Cubs to retire no. 31

[manbearcub]

Also, just for fun:

 

Maddux's Cub best ERA+: 128

Ted Lilly's: 122

you are missing 1992, apparently.

 

Whoops, nice sort job, USS.

 

Fine, I'll just use Mark Prior's 2003 and 2005. 178 and 120.

 

Or Ryan Dempster's 2008 (151).

 

My point is that Greg Maddux's Cubs performances don't merit the retiring of his number.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with you. But retiring #31 without Maddux involved doesnt really make sense either.

[USSoccer]

Also, just for fun:

 

Maddux's Cub best ERA+: 128

Ted Lilly's: 122

you are missing 1992, apparently.

 

Whoops, nice sort job, USS.

 

Fine, I'll just use Mark Prior's 2003 and 2005. 178 and 120.

 

Or Ryan Dempster's 2008 (151).

 

My point is that Greg Maddux's Cubs performances don't merit the retiring of his number.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with you. But retiring #31 without Maddux involved doesnt really make sense either.

 

Why not? What says he has to be included? He wasn't consistently great for us. Yes, it sucks we had him and he walked due to a stupid management decision, but the fact is, the vast number of his great seasons (including his best) came in a different uniform.

 

Leon Durham wore the number 10 shirt, yes? Did anyone say he should be involved in the retiring of Santo's number 10? No. Why? Because that would have been idiotic.

 

This is sort of the same. I recognize he had 2 strong seasons for us, and was one of the best pitchers of this era, but retiring his number at the same time as Jenkins seems wrong somehow, like trying to bootstrap the Cubs onto his legacy as something more than wasted opportunity.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Where was it written that jersey number retirements would be based entirely and exclusively on a player's on field performance ?

[Geech]

Where was it written that jersey number retirements would be based entirely and exclusively on a player's on field performance ?

 

What else has Maddux done for the Cobs?

[USSoccer]

Where was it written that jersey number retirements would be based entirely and exclusively on a player's on field performance ?

 

Eh. I know it doesn't necessarily 'matter', but if you're going to go about 'retiring' numbers forever, the criteria for doing so should probably be set fairly high.

 

I just can't think of anything he did for the Cubs that merits it. Unless you're retiring his number in his name as a means of reminding people of how god-awful terrible the years 1990-98 were.

[Guest]

This is sort of the same. I recognize he had 2 strong seasons for us, and was one of the best pitchers of this era, but retiring his number at the same time as Jenkins seems wrong somehow, like trying to bootstrap the Cubs onto his legacy as something more than wasted opportunity.

I agree with this statement. It almost seems like the Cubs want a Mulligan on letting Maddux walk. I think it's more than half the reason Hendry waited him out for so long before signing him.

[CubColtPacer]

Also, just for fun:

 

Maddux's Cub best ERA+: 128

Ted Lilly's: 122

you are missing 1992, apparently.

 

Whoops, nice sort job, USS.

 

Fine, I'll just use Mark Prior's 2003 and 2005. 178 and 120.

 

Or Ryan Dempster's 2008 (151).

 

My point is that Greg Maddux's Cubs performances don't merit the retiring of his number.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with you. But retiring #31 without Maddux involved doesnt really make sense either.

 

Why not? What says he has to be included? He wasn't consistently great for us. Yes, it sucks we had him and he walked due to a stupid management decision, but the fact is, the vast number of his great seasons (including his best) came in a different uniform.

 

Leon Durham wore the number 10 shirt, yes? Did anyone say he should be involved in the retiring of Santo's number 10? No. Why? Because that would have been idiotic.

 

This is sort of the same. I recognize he had 2 strong seasons for us, and was one of the best pitchers of this era, but retiring his number at the same time as Jenkins seems wrong somehow, like trying to bootstrap the Cubs onto his legacy as something more than wasted opportunity.

 

It's not unprecedented for a Hall of Fame player have numbers retired by two different teams even if he was better with one team than another. Rod Carew has his number retired by both the Twins and the Angels even though his whole prime was with the Twins. Nolan Ryan is retired by the Rangers (along with the Angels and Astros) even though he only played for them 5 seasons and didn't have a stellar season with them.

 

Maddux played portions of 10 years with the Cubs. He won a Cy Young in Chicago, had another top 3 Cy Young finish, and won his 300th game there. He is also loved by Cubs fans (which definitely has some consideration on retiring numbers if the case is close). His numbers as a Cub are not strong enough to retire his number without taking into account his other years, but the fact that he's a Hall of Famer and that his Cubs career helped contribute to that helps his case.

 

Even then, he might not be a strong enough case to get his number retired by himself. But he certainly shouldn't be ignored when the number is going to be retired anyway.

[robotikarm]

Wow....this is the last thing I would think any Cub fan would ever have an issue with. Number 31 couldn't be retired without the inclusion of both of these players. I think it's awesome.

[Irrelevant Dude]

It is going to suck 50 years from now when all the good numbers are retired. Maybe my grandchildren will live to see the days of number 101 patrolling centerfield.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

My point is that Greg Maddux's Cubs performances don't merit the retiring of his number.

too true. Maddux's inclusion is based mostly on the career that existed after he left the franchise and before he came back

[Brian]

it's a "sorry for being stupid and cheap when you entered free agency" honor

[Omar]

It is going to suck 50 years from now when all the good numbers are retired. Maybe my grandchildren will live to see the days of number 101 patrolling centerfield.

 

Or fractions.

 

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9930/futuramaep48.jpg

 

[Yeti]

If they are going to retire that number, it had best be for Jenkins, and not for 2 seasons of good young Greg Maddux, and 2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux.

agree

[RedFlash]

If they are going to retire that number, it had best be for Jenkins, and not for 2 seasons of good young Greg Maddux, and 2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux.

 

I agree that based on his total numbers with the Cubs, Maddux shouldn't have his number retired. But to say he had "2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux" is not sound reasoning. Looking at his numbers in his 2nd stint with the Cubs, he was essentially league average during that stint. His ERAs during his 2nd stint with the Cubs were 4.02, 4.24, and 4.69 with his short stint during his final yr in Chicago. His whips during those yrs were 1.18, 1.22, 1.29. His ERA+ were 109, 104, and 99. So no, I would not call his second stint "bad, old, overrated Maddux", he was league average.

[Yeti]

If they are going to retire that number, it had best be for Jenkins, and not for 2 seasons of good young Greg Maddux, and 2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux.

 

I agree that based on his total numbers with the Cubs, Maddux shouldn't have his number retired. But to say he had "2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux" is not sound reasoning. Looking at his numbers in his 2nd stint with the Cubs, he was essentially league average during that stint. His ERAs during his 2nd stint with the Cubs were 4.02, 4.24, and 4.69 with his short stint during his final yr in Chicago. His whips during those yrs were 1.18, 1.22, 1.29. His ERA+ were 109, 104, and 99. So no, I would not call his second stint "bad, old, overrated Maddux", he was league average.

i think he's speaking relatively to the rest of his career....there is no reason Maddux's # should be retired by the cubs....fergie on the other hand....it will be a shame if they wreck fergies day by mentioning maddux

[mhuber92211]

How ridiculous. Maddux is the best pitcher in recent memory and a big part of that was the Chicago Cubs. The team did develop him after all. To say that he should not have his number retired is ludicrous.

[RedFlash]

If they are going to retire that number, it had best be for Jenkins, and not for 2 seasons of good young Greg Maddux, and 2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux.

 

I agree that based on his total numbers with the Cubs, Maddux shouldn't have his number retired. But to say he had "2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux" is not sound reasoning. Looking at his numbers in his 2nd stint with the Cubs, he was essentially league average during that stint. His ERAs during his 2nd stint with the Cubs were 4.02, 4.24, and 4.69 with his short stint during his final yr in Chicago. His whips during those yrs were 1.18, 1.22, 1.29. His ERA+ were 109, 104, and 99. So no, I would not call his second stint "bad, old, overrated Maddux", he was league average.

i think he's speaking relatively to the rest of his career....there is no reason Maddux's # should be retired by the cubs....fergie on the other hand....it will be a shame if they wreck fergies day by mentioning maddux

 

Maybe he was, but he made it sound like Maddux was the 2nd coming of Shawn Estes or something, but in reality he was an league average pitcher. Maddux was ridiculous during his prime, and to compare Maddux at 40 something to when he was late 20s to mid 30s, is not right.

 

Something tells me, Fergie is not going to have a problem if the Cubs decide to retired Maddux's number along with his.

[Yeti]

If they are going to retire that number, it had best be for Jenkins, and not for 2 seasons of good young Greg Maddux, and 2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux.

 

I agree that based on his total numbers with the Cubs, Maddux shouldn't have his number retired. But to say he had "2 seasons of bad, old, overrated Maddux" is not sound reasoning. Looking at his numbers in his 2nd stint with the Cubs, he was essentially league average during that stint. His ERAs during his 2nd stint with the Cubs were 4.02, 4.24, and 4.69 with his short stint during his final yr in Chicago. His whips during those yrs were 1.18, 1.22, 1.29. His ERA+ were 109, 104, and 99. So no, I would not call his second stint "bad, old, overrated Maddux", he was league average.

i think he's speaking relatively to the rest of his career....there is no reason Maddux's # should be retired by the cubs....fergie on the other hand....it will be a shame if they wreck fergies day by mentioning maddux

 

Maybe he was, but he made it sound like Maddux was the 2nd coming of Shawn Estes or something, but in reality he was an league average pitcher. Maddux was ridiculous during his prime, and to compare Maddux at 40 something to when he was late 20s to mid 30s, is not right.

 

Something tells me, Fergie is not going to have a problem if the Cubs decide to retired Maddux's number along with his.

 

you know, i love maddux as much as the next guy, but he wasnt a cub for the best part of his career...

 

fergie was a cub for 10 yrs....the salad days of his careeer

 

the braves need to retire greg's number...

 

he diddnt do enuff for the cubs to deserve his number to be retired in chicago

[Roast]

How ridiculous. Maddux is the best pitcher in recent memory and a big part of that was the Chicago Cubs. The team did develop him after all. To say that he should not have his number retired is ludicrous.

No, it's not. He was with this team for FOUR YEARS. Two of which, as pointed out above, he was "league average." The Cubs are retiring his number completely based on what he did with another team, and that's stupid. I mean, at the end of the day, I like maddux, and I wont have a problem with his name flying above Wrigley. But when it comes down to it, that number should belong to Fergie.

[Yeti]

How ridiculous. Maddux is the best pitcher in recent memory and a big part of that was the Chicago Cubs. The team did develop him after all. To say that he should not have his number retired is ludicrous.

No, it's not. He was with this team for FOUR YEARS. Two of which, as pointed out above, he was "league average." The Cubs are retiring his number completely based on what he did with another team, and that's stupid. I mean, at the end of the day, I like maddux, and I wont have a problem with his name flying above Wrigley. But when it comes down to it, that number should belong to Fergie.

<<

[CubbieBum]

How ridiculous. Maddux is the best pitcher in recent memory and a big part of that was the Chicago Cubs. The team did develop him after all. To say that he should not have his number retired is ludicrous.

No, it's not. He was with this team for FOUR YEARS. Two of which, as pointed out above, he was "league average." The Cubs are retiring his number completely based on what he did with another team, and that's stupid. I mean, at the end of the day, I like maddux, and I wont have a problem with his name flying above Wrigley. But when it comes down to it, that number should belong to Fergie.

<<

 

I would say winning a Cy Young as a Cub and spending a decade has a Cub make it so Maddux has to be included.

[Derwood]

a decade as a Cub. A DECADE? Please tell me you're not including his minor league career.

[cubbinalltheway]

a decade as a Cub. A DECADE? Please tell me you're not including his minor league career.

umm........

 

maddux was a cub for nine and a half seasons

jenkins was a cub for nine and a half seasons

[Derwood]

a decade as a Cub. A DECADE? Please tell me you're not including his minor league career.

umm........

 

maddux was a cub for nine and a half seasons

jenkins was a cub for nine and a half seasons

 

yeah okay fine. I wasn't a Cub fan yet. It's still a dumb idea.

[CubColtPacer]

Which player is which?

 

Player A: spent parts of 10 seasons with the Cubs.

Best 5 seasons ERA+: 142, 131, 127, 126, 119

Best 5 opposing OPS (not adjusted for era): .606, .619, .628, .640, .642

1 Cy Young and 3 other top 5 finishes

 

Player B: spent parts of 10 seasons with the Cubs.

Best 5 seasons ERA+: 166, 128, 119, 115, 114

Best 5 opposing OPS (not adjusted for era): .552, .634, .637, .658, .673

1 Cy Young and 1 other top 5 finish.

 

Jenkins was better as a Cub than Maddux. But he wasn't that much better. I included opposing OPS because they are so different kinds of pitchers that it was a better all encompassing stat than trying to break down six stats at once.

 

They are certainly close enough that you'd have a really hard time honoring one without the other. Jenkins has the advantages of being his best with the Cubs and being a little better during that time than Maddux was, and Maddux has the advantage of being a Cub farmhand and being a better overall pitcher. Both are loved by the fans. If they were wearing different numbers, it would be a good discussion on if one should be retired without the other. Since they wore the same number, it absolutely should be for both of them.