Retiring numbers

[dmacgreg37]

Any way to look back at what number a player wore in the past on your team to retire their number long after they're gone?

[nightfly]

Is there any way to retire the historical numbers across the league without having to manually enter each one? I've done my franchise (Mets) and was going to work my way down the list. Arizona, cool, no sweat - Luis Gonzalez (20). Next, Atlanta... ye gods. And there are 28 teams after that.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by nightfly

Is there any way to retire the historical numbers across the league without having to manually enter each one? I've done my franchise (Mets) and was going to work my way down the list. Arizona, cool, no sweat - Luis Gonzalez (20). Next, Atlanta... ye gods. And there are 28 teams after that.

i started in alphabetical order. i am on Cardinals.
List of Major League Baseball retired numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by dmacgreg37

Any way to look back at what number a player wore in the past on your team to retire their number long after they're gone?

Not unless you ran an almanac in those years. The game really does not respect player numbers in that, let's say you demote your star player for some AAA R&R and a new player comes along. That player may take the star's number and when you bring the star back up, he will be assigned another one. That's why, when I get a feeling that I may retire somebody's number, I will make note of it during his career in my Manager Notes.

[SmoothGentleman]

Does the AI automatically retire numbers? I've yet to see it occur.

[Roy Tucker]

Yes the AI will retire numbers for your team and for cpu teams as well.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Real teams are stopping retired numbers because they are running out of numbers for their active rosters.

Here's one situation:

Bears say Mike Ditka?s 89 will be the last number they retire | ProFootballTalk

[Hasta la vista pelota]

Originally Posted by Hasta la vista pelota

Uniform numbers are completely cosmetic in this game, but I agree, they are important to many of us. I love OOTP15, but this was a step backwards.

I play in online leagues and before OOTP15 I would routinely go through my major and minor league system and change uniform numbers that weren't "right." That almost always involved changing single-digit pitcher numbers to two digits. If playing historical, you might use more single-digit numbers for position players, or even use the old Cubs and (I believe) Astros system of catchers 1-9, infielders 10-19, outfielders 20-29 and pitchers 30-49. You wouldn't normally see a second baseman in 1952 with number 85 unless it was in spring training.

Yes, it's that important to immersion to me.

Further, before OOTP15 I was able to change my online team uni numbers, but now changing them in the player editor doesn't "stick" in my online leagues. I guess editing is turned off in online mode, so I'm stuck with pitchers with single-digit numbers.

No, not a deal-breaker, but still annoying.

Apparently this was quietly fixed in one of the updates! I was able to get a number change to "stick" in my online league this week.

Thanks, Marcus and crew! It was far from a deal-breaker but is just another example of OOTP listening to its customers!

[Number4]

As european, I feel that retiring numbers is a strange (at the least) american habit. Just retiring a number is a dubious honor, I think that assigning those numbers to great players would honor much better them that way.

How great would you feel as a up-and-coming lets say catcher, who would get the same number as the franchise legendary catcher?

Oh well, you can't, the number is rusting at the wall.

And then the leaguewide retirement of the 42... forcing the entire league to retire a number of a guy, just because he was the first player where a team finally decided to stop being racist? Ridiculous.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Number4

As european, I feel that retiring numbers is a strange (at the least) american habit. Just retiring a number is a dubious honor, I think that assigning those numbers to great players would honor much better them that way.

How great would you feel as a up-and-coming lets say catcher, who would get the same number as the franchise legendary catcher?

Oh well, you can't, the number is rusting at the wall.

And then the leaguewide retirement of the 42... forcing the entire league to retire a number of a guy, just because he was the first player where a team finally decided to stop being racist? Ridiculous.

For me its even better when no one else can ever wear that # again.
72, 35, 3, 11 to name a few Sox retired #'s. Josh Paul wore 27 since Fisk was his favorite C and he played for the ChiSox.

[beezer2434]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Holy Smokes, guy! You're absolutely right. It's the same convention used in player history files. I just retired Al Bumbry's #10 and linked the retired number entry to his player profile.

Thanks. That's one of the reasons why I participate here and try to help out. I learn a lot myself that way!

you can do the same thing with a team name as well using the team ID if you want to reference other teams. im assuming same goes for managers.

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by Number4

As european, I feel that retiring numbers is a strange (at the least) american habit. Just retiring a number is a dubious honor, I think that assigning those numbers to great players would honor much better them that way.

How great would you feel as a up-and-coming lets say catcher, who would get the same number as the franchise legendary catcher?

Oh well, you can't, the number is rusting at the wall.

And then the leaguewide retirement of the 42... forcing the entire league to retire a number of a guy, just because he was the first player where a team finally decided to stop being racist? Ridiculous.

You're not American, so it's difficult to understand the significance of his accomplishment without having enough context to the history. From the outside, it would seem strange sure. And I'm mostly anti-retiring numbers where no one can wear them again for practical reasons, much less league retirements.

[Number4]

I understand the problems with segregation, I'm european, not stupid

However I do not feel that Robinson was the single deciding factor in ending segregation in baseball. He is just the first that succeeded.

And I feel it is put that way and this disrespects every other black player that either failed to make the jump before or became the second, third, etc. player to make the jump to the big leagues after him.

Lots of guys were as talented as him, but failed, as they came too early and baseball was not ready yet. They were the ones that showed some real talent in the negro leagues and had a big part in convincing the general population and managers that baseball needs black players. As I don't believe they were, as a group, less talented than the white big league players, they expierienced much worse racism than Robinson - who got to play, after all.

And after him, a lot of guys still couldn't play, as not many teams were as progressive as the Dodgers. So he didn't end segregation with "one swing of the bat", his first one, either.

He is still a great guy, Hall of Famer without the slightest doubts. But he is not the single greatest person who has ever played baseball, as his only leaguewide retired number suggests.

Even Babe Ruth hasn't got his number retired leaguewide...

[Padreman]

People make a big deal about MLB allowing blacks to play. Read about the Mexican league the Caribbean leagues, they were allowing Black American players to play long before MLB did. Sorry just. Side note

[Super Utility Guy]

Originally Posted by Number4

As european, I feel that retiring numbers is a strange (at the least) american habit. Just retiring a number is a dubious honor, I think that assigning those numbers to great players would honor much better them that way.

How great would you feel as a up-and-coming lets say catcher, who would get the same number as the franchise legendary catcher?

Oh well, you can't, the number is rusting at the wall.

And then the leaguewide retirement of the 42... forcing the entire league to retire a number of a guy, just because he was the first player where a team finally decided to stop being racist? Ridiculous.

I have no problem with MLB retiring number 42 for all teams in honor of Jackie Robinson. My problem is that a few years after they did this, they decided to have one day where EVERYONE wears #42 again after it has been retired because it is a tribute to Jackie. I'm sorry, but it seems like symbolism over substance to me. If you want to honor Jackie, MLB, start putting more blacks and minorities in management and ownership positions and stop the good-ole-boy, cronyism hires of mediocre white guys.

[Padreman]

When you link the player to the number does it write a bio or you have to write your own Bio?

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by Padreman

When you link the player to the number does it write a bio or you have to write your own Bio?

Have to write your own unless it's auto retired.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Number4

As european, I feel that retiring numbers is a strange (at the least) american habit. Just retiring a number is a dubious honor, I think that assigning those numbers to great players would honor much better them that way.

How great would you feel as a up-and-coming lets say catcher, who would get the same number as the franchise legendary catcher?

Oh well, you can't, the number is rusting at the wall.

Going to stay away from the Robinson discussion here, but the point of retiring numbers, and the honor that comes from it, lies in the idea that the player was so good, and so important to the team, that his uniform number has become instantly recognizable. You see a Yankees #3 jersey, you know it's Babe Ruth. Braves #44? Hank Aaron. A Red Sox #9 is obviously Ted Williams. Handing those numbers out to another guy down the road devalues the memory of those players because now you're associating that number with some other scrub, who, even if he becomes a fantastic player himself, likely will never ascend to the level of the all-time greats. It would be an immense honor for the new player, sure, but for the fans? The player in question was so memorable that no one could ever compare, and it would be bizarre to look out on the field and see someone else wearing his number.

My only issue with retiring numbers is that many teams do it too frequently. It should be reserved for an incredibly select few who have a profound, life-long impact on the team and the sport itself.

[Mike67]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

Going to stay away from the Robinson discussion here, but the point of retiring numbers, and the honor that comes from it, lies in the idea that the player was so good, and so important to the team, that his uniform number has become instantly recognizable. You see a Yankees #3 jersey, you know it's Babe Ruth. Braves #44? Hank Aaron. A Red Sox #9 is obviously Ted Williams. Handing those numbers out to another guy down the road devalues the memory of those players because now you're associating that number with some other scrub, who, even if he becomes a fantastic player himself, likely will never ascend to the level of the all-time greats. It would be an immense honor for the new player, sure, but for the fans? The player in question was so memorable that no one could ever compare, and it would be bizarre to look out on the field and see someone else wearing his number.

My only issue with retiring numbers is that many teams do it too frequently. It should be reserved for an incredibly select few who have a profound, life-long impact on the team and the sport itself.

That's why I like what the Jays do and only retire the number of a player who enters the HOF as a member of the team. Mind you every time I see someone wear 37 I think of Dave Stieb.

[Mike67]

Originally Posted by The Game

For me its even better when no one else can ever wear that # again.
72, 35, 3, 11 to name a few Sox retired #'s. Josh Paul wore 27 since Fisk was his favorite C and he played for the ChiSox.

The best is the team retired a number (3) when the player was still active. I remember when they unretired it briefly because Baines went back to the Sox..