I can’t believe I’m writing this, but after all the nonsense I’ve read lately, I felt someone somewhere just had to write, “Mike Piazza is going into the Hall of Fame as a Met.”

You know how I know this?  He wrote it in his book “Long Shot” at page 343:

The whole affair [of the closing ceremony at Shea Stadium] felt good, and it spoke to why, if I do make it to the Hall of Fame . . . I hope to go in as a Met. Technically, it’s not a player’s call; the Hall of Fame itself makes that decision. But players can let their preferences be known, and mine is pretty strong. 

                 *****************

If there’s a single person in my career with whom I feel most closely associated, yes, it’s definitely Tommy [Lasorda]. If there’s a team, however, it’s the Mets. 

That’s straight from his mouth. So why the guessing game?  Making arguments either way is just picking nits. 

He was a better hitter with the Dodgers hitting .331/.394/.572 with 177 homers as opposed to hitting .296/.373/.542 with 220 homers for the Mets. He was the Rookie of the Year with the Dodgers, but he played in the World Series with the Mets. His story started with being a 62nd round pick of the Dodgers, a team he would play seven years and 726 games. He would play eight years and 972 games for the Mets, a team for which he did this:

Point is it’s close enough to go either way. Sure, the Hall of Fame retains the right to make the selection, but it will honor a player’s reasonable request. Piazza going in as a Met is not only reasonable, but it’s also his stated intention. Even if you didn’t have his words, look at his actions. 

He always comes back for the big Mets events. He caught the last pitch at Shea and the first one at Citi Field. He threw out the first pitch at the first home World Series game at Citi Field. If he’s at an MLB sponsored event, he’s always there as a Mets delegate. In each and every All Star Legends and Celebrity Softball Game, he’s worn a Mets hat, and yes, that was for the ones preceding the 2013 All Star Game as well. 

Overall, there is no reason to suggest Piazza will go into the Hall of Fame as anything other than a Met. To do so would be to ignore his statements and his actions. 

Mike Piazza is and forever will be a Met. 

If you follow the voting history, it’s plain to see the majority of Hall of Fame voters will not vote for a player confirmed to have used PEDs. The question is what happens with everyone else as you can create a hypothetical that anyone used steroids. 

Some voters use that opportunity to create false narratives. For some, like Murray Chass, it appears he has an axe to grind. For others, they just don’t bother to research their claims, thereby just guessing who did and who didn’t use steroids. Others pull stuff out of thin air. There are too many guys who lump guys together without making any distinction. At the end of the day, it’s a player like Mike Piazza, who gets his name dragged through the mud without so much as an explanation. Piazza is left standing outside the Hall of Fame asking “what does acne have to do with steroids?”

The answer is that it doesn’t matter. There was a time when reporters sought proof for their allegations. You used to need a source or documentation. Now, all you need is a byline and a hunch. This is best shown with Bob Nightengale‘s latest column. If you don’t know who he is, he’s the guy who famously tweeted this:

Ben Zobrist has a four-year, $80 million offer on the table. The #Mets still considered favorites to ultimately land him.

— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) December 8, 2015

I’m putting that out there before you take any of the following too seriously. Keep in mind that despite acknowledging Piazza has forever denied using steroids, Piazza having never failed a test, and Piazza’s name never coming up in any investigation, he’s accusing him of using steroids. In effect, this would be like if Deep Throat was Woodward and/or Bernstein. No one needs any facts; unfounded conjecture will do just nicely. 

Essentially, his case that Piazza used steroids boils down to this:

[Piazza’s denials] counters concerns of PED use aired almost exclusively in private by former teammates, opponents, scouts and management who were struck by Piazza’s rise froma modest  amateur career to a muscle bound slugger who hit balls clear out of Dodger Stadium. 

The insinuation is because Piazza was a very low round draft pick, he must’ve cheated. How is that fair?  Furthermore, how is it fair that all of these supposed people who accuse Piazza were anonymous?  Keep in mind there has still yet to be a teammate, opponent, or even a ball boy who has named Piazza as a steroids user. It’s all rumor.  If that was sufficient, we would all believe the married father of three is homosexual. I guess Nightengale has a source on that one too. 

You know what’s even worse about Nightengale’s assumptions?  Their just plain wrong. In fact, it took the Rising Apple very little time to disprove it:

Here's a large snippet from the 1985 Piazza article. Last one! CC @BNightengale. A retraction would be cool. pic.twitter.com/gc5TUZKfDY

— Rising Apple (@RisingAppleBlog) January 4, 2016

So yeah, Piazza had power as an amateur. Also, look at his minor league stats. Piazza hit 26+ home runs in each year he played in a full time minor league level. He did that despite being young for his leagues. You see Piazza could always hit and hit for power. It was just a question of where he would play. 

You may ask why does all this matter especially if Nightengale is voting for Piazza. There’s two reasons. The first is the he’s not the only voter operating with these unfounded accusations (the others use it to withhold their votes). The second is because people mistakenly see Piazza’s induction as a path for confirmed users like Roger Clemens. How ironic. 

So what happens is the greatest hitting catcher of all time waits to see if he’ll be elected on the fourth or fifth ballot. People are acting upon this rumor mongering and unproven suspicions. 

If you follow Ryan Thibs on Twitter and/or his Hall of Fame Tracker, you have seen Piazza’s early support dwindle from the low to mid 90’s to 86.5%. This is just from 35.1% of the voters. Last year, Piazza received 75.1% on published ballots and just 62.1% on unpublished ballots. Overall, Piazza finished with 68.8% of the vote. Unsurprisingly, the people who are afraid to put their names to a ballot are the ones who are most comfortable pretending Piazza used steroids. 

If Piazza’s vote total again dips by 6.3%, he will be elected with around 80.2% of the vote. It’s not a large margin of error. With a changing electorate, I’m not sure if we can expect a similar regression in the unpublished vote totals. It’s a wild card. It means it’s going to be close. I’m hoping Piazza gets elected, but I’m not counting on it. He may just have to wait until 2017, and that’s not right. 

If he does the Bob Nightengales of the world will have to look in the mirror and ask if it was worth smearing a player with no actual proof. Either way, they should ask what type of integrity they have publishing unfounded rumors. What journalistic standards asked that uphold. I presume none. 

 It’s time to stop punishing Piazza for bad journalism and elect him to the Hall of Fame. 

When you think of CBS and its news division, typically, the first name that comes to mind is Dan Rather (depending on your age). Dan Rather was forced into retirement for reporting on a story with insufficient documentation. 

Rather thought he had the last great story of his career. He thought he had the smoking gun in what had forever been rumored: George W. Bush never served in the National Guard. Problem is the documents and source of the documents were utterly unreliable. As CBS was embarrassed by the ensuing scandal, it forced Rather out due to his perceived misconduct. Rather tried to sue to, in part, clear his good name. The lawsuit was thrown out. 

John Heyman is also a reporter for a CBS owned company. With even less “proof” than Rather had on President Bush, Heyman accuses Mike Piazza of steroids use in his Hall of Fame column:

He should be considered an all-time great — he’s the greatest-hitting catcher ever and the value of having a catcher who’s one of the league’s best hitters is immense — but he’s had to wait a few years surely due to a strongly-held belief he participated in the steroid era. I understand there’s no public evidence he did more than play in the steroid era and looked the part. However, since this isn’t a court of law, the burden of proof is much lower and since it’s only about who is honored, and not who is punished, I held out for now. 

Make no mistake about it. Heyman just accused Piazza of using steroids. Whether it is guilt by association or how he looked, he accused Piazza of using steroids. He offered no substantive proof. Additionally, with his voting for Barry Bonds because he was a Hall of Famer before using steroids (because he knows the exact date Bobds started using), he has announced Piazza only had the success he did because of his steroid usage. 

If you were on Twitter, Heyman was given several attempts to recant his statements or provide specific evidence to establish Piazza used steroids. He didn’t:

@DanTonkin @RisingAppleBlog looking the part isn't evidence. read it rather than taking risings word for it

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) December 29, 2015

By his reasoning, we can’t understand his writing. In a side note, that’s his fault if everyone seemingly took that as his meaning. I digress. His lack of a response just exhibits a lack of respect for anyone who has questions about his “learned ballot”:

I find it funny when voices on the internet — almost invariably stat guys and folks who only cover the game from a distance — declare which ballots are “strong” or stupid. 

                        **********

[Tom Verducci and Pedro Gomez] are reporters who are willing to take the abuse from the loud and shallow guys on Twitter. 

You see Heyman doesn’t cover the game from afar. He’s in the thick of things. Like when he’s in studio or on the phone with WFAN. He knows more than you. If people weren’t so “loud and shallow,” they would understand that. It’s how he knows Piazza used steroids, and you don’t. Nevermind that your knowledge would come from reporters like Heyman. Nevermind that he is withholding the information that would constitute proof. 

Perhaps, he’s withholding it because he had insufficient proof to prove Piazza used steroids “in a court of law.”  As such, he feels comfortable making this accusation. Here’s the problem. Do you know what the burden of proof is in a court of law?  In a court of law, Heyman would need to show it is 51% more likely that Piazza used steroids than he didn’t. Ergo, no one is even half sure he used steroids. By logic extension, Heyman fabricated this story. 

As we’ve seen, is it a surprise to anyone that a CBS reporter has leveled accusations against a public figure with underwhelming evidence?  By using Heyman’s standards, does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?  Using his standards, isn’t it fair to say he fabricates stories?  

I would say it is fair to use his logic against him. However, I will make clear that despite the title of this post, I’m not saying he fabricates stories. Rather, I’m specifically saying he has presented no substantive proof Piazza used steroids. I sincerely question whether he has anything linking Piazza to steroid usage. He’s had ample opportunity to provide it, but he still refuses. 

That’s a real problem. Writers are tasked with reporting news, not creating rumor and innuendo.  When that happens, how are the Heymans of the world any better than TMZ or any other gossip site. We deserve better than that. The Hall of Fame deserves better than that. Mike Piazza deserves better than that. If the same was done to him, Jon Heyman would deserve better than that. 

Accordingly, it’s time for Heyman to stop being a loud and shallow gossip mongerer and start being a reporter. 

In my opinion, there are three, and only three, acceptable ways to address the PED era:

1. Not vote for anyone;
2. Vote for everyone eligible regardless of PED usage; or
3. Only penalize those people who have been confirmed to use PEDs. 

I’m in part three of the camp, but I can accept anyone’s reasonable thought process on the issue. What is not reasonable is playing the steroids guessing game. When you do that, you’re bound to make mistakes. When you do that, you’re bound to be inconsistent and look foolish. Of course, I’m specifically addressing Rick Plumlee’s vote. 

https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676894578625105922

Here is his ballot blown-up:

  
Now, I typically don’t take issue with public ballots. I don’t take issue because there are presumably reasonable and justifiable reasons for not voting for a player. I think Mike Piazza is a sure Hall of Famer, but there could be legitimate arguments why you don’t vote for him. 

There could be valid reasons why you would vote for Jeff Bagwell and not Piazza. This is not one of them:

@rickplumlee I see you deleted the Tweet where you reference the "credible case" against Piazza. I was correct. You are a coward.

— Joe Perota (@joeperota) December 15, 2015

https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676904982768189440

Note, I had to include this exchange because Mr. Plumlee deleted his Tweet where he stated there was a “credible case” Piazza used steroids.  After deleting his Tweet, he used a Mets Today piece about Piazza admitting he used Andro.  That’s his basis. It didn’t matter to him Andro was legal back then:

https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676907078145937408

I could accept not voting for anyone that took anything. He drew a line in the sand, and he used it as a basis to vote for Bagwell but not Piazza. There’s one problem with that . . . 

Bagwell made the same admission. You know how I found this Bagwell article?  I used what your older relatives refer to as “The Google.”  Of course, Mr. Plumlee has not answered any questions why the line of demarcation or why he’s comfortable for voting for a steroid user in Bagwell. 

Again, this is why you don’t play the steroids guessing game. Eventually, you vote for a guy who used steroids. You vote for that guy even if the information was readily available.