This was something I probably should have known already. But as I was watching the Red Sox lose in Toronto Friday night, I paused to notice the number on the back of pitcher Takashi Saito.

"Twenty-four," I thought to myself. "Hmmm ... Dwight Evans' number."

Number association is probably one of the first things a young boy - and maybe even young girls in this enlightened, empowered age - will use as a reference point for his or her life as a sports fan. I suppose I'll always remember not just the players' numbers from my youth that one would expect, such as Carl Yastrzemski's 8 or Jim Lonborg's 16, but also a few more obscure ones, such as Eddie Bressoud's 1, Gary Geiger's 3 or Dick Stuart's 7 from the 1960s, Hawk Harrelson's 40, Allen Ripley's 28 or Juan Beniquez's 20 from the 1970s, and so on.

Depending upon the fame or infamy of the player involved, it's easy to burn those numerals into memory and keep them there forever, even of you can't remember where you parked your car just 15 minutes ago.

Because that "numbers game" is such a big part of following sports, we tend to attach greater significance to them than perhaps we should. Each generation of sports fans believes that its time on this earth was the best there ever was, and therefore, they feel compelled to honor the heroes of their time with number retirement ceremonies. So what if the next generation is likely to produce even greater athletes? We won't be around to worry about it. Let the next generation figure out how to make triple-digits look good on the back of a baseball uniform. For instance, I'm sure there are plenty of Red Sox fans who would like to see the aforementioned 24 hanging on the right-field façade at Fenway - and not to honor that Manny fellow who just got shipped to the Dodgers and is sitting out a lengthy suspension for testing positive for banned substances in his by-products. No doubt, Evans had one of the greatest arms in the game and made great catches and throws in one of the toughest right fields in the majors. But his .272 career batting average over 20 years probably isn't going to get him into the Hall of Fame.

Ditto for the 25 currently worn by Mike Lowell. Aging warriors like myself remember that as the number worn by the brash young outfielder from Revere, Tony Conigliaro, who burst upon the scene in 1964 as one of the most promising young sluggers in the American League.

Boston Herald columnist Steve Buckley has been spearheading a campaign to have Conigliaro's number retired for years. But it's more out of sentimentality than actual production; when Tony C was beaned by the Angels' Jack Hamilton on Aug. 18, 1967, it permanently damaged his eyesight and caused his premature departure from the game in 1971 (not counting a 21-game comeback in 1975). He finished with 166 career home runs.

New Englanders will forever speculate about what Tony C might have done if not for that fateful beaning, just as they will forever mourn his death in 1990 following a heart attack suffered while in Boston interviewing for the Red Sox TV analyst's job. But is what he actually did worthy of a number retirement? The numbers say no.

Debate over number retirements doesn't rage only over the Red Sox, who now have six of their own with the addition of Johnny Pesky's 6 this year (and Jim Rice's 14 will quickly follow after his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame). The Celtics are the leaders in Boston's clubhouse with 21 retired numbers (and one name), the Bruins have retired 10 of their own and the Patriots eight - and you could pick a fight in any bar in Boston over which players you'd want to remove from those lists.

For instance, I'd quickly remove the following names from the Celtics' honor roll: Dennis Johnson (3), JoJo White (10), Cedric Maxwell (31) and Reggie Lewis (35). Some were very good players and great Celtics, others were honored for being parts of championship teams, and Lewis got in on the posthumous sympathy ticket. But certainly, not every number in the rafters represents one of the game's all-time greats.

The Patriots also retired many of their numbers on the whim of the late former owner, Billy Sullivan. Jim Lee Hunt (79) and Bob Dee (89) were honored because they died. More recently, Steve Nelson (57) and Bruce Armstrong (78), the latter having played mostly on Robert Kraft's watch, were fine players but not truly next-level ones.

There was a minor fan outcry a few weeks ago when it was learned that new tight end Alex Smith had been issued 80, most recently worn for 192 games by Troy Brown. Some fans want Brown's number retired because he was "Mr. Patriot" for so long. Others tout the 54 of fan favorite Tedy Bruschi or the 4 worn by Adam Vinatieri (at least before he signed with the Colts) as potential retired numbers.

The truth is, the Patriots are unlikely to retire any more numbers - although the 12 on Tom Brady's chest and back might rate the honor once his playing days are over, especially if he adds more Super Bowl victories to his resume. The NFL adheres to a strict number-by-position convention, and some of the gratuitous retirements have left the Patriots short of numbers at key positions. That could become critical if the team starts retiring numbers left and right once the players from the championship seasons start retiring.

A lot of them were good players, yes. But the only way most of them will get into the Pro Football Hall of Fame is if they travel to Canton, Ohio, and buy an admission ticket. The Patriots' current solution involves prominent display of the numbers worn by the players who are enshrined in the Patriots Hall of Fame, but many of those numbers remain available to players on the active roster.

Perhaps that could be considered by the three other franchises as a means of honoring true greatness, and reserving future number retirements for players who are enshrined in their sport's hall of fame. The Red Sox currently do that, with the added restriction that the player must have played 10 seasons in Boston.

It's not just enough that we liked the players or felt sorry for them. Like everything in life, rewards must be earned - and the greatest rewards demand the highest levels of performance in order to be valid.

MARK FARINELLA may be reached at 508-236-0315 or via e-mail at mfarinel@thesunchronicle.com. Read Farinella's blog, "Blogging Fearlessly," at thesunchronicle.com/farinella.