Does this bother you??? Or didn't you notice???

[Mustang]

That the Pirates leadoff hitter, a position player, wore the Number 68, and another position player in the lineup wore 64???  To me, this is a sign that present day teams/players no longer respect the game.  Formerly, low numbers were reserved for catchers, and more recently catchers and infielders.  Numbers in the 20s were formerly worn by outfielders and numbers from the mid-thirties through fifties worn by pitchers.  Numbers in the sixties and seventies were only worn by short-timers at spring training, and or late-seasons call ups, with no long-term futures.  To me having a lead off hitter wearing 68 makes a travesty/mockery of the game.

Did anyone else notice, take offense to this, or is it another sign of our times, where players can do/wear whatever they want/choose and the present day fans think nothing of it, and accept it as something trivial.  Would Bernie Stowe issue a number in the sixties to an infielder, or any everyday player???  I think not.

I will guarantee you this, that in the high school basketball program that I work within and control numbers worn, only guards will wear 1-15, swing men and shooting forwards, 25-35, and power forwards and post players 40-45, and 50-55.  

In our new "Fireside  chat" segment, swallowing up three innings of bad baseball, Sam LeCure (sp) cited a similar incident, and used the phrase, "By today's standards".  Well, unfortunately today's new standards, are noting more than yesterday's unacceptable standards, contributing to the degradation of the sport.

Am I totally lost in the past???  Perhaps, but it was a good past where you respected the game, and the proper way of doing things.  The lunatics didn't run the asylum.

The Pittsburgh series went as expected, we fattened up our batting averages, and lowered our ERAs.  The Pirates are abysmal and demonstrate just how far the quality of play/players have deteriorated.  Take away our wins/losses over the Pirates (and Rockies) and I think you get a truer evaluation of our Reds.  The only  thing that has been proven is that we are much better than the hapless Pirates.  Let's see how we do in Atlanta next week.     

[The Raven]

Isn't short timers basically the Pirates roster these days?   Doesn't really bother me.   In the day and age of let the kids play, some people will choose outlandish numbers, simply to stand out.  Other teams, like the Pirates, will use them simply because most of those guys won't be there for long, and anyone with a reasonable number will be unloaded to a contender.  There lays the real problem.

[OlDog75]

9 hours ago, Mustang said:

That the Pirates leadoff hitter, a position player, wore the Number 68, and another position player in the lineup wore 64???  To me, this is a sign that present day teams/players no longer respect the game.  Formerly, low numbers were reserved for catchers, and more recently catchers and infielders.  Numbers in the 20s were formerly worn by outfielders and numbers from the mid-thirties through fifties worn by pitchers.  Numbers in the sixties and seventies were only worn by short-timers at spring training, and or late-seasons call ups, with no long-term futures.  To me having a lead off hitter wearing 68 makes a travesty/mockery of the game.

Did anyone else notice, take offense to this, or is it another sign of our times, where players can do/wear whatever they want/choose and the present day fans think nothing of it, and accept it as something trivial.  Would Bernie Stowe issue a number in the sixties to an infielder, or any everyday player???  I think not.

I will guarantee you this, that in the high school basketball program that I work within and control numbers worn, only guards will wear 1-15, swing men and shooting forwards, 25-35, and power forwards and post players 40-45, and 50-55.  

In our new "Fireside  chat" segment, swallowing up three innings of bad baseball, Sam LeCure (sp) cited a similar incident, and used the phrase, "By today's standards".  Well, unfortunately today's new standards, are noting more than yesterday's unacceptable standards, contributing to the degradation of the sport.

Am I totally lost in the past???  Perhaps, but it was a good past where you respected the game, and the proper way of doing things.  The lunatics didn't run the asylum.

The Pittsburgh series went as expected, we fattened up our batting averages, and lowered our ERAs.  The Pirates are abysmal and demonstrate just how far the quality of play/players have deteriorated.  Take away our wins/losses over the Pirates (and Rockies) and I think you get a truer evaluation of our Reds.  The only  thing that has been proven is that we are much better than the hapless Pirates.  Let's see how we do in Atlanta next week.     

I know that most of my friends here on BGP will probably not agree with me here but that's OK because these are my opinions. I agree with you Mustang but we will be told we are dinosaurs and need to get out of the way.  It bothers me to see things that I deem as disrespectful to the game or players that look like a bunch of slobs or concert goers out there playing.  However, today's young players are very talented and flashy which is what sells now, individuality within the team.  MLB really could care less about us dinosaurs, they want that younger crowd who spend the money. The days of team/MLB traditions, rules that control hair, jewelry, socks, spikes, equipment worn, etc., doesn't sell and doesn't sell hair styles, jewelry, socks spikes, equipment worn, etc. And really that is what it's all about in the end.  I love the game of baseball, have lots of opinions about where it's going, but nowadays I watch with a raised eyebrow. 

[gchs_uk9]

When you have a forty man roster and ten retired jerseys it makes it difficult to follow the old number pattern. I’ll say this: I’m 40 years old and a lifetime baseball fan and I didn’t know there were such strict number rules. I also know that Base Ruth wore #3 and was an outfielder so even your numeric breakdown wasn’t always the standard. Things change. 

[Carl Spackler]

On 8/8/2021 at 7:03 PM, Mustang said:

That the Pirates leadoff hitter, a position player, wore the Number 68, and another position player in the lineup wore 64???  To me, this is a sign that present day teams/players no longer respect the game.  Formerly, low numbers were reserved for catchers, and more recently catchers and infielders.  Numbers in the 20s were formerly worn by outfielders and numbers from the mid-thirties through fifties worn by pitchers.  Numbers in the sixties and seventies were only worn by short-timers at spring training, and or late-seasons call ups, with no long-term futures.  To me having a lead off hitter wearing 68 makes a travesty/mockery of the game.

Did anyone else notice, take offense to this, or is it another sign of our times, where players can do/wear whatever they want/choose and the present day fans think nothing of it, and accept it as something trivial.  Would Bernie Stowe issue a number in the sixties to an infielder, or any everyday player???  I think not.

I will guarantee you this, that in the high school basketball program that I work within and control numbers worn, only guards will wear 1-15, swing men and shooting forwards, 25-35, and power forwards and post players 40-45, and 50-55.  

In our new "Fireside  chat" segment, swallowing up three innings of bad baseball, Sam LeCure (sp) cited a similar incident, and used the phrase, "By today's standards".  Well, unfortunately today's new standards, are noting more than yesterday's unacceptable standards, contributing to the degradation of the sport.

Am I totally lost in the past???  Perhaps, but it was a good past where you respected the game, and the proper way of doing things.  The lunatics didn't run the asylum.

The Pittsburgh series went as expected, we fattened up our batting averages, and lowered our ERAs.  The Pirates are abysmal and demonstrate just how far the quality of play/players have deteriorated.  Take away our wins/losses over the Pirates (and Rockies) and I think you get a truer evaluation of our Reds.  The only  thing that has been proven is that we are much better than the hapless Pirates.  Let's see how we do in Atlanta next week.     

Were those numbering guidelines ever really that big of a deal?  Babe Ruth #3, Ted Williams #9, Carl Yastrzemski #8, Jackie Robinson #42, Hank Aaron #44, Tony Gwynn #19, Wade Boggs #26, Joe Dimaggio #5, Mickey Mantle #6, Don Mattingly #23, Enos Slaughter #9, Willie McCovey #44, Eddie Matthews #41, Willie Stargell #8, Mike Schmidt #20, Tony Perez #24......

[CincySportsFan]

According to the great information source in the sky, Wikipedia...

Number assignments[edit]

The original baseball numbers were based on the lineup. The starting players would be numbered 1-8, based on their spot in the order. The backup catcher would be number 9, and the pitchers would wear 10-14 (but not 13, as that is superstitious).^[13] Notable examples of this system are teammates Babe Ruth (he was number 3 and batted third for the Yankees) and Lou Gehrig (number 4, batted fourth).

Experiments with numbers by position[edit]

Several teams experimented with numbering-by-position during the 1930s. In 1939, the Cincinnati Reds, under general manager Warren Giles, introduced what would be the longest-lasting convention, in which pitchers wore numbers between 30 and 49; outfielders between 20 and 29; infielders between 10 and 19; and catchers, coaches and managers in the single digits. (An exception occurred in the early 1950s, when the Reds' coaches and managers were assigned numbers in the fifties.)^[14]

The New York Giants adopted this system in 1947, and when Giles became chief executive of the National League in 1952, many other NL clubs began to follow suit. Two American League teams, the first edition of the expansion Los Angeles Angels and the Cleveland Indians beginning in 1963, also adopted the numbering scheme.^[14]

However, the number-by-position convention was never a formal rule, and a few National League clubs — notably the Los Angeles Dodgers — resisted the idea. The custom was slowly abandoned during the 1970s and 1980s. 

 

So, we've gone from your number representing your batting spot in the order, to a system where one team decided that certain numbers belonged to certain positions.  But, basically since free-agency started, guys have been able to not only pick their team, but pick their jersey number?  Ludicrous!  How dare they.  They should take what's given to them and be grateful.

In all honesty, there are several (many) things wrong with baseball nowadays, but what jersey number a guy is wearing is not even close to being one of them, in my opinion.  Johnny Bench could've wore #55, and he'd still be the greatest catcher.  Pete could've wore the #41 and he still would've been "Charlie Hustle".  The numbers are there to help identify the player by sight (since some teams don't include the player's name on the back), nothing more.

[Mustang]

10 hours ago, CincySportsFan said:

Several teams experimented with numbering-by-position during the 1930s. In 1939, the Cincinnati Reds, under general manager Warren Giles, introduced what would be the longest-lasting convention, in which pitchers wore numbers between 30 and 49; outfielders between 20 and 29; infielders between 10 and 19; and catchers, coaches and managers in the single digits. 

 

I am a child of this era and it is what I remember.

Birdie Tebbetts - Manager - 1

Catchers - 6 - Ed Bailey and 7 - Smokey Burgess

Infielders - 10 - Eddie Kasko, 11 - Roy McMillen, 12 - Don Hoak,  15 - George Crowe, 16- Johnny Temple,  18- Ted Klusewski, 19 - Jim Greengrass, 

Outfielders - 20 - Frank Robinson, 22- Bob Thurman, 24 - Jerry Lynch,  25 - Gus Bell,  27 - Wally Post, 28- Vada Pinson, 29 - Pete Whisnant

Pitchers  -  Not sure, but Bob Purkey - 37,  Joe Nuxhall - 39,  Hal Jeffcoat - 42, and Brooks Lawrence 46 are the only ones I'm relatively sure of.

The Wikipedia spells out that the policy varied between organizations.  Certainly no leadoff hitter in the history of the game wore a sixties number until recently, and I see that we now have a pitcher (Cessa) wearing 88.   Good Gawd!!!

It's simply a reflection of this "Anything Goes" era.  It's OK to have hair hanging down to your waist, and be inked up like the drapes in a New Orleans brothel.  Never mind that these guys are supposed to be role models - they are simply expressing themselves.  

Again, our old low standards are now today's acceptable standards.   Too bad. 

[CincySportsFan]

In response to what @gchs_uk9had posted, with regards to the quantity of retired numbers by each team, here's what I was able to find.  (I think this is only a year or two old, so should be pretty close.) 

A's - 5     Angels - 5     Astros - 9     Blue Jays - 2     Braves - 10     Brewers - 5     Cardinals - 12

Cubs - 6     D-Backs - 2     Dodgers - 10     Giants - 10     Indians - 8     Mariners - 2     Marlins - none

Mets - 4     Orioles - 6     Nats/Expos - 4     Phillies - 5     Pirates - 9     Padres - 5     Rangers - 5

Rays - 2     Red Sox - 10     Reds - 10     Rockies - 1     Royals - 3     Tigers - 8     Twins - 7     White Sox -11

Yankees - 22

* Also, you can go ahead and add 1 more to each of these quantities, as I believe every team has retired Jackie Robinson's #42.

Now, let's look specifically at the team in question from your original post...the Pirates.  They've got 9 numbers retired, plus Jackie's...so that's 10 numbers they can't use.  Do you know how many players have played for them at this point in the season?  I didn't.  So, I looked it up.  54.  That's right, only the second week into August and they've used 54 different players.  That, automatically, means that you're guaranteed of seeing at least #64 on someone's jersey this year.  Do you think in spring training the equipment manager is going to have an idea of who's going to "make" it and stay for a long time, or who'll be sent packing in a release or trade, or who's going to bounce around like a ping-pong ball between Triple-A and the majors?

The only reason that "old" system worked, was for a couple of main reasons...one, there were no retired jersey numbers, so you had full use of all the "lower" range of numbers...and two, there just wasn't the roster turnover there is today.  And the worse a team is, the more likely they'll use more players, trying to see how everyone can perform at this level, because they've got nothing to lose (other than more games).

[Mustang]

^^ Good and valid points.  It still seems strange to me to see such high numbers (and in some cases, pitchers wearing low numbers - Reds) that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to whom is wearing what.

I sent the numbers question in to "Ask Marty" when he was still on the air, and would have been interested in his answer, but either I wasn't listening if he answered it or he didn't answer it.

I guess I just better get used to it.

 

 

[Mustang]

^^  I've also noticed that present-day coaches and the manager no longer wear pullovers, not uniforms, freeing up a few more numbers.

[The Raven]

On 8/12/2021 at 5:12 PM, Mustang said:

^^  I've also noticed that present-day coaches and the manager no longer wear pullovers, not uniforms, freeing up a few more numbers.

Even if they don't wear them, I think they are still assigned a number.  David Bell is assigned #25, even if he never wears the jersey.

[Mustang]

2 hours ago, The Raven said:

Even if they don't wear them, I think they are still assigned a number.  David Bell is assigned #25, even if he never wears the jersey.

I'm learning a lot about the evolution of number protocol, which is pretty much no protocol at all.

 

[gchs_uk9]

9 hours ago, The Raven said:

Even if they don't wear them, I think they are still assigned a number.  David Bell is assigned #25, even if he never wears the jersey.

I've noticed Aaron Boone wears the number 17 on his sleeve but always has a dark blue Yankees pullover on instead of a jersey. I remember a coach getting tossed (or maybe just told to change) prior to the game a few years back for not having on a jersey underneath his pullover. Might have been Terry Francona in Boston. Doesn't look like that is the case now, which honestly is fine with me. Coaches wearing jerseys is a traditional thing but really serves no practical purpose - David Bell or Aaron Boone in a pullover instead of a a button-up jersey has no effect on their ability to do their job

[The Raven]

13 hours ago, gchs_uk9 said:

I've noticed Aaron Boone wears the number 17 on his sleeve but always has a dark blue Yankees pullover on instead of a jersey. I remember a coach getting tossed (or maybe just told to change) prior to the game a few years back for not having on a jersey underneath his pullover. Might have been Terry Francona in Boston. Doesn't look like that is the case now, which honestly is fine with me. Coaches wearing jerseys is a traditional thing but really serves no practical purpose - David Bell or Aaron Boone in a pullover instead of a a button-up jersey has no effect on their ability to do their job

I believe MLB coaches and managers have to be assigned and "wear" numbers because, unlike other sports, they are allowed on the playing field during the game, for any number of reasons.  Notice the base coaches always have numbers and rarely, if ever, are in pullovers.

[gchs_uk9]

18 minutes ago, The Raven said:

I believe MLB coaches and managers have to be assigned and "wear" numbers because, unlike other sports, they are allowed on the playing field during the game, for any number of reasons.  Notice the base coaches always have numbers and rarely, if ever, are in pullovers.

Excellent point. Makes a lot of sense and never considered the base coaches.