The Politics of Retiring a Number
July 17, 2007 by Geoff Young
Filed under Hall of Fame, Personalities
Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time. Seems Babe Ruth’s granddaughter wants MLB to bestow upon Ruth the same honor it has given Jackie Robinson. She wants the Babe’s number retired throughout baseball.
Slippery slope, meet can of worms.
The unfortunate truth is that whenever you honor someone in this way, you also make a judgment on everyone else. In San Diego, for example, Steve Garvey’s number 6 is retired essentially because he hit a home run in a playoff game. Garvey spent most of his career with the Dodgers, who have not retired his number. Among Padres, he hardly ranks among the greats. Heck, he’s probably not even among the top five at his position. Nate Colbert, to name one player, is more deserving of the honor based on his overall body of work.
Back to the larger point. MLB has set precedent by retiring Robinson’s number throughout baseball. Now the Ruth camp wants in on the action. If they get their wish, then who’s to say that Hank Aaron or the Ted Williams family won’t do the same? Then the question becomes, where do you draw the line?
It’s a tricky situation, and one I’m glad I don’t have to deal with. What do you think — should the Babe’s number be retired throughout baseball?
Slippery slope is right. I think baseball should put this to bed once and for all by un-retiring Jackie Robinson’s number. Isn’t the greater honor to have a great player on each team remembering Robinson by playing with the number 42 on his back?