Whitehurst, who played Malcolm's dad and pitched for the Meths.

Not a Dodger fan but grew up/live in SoCal, and this should have been done long ago. Valenzuela really means something special to many Dodgers fans who are old enough to remember Fernandomania.

Found in the Fangraphs Sunday Notes column, a good piece on how Valenzuela came to mean so much to so many.