Posted on by Shannon Shark @metspolice

Is the 42 thing too much?

I went to the Yankee game last night. Tickets were $5, I got a cap, my buddy bought me a beer, we sat outside.

I can’t tell you how many times during the game we asked each other “who was that?” after a hit. A few times you knew who it was? Jeter. Normally that 2 on his back clues me in.

Somewhere on the Internet yesterday I read a piece that suggested the 42 is too gimmicky. Wouldn’t it be more powerful if one player on every team wore it?

Rather than the generic “everyone is wearing 42 tonight” story wouldn’t it be more powerful to read why David Wright asked if he could have the honor in 2011?

I heard some fans behind me asking why everyone was wearing 42. They decided that “it’s one of those memorial nights for some old player.”

My kid knows about Jackie now because of the Rotunda, and with the Metsification of Citi Field we can now enjoy Jackie’s legacy without being ticked off at Fred Wilpon. You really can admire Tom Seaver and Jackie Robinson.

My kid knows who was “the best player ever” without retiring #3 across baseball.

I think the 42 thing has become something that will diminish and lose its impact. I’ll probably get called a communist for this but I think about what has happened to God Bless America.

In 2001-2002 that was a very powerful moment at games. Now it’s often a thing you do crammed in with Take Me Out To The Ballgame and a t-shirt giveaway. No impact, no resonance.

Stars and stripes caps? That very quickly deteriorated into a marketing gimmick.

Don’t let Jackie Robinson day become a gimmick. Maybe I’m off base here. I agree with the “one player” idea. How about you?

34 Replies to “Is the 42 thing too much?”

  1. I’ve felt that way about Jackie Robinson day since whole teams started wearing #42. If one player has the honor of wearing the number, then the media have a reason to go talk to him and find out why he wanted to & was picked.

    When the whole team does it – year after year – it’s just something that gets mentioned in the context of “who’s pinch-hitting?” or “who’s warming up in the bullpen?”

  2. Totally agree. Any idea, no matter how well intentioned, loses effect when overdone. Everyone wearing 42 confuses people (especially this early in the season when you are still trying to figure out who some of the players are anyway.) One player wearing 42 with a reason is fine. All players (or all other players) wearing a 42 patch works too. God Bless America is overdone too. And don’t get me started on the Stars and stripes hats. I’m glad some of the proceeds go to help veterans, but it’s such a low percentage.

  3. Totally agree that having everyone wear a 42, with no names on the back of their jersey, dilutes the meaning and spirit of what Jackie Robinson did accomplish.
    I, too, think that they should just possibly just wear a patch on everyone’s uniform for the day and also, possibly, designate one player (and it should ALWAYS be a player) per team to wear the 42 (it should probably be the team captain for the most part, but with exceptions such as Mariano Rivera who already wears the 42 number) who most exemplifies on and off the field what Jackie Robinson represents.
    Perhaps, also, the celebration of Jackie Robinson should be confined to the National League, allowing the American League to celebrate Larry Doby in July. The American League’s Larry Doby had to go through all of the same indignities Robinson did, albeit three months later, but did not get the media attention or assistance Robinson got since Doby was in Cleveland instead of New York. Moreover, Doby had a longer playing career and managed the White Sox in 1978. Unfortunately, Doby seems to have been forgotten along the way.

  4. One, all, who knows. With one, you could end up fostering some “It should’ve been me” sentiment on the team.

    But with all, you _have_ to put the names on the back. This is why it’s gimmicky, because rather than a semi-silent memorial to Jackie, it’s a guessing game of who’s that? which players that? who hit that? Who turned the DP, the second baseman or the shortstop? I don’t know (third base), it was #42. Or maybe only wear 42 on the front of the jerseys? or just the back? Always make the Mets play at home on 4/15 and only have it in that game?

    1. Perhaps always have the Mets play the Dodgers at Citi (or perhaps alternate between Citi and Dodger stadium every other year). 1947 retro jerseys (Mets based upon 1947 Giants uniforms, substituting “Mets” for “Giants” across the chest, but with the same letter type as the Giants). One player per team wears “42” with the remainder of the team wearing “42” on their sleeves in Dodger Blue. No NOB of jerseys.

  5. Quite frankly I couldn’t disagree more. (except with the fact that you should allow teams to have names for practical reasons) The 42 tribute honors one of the most important Americans in history and forces those who are still ignorant to the story of Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby to hopefully educate themselves. The sad fact is there are a lot of players who don’t know much about Jackie. (And not just foreign players) Walking into the clubhouse and seeing your number changed might help some of these guys decide to do a little reading.

    As for Babe Ruth, the comparison doesn’t hold much water to me because at the end of the day, Jackie Robinson’s legacy has nothing to do with a single statistic. The fact that many people believe he was simply the first Black player “good enough” to make the majors tells me that so many people really don’t understand the whole situation.

  6. I think this is such a delicate – and great – topic. I remember being at the first “Jackie Robinson Day” at Shea in ’97 (one of the coldest games I’ve ever been to); I wanted to be there for this momentous event, to pay respects – in some very small way – to Mr. Robinson for everything he’d gone through and everything he did – not only for baseball but for the Civil Rights Movement, too.

    Shannon wonders about the diminishing impact of the event now. I’m with you. I agree that all the 42’s on the field and in the dugout distract and something else needs to be done to honor this man before it all becomes like, yes, “God Bless America”, in that it’s something that MLB HAS to do and we HAVE to recognize and nod our heads vigorously that this was IMPORTANT – eventually it runs the risk of becoming the 7th Inning Stretch and too many people begin to share the thoughtless opinion of those Shannon sat in front of last night.

    I have to admit that I thought everyone wearing 42 was distracting. I like the idea of one player wearing #42, and make that part of the event … “Today, one player has the honor of wearing Jackie Robinson’s number, and that player is …” etc. Am I making this up or didn’t one of the Mets have to ask permission to wear Robinson’s number on this day a few years ago? (Can’t remember the player but I remember the story of him really wanting to honor him.) I read Waldstein’s piece on Gary Matthews, Jr. in the Times today and thought, well, there’s one man that should have worn the number yesterday.

    Above all, this is the one day in baseball that can’t degenerate into a gimmick or routine duty, and MLB has never been that good at maintaining the import of an event without eventually exploiting and reducing it to some soulless pre-game speech or a few extra merchandising bucks. It’s starting to feel like it’s making that kind of a slide.

    1. I think this is a great discussion, and one that hopefully spreads beyond this site, and one that MLB engages.

      Everyone is in agreement to honor Jackie. I don’t think there has to be a decision that for the next 100 years it has to be done in this way.

  7. Unfortunately, going back to one player per team wearing 42 is a losing situation for MLB. If they were to do so, you just know they would be accused of diminishing the honoring of Robinson.
    You have to remember how it got to be “everyone wears 42”. Most teams adhered to the “one player” honor. Then there were the teams that lets a couple wear 42. I forget which team was the first to all wear 42, but I know it wasn’t the Mets, and I an pretty sure it wasn’t the Dodgers.
    Which lead to the “how come everyone else is doing so little to honor Robinson?”. There was the debate on how guys were given the honor to wear 42. And in the background, there was the “can’t have a white guy wear 42”.
    So, MLB was mostly forced into the ungainly situation it is in now.
    Personally, I think fans can endure everyone wearing 42 without names once a year. Plus, wouldn’t the Yankees all burst into flames if they affixed names to their jerseys? Plus I think wearing players names above 42 takes away from the wearing of the number.
    As I tweeted Shannon last night, , maybe the players should wear their own “TV” numbers(front) But again you have the Yankees instant combustion problems. Everyone wearing a 42 “TV” number wouldn’t really be much different than wearing a patch.
    Having the official ceremony at Yankee Stadium was just wrong. I think always having the Mets at home on 4/15 could be a bit of a scheduling pain. But, making sure either the Mets(keepers of all thing NY NL history) or Dodgers are at home is easily doable(alternating years?) MLB could drop the dimes and fly Rachel and the Robinson clan out to Dodger town every other year.
    I would have no problem with MLB going back to one player wearing 42, others wearing a patch. I just don’t see how they can go back to that.
    I definitely think MLB should recognize Doby too. It can be said that Doby might have had a tougher time than Robinson. While Robinson was out there first, he played his first 6 years all in the infield. While Doby only played 29 games in ’47, and mostly pinch hitting and a few games in the infield, from ’48 on he was in the outfield. The outfield can be lonely dangerous place when most of the crowd seems to want you dead.

    1. Maybe everyone could wear the last name Robinson? Sure it’s historically inaccurate but who cares.

      Daddy why does David Wright have Robinson on his #5 jersey? Why are the Yankees wearing names? Who is Robinson?

      I think everyone’s heart is in the right place, including MLB’s, but I fear this becoming “everyone wears 42 day” – and a Babe Ruth version would really dilute it.

    2. @dirt I think having the Mets and Dodgers always play on 4/15, taking terms as the home team makes sense.

      Would the world end if the Dodgers broke out some Brooklyn Jerseys at Citi Field on 4/15/11? I bet THAT would get noticed. (Let’s not go for the obvious jokes).

      1. Well, I meant that either the Mets or Dodgers play at home and hold the official ceremony. Not that they play each other on 4/15. It would be cool to happen every few years, but by allowing other teams to partake in the event would be better.
        Oh, and when the Mets & Dodgers do play each other every few years, it is in NY…but of course…lol

        2. @michael – great catch, great point. What I like about the comments on the site is that we all talk about these things like adults as opposed to “Hey jerkface you are so stupid dontcha know that…”

          So as Al said – Dodgers and B caps.

    3. Point taken, FDD, and too true about MLB’s dilemma. Which runs the risk of eventual diminishment, though, doesn’t it? Or maybe that’s just me. I think if it’s a choice between everyone wears 42 or everyone wears “Robinson” on the back, I’d have to go with 42. I wonder if just the name on the back, and maybe a patch, might be too easily overlooked.

      (Topic aside, I love the combustible Yankee comments … again, too true.)

      And forgot to mention above, I think the idea of the AL recognition’s Larry Doby is brilliant.

    4. I actually think that having 4/15 games by the Mets and Dodgers, playing alternating home games in NY & LA, is a great idea and symbolizes Jackie Robinson’s life very well. Although Jackie’s baseball accomplishments were all about Brooklyn and he never for the Dodgers in LA, he actually grew up in Pasadena, attended Pasadena Junior College and graduated from UCLA. Playing in both cities, to me, seems fitting.

    5. “Plus, wouldn’t the Yankees all burst into flames if they affixed names to their jerseys?”

      I fail to see a problem with this.

  8. I think everyone wearing 42 has diluted the impact (but not the meaning). I like the idea of one designated player per team each year, either named by the manager/coaching staff or by a player vote. Everyone else wears his regular jersey, but the #42 for the day wears that one without a name on the back. And I’m not sure why or how, but I suspect there’s a way MLB could go back to one per team without losing face. There’s got to be a way to spin it as an honor to have one do it. Jackie was one man on a team who made a difference, so that could be a tie-in. Also, his legacy could further be promoted by MLB and media outlets making an effort to refer to the annual ROYs by their full name: The Jackie Robinson Rookie of the Year Award.

    I really love the Dodgers-Mets throwback at Citi idea, with LA in Brooklyn unis. And I would love to see what a Giants-style Mets jersey looks like.

    1. @njbaseball – the way MLB could do it is it were floated by say a prominent player who tossed it out as an aside. “Derek Jeter” mentions it in an interview with Joe Buck, who kills half an inning talking about it with McCarver, then Mike & Mike discuss it Monday, then three weeks later Lupica writes about it and so on and so on.

  9. count me in for a throwback game on april 15th between the dodgers and mets. that would be pretty awesome.

    i have to say, the everyone wearing 42 thing is ridiculous. obviously, the game is forever indebted to jackie, but it’s way too gimmicky. i thought something that was cool about jackie robinson night in 1997 was that after the current 42s were gone, no one else would wear it around baseball. now…we see literally EVERYONE wear it one to two times a year (teams have the option to do it AGAIN when they return home if they were on the road yesterday. the mets will do the 42 thing again on monday night).

    i say a sleeve patch for the occasion is good enough.

  10. There are a lot of cool ideas mentioned here.

    I think i like them all. MLB Network _is_ going to cover the Mets game on Monday when they do the ‘real’ honoring of him? Right? They pretty much have to. Which means two consecutive days on national tv for them. (well, it’s on ESPN actually, just checked)

    They could do so much with it, and you can never do enough. I like the Mets-Dodgers series though. Don’t throw out the 42 thing elsewhere, but make NY the crux of it.

  11. I think the 42 is overdone in the sense ever teanm is doing it. Should only be the Mets. They have the rotunda and they are the only national league team in NY. The nearby parkway is named after him and he is buried not too far away from CitiField. Plus Shea is the location where that number 42 was retired when Clinton came to Shea. So its a great honor for all of baseball and the Mets should be the ones that wear the 42.

    Quick………who was the last Met to wear 42?

    Butch Huskey

      1. Well done, Shannon. I had presumed that he meant #42 assigned on a permanent basis. But you are, of course, correct.

  13. Talk about a watered-down impact: I have the MLB Extra Innings package. In between innings of the Mets game, I just flipped over to check the Red Sox score at Fenway. The Rays are all wearing #42. The Sox are not, because they wore the number yesterday in Minnesota. The Rays were off yesterday. I know everybody’s gotta pay their respects but perhaps this is an example of it all starting to get lost in translation…

  14. I did mean to wear 42 on a permanent basis, which I was pretty sure was Huskey. I was not writing a trick question but I guess the answer being yesterday’s game was.

  16. 42 is probably overdone although I think it might be a good idea if one player were to wear it per team. I’ve heard it said that Jackie walking onto the ballfield that day was the single most important act by any American in the twentieth century.I think its worth it in case some uneducated fan in Colorado or Arizona or Bucharest or wherever expanded baseball takes us learns about it.

Comments are closed.