from NHL.com
All Gone -- And then there were none. When Montreal rookie Guillaume Latendresse took the ice for his first NHL game, he wore No. 84. Not only was he the first player in league history to wear that number, as the Society For International Hockey Research notes, the use of No. 84 means that every number from 1 to 99 has been used on an NHL jersey.
interesting. will they ever go to 3# jerseys? (ex- 747)
[quote The Rancor]interesting. will they ever go to 3# jerseys? (ex- 747)[/quote]
Maybe they'll go with fractions, a la Blernsball.
Kyle
They should start using imaginary numbers. That would be unreal.
There's a Society for International Hockey Research?
Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
I think Greg Otto of the Oakland Raiders wore 00.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
I think Greg Otto of the Oakland Raiders wore 00.[/quote]I think he meant in the NHL.
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
I think Greg Otto of the Oakland Raiders wore 00.[/quote]
Jim Otto.
[quote dietlbomb][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.[/quote]
why not 99?
[quote Liz '05][quote dietlbomb][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.[/quote]
why not 99?[/quote]
(http://www.uni.ca/carddeck/gretzky.jpg)
[quote Liz '05][quote dietlbomb][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.[/quote]
why not 99?[/quote]Probably universally retired, no?
[quote ugarte][quote Liz '05][quote dietlbomb][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.[/quote]
why not 99?[/quote]Probably universally retired, no?[/quote]
Aye.
[quote ugarte][quote Liz '05][quote dietlbomb][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.[/quote]
why not 99?[/quote]Probably universally retired, no?[/quote]
Jackie Robinson was The Great Emancipator. What did tGO ever do in the way of transcendent social significance -- nail a mediocre SoCal model with a gambling habit?
Teams should retire numbers for a set period of time after the player's retirement -- say, 100 years -- then put them back into service. How many single digit numbers are left for the Yankees?
Would YOU want to be the next guy to wear 99, even if it were in the twenty-second century?
John Davidson wore "00" for one season I believe as a Ranger, until he was no longer allowed to do so.
I recall Don Cutts wearing it while at RPI in the early 70s.
[quote Trotsky]Teams should retire numbers for a set period of time after the player's retirement -- say, 100 years -- then put them back into service. How many single digit numbers are left for the Yankees?[/quote]
2 (Jeter) and 6 (Torre) are left. I assume 2 will be retired when Jeter is all done though.
QuoteHow many single digit numbers are left for the Yankees?
Two.
2, which will probably be retired for Jeter, and 6, which is Torre.
[quote Trotsky][
Jackie Robinson was The Great Emancipator. What did tGO ever do in the way of transcendent social significance -- nail a mediocre SoCal model with a gambling habit?
Teams should retire numbers for a set period of time after the player's retirement -- say, 100 years -- then put them back into service. How many single digit numbers are left for the Yankees?[/quote]
Since when is "social significance" the requirement for having your number retired? Do you want to pull down all the retired Celtics' uniforms? And Yankees? etc, etc...
What's with the cheap shots at Gretzky and Janet Jones?
Setting aside the social significance aspect, it's fair to say that 99's impact on the game changed it significantly, not to mention that his presence dramatically increased fan interest in the western US.
[quote Rich S]Since when is "social significance" the requirement for having your number retired? Do you want to pull down all the retired Celtics' uniforms? And Yankees? etc, etc...[/quote]
From the overall context, I gathered Trotsky was talking about universal retirement of a number - i.e., when all the teams in a sport retire it, a la Robinson. Social significance certainly isn't a "requirement," but I'm not aware of any requirements for any retirement of numbers of any kind.
[quote dietlbomb][quote ugarte][quote Liz '05][quote dietlbomb][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Anybody ever worn 0? ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Martin Biron wore 00, until the NHL decreed that only numbers 1 through 98 would be allowed.[/quote]
why not 99?[/quote]Probably universally retired, no?[/quote]
Aye.[/quote]
Ah, I hadn't realized it was universally retired. It makes sense, I just didn't know it was an option. Thanks, guys.
[quote Rich S]John Davidson wore "00" for one season I believe as a Ranger, until he was no longer allowed to do so.
I recall Don Cutts wearing it while at RPI in the early 70s.[/quote] Cutts wore 0, not 00.
[quote Rich S]John Davidson wore "00" for one season I believe as a Ranger, until he was no longer allowed to do so.
[/quote]
I forgot about Davidson.
And unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember him doing that (not to mention old enough to forget him doing that).
[quote Trotsky]Jackie Robinson was The Great Emancipator. What did tGO ever do in the way of transcendent social significance -- nail a mediocre SoCal model with a gambling habit?
Teams should retire numbers for a set period of time after the player's retirement -- say, 100 years -- then put them back into service. How many single digit numbers are left for the Yankees?[/quote]Retiring numbers in honor of their achievements on the field is a great tradition. It reminds people about those who have come before and IMO is especially important for a sport like baseball that celebrates its history. OTOH, I think it was wrong to retire #42 throughout baseball. Honor the man and what he accomplished, create exhibits dedicated to his legacy in the National baseball Museum, whatever. But he never wore #42 for the Yankees, so why should it be retired in the Bronx? (It's not retired yet since Mariano Rivera still wears it [grandfathered] and the number will certainly be retired for the Sandman.) Naturally the Dodgers should have retired his number though...
Others have pointed out #2 and #6. Torre is likely to have his number retired too, so it may be zero single digits in pinstripes within a decade or so.
Ralph,
In at least one Ice Carnival game at Clarkson, which was always vs RPI, he wore "00". I believe there's a photo of it in the Clarkson yearbook that year.
[quote KeithK]Torre is likely to have his number retired too[/quote]Predicting a championship in the Bronx in '07? Or that the announcement that #6 is being retired will be made at the same press conference introducing Joe Girardi as the new manager?
Just goes to show that sorority girls know nothing about hockey.
*hides under his steelcase desk*
[quote Ben Rocky 04]Just goes to show that sorority girls know nothing about hockey.
*hides under his steelcase desk*[/quote]
*starts hitting ben with her sorority paddle*
:-P
[quote Liz '05][quote Ben Rocky 04]Just goes to show that sorority girls know nothing about hockey.
*hides under his steelcase desk*[/quote]
*starts hitting ben with her sorority paddle*
:-P[/quote]
Be careful. He might start to like it. :-D
"thankyousirmayihaveanother!"
[quote Beeeej][quote Rich S]Since when is "social significance" the requirement for having your number retired? Do you want to pull down all the retired Celtics' uniforms? And Yankees? etc, etc...[/quote]
From the overall context, I gathered Trotsky was talking about universal retirement of a number - i.e., when all the teams in a sport retire it, a la Robinson. Social significance certainly isn't a "requirement," but I'm not aware of any requirements for any retirement of numbers of any kind.[/quote]
You don't even have to be a good player. (See: Rizzuto, Phil.)
[quote ugarte][quote KeithK]Torre is likely to have his number retired too[/quote]Predicting a championship in the Bronx in '07? Or that the announcement that #6 is being retired will be made at the same press conference introducing Joe Girardi as the new manager?[/quote]Nope. But there's already ample talk of Joe being elected to the hall of Fame someday, even with the Yankees recent "struggles". Even if he's upset with Joe now, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have a change of heart later and want to honor him. He retired Billy Martin's number, for crying out loud.
[quote jmh30]You don't even have to be a good player. (See: Rizzuto, Phil.)[/quote]Oh please. Rizzuto very much was a good player. Very solid hitting stats for a pre 90's shortstop, excellent defensively, won an MVP award and was a very important part of the Yankees championship clubs of that era. Is he a marginal Hall of Famer? Sure. Was he a good player? Absolutely.
[quote KeithK][quote jmh30]You don't even have to be a good player. (See: Rizzuto, Phil.)[/quote]Oh please. Rizzuto very much was a good player. Very solid hitting stats for a pre 90's shortstop, excellent defensively, won an MVP award and was a very important part of the Yankees championship clubs of that era. Is he a marginal Hall of Famer? Sure. Was he a good player? Absolutely.[/quote]Not to mention his contributions in the booth. I loved listening to every unintentionally hilarious second of his calls.
[quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote jmh30]You don't even have to be a good player. (See: Rizzuto, Phil.)[/quote]Oh please. Rizzuto very much was a good player. Very solid hitting stats for a pre 90's shortstop, excellent defensively, won an MVP award and was a very important part of the Yankees championship clubs of that era. Is he a marginal Hall of Famer? Sure. Was he a good player? Absolutely.[/quote]Not to mention his contributions in the booth. I loved listening to every unintentionally hilarious second of his calls.[/quote]
I still remember fondly the time he got so excited about the penant race that he forgot his own name. :-D
[quote KeithK][quote jmh30]You don't even have to be a good player. (See: Rizzuto, Phil.)[/quote]Oh please. Rizzuto very much was a good player. Very solid hitting stats for a pre 90's shortstop, excellent defensively, won an MVP award and was a very important part of the Yankees championship clubs of that era. Is he a marginal Hall of Famer? Sure. Was he a good player? Absolutely.[/quote]
Agreed although by recent standards, he's better than a "marginal HOFer." Both he and Peewee Reese are bonafide inductees considering that defense was the primary contribution of shortstops in that era.
He was so hilarious as a broadcaster, I think he should be inducted in that wing as well. :-D
Actually, he was very good behind the mike until his later years when he stopped working at it and kinda coasted. Thank God he had Bill White ("hey White!"), and others to carry him.
I can recall that he stopped learning the names of the new stars.
I absolutely loved listening to Rizzuto broadcast games. It was like watching a game with an old uncle who loved to tell stories. As long as there was a straight man in the booth to make sure you knew what was happening on the field (at least for radio) it was great. White, Messer and Rizzuto are my all time favorite team, though the fact that they were broadcasting during the first 8 years of my baseball fandom may have something to do with this.
I didn't realize that Rizzuto is currently the oldest living HoF'er. May he hold that title for a long time.