The blog for Mets fans
who like to read

ABOUT US

Jason Fry and Greg Prince
Faith and Fear in Flushing made its debut on Feb. 16, 2005, the brainchild of two longtime friends and lifelong Met fans.

Greg Prince discovered the Mets when he was 6, during the magical summer of 1969. He is a Long Island-based writer, editor and communications consultant. Contact him here.

Jason Fry is a Brooklyn writer whose first memories include his mom leaping up and down cheering for Rusty Staub. Check out his other writing here.

Got something to say? Leave a comment, or email us at faithandfear@gmail.com. (Sorry, but we have no interest in ads, sponsored content or guest posts.)

Need our RSS feed? It's here.

Visit our Facebook page, or drop by the personal pages for Greg and Jason.

Or follow us on Twitter: Here's Greg, and here's Jason.

What's in a Number?

Our co-newest Met is wearing a familiar number.

Flamethrower Edwin Diaz, whom I already appreciated for being really good before discovering his nickname is “Sugar,” will wear 39. That’s no particularly big thing in the annals of Met lore: the first 39 that pops into my head is Gary Gentry, the blueprint for all too many young Met hurlers over the years. Thirty-nine was last worn by Jerry Blevins, who’s expressed interest in returning to the Mets and had to at least frown at seeing his digits on another back. Oh, and didja know Diaz was discovered by Joe McIlvaine? Neither did I until I Google’d it, but any new Met who arrives with links to our past makes me a little happier to welcome him.

But enough about Sugar. It’s the link to our past that’s left some fans feeling salty about that other, better-known acquisition.

Robinson Cano appeared at his news conference, and will presumably appear on Opening Day, with 24 on his back. That’s a number to conjure with, worn by Willie Mays during his return to the city that made him a legend and that he enhanced quite a bit himself. After Willie said goodbye to America, the number was mothballed in Flushing, at least for the most part. It was briefly and mysteriously assigned to the anonymous Kelvin Torve in 1990, a tempest in a teapot that Torve recalled rather drolly in an interview with our pals at Mets by the Numbers. After discovering the mistake, or at least the outcry, Charlie Samuels hastily reassigned Torve to (wait for it) 39.

24 returned again nearly a decade later, adorning the back of Hall of Fame-bound Rickey Henderson, who wore it with distinction in his first go-round as a Met and something considerably less than distinction when brought back for a second campaign. And then it returned to numerical limbo until Cano’s arrival.

Give me a minute and I’ll try to sketch out a philosophy of quasi-retired numbers; for now, a little about Cano. I don’t think 24 should be handed out to just anybody (sorry, Kelvin Torve), but Robinson Cano is not just anybody. He’s somewhere between a likely and a certain Hall of Famer, with Jay Jaffe’s JAWS metric ranking him ahead of the likes of Cooperstown residents Ryne Sandberg, Frankie Frisch, Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio and Nellie Fox. (And if you think PEDs have destroyed the game, best not to Google “Willie Mays red juice.”) Cano is a .300 lifetime hitter with 300+ career home runs, eight All-Star nods and a decent chance at 3,000 hits.

That checks the Numerically Worthy box, but Cano has a more personal reason for wearing 24, too. He’s named for Jackie Robinson and donned 24 for the other New York franchise, the one in the arriviste league with bad rules, because it was the inverse of Jackie’s 42. He then switched to 22 in Seattle because 24 had been retired for Ken Griffey Jr. For me, that ticks the Awareness of Baseball History and Personal Connection boxes as well.

But for most Mets fans, this isn’t an argument about Robby Cano. It’s about Willie Mays.

In the Twitter era we’re expected to have insta-opinions and die upon never-before-glimpsed hills. That’s left us all struggling with an idea that once didn’t seem particularly revolutionary: that multiple things can be true at once. Was Willie Mays’s Mets tenure a glorious homecoming or a regrettable example of an immortal lingering too long at the fair? Before we head for our respective corners, snapping and snarling, let’s at least consider the possibility that it was both.

And there’s a further complication here. Mays returned to New York in large part because Joan Payson adored him beyond words — she stood all but alone among shareholders in opposing the Giants’ move to San Francisco, and tried unsuccessfully to buy the club to stop their relocation. A few years ago, our friend Jon Springer wisely short-circuited a Mays-and-24 debate by suggesting the Mets indeed retire the number — but for Payson, not Mays.

It’s a lovely idea with a real sense of grace, but that ship failed to sail some time ago. In the meantime, though, is 24’s state of limbo really such a bad thing?

I’d argue it isn’t. I like the idea of quasi-retired numbers; in fact, I wish the Mets would take it further.

I believe that number retirements should be rare events. Linking them to a given criterion — Cooperstown, for instance — is too rigid for me. But I think the caretakers of teams should be cautious about putting digits on the wall, allowing time for reflection and remembering that there are generational superstars in teams’ futures as well as their pasts. On this score, at least, I think the Mets have done well. 31 41 14 37 and the baseball-wide 42 is a solid set, with 5 on deck as an addition at the proper time.

To that, I would add … well, not much, actually. The number I’d put beside those is 17, for the combination of a brief but iconic time in uniform and a far longer, also iconic afterlife. But only because there was a second act to go with the marvelous but brief first one.

I’ll stop here to revisit that idea of believing multiple things can be true. I personally wouldn’t retire any of the other numbers embraced as causes by good people … but if the 2019 Mets decide to put any of them on the wall, I’ll be in the stands getting misty-eyed at the pomp and circumstance and applauding madly. This is a hill to sit down on and talk things over, which sounds a lot more pleasant than dying, particularly if that hill has a view of a nearby ballgame.

What I would do is have another tier of cherished numbers, ones that are out of circulation but not retired, available to special players under special circumstances. What the Mets have done and are doing with 24, in other words — even if they’ve never articulated that philosophy.

It isn’t just Mays who’s been given that treatment. The number 8 hasn’t been worn in a Mets dugout in 16 years, which is as it should be; it shouldn’t have been handed out in 1992, but unless you have a time machine it’s too late to fix that. (And, anyway, you should reserve it for more important things, such as telling Timo to run, having Duda practice throws home, and maybe killing Hitler or something.) The aforementioned 17 hasn’t been worn since 2010.

That’s a good start, but only a start. If it were up to me, 15, 16, 18, 36 and 45 would join 8, 17 and 24 in being oft-invoked but rarely seen, with their reappearance an event to be discussed just as we’re doing now. I’m sure Austin Jackson is a good person, but he shouldn’t be wearing 16; if Jacob deGrom wants that number, on the other hand, his 2018 invocation of 1985 makes him worthy of it. (And if Jake wants to go on adding to the lore around 48, that’s fine too.) You get the idea: keep 15 for deadly hitters who patrol center field, 36 for give-no-quarter lefties, 45 for excitable closers who make you sweat but also make you believe.

And it’s also OK if none of that is discussed in a media guide, and quasi-retirements are part of the lore safeguarded and curated by fans, columnists and mildly insane bloggers. “Why does no one wear No. 8?” is the starting point of a conversation. So is “who’s Jerry Koosman?” There will always be young fans or new fans who don’t know this stuff but will absorb those tales like orange-and-blue sponges, the way we once did. Tales for the middle innings of a 12-3 stumble, or a rain delay on a warm summer night, the kind of stories that make new fans realize they’re both witnessing and adding to a much longer narrative. Tales of once upon a time, to be sure, but also of what is to be, with new players and new seasons crafting additions to that unrolling story.

14 comments to What’s in a Number?

  • LeClerc

    “Out of the cradle, endlessly rocking”.

  • Nick Davis

    Funny, I will always think Beltran should have stayed away from 15 too, out of respect for Grote.

    And don’t get me started on the Ron Hodges Rotunda.

  • 9th string catcher

    The Mets are winners of only two World Series, have nearly no one who have played their entire career with the team, have very few Hall Fame players, and in my estimation too many numbers retired already.

    Casey was a lovable manager, but also a symbol of a team that did absolutely nothing right. Gil Hodges was a great manager for a year-and-a-half, until his untimely passing. But hardly enough in my mind to justify retiring a number. Seaver was the Mets greatest pitcher and one of the greatest pitchers of all time that makes sense. Similar case for Piazza who was the greatest catcher, and one of the greats of all time. But I don’t believe in honoring another organizations great players, like number eight for Yogi or number 24 for Willie Mays.

    They will retire David Wright, which is Fair since he’s one of the organization’s few players who stuck with the team for his entire career, and got close to greatness but never did win a World Series with the team, and lost many years due to terrible injuries.

    Ultimately, the Mets organization has not produced many great players relative to its existence, nor has it won many championships. This is not a team that should retire a whole lot of numbers.

    • Dave

      I see your point about Casey, but I think at the time he was such a celebrated figure and so ingrained in NY baseball that the feeling was that the gesture was appropriate. In Saint Gil’s case, it was to honor the fallen, a reaction to his tragic passing (for perspective, Mets fans old enough to remember him, he was not quite 48 when he passed away…how’s that for making you feel old?). I’m fine with no Met ever wearing 14 again.

      Compared to the team in the Bronx, the Mets are very cautious about retiring numbers, although that’s an unfair comparison, because at some point that team will have to go either alphanumeric or to triple digits. I’ve never understood the unofficially retired numbers, the ones just in mothballs like 8 (which is for Carter, not Yogi) and 17, but especially not 24. Semi-retiring Willie Mays number has always felt like the Mets taking credit for or trying to share in what happened elsewhere (similar to the Brooklyn Dodgers tribute that is our home stadium). Had he not been Willie Mays, he would have retired before the Mets even got him. But allegedly, Mrs. Payson promised Willie that 24 would be retired, and it’s been virtually so ever since. I think Cano wearing it is just fine, and hopefully Willie is OK with it and won’t decide it’s worth a PR embarrassment for the Mets.

    • Since64

      Sorry but I can’t live on despair.
      The Mets are and were for the most part a poorly run team.
      This makes even more incredible the notion that they have appeared in a world series
      every decade of their inception with the exception of the 90’s.
      How long did the Cubs go dry? How many other teams with histories much longer than ours go without.
      Say thank you for the great moments we have had, and we have had some over the years.

  • Not a good feeling when I saw Cano holding up #24. I was at Candlestick when Torve sported #24 in SF no less. #24 should not be retired but respected. Cano is no Willie Mays. Now I’m extra glad I changed my fantasy camp number from #24 to #5 this coming camp.

  • Bruce Grossberg

    I like your “sort of retired numbers” discussion. Especially as it pertains to Willie Mays. Willie gets a bad rap from a lot of people who discuss his time with the Mets and his deteriorating skills as a 42-year old center fielder. But here’s the important point — Willie Mays was the best centerfielder on a Mets team that went to the World Series. It doesn’t matter whether that was a function of Willie’s remaining talent or a lucky Mets front office (see also — Benny Agbayani). It’s still a fact. Willie Mays contributed to a Mets team that went to the World Series and therefore, IMHO, you can’t say that Willie’s time as a Met was a failure. I’m fine with the Mets not retiring 24, with Robinson Cano wearing 24 while he’s around, and then with mothballing the number again until some other superstar wants to wear it.

  • I think Hernandez, Carter, and Wright all earned it. With Carter, it’s a little more complicated, but his legacy is so strong that it feels just as earned as Hodges. Who knows what he would have done if given as much time as Keith?

  • Dave

    Mets to retire…. as a baseline —-
    Seaver 110 war. But Koosman 53 WAR. Retire

    Grote 15 war v Cleon 18 war….

    McGraw 21 war total +ya gotta believe

    Hernandez. 20 w Mets, Carter. 15 w Mets
    Gooden lots 53…. but coke subtracted life….
    Straw? Fewer 42 …

    Wright 50 WAR /Johnson 22 war

    How about a
    Statue of Seaver
    Behind him smaller is Koosman, McGraw, Gooden,
    throwing to Grote and Piazza

    A tribute to 50+ yrs of great Mets pitching

    David wright behind at 3rd w Strawberry in OF?

  • eric1973

    Jason, the only time I could ever imagine hearing “Who’s Jerry Koosman?” would be on Jeopardy.

  • John Kelly

    Both WS Mets MVP’s wore #22

  • K. Lastima

    Yes to semi-retiring #15 for Mr. Tough as Dirt Jerry Grote, but no way for Mr. Bat on Shoulder

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>