The Giants should retire jersey #22
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 8:11 AM PDT
103 comments
Every time I see Eli Whiteside wearing #22, I think about how wrong that is. Jack Clark and Will Clark were the faces of their teams. Both of them were Giant All-Stars on the strength of their bats, while adding good defense as a bonus. Giving Jack's number to Will, while obvious enough to not be genius, was the absolutely right thing to do. Seeing it now on someone else, regardless of whether or not either of them made the Hall of Fame, strikes me as wrong.
Some of you will say that only HOF numbers get retired and that's that, but when I see the numbers at the stadium, I think of the Giants through the ages. With this one number, you bridge the sad gap of the mid-70's to early 90's. The Giants did a great thing when they gave Barry Bonds his dad's #25. They should honor #22 by retiring it.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
103 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Nah.
I agree that HOF shouldn’t be the only consideration for retiring a number; I would, for example, retire a number before HOF eligibility if it were warranted (such as I think is warranted for Barry Bonds). But teams should be careful so that the honor doesn’t become diluted. After all, the Yankees are in a ridiculous position of having retired so many numbers that lots of the cool ones are taken, and they will someday have a team comprised entirely of players whose numbers are 74-99. (Then one of them will be great, and they’ll have to go to fractions and decimals.)
So while I agree that HOF isn’t the only standard, there must be some standards. I don’t think “face of the franchise” is a high enough standard. I think it should be greatness (HOF or near-HOF caliber) for a long time in the team’s uniform. And I just don’t think Will Clark meets that standard. Yes, fan favorite; yes, he was beloved around here. I would still reserve the number retiring for someone who was truly great/almost great for a long time.
If “face of franchise” is a suitable standard, then retire 55 right this second— Tim Lincecum and Shawn Estes have both served that role.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
75 too
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 15, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about 109?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
GET THAT VORP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Jul 15, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
numbers should also be retired
so that we never need to remember the horrible players that used to wear them
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
There's 3 ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power/ Ginats Way...
by natteringnabob on Jul 16, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you could argue that both Clarks were better players than Cepeda — at the very least you’d have to agree they weren’t any worse than Cepeda (personally I’ve long argued that just looking at numbers it’s almost impossible to say Jim Rice was a better player than Jack, and I’m right about that) — and Cepeda’s number was retired before he became a HOFer. In fact, retiring his number was something of a kickoff for the Cepeda HOF campaign.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, it might be true that the Clarks > Cepeda, but...
I would also reject “X is better than or equal to someone who already got such-and-such honor, so we are required to honor this later person” as a standard. It is senseless and I think that’s hurting the HOF (obvious disclaimer: I’m in the “small Hall” camp). The problem with that standard is that if there is some fluke or some mistake that someone got an honor, then subsequent players get the honor only because someone made a mistake earlier. That is perpetuating a mistake and eventually watering the whole thing down.
To summarize: Phil Rizzuto should be kicked out of the HOF and Carthage must be destroyed.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I’m also a small hall person, but this isn’t the hall we’re talking about, it’s our wall, and I think retiring #22 would be a perfectly acceptable honor for two wonderful SF Giants. So we’re running low on #20s numbers — it’s a tribute to the best of our past and gives the players who wonder why they can’t have those numbers something to shoot for. I mean really, we’re talking about a tenth retired number. I think they can manage with other 90 (counting the ever popular 00) to fill out a team.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very well: I'm a small wall person, too
I was not literally suggesting a lack of numbers between 00-99, inclusive, as an actual reason. That was kind of a throw-in point so as to mock the Yankees and to raise the issue of what happens when teams water down the honor. I would be fine if teams moved on to Greek letters, scientific symbols, irrational numbers, and graffiti tags. It’s not really about the numbers.
It is about diluting the honor, though, and you and I see it differently. It’s cool.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s totally cool. Just think you’re missing how great both were as Giants — Jack really revived a moribund franchise when he came on the scene. I wonder if without ’78 and ’82 the team does eventually move somewhere.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
HOF caliber
Let’s face it, by the time the Giants have enough HOF’ers to run into number shortage, we’ll all be dead and most teams will have the same problem. Just as “lowest threshold for HOF comparision” isn’t valid, neither is “Highest number of retired jerseys.”
I don’t think "face of the franchise" is a high enough standard. I think it should be greatness (HOF or near-HOF caliber) for a long time in the team’s uniform.
What happens if you combine Jack Clark’s Giant years with Will Clark’s Giant years? HOF-caliber? Obviously, the HOF can’t do this, but the criteria for retiring jerseys can.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the giants either have the most or second most current HOF’ers, but unlike the Yankees we don’t whore out our past and remind everyone how great we where by retiring every All Star’s number. I bet if Willie Mays played one game for them they would retire his number!
Minor White > Ansel Adams
by say hey nation on Jul 15, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giants can’t really whore it out when they have guys who were great players before players even had jersey numbers.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 15, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a regular
so I can’t really say much. But, having been a reader for quite a while, aren’t you the fellow who missed out on Clark’s excellent years?
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not your fellow, Pal. (kidding)
You, Sir/Madam, have an amazing memory. I came to SF in 1990 and started following the Giants at that time. Will was still putting up great numbers in 1990-92 (with a steep drop off in 1993 with the arrival of Barry Bonds and Dusty Baker as manager, and Will had a tough time dealing with both of those facts).
But anyway, I wasn’t around for Willie Mays’s career, either, but can absolutely see why his number is retired and would strongly want it to be retired. This is why there should be standards for things, so that it isn’t just left to the whims of a subset of fans who saw X or Y. I never saw Orlando Cepeda and I don’t think his number should be retired; I doubt my opinion would change if I had seen him. I do think Barry Bonds’s number should be retired now.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How would you like to be addressed?
Hizzonner?
kidding too.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think we have to worry about the Giants’ retiring Bonds’ number. The moment he officially says he’s retired, that’s going to happen. As for Will Clark, he was a good Giant, but he wasn’t a great player and he left as a free agent. His number shouldn’t be retired. I don’t think not being in the Hall of Fame is necessarily a reason to disqualify somebody, but it’s a good start, and he wasn’t anywhere near a Hall of Fame player.
Proud new dad of Edgardo errr Edgar Renteria!!!
by rxmeister on Jul 15, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding me? Wasn’t a great player? From 87-92 he was an elite first baseman in either league. He posted OPS + 152, 160, 175, 125, 154 and 150. Was a multiple time All-Star, won a gold glove, 2 silver sluggers and finished in the top 5 of MVP voting 4 times in that span. Not to mention he helped usher in a new era of Giants baseball where the team actually WON which ultimately helped keep the team in San Francisco. But yeah I guess he wasn’t good enough to have his number retired…
The only reason Clark is not in the HOF is because he missed parts of more then a few seasons to injury. If memory serves Bill James has him ranked as one of the best 1B of all-time. Better than guys already in the HOF.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 15, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re saying he was an elite player from 87-92? He should have his number retired because of six seasons? That doesn’t make a hall of famer and that doesn’t make a player good enough to have his number retired. Mark Grace was a better player over a longer period, and I don’t see his number getting retired. Your standards are way too low.
Proud new dad of Edgardo errr Edgar Renteria!!!
by rxmeister on Jul 15, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t have to be a HOF player to get your number retired. And I’m betting Grace’s number WILL be retired by the Cubs at some point. He was a great player for them for a long time.
And no Grace was not a better player. Ever. He never had a season that even came close to Will Clark. Clark’s career ops + 137, to Grace’s 117. But they brought different thing’s to the table.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 15, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A question
I’m not weighing into the Clark vs. Grace discussion, as I have no opinion and could not care less. But I wanted to ask if you think OPS+ is the most important measure of non-pitchers. You cited it as “the reason” that Grace was never better than Clark, but that could just be brevity. Is OPS+ the main thing that matters? Thank you for your opinion.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I was referring to a meme on here that I found totally hysterical.
Someone ended a comment with “Pal,” then someone replied, “I’m not your pal, buddy,” then someone added, “I’m not your buddy, friend,” and so on for about a dozen replies. I nearly peed my pants. Then I realized nobody was around, so there was really no point.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wish I'd had a good enough memory to carry it on.
There’s always tomorrow, mistah mayah.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a bit from ‘South Park’.
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 15, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this:
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2009/3/3/779777/manny-signs-with-dodgers#12722774
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Wronghanded Affeldt pitches right
by Giant among Angels on Jul 15, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No point in peeing your pants?
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on Jul 15, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, without someone else there, it's kind of pointless. Like doing magic tricks alone.
HOLD IT— you totally got me, Goofus. Like I have to tell you there’s no point peeing your pants without an audience! Oh, you got me good.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would, however, support retiring #7... but just as a precaution
Marvin Benard, Pedro Feliz, and then they give it to poor Eugenio Velez. There should be a ritual burning of 7 and soaking the ashes in borax; another ritual burning; then scattering the ashes in an undisclosed location.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 8:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Manny Burriss was 7 but your point still stands.
We're all basically Pedro Feliz.
by SF Pete on Jul 15, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right; poor guy. He never stood a chance.
If only they had given him 14, he could have been Pete Rose. That’s just logic.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“then scattering the ashes in an undisclosed location.”
Undisclosed location = Dodger Stadium
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 15, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking that when I wrote that. You-- you're good.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not with the big club, but you raise a good point
maybe we should ban the number between 6 and 8 in the minors, too, just as a precaution.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope he changes it. He autographed my ball with a fat #7 next to his John Hancock.
/awaits immature comments of last sentence
by SoFa King Mike on Jul 15, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No! My Keiichi Yabu jersey will be worthless!
by KCE on Jul 15, 2009 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Perry was inducted in 1991 and the Giants only got around to retiring his number in 2005.
by satyricrash on Jul 15, 2009 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because an awful lot of his HOFish years came after he was a Giant. He had 6 very strong seasons for us, but he also put up 3 great years in Cleveland, and two very good years each in Texas and SD. So really about half his peak was here and half elsewhere. Clearly far and away his best season was the one he had immediately after leaving us. 350 innings worth of sub-2.00 ERA — no wonder the AL adopted the DH the next season. Nobody over there could hit.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just musing that the Giants organization has set up their own rules fro number retirement and that is induction to the Hall of Fame, and even then, as with Perry’s case when a lot of his more notorious success came after wearing orange and black, it’s not automatic. (Though Perry did wear SF on his cap.) What’s going to be interesting to see is how long the organization waits until Jeff Kent is inducted before they put ol’ 21 up. I wonder if it will be automatic, or they will hold off a half decade or more, if number retirement is in their plans at all.
by satyricrash on Jul 15, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two words: Marketing.
That whole Orlando Cepeda thing was a pure marketing gimmick, something fun to do, kind of a stemwinder for the fans. If there is a marketing angle for Kent, they might do it.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but what else is ANY retired number or celebrate this old championship team, or the HOF induction itself really? Hell, having numbers on a players uniform was a marketing gimmick.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well of course they’re going to do it for the marketing of it all, this is the Giants we’re talking about, they’ll devote a whole season leading up to it. Which is not something I generally have a problem with, because they are usually classy about it. I’m just wondering sooner rather than later. If it’s immediate, I can see where the club might have some future leeway in retiring numbers. But if they wait a few years it tells me, at least, that they have some other super secret hidden criteria that they are not really talking about.
bla bla bla
by satyricrash on Jul 15, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kent will be put on the “wall of fame” sometime this season since he officially retired. I could see them retiring #21 eventually after Kent gets in the HOF.
by SFGuy on Jul 15, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was at Spring Training in ‘94, the year after the Thrill left and REX FUCKING HUDLER was in camp wearing 22. I was not happy. Will is the most beloved player of my generation, and as much as I’d like to see the number retired in his honor, I’m afraid it may not be warranted.
Original member of the Van Buren Boys
by NuschlerFace on Jul 15, 2009 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“Will is the most beloved player of my generation, and as much as I’d like to see the number retired in his honor, I’m afraid it may not be warranted.”
Well put.
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 15, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it could be a nice move to honor BOTH Clarks that wore the number, not just Will. They were both great, and the face of the franchise at their respective times. If they did a joint deal where both were honored I think that might be enough to ignore the Hall of Fame requirement.
Also, it may help to get some of the older fans interested again in Giants baseball. I imagine there are a lot of fans who have become somewhat disinterested over the last few years, and maybe an honoring of some past beloved players would bring them back around, and make them take notice of what the team is doing right now, which is pretty darn exciting.
But I may just be saying all this because it also makes me sick every time I see some backup or scrub wearing 22. Dustan Mohr, Yabu, and Whiteside being the most recent examples.
by The Double Deuce on Jul 15, 2009 9:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
NY Rangers
recently did something similar with Adam Graves and Andy Bathgate, both of whom wore 9. It was pretty cool; the number was retired on different nights so each guy could have his due.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/sports/hockey/04rangers.html?_r=2&ref=sports
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
There's 3 ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power/ Ginats Way...
by natteringnabob on Jul 16, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
The question isn’t whether or not Will Clark deserves to be in the HOF.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 9:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
because the answer is that he should be…
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 15, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
except that he should not be.
I don’t love the BBWAA, especially some of its self-important, prissy little practices (“first ballot” vs. “second ballot,” prime among them). But they don’t usually get things very wrong in the long run.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fer it
Bonds and Clark are far and away the two best players without their numbers retired, and Bonds’ 25 is clearly in some kind of unofficial stasis. Clark was a HOF-caliber player while a Giant, and the only reason Whiteside wears 22 today is that he didn’t keep it up in Texas.
"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."
by i did my job on Jul 15, 2009 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Will Clark was definitely NOT a hall of famer when he left the Giants. Looking at the most basic stats, he averaged .299 with 22 HR and 88 RBI per season with the Giants. Those are not HOF stats for ANYONE, let alone a first baseman. I think some Giants’ fans remember him as being better than he was because of the post season performance, and the fact that he was the best player on a team that made it to the World Series for the first time in 27 years. (although THAT year Kevin Mitchell was better)
Proud new dad of Edgardo errr Edgar Renteria!!!
by rxmeister on Jul 15, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mitchell wouldn’t have been that good if not for Clark’s presence. Notice how he was never as good after he left SF? Plus he ate himself into injuries and out of the league too.
Clark’s numbers for the late 80s early 90s were fantastic for the era in which he played in. Other then 1987 (and even counting 87) pitching was far stronger as a whole then it was by the mid 90s. And then of course PED’s became more prevalent.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 15, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clark's OPS+ as a Giant, age 22-29
121
152
160
175
125
154
150
117
total: 145
Willie McCovey’s OPS+ at the same age (1960-67):
127
124
154
161
108
153
164
159
total ops+: 147
Clark was the best defensive 1B in baseball; McCovey wasn’t. McCovey was the greater player because he improved in his early 30s (winning the mvp at 31) whereas Clark went to Texas, got hurt a lot and continued his 1993 decline. But taken over the same age-span, Clark was at least McCovey’s equal, which for several of those years made him the best hitter in the National League (until Bonds overtook him). HOF-caliber production, like I said.
"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."
by i did my job on Jul 15, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack Clark
I smell too much Cardinal.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's your problem
He logged three years as a Cardinal and ten as a Giant.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right
it is my problem. I did not try to make it yours.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack enjoyed the Cepeda career path — put up tons of productive seasons in SF then leave to go win an MVP for St Louis. If he could have caught a pop up and he would have exactly equaled Cepeda with the World Championship to go with the MVP.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack hit that HR to beat Lasorda in the playoffs when he was a Cardinal. It was almost like he was still a Giant when that happened.
Proud new dad of Edgardo errr Edgar Renteria!!!
by rxmeister on Jul 15, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now that’s an argument that I can buy.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That play was the most excited I’ve ever been for any non-Giant baseball moment.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was actually quoted after that game as saying “That was for all the Giants fans”, or something to that effect. I always thought that was cool. That and the fact he made Lasorda look like he was going cry (gravy).
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 15, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Will Clark
revived the franchise. I’m all for it. As Will’s number.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jack the Ripper
Jack Clark was unequivocally the Giants’ most feared hitter for seven years. I’m guessing you never saw any of them. The trade of him for David Green was comparably bad as the Pierzynski trade.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be polite here.
Somehow I double posted the polite part. Anyway: your guess is wrong. I grew up on Jack Clark. I actually grew up on Ed Goodson and that crew; my first game was in 1972, a doubleheader with the Reds. I remember those years fairly well, and they were years of real depression for me and the Giants fans I knew. I guess you remember them differently. That’s fine. The David Green trade was damned bad. But, I also remember very well that the trade was foretold months ahead of time as both the Giants brass and Clark came to the conclusion that he needed to be traded — he was showing some bad attitude, and the franchise was going nowhere with him.
I remember Will Clark better, obviously. I don’t feel much fondness for him as a person. But he and Robby T. revived that team. Jack didn’t do that.
I won’t make some snarky comment about what you know or don’t know.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I made a bad inference based on your exclusion of Jack from my premise.
My first game was in 1971, and while it’s true there were years of horror after that, it’s still also true that Jack was the most feared hitter on the team for seven years. It’s also true that 1978 was a pretty fun year, with Vida Blue coming on to the scene and the Giants in first place at the All-Star break. So while 1972-1977 was an eternity when I was a kid, I don’t remember it as bad for the entirely of Jack’s tenure. You could even call it “reviving the team.”
I remember pre-season articles about his maturation before the 1985 season, and how he finally had his head on straight. Granted, those things are churned out at a factory, but I do believe it to be somewhat true in retrospect. Too bad they traded him.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a computer
so I had to check out that trade. As I thought I remembered, it was bad but not nearly as bad as the Pierzynski trade. Jose Uribe and Dave LaPointe came back. That’s not nothing. It’s also beside the larger point. Being the Giant’s most feared hitter during that low point is not necessarily a sign of greatness.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Ed Goodson was going to be a star before he got frustrated with the Giants’ benching him against lefties, and decided to become a switch hitter. After that he couldn’t hit from either side.
Proud new dad of Edgardo errr Edgar Renteria!!!
by rxmeister on Jul 15, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, it was breaking his ankle stepping in a catcher’s mask while chasing a pop up that ended his chances. He was never the same hitter or fielder again. Stupid pre-historic sports rehab knowledge!
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Signs of Jack's greatness
Being the Giant’s most feared hitter during that low point is not necessarily a sign of greatness.
He had an average OPS+ of 137 over those seven full seasons, with two all star games, and MVP finishes in 5th, 7th, and 18th place. He was hot.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Jose Uribe and Dave LaPointe came back.
But we gave up Jack Clark! I’m guessing his win values are higher than Joe Nathan’s.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, but I just meant the Pierzynski/Nathan trade was pure utter total hopeless bust for us, while Clark had a silver lining.
In general, it’s possible that I am just not able to remember well enough the good times that were interspersed with some really bad ones from 72 to 86. My frame of reference is playoffs, which the Giants missed throughout my time (my first games in ‘72 followed a playoff appearance) until Will and Robbie showed up. I would wager that my feelings about the 87 team were at least as euphoric as my feelings about the team that went to the 02 series. It was all in what I’d been missing to that point.
Also true that I hated that 87 Cards team so much that Jack’s reputation (with me) suffered greatly. All mitigated though by the fact that he called Ozzie Smith “a speck” in an interview while he was with that Cards team.
Truer words, as they say…
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While it’s true that they never made the playoffs with Jack Clark (coming somewhat close once and very close another time), it’s undeniable that he re-sparked interest in the team. All you need do is look at the attendance figures. Surprisingly, after the early bloom wore off the Giants of the 60s were not that well supported, dropping inexorably from the 2nd best attendance in ’62 to the bottom half of the league through the mid-to late 60s when they were finishing 2nd every year. In 1971 when they finally made the playoffs they were 10th out of 12 teams in the league.
When the remaining stars were shipped out in ’73 attendance plummeted even worse and in ’74 they hit dead last with barely 500,000 in attendance. They stayed last in the league through ’77. But in ’78 when Jack went apeshit on the league, the attendance jumped by over a million (to 1.7 mil), and they moved from worst in the league to 4th best. While they fell back from those dizzying heights, they never fell under a million in attendance again until… the year Jack was shipped off to St. Louis. Fortunately in ’86 we had to like those kids and did.
But in the end, a team that’s last in attendance for half a decade straight is a franchise that’s in dire trouble of being moved. Jack Clark had something important to do with that not happening, and that’s an important part of our history too.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Jul 15, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very good, thank you. This is an aspect of the question I clearly did not consider.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice job, Roger
Thanks for that.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
78
my first Giants game, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. They went from total oblivion to a baseball team again.
Send them both out.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
There's 3 ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power/ Ginats Way...
by natteringnabob on Jul 16, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Retired numbers for Hall of Famers only.
by satyricrash on Jul 15, 2009 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
then we need more HOFers
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 15, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely yes. And I’m reminded of it every time another Giant is wearing #22.
Will Clark brought a winning attitude and enthusiasm that helped revitalize Giants baseball starting in 1986 when he began his career with a HR off Nolan Ryan. He went on to post OPS +’s of…121, 152, 160, 175, 125, 154, 150 and 117 as a Giant. In this span he also finished in top 5 of MVP voting 4 times, won a gold glove, 2 Silver Sluggers, and was an All-Star 5 consecutive years from 88-92. Oddly enough getting the Pablo shaft in 1987. Clark’s presence and elite play helped keep the Giants in San Francisco. If he hadn’t come up through the pipeline and been as good as he was, leading the Giants to 2 playoff births, and 1 World Series, we might all be A’s fans. You really think Magowan and Co would have saved a Giants team had it been losing 100-90 games a year from 85 on? Or that Bob Lurie would have stuck around that long had the ship been sinking? I don’t.
Hopefully bringing Will back to the organization was just step one towards getting his number retired. And honoring Jack Clark would be nice too, since he was a very good Giants homegrown player who had the unfortunate experience of being around when the team wasn’t exactly good anymore.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 15, 2009 11:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A note about Bonds' number
Wearing number 25 was not Barry’s first choice. He wore 24 at ASU and in Pittsburgh (after Willie Mays) but switched to his father’s number when he came to San Francisco because the Giants had retired 24.
by sfmaynard on Jul 15, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
THIS IS NEWS TO ME
Judgment Day is coming
comics | art | Nattowear
by Natto on Jul 15, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Johnny Carson patented "I did not know that."
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did know that
But I hated the idea of unretiring Willie. The #25 was his dad’s number and the right answer and I’m glad that’s what happened.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BUT WILLIE MAYZ WAS GODFATHER
Minor White > Ansel Adams
by say hey nation on Jul 15, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(pssst.... we allllllllllll knew that. mozambiquans knew that. there is no worthwhile discussion to be had about it.)
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit... Maybe.
by Mayor of 311 on Jul 15, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't it ironic
The McCoven lead the pack on wink wink sarcasm, sans-wink, I’ll give us that.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've wondered about this since the day Will left town
Kinda gimmicky, but my son Clark and I are all for this.
by pantalones on Jul 15, 2009 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it does seem wrong to see anyone else wearing 22
Don’t know if it should be retired though. I kind of agree with both sides
by moonman on Jul 15, 2009 3:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m in the “HoF only” camp.
Retiring a number should be a really big and really rare deal. It’s one of the things that made retiring Jackie Robinson’s number so cool. When a player does make the HoF it also gives the team something to unveil at home as they honor the induction.
Have a wall of fame or whatever for beloved players, but make retired numbers super exclusive.
As for other’s wearing #22, I kind of like it. Rather than being offended by seeing Whiteside wearing it, I think of it as a cool link to the past. Besides, Matheny was a very cool dude and wore 22 well.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on Jul 15, 2009 4:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t have a problem with non-Clark players wearing #22.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Jul 15, 2009 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I do think
that every Giants player named Clark in the future must wear it. Until that Clark makes the HOF and we can retire it.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on Jul 15, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t care about the players’ numbers, for the most part. That’s one area where my knowledge of the giants is lacking. During those stadium games (higher or lower uni number), the contestant usually does better than I would. I know wilson, lincecum, winn, zito, molina. Maybe frandsen.
So I really don’t care about retiring numbers. Although I am a big clark fan.
VOTE SANDOVAL
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Jul 15, 2009 6:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's surprising to me
That so many of you are responding to this idea as if it was just about Will Clark. The beauty of it is that it combines Jack and Will Clark, as the jersey did.
Picture this, if you will… the mythical 18 year all-Giant career of SF Clark 22:
That’s 339 home runs, a mean OPS+ of 141 (during the 200+ PA years), 7 All-Star appearances, 7 top 20 MVP finishes, a ROY, and almost 2600 runs produced.
I say a “guy” like that gets his jersey retired.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 8:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t know about you, but if I heard “hey, we’re retiring your number at the yard, OH YEAH, AND you’re sharing it with another player” I would be pretty ticked off. This is not one person with one personality and one life with ONE ego, this is two players form decidedly two different eras of ball, and I think that’s the worst part of your plan, you’re creating an unnatural bond between them as a gimmick. ’Hey, saaaame last name, heh? Nudge! Nudge!"
by satyricrash on Jul 15, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This opens up all sorts of possibilities, though.
Not that any come to mind, but someone with a mind for jersey numbers could probably concoct a few good combo arguments. I don’t think it really provides much support in the real world for achiappanza’s plea. In fact, it could get ugly.
by FreshStart on Jul 15, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They gotta have the same last name though. That goes on the wall too.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it doesn’t. The Giants display only has the number, not the name.
by satyricrash on Jul 16, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s an artifact of taking the names off the home jerseys with the last uniform change. Weren’t the names on them at Candlestick?
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 16, 2009 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants did that when they gave Will #22, but I take your point.
"[Greg] Vaughn is in a funk so deep, George Clinton wearing a miner's helmet couldn't find him."
- Jim Baker, ESPN.com, May 2002
by achiappanza on Jul 15, 2009 9:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, Maybe Murph thought it was funny, ha ha.
by satyricrash on Jul 15, 2009 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got both of their (Will and Jack) autographs in St Louis this weekend....
…so I agree the number should be retired, but I readily admit to having no objectivity in the matter.
Plotting the ultimate demise of Gore51 (never met him, I dunno he could be swell) so as to adopt Kyle Nicholson.
by Whiteteaandpoptarts on Jul 16, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
