Because it cheapens the honor. Under your criteria, teams would retire the numbers of the “best player on the team for a specific era.” , rather than simply retiring the numbers of the best players to ever play for the franchise period. They were certainly doing that for awhile. Oswalt arguably has accomplished more than some of the pitchers who have had their numbers retired here. I’m glad they stopped... otherwise it’s likely they would have retired Wagner, Oswalt, Berkman.
Don Wilson and Mike Scott are two. I get why both their numbers are retired, but I also think it’s fairly easy to make arguments why they shouldn’t have them retired. Not to be insensitive, but Umbricht shouldn’t really be in either.
I think this makes sense. I guess I just don't think it is that big a deal to honor/retire best players that basically carried the franchise. The whole we only retire numbers for hall of famers is meh to me. If telling the story of the franchise over time, they have to be mentioned, they should probably be retired or like an Astros HOF (or better name if someone can coin it). The honoring is really for the fans who love those players.
I would be happy if the Astros only retired their HoFers’s numbers. I could support “honoring” player numbers, where for say 25 years the number can not be used.
Retiring a number for a guy like Mike Scott reminds me how thin our history is compared to some of the more storied franchises. Whoever mentioned only retiring the HoF guys' numbers: I've never heard of that before. There are franchises with HoF guys whose numbers aren't retired. Because there are simply too many. It's supposed to be a massive, historic honour, not some sentimental thing. Change the retired numbers into a wall of honor--whoever said that was a good idea. Add JR Richard to it, or remain hypocrites. As for retired numbers, Bagwell. Maybe Biggio. Nobody else yet, imo. Maybe Altuve, one day, if he keeps it up.
↑↑ and re: the wall of honor thing, don't do it at the same time. Convert the existing retired numbers to the wall of honor, or some other nice telling of our franchise's history, then leave it a year or two. Then retire Bagwell's number.
Should Berkman make the HOF? No. Will he make the HOF? Yes. The Veterans Committee is ludicrous, they've turned it into the Basketball HOF.
Way too many, imo. But I get the esteem and appreciation for who those guys are and what they've meant to the franchise.
Definitely one of Houston's greatest. His numbers at Rice were outstanding. If he could've maintained .300 and hit about 40 more HRs the dumb baseball writers may have noticed.
There's several different things that should go into deciding who gets their number retired. The following are all different things that ought to be considered IMO... Time spent in an Astros uniform Sustained success Quality/length of peak performance Postseason success/reputation Individual awards/milestone achievements What they meant to the Astros (can't quantify this, but it has to be considered) Based on those criteria, I'm not sure Jim Umbricht, Don Wilson or Mike Scott should have their number retired. Umbricht and Wilson are obviously unique circumstances, but some sort of tribute in a separate part of the ballpark would be more appropriate than retiring their numbers. As for Scott, his peak was absolutely elite and spanned a solid 5 seasons ('85-'89). The question with Scott is whether or not that 5-year peak is enough to make up for a pretty average rest of his career in an Astros uniform. While small, his postseason track record is incredibly strong so he does have that going for him. When you take these criteria and apply them to current Astros it makes for a really fascinating debate. I'd consider the following to all be players who are talented enough that we will probably one day be talking about their chances of having their numbers retired: Altuve Springer Correa Bregman Verlander has obviously been other-worldly in his 2.5 years here, and helped us win 2 AL pennants and 1 WS, but I don't think he was here long enough to retire his number. Alvarez absolutely has the talent but it's way too early to start talking about whether or not he'll one day have his number retired. Altuve: He could probably retire today and he'd have a great argument for his number being retired. 6x All Star, 4-time hitting champ, 3-time BA champ, MVP, legendary Game 5 HR, all-time postseason performer, peak performance is absolutely elite. He's also guaranteed to be here 4 more seasons and will only add to his legendary status. Springer: His candidacy is fascinating. Absolute postseason legend. Elite leadoff hitter. Was (hopefully still will be) the heart of the Astros for several seasons. When healthy was consistently an all-star caliber player. However, if he leaves this offseason then he'll only have spent 7 seasons here. And he missed considerable time due to injuries. So his candidacy would be based mostly off his legendary postseason performances (WS MVP) that led to two pennants and a WS title. Correa: Really the only way his number is retired is if he stays here long-term and manages to stay pretty healthy over the life of a new contract. He's got legendary postseason status already, but he's so young still and has missed so much time that it's impossible to retire his number unless he re-signs here. Bregman: Unless he's somehow traded before becoming a FA, he'll have spent 9 years here. If he were to sign an extension then that puts him here 10+ years. That's already a long way toward having his number retired. Assuming he gets back to his '18/'19 level of performance for the next 3-4 seasons then he'll have a very good case for having his number retired. Definitely too early to lean strongly one way or the other though. I'm definitely in the camp that believes Berkman should have his number retired, and I also believe Oswalt should. Un-retire Umbricht and Wilson and possibly Scott. Add Berkman and Oswalt. And yes, I know this is a long post. Really slow day at work.
Completely agree. I think bobrek said something similar a page or so ago. As to the rest of your post, I follow your logic and it's consistent. For me though, if two or three players from an era have their numbers retired it won't be long and you'll have three-digit numbers on jerseys. I personally think getting a number retired should be harder than making the hall of fame.
We need to adopt the policy most other ballclubs do for retired numbers: spend at least five years with the team, and either be elected to the Hall of Fame or narrowly miss election after spending substantially their entire career with the team. Applying these factors, its Biggio, Bagwell, Ryan. Mike Scott MAYBE.
Scott didn't come close to being elected to the hall of fame, so not sure why he is a maybe. He got 0.4 percent of the vote in his one year. Deshaies got 1 vote and that gave him 0.2 percent so Scott probably got 2 votes.
Some of y’all are a little precious about retired numbers, IMO. Mike Scott was at his peak the most dominant pitcher in the game, and he was unhittable in the playoffs. The most important player on the best Astros team in the first 30 years of the franchise. Berkman? Go back and look at his numbers. Look at what he did in the playoffs. He was the opposite of Biggio and Bagwell in that respect. He’s a Houston native, a Rice grad, a guy who would have no doubt been a retired number for the club if they didn’t go into the tank in the late aughts and (rightly) trade away their good players. Is that his fault? I’m not saying they have to honor him, but he was 100% a great hitter and fun to watch.
Except he wasn't relaxed at all. He was always full of self doubt and negative. Interestingly the guy that really helped him a lot was Jeff Bagwell, because he could help keep him positive. Berkman just was lazy, by far the laziest position player on the team. A lot of his teammates could not take his constant negativity. He had more talent than Bagwell or Biggio.
