The_Admiral Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 New Isles draft pick Josh Ho-Sang wore 66 in Windsor and might wear it on Long Island if the hockey police don't shame him out of it. they will ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Can't agree with that. It's Wayne freaking Gretzky. And I don't believe you've been given bitch-about-the-NHL clearance. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Gretzky's case is kind of strange. It helps that he wore such an unusual number... if he wore #8, I don't think it would be retired league-wide.If it were up to me, I'd only do the league-wide thing for players that really had a big impact beyond scoring a lot of points. Jordan and Gretzky come close, but I'd only have Jackie Robinson's number retired league-wide in any of the big four sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself.Best player to play the game by a large margin gets his number retired league wide? Not seeing the problem. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRicSlick Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself.Best player to play the game by a large margin gets his number retired league wide? Not seeing the problem.So why is retiring 23 for Jordan a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 23 is a common basketball number due to high school and college only allowing digits 0-5, and as great as Jordan was, he didn't change the entire landscape of the game like Robinson, nor did he dominate the record books and public consciousness of the game like Gretzky. Of course Jordan was the most famous athlete in the world -- even today, he's still #2 and he hasn't played for 11 years! -- but there were other huge superstars in the NBA. To most of the world, hockey was and is Gretzky and everyone else more than basketball was and is Jordan and everyone else. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself.Best player to play the game by a large margin gets his number retired league wide? Not seeing the problem. So why is retiring 23 for Jordan a problem?I don't have a problem with retiring 23 for Jordan. Never have. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself.Best player to play the game by a large margin gets his number retired league wide? Not seeing the problem.Nobody dominated his sport, or the public consciousness, more than Babe Ruth. Should all baseball teams have retired #3?It's a busher move from a league unsure of its own relevance and desperate to prove something. The same kind of league, in fact, that would expand to places disinterested in the sport just to claim some sort of "national footprint". The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(probably)notabandwagonfan Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I really think that to have your number retired by the league, you have to do something for the game outside of statistics. Jackie Robinson fully deserved to have his number retired leaguewide not because of his stats, but because he broke the color barrier while withstanding a lot of :censored:. I don't believe that a league should retire a number just because a player was dominate. (I would advocate for 21 to be retired leaguewide because Clemente's tragic death and where he was going where he died. Examples like that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I don't have a problem with the league retiring 99. Nobody would've worn it anyway so why not make it formal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 What makes you think nobody would have worn it?If recent history is any indication, we would have seen a bunch of players adopt it in the early 2020s. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Wine Pirate Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself.Best player to play the game by a large margin gets his number retired league wide? Not seeing the problem.Nobody dominated his sport, or the public consciousness, more than Babe Ruth. Should all baseball teams have retired #3?I have no issue with #3 being retired throughout MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMac Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Always thought retiring #99 was a desperate cry for attention from a sport that didn't have enough confidence in itself.Best player to play the game by a large margin gets his number retired league wide? Not seeing the problem.Nobody dominated his sport, or the public consciousness, more than Babe Ruth. Should all baseball teams have retired #3?I have no issue with #3 being retired throughout MLB.I think MLB has it right with just retiring 42. The man that wore 42 and what he accomplished transcends sports in general and broke the color barrier. Baby Ruth, although an amazing player, did not transcend the game of baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I don't think any number has been associated with any one player more than 99 with Gretzky, mostly because of how odd of a number it was (at the time.) I really don't think any North American player would be ballsy enough to ever wear 99, but europeans might have eventually.I'm against league-wide retirements in every case, even Jackie Robinson. There's plenty of ways to honor someone league wide besides taking their number out of circulation from teams he never even played for. It was especially eggregious in Robinson's case because they waited so long to do it that hundreds of players had worn the number after him, and in at least one case (Mariano Rivera), it will be retired for him by his team, but now he has to share that honor.Retiring 23 would be stupid for the reasons I've pointed out in other posts, but especially because it's such a common "core" number in basketball. If MJ was #75, then it would still be stupid but whatever it's not really taking away a real number that people really like wearing. "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...
JayMac Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Jordan's number should never be retired. That could open up arguments to have other numbers like 6, 32, and 13 to be retired as well. Russell, Magic, and Wilt were all arguably just as good as Jordan was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I'm against league-wide retirements in every case, even Jackie Robinson. There's plenty of ways to honor someone league wide besides taking their number out of circulation from teams he never even played for. It was especially eggregious in Robinson's case because they waited so long to do it that hundreds of players had worn the number after him, and in at least one case (Mariano Rivera), it will be retired for him by his team, but now he has to share that honor.The Cardinals already have 42 as a shared retired number for Robinson and Bruce Sutter. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Jordan's number should never be retired. That could open up arguments to have other numbers like 6, 32, and 13 to be retired as well. Russell, Magic, and Wilt were all arguably just as good as Jordan was.You can add 33 of Larry bird to the list too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 What makes you think nobody would have worn it?If recent history is any indication, we would have seen a bunch of players adopt it in the early 2020s.What recent history?What makes me think nobody would've worn it is that when I played nobody wore 99. If anybody would've worn 99 they would've been properly learned. There have been exactly three people in the history of the NHL to wear 99. Two schlubs for a couple years in the early 80's and Gretzky. He took ownership of that number during his career. Even if they hadn't formally retired it league wide nobody would've worn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 What makes you think nobody would have worn it?If recent history is any indication, we would have seen a bunch of players adopt it in the early 2020s.What recent history?What makes me think nobody would've worn it is that when I played nobody wore 99. If anybody would've worn 99 they would've been properly learned. There have been exactly three people in the history of the NHL to wear 99. Two schlubs for a couple years in the early 80's and Gretzky. He took ownership of that number during his career. Even if they hadn't formally retired it league wide nobody would've worn it.People like Crosby wearing 87 because that's when they were born, it wont be long before people who were born in 1999 start playing in the nhl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.