Piazza officially retires.
In five years, Mike Piazza will enter the Hall of Fame. What team's hat will be depicted on his plaque? It's a tough call; I don't think there's a clear answer.
The case for the Mets:
1. Piazza played longer for the Mets. He came to bat 924 more times in a Mets uniform. Because of that, he had more hits, runs, rbi, doubles, homers, and walks as a Met.
2. His teams had greater postseason success in NY. Piazza's Dodgers made it to the postseason twice, but never won a single game. Piazza's Mets reached the NLCS in 1999 before suffering a heartbreaking loss to the Braves. The following year, they reached the World Series.
The case for the Dodgers:
1. Piazza played better as a Dodger. Piazza's avg/obp/slg/ops
as a Dodger: .331/.394/.572/.966
as a Met: .296/.373/.542/.915
Even if we eliminate his decline phase and only look at 1998-2003 with the Mets (which results in about the same number of plate appearances as his LA career), he still wasn't quite as good with the Mets:
.307/.382/.573/.954
And the real difference is greater than that reflected by the 12 point edge in OPS because he played in LA during a slightly less offensive era.
So, his overall offensive performance was better as a Dodger. Furthermore, the best two seasons of his career were 1996 and 1997, his last two full seasons with the Dodgers. Also, while Piazza was always pretty atrocious at throwing out runners, he was a little better at it in LA (26% vs. 22%).
In the end, I don't think there's any "correct" way to balance these factors. He was a Met longer than he was a Dodger and he seems somewhat more identifiable as a Met because his teams had greater success. He achieved a higher level of greatness when he was a Dodger.
But, both franchises are close on all three measures: he only played about a season and a half's worth of games more with the Mets; his Mets teams never won a World Series and were far from a dynasty; he was still playing at an elite level with the Mets, even if it wasn't quite as impressive as his time with the Dodgers.
In the end, I think it's a tossup. In recent years, the Hall has taken the choice away from the players being inducted. I think this choice is so close that they should just leave it up to Mike.
Nice little tribute to Piazza on Yahoo.
2 comments:
how about splitting the difference and entering him in as a Marlin?
But seriously, the Hall should make a move to induct players in the future without hats. In the coming years there are going to be players who are much tougher calls than Piazza.
NFL players don't go in with their helmets on.
Men Without Hats. More than a band, it's a movement.
When I started thinking of future candidates, I was surprised how many do have a clear team. Bagwell, Biggio, Sosa, Bonds, Thomas, Griffey, Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz all seem like easy choices. Once I looked at his numbers, even Rickey is an easy choice as an A. Pedro had 5 of his best 6 years in Boston. By the time he retires, A-Rod will be a Yankee. There are definitely a few tough cases (Schilling is probably the toughest, Randy Johnson is probably a DBack, McGwire an A?, Manny is a tossup unless he stays in Boston, Alomar bounced around a lot), but they're a minority.
I'm for doing it on a case-by-case basis. It's been a longstanding tradition, so players who are clearly identifiable with a team can get a team cap. And for players who bounced around a lot, they can just get a generic cap. There's already precedent - Catfish Hunter doesn't have a team cap because he couldn't decide.
Post a Comment