Players that wore different numbers on same team

[throwmesomepics]

Mark Ingram wore 22, 5, 14, and 28 with the saints

He wore 32 in his rookie card

 

[GrayJ12]

The many numbers of Ron Artest (Metta World Peace):

[LMU]

You can pretty much throw in most cases of baseball/hockey midseason call-ups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BBTV]

On 9/23/2024 at 10:29 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Rickey Henderson 

 

(The A's retired his second number.)

 

 

Thank you for following the rules I made for the thread I didn't start . 

 

I remember the first time I saw Henderson in 35.  I only knew him in 24, but maybe it was an old baseball card or somewhere where I saw him in 35 and it just looked so wrong.  35 is one of the worst numbers for a position player.  It's "slow".  Maybe it works for a pitcher, but that's about it.  24 is much speedier.  I can't even say it's an even number thing, because I don't feel the same about numbers that end in 8.  Something about 24 in baseball is just so classic.  It seems like one of those numbers that most players should desire.  It's an elite baseball number.

 

 

I feel the same way about 35 in football - it's a slow number that rookies get and then change after final cuts (although these days a goddam DT can wear it.)

 

It's like the 3 indicates some speed or motion, and the 5 is like the stop sign.  30 is meh, 31 is OK if you're a pitcher and maybe a backup DB, 32 is ELITE - you should be a great pitcher or great RB to have the balls to wear 32.  One of the best numbers.  33 is fitting for any baseball player at any position, and is a top-tier football number too.  34 is an all-time baseball number - suitable for both star pitchers and power hitters.  It's also great for football too, but more for RBs than DBs.  We've discussed 35.  36 is meh.  It's fine for DBs in football, and pitchers, but that's about it.  37 is an all around ugly-ass number.  Suitable for every player on the Mets, but not anyone else in any sport.  38, like many (but not all) numbers that end in 8 is slow and prodding.  39 is awful.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

39 is awful.

 

The number 39 feels like a power number, thanks entirely to one guy: Dave Parker . That's why it felt right for Strawberry with the Yankees.

 

 

 

 

Though there was one Yankee who made number 39 feel fast.

 

 

 

 

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The number 39 feels like a power number, thanks entirely to one guy: Dave Parker . That's why it felt right for Strawberry with the Yankees.

 

 

 

 

Though there was one Yankee who made number 39 feel fast.

 

 

 

 

 

There's going to be countless examples of guys who were great but wore numbers that I think are awful.  The Flyers just got some Russian kid that's supposed to be a cornerstone player and wears 39, but I still think it's bad.  The 3 and 9 are too far apart, just like 2 and 9 are (numbers that start with 1 are different for reasons I can't explain, except for the same rule about ending in 5 or 8.  11 good, 12 good (football QB only - GTFO with receivers wearing it, and it's not my favorite in baseball), 13-14 good, 15 barf, 16-17 ok, 18-19 barf in football, meh for baseball).  Dick Allen wore 15 and should be in the HOF, but I still don't think it's a great number.

 

Speaking of numbers ending in 9, one of my top 3 football players of all time Seth Joyner wore 59, so I'm partial to that number, but if I take emotion out of it, it's an awful number for what used to be a linebacker's number.  58 should be the highest a LB should go up to, with the exception of 57 which is another of those bad numbers.

 

Of course now these kids want anyone to wear anything, so we'll soon have QBs wearing trash like 39, and a lot of the context is lost.  Changing the number rules is worse than changing to this ridiculous kickoff system that's eliminated squibs and surprises, and made the game 10x more confusing than other rules already have.

[GrayJ12]

4 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

There's going to be countless examples of guys who were great but wore numbers that I think are awful.  The Flyers just got some Russian kid that's supposed to be a cornerstone player and wears 39, but I still think it's bad. 

Ryan Newman's number of choice has been 39, and when he drove for Tony Stewart, he actually had that number. I don't know why, it doesn't look like a number that communicates speed.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

58 minutes ago, BBTV said:

15 barf

 

Oh, you're just wrong about 15. It's a solid, powerful number.

 

When I was a kid, the fact that that number was worn by both New York catchers cemented it in my mind as a catcher's number.  It was worn also by Tim McCarver, and later by Darrell Porter.

 

 

 

So, naturally, while catching in little league and for my school, I did everything I could to get that number, including arranging multi-player shirt-swaps, and also subjecting my mother to hours of sewing. 

 

In addition to the fact that the number was worn by cool players, it's also just aesthetically pleasing the way the forms of the numbers sit next to one another.

 

In the the varsity font it communicates robustness.

 

 

    

 

 

While in the standard block font, it can have a kind of a lithe sleekness.

 

 

 

Even though my first choice in numbers is now 10 (thanks to Rick Cerone and other factors), the number 15 remains in the very top tier of numbers.

 

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, GrayJ12 said:

Ryan Newman's number of choice has been 39, and when he drove for Tony Stewart, he actually had that number. I don't know why, it doesn't look like a number that communicates speed.

I’m only talking about sports numbers. 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Oh, you're just wrong about 15. It's a solid, powerful number.

 

When I was a kid, the fact that that number was worn by both New York catchers cemented it in my mind as a catcher's number.  It was worn also by Tim McCarver, and later by Darrell Porter.

 

 

 

So, naturally, while catching in little league and for my school, I did everything I could to get that number, including arranging multi-player shirt-swaps, and also subjecting my mother to hours of sewing. 

 

In addition to the fact that the number was worn by cool players, it's also just aesthetically pleasing the way the forms of the numbers sit next to one another.

 

In the the varsity font it communicates robustness.

 

 

    

 

 

While in the standard block font, it can have a kind of a lithe sleekness.

 

 

 

Even though my first choice in numbers is now 10 (thanks to Rick Cerone and other factors), the number 15 remains in the very top tier of numbers.

 

You make a valid point about how they sit next to each other, at least with traditional fonts. I could see it for a catcher or maybe a first baseman. But that’s about it for me. 
 

And again, this isn’t about great players that wore the number, my points are simply about the aesthetics of it and subliminal implications (which you’ve also articulated in your counterpoints.)
 

Mahomes is like a total mind F for me. My brain sees 15 and imagines a statue, yet he’s anything but. He should be in what is to me a more dynamic number. When I see him do what he does, I can’t get over the fact that he’s in 15. 

Same with 5. It doesn’t bother me too much in baseball, at least for an infielder, but I also think of it as very static, especially when the left side descends, like it does in the Eagles font. I always thought it looked like how I described 15/Mahomes when McNabb was fast and dynamic, before he turned more statuesque after injuries and a determination to be viewed as a pocket passer started to mount. 
 

I at least hope we can agree that catchers should never wear single digits. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

19 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I at least hope we can agree that catchers should never wear single digits. 

 

I am not bothered at all by catchers wearing single-digit numbers.  I mean, Yogi, Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Steve Yeager, later on Benito Santiago.  Even one of the numbers of my hero Rick Cerone was a single-digit number!  It never even occurred to me that that is any kind of issue.

 

But what I absolutely cannot live with is a single-digit number on a pitcher.  And that brings us back to the topic of the thread!  Hammaker wore number 14 with the Giants; he was wearing that number when he gave up the historic grand slam to Fred Lynn in the 1983 All-Star Game.  Then he committed a crime against humanity by switching to number 7.

 

 

 

 

We need a rule against that.

 

[DCarp1231]

Jorge Lopez 48 & 73 for the Orioles

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I am not bothered at all by catchers wearing single-digit numbers.  I mean, Yogi, Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Steve Yeager, later on Benito Santiago.  Even one of the numbers of my hero Rick Cerone was a single-digit number!  It never even occurred to me that that is any kind of issue.

 

But what I absolutely cannot live with is a single-digit number on a pitcher.  And that brings us back to the topic of the thread!  Hammaker wore number 14 with the Giants; he was wearing that number when he gave up the historic grand slam to Fred Lynn in the 1983 All-Star Game.  Then he committed a crime against humanity by switching to number 7.

 

 

 

 

We need a rule against that.

 

 

Santiago switched to 09 specifically because he didn't want the strap cutting the 9 in half.  That's why I hate single-digit catchers (even though it's not perfect when the first number is 1, it's still better than a single digit.)  Also as the backstop, I just think there should be something... I don't know, more substantial behind the plate than a 7.  Save 7 for position players.

 

I think the only thing you and I agree on in any aspect of life is the single-digit pitcher.  There absolutely should be a rule against it.  Also, I think the pitcher should look the most "classic" on the field, so I kinda hate when starters wear 82 or 93 or when they keep their spring-training number in the 60s.  I don't even like starters in the 50s.  They should stick to 30s and 40s.  I certainly wouldn't enforce this via legislation, but if I was the team manager, I'd rip the jersey right off of his back and slap him until he fell in line.  That's exactly what I'd do.

[Maz]

 

Alexei Kovalev

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Santiago switched to 09 specifically because he didn't want the strap cutting the 9 in half.  That's why I hate single-digit catchers

 

Right, that's why Santiago did that, though he could have done what Bench and Carter did, which is to wear the chest protector that has no vertical strap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

I think the only thing you and I agree on in any aspect of life is the single-digit pitcher.  There absolutely should be a rule against it.

 

A coalition!

 

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Also, I think the pitcher should look the most "classic" on the field, so I kinda hate when starters wear 82 or 93 or when they keep their spring-training number in the 60s.  I don't even like starters in the 50s.  They should stick to 30s and 40s.

 

I think that 20s, 30s, and 40s look best on pitchers. Those have a perfectly classic look. The 50s are a tier down, but still good; the best examples are the Goose, Randy Johnson, and Don Drysdale.

 

The teens are down yet another tier. I remember being uncomfortable as a kid with Dick Tidrow wearing number 19 for the Yankees.  But Dave Righetti (later also 19 for the Yankees) and eventually Dwight Gooden (16 for the Mets) helped me to tolerate some numbers in the teens. (Of course I knew about Whitey Ford (16) and Bob Feller (19); but I hadn't seen them myself.)

 

I think that 16 is the lowest number that I can stand on a pitcher. I never liked how Ron Darling looked in numbers 15 and 12 for the Mets; later on,  I thought that Gooden looked silly in number 11 for the Yankees.

 

 

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

if I was the team manager, I'd rip the [inappropriately-numbered] jersey right off of his back and slap him until he fell in line.  That's exactly what I'd do.

 

I agree with that. A team number policy is completely legitimate.