Talk:List of Major League Baseball retired numbers

What is the lowest number that has never been retired?
Cool trivia question. What is the lowest number that has never been retired? Answer: 13....then come 28 and 38. 43 made this list until the A's retired it for Dennis Eckersley.


 * Not true - 13 has since been retired by the Reds for Dave Concepcion. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was true at the time that Kingturtle pointed this out in 2004. Concepcion's number was retired in 2007. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is why I used the word since.Irregulargalaxies (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the number 0 is the lowest jersey number to never be retired. It was worn by Junior Ortiz, Al Oliver, and possibly some other players as well.  You can win some bets as well by then asking what the smallest positive jersey number worn in the major leagues but not yet retired is, and technically be right by saying 1/8, the number worn by Eddie Gaedel in his only plate appearance. Matches10 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This could also be indicated in the list by having a "placeholder" for the in-between numbers with "(none)" under the name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be unnecessary. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would implicitly answer the question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would explicitly answer it, actually - it's implicitly answered by not being in the list. I don't think it's necessary, though - there aren't many comments here that indicate that people want to know what the lowest non-retired number is. It's very easy to look in the list and see what numbers aren't there, in my opinion. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As of 2013, the lowest numbers never to have been retired (not counting 00 and 0) are 38 and 48. Best candidate for #38 is likely Curt Schilling, who wore it for 16 years between the Phillies, Dbacks, and Red Sox. For #48, Rick Reuschel (Cubs) and Torii Hunter (Twins) have the highest career WAR among players who wore it for more than five seasons. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One more sort needed
Could somebody also list the retired players by teams? It would be interesting to see which teams have retired the most numbers. Unschool 00:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

6 * 9
? ==

42. This page says that *the league* retired 42 in honor of Robinson. Jackie Robinson says that *the teams in the league* all retired it, which isn't quite the same thing. MLB's page on it isn't sufficiently informative to clear it up. Anyone got a more detailed source? --Baylink 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Commissioner ordered it retired. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial
I'm objecting to the inclusion of "unofficial" retired numbers in this article - it seems entirely subjective. It also lacks definition (for instance, the article lists unofficial retired numbers that have been recently worn by players). If there are no sources for these, I'm suggesting deletion. Irregulargalaxies


 * I agree. Kingturtle (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever posted that might be referring to numbers that are not retired but have not been re-issued lately. Unless there's a specific source, those numbers should not be listed here. Since this is from a few weeks ago, maybe it's moot by now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the first comment, and have since removed the non-officially retired numbers from the article. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sortable Table
I think that this article would be cleaned up nicely if we combined most of it into a sortable table.Racingstripes (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a great idea. If I have time, I'll get on it. But if you do it first, I welcome it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't do it today, but as soon as I can I'll work on it.Racingstripes (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the table but I think it should be broken in half because if its length and resulting white space as you scroll down the article. Only thing is is that I don't know how to do that.  Could someone help me out?Racingstripes (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I try to click on the table, it doesnt sort, it brings me to the top of the article. Is something wrong with my table or is it my computer?Racingstripes (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it was missing a |} at the ends. Does it work now? -- aktsu (t / c) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect thank you. I must have missed that when I copied and pasted.Racingstripes (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem with the sort: I think players with the same number retired by two teams should have two rows instead of one row with two teams listed. If you sort by Team and look to see how many Mets numbers have been retired, you think the answer is 2, unless you scroll all the way to the bottom and happen to notice Casey Stengel's 37 retired by the team "Yankees Mets".  I don't know how to fix this, though. Scott-Dal (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Table footnote for Expos retired numbers
Does anyone know why there is a table footnote in the table of retired numbers for the Expos players, "See Montreal Expos"? It does not seem necessary to single them out in this way. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the Expos are no longer an active MLB franchise (and their successor, the Nationals, are not honoring the retired numbers of the Expos). Irregulargalaxies (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the intent was to link to the section "Montreal Expos" further down in the article? Linking to the Montreal Expos article itself seems less precise than desirable. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When franchise moved from Montreal to Washington, it was decided to not carry over the retired numbers. So I suppose the *See Montreal Expos is meant to tell the reader that those numbers are no longer retired, but once were. Kingturtle (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that this information is within the current article, I believe it would be sensible to link to it. I propose changing the link to point to this section. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of players in multiple retired numbers section
Why pictures of the players in this section? I would nominate this for removal because:
 * no pictures for all players in this section
 * vastly differing quality (HOF plaque, pic. from playing days, recent pic., etc)
 * no pictures for players with only one retired number
 * doesn't add much in the way of information to the list

Thoughts?Irregulargalaxies (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not important to have pictures for all of them.  Some pictures could be nice to have to the side as decoration/illumination of the subject.  I'll get on that. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures make this article clunky. There should be no pictures. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Featured list criteria, images belong in list pages. There shouldn't be an inordinate amount, though. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume all stadiums display the numbers retired by the team -- typically on or behind the outfield wall, on or near the scoreboard, etc. I think it would be way cool to include a photograph of the presentation of the retired numbers from each stadium. Would that be appropriate? Legal? Perhaps a closeup of one (or two) from each stadium, to show detail and spacing, and to avoid the need to continually update the photos -- i.e., an example rather than the complete set. Perhaps together with a description of the display: where (e.g., left field wall), arrangement (e.g., two rows, numeric order or in the order retired). Scott-Dal (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Numbers to be Retired Section
I deleted the paragraph:

The Chicago Cubs announced in March 2008 that they will retire #31 in honor of two different players: Ferguson Jenkins and Greg Maddux. The ceremony took place on May 3, 2009 at Wrigley Field.

This already HAS taken place and it is unnecessary per Wikipedia's quality cleanup standards. I left the other portion on the braves GOING to retire his number. --Akc2543 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick reverts normally annoy me, but I see why this one was done
Earlier today I edited the list of numbers that were "retired twice" because I thought that concept was confusing, and I made instead two lists, one of numbers that had been retired in one ceremony to honor two people, and one of numbers retired two separate times in two separate ceremonies. I came back a little later to find that someone had been there within minutes to put things back into one list again. I just want to say that normally that sort of thing really annoys me, but in this case I thought what was done was an improvement, as the list identifies when the dates of the ceremonies were, which is really more to the point. (And there was some misinformation in there, also, as I thought that the Jackie Robinson retiring happened after the Cardinals retired number 42 for Sutter, when in fact, a source marshaled indicated it was the other way around, that the number was "re-retired" to honor Sutter after it had already been retired for Robinson.) Anyway, I just wanted to say that, even if it wasn't done in a tremendously diplomatic way, the article has been made better by these changes, so good job. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming number retirements
In the past, sometimes there has been a section listing numbers scheduled to be retired, and at other times, the main table was altered, with a footnote indicate when the number was scheduled for retirement (this was before the table contained the date of retirement). Any opinions on which way may be better? Should scheduled retirements be included in the main table, with the date column set to something like "scheduled July 1, 2011", or is a separate section more useful? isaacl (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We should not be posting any future events. We should only make the changes once they've occurred. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm in adding a note about a future event, as long as it is clearly noted as a future event and not added to the table. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, when a player is elected to the Hall of Fame, the Hall of Fame article is updated on that basis (the player's upcoming induction is noted). Should pending number retirements also be noted? isaacl (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about doing it this way...if a team has announced a player's number will be retired, we will reflect the announcement in this article. "On March 4, 2011, the Walla Walla Wombats announced that Randall Randall's number will be retired on July 4." Then on July 4, we can update this article appropriately. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, going back to my original question, you are in favour of having a separate section within the article noting announced number retirements (which is what the article currently has)? isaacl (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The proper way is to mention the announcement, but not include it in the official list. Might seem silly, but it isn't official until it is official. It likely won't happen, but what if before the official ceremony, it is suddenly discovered that Blyleven cheated a lot, or what if he murders his ex-wife and her lover? They'd probably not have the ceremony, and probably not retire his number. This is why most places don't let you fill in your time card days ahead of time. Sure, you intend to work next Friday, so why not put it in your time-reported card? Well, what if you get sick and don't work, or what if you die before then. Anyway, yes. This is the best way. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Broadcasters honored - Mark Holtz
I was looking at the list of broadcasters who have been honored by their teams. I noted the absence of Mark Holtz from the Texas Rangers. I'm bringing him up here to see if you all think he belongs on the list.

The Rangers have named the lake by Ranger's Ballpark after Mark Holtz (Well, Mark Holtz Lake has always been a bit of a misnomer, it's a small pond where Johnson Creek runs). Additionally his major catchphrases "Hello, Win Column" and "It's baseball time in Texas" are used prominently by the team.

The other broadcasters on the list either have something with the retired numbers, or have the broadcast facilities named after them, so I wasn't sure what everyone thought of that. The only sources I have are from the item listed on MArk Holtz's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.123.3 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Cardinals in 1973?
Hi All - This sentence in the lede can not be right:  "The use of numbers on uniforms to better identify one player from another, and hence to boost sales of scorecards, was tried briefly by the Cleveland Indians of 1916, and the St. Louis Cardinals of 1973."  I don't know what the right year is, but everyone was using them in 1937, so we say &#9786; user:JMOprof &copy;&iquest;&copy;&#0172;  14:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Honus Wagner
The table shows Pittsburgh's #33 as being retired for Honus Wagner. That was his number later on, as a coach. He's another of those whose playing career precedes uniform numbers. There should be a footnote explaining this. WHPratt (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Major League Baseball retired numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619050036/http://mbtn.net/node/3011 to http://mbtn.net/node/3011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia A's -- badly neglected
The Oakland A's have retired only one number of a former Kansas City A's player (but that is of Reggie Jackson, who played only one year for the A's before his team moved to Oakland). The A's seem to neglect any number or name of any player form the Philadelphia A's era. Most of the greats of the Connie Mack-era Philadelphia A's played in the era of the pre-number era, and since then the better A's players (like George Kell, better known for his time with the Detroit Tigers) have at most had short sojourns.

Because the stars of the Philadelphia A's of the Connie Mack era do not get recognition with the Oakland A's, those players are quite possibly the most neglected stars when it comes to recognition from the team for which they played. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

From the article on the Philadelphia A's:

In the early years, the A's established themselves as one of the dominant teams in the new league, winning the A.L. pennant six times (1902, 1905, 1910, 1911, 1913 and 1914), and winning the World Series in 1910, 1911 and 1913. They won over 100 games in 1910 and 1911, and 99 games in 1914. The team was known for its "$100,000 Infield", consisting of Stuffy McInnis (first base), Eddie Collins (second base), Jack Barry (shortstop), and Frank "Home Run" Baker (third base) as well as pitchers Eddie Plank and Chief Bender. Rube Waddell was also a major pitching star for the A's in the early 1900s. According to Lamont Buchanan in The World Series and Highlights of Baseball, the A's fans were fond of chanting, "If Eddie Plank doesn't make you lose / We have Waddell and Bender all ready to use!" Plank holds the franchise record for career victories, with 284.

Just a reminder to a team in Oakland, California.Pbrower2a (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Daggers for Hall of Famers make it look like they've died
I know there is a legend, but convention is to put crosses next to names of people who have passed away, and daggers look too much like crosses. Consider using a different symbol like a superscript H for Hall of Fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.54.105.150 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)