Should Mike Piazza go into the Hall of Fame as a Dodger or a Met?

58 Comments

Mike Piazza Dodgers.jpgThis question was inspired by Mr. Piazza’s own comments in the New York Times over the weekend, in which he says he’d prefer to go in with a Mets cap:

The bulk of my career was with the Mets,” he said, “and after going
through the trade, then the drama of 9/11. I’ll never forget my Dodger
days. But my time with the Mets is what I’ll remember most about my
career.”

The idea, of course, is that the cap is supposed to to best reflect the player’s history and place in the game, not personal preferences or remembrances, so Piazza’s sentiments only take us so far.  But he’s certainly right about one thing, and that’s that raw stats and service time aren’t determinative either. And they probably should not be.

My favorite example here is Reggie Jackson.  His best years, statistically speaking, came with the Athletics, where not only did he put up better individual numbers, but where — in a development that would probably surprise Yankees’ fans of a more recent vintage — he also won more World Series rings than anyplace else. What’s more — and this one stumped even me until I looked it up the other day — he had more plate appearances as a California Angel than he did as a Yankee.

But Jackson wears a Yankees cap on his Hall of Fame plaque, and really, I don’t think there’s any room to complain. His overall career got him into Cooperstown, but his exploits in a Yankees uniform — especially during the 1977 World Series — are what burned him into the nation’s memory.  It would be weird to see Jackson in anything other than a Yankees cap, and I bet even most A’s fans would admit it.

Which brings us to Piazza.  Statistically speaking he clearly had his best years with the Dodgers. He won the Rookie of the Year award in Dodger blue, and was way up there in the MVP voting during his time in L.A. as well. He won six Silver Slugger awards, and was a six time All-Star for the Dodgers, batted .326 while with the team and had his best season there too:  .362/.431/.638 with 40 homers and 124 RBI in 1997.

But how about the Mets? He played in New York one year longer, but was, individually speaking, less impressive in almost every season. He finished in the top ten in MVP voting twice, won five silver slugger awards, and was a seven time
All-Star. His best season for the Mets was 2000, when he hit .324/.398/614 with 38 homers and 113 RBI. Great career in orange and blue — the sort of which, were it his peak, would also make him an easy choice for the Hall of Fame — but those years were not quite as great as his Dodgers years.

But then there’s the equalizer: the postseason.  Piazza played in eight postseason series, five of which were for the Mets. He really only had two good postseason series, but both were for the Mets in 2000, which gets Reggie Jackson points for being the Subway Series with the Roger Clemens bat-throwing incident and all of that. And of course, there’s post 9/11/2001, which, as Piazza duly notes, added weight for everyone in a New York uniform.

Piazza might be the toughest Hall-of-Fame cap call there is. I’ve gone back and forth on this one many, many times and I’m dissatisfied with either answer.  Ultimately, though I’m going with this:  Unlike Jackson, Piazza’s calling card is not the postseason. His Hall of Fame case comes down to him being the best hitting
catcher of all time, and he did his best hitting with the Dodgers.  That’s enough for me, and that puts him in a Dodgers cap.

The comments are open for your objections.  Mets fans will almost certainly have a beef, and I’m not unsympathetic to them. Of course, if you want to go all-in on a Padres, Marlins or A’s-cap argument, we’ll leave the floor open for you as well.

Ichiro was happy to see Pete Rose get defensive about his hits record

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 14:  Ichiro Suzuki #51 of the Miami Marlins warms-up during batting practice before a baseball game against the San Diego Padres at PETCO Park on June 14, 2016 in San Diego, California.   (Photo by Denis Poroy/Getty Images)
27 Comments

You’ll recall the little controversy last month when Ichiro Suzuki passed Pete Rose’s hit total. Specifically, when Ichiro’s Japanese and American hit total reached Rose’s American total of 4,256 and a lot of people talked about Ichiro being the new “Hit King.” You’ll also recall that Rose himself got snippy about it, wondering if people would now think of him as “the Hit Queen,” which he took to be disrespect.

There’s a profile of Ichiro over at ESPN the Magazine and reporter Marly Rivera asked Ichiro about that. Ichiro’s comments were interesting and quite insightful about how ego and public perception work in the United States:

I was actually happy to see the Hit King get defensive. I kind of felt I was accepted. I heard that about five years ago Pete Rose did an interview, and he said that he wished that I could break that record. Obviously, this time around it was a different vibe. In the 16 years that I have been here, what I’ve noticed is that in America, when people feel like a person is below them, not just in numbers but in general, they will kind of talk you up. But then when you get up to the same level or maybe even higher, they get in attack mode; they are maybe not as supportive. I kind of felt that this time.

There’s a hell of a lot of truth to that. Whatever professional environment you’re in, you’ll see this play out. If you want to know how you’re doing, look at who your enemies and critics are. If they’re senior to you or better-established in your field, you’re probably doing something right. And they’re probably pretty insecure and maybe even a little afraid of you.

The rest of the article is well worth your time. Ichiro seems like a fascinating, insightful and intelligent dude.

There will be no criminal charges arising out of Curt Schilling’s video game debacle

Curt Schilling
20 Comments

In 2012 Curt Schilling’s video game company, 38 Studios, delivered the fantasy role-playing game it had spent millions of dollars and countless man hours trying to deliver. And then the company folded, leaving both its employees and Rhode Island taxpayers, who underwrote much of the company’s operations via $75 million in loans, holding the bag.

The fallout to 38 Studios’ demise was more than what you see in your average business debacle. Rhode Island accused Schilling and his company of acts tantamount to fraud, claiming that it accepted tax dollars while withholding information about the true state of the company’s finances. Former employees, meanwhile, claimed — quite credibly, according to reports of the matter — that they too were lured to Rhode Island believing that their jobs were far more secure than they were. Many found themselves in extreme states of crisis when Schilling abruptly closed the company’s doors. For his part, Schilling has assailed Rhode Island politicians for using him as a scapegoat and a political punching bag in order to distract the public from their own misdeeds. There seems to be truth to everyone’s claims to some degree.

As a result of all of this, there have been several investigations and lawsuits into 38 Studios’ collapse. In 2012 the feds investigated the company and declined to bring charges. There is currently a civil lawsuit afoot and, alongside it, the State of Rhode Island has investigated for four years to see if anyone could be charged with a crime. Today there was an unexpected press conference in which it was revealed that, no, no one associated with 38 Studios will be charged with anything:

An eight-page explanation of the decision concluded by saying that “the quantity and qualify of the evidence of any criminal activity fell short of what would be necessary to prove any allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the Rules of Professional Conduct precluded even offering a criminal charge for grand jury consideration.”

Schilling will likely crow about this on his various social media platforms, claiming it totally vindicates him. But, as he is a close watcher of any and all events related to Hillary Clinton, he no doubt knows that a long investigation resulting in a declination to file charges due to lack of evidence is not the same thing as a vindication. Bad judgment and poor management are still bad things, even if they’re not criminal matters.

Someone let me know if Schilling’s head explodes if and when someone points that out to him.