Printable View
Catcher Mike Piazza officially announced his retirement today.
First ballot hall of famer????
And if so, what hat will he wear in the hall, Dodgers/Mets?
I think so, but then again I can never keep up with who's been accused of what anymore, and I would guess Dodgers cap. Other guesses???
marlins cap :p and I think u have to say Metz because he was more of a franchise player there, tho it could honestly go either way.
tho i vote yes 1st ballot. in a way re reinvented the C position and brought the power back to the position
got edged by walker in 97 for the MVP
I think he will go out a dodger. And yes he deserves 1st ballot. I was hoping he would find a team this year...:(
This is a really sad moment right now...
Piazza is my favorite player of all time and it really sucks to see him retiring.
Definitely deserves first-ballot induction.
I'd give him the Dodgers cap.
any reason u guys say dodger instead of metz... i dont argue i just wonder that all
His years with the Dodgers were slightly better than his years with the MetsQuote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
same reason I chose dodgers
Dodgers hat and unquestionably a first ballot. Did things at the catcher position that only a handful of players at best have ever gotten close to.
I say Dodgers hat because they gave him an opportunity (I think Piazza was a very very late draft pick) and I just see him as a Dodger more so than a Met.
I say Met hat just because he was a Met hero and fan favorite and he won a pennant with NY. I doubt the HOF will say "no" to either team, like they stupidly and disrespectfully did to Gary Carter.
Try 62nd round late...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by dickay
After two years of poor hitting in the minors, he exploded with 29 home runs...followed that season up with a roughly .360 average and 23 home runs...and was in the bigs for good.
ROTY and finished Top-10 in MVP voting five times as a Dodger, twice as Met.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Mmmmm, sounds like a clear cut case of getting on the juice to me.:D
Unquestionably a HOF'er, he probably will make it on the first ballot.
I always think of him as a Dodger, but it's up to him. I'm guessing that he'll say Dodgers though.
Dodgers hat I hope. That trade with the Marlins should never have happened. Trading a popular, productive player like Piazza in his prime for a productive but unpopular egotistical tool like Gary Sheffield was a sad day for Dodger fans.
Does he get to pick??? I thought MLB did, but I'm probably wrong again. If he picks, then I say DEFINITELY Dodgers. I know his heart is fond of LaSorda and the Dodgers for giving him a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I'm pretty sure that he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
The player does not decide what team cap is on his plaque, nor does MLB, the Hall of Fame does. The HOF will often respect the players wishes, but like someone stated, they dont always (Gary Carter). Also, the player might have a generic cap with no team logo, i.e., Catfish Hunter.
Without a doubt 1st ballot HOF. Was the best hitting catcher of all time.
Goes in with a Dodgers cap.
I would say he just gets enough votes on the 1st ballot, and definitely wearing a Dodgers Hat
I think they will give him an LA cap. Probably best hitting catcher (even in the offensive explosion era)...but nowhere near the defensive skills of the other "great" catchers.
I've always heard he can't call a game, or isn't great defensively. I'd love to see the stats that confirm this however. I know he was subpar throwing runners out and thats an easy stat to dig out, but not many catchers throw out many runners. In comparison to the league, what stats confirm the thought that Piazza couldn't call a game and was poor defensively, in comparison with the other "great" catchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
I don't think any stats can say that. There is really no way to quantify how well a catcher calls a game because it's nearly impossible to seperate the catcher from the pitcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
The only thing we can quantify is his arm. He threw out 23.2% of basestealers. Ivan Rodriguez, by comparison, has thrown out 47.3%. Take a more middle-of-the-road defensive rep in Jorge Posada, 29.4%. If I knew the league averages, that'd be better, but I think it's very safe to say that Mike Piazza sucked at controlling the running game.
2nd ballot, just because I have no faith in the sense of HoF voters in ANY sport, really...Dodgers cap.
Again, I say he shouldn't get in if John Olerud doesn't get in! :p
ROTFL!Quote:
despite his defense (which was merely lousy until 2002, when he took things to a whole new level of stink)
I-Rod is in the very elite status at throwing runners out. Posada, as you say mid of the road I'd probably agree he's mid road at worst....there are very few catchers that throw out anywheres near half the runners who attempt to steal. I hate accusing a guy of horrific defense based on his ability to throw out runners and that alone. I know many have said that he was a poor defender, but I think that his great offense heck people had to slight something and maybe he got a bad rap.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If you based it solely on throwing runners out Varitek is a HORRIFIC catcher. As a team they don't focus heavily on holding runners, they prefer not to slide step etc. etc.
All my rambling is basically saying that i'm stunned statheads are throwing out this rumor he's a bad catcher with nothing to go on but a poor stat such as % of runners thrown out.
Nobody is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
You think "statheads" alone are the only one "throwing out the rumor" that he was a bad catcher? Sorry, that's not the case. Piazza has a bad defensive reputation, in all sorts of baseball circles - fans, scouts, "statheads", whatever.Quote:
All my rambling is basically saying that i'm stunned statheads are throwing out this rumor he's a bad catcher with nothing to go on but a poor stat such as % of runners thrown out.
The quote ohms quoted was based on his Fielding Runs Above Average, which take into account his RTO%, but also his other defensive stats, although I'd say FRAA is a shaky defense stat as is because it's based off the "standard" stats such as putouts, assists, and errors. You can see Piazza's FRAA numbers here. The quote was made because Piazza had a -30 mark in 2002. He's been below average every year of his career.
Granted, as I said, that's only one stat, though.
Catcher defense is the hardest position to quantify defense, as I basically said in my previous post. You have some numbers, plus reputation. In this case, the numbers and the reputation agree - he wasn't a good defender. But still, who cares? Even with poor defense, he was one of the best overall catchers in history because his bat was SO good.
Nope, never said they were.Quote:
You think "statheads" alone are the only one "throwing out the rumor" that he was a bad catcher?
Yea, its basically impossible to quantify a catchers abilities to "call a game" due the myriad of other factors involved. In all actuality attempts to do it seem to show that there in no difference in catchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
As far as Going in on the 1st ballot he may wind up on a ballot with Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa ... Hmm wonder if writers will want to make some kinda statement there.
So, your statement "All my rambling is basically saying that i'm stunned statheads are throwing out this rumor he's a bad catcher with nothing to go on but a poor stat such as % of runners thrown out." has nothing to back it up...because A. it's not "a rumor", B. that's not all anybody is basing it on, and C. it's just statheads concurring with "conventional wisdom."Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Not at all. You said yourself that catching is the "hardest position to quantify defense". You also said that the stats used are "a shaky defense stat as is because it's based off the "standard" stats such as putouts, assists, and errors."Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
All I said was that I am stunned statheads, who very often go against or refuse to take a stance on public 'opinion' when they don't have stats to support it are in fact in this instance bedding 'with' public opinion' without solid physical evidence. There is nothing derogatory in that.
We are both in agreement and I've stated that many say he's a poor defensive player, so this is one of those areas where you are picking things out to ignite an argument. I simply asked for advice from the 'statheads' earlier in this thread as to how is his poor defense quantified statistically. There is no need to get defensive and argumentative.
Just to summarize your argumentative alphabatized bullets and ensure I touched them all (and yes, now I am being a bit sarcastic in reply to the tone in your retorts);
A. It is still opinion in my camp, albeit popular opinion. I find it suprising (won't use the word stunning as it coiled your panties earlier) that statheads are supporting opinion without solid evidence.
B. You said yourself you are basing it off of shaky defensive statistics, so it is pretty much all you are basing it on.
C. I never said it wasn't conventional wisdom, just that I was 'stunned' statheads openly supported it. After all, it is statheads that argued in a previous thread that 'conventional wisdom' supporting the theory the DH benefits the AL not acceptable. Sounds like we're trying to choose when conventional wisdom should support are arguments and when they shouldn't.
If we were playing chess that would be what is referred to 'conventionally' as;
Game...
Set...
Match...
Thanks for Playing.
That's not what they're doing. You wouldn't call the opinions of professional scouts "solid physical evidence"? You said that "statheads" are saying he's a bad catcher based on nothing but his RTO%, yet, I don't see anybody, stathead or otherwise, doing that, which is my contention with what you're saying. I'm wondering where you're pulling that from, because nobody's doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
There is relatively solid evidence.Quote:
A. It is still opinion in my camp, albeit popular opinion. I find it suprising (won't use the word stunning as it coiled your panties earlier) that statheads are supporting opinion without solid evidence.
Except:Quote:
B. You said yourself you are basing it off of shaky defensive statistics, so it is pretty much all you are basing it on.
a) I didn't say that's what I'm basing my opinion on. I said that's what the author of the quote ohms cited was basing it on.
and b) My personal opinion of Mike Piazza's defense isn't only based on the "shaky defensive statistics", and I have not said that that's the case either. You put those words into my mouth.
Um, yes, if I'm understand you correctly, that's sort of basically what's going on. Sometimes, the facts don't back up the conventional wisdom. Sometimes, they do. When they do, the conventional wisdom can be used to support the argument, since it's all in agreement. Obviously, when the two don't match, you can't use the conventional wisdom to support the argument.Quote:
C. I never said it wasn't conventional wisdom, just that I was 'stunned' statheads openly supported it. After all, it is statheads that argued in a previous thread that 'conventional wisdom' supporting the theory the DH benefits the AL not acceptable. Sounds like we're trying to choose when conventional wisdom should support are arguments and when they shouldn't.
Conventional wisdom is not always right, nor is it always wrong. "Statheads" agreeing with it shouldn't be "stunning." That goes back to a common misconception it seems you and many others hold about sabermetrics. Sabermetrics isn't out to attack the conventional wisdom. Sabermetrics is meant to seek truth. Yes, sometimes it goes against conventional wisdom because conventional wisdom is not always correct.
And I'm the smug one that thinks I'm always right. :rolleyes:Quote:
If we were playing chess that would be what is referred to 'conventionally' as;
Game...
Set...
Match...
Thanks for Playing.
I really should stop because it is meaningless. One can't argue with someone who contradicts himself and seeks only to prove himself right at all costs. I made the mistake of asking the advice of the 'statheads' in this thread. First the stats are shaky, and now apparently he has hidden evidence that isn't shaky but is 'relatively solid'???
Whatever bub. I wasn't looking for an argument with you, we were in agreement that we believed he was a subpar defensive player. I asked how you quantify that and suddenly we are mired in an argument.
I'm taking my chess pieces and going home.
thank god, this stuff gets really **** old quickly
I agree. No one ever "does" anything, and no one ever "says" anything. When are we all going to learn to just argue the facts, don't argue the person or the manner in which they argue. Put your points out there and then leave it at that.
Piazza = GREAT HITTER
Piazza = GOOD ENOUGH DEFENDER
Bottom line, he deserves to be in the hall and if you think that any HOF member isn't going to say he goes in as a Dodger, then I think you might just be off your rocker.
I'm not contradicting myself. Are you even reading my posts? Defensive stats, by themselves, are shaky. The opinion of many scouts, fans, and analysts, which happens to agree with the defensive stats, is relatively solid.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And I told you there's no way to very accurately quantify it. I posted a link to somebody else's take on his Hall of Fame case, completely separate from our own discussion, and that person had one sentence based on Piazza's defensive statistics, and you claimed that "Statheads are spreading a rumor that Mike Piazza sucks defensively based solely how many basestealers he threw out." And yes, I'm arguing that, because that's not true and you've yet to back up that completely false statement. Sorry, I don't like false statements.Quote:
Whatever bub. I wasn't looking for an argument with you, we were in agreement that we believed he was a subpar defensive player. I asked how you quantify that and suddenly we are mired in an argument.
There's going to be HOF voters that don't even vote for him to go into the Hall of Fame. Heh... It's not that much of a stretch to think that there will be voters that don't think he should wear a Dodger cap, although the voters I don't think have any control over that, it's up to the head committee or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr