Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How is Ted Simmons not in HOF?

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

  • Freakshow
    replied
    Originally posted by Gold Pinstripes View Post
    During the seventies, Sanguillen and Simmons had the bad luck of excelling at a time of Johnny Bench
    All players with 900+ G at catcher, 25+ WAR debuting 1962-79:
    Code:
    Rk             Player WAR/pos OPS+ Rfield   PA From   To
    1        Johnny Bench    75.0  126   72.3 8674 1967 1983
    2         Gary Carter    69.9  115  112.1 9019 1974 1992
    3        Carlton Fisk    68.3  117   27.2 9853 1969 1993
    4         Ted Simmons    50.1  118  -33.6 9685 1968 1988
    5      Thurman Munson    45.9  116   31.5 5905 1969 1979
    6      Darrell Porter    40.7  113    9.1 6570 1971 1987
    7        Jim Sundberg    40.5   90  114.1 6899 1974 1989
    8       Lance Parrish    39.3  106   39.8 7797 1977 1995
    9    Manny Sanguillen    27.5  102   41.1 5383 1967 1980
    10          Bob Boone    27.3   82  105.3 8148 1972 1990
    11      Butch Wynegar    26.3   93   53.9 5067 1976 1988
    12       Rick Dempsey    25.3   87   71.4 5407 1969 1992

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
    I didn't (and don't) have any party affiliation, just went with the candidate I wanted to win. .
    I respect that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I do mind, which is why I won't do it. :! That and I have no party affiliation. Or candidate affiliation for that matter.
    I minded too, so I gave up on the civilian world and went back into the Army. I didn't (and don't) have any party affiliation, just went with the candidate I wanted to win. Anyway, all beside the point. Ted Simmons will always get my vote for the Hall, no matter how that vote is calculated or conducted.
    Last edited by Herr28; 03-30-2014, 10:47 AM. Reason: Cleaning it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Herr28 View Post

    Good way to make a lot of money fast, if you don't mind the masks you have to wear and the same old tired lines you have to regurgitate.
    I do mind, which is why I won't do it. :! That and I have no party affiliation. Or candidate affiliation for that matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    And you came out sane?
    I don't want to ever shake another hand, see another fake smile, or talk about "kitchen table" issues again! Ugh, the backslapping and butt-kissing, money and power mongering, having to meet all the "right" people and making "friends" to bring along their supporters. . .

    Good way to make a lot of money fast, if you don't mind the masks you have to wear and the same old tired lines you have to regurgitate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
    I worked on political campaigns.
    And you came out sane?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Gold Pinstripes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hairmetalfreek
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X