Comments on: Card of the Week: 1983 Topps #451 Ted Simmons Super Veteran (plus a bonus HOF poll) This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Andy Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:09:51 +0000 FWIW I agree with you but those are the guidelines I have been given.

By: Michael E Sullivan Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:03:03 +0000 Family site?

I don't write blue, but seemed like an appropriate there. It's in the language, as far as I'm concerned, and I expect any 6 year old to know and use it. But I'll respect the site conventions.

By: Andy Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:39:23 +0000 Great point but let's watch the language please.

By: Michael E Sullivan Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:37:58 +0000 It will be interesting to see what happens with Joe Mauer. He's on track to have the #1 catcher resume if he can stay a catcher with the same kind of numbers for another 4-5 years and then put in a few more average years as an platoon catcher or at 1B/DH. If he lasts like pudge (2300 games caught, holy [ed: feces]), he could blow everybody else out of the water, but that's obviously pretty unlikely.

By: John Q Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:09:07 +0000 It also seems that the writers/veterans have done a bad job in understanding the demands of catching and voting for catchers in general.

Also there seems to be a tremendous HOF in-balance in the list that Matt Y. posted @26.

There are 13 Catchers in the HOF, 10 started there career pre-1961 and only 3 have been elected since 1961. It seems like the median HOF catcher pre1961 is about 45 WAR, and the Median HOF catcher post1961 is 65WAR. This seems like a huge disparity. The only other position with this type of HOF standard disparity that I can think of is 3b and maybe 2b or CF to a lesser degree. Also it just doesn't make sense logically.

They never elected a catcher who played the bulk/prime of his career in the 60's. This seems odd to me and the notable omissions are Torre and Freehan. I'm pretty sure it's the only position not represented in the HOF from the 60's.

And a point I brought up on the Vlad thread is that the writers haven't expanded the HOF candidates even though the league has expanded by 14 teams since pre-1961. That would mean there's 14 extra catchers that you have today that you didn't have in pre-expansion times. So it's logical that you would probably have 2 more HOF candidates at Catcher.

Simmons got screwed basically because of this pre-expansion era mindset. Johnny Bench was the best National League catcher of the 70's and Fisk was the best from the American league so that's it. Simmons was the second best N.L. catcher so he doesn't get in. And the same kind of thinking hurts Munson to a degree.

IMO Torre, Simmons, Munson & Freehan should all be in the HOF.

By: John Q Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:39:49 +0000 Here's a re-post of what I put on the Vlad thread:

Catching is such a brutal position that it really needs to be looked at separately. And then it was even more brutal in early days of the game because the lack of protection available.

I think Catching also needs to be looked at with peak performance because of the limited careers of catchers, especially pre-60's.

Campanella also lost time in the majors because of segregation. He wasn't a full time player until he was 27 years old so that has to factor in the process.

Simmons and Torre to me should have been HOF years ago. Even a 54 WAR for Torre at 1b/3b is pretty damn good and then you factor that 40% of his career was a catcher...should be a no-brainer. Simmons got hurt by perception because he spent all those years as a fat over the hill DH/1B in Milwaukee/Atlanta.

Schalk and Ferrell are two of the worst mistakes/selections in the HOF. That would be like electing Bob Boone.

Lombardi was a mistake, kind of overrated and feasted on ww2 era pitching.

I don't really have a problem with Bresnahan when you factor the era he played (1897-1915). It just must have been a brutal job. It seems like he was very good/great player during his peak, 31WAR best 7 seasons.

Freehan is one of most underrated players of the last 50 years. Munson's career was cut short because of his death which I'm pretty sure if it didn't happen, would have been elected to the HOF.

Tenace is also one of the most underrated players of the last 50 years but only spent about 50% of his career at catcher, so I don't think he makes it.

Schang has good career value but was never a great player in his peak, only 24.9WAR best 7 seasons. Interesting character though, played mostly at catcher for 19 seasons before the ww2.

Porter was a very underrated player. One of the all time bad trades was when the Brewers traded him to K.C.. Porter also doesn't get enough credit for the '77-80 Royals.

Cocharane, Carter, Bresnahan, Dickey, Piazza score higher when you factor in peak, but essentially the same list overall. Schang drops from borderline status when you factor peak.

By: Michael E Sullivan Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:20:01 +0000 I think you guys have convinced me that Simmons should be a yes (I voted maybe). I should have looked at that list of catchers career WAR again (somebody linked it as part of the position players series a couple months back) before voting.

It seems I made the same sort of mistake that the voters made with Simmons. Not accounting for the shortness of most catcher's careers, and thus failing to properly understand what it means that that Bench, Fisk and Carter were not just ordinary hall of famers, but the best ever at their position. It means guys like Simmons belong in. If I revote will it change my vote, add a new vote or do nothing?

On another note, I don't like your third category on this ballot. Even if I thought Simmons would be a complete travesty to induct, I would hesitate to register a vote that suggests the voters denying his candidacy till now was all the evidence I needed. I know you are basically trying to get "in" "borderline" and "out" as categories, but I'm just saying. the voters are teh dumm! Ok not really always, but often enough.

By: Andy Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:00:46 +0000 Masternachos, I picked Simmons because of all the talk about him that came up on Steve's thread about Posada and 1000 RBI for catchers.

I saw that the VC rules have been changed but haven't even read it in detail yet.

By: Mark Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:11:42 +0000 I think Simmons should be in the Hall, he was definitely overshadowed by Johnny Bench and Gary Carter, but he had a great career. Simmons' numbers with the Braves are just terrible, but if he could have somehow hung around to reach some more milestones, like 1,400 RBI, 250 HRs, 2,500 hits, would that have helped his case for the Hall?

By: masternachos Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:09:04 +0000 Andy, I'm curious: Did you happen to choose Simmons (and give him a HOF poll) because you heard about the VC changes the other day? According to my 'calculations,' the best players to be on the ballot this winter are Ron Guidry and: Ted Simmons (who is eligible for the VC for the first time this year).
Of course, which ballot (Expansion, Golden Era, or Pre-Integration) a player is on is based upon 'dominance', so I am not sure if some other greats will be on there, too (Darrell Evans for instance).