RoseBowlMtg

How about a little 4th time thru rally on this guy. You have to guess right on his pitch selection sometime or someone should have figured him out. Come on!!!!!

Are the Brewers the only team that struggles with first time pitchers? If not bring up a slew of new one's in September. The Brewers are guessing on this guy and looking pathetic! No history will be the excuse so it can't only be the Brewers can it?

How about this: Doug Davis has the second longest current hitting streak on the team at 3: Can he make it 4?

As for Overbay I wish he was a lot more of the good Overbay obviously. I just wonder why a hitting coach can't get him to be more like that and I am afraid the next one will.

"But, I do find it funny that I suggest you look at year to year OPS, and you ignore that and move right on to BARISP... that's very telling to me. Based on the debating tactics I've seen from you so far, my guess is that OPS figures don't support your argument." BUCKYRULES: 6 days til Opening Day: You asked: I responded: Are we debating?

Play Ball and thanks Bud for your unwavering effort keeping a team in your hometown where without you the 42,000 people there tonight would not be celebrating 50 yrs of Ueck! The Brewers are on the upswing for the first time in a very long time so let's get this one tonight and gain some ground. Brewers Baseball: Love it! Now Rick Helling remember to throw some breaking balls.

Let's take a look at how well OPS+ shows production. 72: 162: .293, 22, 61&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 78: 148: .287, 22, 80&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 74: 159: .299, 11, 26&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 77: 145: .318, 21, 95 75: 150: .331, 10, 52&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 80: 142: .303, 21, 98&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 77: 139: .315, 26, 102&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 75: 142: .332, 18, 100&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 83: 134: .289, 26, 86&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 79: 136: .283, 26, 87 79: 126: .304, 10, 42&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72: 127: .303, 16, 96 80: 119: .289, 18, 62&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 83: 127: .308, 13, 108 85: 115: .238, 37, 107&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 73: 124: .310, 13, 91 76: 109: .255, 17, 58&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 74: 117: .272, 20, 103 81: 109: .263, 7, 45&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 76: 117: .291, 5, 75 73: 105: .246, 26, 71&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 82: 112: .269, 23, 97 82: 103: .267. 14, 65&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 85: 103: .273, 12, 76 84: 102: .231, 21, 43&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 81: 87: ..216, 14, 61 79: 96: .272, 10, 42&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 84: 61: ..221, 4, 52 No one will say that Fisk's 74 and 75 seasons were his best. Now let's eliminate the years where they didn't have more than 65 RBI's: &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 78: 148: .287, 22, 80&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 77: 145: .318, 21, 95 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 80: 142: .303, 21, 98&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 77: 139: .315, 26, 102&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 75: 142: .332, 18, 100&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 83: 134: .289, 26, 86&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 79: 136: .283, 26, 87 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72: 127: .303, 16, 96 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 83: 127: .308, 13, 108 85: 115: .238, 37, 107&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 73: 124: .310, 13, 91 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 74: 117: .272, 20, 103 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 76: 117: .291, 5, 75 73: 105: .246, 26, 71&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 82: 112: .269, 23, 97 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 85: 103: .273, 12, 76 OPS+ does actually give a pretty good look at Simmons production but the fault with it is it doesn't look at production for the year and no way is a 26 RBI year better than a 107 for Fisk. OPS+ debate open for discussion: BUCKYRULES: RoseBowlMtg's all time favorite hoops player in Sidney Moncrief. I was at the game in Fayetteville when he stole the inbound pass vs Texas near half court and went for the game winning jam captured on the cover of SI. Classy great man! &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

BUCKYRULES!!!! states: But, I do find it funny that I suggest you look at year to year OPS, and you ignore that and move right on to BARISP... that's very telling to me. Based on the debating tactics I've seen from you so far, my guess is that OPS figures don't support your argument. Let's look at OPS+ on the head to head years and see who had the better numbers: .....Fisk..Simba 72:..162..127 (1-0) 73:..105..124 (1-1) 74:..159..117 (2-1) 75:..150..142 (3-1) Oh Oh Buckyrules might be right. 76:..109..117 (3-2) 77:..139..145 (3-3) 78:..126..148 (3-4) 79:..96....136 (3-5) 80:..119..142 (3-6) The end of the Red Sox/Cards years: 81:..109..87 (4-6) 82:..103..112 (4-7) 83:..134..127 (5-7) 84:..102..61 (6-7) 85:..115..112 (7-7) And just so I don't get accused of picking selective years: Career..117...118 So to look at OPS+ it would look like Fisk and Simmons were pretty even but does a high OPS+ always signify the better year? Let's look at the years Fisk had a higher OPS+ 1972: 162 v 127. Looks like a blowout: .........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk...293..134..28..9...22.......61...246 Simba..303.180..36..6..16......96....276 .............runs...HR's.. Boston: 640......124 Cards:....543.....75 Sox teammates RBI's: 1: Petrocelli: 75 2: Reggie Smith: 74 3: Yaz: 68 4: Fisk: 61 Cards teammates RBI's: 1: Simmoms: 91 2: Torre: 69 3: Brock: 63 4: Cruz: 57 Does this really look like a 162 v 127 year? The Cards scored 97 fewer runs and Simmons knocked in 75 teammates vs 39. We saw earlier the risp #'s so I'd hate to repeat myself. 1974:159 v 117 .........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk:...299..56..12..1......11......26...103 Simba: .272.163..33..6...20.....103....268 Now this is a tough argument to say that OPS+ tells the total picture. I won't go into detail on this one but Fisk had an inflated OPS+ since he was injured but no one could possibly say Fisk had a better year could they? 1975: 150 v 142 ...........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk:...331..87..14..4....10....52....139 Simba:.332.193..32..3..20....100...285 See 1974: Sox teammates RBI's 1: Lynn 105 2: Rice 102 3: Burlson 62 4: Yaz: 60 5: Petrocelli: 59 6: Evans: 56 7: Fisk: 52 Cards teammates RBI's 1: Simba 100 2: Smith 76 3: Sizemore 49 Can you see why I brought up IBB earlier? Up to now summation: Fisk was the rookie of the year in 72 and that was the only year that the OPS+ was higher where he had a decent year while the other two were no where close to being better than Simmons. If I give you 72 (which I don't think is right) Simmons had a higher OPS+ 7 out of the 10 Sox/Cards years and 74 and 75 are a joke. 9 out of 10 for Simmons for the people who want to look at OPS+. Let's move on: 1981: Do we have a pattern here? The strike year: 109 v 87 ...........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk:....263...89...12..0....7........45....122 Simba:..216...82...13..3..14.......61....143 OPS+ says Fisk but production shows Simmons. I just think the guy who has 30 XBH and 61 RBI's had a better year than 19 XBH and 45 RBI's. Not good years for both but at least Simmons produced with his fewer hits 1983: 134 v 127 A close one: ...........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk:....289...141..26..4...26......86....253 Simba: .308..185..39..3..13..108.....243 This is the argument: HR's vs RBI's. The HR's increased the slugging for Fisk but he knocked in 60 teammates to Simmons 95. 44 more hits! Fisk came in 3rd in the AL MVP voting but did he have a better year than Simmons? One's who argue HR's are the get all say Fisk and one's who look at runs say Simmons. 1984: 102 v 61 ...........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk: .231....83...20..1......21......43....168 Simba: .221..110..23..2...4.........52.....149 In a horrible year for both Simmons knocked in 48 teammates to Fisk's 22. HR's v RBI's. OPS+ slants HR's runs win games. 1985: 115 v 103 ...........ave..hits..2B..3B..HR's.. RBI..TB Fisk: .238...129...23..1...37.....107....265 Simba: .273..144..28..2..12.....76......212 A year where the OPS+ showed who had the better year. That would be the only clear correct OPS+ reading during the 14 Fisk/Simmons head to head years. We know Fisk continued to play and play and play until he beat Bob Boone's game's caught record by catching one inning the last 13 games but remember the career OPS+ totals: Fisk 117 Simmons 118. BUCKYRULES!!! great name to repeat myself RoseBowlMtg has responded to this: "But, I do find it funny that I suggest you look at year to year OPS, and you ignore that and move right on to BARISP... that's very telling to me. Based on the debating tactics I've seen from you so far, my guess is that OPS figures don't support your argument." I guess it does support my argument. Does it convince you any differently?

Do you think if he wasn't a Brewer that you would feel the same way? I'm just wondering. I voted no on him because I think he was a compiler who never dominated, and I feel the same way about Fisk. I do think, I guess, that if Fisk is in I guess that maybe Simmons should be. I just don't feel as strongly about him, though. Great question bretac: OK here is how my fascination with Simba started. In the early 70's I had a buddy of mine who was always Johnny Bench in our strike out games. I wanted to be another catcher that could match up with him so in 72 I became Manny Sanguillan. I loved the way he swung at everything. In 74 I saw this catcher with really long hair playing for the Cards coming off of 96 and 91 RBI years so I started keeping an eye on him. Suffice to say Simmons became my strike out name. I thought there was going to be no way to surpass Bench but then he hit .332 in 75 and Bench only knocked in more than 100 runs once after 75 so I had a worthy argument. That is on a year to year basis. So that's how it all started. When Simba got traded to Milwaukee that was a bonus but to be honest his 10 years with the Cards were better. Was a coincidence that we made the playoffs the first two years he was here and we had two Cy Young's and an MVP pitcher? An extremely smart man who was different than many ballplayers who I appreciated. So my fascination with Simba started in 74!

If you wanted to look at hitting rates such as OPS as opposed to hits/HR/RBIs/etc, my guess is that Fisk would hold his own on a season to season basis. I thought we should look at their careers at RISP and see if that tells us why Simmons was such a better run producer than Fisk even though he hit fewer HR's Oh I did address the defense and showed the year to year betterment by Simba while you just have a feeling Fisk was "much" better. Let's look at "clutch" hitting that gets so much criticism: SIT AB H 2B 3B HR BB IBB HBP SF OBP SLG OPS AVG+ SLG+ BPS Carlton Fisk NO-RISP 6438 1731 314 34 292 530 0 100 0 0.334 0.464 0.798 0.269 0.464 0.733 Carlton Fisk RISP 2318 625 107 13 84 319 105 43 79 0.358 0.436 0.793 0.261 0.421 0.682 Ted Simmons NO-RISP 6171 1721 342 29 167 479 0 27 0 0.334 0.425 0.758 0.279 0.425 0.704 Ted Simmons RISP 2509 751 141 18 81 376 188 12 100 0.380 0.467 0.847 0.288 0.449 0.737 The BPS for all the stat gear heads out there is interesting: Fisk: NO-RISP: .733/ RISP: .682 Simmons: NO-RISP: .704/ RISP: .737 A .051 decrease for Fisk in his career and a .033 increase in Simmons or Simmons better by .055 which shows why he knocked in more runs with a worse hitting team in a less friendly hitting park. Simmons 1171 TB to Fisk's 1090 in his 126 more hits while hitting .288 with risp vs .279 with no-risp. While Fisk hit only .10 less than Simmons with no-risp at .269, Fisk hit .261 with risp a .027 difference over their careers. That tells me how Simmons knocked in more runs with less HR's. Clutch hitting can be looked down upon but I think it shows something over a career. Simmons got better in the clutch and Fisk got worse. Sorry if I am being persistent but it really does bug me that Simmons only got 17 votes for the HOF while at best a similar player got in on the first ballot. This is a great site with many great baseball fans and minds so what better place to have a detailed discussion on a HOF mistake imo. Sorry if I am repetitive but this is just not right imo.

Another reason Simba should be in the HOF! Dan Quisenberry, on Ted Simmons: "He didn't sound like a baseball player." He said things like "Nevertheless" and "if, in fact."

BuckyRules I will give you one thing: BUCKY RULES!!!! ROSE BOWL!!!! You pick many of my littler points which doesn't acknowledge that Fisk played until he was 45, 8 yrs after Simmons retired and averaged 48 ribbies a yr with a .256 ave and 14 dingers to get his numbers close to Simmons. Which player got their 1000th career RBI at age 38 and which at age 30? This to me does show who the more productive hitter was in their primes. Fisk added numbers at a 14-48 clip from age 38-45 ending up with fewer total RBI's. BB/K's does not tell it all just as intentional walks doesn't tell it all. Just like 47,35,35,35,37,39,34 doesn't tell it all but it is some pretty impressive K numbers for a guy who leads his team in RBI's all those years. HOF by itself? No but no one has ever led their team 8 consecutive years. As for Piazza: I have said he has had an incredible career and will be a lock for the HOF so that's why I am not comparing Simmons career to his directly. You say 21 yrs vs 13 yrs which is an interesting slant. I just compared them up to Piazza's current age to show that Simmons numbers were pretty good compared to someone who is a virtual lock for the HOF. 3 hr game: Just a p!!ssed off point I had about Fisk. He took forever. No big deal! Compiler to me doesn't take into effect leading all catchers in hits and RBI's in the 70's. Forget that lead all HOF catchers in hits and only behind Yogi in ribbies. Add up 90 ribbie yrs for HOF catchers and speak compiler. If a compiler is a consistent producer for 15 years of starting at catcher, I will take that as a compliment. switch hitter HR's in the NL. Remember when Chris Berman had a stupid quiz show on ESPN he asked who is the all-time switch hitting leader for HR's in the NL. Someone guess Simmons and Berman said no: Pete Rose, Boomer said which was wrong. Just another time he was overlooked for what I agree is a meaningless stat. To me if you look at the year by year comparison along with the career numbers, there is no question who was a more productive hitter. I have not been convinced by anyone who analyzed their head to head stats. I am open to debate though.

gregmag just a slight correction: Simmmons: .285 / .348 / .437, OPS+ 117 Fisk: .269 / .341 / .457, OPS+ 118 Simmons: .285/ .348/ .437/ (OPS+ 11http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/glasses.gif Fisk: .269/ .341/ .457/ (OPS+ 117) Simmons has the higher OPS+ Why I think OPS+ does not tell the whole story: In 1972 Fisk had an OPS+ of 162 vs Simmons 127. To me that looks like Fisk had a far superior year. Let's look: 1972......H...2B..3B..HR..RBI..AVE..TB Fisk.....134..28..9..22..61...293..246 Simba..180..36..6..16..96...303..276 With Simmons 58 extra base hits and 122 and singles knocked in 80 teammates while Fisk's 61 extra base hits and 73 singles knocked in 39 teammates. Boston scored more than 200 more runs than St. Louis did that year. An OPS+ of 162 v 127 does not show that Fisk knocked in less than 1 half as many teammates as Simmons. Just by looking at OPS+ does not show what a player does with his production. 22-61 v 16-96 for a team that score 200+ fewer runs tells a more complete story imo. That being said: Simmons had a higher career OPS+ than a first time HOFamer along with more hits, rbi's, ave etc.... OPS+ does not show it all.

Fisk v Simmons gregmag please read this link before saying that my extra points are the reason I think Simmons should be in the HOF: Fisk, Carter and Simmons played at the same time so a head to head comparison with the catcher with the most hits in the HOF is a fair way to state my case I believe. BTW Simmons production tops Hartnett, Lombardi and the rest. Fisk is the best comparison imo since his career numbers almost match Simmons and he played 8 years longer in favorable ballparks. More HR's but less production for better teams. Interesting debate imo. Please read then tell me which years Fisk outperformed Simmons.

Looks like I have a little time to get the word out: http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/roll.gif Wasn't there something a couple of years ago allowing miscalculations like this correctable? I am comparing Simmons to Fisk. Others would be even more obvious. I just think the guy who had the most hits for his position should be in the Hall. If not let's eliminate the leader in hits per position if hits are not that important: 1B: Murray 2B: Wagner 3B: Brett SS: Wagner LF: Musial CF: Cobb RF: Aaron C: Fisk (2356) C: Simmons (2472) 17 votes I could also see how many HOF's Simmons beats at other positions but that might be overkill. Why???? A small market player who got overshadowed by Johnny Bench rightfully so for the first half of the 70's and didn't come into the Big Leagues the same year and town as Peter Gammons.

BuckyRules and once again I agree with your name completely. I was not comparing Simba to Piazza to degrade Piazza. Piazza has been an incredible hitter but I assume you didn't realize that what you probably think is a sure fire HOF lock for Piazza that his career numbers do not dominate Simmons. And you can't criticize Simmons for breaking into the majors earlier and being the best hitter on his team for a decade. I believe the when you degrade Simmons by saying "compiling" tell me another player who lead his team in RBI's 7 straight years. If compiling is a generous rip ala Don Sutton's career you probably don't realize that stat. That still remains a stat that has not been bettered. That to me is not a compiler. Check out the intentional walks if you want to see if Simba was a compiler. If you really want to look at these numbers let's discuss since you say Fisk defense is far superior but in their head to head years Fisk never bettered Simmons. This is an interesting breakdown comparison to show what kind of hitter each was. Let's look at the BB/K breakdown in the Cards/Red Sox years: ...............BB/K 72: 52/83 v 29/57 Pretty close 73: 37/99 v 61/47 what happened? One got better and the other got worse 74: 24/23 v 47/35 20 HR's 103 rbi's and 35 K's vs 11/26 with 23 75: 27/32 v 63/35 18/100 with 35 K's vs 10/32 witn 32 K's 76: 56/71 v 73/35 3 straight years of 35 K's 77: 75/85 v 79/39 Oh oh slipped to 39 78: 71/83 v 77/39 79: 10/38 v 61/34 WOW 80: 36/62 v 59/45 Only 1972 was close than Fisk turned into what he was and Simmons struck out fewer than most all run producers for a good long stretch. Let's look at the BB/W %: 72: 38.52 v 33.72 73: 27.21 v 51.69 74: 51.07 v 57.32 75: 45.76 v 64.29 76: 44.10 v 76.60 77: 46.88 v 66.95 78: 46.10 v 66.38 79: 20.83 v 64.21 80: 36.74 v 56.73 Simmons was better every year from 73-80 than Fisk's best year of 51.07 which came only because he had 187 AB's it could be argued. Yes walks and K's aren't everything but it does tell you who is the more disciplined. It does show to me who the better hitter was for that period and if you look at the numbers please debate that if you want. Does anyone remember how Fisk invented the 3 hour game? Please explain the term compiler? Does that mean a person who led all switch hitters in HR's in his league? I would love to discuss anyone who would actually break down a year and tell me that Fisk was better.

Here are the fielding % from the Boston/Cards years: 1972: .984/.987 1973: .983/.987 1974: .980/.986 1975: .979/.983 1976: .984/.993 1977: .987/.987 1978: .980/.988 1979: .982/.985 1980: .983/.985 Not one year did Fisk have a better fielding % while at Boston when Simmons was at St.Louis. That's a combined .39 better. I believe to dis Simmons on his d is recalling his 1983 year with the Brewers but he had quite the career before that.

Bucky rules you state: and Fisk was the far superior defensive catcher. Ted Simmons was a liability behind the plate (although his reputation for calling a good game should be considered). At a position like catcher, defense must be considered high up the list of priorities. I have friends that were Card fans in the 70's who think Simmons was a great defensive catcher after passed ball problems at age 21-23 when Fisk wasn't even playing yet. Factor that in and Fisk had a .988 fielding % vs Simba's .987. Huge difference? Now, if Simba had hit like Piazza, I would be willing to let that slide. Piazza makes the HOF as a hitter at any position, I would think. I agree Piazza has had huge numbers in this juiced era and will get into the HOF. Not to degrade Piazza but look at the career numbers of Piazza after last year (Piazza is not doing much this year at age 36) and Simmons when he was 35: ............Piazza....Simba Hits: 1829........2370...(541) doubles: 285....464....(179) triples: 6........47.....(39) HR: 378......238...(-140) RBI: 1161......1323...(162) Honestly did you know that Simmons at an equal faze of his career had over 500 more hits and 160 more ribbies than Piazza. I am not degrading Piazza but showing how great Simmons was where obviously only 17 HOF voters realized.

BuckyRules love the name btw which years in the head to head battle did Fisk outperform Simmons. That to me would be a good discussion for you said: I don't know. IMO Carlton Fisk was the better player of the two Of the 14 years head to head give me a year you want to say Fisk was better and I will give you a year Simmons was and we can see where we end up at.

Anyone who doesn't think Simmons belongs in the HOF please read this since it breaks down the 15 years they both played at the same time. You tell me who was the better player at that time and if you think Fisk playing 8 extra years without surpassing Simmons' numbers made him a first time elected HOFer while Simmons only received 17 votes not enough to remain on the ballot....well then you are like too many HOF voters who didn't take the time to look at the details. Tell me another HOF who: Leads all players in his position in hits who is not in the HOF? 2nd most RBI's per position and is not in the HOF? Leads his team in RBI's 7 consecutive times and is not in the HOF? Leads all players per position for a decade in hits and RBI's and is not in the HOF? Fisk v Simba

I'm heading to the game right now to get this homestand off on the right track! Come on fans let's make this a great run!

Way to go Jenks and way to read it Lyle getting home from first!

Just got back from vacation away from the tube so I am ready for a good show today against a heady pitcher. Come on Crew make my wind down fun!

Thanks Rockies for swinging like the Crew did .......last night! Let's blow this game wide open right now!

Here was my pre-game post: Bill Hall vs a lefty at Coors! Yes he will hit the ball hard three times. Let's forget last night and put up a 10 spot tonight! Got the Billy right! Think I will get the 10 spot right?