Should the Cubs retire Anthony Rizzo's No. 44? Making the case for and against as the 2016 champion retires
Rizzo was the face of the franchise for the World Series champion Cubs

Anthony Rizzo officially retired on Wednesday, complete with a Wrigley Field ceremony honoring him with the Cubs this coming weekend. Rizzo is firmly in the "Hall of the Very Good" territory, with 303 home runs, 965 RBI and 40.4 WAR. That is to say that he had a very good career that was memorable but not Hall of Fame-worthy.
Given Rizzo's stature in relation to the 2016 Cubs, though, there's a chance he might eventually get his number retired, even without a plaque in Cooperstown. His No. 44 hasn't been issued to another player since he was traded in 2021, but isn't officially in the rafters. Let's make the cases for and against the Cubs retiring No. 44.

Case against retiring Rizzo's number
The Cubs have retired numbers for the following players:
- Ron Santo
- Ernie Banks
- Ryne Sandberg
- Billy Williams
- Fergie Jenkins
- Greg Maddux
What do those players have in common? They are Hall of Famers. As mentioned above, Rizzo isn't headed to the Hall. Further, the Cubs have a few other Hall of Famers who do not have their number retired, such as Lee Smith and Andre Dawson. It's worth noting that Smith spent parts of eight seasons with the Cubs and Dawson spent six. Rizzo? He was with the ballclub for parts of 10 seasons.
Still, the new retiree ranks 24th in Cubs history in WAR. I'm not suggesting players' numbers should be retired based on WAR rankings, but I'm using it as an illustration to show that the Cubs have had a lot of players with more production than Rizzo in their history. Just from the last few decades, Sammy Sosa, Mark Grace and Carlos Zambrano sit ahead of Rizzo on that list.
Let's focus on Grace for a minute. He, like Rizzo, was a first baseman. He spent parts of 13 seasons with the Cubs, during which he racked up more hits (he's fifth all-time in hits with the Cubs), doubles, RBI and runs while hitting .308/.386/.445 compared to Rizzo's .272/.372/.489. Both won four Gold Gloves and made three All-Star teams.
I say this as someone who grew up loving Mark Grace. He was one of my favorite players for years. But. He's not a "retire his number" player. If Rizzo's case is similar to Grace's, he isn't one of those players either, right?
Case for retiring Rizzo's No. 44
Where things get more complicated is that Rizzo meant so much to the Cubs beyond his stat line. Given the history of the franchise -- the World Series drought and postseason failures and "goat"/curse nonsense -- Rizzo's value as one of the most important and popular players and probably the face of the franchise during that mid-2010s run matters too.
The Cubs had famously not won the World Series since 1908. They lost the NLCS in 1984 despite a 2-0 lead. They lost the 1989 NLCS. They were swept in 1998. We don't need to talk about 2003, do we? They were swept again in 2007. They were the best team in the National League in 2008, but got swept in the NLDS in three games. Those were all their playoff appearances since 1945.
From 2015-17, though, the Cubs went to the NLCS in three straight seasons, winning their first NL pennant since 1945 and then the World Series in 2016.
Rizzo was The Guy during this stretch. He was the second-best player behind 2016 MVP Kris Bryant. He started off the 2016 postseason in a bit of a slump, but in his last 10 playoff games -- three wins to clinch the NLCS and then all seven World Series games -- he went 16 for 39 (.410) with five doubles, three homers, 10 RBI and 10 runs. He caught the final out of the World Series. The signature highlights from Game 7, excluding actual plays, are probably Rizzo grabbing his helmet and saying "oh my God" on third base after Ben Zobrist's go-ahead double and then Rizzo pocketing the final out after catching the throw at first from Bryant.
The way things went for the Cubs' core after 2016 was weird. In some ways, things just fell apart. I've gone into this at greater length before, but the bottom line is the only players from that group with a chance to make the Hall of Fame are Jon Lester and Aroldis Chapman. If Kyle Schwarber finds his way to 500 home runs (he's at 334 right now at age 32), maybe there's a conversation. Still, Lester spent nine years with the Red Sox and six with the Cubs. Chapman was only with the Cubs for roughly half of a season. Schwarber hit 121 of his home runs with the Cubs and will have spent a lot more time elsewhere before he retires, unless there's a reunion.
I'm discussing all of this for a reason and it's a very simple one: Shouldn't the Cubs have at least one number retired from the most important team in the history of the franchise? And if the answer is yes, wouldn't it be Rizzo?
I've spent way too much time thinking about this, but at some point, the Cubs have to have something around Wrigley Field honoring that team. I've thought about a statue of multiple players, perhaps Rizzo and Bryant hugging after that final World Series out. So many big guns had major contributions in Game 7, so if there was a way to integrate Bryant, Rizzo, Dexter Fowler, Javier Bàez, Lester, Kyle Hendricks and Schwarber, that would be phenomenal to memorialize the team.
If there's a number to be retired from that group, though, it has to be Rizzo.
There's no wrong answer here, so argue amongst yourselves:
Should the Cubs retire No. 44 for Rizzo?