Keith Hernandez was the heart and soul of the 1980s Mets teams that went from languishing at the bottom of the National League East to winning two division titles and a World Series championship. The former first baseman was a leader both on and off the field, and was given the captain’s “C” to honor his leadership on the team. However, despite numerous pleas by Mets fans to retire his number 17, the Mets have not yet honored their former captain by doing so.
Let’s compare Keith’s career with the Mets to that of another first baseman who played on the West Coast for another expansion team from the 1960s. Perhaps if the people from the Coalition To Decide New Reasons To Put Off Retiring Keith’s Number read the following, they might have to rethink things.
Keith Hernandez was a member of the Mets from 1983-1989. Over his 6½ years with the team, he batted over .300 four times, scored over 80 runs four times and drove in over 80 runs four times (including two 90-RBI seasons). He won six Gold Gloves while with the Mets, made the All-Star team three times, finished in the top ten in the MVP voting three times (including two top five finishes) and won a Silver Slugger Award in 1984.
During his first four full seasons with the Mets (1984-1987), an average season for Keith Hernandez looked like this: .305 batting average, .396 OBP, .836 OPS, 32 doubles, 14 HR, 89 RBI and 88 runs scored. More importantly, he was an instrumental player in the Mets’ march to the 1986 World Series championship.
So which of his contemporaries am I comparing him to? Let’s peruse over the numbers of a certain Steve Garvey, especially after he joined the San Diego Padres.
Steve Garvey joined the Padres as a free agent before the 1983 season (the same year Hernandez was traded to the Mets). He played four full seasons as San Diego’s first baseman and part of a fifth in 1987, playing in only 27 games during his final season in the big leagues. During his tenure in San Diego, Garvey did not win any Gold Gloves (Mr. Hernandez was winning all of those), made the All-Star team twice and never finished higher than 20th in the MVP voting. He also did not win any Silver Slugger Awards. Furthermore, he never batted over .300 in any of those four seasons, never scored more than 80 runs and drove in over 80 runs three times (but no 90-RBI seasons).
During those four full seasons in San Diego (1983-1986), these were the numbers for an average Steve Garvey season: .278 batting average, .311 OBP, .725 OPS, 26 doubles, 15 HR, 77 RBI and 72 runs scored. He helped lead the Padres to one National League pennant in 1984, but did not win the World Series that year.
Clearly, Hernandez’s numbers and awards with the Mets were superior to Garvey’s numbers and lack of awards with the Padres. However, Garvey can claim one thing that Keith Hernandez can’t.
STEVE GARVEY’S NUMBER HAS BEEN RETIRED BY THE SAN DIEGO PADRES!
Apparently, the Padres cared enough to acknowledge the fact that Garvey was instrumental in bringing the team back from being also-rans prior to 1983 to pennant winners in 1984. The Mets were cellar dwellers prior to 1983 as well. Then Keith Hernandez came aboard and things started to change, eventually leading to the World Championship that Garvey wasn’t able to bring to San Diego.
How can the Mets not retire Keith Hernandez’s number when the Padres have bestowed that honor to Steve Garvey? Instead, they continue to hand out the number to Fernando Tatis and various pitchers like Jose Lima, Graeme Lloyd and Dae-Sung Koo. At least Gary Carter’s number hasn’t been worn by a Met since Matt Galante wore it as a coach in 2002.
It’s time for the Mets to retire the #17 in honor of their former captain and team leader, Keith Hernandez. The left field wall at Citi Field is high enough for more retired numbers. Let’s end this oversight once and for all by raising the #17 for all Mets fans to see. Say it loud. Say it proud. Retire #17!









Couldn’t agree more!
I obviously agree…But the Wilpons hate the 86 Champs, so this won’t change until they sell the team. That day can’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned.
Wilpon is the only owner in professional sports who loves another team (the Dodgers) more than his own. Makes me sick that he owns the Mets.
What?
absolutely agree 100%, its a damn shame his number along with Gooden, and Strawberrys numbers should be retired. You can even make a case for Carters number too. I say retire all 4 numbers this year and do it soon so the Mets can have some kinda good news in the media instead of being the laughing stock they are now.
Ed, Thanks for the fine article. It’s past time for the Mets to retire #17.
and #31 and #16 and #18 and hopefully someday #5, #7 and #57
Not so fast.
Soon the Mets will have no numbers for the team on the field.
I’ve think that with all the fans in mind, the Mets need to go to a three digit system:
#31, #16, #18, #5, #7, #57 become #031, #016, #018, #005, #007, #057
That would please future fans too who would have their say !!!!
#31……I think they need to retire Mike`s number!!!!
#31, #8, #18 and # 17…….mainly 31
I do not seeing retiring #8 in honor of Gary Carter – sorry – his tenure here was not that long and while he helped win the WS, I still don’t think he did nearly enough to get that honor.
I would still like to see #7 – Ed Kranpool retired FIRST. No, he doesn’t have HOF numbers, but he is the only player to play his entire career as a Met and it wasn’t too shabby nor short.
Keith brought many good aspects, but I still think of him as a Cardinal. In 88 he and Straw were at odds and campaigned heavily against him for Kevin McReynolds so I don’t know how great he could have been in the Clubhouse at that point.
I’m not sold on Keith quite yet (not saying NO, but…….)
Absolutely on Kranepool. He stuck it out through thick and thin with this franchise and while he may not have been the face of it like a certain pitcher, I believe brand loyalty and integrity should pay dividends.
ABSOLUTELY!!!! THESE ARE THE KIND OF DECISIONS THAT BAFFLE ME ABOUT OUR ORGINAZATION.KEITH WAS A ROCK FOR US, A CAPTAIN, A LEADER, A WORKHORSE, GREAT CLUBHOUSE GUY, HIT IN THE CLUTCH,SUPERIOR IN THE FIELD AS FAR AS I KNOW THE ONLY PLAYER IN METS HISTORY OTHER THAN JOHN FRANCO TO WEAR THE CAPTAIN C ON HIS JERSEY.GET IT DONE ALREADY GIMME A BREAK. RETIRE STRAW AND DOC TOO I WOULD SAY YES TO THEM TOO BECAUSE I LOVED THEM BUT THEY HAD ALOT OF PERSONAL AND OFF THE FIELD PROBLEMS WHICH IM SURE THE TEAM IS EMBARASSED BY.BUT THEY WERE LEGENDS FOR US AS FANS.GET KEITH DONE ALREADY WILPON MAKE US HAPPY FOR ONCE.
Respect the ‘Stache! Retire 17! I think you should start a campaign Ed
Those of you clamoring for the Mets to retire Eddie Kranepool’s number, I am with with you! But there is a major problem with that right now. Thanks to the bungling Mets, the uniform number 7 now belongs to Jose Reyes who now enters his eighth season with the Mets.
Wouldn’t it be unwise for the Mets to yank his number at a time when so much is going wrong with the Mets?
Imagine the potential public relations disaster a disgruntled Jose Reyes would create, and we have all seen how Jose performs when he feels slighted. (think Willie Randolph)
And to do this when he is on the verge of entering free agency and in a position to bolt the Mets and replace Derek Jeter across town, would be yet another unmitigated disaster.
Be careful what you wish for. Until Reyes moves on from the Mets or retires, poor Eddie may have to wait another decade before seeing his number on the wall at CitiField.
Reyes Who? The hamstring guy? If they want him in the Bronx, let’s make a deal.
You’re an idiot, seriously you have NO clue what you are talking about, does our Mommy know you are using her computer?
The only Mets PLAYER to have his number retired is Tom Seaver. Seaver is the only Hall of Famer donning a Mets cap too. I think Piazza will have his number retired when he reaches the Hall in 2012 (unless steroids allegations arise keeping him out of the Hall.) And I don’t know what’s keeping Keith out of the Hall of Fame, but until he’s in there (if ever) I don’t foresee #17 being retired in his honor.
[...] a post to Mets Merized Online, Ed Leyro argues that the Mets should retire No. 17, in honor of Keith [...]
[...] a post to Mets Merized Online, Ed Leyro argues that the Mets should retire No. 17, in honor of Keith [...]
Support for Piazza seems stronger than for Hernandez, and it seems most posters feel it is inevitable that 31 will be retired – the only thing that might stand in its way is if Piazza is inducted into the HOF as a Dodger. So, I want to claims that if Piazza’s 31 ought to be retired, then so should Hernandez’s 17. I am a Hernandez partisan since my but I will try to make the case for Hernandez purely on the grounds that his personal achievement with the Mets was at least comparable to Piazza’s, and the team’s success was superior. (As an aside, I want to point out Hernandez’s impact in helping to change the culture of the club into a winning one and the obvious reverence his Mets teammates hold for him.)
Hernandez (http://www.ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0340)
Seas. G AB R H HR RBI BB IBB AVG SLG OBP
7 880 3164 455 939 80 468 471 59 .297 .429 .387
Piazza (http://www.ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0600)
Seas. G A R H HR RBI BB IBB AVG SLG OBP
8 972 3478 532 1028 220 655 424 82 .296 .542 .373
I’ll admit that Piazza’s numbers are better, but Hernandez is a surprisingly productive, and in 3 of his seasons (1983, 1988, and 1989) he played in fewer than 95 games for the Mets, whereas Piazza played at least 109 games in all but one season (yes, Piazza was more durable, so points to him). However, if you go the websites I got the data from and look at Hernandez’s four peak seasons with the Mets, 1984-1987, you will see an extremely productive player; he averaged 15 HRs, 90 rbi, 88 runs scored, .305 avg. Piazza’s four peak seasons (1999-2002): 37 HRs, 107 rbi, 85 runs scored, .302 avg. I think it’s interesting to note that Piazza only generated about 15 more runs a season despite hitting about 22 more home runs a season.
During Hernandez’s four year peak the Mets’ average record was 97-65; they had one first place finish, one NLCS, and one World Championship, as well as three second place finishes where average number of games back was four. Had there been a Wild Card then, the Mets would have made the playoff during each of those seasons (in fact, when Mets fans lament lost championships in 1987 and 1988, I often think to myself that 1984 and 1985 were lost championship opportunities, Doc Gooden at least twice in each playoff round would have been good for 2 wins each round). Oh, let’s not forget that in 1988 the club won 100 games and a division title.
During Piazza’s four year peak the Mets’ average record was 87-75; they had no first place finishes, two second place finishes which yielded Wild Cards, a divisional series win, and one NLCS, one third place finish, one last place finish with a losing record (average number of games back 10) – most importantly, no World Championships.
During those peak runs, Hernandez was MVP runner-up, top 5 in MVP voting twice, top 10 in MVP voting 3 times, a 4 time Gold Glove winner, 3-time All Star, and 1 time Silver Slugger. During his peak runs, Piazza was top 5 in MVP voting once, top 10 in MVP voting twice, a 4 time All Star, and 4 time Silver Slugger.
In light of Hernandez’s offensive and defensive performance during the most successful run of the club’s history, I would argue that he is more deserving, and at least as deserving, of having his number retired than Piazza.
Great post. In addition to all the great stats he had, can you name a player other than Keith who you wanted up in the big spot? Not then, and no one since. The man was as clutch as they come and he transformed our pathetic franchise into a NL beast.
You can find my Hernandez retired numbered tshirts at http://www.theprintmen.com (piazza also).
bryan
Metslifer.com
[...] posted here: Reason #17 To Retire Keith Hernandez's Number | Mets Merized Online Posted in Uncategorized, keith hernandez | Tags: a-leader-, anguishing-at-the, former-first, [...]