Retiring numbers
Thu Apr 03, 2003 10:10 pm
I just glanced at the complete listing of retired numbers over at NBA.com's history section. I hadn't realised the Sixers had retired Barkley's #34 until now. Ah, useless trivia...
The practice of retiring jersey numbers is a great sign of respect - it's all but saying that no player is worthy of wearing a number once worn by a player that meant so much to a team. Of course, it creates an obvious problem - eventually, you're going to run out of "common" numbers, and we'll all be rushing to buy (insert star of the future here)'s number 78 replica jersey. There have been occasions where a retired number has been kept active for another player and retired twice (Dave Cowens and Joe Loscutoff, Celtics; Earl Monroe and Dick McGuire, Knicks).
A few questions for discussion:
1. Scottie Pippen is still active, but when he announces his retirement, retiring his #33 would be an expected gesture by the Bulls. Chicago has not given a player #33 since Pippen's depature. Do you think it's likely they will extend this honour to Pip?
2. Charles Barkley's #34 has been retired by the Sixers, the team he spent most of his NBA career with. However, he also made the Suns one of the elite teams from 1992-1996. He also formed a formidable trio with Drexler and Olajuwon in Houston. Drexler has his number retired by both Houston and Portland - should Sir Charles' #34 be raised in Phoenix, and his #4 made unavailable in Houston? (Wilt Chamberlain also has his #13 retired by all three teams he was affiliated with - it would not be without precedent).
3. In a similar vein, should Michael Jordan's #23 be retired by the Wizards?
4. Guys like Karl Malone and John Stockton will no doubt have their numbers retired. How about other greats/significant players? Should GP have his number retired by Seattle? Mark Jackson is now second on the all-time assists leaders - perhaps New York, Indiana or Utah could retire his number?
5. Finally, should retiring numbers be more commonplace/allowed? Do you think it's classy, or do you think it's somewhat of an empty gesture/waste of a ceremony?
My answers...
1. The Bulls should definitely retire Pip's #33. Even if he left on less than friendly terms, I think it would be appropriate.
2. I believe the Suns should consider it, though Sir Charles has been reported to still hold a grudge against Suns management for the way in which they shopped him around prior to the 1996/97 season. If the Suns were to retire #34 - and I think it would be justified - then the Rockets could probably also retire #4.
3. Michael Jordan is my favourite player. For the past two years, I've been a pseudo Wizards fan, only because MJ has been playing there. My favourite team remains the Bulls, and when MJ retires again, I'll have no interest in the Wiz (no I'm not a bandwagoner because the Bulls are still my favourites - I prefer to think of myself as a Wiz fan by association). MJ's reached a couple of milestones in his "third career", but I don't think it's enough to warrant the Wizards retiring his #23.
4. Even though you'll probably start running out of "common" numbers, I think that great players deserve that kind of gesture. If Kobe plays all or most of his career in LA, his jersey should be raised. Shaq's #34 should also be retired. Guys like GP who are closer to retirement should also be automatically honoured this way. Other significant players are also eligible for this distinction IMHO.
5. I believe it's an appropriate way to show respect and thanks to a player. In professional sports loyalty, as well as more tangible contributions, is something that should not go unrewarded. It's a way of showing appreciation and reminding fans of a team's history. Sure, the Celtics, Lakers and Knicks have made some desired numbers unavailable, but in the name of respect.
OK, the floor is yours.
The practice of retiring jersey numbers is a great sign of respect - it's all but saying that no player is worthy of wearing a number once worn by a player that meant so much to a team. Of course, it creates an obvious problem - eventually, you're going to run out of "common" numbers, and we'll all be rushing to buy (insert star of the future here)'s number 78 replica jersey. There have been occasions where a retired number has been kept active for another player and retired twice (Dave Cowens and Joe Loscutoff, Celtics; Earl Monroe and Dick McGuire, Knicks).
A few questions for discussion:
1. Scottie Pippen is still active, but when he announces his retirement, retiring his #33 would be an expected gesture by the Bulls. Chicago has not given a player #33 since Pippen's depature. Do you think it's likely they will extend this honour to Pip?
2. Charles Barkley's #34 has been retired by the Sixers, the team he spent most of his NBA career with. However, he also made the Suns one of the elite teams from 1992-1996. He also formed a formidable trio with Drexler and Olajuwon in Houston. Drexler has his number retired by both Houston and Portland - should Sir Charles' #34 be raised in Phoenix, and his #4 made unavailable in Houston? (Wilt Chamberlain also has his #13 retired by all three teams he was affiliated with - it would not be without precedent).
3. In a similar vein, should Michael Jordan's #23 be retired by the Wizards?
4. Guys like Karl Malone and John Stockton will no doubt have their numbers retired. How about other greats/significant players? Should GP have his number retired by Seattle? Mark Jackson is now second on the all-time assists leaders - perhaps New York, Indiana or Utah could retire his number?
5. Finally, should retiring numbers be more commonplace/allowed? Do you think it's classy, or do you think it's somewhat of an empty gesture/waste of a ceremony?
My answers...
1. The Bulls should definitely retire Pip's #33. Even if he left on less than friendly terms, I think it would be appropriate.
2. I believe the Suns should consider it, though Sir Charles has been reported to still hold a grudge against Suns management for the way in which they shopped him around prior to the 1996/97 season. If the Suns were to retire #34 - and I think it would be justified - then the Rockets could probably also retire #4.
3. Michael Jordan is my favourite player. For the past two years, I've been a pseudo Wizards fan, only because MJ has been playing there. My favourite team remains the Bulls, and when MJ retires again, I'll have no interest in the Wiz (no I'm not a bandwagoner because the Bulls are still my favourites - I prefer to think of myself as a Wiz fan by association). MJ's reached a couple of milestones in his "third career", but I don't think it's enough to warrant the Wizards retiring his #23.
4. Even though you'll probably start running out of "common" numbers, I think that great players deserve that kind of gesture. If Kobe plays all or most of his career in LA, his jersey should be raised. Shaq's #34 should also be retired. Guys like GP who are closer to retirement should also be automatically honoured this way. Other significant players are also eligible for this distinction IMHO.
5. I believe it's an appropriate way to show respect and thanks to a player. In professional sports loyalty, as well as more tangible contributions, is something that should not go unrewarded. It's a way of showing appreciation and reminding fans of a team's history. Sure, the Celtics, Lakers and Knicks have made some desired numbers unavailable, but in the name of respect.
OK, the floor is yours.
Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:05 pm
eventually, you're going to run out of "common" numbers
yeh but not in ur lifetime so why care.....
i think that players should only have their numbers retired by one team.
Michael Jordan is my favourite player. For the past two years, I've been a pseudo Wizards fan, only because MJ has been playing there
ditto
Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:28 am
MJ's jersey has a 50/50 chance of getting retired, it really depends if the Wizards make it in the playoffs or not. I mean, why retire someone's jersey if your team didn't even get in? On the other hand, people see MJ as the greatest player of time and it would be an honor to retire his number.
Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:43 am
Not that he needs any more honoring after this years ASG.refuze wrote:On the other hand, people see MJ as the greatest player of time and it would be an honor to retire his number.
Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:52 pm
yeh but not in ur lifetime so why care.....
Well, it's not something that overly concerns me. I thought it was worth mentioning as part of the discussion on retired numbers though.
Sat Apr 05, 2003 7:02 pm
yeh i think they phenx should retire barkley,
but retiring players is a team thing, they might deside to retire a player coz of his popularity (dan marjly), or some other reason (bob love, bulls).
it doesnt have to be stats. i mean if u have a look at someplayers like billips now, his been gign around teams putting up geat numbers for a pg, so what, doesnt mean anyhing.
as far as michael?? no way, first of all it would have to go through him as he is the part owner and secont e did not go out to play coz he wanted to boost his scores, but to help out his own franchise, there is no way his number is getting retired......
as for wilt, well, his been a dominant force on any team... thats all i got to say!!
but retiring players is a team thing, they might deside to retire a player coz of his popularity (dan marjly), or some other reason (bob love, bulls).
it doesnt have to be stats. i mean if u have a look at someplayers like billips now, his been gign around teams putting up geat numbers for a pg, so what, doesnt mean anyhing.
as far as michael?? no way, first of all it would have to go through him as he is the part owner and secont e did not go out to play coz he wanted to boost his scores, but to help out his own franchise, there is no way his number is getting retired......
as for wilt, well, his been a dominant force on any team... thats all i got to say!!