MIke Piazza
In looking to fill out their bench, the Mets have shown some interest in Ryan Raburn. As a right handed bat, you could do worse.
Last year was the best year of Raburn’s career. He set career highs in batting average, on base percentage, and slugging. It’s odd, but it’s not unusual for a player to have a career year at 34. It’s definitely strange that someone coming off a .301/.393/.543 season didn’t have his $3 million option picked up. It’s strange even if the team was a mid-market team like the Indians. It really makes you question what is happening there.
What’s happening was Raburn was limited to just 82 games. No, he wasn’t injured. It’s just that the Indians really limited him to playing against lefties. He had 176 plate appearances against lefties and only 25 against righties. It was a decision that makes sense. In his career, Raburn has hit .250/.297/.326 against righties and .264/.339/.487.
Looking at Raburn, two other players immediately come to mind. The first was Scott Hairston, who had some success in a similar role with the Mets. Where Hairston got into trouble was when a Mets team lacking depth had to play him more frequently than they would’ve liked. The other player was John Mayberry, Jr., who hit .164/.227/.318 in 59 games with the Mets. He was released in July.
Why was Hairston successful where Mayberry wasn’t? Who knows? They’re bench players. Bench players typically can’t be relied upon for yearly consistency. The main reason is you’re always relying on a small sample size.
Looking at his career numbers, we see Raburn hits lefties well, but nowhere near as well as he hit them last year. We see a player who is a poor pinch hitter with a triple slash line of .184/.309/.368 in 136 plate appearances (small sample size). We also see a player who is predominantly a corner OF. Here’s his games played by position over his 10 year career:
- 1B – 9 games
- 2B – 143 games
- 3B – 27 games
- LF – 261 games
- CF – 28 games
- RF – 171 games
- DH – 93 games
Last year, he only played left, right, and DH. He was predominantly a DH. It’s surprising because he’s been an average fielder. You know what he isn’t? A first baseman. You’re not a first baseman if you play 9 games there in 10 years. It doesn’t mean he can’t play there. It means we don’t know. If you remember with Mike a Piazza playing first is easier said than done.
Raburn would be an improvement over a player like Eric Campbell with his hitting against lefties. Campbell has hit .220/.318/.339 in 149 plate appearances. It should be noted, even if for argument’s sake, Campbell is a slightly better defender, a better bet at first base, and a much better pinch hitter. Campbell is a career .293/.426/.390 pinch hitter in 54 plate appearances.
So who would I rather have? Raburn. He’s the better player. However, if signing Raburn stands in the way of the Mets making a significant addition, then I’m alright with the Mets proceeding with Campbell on the bench. Overall, while Raburn is an improvement, he’s not so much of an improvement that he’s worth losing out on another player.
I’m not so much interested in Raburn as much as I’m interested as in what a Raburn signing would mean for the Mets.
In my opinion, there are three, and only three, acceptable ways to address the PED era:
- Not vote for anyone;
- Vote for everyone eligible regardless of PED usage; or
- 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.
There’s a moment that will forever live in Mets infamy:
(Seriously, how is there no video of this moment available?)
After all the garbage with Roger Clemens and Mike Piazza, the Mets finally had a chance to get revenge. Clemens came to Shea and finally had to stand in the batter’s box to answer for all his sins. Then Shawn Estes, who wasn’t a Met when everything happened, just missed. Missed!
There were discussions on whether it was fair to put Estes in that spot. I always disregarded them. Estes was Piazza’s teammate. You stand up for your teammates. The Mets will have that opportunity again with that coward re-signing with the Dodgers. After the World Series, the hope is it’s Noah Syndergaard standing 60’6″ away from Chase Utley.
After Utley’s dirty slide, the Mets have an opportunity to exact revenge. It will be all the more important if Ruben Tejada remains on the team. Assuming the rotation is the same set-up as in the World Series, the Mets re-set the rotation after the first two games of the season, and the Mets having a full five man rotation from that point forward the job will fall to Steven Matz. If the Mets don’t reset the rotation, the job will fall to Jacob deGrom.
In some ways, the task will be easier for whoever the pitcher is because they were on the team when it happened. On the other hand, the situation is more difficult because the pitcher will have to do it in Los Angeles.
Whomever it is, they need to actually plunk Utley. For the psyche of the team and the fan base, that pitcher can’t miss.
To me Hall of Fame voting gets frustrating because seemingly everyone has a different standard. Worse yet, they believe everyone should adopt that standard.
The first group are the “I know a Hall of Famer when I see him.” I simply don’t get this one because what you see isn’t what everyone else sees. Seriously, we live in a world where Aaron Sele received a vote for the Hall of Fame. When someone tells me Aaron Sele is a Hall of Famer due to the eye test I’m out.
The next is to compare players to the lowest common denominator. For example, there is a Hall of Fame catcher by the name of Rick Ferrell, who as far as I can tell, basically made the Hall of Fane because he caught a lot of games. Long story short, if he and his 29.8 career WAR is your standard, we’re not debating if Mike Piazza belongs in the Hall of Fame. Instead, we’re debating if Tim McCarver belongs in the Hall of Fame.
My favorite is the person who tries to compare players at different positions. Personally, I call this the Don Mattingly defense because that’s where I’ve heard it most often. I’ll hear something like Mattingly had 222 homers while Kirby Puckett only had 207. If Puckett gets in, why can’t Mattingly? The answer is simple having a Gold Glove CF who averages 19 homers is a lot more valuable than a Gold Glove first baseman that averages 20.
Personally, I have no hard set rule. I will say that when analyzing a player’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame, I like to look towards what does the average Hall of Famer look like at that position. It’s not the end all and be all, but it’s a nice place to start. If after looking at that you’re short of that average threshold, there are other things I like to consider.
First is postseason success. If you’ve had real success in the postseason, you should get a bump. Every year, the goal is to win a World Series. If you consistently did something to help your team’s chances, you deserve credit for that.
The next is whether there was something truly great about you. Ozzie Smith wasn’t a great hitter, but he was amazing with the glove. On the flip side, Ryne Sandberg wasn’t a great fielder, but he hit the most ever homeruns by a second baseman when he retired. Being truly great at something and/or being the best ever at something should improve your Hall of Fame chances.
Lastly, I do look at stuff like steroids. I won’t play a guessing game on who did and who didn’t. However, if there’s concrete, actual evidence, I’m not voting for that person. No, I don’t mean a Murray Chase accusation, I’m talking about something that could be substantiated.
Overall, I get to cast my first IBWAA ballot this year, and I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure over time I will learn some things and adapt. I will do a small write-up on whoever is on my ballot.
The much older version of me hates the new Diamondbacks uniforms. They’re terrible in every way, shape, and form. Then I realized something. I actually owned this Mets cap:
I was a teenager, and I thought they were cool when they were first released. There’s a picture in my parent’s living room of my brother, father, and I at a Mets game. I’m wearing this cap. Yes, I purchased it before seeing how awful they matched up with the jerseys.
Then the following year, I purchased my first ever Mets jersey:
Yes, I purchased the black jersey. The older version of me wouldn’t. The younger version of me loved it. I also liked the black hats too even if I still preferred the traditional blue caps. That’s the thing. The jerseys are not designed for older fans who wants something more traditional.
They’re designed for younger fans who are more inclined to get the jerseys. So while I love the current Mets uniforms, I know the minute sales stall, the Mets will have a change. Based upon the black jerseys, the Mets may just go the Diamondbacks route if they actually sell well. They’ll do it because kids drive jersey sales, not old men even if they are the ones actually purchasing the jerseys.
And I’ll shake my head as I purchase my son a Mets jersey and hat I think are ugly.
There has been a recent push by the BBWAA to expand the amount of players that can be voted for in any particular ballot.
On the surface, the request is extremely reasonable. They want to eliminate limits or increase the limit on the number of players you can vote for in any ballot. It’s a great argument. If there are 15 players who are truly Hall of Fame worthy, you should be able to vote for 15 players. However, there is a subtext to the request:
Keeping 10-vote limit isn't about tradition. I think it's about suppressing votes for "undesirables" w/out saying it https://t.co/jjBtc1eY0I
— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) November 18, 2015
The voters really voicing this opinion want the PED guys to go into the Hall of Fame. That’s their prerogative. They have a vote and can do with it as they please. Other voters who disagree can do the same. Looking over last year’s voting, the highest percent of the vote amongst confirmed steroids users went to Roger Clemens with 37.5% of the vote. It seems the overall electorate has spoken on how the PED guys should be treated.
So the 37.5% are really left with a choice. Do you continue to vote for players like Clemens, or do you vote for someone else. Admittedly, it’s not an easy decision. You’re stuck between voting for someone you seem worthy or voting for someone who you deem deserving but may not be as good. For example, do you vote for Clemens or Curt Schilling? Schilling had 39.2% of the vote last year.
The question is how each voter views their job. Is it their job to vote for the 10 best players (assuming there are 10 worthy candidates), or is it their job to elect worthy players into the Hall of Fame? This is probably the first time this has been an either/or proposition. In their history, members of the BBWAA have voted both ways.
There are voters who write-in the name of Pete Rose each year. Why? There is no way Rose can be elected. Even if Rose received a write-in vote on 75% of the ballots, he’d still be ineligible. This is nothing more than taking a stand on principle.
On the flip side, we see voters who vote for players they once deemed not Hall of Fame worthy. Jim Rice went from 29.8% of the vote in his first year to 76.4% in his last year of eligibility. Unlike Bert Blyleven, Rice didn’t have a new statistical approach to the sport to support him. No, it was a separation from his poor relationship with voters as well as superlatives thrown his way like his being a feared hitter.
The person who finished third the year Rice was elected was Andre Dawson with 67.0% of the vote. The next year he was elected with 77.9% in his ninth year of eligibility. The top vote getter not elected was the aforementioned Blyleven with 74.2% of the vote. Behind him was Roberto Alomar with 73.7% of the vote. They would both be elected the next year. It was Blyleven’s 14th year on the ballot and Alomar’s second.
You see the pattern. In fact, anyone who has received over 64.8% of the vote on any year has eventually been elected to the Hall of Fame. Eventually, the voters tend to coalesce around a candidate to get them elected regardless of their prior thought process.
Going back to Clemens and Schilling, for whom should a voter cast their vote? If the idea is to elect candidates who are worthy and can actually be elected, you vote for Schilling. If you follow the Hall of Fame voting patterns, you vote for Schilling. Regardless of how you feel about PED users, is it worth it to block Schilling’s path to the Hall of Fame so you can enter a vote for Clemens?
If you think both are worthy, what purpose does it serve to not vote for Schilling? If you’re complaining there isn’t enough spots, you need to vote for the most electable candidates. If you aren’t, you are effectively acting as a voter who makes a distinction between first ballot Hall of Famers and non-First Ballot Hall of Famers. Effectively, you are saying Schilling belongs in, but only after Clemens makes the Hall of Fame.
If you think someone belongs in the Hall of Fame and they have not been linked to PEDs, you must vote for them. This isn’t limited to Schilling. It incorporates anyone who is on the ballot whether it be Mike Mussina or Mike Piazza. Really, it incorporates anyone you deem Hall of Fane worthy. If there are any spots left, then vote for the Clemenses of the world.
Not voting for Schilling means you subscribe to a tier system in the Hall of Fame; a tier system that does not exist. It has to stop.
No, no he didn’t. There’s absolutely zero proof in my or anyone else’s possession that Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson used steroids. To make such a claim would require pure speculation of specious or non-existent evidence. That’s the point. I can use the same arguments used against other players to construct a narrative that Henderson used steroids.
In 1980, Henderson has his first full season in the big leagues. From day one, he had the look of a Hall of Famer. He was an All Star and finished in the Top 10 in MVP voting. Keep in mind, as a young player in the early 80’s , Henderson looked like this:
Look at how slender he was. Of course he was. He was a leadoff hitter who started his career with single digit homers and tremendous stolen base numbers. He had a 130 stolen bases in 1982 while hitting just 10 homeruns. At that point, both were career highs.
Henderson would go to the Yankees and eventually return to the Athletics again. This time, however, he would be teammates with two of the most notorious steroid users in major league history: Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. He had a manager in Tony La Russa who actively looked the other way. It’s no wonder that in 1990, at the age of 31, he had a career high in homers at 28. He went from a 10 homerun guy to a 28 homerun guy. Because we didn’t know then what we know now, he won the MVP award that year.
Henderson would continue to be an effective everyday player until he was 40 years old. In his age 40 season, he played in 121 games hitting .315/.423/.466 with 12 homeruns and 37 stolen bases. Keep in mind, we know 40 year olds can never, ever be effective baseball players. Of course that season, Henderson looked like this:
Look at the increased muscle definition. He went from a guy who hit 9 homers to a guy who hit 28 homers. He is a guy that was an everyday player until he was 42. He played until he was 44. There is no other possible explanation for this other than he used steroids.
Why didn’t that prevent the voters from keeping him out of the Hall of Fame? Probably because this isn’t evidence. It’s pure speculation. Unfair speculation at that. Personally, I don’t think Henderson used steroids. I have no proof that he did. Any “proof” I have here is satire instead of evidence. The reason is because none of this prevented voters from electing him to the Hall of Fame.
However, this is what voters have been using to keep Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza out of the Hall of Fame. Both were contemporaries of Henderson with muscle definition, and yet they reserved the judgment for Piazza and Bagwell. It’s as inconsistent as it is unfair.
I’m in the school of keeping steroid players out of the Hall of Fame. However, I require proof that someone cheated. I’m not going to play a guessing game because if I did, I just as easily have used the same criteria to keep Rickey Henderson out of the Hall of Fame. Keep mind Henderson received 94.8% of the vote. That’s a very large percentage of people applying different standards.
For Hall of Fame voting, all I ask is you have a standard and apply it universally. There may be reasons to keep Bagwell and Piazza out of the Hall of Fame, but perceived steroids use isn’t one of them. It wasn’t sufficient to keep Henderson out of the Hall of Fame.
Today was supposed to be the day I was able to put baseball aside for a little bit. Game 7 was supposed to be last night. However, I was reminded of the Mets blowing the World Series because:
Today is the day. Wake up and get your free A.M. Crunchwrap between 7-11 a.m. Rules: https://t.co/yyutdNEGEA pic.twitter.com/iNv9pDuaxY
— Taco Bell (@tacobell) November 5, 2015
The reason for the free AM crunch wraps? It’s because the Royals were able to steal a base during the World Series. The steal that got us free breakfast was Lorenzo Cain stealing second in the sixth inning of Game 1 of the World Series. He would score to bring the game to 3-2.
Overall, the Royals were 6/6 stealing bases off of Travis d’Arnaud in the World Series. This includes a whopping 4/4 in the deciding Game 5. It caused me to sarcastically text my Dad and brother during the game that when we say we wanted d’Arnaud to be like Mike Piazza this isn’t what we meant. Look, I know there are many elements to what causes stolen bases, but a catcher loses the benefit of the doubt when he can’t reach second base.
In any event, it’s hard to say the Mets lost the World Series because of d’Arnaud. There were so many different elements that it’s hard to point a finger at d’Arnaud. I also don’t think it’s a reason to move him out from behind the plate because he does everything else well.
He’s a terrific pitch framer, who makes sure his pitchers get that borderline strike call. As the stats suggest, his work behind the plate gets his pitcher not just the corner but a little off of it. Also, he’s a good hitter. His triple slash line this year was .268/.340/.485. To put that in perspective, another great Mets catcher, the late great Hall of Famer, Gary Carter, hit .262/.335/.439 for his career.
Is d’Arnaud as good as Piazza or Carter? No, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be a good catcher for the Mets. All he needs is a little health and to work on his throwing mechanics a bit. (Note: I’m not comparing him to Mackey Sasser. Not going to happen).
In any event, I had my AM crunch wrap courtesy of a stolen base in the World Series. A World Series the Mets should’ve won. Hopefully, I’ll have one next year because of a Juan Lagares‘ stolen base.
It’s funny to think in the year Yogi Berra died, the feeling I walked away with from last night was “its déjà vu all over again.”
Fifteen years ago, I watched the Mets lose the World Series in five games. I remember believing that the better team didn’t win. The bounces went the wrong way. The Mets failed to execute in the late innings. They just couldn’t get that big hit when needed. I remember thinking of the Mets could just win Game 5, they could still win the World Series.
Al Leiter started Game 5 and gave the gutsiest performance I’ve ever seen from a Met. He went 8.2 innings throwing 143 pitches. He was just in there too long. After getting the first two outs via strikeout, he let up three successive hits giving the Yankees a 4-2 lead. I still thought the Mets had a chance. I thought Mike Piazza tied the game in the bottom of the ninth. Cruelly, it fell just short.
Last night, Matt Harvey was every bit of Al Leiter’s equal. He too put the Mets on his back and had eight incredible innings. Truth be told, Harvey had a game for the ages. If he doesn’t come out for the ninth, his final line is 8.0 innings, four hits, no earned, one walk, and nine strikeouts. It should’ve been a game that was talked about for years to come.
Instead, Harvey came out for the ninth. He allowed a walk and a double. The talk will forever be about how Terry Collins left him in instead of how great he was. It’s just like 1999. No one talks about how great Leiter was. They talk about Timo Perez and Roger Clemens. I fear this World Series will be talked about over Collins’ use of Jeurys Familia and the late inning defense.
However, I’ll always remember Leiter’s Game 5 performance. If I ever had the chance to meet him, I’d shake his hand and thank him for it. Sure, the Mets lost, but I respected that performance. He wanted in that game every bit as Harvey did last night. If I met Harvey, I’d shake his hand and thank him for last night too.
They both fell just short, but they gave it their all. Last night was just as painful as it was 15 years ago. In some ways, it hurts even more so. I may not have seen a World Series in either year, but I saw something special from two extraordinary local guys. They did themselves and their teams proud. They made me proud to be a Mets fan.
They deserved a better fate. Instead, they have my profound respect. Thank you.
It’s finally happening tonight. I’m going to a Mets World Series game. In my house, I have three unused tickets from 2006, 2007, and 2008. Worst yet, I was at the games that were the reason why I couldn’t used the tickets.
Tonight, there won’t be any Adam Wainwright curveballs. There won’t be any implosion from Tom Glavine. Jerry Manuel isn’t here to summon Scott Schoeneweis from the bullpen. There is nothing standing in the way from the Mets from playing a World Series game tonight. Better yet, I’m going.
I’m going with my Dad and brother. We’ve been waiting our whole lives for this moment. We were crushed when we couldn’t go in 2006 – 2008. I know I’ve carried that pain for nearly a decade now. I’ve carried that pain through all the years of bad baseball. I wasn’t sure this day would ever come. But now it’s here.
On top of all of that I get Billy Joel singing the National Anthem. I get my favorite Met of All Time, Mike Piazza, throwing out the first pitch. I get to be there when the Mets turn this series around. This is better than I ever could’ve imagined. It makes sitting there watching the Mets lose in 2006, 2007, and 2008 all worth it.
To make it all the better, I will be there with my Dad, the man who made me a Mets fan. I’ll be there with my brother. The person I’ve sat next to during all the wins and all the losses. Tonight is the night we’ve been waiting for.
LETS GO METS!