BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Fergie Jenkins, Greg Maddux to have No. 31 retired by Chicago Cubs

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Fergie Jenkins, Greg Maddux to have No. 31 retired by Chicago Cubs

In between Jenkins and Maddux wearing No. 31…the number took a very unfortunate Dettore.

The Cubs plan to retire the No. 31 he and future Hall of Fame pitcher Greg Maddux wore during a special ceremony May 3 before the Cubs host the Florida Marlins at Wrigley Field.

“I knew eventually it would happen,” Jenkins said Wednesday from Arizona. “It is good for the fans. It’s important fans recognize it, as well as the organization. I am having family members come down and friends I made over a couple of decades playing for the organization.”

Jenkins insists he does not know why the Cubs delayed his honor. “No, not really,” he said. “When they had a day for me the year I went into the Hall, I thought it would have happened then. But nobody ever brought it up.

“You know, there’s a time to do things, and unfortunately it just wasn’t that time.”

...Maddux said he soon learned Jenkins had been the previous Cubs player to wear No. 31.

“I thought that was pretty cool that they gave me Fergie’s number,” Maddux said.

Repoz Posted: March 19, 2009 at 05:00 AM | 36 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: cubs, hall of fame, history

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Chipper Jonestown Massacre Posted: March 19, 2009 at 05:23 AM (#3108132)

So are the Cubs gonna retire two separate #31's for Jenkins & Maddux like the way the Yankees retired two #8's (for Yogi & Bill Dickey)?

2. Jeff K. Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:10 AM (#3108163)

And would Jenkins and Maddux be the best combination of players to wear the same number for the same franchise? They wouldn't come close if it were just time in uniform (and who would that be?), but how about ever? I'd guess there's a very small handful, 4 or 5, better. But I don't know uniform numbers for any sport, and I have no idea which sites have that info.

3. JoeHova Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:37 AM (#3108164)

basketball-reference.com has a searchable uniform number database for all players and seasons in NBA history, which is pretty cool. hockey-reference.com has something similar but not for every season. baseball-almanac.com has uniform numbers, but not (at least that I can find) in an easily searchable way.

4. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:37 AM (#3108165)

Off the top of my head, Isaac Bruce and Henry Ellard both wore #80 for the LA/St. Louis Rams.

5. JoeHova Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:49 AM (#3108166)

Also, not exactly what you were asking, but all 3 pro teams in Wisconsin featured a long-time franchise fixture of Hall of Fame quality who wore #4 (Favre, Molitor, Moncrief (who isn't yet in the Hall of Fame but is #1 on my list of unfairly excluded players now that Dantley finally got in. Artis Gilmore is #2, imo.)). Also, the Milwaukee Hawks (of the NBA) even featured Alex Hannum, a hall of fame coach, as #4 during one year. #4 is apparently auspicious in Wisconsin.

6. Walt Davis Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:59 AM (#3108167)

<i>And would Jenkins and Maddux be the best combination of players to wear the same number for the same franchise? They wouldn't come close if it were just time in uniform (and who would that be?), but how about ever? <i>

#1 certainly gives a good answer if you wait by time in that uniform. Two deserving HoFers for a combined 4000 games in the pinstripes.

I'm flabbergasted to learn that Yogi wasn't a first ballot HoFer. Man the voters have just been weird when it comes to C, 3B and 2B.

7. JoeHova Posted: March 19, 2009 at 09:00 AM (#3108168)

Norm Van Lier only wore #23 for a little while with the Bulls (he switched to #2) but he was an excellent (though not quite Hall of Fame quality) player.

Clyde Lovellette (Hall of Famer) and Shaq both wore #34 for the Lakers. Lovellette also wore #34 for the Celtics, so him and Pierce are a good combo too, though not as good as him and Shaq.

8. Walt Davis Posted: March 19, 2009 at 09:01 AM (#3108169)

Oh yeah ... I'm a Cub fan and a big Maddux fan but I'm not really happy about the Cubs retiring 31 for Maddux. Maddux is a Brave and was good not (usually) great during his Cub tenure. Fergie's a Cub and deserves the honor.

9. Jeff K. Posted: March 19, 2009 at 09:45 AM (#3108176)

Oh, and to be clear, I was asking about baseball in particular, just noting that I don't know numbers in any sport. Actually, I know way, way more football #s. I forget them in the offseason, though.

10. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 19, 2009 at 01:18 PM (#3108231)

JFTR, his name was pronounced deh TOR ee.

11. Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.

Posted: March 19, 2009 at 01:47 PM (#3108245)

May 13, 2016 - Red Sox retire 24 for Manny and Dewey.

12. zonk Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:08 PM (#3108266)

I agree with Walt.

Almost 20 years after the fact, the Cubs are still trying to find some way to say mea culpa for the Himes/Maddux/Boras fiasco without just saying mea culpa.

13. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:20 PM (#3108281)

Jordan and Sandberg wore #23. I can't find any worthy Blackhawks, Bears, or Sox to pair with them though.

14. Styles P. Deadball Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:28 PM (#3108288)

I can't find any worthy Blackhawks

Stu Grimson and Wayne Van Dorp are not the type of guys to casually dismiss.

15. SoSH U at work Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:30 PM (#3108291)

I can't find any worthy Blackhawks, Bears, or Sox to pair with them though.

Dye was the MVP of the city's first World Series champion in 88 years. Not on their level, but not an embarassment to the number.

16. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:31 PM (#3108292)

I think Robin Ventura wore #23. Not a Hall of Famer, but not a player to sneeze at, certainly.

17. Tango Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:32 PM (#3108295)

Bourque / Esposito off the top of my head, with easily the best jersey retirement possible.

18. chisoxcollector Posted: March 19, 2009 at 02:42 PM (#3108306)

Ventura isn't that far behind Sandberg, IMO. He is definitely closer to Sandberg in the pantheon than Sandberg is to Jordan. The combination of Ventura/Dye certainly surpasses Sandberg.

19. Esmailyn Gonzalez Sr. Posted: March 19, 2009 at 03:00 PM (#3108335)

Stu Grimson and Wayne Van Dorp are not the type of guys to casually dismiss.

DO fear the Reaper.

20. The Curly W Theory Posted: March 19, 2009 at 07:41 PM (#3108761)

I can't agree with you on this, Walt. Maddux's greatest glory was undeniably as a Brave, but it was clear to everyone when he left that his greatness had begun. What wasn't clear was how impossibly high that peak was going to reach. He had already won one CYA, and finished 3rd once.
Jenkins pitched as a Cub for 10 years (with less than one month of that first year as a Phillie), and Maddux pitched for the Cubs for 9 years and 4 months - so, the difference is less than 2 months of service time. Obviously, Jenkins' peak was as a Cub, but I think enough of Maddux's brilliant career was here that it fits to honor both of them.

21. The Curly W Theory Posted: March 19, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3108769)

By the way, I just found something hilarious. Fergie Jenkins is Greg Maddux's #4 comparable player at B-Ref.com, and at age 39, he was Maddux's number one. So, what did Jenkins and Maddux do at age 39? Well, each of them pitched for the Cubs, with the following stat lines:

Jenkins (1982): 14-15, 34 GS, 217.3 IP, 3.15 ERA, 68 BB, 134 K
Maddux (2005): 13-15, 35 GS, 225.0 IP, 4.24 ERA, 36 BB, 136 K

Those are pretty close, other than the ERA (and the ERA+ gap was actually 118-104).

22. Delorians Posted: March 19, 2009 at 07:55 PM (#3108778)

In response to post 5, I would nominate Houston #34 (Olajuwon, Ryan, Campbell) as best careers for one city, one number, three sports.

23. Obama Bomaye Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3108790)

#56 -- LT + any other chump who ever wore that number = victory

24. jwb Posted: March 19, 2009 at 08:53 PM (#3108860)

Jordan and Sandberg wore #23. I can't find any worthy Blackhawks, Bears, or Sox to pair with them though.

Shaun Gayle.

25. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 19, 2009 at 09:22 PM (#3108887)

If you are looking to use hockey players for the "best number" things, here are a few hints:

- 9 is a very good number for a lot of teams (Howe, Hull, Richard, etc)
- double-digits (11, 99, 66, 77, etc) are also useful
- 1, 30 and 31 are usually the numbers of famous goaltenders

26. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 19, 2009 at 10:09 PM (#3108934)

Everybody already knows the trivia question about the 1963 MVPs in various sports leagues, right?

27. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 19, 2009 at 10:16 PM (#3108940)

So are the Cubs gonna retire two separate #31's for Jenkins & Maddux like the way the Yankees retired two #8's (for Yogi & Bill Dickey)?

Not to mention that Dimaggio and Maris both wore # 9, and Mantle and Torre wore # 6.

(And what Yankee wore both # 7 and # 3? Hint: his most noteworthy accomplishment was a 500 ft. home run in Kansas City.)

BTW if the Yanks really wanted to give Roger Clemens a real finger in the eye, they'd invite all of Allie Reynolds' kids for a big retirement ceremony for Allie's # 22. It's the least they could do for one of their greatest clutch pitchers ever.

28. Chase Insteadman Wannabe Posted: March 20, 2009 at 01:32 AM (#3109029)

And what Yankee wore both # 7 and # 3? Hint: his most noteworthy accomplishment was a 500 ft. home run in Kansas City.

Easy.

Hensley "Bam-Bam" Muelens.

29. AndrewJ Posted: March 20, 2009 at 02:25 AM (#3109069)

Everybody already knows the trivia question about the 1963 MVPs in various sports leagues, right?

Yeah, and most of us also know that one or two of the players commonly accepted as the correct answer either a) didn't win an MVP in '63 or b) didn't wear the uniform numerals in question that year. Here's a lengthy discussion of the topic...

30. Jeff K. Posted: March 20, 2009 at 02:59 AM (#3109086)

"Bannockburn"'s research and posting in that thread is just hilarious. Not that he's wrong, but the whole thing comes off like if I was asked to research 5th-century sewing techniques or something.

31. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 20, 2009 at 03:25 AM (#3109100)

And what Yankee wore both # 7 and # 3? Hint: his most noteworthy accomplishment was a 500 ft. home run in Kansas City.

Easy.

Hensley "Bam-Bam" Muelens.

Actually for the three people in the world who care, it's Cliff Mapes.

32. Jeff K. Posted: March 20, 2009 at 03:39 AM (#3109103)

Oh, I just thought Muelens was right. I was going to guess Maas.

Who the #### is Cliff Mapes?

Ah, after visiting bbref, I see he is not someone I should feel in any way bad for not knowing.

33. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM (#3109138)

Who the #### is Cliff Mapes?

Ah, after visiting bbref, I see he is not someone I should feel in any way bad for not knowing.

Of course not. That's why all this shlt is called "baseball trivia", not "Essential information that every informed citizen must know."

For whatever reason the Yanks didn't decide to retire Babe Ruth's number until he died (on Aug. 16, 1948), and I actually have a Senators program from just about that exact date which still lists Mapes as # 3. And since Mantle was nothing but a minor leaguer before he was "Mickey Mantle," it was just a commonplace coincidence that Mapes wore #7 when Mantle was first brought up on Opening Day of 1951. The Mick didn't wear # 7 until he returned from a few weeks in the minors in July of that year, at which point Mapes was no longer on the roster.

And that 500 ft. home run was hit when Mapes was a minor leaguer himself with the old Kansas City Blues in the American Association, a Yankees farm club. It rated a big splash in the Sporting News (either in '46 or '47), but I have to assume that it was little more than a one shot fluke.

34. Jeff K. Posted: March 20, 2009 at 02:46 PM (#3109275)

I thought that clubhouse guy with the Yankees who was there for 90 years only gave single-digit numbers to sure-fire HOFers. That's what they told me when Jeter got #2. How did Mapes end up with #3 and #7?

And that 500 ft. home run was hit when Mapes was a minor leaguer himself with the old Kansas City Blues in the American Association, a Yankees farm club. It rated a big splash in the Sporting News (either in '46 or '47), but I have to assume that it was little more than a one shot fluke.

I would assume, given we're talking about the same context that had Mantle hitting 650 foot homers, that it was just exaggerated.

35. Dolf Lucky Posted: March 20, 2009 at 03:00 PM (#3109286)

Cincinnati, 14:

Oscar Robertson
Pete Rose
Ken Anderson

36. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: March 20, 2009 at 03:34 PM (#3109309)

I thought that clubhouse guy with the Yankees who was there for 90 years only gave single-digit numbers to sure-fire HOFers. That's what they told me when Jeter got #2. How did Mapes end up with #3 and #7?

Because obviously that policy didn't begin as quickly as that clubhouse guy (Pete Sheehy) apparently remembered. For many years, the numbers for position players merely reflected their place in the batting order, and had no other particular significance. The numbers fetish didn't begin in earnest until the 60's---Hell, the first Yankee to wear # 7 was Leo Durocher.

And that 500 ft. home run was hit when Mapes was a minor leaguer himself with the old Kansas City Blues in the American Association, a Yankees farm club. It rated a big splash in the Sporting News (either in '46 or '47), but I have to assume that it was little more than a one shot fluke.

I would assume, given we're talking about the same context that had Mantle hitting 650 foot homers, that it was just exaggerated.

Yeah, maybe a little bit. (smile) But it wasn't Mantle that was actually credited with that 600 ft. + home run, it was Babe Ruth in Navin Field back in the 20's. They showed the actual "path of the ball" in some of those old Street & Smith baseball annuals.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Fergie Jenkins, Greg Maddux to have No. 31 retired by Chicago Cubs

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics