DCarp1231 Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Every once in a while a player in any sport has to change their number. Whether it’s being paid to give it away to another player, that number is already taken after a trade to a new team, etc. It happens. For this, I’m looking at players who had their number change for more than one game, but at least half a season. Sorry Michael Jordan’s 12, but Michael Jordan’s 45? Welcome to the list. Lets start off with players who look/ed BETTER after a number change: Kirk Cousins Before: After: Robert Griffin III Before (also worn with Browns): After: Now for players who look/ed WORSE Jarvis Landry Before: After: Amari Cooper Before: After: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlinchey23 Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Downgrade to Upgrade to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Worse: Fat Shaq in 36 for the Celtics Better: Slimmed and health Dwight Howard in 39 for the Lakers 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 3 hours ago, DNAsports said: Every once in a while a player in any sport has to change their number. Kirk Cousins Before: After: Robert Griffin III Before (also worn with Browns): After: I'm not getting this. Do you just like quarterbacks better in single digits? Because 12 is an absolute classic QB number. Staubach, Bradshaw, Namath, Kelly, Brady... And 10 is pretty awesome too. I like QBs better with numbers in the teens. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shumway Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Worse! Better! Mostly because he wore 47 for the Angels, Phillies and Dodgers before the #4 and #12 nonsense in DC. AND LOOK WHAT FREAKING HAPPENED!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Good luck finding a picture, but I remember Jason Heyward starting off with the Atlanta Braves wearing 78. I wish he would've kept it...he eventually ended up switching to 22, which I believe he still wears now. *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRoman Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Shumway said: Worse! Better! Mostly because he wore 47 for the Angels, Phillies and Dodgers before the #4 and #12 nonsense in DC. AND LOOK WHAT FREAKING HAPPENED!! I get why 47 is a lot more important and why it looks more “normal”, but aesthetically speaking, 12 and 4 look a lot better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew_Gamer_NZP Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 6 hours ago, Buc said: Good luck finding a picture, but I remember Jason Heyward starting off with the Atlanta Braves wearing 78. I wish he would've kept it...he eventually ended up switching to 22, which I believe he still wears now. Jason Heyward never wore #78. Maybe in the minors or a spring training game, but his entire time in the majors hes worn #22. Here's his first ever at-bat, very clearing wearing #22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prof Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Downgrades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VandyDelphia Mike Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 For a player who wasn't a spring training callup and even made an all star team as a Phillie, John Kruk managed to sport 4 different numbers playing for the Fightins. NCAA Baseball Champions | 2014, 2019 facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shumway Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 1 hour ago, VandyDelphia Mike said: For a player who wasn't a spring training callup and even made an all star team as a Phillie, John Kruk managed to sport 4 different numbers playing for the Fightins. Granted, I was 5 in 1991, but I really don't remember him wearing #28. Was it for the full season? I think the only way I remember 11 and 19 is because I had those cards. I tried to look it up, and all I see is that he traded #28 to Mitch Williams, who was acquired at the beginning of the season, for two cases of beer. That's fantastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigFiz21 Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 On 11/2/2019 at 10:38 AM, DG_Now said: Slimmed and health Dwight Howard in 39 for the Lakers It might be a factor of time, but I will disagree on this. I was looking forward to seeing Dwight wearing 12 in this newer Laker uniform set; 39 is....uh...different to say the least. On that note of Lakers, does LeBron still plan to give AD no. 23 after this season? I know they had to put it off a year because Nike makes tons of LeBron jerseys because LeBron, but I wonder if it's worth it? Now here's a number change that caught me by surprise: Wieters going from 15 to 32 seemed like a downgrade at first, but time proved me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted November 3, 2019 Author Share Posted November 3, 2019 3 hours ago, TheBigFiz21 said: Now here's a number change that caught me by surprise: Wieters going from 15 to 32 seemed like a downgrade at first, but time proved me wrong. Speaking of Orioles changing their numbers: Kevin Gausman from: to (better): to (worse): to (better): Nick Markakis from: to: For Markakis, it’s difficult to decide what’s better or worse. It’s a bit of a lateral move considering it’s only a one number difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittSmith_95 Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Upgrade: to: Hab fans already know there's only 1 #73 for them, and that's Micheal Ryder. Happy that Gally gave it up when he got traded back to Montreal during his rookie year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Kobe always looked better in 8 IMO. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnclearInitial Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Raul without the 7 would have looked weirder, but still, this is way worse than 7 Durant does not look like a 7 at all. Generally bigger guys look best with double digit numbers Conversely, Luka Doncic needs to go back to 7 the moment it becomes available. 77 should be a role player, not a superstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shumway Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 On 11/3/2019 at 5:54 PM, KittSmith_95 said: Hab fans already know there's only 1 #73 for them, and that's Micheal Ryder. Happy that Gally gave it up when he got traded back to Montreal during his rookie year. It's really weird seeing a Canadien #11 that's not Saku Koivu. It just doesn't look right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 On 11/3/2019 at 1:15 PM, Shumway said: Granted, I was 5 in 1991, but I really don't remember him wearing #28. Was it for the full season? I think the only way I remember 11 and 19 is because I had those cards. I tried to look it up, and all I see is that he traded #28 to Mitch Williams, who was acquired at the beginning of the season, for two cases of beer. That's fantastic! I'm not sure if he even wore 28 in a regular season game, but I recall him at the time talking about just wanting some beer for it. He kept 29 even after Mitchie Poo changed to 99 in '93. Not sure why he changed from 19 to 28 in the first place, but I"m pretty sure he didn't really care about numbers so somebody else probably just asked for 19. EDIT: just looked up the date of the trade, and Mitch was dealt to the team the day before opening day, so they he probably never wore it in a real game. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shumway Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said: I'm not sure if he even wore 28 in a regular season game, but I recall him at the time talking about just wanting some beer for it. He kept 29 even after Mitchie Poo changed to 99 in '93. Not sure why he changed from 19 to 28 in the first place, but I"m pretty sure he didn't really care about numbers so somebody else probably just asked for 19. EDIT: just looked up the date of the trade, and Mitch was dealt to the team the day before opening day, so they he probably never wore it in a real game. #19 on the 1991 Phillies was John Lindeman (never heard of him?), so yeah, no idea why Krukker changed to 28. Also, looking at the '91 Phillies on Baseball Reference really brought out some names I completely forgot about, most notably Bruce Ruffin and Randy Ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 Howard Johnson briefly switched from number 20 to number 44 in the early 1990s. He didn't look right in it, and, what's more, he didn't feel right. So he changed back to number 20 after less than a season. Speaking of members of the 1986 Mets, there were number downgrades in store for both Dwight Gooden (16 to 11) and Darryl Strawberry (18 to 26 and then to 39) when they came to the Yankees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.