Poll: Should 3 be a Retired Number Throughout Baseball?

Members of TheScoreBoards.com discuss the idea of retiring The Babe's number throughout baseball. Feel free to chime in and vote in the poll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapier If Gretzky's number 99 has been retired the Babe's number 3 should also be retired. Babe Ruth was bigger than the Beatles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEsince92 I concur, my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shabba amen amen!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TestSubjekt I said no. Who cares about Wayne Gretzky? This is baseball. Jackie Robinson's 42 is the only number retired across baseball. If you retire Ruth's where do you stop? Mickie Mantle? Joe DiMaggio? Cy Young? Those are some VERY good players along with the Babe. Yeah...you did notice that I neglected to mention Bonds and Clemens. Wonder why that is...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapier Babe Ruth was/is a national treasure. He is/was head and shoulders above, in stature, every athlete who ever strode the planet. Every iota of that stature was dedicated to Major League Baseball. The only player of any sport who ever came close was Pele. And today's kids/teens who follow sports don't grow up knowing who Pele is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapier Retiring Robinson's number was stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UcanSadaA I voted no, the man is a legend but I don't think his number should be retired throughout the league.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TestSubjekt From what I've read Ruth pales in comparison to Jackie Robinson off the field. I think you should look at the entire picture. Otherwise you'll be wanting to retire Bonds and Clemens numbers too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerFan09 Here is how I look at it, Jackie's number was retired because he was the first African American to play in the majors. Babe is the reason why baseball is baseball. If you walk up to somebody that knows nothing about baseball and you say Babe Ruth. They will know who you are talking about. Babe Ruth IS baseball. For that I think the only two numbers you should retire through out baseball are 3 and 42.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscarheyman Except Bonds couldn't pitch and Clemens couldn't hit. Ruth was a pretty decent lefty as well. 94-46 record including an incredible 14 inning (win) game in a World Series.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phils phanatic i'm not going to deny the fact that ruth was a great player but name me 5 great pitchers(in which he hit off of) and hitters(when he was pitching) that he played against.they don't match up against those of the modern era.i say don't retire his number.robinson's is really the only number that really 100% deserves to retired by all of mlb

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapier That's just crapola. How much glory do you deserve for being the first black player in MLB? What's next sainthood? Robinson is one of those ballplayers whose reputation by achievements and value has been aggrandized so much it's time to wring it out back to reality. The respected Bill James Jackie Robinson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Awards and recognition Yet in the "original" Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract James put Robinson at 91st.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscarheyman Yeah but Ruth didn't have any control over that (opposition). I'm not saying he was a great pitcher - but he did have three solid seasons as a pitcher. That is an amazing feat no matter what the opposition IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerFan09 Who cares about who he hit off of? He had more home runs by himself in a single season then whole teams did that year. If that's not talent then I don't know what is. And remember, ballparks were ALOT bigger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phils phanatic ok so in your case Sodaharu(sp?) Oh is the real home run king with 868?it makes a pretty big difference who pitching to him.there's a reason guys who hit good in single-A aren't as good of a hitter as major league hitters ballparks around the rest of the league were "ALOT bigger" than ballparks now,but the polo ground was 1 of the shortest fields from home to right and right center and even by today's standards would be considered a short porch.it was just 257 feet down the right field line and just 338 feet to right center.and just to point out how bad the offense was back then,ruth hit 11 home runs in 1918 and LED THE AL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroSports82

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyPenn613 I don't agree at all. I don't think baseball survived because of Babe Ruth. He is arguably the biggest icon in the sport, but when that changes, will the number change with that? I don't think it should because I don't think it should be retired. Let teams retire numbers to personally honor their players. Babe Ruth was a great player. He was not a great person. He didn't possess great characteristics that make him worth honoring that much more. He is in the Hall of Fame. I don't think anything more is needed. Robinson broke the color barrier within America's Pastime. On top of that, he was a great player. He did something that was thought to be impossible not long before, and what he did was on a much greater plane than the game of baseball is. Ken Griffey Jr. was predicted by many experts to easily pass the 800 HR plateau shortly before he was traded from Seattle. He played with some of the best glovework that was ever seen. He could hit, run, field, throw, and play the game as good as anyone in the history of the game has over that many years. If he doesn't have injury problems, he is probably the greatest player in the game at this point. His name would be known worldwide much more than Babe Ruth. He probably would have pulled baseball single handedly back to being the top sport in the nation. Point is, I think the best, most memorable, biggest name in the sport could change, and I don't think it is fair to ignore a possible legacy in the future based on now. As much as I'm against the idea of retiring #3, I would be even more against the idea of #24 being the third number retired across the sport based on the concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slagonia No. Robinson's 42 shouldn't either. No team should have to retire the number of someone who never played there. It's suppose to be respect to your most honored players. Why do the Giants need to hang Robinson's 42? Why do the Rays (who came into exsistence 70 years after Ruth retired) need to retire the number 3? It makes no sense to me. That area is for your honored players, not baseball's honored players. That's what the HOF is for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerFan09 Do I think 42 should be retired no, but the fact is, it is. For this reason, anybody supporting Babe Ruth and retiring the number 3 has a case IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyPenn613 I agree with the idea behind it. Robinson I think is the one exception because his accomplishments weren't for any team, but for a sport and nation. Robinson is a big reason Mays would have his number retired by the Giants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slagonia I'm not a Giants fan, but if I was, I'd be pretty upset that a Dodger number was hanging in my outfield. I know I'd be really upset if a Boston number was hanging in mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyPenn613 I understand the point of view, but if this changed the way things were in that sense, I could deal with a Yankees, Braves, Phillies, etc. number hanging on the wall at Shea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan I'm not a fan of retiring numbers throughout a sport. I'm ok with Jackie Robinson cause what he did goes beyond anything on the field

Quote:

Originally Posted by slagonia And he deserves to be honored... But that doesn't mean I should be forced to look at a dodger uniform in my stadium's place of honor. Here in New York, Monument Park is a place of great honor. It is a place where only the greatest Yankees are paid tribute, and respected for their contributions to the club. They are our finest, and our most respected members. So why should I put a dodger out there? I'm a big fan of Jackie Robinson, and a friend of mine was shocked when I oppossed his retirement throughout baseball because he knew of my great admiration for him. "You're a Jackie Robinson fan, how do you not like this?" Simply put - There's no reason why I should have someone who isn't a Yankee in Monument Park. Now, I am very happy that the number does not yet rest in Monument Park (because Rivera is still wearing it) and it is insulting to think that Robinson's 42 will be up there before Rivera's 42. I take my Yankees very seriously (Let's face it New York, they're all we have), and I hold their history and tradition paramount.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapier TyPenn613 All of America and much of the world loved Babe Ruth. He deserved his fame more than Robinson did. Branch Rickey made the decision to break the MLB color line. He was the great man. Robinson was just there. Another apples and oranges issue. Yea for Ruth nay for Robinson. It was pretty dumb retiring number 42. The reason it was retired was to recognize Jackie Robinson's contribution but it did nothing more than put "him" in the closet. 42 was like number 23, a symbol for black youth. Retiring a number for an entire sport should be for the sport not an 0de to political correctness. On a side note the number retiring thingy has completely gone South. The Yanks have retired almost 20 numbers? Billy Martin? Ron Guidry? Reggie Jackson?