Is Mike Piazza an All-Time, Historically Great Player?

[AstrosFan]

How do you view Mike Piazza as a historical player? Barring an unlikely resurgence, his place in history probably won't change much. Is he historically great, or simply, yeah, he'll make the Hall of Fame?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He's a historically great catcher (top 5).

[leecemark]

--I second that.

[Minstrel]

I think he's at least a top-five catcher and likely a top-three catcher with some argument as the most valuable catcher ever.

So, quite historically great.

[KCGHOST]

He's a top 5 guy but Berra, Bench, and maybe Dickey were better.

[DoubleX]

I have him at 3 among catchers. If he could have played decent defense I might have him at number 1. Nevertheless, his hitting at catcher makes him one of the most valuable players ever, and I likely rank him inside my top 35 all time, if not top 30.

[whoisonit]

I rate at least 8 off the top of my head, before Piazza. I'm not sure he makes my top 10..

Josh Gibson - the greatest of all time. In my opinion the second greatest player of all time period.

Some others who I place ahead of Piazza, in no particular order:
Mickey Cochrane
Yogi Berra
Roy Campanella
Johnny Bench
Gabby Hartnett
Bill Dickey
Buck Ewing, a dead ball guy. It helps to have an imagination when looking at his numbers.

Catching is a position that, no matter what kind of hitting numbers are put up, is first and foremost about defence. It is here where Piazza standing goes into a free fall. He was not, simply put, even a good defensive cather.
Secondly, and very, very close to the first place defence, it's about handling pitchers. Again, his free fall is gaining speed.
The next slot is up for debate, whether it's more important than being a leading hitter, and that is leadership. I hold that a catcher must be a team leader, not nessesaraly THE team leader, but at least in the top 2-3. I don't think you can say this about Piazza. I watched him every day, and I liked him too, but Mike was no leader.
Typing this out, other names are comming to mind that I would also rate ahaed of him,(seems I'm believing my own argument !). He may not make my top 20.

Finally, the big magilla that will certianly piss alot of people around here off, just because it's being mentioned. He is one of the greatest hitters to emerge from an era that is badly tainted. All players from this era are suspect, simply because this was the era in which they played. His batting records must be viewed with a raised eyebrow.

[jjpm74]

As a hitter, he's a shoe in HOFer. As a catcher, there are about 100 guys throughout history I'd take over Piazza. Defensively, he really stunk it up while in NY.

[dgarza]

Is he historically great, or simply, yeah, he'll make the Hall of Fame?

Yes, he's great.

By the way, and this has been bugging me for long time, what does the "historically" mean?
It is a useless and meaningless word in this context.
Historically just means something exististed in history.
"Historically great player" as opposed to what? A "fictional great player"?
I don't see the point of people using the word over and over again on these boards. We're simply misusing the word.
If Piazza is a Top 5 catcher, he's a great catcher, period. Saying he's "historically" great does nothing to change that Top 5 status.
There's my rant.

[sturg1dj]

hall of fame...yes...of course

what he has in his way for being the greatest is

1) the era he played in
2) his defense

more #2 than #1

to be the greatest at a position I feel you need to be at least good at defense.

[Wade8813]

He's definitely in the top 10, but I'm not entirely sure where.

Yes, he's great.

By the way, and this has been bugging me for long time, what does the "historically" mean?
It is a useless and meaningless word in this context.
Historically just means something exististed in history.
"Historically great player" as opposed to what? A "fictional great player"?
I don't see the point of people using the word over and over again on these boards. We're simply misusing the word.
If Piazza is a Top 5 catcher, he's a great catcher, period. Saying he's "historically" great does nothing to change that Top 5 status.
There's my rant.

When I say someone is historically great, it means great compared to the best throughout history. As opposed to someone who's all-star level, but not good enough to be even mentioned all-time.

It may not be the best example, but the first person that came to mind was Jay Buhner. A good fielder, with 30-40 HR a year. Was he a great player to have on your team? Sure. But he wasn't historically great.

[NJMetfan4life]

The Best (1)

[AstrosFan]

He's definitely in the top 10, but I'm not entirely sure where.

When I say someone is historically great, it means great compared to the best throughout history. As opposed to someone who's all-star level, but not good enough to be even mentioned all-time.

It may not be the best example, but the first person that came to mind was Jay Buhner. A good fielder, with 30-40 HR a year. Was he a great player to have on your team? Sure. But he wasn't historically great.

Ditto this. When I use the term "historically great", I am asking if he is one of the greatest players in history, as opposed to simply standing out in his day, like an all-star.

[RuthMayBond]

to be the greatest at a position I feel you need to be at least good at defense.

So what did you just do to Ted Williams, and Ruth in his later years?

[fenrir]

second best catcher, and top 30 player.