Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How is Ted Simmons not in HOF?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As we speak, BBF hasn't voted for Simmons to the HOF. This is kind of ludicrous. Only 70%. Well, at least is more than what the BBWAA gave him.
    "I am not too serious about anything. I believe you have to enjoy yourself to get the most out of your ability."-
    George Brett

    Comment


    • Wow! Nice photo of Jarry Park, HWR! That is awesome. Incredible how much different that place looks from what one would expect from a major league park in 1969!
      "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
        Wow! Nice photo of Jarry Park, HWR! That is awesome. Incredible how much different that place looks from what one would expect from a major league park in 1969!
        Jarry Park looks like a junior college ballpark. It originally seated just 3,000 people. It was increased to 28,456 for the Expos.
        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

        Comment


        • Originally posted by dominik View Post
          I looked at his stats and I think he is a HOFer. he has 50 WAR as a catcher which is probably like 70 for an infielder or CFer. a 118 career OPS+ with 2400 hits and nearly 250 HRs is also very good for a catcher.

          his best 5 years he had a 137 OPS+ which is probably top10 for catchers.

          I don't know how bad his defense was however. maybe if he was historically bad that puts him down a few spots.
          Bill James did a write up on him in his HOF book. James showed that while teams ran on Simmons a little more than average, Simmons threw out more than enough base runners to make it a net loss for the other team. His stats were slightly above average, and certainly not the type of numbers that would make teams want to run MORE.

          I think he was a HOFer. I think he is out for three reasons:

          He stared in fly-over country.
          He was not Bench or Carter.
          He really did not have that one big season that would draw a lot of national attention.

          I did a search using RBI. I set the parameters so that Ted Simmons would look great.

          I went looking for catchers with the most 75+ RBI seasons from 1971 to 1985, a 15 year span.

          Here are the guys with more than one season with 75+ RBI:

          Darrell Porter…….. 2…. 1978 1979
          Terry Kennedy…... 2…. 1982 1983
          Jody Davis………... 2….. 1983 1984
          Earl Williams…..... 3….. 1971 1973
          Thurman Munson…. 3…. 1975 1977
          Carlton Fisk…….... 4….. 1977 1985
          Lance Parrish…….. 5….. 1980 1985
          Johnny Bench…….. 6….. 1972 1979
          Gary Carter……... 7….. 1977 1985
          Ted Simmons…….. 12…. 1971 1983

          His top seasons were 100, 103 and 108. While 12 is a big number over 15 seasons, I think he had too many seasons in the 90s (five). Those totals were an impressive 98, 97, 96, 95 and 91.

          It's weird to think about it but if he had eight 100 RBI seasons, I really believe he would be in the HOF.

          Or if there Gary Carter had come along five years later allowing Ted Simmons to be the best catcher in the National League for a little while.
          Last edited by Second Base Coach; 03-22-2014, 01:03 PM.
          Your Second Base Coach
          Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

          Comment


          • Originally posted by willshad View Post
            I think Simmons was hurt by the lack of any 'monster' type of seasons, as well as the lack of MVP support that accompanies it. Overall, he was as good a hitter as Bench, Campanella, Dickey, Berra, and Cochrane. But, let's face it, those guys were mostly in better lineups, and this helped their RBI totals and other offensive stats as well. Simmons was steadily churning out 13-26 HR, 80-109 RBI, and an average around .300 each season, which is good for a catcher, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, but will not really give you any MVP support. I think that if he was more inconsistent, but had better peak seasons, and in a better lineup, he would have gotten more MVP support.

            He was a better hitter than Gary Carter, and had a longer career. Now, Carter was better in the field...but was he THAT much better, that despite his offensive advantage, Simmons was one and done in the HOF voting, while Carter is considered one of the best catchers ever?
            Was Carter THAT much better, defensively, than Simmons? He was certainly perceived as being THAT much better at the time he retired, and into his retirement.

            I can't emphasize enough the fact that, while active, and even into his retirement, Ted Simmons was perceived as a defensive liability; a guy who could hit that they put behind the plate. The idea that Simmons was a slight defensive plus is a result of historical revisionism that occurred after the HOF vote where he became one-and-done.

            Simmons is a case for a rule change in BBWAA voting. If a guy has (A) an MVP, (B) a Cy Young Award, or (C) three (3) ASG appearances, he gets 5 years to attempt to get 5% of the BBWAA vote. Once such a player gets 5% of the vote, he's on the ballot for the full 15 years. This would be to ensure that some of the egregious one-and-dones are rectified. There are many guys who polled poorly at first, but built support due to a revised view of their careers, or due to people just coming to their senses.
            Last edited by Fuzzy Bear; 03-30-2014, 08:13 AM.
            "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

            NL President Ford Frick, 1947

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
              Was Simmons THAT much better, defensively, than Carter? He was certainly perceived as being THAT much better at the time he retired, and into his retirement.
              Did you mean the opposite of this?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                Simmons is a case for a rule change in BBWAA voting. If a guy has (A) an MVP, (B) a Cy Young Award, or (C) three (3) ASG appearances, he gets 5 years to attempt to get 5% of the BBWAA vote. Once such a player gets 5% of the vote, he's on the ballot for the full 15 years. This would be to ensure that some of the egregious one-and-dones are rectified. There are many guys who polled poorly at first, but built support due to a revised view of their careers, or due to people just coming to their senses.
                I'm not sure 1 MVP/Cy Young would be sufficient. That would have kept Bob Welch, Terry Pendleton, Kevin Mitchell, Mark Davis and Doug Drabek on the ballot for five years. All were fine major leaguers, but none really have an argument for the HOF. Perhaps two wins in two separate seasons would weed some of those out.

                Three All-Star games is reasonable I think. None of the aforementioned players had more than 2 appearances. But then again...

                Who else would be added back to the ballot with this proposal? Lou Whitaker was the first player that came to my mind, and Lance Parrish was also eliminated in 2001 due to the 5% rule. In Simmons' lone year on the ballot, Mario Soto was also one-and-done; he appeared in the ASG 1982-1984. I didn't look at all the players in those elections, just a couple that popped out to me on the list. In the most recent election, Moises Alou, Luis Gonzalez, Eric Gagne, Kenny Rogers, Paul Lo Duca, and Sean Casey would have all been retained. That may be a bit much. I doubt any re-evaluation of Lo Duca's or Casey's career will put them in a HOF light. Maybe 5 years as an All-Star would be a better cut off? That would still keep Whitaker and Simmons on the radar (as well as Parrish, Alou and Gonzalez, fwiw).
                Last edited by hairmetalfreek; 03-23-2014, 10:45 PM.
                The Writer's Journey

                Comment


                • Joe Posnanski has advocated that voters be given a third option other than yes or no, something along the lines of "Let me think about it for a while." That might cover contingencies like this.
                  3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                    Joe Posnanski has advocated that voters be given a third option other than yes or no, something along the lines of "Let me think about it for a while." That might cover contingencies like this.
                    This might be the best solution, in that it would avoid arbitrary milestones that (A) can be criticized, and (B) may tend to inject biases, positively or negatively, on borderline candidates. Adrian Beltre, for example, hasn't been to a slew of ASGs.
                    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hairmetalfreek View Post
                      I'm not sure 1 MVP/Cy Young would be sufficient. That would have kept Bob Welch, Terry Pendleton, Kevin Mitchell, Mark Davis and Doug Drabek on the ballot for five years. All were fine major leaguers, but none really have an argument for the HOF. Perhaps two wins in two separate seasons would weed some of those out.

                      Three All-Star games is reasonable I think. None of the aforementioned players had more than 2 appearances. But then again...

                      Who else would be added back to the ballot with this proposal? Lou Whitaker was the first player that came to my mind, and Lance Parrish was also eliminated in 2001 due to the 5% rule. In Simmons' lone year on the ballot, Mario Soto was also one-and-done; he appeared in the ASG 1982-1984. I didn't look at all the players in those elections, just a couple that popped out to me on the list. In the most recent election, Moises Alou, Luis Gonzalez, Eric Gagne, Kenny Rogers, Paul Lo Duca, and Sean Casey would have all been retained. That may be a bit much. I doubt any re-evaluation of Lo Duca's or Casey's career will put them in a HOF light. Maybe 5 years as an All-Star would be a better cut off? That would still keep Whitaker and Simmons on the radar (as well as Parrish, Alou and Gonzalez, fwiw).
                      Any kind of change to the system in the vein proposed will result in keeping guys on the ballot that are guys that really don't have great cases. I maintain that this is preferable to the one-and-dones of Clark, Belle, Whitaker, Parrish, and Simmons. As the HOF is the ONLY LASTING HONOR that MLB bestows on its players, I would prefer a lengthier ballot in the name of inclusivity rather than excluding a guy by omission.

                      The writers didn't "vote off" Belle, Simmons, Clark, Parrish, and Whitaker; they declined to vote for them INDIVIDUALLY, not knowing what the other writers would do. If there were a system where, after getting less than 5%, the BBWAA was asked if they wanted to put any of these guys back on the ballot for a "second look", would the BBWAA have responded in a way where they would have, by their actions, given an affirmative "YES!" to that question? I tend to believe so, although with the BBWAA, you never know.
                      "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                      NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                        It's kind of remarkable that Simmons was never the best catcher in his league. That's part of the problem Simmons has; the fact that he was never the best catcher in his league.

                        What made it worse for Simmons is that until the mid-seventies, Simmons had to fight to be considered the SECOND best catcher in the NL. Behind Bench was also Manny Sanguillen who, for a bit, was considered second to Bench (although Simmons was way, way better).
                        During the seventies, Sanguillen and Simmons had the bad luck of excelling at a time of Johnny Bench, one of the best ever at his position. Simmons is also hurt by the struggles of the Cards in that decade, and I'm struggling to think of a signature moment for Simmons, who also didn't play well in the postseason with Milwaukee. By contrast, Sanguillen played well in the 1971 World Series, and had the big game winning hit in Game 2 of the '79 Series. Along with that, Sanguillen was an offensive force and underrated defensively.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                          Joe Posnanski has advocated that voters be given a third option other than yes or no, something along the lines of "Let me think about it for a while." That might cover contingencies like this.
                          Why stop at just three options? Perhaps voters could have a multiple choice selection for each candidate on the ballot?

                          "Player ___________ is...
                          1. A no-brainer. Put him in on the first ballot! (Ken Griffey Jr.)
                          2. A solid addition to the Hall of Fame, but not an "inner circle" type. He deserves election, but not necessarily right away (Craig Biggio, Vladimir Guerrero)
                          3. Probably a Hall of Famer on the basis of his numbers, but I have reservations based on his character. Pass for now. (Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens)
                          4. A borderline candidate. He's better than some comparable inductees, but we need to review his case more closely before pulling the trigger (Larry Walker, Scott Rolen).
                          4a. Borderline candidate with good character/peripherals. (Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly)
                          4b. Borderline candidate with poor character/peripherals. (Dick Allen, Albert Belle)
                          5. Not a Hall of Famer, but worthy of some kind of recognition. One-and-done, but consider this a nod of appreciation for a memorable career. (Paul Konerko, Orlando Hernandez)
                          6. Absolutely, positively, not a Hall of Famer. In fact, why is this guy even on the ballot?" (Armando Benitez, Matt Stairs)
                          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                            This might be the best solution, in that it would avoid arbitrary milestones that (A) can be criticized, and (B) may tend to inject biases, positively or negatively, on borderline candidates. Adrian Beltre, for example, hasn't been to a slew of ASGs.
                            The best solution would be for the Hall of Fame to move to an MVP-style election system wherein each voter must rank his top X choices each year. We would have a much truer picture of the electorate's wishes under that kind of a system as Posnanski, James and many others have advocated for.
                            "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                            "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                            "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                            "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cougar View Post
                              Did you mean the opposite of this?
                              I meant "Was Carter THAT much better, defensively, than Simmons?" and have made a correction.
                              "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                              NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Brad Harris View Post
                                The best solution would be for the Hall of Fame to move to an MVP-style election system wherein each voter must rank his top X choices each year. We would have a much truer picture of the electorate's wishes under that kind of a system as Posnanski, James and many others have advocated for.
                                We talked about that when I worked on political campaigns. What is it called, instant runoff or something like that (sorry, trying to remember back a decade or more)? I heard it was the most fair way to hold an election, and would get around voters worrying about "wasting" a vote for the candidate they really want to vote for. Ranking candidates always sounded like a good idea to me back then, I never really thought about it in the MVP style of voting. Good call.
                                "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X