The Numbers Game

By Taryn "The Coop" Cooper
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Why do the Mets only have four retired numbers?

I get this question a lot. Technically, yes, I do acknowledge the Mets only have three of their own retired, the other is universally retired (#42 Jackie Robinson). One of three those numbers -- #41 Tom Seaver -- was definitely well-deserved as far as retirement. I’ll even give them Gil Hodges, since he was not only an original Met in 1962, but arguably the best Met manager in history (besides Davey Johnson, but I’ll get to that later)…but #37, Casey Stengel, quite possibly the Met manager with the worst record in Met history? His number is retired, but why?

I actually do not take issue with Casey Stengel’s number being retired. But with the Mets' rich history in the 1980s, I am often asked why certain players' numbers are not retired; most notably, #17 Keith Hernandez (who was also the first captain in Mets history) or #8 Gary Carter, who was the best catcher in Mets history (though he went into the Hall of Fame as a Montreal Expo).

Furthermore, if two of the most notable Mets managers’ respective numbers were retired, why wasn’t Davey Johnson's #5 retired? After all, Davey was by far the most successful manager in Mets history.

We look at the Yankees, who seem to retire EVERYONE’s number who did anything notable in their history. Heck, I’m pretty sure they’d consider retiring mercenary Aaron Boone’s number for breaking hearts all over New England in 2003…Or even the Red Sox, who put in a system to their number choosing. For example, the player has to start as a Red Sox, hold certain records plus retire a Red Sox. (In theory, this rule was probably instilled so they wouldn’t have to retire Roger Clemens’ number in the future.)

But I digress. We have Eddie Kranepool, who holds numerous records just for being on the team for so damn long, but gets no love from the team he debuted with at age 17 and from which he retired. His #7 is being recycled on Jose Reyes today.

Keith Hernandez was the first significant Met who started the chain of events in the 80s Mets dominance. Now, as color analyst on SportsNet NY, he makes cutting remarks about current team members wearing his #17. Now, I am not sure I could stand behind retiring his number, but it obviously means a lot to him if someone is not worthy of wearing his old number.

As a lifelong Mets fan who considers herself pretty knowledgeable about Mets history, I can definitely stand behind Gil Hodges and Tom Seaver, who for their own rights, are as close to a human version of Mr. Met if there ever was. Casey Stengel, I can understand but I hardly feel is deserving of the honor.

So…I ask the question…who’s next?

As I alluded to earlier, I get asked all the time who I think from the 1980s core should be retired or specifically from the 1986. Honestly, I don’t think any of those teams deserve a retired number in their mix. There were no stand-out guys from that team. Everyone had his own niche. We could argue till we are blue in the face about #8 or #17. By today’s standards, these were two old-ish dudes (in baseball years) who had their better years with other teams. They were part of a core, but definitely were not the reason for the team winning. They were part of a greater force.

Now, I am sure that if #16 Dwight Gooden or #18 Darryl Strawberry had either stayed with the Mets or had stayed out of other places that begin with the letter “R” and end with the letter “B” and had “eha” in the middle, their numbers would be up in left field along with #37, #14, and #41. They were home grown and I would even go so far to say, most Mets fans do hold special places in their hearts for these two. We do have a propensity to root for the underdog.

The one number from the 80s so-called dynasty that should have definitely been retired was Davey Johnson’s #5. But for some reason, Johnson is perceived to be the ringleader of the “bad guys” who made the most money and led the most revered team in Mets history.

My argument has been this: Casey Stengel has his number retired, and Davey Johnson was better than he was. Gil Hodges won a World Series as Mets manager. Davey Johnson did the same. But Johnson is blackballed as some sort of maverick and cowboy of the 80s teams. Heck, he was not even invited to any Shea Stadium events until Gary Carter Night in 2003, after he was inducted in the HOF.

So it doesn’t appear as though anyone from the 1980s will go through the ceremony of having a number retired.

Moving on, I also get asked – what about Mike Piazza’s number?

I say, unashamedly and unabashedly, that #31 should be retired as a Met. No question. He broke the catcher’s home run record as a Met. He had his best years as a Met. He was a legit MVP candidate for several of those years. He changed the landscape as a Met. The only thing he didn’t do was win a championship with the team. But he was the leader of those teams. Even more so than John Franco -- #45, who relinquished #31 for Piazza when he joined the team.

But since it looks like Piazza will not retire a Met, as Tom Seaver technically did, when he rejoined the team in 1987, but retired before he could pitch a regular season game and shortly after he gave up a home run to non-home run hitter Barry Lyons (true story).

Will that hurt Piazza’s chances of doing so? It may. The Wilpons seems pretty clueless about this type of ceremony and do not seem to care that the fans love the pomp and circumstance surrounding this rite of passage.

It’s something we can call our own, and cry in the stands and root for our player, who will forever more and always be considered a Met.After all, with the landscape of baseball today, the closest thing to a lifelong Met family member are the fans. The guys with the retired numbers -- we can always identify them being part of our family. And they deserve their due.

With but four numbers retired by the Metropolitans' franchise, the question begs asking, "Just what do you have to do around here to get a little love?" Related info: Rant In Our Forums With Coop