Fatter than Joey

a couple others that come to mind without looking into statistics are Cecil Fielder's 51 homers in '90- before that i think his top was like 14 or something When Fielder hit 14HRs he did so in ~190 PAs -- so that is a pretty good clip. Toronto was loaded when Fielder came up with them -- they had McGriff at 1b, and Bell, Moseby and Barfield in the OF. Before he had his 51 HRs in 1990 -- he had a big year in Japan -- so his power was always there -- it was more a function of him getting a full season of ABs.

I've always thought that was the logic with Fingers, and I get it. Fingers was an insanely popular Brewer as well. Hoffman isn't even close to that level. Sutton was never that popular. Fingers may have been more popular than any other Brewer that played in 1982.

Reggie Cleveland? All I remember from his time is his getting hammered by the Red Sox as the Brewers fell out of the race in 79.. He was not a Brewer product by the way. We got him from Texas for Ed Farmer. Cleveland had some decent seasons for the Red Sox. He sucked as a Brewer though. I think Barry Cort was our first Canadian, Reggie Cleveland was our second. Reggie Cleveland had a nice beard though. http://www.joesportsfan.com/jsfpics/cards/ReggieCleveland.jpg Sort of like Roy Howell http://cardboardgods.com/sitebuilder/images/Roy_Howell-322x456.jpg

if being pretty decent (overall, considering injury time) is sufficient to getting your number retired, then new Brewers players will have to resort to wearing Greek letters in 30 years They'd go to Hexadecimal first. Johnny Estrada - 4F

I would have to go with yes and although Sheets isn't a hall of fame player he is and was the greatest pitcher the Brewers ever had on the team for more than a few months. I disagree with the notion that Sheets was the best pitcher the Brewers had -- JB12 sums it up nicely. Sheets isn't even the best Brewer to ever wear #15. Cecil Cooper is. Agreed wholeheartedly. Unless they do it in honor of both players, which won't happen. As a side note -- this is a rare thing to do -- I know the Yanks did it with #8 (Berra/Dickey), however that is certainly understandable -- I think the Reds did it as well, I think Johnny Bench's #5 was retired when he came to MLB, and that number had been retired for a player that committed suicide during the season. When Bench came up, they put it back in use, and then of course re-retired it after Bench hung it up. A player should have to have a Hall of Fame caliber career mostly spent in Milwaukee to even be in the conversation to have his number retired. Leading the team to a few World Series championships might be one of the very few caveats to that rule. Another side note -- The Astros have retired 9 numbers, only one of the numbers is for a HOF player (Nolan Ryan)-- however 2 others will certainly join Ryan, (Biggio, Bagwell). The Astros seem out of control to me with their number retiring. I think it should be reserved for only a few players. I am not opposed to recognizing non-HOF players though, just not anyone who strung together a few good seasons. No to Sheets.

Perhaps the best prospect of that 1977 crop that also included Sam Hinds and Gary Beare was Barry Cort. But he got hurt very early on that year and never made it back to the big leagues. I remember all those guys.... Sam Hinds sticks out the most for me -- they were all out of baseball relatively soon after 1977 -- Barry Cort was Canadian, that's about all I recall about him. He was probably the first Canadian to play for the Brewers. The only other one I recall from that era would be Reggie Cleveland, but he was after Cort.

Uh, Sutton wore #21 as a Brewer, not #27. Pete Ladd wore #27. He would've worn the #20 as he did for all those years w/ the Dodgers except that that was Gorman Thomas' number. Whoops -- you are right -- Sutton wore #27 for the Angels and not the Brewers -- actually Sutton wore #20 once Gorman got traded to Cleveland.

I know when I was a kid -- Moose Haas and Lary Sorensen came up at the same time in 1977 and anchored the rotation. Sorensen had a big 1978 while Haas was hurt. -- But the difference was that Haas and Sorensen combined for 55 starts in 1977 not a handful of games in Sept. Certainly though, there is more reason for optimism for a couple of seasons down the road.

Fingers and Aaron did not play much for the Brewers either, but both are in the Hall, and both have their numbers retired. Aaron was the all-time HR king, and played much of his career in Milwaukee. Fingers was instrumental in the Brewers reaching the post-season. Fingers was probably also one of the most popular Brewers, even though his stay was short. Don Sutton is in the HOF -- pitched three seasons, and in the WS for the Brewers -- I don't ever think the Brewers even considered retiring #27 Edmonds has a small chance to make the HOF... Neither Hoffman or Edmonds are going to have their numbers retired. There are a lot of HOFers, that don't have their numbers retired by every team they played for. Also there are plenty of players that are not HOFers that have numbers retired.

Froemming is just circling the wagons around one of his umpire buddies, imo. I did not get the impression he heard the fan Froemming was at the game, and clearly stated he hear the remarks and qualified them as "profane" To me, calling that "a homophobic slur" is just more grandstanding I think no matter how thin you would want to slice that -- it would be offensive to homosexuals, and probably a good portion of other people trying to enjoy a baseball game in a somewhat civil manner.

Yes, per the rules, an umpire explicitly can eject a fan -- one that enters the playing surface. There is no mention of any other situation in which an umpire can eject a fan, and no mention of how an umpire otherwise cannot eject a fan. No matter how thin you slice it, umpires have the authority to eject fans regardless of their location-- If you read umpiring manuals, -- they instruct umpires how to correctly eject fans. This is the justification Froemming gave: The responsibility of the HP ump is to "Take full charge of, and be responsible for, the proper conduct of the game;" It really makes me wonder why the ushering staff didn't act. I think in a nutshell, this is why the responsibility falls on the umpire. And, agreed BuC, I think what the fan said was relatively benign. Froemming was in attendance and heard the fan in question and confirmed that what he said was "profane" -- I have no idea what that means, but I doubt it was something people would say in mixed company.

I don't think it is stated in the rules that they have the authority to eject spectators, but they have done it anyways. If you read umpiring manuals at any level, they deal with the process of ejecting fans. There was an online chat (before this incident) with a person in charge of officiating MLB, there was a question "Can an umpire eject a fan" -- and the answer was "yes" My point is that tethering this guy to a bench and ticketing him is a tad severe if Bob Davidson is the only person who thinks he did something wrong. If you google this story there are references to "Brewer players telling the umpires how drunk this guy was". I wonder if his ticket had more to do with his drunkenness, than it did with his ejection. I would like to know exactly what his ticket was for. If what the fan said was truly abhorrent to Davidson, he could have discreetly notified an usher between innings. But no, Davidson had to grandstand I also read that Davidson said "he wanted to wait between innings to be discreet, however he thought Molina was going to escalate the situation". Davidson is a grandstander -- no doubt about that. But, I'm troubled that Davidson is the sole reason this guy was ticketed. I don't know ... I'm thinking out loud, but this struck me as a really interesting legal conundrum. Agreed -- I don't know if you get ejected if it is just standard operating procedure to get a ticket? or perhaps he was being loud and vulgar after the usher removed him...

The disconnect is that no one knows what this clown actually said, or is not repeating it. Bruce Froemming said he heard profane things, I don't know why he would lie, but perhaps he would. I guess I don't see any sort of gray area in racist or homophobic statements. It either is or isn't, and if you make a statement like the one you propose above, I don't know why you would expect any sort of tolerance for your behavior. That is a shame people in Madison behave themselves so poorly at Mallard games -- I have been to a lot of Mallard games, and outside of a few drunken idiots -- the crowds are generally well behaved. In either case what happens in the Duck Pond isn't justification for what happens elsewhere.

If he told the truth on the radio, he didn't really even come close to making homophobic slurs. He was ejected for making homophobic slurs -- that is what Davidson said. Bruce Froemming also said: Froemming, in fact, was sitting in the stands Tuesday night at Miller Park with his wife when a fan, later identified as Sean Ottow, 44, of Waukesha, Wis., was ejected by home plate umpire Bob Davidson for heckling Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina. Froemming said the fan, who was wearing a Milwaukee Brewers jersey, had used vulgarity in his jeering of Molina. "Davidson did what you do when there's profanity in the stands with women and children sitting there," Froemming said. "He told security to get the guy out." isn't that a straw-man, too? No. For two reasons, One, Davidson has clearly stated the fan was ejected for making a homophobic slur Two, I said this in my post: All that said, I do think that Davidson is an umpire prone to grandstanding, and I do certainly allow for the possibility that perhaps the fan didn't make the homophobic slur... but if he did -- I have no problem with his ejection.

Surely would not want the umpires ejecting any fan who razzes the other team's players, because it is supposedly "unfair"? Agreed. But there is a line in the sand -- Reminding Molina that he sucks is one thing, blowing a horn right before a pitch is thrown is something that affects performance as is repeated derogatory comments. Your logic would seem to ultimately lead to a requirement that all fans sit silently in the stands (no cheering, booing, etc. and better stop the home team from doing things like suggesting "make some noise" too) or risk ejection by the umpire. You are purposely exaggerating anything I have said to try to give your argument more merit. Straw-man 101. The fan was ejected for making homophobic slurs. I find homophobic slurs to be different than "make some noise" -- perhaps you think "make some noise" should incorporate homophobic slurs -- if that is the case, we can agree to disagree here. It is not the job of the umpires to supervise the fans in the stands. Right, however, the fan behind home plate said or did something that kept Molina from doing his job in the eyes of the umpire. I think it is a big reach to think that the fan in question was just yelling "boo" or "yay" and got ejected for that -- though I suppose it is possible. According to all accounts Davidson ejected this fan for using homophobic slurs. The most the umpire should have done was suggest to the usher that he monitor the fan that he thought was going too far. I disagree. If I am an ump in charge of a MLB game, I don't have the time to baby-sit or dink around with ushers. If a fan is impacting play, they are gone. Umpires should not be authorized to throw a fans in the stands out of the ballpark...and I do not think they are. Umpires do in fact have the authority to eject fans-- that is beyond debate. They have in the past, and will continue to do so. All that said, I do think that Davidson is an umpire prone to grandstanding, and I do certainly allow for the possibility that perhaps the fan didn't make the homophobic slur... but if he did -- I have no problem with his ejection.

Yes, watching the game I found it surprising that the ushers are just take orders from the umpire in that situation You have to remember it is the umpires job to ensure that the "playing field is fair" to both teams, not the ushers. The ushers are employed by the home team and are not impartial. If there is something unfair about the field or the playing conditions -- the umpire has the authority and obligation to make the home team make the appropriate adjustments, otherwise they can call a forfeit.

So it sounds like Davidson would have been in the right to eject a player saying the things this fan was to Molina, but I don't think he had the right to eject a fan in this instance. Right -- I didn't read "any spectator or other person not authorized to be on the playing field" to mean that the ump can only eject fans that run on the field -- rather that the ump could eject a ball-boy authorized to be on the field OR a fan who ran onto the field. I know umps have gotten after fans who have had things that could distract players such as flash cameras, or laser pointers -- If a fan was audibly distracting, I think the ump would have the responsibility to remove the fan. It really all depends on what the fan was saying, or if the fan was trying to distract Molina to impact the play of the game, or just razz Molina

I don't know that I'd say that. I think that's a bit harsh. It's the impression that I get.

Yeah, having the most anything in the history of a sport means nothing This is not true -- Rose getting 4192 got a lot more attention than hit #4000, Aaron hitting 715 meant more than 700 -- The biggest Homerun McGwire ever hit was #62. Milestones get more attention than they deserve though. Hoffman's milestone is special though because he is the first pitcher to reach it. Also, I don't think the baseball fan care much about save leaders or save milestones. Right, because many MORE guys make it to 47 still pitching effectively than there are guys that break down rapidly in the 38 - 40 age range. Look, I understand that Rivera is getting old, and is going to start to decline at some point --but Hoffman has gotten 46 saves since he turned 41, even with his steep decline, I don't see any reason why Rivera couldn't do the same. With regard to retiring Hoffman's number or "600" -- It's going to look silly for the Brewers when Rivera is likely to surpass it in the next 2 seasons. Rivera pitching as long as Moyer is about as likely to happen as FTJ no longer refuting every other comment posted on this board. Agreed -- He only needs to pitch until he is 42-43 though.

His year this year is very similar to Hoffman's last year in terms of results. They are still 2 entirely different athletes, and 2 entirely different pitchers. Still, Hoffman even with his collapse, was still able to save 46 games in his 41st-42nd years -- Rivera wouldn't probably need to even do that to get over 600. Obviously, Favre didn't set any records so it is not the exact same Technically, Favre sets a record every time he starts a game, completes a pass, throws a TD, etc...

The same could VERY well happen to Rivera in the next year or 2 as well. Or Rivera could continue pitching like Jamie Moyer until he is 50 -- that could VERY well happen also. So now that we have both of the extreme ends of the spectrum covered -- I think given the fact that the Yankees are a team that can pay Rivera, and are capable of giving him plenty of Save OPs... I think it is very likely Rivera will collect 600 saves. He would only really need one solid season, and then one season like Hoffman is currently hacking his way through to get there. Plus I think the Yankees will bend over backwards to make him the all-time saves leader.

Speaking of that...Does anyone have the feeling that it was Braun and Fielder's idea to do that and Coffey kind of squirmed in? I sure don't. It seems fitting that someone from the BP carry Hoffman -- I don't know why Braun needs to do it. Also, the way our BP is going this year, I could have envisioned Axford blowing out both his knees carrying Hoffman -- so Coffey seems like a good choice to roll the dice, hauling Trevor around.

Of course we expected Hoffman to have surpassed 600 by the end of April. I sure didn't. And who's to say if Hoffman won't pitch next year, too. I think the smart money is on Hoffman never being a closing reliever again. Probably, but... he'll need at least one more full, healthy season to get there, if not two. At his age, health is a diminishing guarantee. He is still is a pretty effective reliever, which Hoffman is no longer. In retrospect, they probably shouldn't have retired Rollie's number. I tend to agree with this -- however Fingers did win a Cy Young, and MVP as a Brewer. Pete Rose collected his 4000th hit as a Expo. I see Hoffman's accomplishment in the same light -- It is amazing to amass 600 saves, but let the Padres acknowledge Hoffman's great career.

No way. Rivera is bound to surpass 600 any way.

You can't touch a guy while the ball is live. Period. There really isn't any room in the rules for a gray area there, in my opinion. This is not true. A coach can touch a player when the ball is live -- this happens all the time. The rules do not state anything about the "ball being live", but clearly state that the coach has to "physically assist" the runner in returning (in this case) to 3b. I was at a HS game where the team batting hit a walk-off single, and as the batter returned to first the coach gave him a high-five while the play was being made at the plate. The coach of the team in the field tried to get the batter called out at first, but the umpire correctly asserted that the coach did not "assist" the runner in any sort of physical manner. but what if the 3b coach grabbed his hand to help him stop? Then clearly he would be out. There is a difference between "touching" and "grabbing" or "pushing" (using your Morgan/Rodriguez example), grabbing a player is assisting them, touching them is not. Curious, was he safe on the dive back to third base anyway? It looked pretty close. He looked safe to me, as the 3b touched the base with the glove before he touched the runner. 2. When they showed the replay, the umpire wasn't even looking so how could he have known that they touched hands? Aren't you only supposed to call what you see and not what you think you saw? When I watched the reply -- I noticed when the umpire comes into the screen, he is pointing at the baserunner, before the play at the base is made. I *think* that he called the runner out before the throw at third was made. He clearly had no interest in calling the runner out on the throw. I think Marquez boned this call -- but it is somewhat defensible.