Mike Piazza Hall of Famer?

Funny in all this talk of Hall of Fame nominations, it does not seem there is serious talk about Mike Piazza getting nominated. Everyone talks about Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens and their prospects of getting in (or not), but there is little talk about Piazza's prospects.

Why would a Dodger blogger talk about Piazza? His acrimonious departure in 1998, was akin to the folkies freaking out when Bob Dylan showed up to the Newport Folk Festival with an electric guitar. While most people blamed the Dodgers for that fiasco, Piazza's alleged greed had something to do with it.

Let bygones be bygones. It was a business deal that went horribly wrong, with all sides having something to do with it, plus it was 1998, almost fifteen years ago. Love or hate Piazza, he was the huge driving force for the Dodgers for much of the 1990's, and while he was here, he more than kept his part of the bargain.

Bottom line, he is the best offensive catcher to ever play the game. take nothing away from Johnny Bench or Carlton Fisk, Piazza shredded baseball in his time. He had nine years of 35+ home runs, six years of 100+ RBI's. His .308 lifetime batting average ( 9 seasons he hit .300+) dwarfs any other long time catcher with his power. His .377 OBP is simply ungodly. he was durable, lasting sixteen years where in all but two seasons catcher was his primary, if not his only position (The Mets played him at first a bit, and the A's used him as a DH in his final season, but other than that, he was a catcher). He had seven straight years of over 135 games caught. Nobody- not Fisk, not Bench, not anybody came close.

There are detractors- there are murmers he took steroids, but he was never called out in any reports, and although he was an effective catcher and hitter into his mid and late 'thirties, he had a more or less normal decline that players suffer. He never had the injury woes of a Mark McGwire or Ken Caminiti, nor did he have the logic-defying late career renissances of Clemens or Bonds. Aside from some minor leaguers, he has never been called out by former players or teammates. It still means he might have done it, but with no proof or even serious speculation, who is to say? He did play in a homer-happy era, but his well-rounded stats say he would've been a dominant player in any era.

It must be the steroid thing is why the writers are holding off. They might say "he didn't win a championship" or "he wasn't a strong defensive catcher" but that is hogwash. Anyone who had his stats over that period of time deserves serious consideration unless there are mtigating circumstances, Could steroids be that?