Hall of Fame Trial - Ted Simmons

[danzig6767]

Simmons played in two very pitcher friendly ballparks,that needs to be factored in.

 

I'd vote yes on him and no doubt before i'd put in Rice

[RoseBowlMtg]

BuckyRules and once again I agree with your name completely. I was not comparing Simba to Piazza to degrade Piazza. Piazza has been an incredible hitter but I assume you didn't realize that what you probably think is a sure fire HOF lock for Piazza that his career numbers do not dominate Simmons. And you can't criticize Simmons for breaking into the majors earlier and being the best hitter on his team for a decade. I believe the when you degrade Simmons by saying "compiling" tell me another player who lead his team in RBI's 7 straight years. If compiling is a generous rip ala Don Sutton's career you probably don't realize that stat. That still remains a stat that has not been bettered. That to me is not a compiler. Check out the intentional walks if you want to see if Simba was a compiler. If you really want to look at these numbers let's discuss since you say Fisk defense is far superior but in their head to head years Fisk never bettered Simmons.

 

This is an interesting breakdown comparison to show what kind of hitter each was. Let's look at the BB/K breakdown in the Cards/Red Sox years:

 

...............BB/K

72: 52/83 v 29/57 Pretty close

73: 37/99 v 61/47 what happened? One got better and the other got worse

74: 24/23 v 47/35 20 HR's 103 rbi's and 35 K's vs 11/26 with 23

75: 27/32 v 63/35 18/100 with 35 K's vs 10/32 witn 32 K's

76: 56/71 v 73/35 3 straight years of 35 K's

77: 75/85 v 79/39 Oh oh slipped to 39

78: 71/83 v 77/39

79: 10/38 v 61/34 WOW

80: 36/62 v 59/45

 

Only 1972 was close than Fisk turned into what he was and Simmons struck out fewer than most all run producers for a good long stretch.

 

Let's look at the BB/W %:

 

72: 38.52 v 33.72

73: 27.21 v 51.69

74: 51.07 v 57.32

75: 45.76 v 64.29

76: 44.10 v 76.60

77: 46.88 v 66.95

78: 46.10 v 66.38

79: 20.83 v 64.21

80: 36.74 v 56.73

 

Simmons was better every year from 73-80 than Fisk's best year of 51.07 which came only because he had 187 AB's it could be argued.

 

Yes walks and K's aren't everything but it does tell you who is the more disciplined. It does show to me who the better hitter was for that period and if you look at the numbers please debate that if you want.

 

Does anyone remember how Fisk invented the 3 hour game?

 

Please explain the term compiler? Does that mean a person who led all switch hitters in HR's in his league?

 

I would love to discuss anyone who would actually break down a year and tell me that Fisk was better.

[pogokat]

The next Veterans Committee vote is in 2007, Fingers, Molitor, Sutton, Yount, Brock, Gibson, Musial and Schoendienst are all on the committee, as are Bench and Berra..........I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ted get in.

 

Can't the veterans committee only elect people who stayed on the ballot (min 5% of the vote) for 15 years???

 

If so, then they can't elect simmons, can they?

[rwa12]

Pogo, that is what I thought too, but when I checked the site, I didn't see anything stating that, this is what I found in regards to players trying to gain entry via the Veterans Committee

 

"(A) Major League players who competed in any portion of at least ten (10) championship seasons and who have been retired as players for at least twenty-one (21) years. In addition, players whose service in the Negro Baseball Leagues prior to 1946 and the Major Leagues thereafter total at least ten years or portions thereof are defined as eligible candidates. "-www.baseballhalloffame.com

[splitterpfj]

Guess I should brush up on the Veterans Committee rules. As far as I know, you don't have to get 5% for 15 years (Phil Rizutto couldn't possibly have done that, could he?).

 

I had forgotten about the 21 years retired rule though, looks like Ted won't be eligible for consideration in '07.

 

Here's a look at the Veterans Committee results from '05.

www.baseballhalloffame.or...050302.htm

[RoseBowlMtg]

Looks like I have a little time to get the word out: http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/roll.gif

 

Wasn't there something a couple of years ago allowing miscalculations like this correctable? I am comparing Simmons to Fisk. Others would be even more obvious.

 

I just think the guy who had the most hits for his position should be in the Hall. If not let's eliminate the leader in hits per position if hits are not that important:

 

1B: Murray

2B: Wagner

3B: Brett

SS: Wagner

LF: Musial

CF: Cobb

RF: Aaron

C: Fisk (2356)

 

C: Simmons (2472) 17 votes

 

I could also see how many HOF's Simmons beats at other positions but that might be overkill.

 

Why???? A small market player who got overshadowed by Johnny Bench rightfully so for the first half of the 70's and didn't come into the Big Leagues the same year and town as Peter Gammons.

[pogokat]

did you guys see this?

 

"FAN SUPPORT: Fans wishing to voice their opinion in support of their favorite candidates may do so in two ways: by sending a single letter to Hall of Fame Veterans Committee, 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326, or by logging on to baseballhalloffame.org and sending us an e-mail. The Hall of Fame does not forward petitions to the voting members, but makes all correspondence known to any interested voting members, as well as to the Screening Committee members and Historical Overview Committee members."

 

Sounds like some people might want to fire off a letter

 

Brett--ron santo patiently awaits his letter from you...

[gregmag]

A rundown of RBM's arguments in favor of Simmons:

 

-- Leading your team in RBIs for seven straight years should get you into the Hall of Fame.

 

-- Having a better BB/K ratio than another player proves that you're a better hitter than that player.

 

-- Having more hits than any other player at your position should be an automatic ticket to the HoF, and if it isn't, then all players who led their positions in hits should be disqualified, without regard to anything else they did.

 

-- Picking a random, midcareer age at which to compare two players is automatically a valid basis for assessing their relative values, even if one of the two started earlier and declined fast.

 

Look, I voted yes on Simmons, and even I think these are some silly arguments.

 

I would love to discuss anyone who would actually break down a year and tell me that Fisk was better.

 

Based on their rate stats, and bearing in mind that Fisk got to play in Fenway, they're extremely close:

 

Simmmons: .285 / .348 / .437, OPS+ 117

Fisk: .269 / .341 / .457, OPS+ 118

 

Fisk has a decent edge in OPS, but OPS+ cleans out his park advantage. In essence, their rate stats mark them as equals. The thing is, Fisk caught 450 more games than Simmons. Given the equal rate stats, that makes Fisk's career a lot more valuable than Simmons' career. I buy the argument that Simmons belongs in the Hall, but you have to cook the numbers and twist the logic pretty badly to argue that Simmons was better than Fisk.

 

Also, any comparison of either man as a hitter to Piazza is absurd. Yes, Piazza played in a hitter's era, but he also played in two terrible parks for hitters. All of that comes out in the wash of OPS+:

 

Piazza: .315 / .385 / .562, OPS+ 150.

 

Mike has caught 350 fewer games than Simmons, so I accept that he'll drop some as he wears out, and he'll never come close to Fisk's longevity. But I'm not sure it's physically possible for him to drop anywhere near Simmons' and Fisk's rate stats, even if he plays for a couple of years after he's dead. Piazza is in his own class among catchers as a hitter.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

Let's see if this helps anyone decide. I compared Simmons to a control group of post WW 2 Hall of Fame catchers on a per season basis to see how he stacks up. I used 162 games played as one season. The control group consists of Bench, Berra, Campanella, Carter and Fisk. The average seasons played for the control group was affected by Campanella's short MLB career. S=seasons played

 

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVE OPS

15.1 71 163 32 3 16 92 1 .285 .785 Simmons

 

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVE OPS

12.7 81 154 26 2 26 97 4 .271 .815 Group

 

As you can see, Ted beat the group in hits, doubles, triples and average per season, but fell short in homers, rbi, steals and OPS.

 

In my opinion, a catcher that played the equivalent of 15 full seasons, averaging 92 rbi per season, with a career average that far above the standard for his position deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I realize the others had more power, and I realize I haven't accounted for defense at a crucial position, but to me the hits and rbi over that period of time say enough.

[pogokat]

It's worth saying that the two best offensive catchers in history aren't in your list---being Josh Gibson and Piazza...which probably doesn't help simmons' case...

 

how does simmons stack against guys like Mickey Cochrane, bill freehan, gabby hartnett, and bill dickey???

[splitterpfj]

Hi pogo-

 

True, I didn't compare him to everyone I could have. What I was trying to do was compare him to the most similar list I could build. Gibson's stats won't work because he wasn't allowed into MLB, although I would never argue that Simmons was in Gibson's class. To me, the game was too different for the pre WW 2 guys, at any position, those guys tend to have higher averages, more steals, and lower power numbers. I don't think it's fair to compare guys who played during segregation, all or mostly day games, etc to guys from more recent decades. Piazza's not there because he's not a current Hall of Famer, no other reason.

[pogokat]

To me, the game was too different for the pre WW 2 guys, at any position, those guys tend to have higher averages, more steals, and lower power numbers.

 

I understand this, but i think it actually helps build a case for some of the more modern guys anyway...because well, they did it against tougher competition..although the pitching ranks may have been thinned out a bit...and they weren't dying of tuberculosis or anything..

 

I think Ted should be helped by the era he played in..the 70's depressed runs quite a bit comparitively speaking...Ted's last full year was 1985...he lost out on a big spike in hitting production that a guy like Fisk took advantage of (87-91) I think that HELPS Ted's case...as he shouldn't be penalized because he stopped being productive right before the start of the juiced ball era...

 

i think this argument applies for alot of the guys weve talked about so far like rice, murphy, etc...their productive days ended right at the beginning of the steroid era, so they were contemporaries, however briefly with barry bonds and the likes...though they don't fairly compare to them...

 

I think these guys (simmons, Murphy, Rice...) are completely screwed by the fact that their best playing days occured in the late 70's and early 80's...something just causes that era to be totally ignored...

[splitterpfj]

The next player up is from that same era, then we're going to have a completely different type of discussion.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Fisk v Simmons

 

gregmag please read this link before saying that my extra points are the reason I think Simmons should be in the HOF:

 

Fisk, Carter and Simmons played at the same time so a head to head comparison with the catcher with the most hits in the HOF is a fair way to state my case I believe.

 

BTW Simmons production tops Hartnett, Lombardi and the rest. Fisk is the best comparison imo since his career numbers almost match Simmons and he played 8 years longer in favorable ballparks. More HR's but less production for better teams. Interesting debate imo.

 

Please read then tell me which years Fisk outperformed Simmons.

[gregmag]

The article you linked to does exactly what you do -- picks the numbers that support its position and ignores everything else. I already made my case. They were nearly identical hitters, but Fisk did it longer, and his defensive reputation is much stronger everywhere I look. That makes Fisk an obvious Hall of Famer and puts Simmons on the bubble.

 

Greg.

[RoseBowlMtg]

gregmag just a slight correction:

 

Simmmons: .285 / .348 / .437, OPS+ 117

Fisk: .269 / .341 / .457, OPS+ 118

 

 

Simmons: .285/ .348/ .437/ (OPS+ 11http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/glasses.gif

Fisk: .269/ .341/ .457/ (OPS+ 117) Simmons has the higher OPS+

 

Why I think OPS+ does not tell the whole story:

 

In 1972 Fisk had an OPS+ of 162 vs Simmons 127. To me that looks like Fisk had a far superior year. Let's look:

 

1972......H...2B..3B..HR..RBI..AVE..TB

Fisk.....134..28..9..22..61...293..246

Simba..180..36..6..16..96...303..276

 

With Simmons 58 extra base hits and 122 and singles knocked in 80 teammates while Fisk's 61 extra base hits and 73 singles knocked in 39 teammates. Boston scored more than 200 more runs than St. Louis did that year.

 

An OPS+ of 162 v 127 does not show that Fisk knocked in less than 1 half as many teammates as Simmons. Just by looking at OPS+ does not show what a player does with his production. 22-61 v 16-96 for a team that score 200+ fewer runs tells a more complete story imo.

 

That being said: Simmons had a higher career OPS+ than a first time HOFamer along with more hits, rbi's, ave etc.... OPS+ does not show it all.

[Bucky Rules]

RBM -- suffice it to say that your arguments haven't persuaded me.

 

Quote:

---

Yes walks and K's aren't everything but it does tell you who is the more disciplined. It does show to me who the better hitter was for that period and if you look at the numbers please debate that if you want.

---

Actually walks and K's are closer to meaningless in and of themselves. It alone doesn't do much of anything to show you who the better hitter is. But you seem to be ignoring everything that I've said. Because I've already conceded the point that Simmons was probably a better hitter than Fisk (marginally).

 

Quote:

---

Piazza has been an incredible hitter but I assume you didn't realize that what you probably think is a sure fire HOF lock for Piazza that his career numbers do not dominate Simmons.

---

Yes, they do dominate Simmons. It's not even close. You want to compare the career numbers of a 21 year career vs those of a 13 year career, and say the numbers are close. That's very creative logic, but it doesn't fly with me. As I've said before, you're not helping your case by bringing Piazza into the equation.

 

Quote:

---

Does anyone remember how Fisk invented the 3 hour game?

---

So the fact that you feel the games he caught took too long, is reason to question his worthiness of the HOF in relation to Simmons??? I don't get it. What's your point?

 

Quote:

---

Please explain the term compiler?

---

In the context that I used it in, it means that - relative to Piazza's career - Simmons' career numbers only stack up, because he's had a career that spanned 8 additional seasons. I think that's fairly obvious to any unbiased observer.

 

Quote:

---

Does that mean a person who led all switch hitters in HR's in his league?

---

Great... and Carlos Lee leads all #45's in HRs this season. I don't want to be a smart ass here, but some of your points just don't mean all that much in terms of HOF consideration. When there's about 12 switch hitters in the NL at any given time, it's not necessarily a big deal to lead them in HRs.

 

Quote:

---

I would love to discuss anyone who would actually break down a year and tell me that Fisk was better.

---

I've already given my thoughts on this.

[RoseBowlMtg]

BuckyRules I will give you one thing: BUCKY RULES!!!! ROSE BOWL!!!!

 

You pick many of my littler points which doesn't acknowledge that Fisk played until he was 45, 8 yrs after Simmons retired and averaged 48 ribbies a yr with a .256 ave and 14 dingers to get his numbers close to Simmons.

 

Which player got their 1000th career RBI at age 38 and which at age 30? This to me does show who the more productive hitter was in their primes. Fisk added numbers at a 14-48 clip from age 38-45 ending up with fewer total RBI's.

 

BB/K's does not tell it all just as intentional walks doesn't tell it all. Just like 47,35,35,35,37,39,34 doesn't tell it all but it is some pretty impressive K numbers for a guy who leads his team in RBI's all those years. HOF by itself? No but no one has ever led their team 8 consecutive years.

 

As for Piazza: I have said he has had an incredible career and will be a lock for the HOF so that's why I am not comparing Simmons career to his directly. You say 21 yrs vs 13 yrs which is an interesting slant. I just compared them up to Piazza's current age to show that Simmons numbers were pretty good compared to someone who is a virtual lock for the HOF.

 

3 hr game: Just a p!!ssed off point I had about Fisk. He took forever. No big deal!

 

Compiler to me doesn't take into effect leading all catchers in hits and RBI's in the 70's. Forget that lead all HOF catchers in hits and only behind Yogi in ribbies. Add up 90 ribbie yrs for HOF catchers and speak compiler. If a compiler is a consistent producer for 15 years of starting at catcher, I will take that as a compliment.

 

switch hitter HR's in the NL. Remember when Chris Berman had a stupid quiz show on ESPN he asked who is the all-time switch hitting leader for HR's in the NL. Someone guess Simmons and Berman said no: Pete Rose, Boomer said which was wrong. Just another time he was overlooked for what I agree is a meaningless stat.

 

To me if you look at the year by year comparison along with the career numbers, there is no question who was a more productive hitter. I have not been convinced by anyone who analyzed their head to head stats. I am open to debate though.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Another reason Simba should be in the HOF!

 

Dan Quisenberry, on Ted Simmons: "He didn't sound like a baseball player." He said things like "Nevertheless" and "if, in fact."

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

You pick many of my littler points

---

No... I didn't. I addressed each and everyone of your points. And you continue to argue the same point over and over ad nauseam about their year to year/head to head stats, in spite of the fact that I conceded that point loooooooonnnnnnnggggggg ago. More often than not Simmons will win the head to head matchup of annual stats. As I said several posts ago, much of that has to do with the fact that Fisk had chronic knee problems that forced him to miss much more time than Simmons. Simmons had a pretty darn healthy career. If you wanted to look at hitting rates such as OPS as opposed to hits/HR/RBIs/etc, my guess is that Fisk would hold his own on a season to season basis.

 

But, if I had the choice between a healthy Fisk and a healthy Simmons, I know my choice would've been Fisk. As I said in that same post, the difference is defense. While the hitting was comparable although marginally in Simmons favor, the defense wasn't. You're not going to change my mind on this. Especially since you're hell bent on repeating over and over the same point I conceded 15 posts ago. It's the most valid point you've had, but it still ignores many other pertinent factors. Either come up with a new argument - preferably something better than BB/K ratios and who led the league in switch-hitting HRs, or drop it.

[RoseBowlMtg]

If you wanted to look at hitting rates such as OPS as opposed to hits/HR/RBIs/etc, my guess is that Fisk would hold his own on a season to season basis.

 

 

I thought we should look at their careers at RISP and see if that tells us why Simmons was such a better run producer than Fisk even though he hit fewer HR's

 

Oh I did address the defense and showed the year to year betterment by Simba while you just have a feeling Fisk was "much" better.

 

Let's look at "clutch" hitting that gets so much criticism:

 

 

 

 

SIT AB H 2B 3B HR BB IBB HBP SF OBP SLG OPS AVG+ SLG+ BPS

Carlton Fisk NO-RISP 6438 1731 314 34 292 530 0 100 0 0.334 0.464 0.798 0.269 0.464 0.733

Carlton Fisk RISP 2318 625 107 13 84 319 105 43 79 0.358 0.436 0.793 0.261 0.421 0.682

Ted Simmons NO-RISP 6171 1721 342 29 167 479 0 27 0 0.334 0.425 0.758 0.279 0.425 0.704

Ted Simmons RISP 2509 751 141 18 81 376 188 12 100 0.380 0.467 0.847 0.288 0.449 0.737

 

The BPS for all the stat gear heads out there is interesting:

 

Fisk: NO-RISP: .733/ RISP: .682

Simmons: NO-RISP: .704/ RISP: .737

 

A .051 decrease for Fisk in his career and a .033 increase in Simmons or Simmons better by .055 which shows why he knocked in more runs with a worse hitting team in a less friendly hitting park.

 

Simmons 1171 TB to Fisk's 1090 in his 126 more hits while hitting .288 with risp vs .279 with no-risp. While Fisk hit only .10 less than Simmons with no-risp at .269, Fisk hit .261 with risp a .027 difference over their careers.

 

That tells me how Simmons knocked in more runs with less HR's. Clutch hitting can be looked down upon but I think it shows something over a career. Simmons got better in the clutch and Fisk got worse.

 

Sorry if I am being persistent but it really does bug me that Simmons only got 17 votes for the HOF while at best a similar player got in on the first ballot. This is a great site with many great baseball fans and minds so what better place to have a detailed discussion on a HOF mistake imo. Sorry if I am repetitive but this is just not right imo.

[brettac1]

Do you think if he wasn't a Brewer that you would feel the same way? I'm just wondering. I voted no on him because I think he was a compiler who never dominated, and I feel the same way about Fisk. I do think, I guess, that if Fisk is in I guess that maybe Simmons should be. I just don't feel as strongly about him, though.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Do you think if he wasn't a Brewer that you would feel the same way? I'm just wondering. I voted no on him because I think he was a compiler who never dominated, and I feel the same way about Fisk. I do think, I guess, that if Fisk is in I guess that maybe Simmons should be. I just don't feel as strongly about him, though.

 

Great question bretac: OK here is how my fascination with Simba started. In the early 70's I had a buddy of mine who was always Johnny Bench in our strike out games. I wanted to be another catcher that could match up with him so in 72 I became Manny Sanguillan. I loved the way he swung at everything. In 74 I saw this catcher with really long hair playing for the Cards coming off of 96 and 91 RBI years so I started keeping an eye on him. Suffice to say Simmons became my strike out name. I thought there was going to be no way to surpass Bench but then he hit .332 in 75 and Bench only knocked in more than 100 runs once after 75 so I had a worthy argument. That is on a year to year basis. So that's how it all started. When Simba got traded to Milwaukee that was a bonus but to be honest his 10 years with the Cards were better. Was a coincidence that we made the playoffs the first two years he was here and we had two Cy Young's and an MVP pitcher? An extremely smart man who was different than many ballplayers who I appreciated.

 

So my fascination with Simba started in 74!

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

Oh I did address the defense and showed the year to year betterment by Simba while you just have a feeling Fisk was "much" better.

---

You quoted fielding % numbers as if that is some sort of complete analysis of a catcher's defensive ability. Please. If you can find one credible person anywhere (in print) to claim that Simmons was comparable defensively to Fisk, I will give up this argument. You won't, because anyone with any credibility knows that there was no comparison. Fisk was very good. Simmons was average to below average.

 

And then you go on to continue to pound the Simmons was a better hitter drum... EARTH TO RBM -- I've conceded that point, as long as you're no longer attempting to say that he was Piazza-like better. He was marginally better, but still comparable. But, I do find it funny that I suggest you look at year to year OPS, and you ignore that and move right on to BARISP... that's very telling to me. Based on the debating tactics I've seen from you so far, my guess is that OPS figures don't support your argument.

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

Was a coincidence that we made the playoffs the first two years he was here and we had two Cy Young's and an MVP pitcher?

---

Well... it was a coincidence that Vukovich and Rollie Fingers came over in the same off-season.