Author: Shannon Shark @metspolice

Blue cap tip to Phil Mushnick for pointing out in last Sunday’s column that Keith Olbermann had been on a Gil Hodges kick.

I’m actually writing this last Sunday as I’m away on business.  So let’s give another blue cap tip to Media Goon for not only minding the store but also for standing in as Daddy an event last night with my kids.  Thanks MG.

I know Keith Olbermann tends to make emotions run high, but whatever you think of him on TV, he has a great baseball blog.

Hodges’ career spanned 20 calendar years, but he only played regularly from 1948 to 1959. In “his” era, Hodges was second in MLB in homers (344, to Duke Snider’s 354), second in RBI (tied with Berra at 1136, behind Musial’s 1226), fourth in Runs, and seventh in Hits. Hodges is often dismissed as a “Home Park Homer Hitter.” In fact in his ten years at Ebbets Field he averaged only 4.60 homers a year more in Brooklyn than on the road. For comparison, Duke Snider, in the Hall since 1980, averaged 4.56 homers a year more in Brooklyn than on the road.

It is also of note that Hodges hit 27 or more homers in eight consecutive seasons, drove in 102 or more runs seven years in a row, and the first baseman on two World’s Champions and four more NL champs.

Haven’t even mentioned Hodges the manager (1969 Miracle Mets) nor Hodges the Man (I have never, ever talked to anyone who knew him who didn’t revere him.

via Gil Hodges « Baseball Nerd.

Interesting point of view from a Dodgers blog.  The 50th in question is Dodger Stadium not the Mets.

With the announcement of several Bobblehead dolls issued this year commemorating the 50 years of Dodger Stadium, I have to believe that Piazza was approached with the idea and he turned it down.  Sadly, I almost believe that Mike is still holding a grudge against the organization and the fans all these years later.  It is no secret that Piazza was not happy with being booed by Dodger fans early in ’98 when contract talks broke down.

via Opinion of Kingmans Performance: Mike Piazza – It Sure Would Be Nice if He Would Agree to Participate In the 50 Year Festivities.

Thanks Mike!

The subject of the Mets and retired numbers is an interesting one, and as I have spoken to more and more folks about it I find it’s a very complicated topic.

I’m bringing this up today because I woke up to several tweets about retiring number 8.

First, let’s look at what the Mets have done so far. I consider 37 an anomaly of a young franchise. Like the Rays and Boggs. Or the Marlins and their 5.

14 sure seems worthy, although I’m too young to know what happens say Gil lives to be 100 and gets fired in 1976.

41 is the only number for a player, and he’s in the Hall of Fame. That seems to be the bar.

Back to 8.

The captain. Loved. Ring. Hall of Famer.

But if you retire 8 don’t you have to retire 17?

If you take emotions and the Expos out of it I think the average Mets fan would put Keith ahead of Gary in the pantheon. So don’t you have to retire 17 first or on the same day?

If you’re retiring 8 today as opposed to say three years ago…well why? Why didn’t you retire it three years ago? Are we being sentimental?

If we’re being sentimental why didn’t 45 get retired for Tug McGraw when he was ill? And John wore the number, he was also a captain and played a long time. What about John?

Why is 7 in circulation? The leader in many offensive categories played a long time, and the guy on the Marlins wasn’t too bad either.

What about 36? No love for the Kooz?

What about the second best pitcher in franchise history? No 16?

What about 1? He was out in CF a long time. Who do you think hit the ball to Buckner?

How do you retire 1 and 16 without retiring 18?

And what’s with 24?

Do we really want a wall with 37 14 41 42 8 17 36 16 18 1 7 45 31 24 on it?

The Mets have their own hall of fame where they have honored most of these players. It would be strange to go from three numbers to ten or more. I can make a case for any of the above. I can also make a case against them. Including 8 and 17.

In the past the franchise was a little casual in handing out the numbers. 17 has been passed around like a used Kleenex.

Heading forward, what if the Mets were judicious in handing out the “good” numbers. The next time an Ike Davis type prospect shows up, issue that guy 17. Not some Fernando Tatis.

Put 8 away (and it has been parked lately, along with 31) and if the Mets ever draft a “shouldn’t miss” catcher then issue it. Treat it the way the Mets have with Willie Mays’ #24 (except the Torve weirdness). Rickey Henderson, Hall of Famer, got to wear 24. That’s not shabby.

…

I don’t see how you do 8 without 17.

Should the Mets try to hold an early season ceremony to handle both? I’m really not sure. Ive changed my opinion a few tines on this. And therein may lie the answer.