Skip to content

Reds to retire Barry Larkin’s No. 11

Aug 7, 2012, 7:16 PM EDT

Barry Larkin Getty Images

It was a long time coming, but the Reds announced Tuesday that they’d retire Barry Larkin’s No. 11 in a pregame ceremony on Aug. 25.

Larkin will join former Reds players Johnny Bench (No. 5), Joe Morgan (No. 8), David Concepcion (No. 13), Tex Kluszewski (No. 18), Frank Robinson (No. 20) and Tony Perez (No. 24) in having his number retired. The team also retired numbers for managers Fred Hutchinson (No. 1) and Sparky Anderson (No. 10).

Larkin was a 12-time All-Star and a one-time MVP who spent his entire 19-year career with the Reds, so it was odd that they waited so long to put his number up with the team’s other greats. That the move comes the same month of his Hall of Fame enshrinement probably isn’t a coincidence. However, the Reds aren’t one of those teams that only retire the numbers of Hall of Famers; neither Kluszewski nor Concepcion has made it to Cooperstown.

  1. okwhitefalcon - Aug 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM

    Nice move by the Reds organization and great for Larkin.

    Maybe this will actually get some fannies in the seats in Cincy.

  2. raysfan1 - Aug 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

    Well deserved.

  3. hojo20 - Aug 7, 2012 at 8:07 PM

    Interesting that Rose’s #14 was never retired.

  4. johnnyb1976 - Aug 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM

    Pete’s number isn’t retired but it isn’t assigned to anyone in spring to my knowledge

    • stlouis1baseball - Aug 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM

      I believe you are correct Johnny. And they should keep it that way. Only one #14.

  5. whodeytn - Aug 7, 2012 at 9:46 PM

    Maybe this will actually get some fannies in the seats in Cincy.
    =====

    Their attendance is up drastically.

    • okwhitefalcon - Aug 7, 2012 at 10:39 PM

      Drastically?

      Slightly over 1500 a game which actually drops them from 16th in the league last year to 17th this year.

      • samu0034 - Aug 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

        It’s actually more like 1800, so attendance is up about 7% from last year. “Drastic” may be a bit drastic a word to use in describing the increase, but regardless, it’s still up pretty significantly. Where they place with respect to the rest of the league doesn’t particularly matter. Up is up.

      • okwhitefalcon - Aug 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        Bottom half of the league for one of the top 2 or 3 teams in all of MLB does particulary matter, up from pathetic is still pathetic.

  6. mybrunoblog - Aug 7, 2012 at 10:20 PM

    Shame on the Reds for not retiring Pete Rose’ number.

  7. randygnyc - Aug 7, 2012 at 10:29 PM

    I agree Pete should have his number retired. He did a lot for the Reds. Larkin can’t shine Pete’s shoes, IMO.

  8. meattornado - Aug 7, 2012 at 11:52 PM

    MLB has stopped the Reds from retiring #14. It is unofficially retired, as it has only been assigned once since Pete was removed from baseball.

    The only other person to wear #14? Pete Rose Jr in 1997.

  9. hcf95688 - Aug 8, 2012 at 1:09 AM

    Why is 13 retired?

    • thefalcon123 - Aug 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

      Because it belonged to a slick-fielding shortstop who spent 20 years in a Reds uniform and was an integral part of some of their greatest teams.

      I think Ted Kluszewski having his number retired is far stranger.

  10. humanexcrement - Aug 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    The haven’t done this already? Unbelievable. Why is Larkin to this day so underrated? Barry Larkin was a better all-around shortstop than Cal Ripken. Period.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Does anyone want to win the NL wild card?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cuddyer (2875)
  2. R. Castillo (2636)
  3. J. Werth (2230)
  4. A. Garcia (2224)
  5. A. McCutchen (2144)
  1. C. Gonzalez (2097)
  2. W. Myers (2082)
  3. K. Bryant (2082)
  4. M. Fiers (2030)
  5. Y. Molina (1993)