On Wednesday, ThinkBlueLA conducted  a poll among its readers asking them if the Dodgers should retire the number of newly elected Hall of Famer Mike Piazza. Of the nearly 100 votes cast, roughly 70 percent felt that Piazza’s number should not be retired by the team that drafted him in the 62nd round (1,390th overall pick) of the 1988 MLB First Year Player Draft – a round that no longer even exists.

I was one of those who voted against retiring number 31, at least as a Dodger. Let me first state that I was a huge Mike Piazza fan and was devastated when he was unceremoniously traded by the Dodgers to the then Florida Marlins on May 14, 1998. Just over one week later he was traded by the Marlins to the New York Mets with whom he played for the next eight years. One of the greatest offensive catchers in MLB history was traded twice in eight days. Not many Dodger fans anticipated that sequence of events and most of us would like to forget it.

Personally, I have no problem with Mike Piazza’s number being retired by the Dodgers or any other former Dodger having his number taken out of service. Having a number decommissioned is an honor bestowed on the player – perhaps the greatest honor – as no future member of that team will ever again wear that number. In essence, the player is considered irreplaceable. I expect there may be a debate regarding which is the greater honor. That is, having a number retired or having a statute displayed prominently at the stadium for all to see.

All but one of the Dodgers 10 retired numbers are of players who are in the Hall of Fame.
(Photo credit – Jon Weisman)

My concern was not with honoring Mike Piazza but with the process of deciding which numbers should be retired. There appears to be no standard criteria among teams or even within the purview of a team. The process appears to be a rather subjective one and perhaps it has to be.

The Dodgers have retired ten numbers over the years and all are worthy of the honor: Pee Wee Reese (1), Tommy Lasorda (2), Duke Snider (4), Jim Gilliam (19), Don Sutton (20), Walter Alston (24), Sandy Koufax (32), Roy Campanella (39) and Don Drysdale (53).

This brings us back to the criteria. One suggestion during the Mike Piazza discussion on ThinkBlueLA was that he should have his number retired because along with other considerations, he has now been voted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. It would be difficult to argue against that recognition, which is achieved by so few, although there can be little doubt that subjectivity also comes into play in the Hall of Fame selections.

Since all of the Dodgers who have had their numbers retired are in the Hall of Fame, with the exception of Jim Gilliam, it seems that getting elected to the hallowed hall is a prerequisite for a Dodger having his number taken out of service. Dodger fans will remember that Gilliam’s number was retired to honor him after his untimely death before the 1978 World Series.

The last Dodgers to have his number retired was Don Sutton on August 14, 1998.
(Photo credit – Wally Skalij)

This begs another question: Are there members of the Hall of Fame who wore a Dodger uniform at some point during their great careers who could have or even should have had their numbers retired by the Dodgers? Fifty-five major league players presently in the Hall of Fame have donned a Dodger uniform of either the Brooklyn of Los Angeles franchises – some as far back as the Brooklyn “Bridegrooms” and others with very brief careers within the organization such as Frank Robinson and Greg Maddux.

Two members who have played very prominent roles in the Dodgers’ history are outfielder Zack Wheat and right-handed pitcher Dazzy Vance. It may be fair to label them as “forgotten” Dodgers, as both are members of the Hall of Fame yet neither had their Dodger number retired.

Zack Wheat played 18 seasons in Brooklyn, 16 of them after the team officially became known as the “Dodgers” in 1911. His 2,322 games played during his career are the most ever by a Dodger. He amassed 2,884 hits and had 780 extra base hits in the dead ball era. During his career he had 8,859 at bats, once again the most ever by a Dodger, and a career batting average of .317 over his 18 seasons.

The argument for Dazzy Vance is less compelling than for Zack Wheat, although he had a stellar career over twelve years with the Brooklyn Dodgers winning 190 games and posting a 3.17 career earned run average.

One reason I voted not to retire Piazza’s number is that he played less than one-half of his career with the Dodgers. Should his number be retired by both the Mets and the Dodgers? Precedents have certainly been set. Reggie Jackie – Mr. October for the Yankees – has had his number retired by the Yankees, the Athletics and the Angels. He played ten years with the Athletics, five with the Yankees and five with the Angels. He accumulated over one-half of his career statistics with the Athletics and batted only .239 with the Angels.

Of interest, the Yankees easily lead all of Major League Baseball with 21 retired numbers. In fact, there is now only one number under 10 that has not been retired by the Yankees but soon will be – Derek Jeter’s number 2.

I understand that teams can retire whatever numbers they choose to remove from active service and also use whatever criteria they wish in doing so. For me Jackson’s number should be retired only by the team with whom he played the bigger part of his career. That is, the Oakland Athletics. I would use the same argument with Mike Piazza, who played eight of his 15 years with the Mets.

I also consider length of service a criterion I would use in retiring a number. Mike Piazza was with the Dodgers for six full seasons and 21 games of a seventh. His contribution was significant but brief and did not lead the Dodgers to the World Series. Other names that come quickly to mind who have had careers, again in my opinion, whose uniform numbers could be considered worthy for retirement would be third baseman Ron Cey and first baseman Steve Garvey. That is, based on their production and length of service.

What other criteria may be considered in determining if a player’s number should be retired? Baseball is a game of statistics so empirical that evidence in the record books must play a significant role in number retirement.

There can be little doubt that Mike Piazza’s statistics are among the best for catchers in baseball history. His six best years with the Dodgers are the best for a Dodger catcher although not as far ahead of Roy Campanella’s as one would expect. However, his overall career stats are indeed worthy of Hall of Fame recognition.

Looking at statistics as a precursor to retiring numbers, what is the cut off point, or is there one? I submit there is not and selecting whose number gets retired is much more subjective than that. A point in hand is that former Dodger first baseman Gil Hodges finished second in both home runs and runs batted in the decade of the 1950’s. He was a close second to teammate Duke Snider in both categories and topped Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Stan Musial during the decade. His contribution to the Dodgers over 16 years was, in my opinion, greater than Mike Piazza’s seven years, yet Hodges’ number has not been retired by the Dodgers.

Perhaps there is no going back now. Perhaps Zack Wheat, Dazzy Vance, Gil Hodges, Steve Garvey, Ron Cey, Maury Wills or lifelong Dodger Don Newcombe will never have their numbers retired by the Dodgers. If there is only going forward, the retirement of numbers may become even more rare than it is now.