Little Danny wrote: but #14 for any other team really does not have the same meaning.

The north side of Chicago also had a special #14.

justincredible wrote: 1th

Which is "firth"!

Little Danny wrote: I think it is not as simple as just the number-- you have to add the team in there with the number. For instance, #14 to the Cincinnati Reds equates to Pete Rose and Pete Rose only, but #14 for any other team really does not have the same meaning.

Agreed. I'm more interested in the numbers that make a universal "statement." 23 just seems to be, hands down, the most obvious answer. IMO.

ernest_t_bass wrote:

Little Danny wrote: I think it is not as simple as just the number-- you have to add the team in there with the number. For instance, #14 to the Cincinnati Reds equates to Pete Rose and Pete Rose only, but #14 for any other team really does not have the same meaning.

Agreed. I'm more interested in the numbers that make a universal "statement." 23 just seems to be, hands down, the most obvious answer. IMO.

I agree about 23. But to me 99 is on the same level. I am not by any means a hockey fan but I never had any doubt who 99 was.

ernest_t_bass wrote:

Agreed. I'm more interested in the numbers that make a universal "statement." 23 just seems to be, hands down, the most obvious answer. IMO.

........to the younger crowd. For the older folks, you would flip flop that number to 32.

BRF wrote:

justincredible wrote: 1th

Which is "firth"!

Oneth.

To go a different route:

300 (wins)
.400 (average)
755 (HR)

Because of the nature of baseball in the historic perspective other sports dont really have the same aura about certain achievements.

69.

Whatever number the player making the statement is wearing really.

Yeah, a different route:

14,843 points, 3,746 rebounds, 3,690 assists in 534 career games before your 26th birthday--those numbers make a statement.

Darkon wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote:

Little Danny wrote: I think it is not as simple as just the number-- you have to add the team in there with the number. For instance, #14 to the Cincinnati Reds equates to Pete Rose and Pete Rose only, but #14 for any other team really does not have the same meaning.

Agreed. I'm more interested in the numbers that make a universal "statement." 23 just seems to be, hands down, the most obvious answer. IMO.

I agree about 23. But to me 99 is on the same level. I am not by any means a hockey fan but I never had any doubt who 99 was.

It was retired league wide. No one else in the NHL wears 66 either.

SQ_Crazies wrote: 69.

Whatever number the player making the statement is wearing really.

You know what, when I thought of this thread, I thought this same thing, just forgot to add it. The person who wears 69 isn't always a jokester, but in the HS ranks, it usually is. Reminds me of Billy Madison: "69! A-hahahahaha."

8675309

5318008

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751
05820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067
98214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812
84811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819
64428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909
14564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127
37245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643
67892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609
43305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854
80744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491

Pi.