Skip to main content


The arrival of Hyun-Jin Ryu as a member of the Dodgers signaled another threshold moment in L.A. uniform numerology.

His choice of No. 99 marked the second time that a Dodger has worn that number while on a major league roster. No longer an uproarious one-and-done 2008 Mannywood dream, Ryu has taken 99 from Manny Ramirez and fashioned it with his own Far East style.

So far, Ryu, tonight's starter, and Ramirez are the only Dodgers to wear the final number before venturing into triple digits (They have 99 problems but their number ain't one).

But that started me thinking about the progression of the uniform number through Dodger history.

Wearing a number in the 90s is a phenomenon of the last 15 years for L.A. Aside from Ryu and Ramirez, reliever Joe Beimel wore No. 97, and Pirates/Jays cast-off Jacob Brumfield wore No. 94 in 1999.

The 80s numerals are a virtual wasteland with only Rick Wilkins, who played catcher for the Dodgers for all of three games, wearing No. 89 in 1999.

But seeing players with a number in the 70s is increasingly common. Two current bullpen residents, Kenley Jansen (No. 74) and Paco Rodriguez (No. 75) have hit the 70s. And even more players are wearing the previously unheard of jersey number in the 60s.

Remember when Chan Ho Park selected No. 61 as his number and how freaky it seemed?

But let's go back to the beginning.

During the 1930s and 40s, the vast majority of Dodgers uniform numbers went no higher than No. 39. There was one notable exception, which would fit in very nicely with today's uniform mind-set.

Joe "Ducky" Medwick wore No. 77 for a period in 1940 and 1941 after coming over to the Dodgers in a trade with the Cardinals.

Uniform numbers in the 40s grew increasingly common through the decades that followed, but a uniform number in the 50s was very rare.

Back-up catcher Joe Pignatano wore No. 58 during the late 1950s. Pitcher Larry Sherry wore No. 51.

But the first standout player to wear a number in the 50s for the Dodgers was Don Drysdale. He made No. 53 so famous that it was retired, the highest retired number in franchise history.

Even after Drysdale's retirement after the 1969 season, seeing a uniform number in the 50s was an exception, and a cause for pause.

I remember when Steve Howe hit the major leagues and started wearing No. 57. It looked so strange. I can still visualize staring at Howe's 1983 Topps card with a "does not compute" look on my face.

During this time, numbers in the 50s became the domain of relievers. Orel Hershiser, intially a reliever with the Dodgers, wore No. 55. Ray Searage, who pitched for the Dodgers at the end of his career, was constantly bumping the 60 ceiling with his uniform choice.

Up until this point, the only players to wear a number greater than 59 were Medwick, Mike Sharperson in his prospect days (No. 60) and a seldom-remembered backup catcher from the '70s, Paul Powell (No. 71).

But after Chan Ho Park, more players wore numbers in the 60s, mostly prospect types like catcher Angel Pena's No. 63.

In fact, wearing a number in the 60s, 70s or even 90s is more commonplace for the Dodgers these days than anyone wearing No. 11 or No. 34. Eleven is apparently still the domain of longtime coach Manny Mota, who is now a scout. And nobody has worn No. 34 since Fernando Valenzuela.

The Nos. 1, 2, 4, 19, 20, 24, 32, 39, 42 and 53 are also off-limits as retired numbers.

So, which 0-99 numbers have never been worn by a Dodger player on a 40-man roster?

Here they are:

68, 69, 72, 73, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98.

I suppose there's some time left before anyone starts wearing No. 100.


  1. Yum. Pretty Dodgers! Still looking for my first Ryu. Certainly off to an excellent start at upholding the Dodger pitching tradition. Might also need to start batting higher in the order!

  2. At Comiskey Park in the 1980s, 75 was used on the out-of-town scoreboards to indicate that the pitcher in the game was not in our program.

  3. It's weird to see players with such high numbers. The Cardinals have had two starts from Tyler Lyons recently, who is wearing #70. It seems to be more of a sign of young players being shuttled to the majors at a high rate without having any available lower numbers, especially on a franchise with a lot of retired/off-limits numbers. Some of the players actually end up sticking with the number they were assigned when they were first added to the 40-man roster, perhaps out of superstition more than anything else?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the elephant in the room

A few people have noticed: I changed the way the blog looked with zero fanfare earlier this week.

I've changed my blog appearance, I think, six times now, although one was just a header swap. Just about all of those came with a bit of a warning or explanation.

I didn't think that was necessary this time, mostly because I've been doing this for over a decade, am pretty established, and don't think I need to justify my decisions here.

But also I thought that people were familiar with the general changes in web sites over the last two, three, four years and wouldn't be that affected by it. For the most part that seems to be true -- or, no one cares and they're all looking at pretty instagram pictures.

I've received a couple of questions though and just because I hate the feeling that some readers are lost, I'll explain what I can.

The changes, like many web site changes, are related to mobile phone use.

I've been irked by the way my blog looks on my p…

Mind explosion: a different way to sort

This may have been one of the most tedious blog posts to put together in the history of this blog, but I think it's for a good cause.

The reason I'm not entirely sure is because I didn't have time to carry it out for a few more attempts, got to shovel that 7 inches of heavy wet snow plopped on my estate on Nov. 12th.

Anyway, a couple of days ago, Colbey from Cardboard Collections was sorting his Topps Holiday set by card number and asked a very common question that I've seen come up many times during my blogging career:

 This is always a satisfying question because this is how I organize my sets when I'm organizing by card number. At the top of the post I showed cards from the 2019 Topps flagship set being sorted in that manner -- stacks separated by hundreds first, then you create separate stacks by 10s within each hundreds stack, then finally order each of the 10s by card number.

I've done this since I was a kid and first knew the card numbers on the back me…

Looking at cards with Johnny B.

Over the weekend, I got a chance to express my inner Mike Oz and share some baseball cards with a former major league player.

I'm working on a story for my paper that involves ex-player Johnny Wockenfuss, who is almost a cult figure with fans of a certain age (I am one) and especially fans of the Detroit Tigers during the '70s and '80s.

I won't go into much detail -- at least not now -- because I'm still in the middle of working on it, have more gathering to go, and I get very protective of my stories while I'm in the middle of the process. Got to retain that exclusive, you know.

But I will say that I was able to sit in the home of Wockenfuss, give him the cards that I have of him in my collection, and ask his opinion on them.

Yeah, cool. Way cool.

I have 17 cards of Wockenfuss ("you have a lot of them," my wife said, and I thought "if that's a lot, what is my Hideo Nomo collection?"). Wockenfuss remembered the cards -- "every bit …