Ted Simmons HOF

by Molina4MVP on Feb 11, 2008 9:55 PM EST Comment 23 comments

Ok, I'm kinda on a Hall of Fame kick right now, so I'm just gonna keep on going. I was wondering if anyone knew why Ted Simmons didn't get enough recognition for the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility (when he received too few votes to remain on the ballot).

I'm not saying he's a gauranteed Hall of Famer, but I believe he should have a shot at it.

He was a 9 time all-star, silver slugger, All-Time Hits leader for catchers, and ranks in the top 100 of all players in hits (87th), RBIs (65th), Intentional Walks (16th), and Doubles (59th).

Was it because he wasn't on a bunch of contending teams (only made the playoffs one time in '82 as a Brewer when he lost the WS to the Cards)?

I was just curious if anyone remembered the '93 voting (his only year of eligibility) and knew if there were extenuating circumstances as to why he didn't get any votes.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

For Reference

For a quick reference at Simmons' stats, here are links for his Baseball Reference site: http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/simmote01.shtml and his Wikipedia Site: http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/simmote01.shtml

by Molina4MVP on Feb 11, 2008 10:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Simmons

Given that BJ Surhoff is in his top three comps, that doesn't really bode well for old Ted. I'm too young to remember him as a Cardinal, but I do remember him as a Brewer on those good/great Brew Crew teams of the early 80's with Yount, Molitor, etc.

I think he's a borderline guy, so I really don't understand how he didn't get a large enough percentage of the vote to stay eligible. Even though Surhoff is in his comps, there's 5 other HOF (or future HOF) catchers in the top 10. Along with Bench and Fisk, he had to rate up there with the best catchers of his era, but one of those guys changed how the position was played and won 4 World Series (Bench), and the other played in Boston and Chicago, while Porter was stuck playing for underachieving Cardinal teams and then for Milwaukee teams that were really good, but that nobody saw because, well, they're in Milwaukee. I think he may merit some attention from the veteran's committee at some point, but I highly doubt that he'll ever get in.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Feb 11, 2008 11:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

BJ??? !

Wow, can you even begin to imagine the extra grind on Simmons body starting 1771 games at catcher as compared to Surhoffs 708 games. Still, Simmons managed to best Surhoff in every given offensive category in spite of Surhoffs lighter physical load.

Ted played 143 more games than Surhoff, that speaks even louder in terms of stamina, though they basically had very similiar careers in terms of time on the field.

Simba was a mighty, mighty man. Too bad Surhoff's even in his comps, seems unfair in some ways.

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 12, 2008 5:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To quote "Total Baseball"

Simmons was an outstanding hitter for a catcher, unfortunately he wasn't an outstanding catcher for a catcher. His receiving, pitcher handling and throwing were adequate at best. In 1973 he led all NL catchers in assists, but much of that reflects liberties runners were taking. Ted always seemed like a first baseman waiting to happen.

At bat rather than behind it, he was one of the best, hitting over .300 seven times in his sixteen seasons as a regular. Five times he had 20 or more homers, and he had eight seasons of 90 rbi or more.

It seems that just as Johnny Bench's catching was over-rated, Simmons wasunder-rated. My guess is he will eventually get in, but it will probably take a while longer

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Feb 12, 2008 2:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Johnny Bench -- Overrated?

Are you kidding me? He completely changed the way the position was played in an era where the stolen base became an art. Imagine Yadi's defensive prowess coupled with a 25-30 HR bat every year -- that was how good Bench truly was. A lot of the modern catching fundamentals are based on things that Bench brought to the game in the 1970's: positioning the throwing hand behind the glove, the short-arm throw to second to save throwing time, setting up late to not give the batter an idea of where the pitch was going, setting up your feet with runners on related to where the pitch was going to be so you had a better shot to throw out a stealing runner, etc.

Simmons' catching credentials aren't overrated, his statistics show that he wasn't above average behind the dish. He wasn't as bad as Piazza, but you can easily make the case that Bench and Fisk were much more complete players than Simmons was, regardless of how good he was with the stick.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Feb 12, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Modern catching fundamentals

First off, I have to admit I never saw bench in his prime. I started watching baseball in the 1980s by which time Bench wasn't so hot of a catcher. But in any case a few sources I have read indicate he is at least somewhat over rated. As far as how he changed the game, I believe that was much more the product of modern glove (mitt) technology:

"Today's mitts have multiple breaks and a long oval pocket, more like a first baseman's," says Battey. "When I played, we had a pocket but no breaks, and we caught two-handed so the ball wouldn't pop out." One-handed catching became possible with the hinged mitt, popularized by Johnny Bench and Randy Hundley in the late 1960s. With these, a spring-action hinge snaps the mitt closed on contact with the ball.
The ancestry of the flex-hinge catcher's mitt goes back to the first baseman's mitts of the 1950's. Logically one might suppose that former first basemen (like Bob Tillman or J.C. Martin), converted to catchers in large numbers in the early 1960's, would have been the ones to introduce the mitt. But in fact, the flex-hinge catcher's mitt was introduced by Randy Hundley in 1966 and Johnny Bench in 1968, neither of whom had ever played first base. (http://members.tripod.com/bb_catchers/catchers/equip1.htm)

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Feb 12, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, so

What does that have to do with chucking the helmet when you go for a popup, a short-armed throw, and setting up late? That's all Bench, as pretty much all of his contemporaries said. Imagine Yadi dropped back in the 70's, doing everything he does mechanically, and that's what Bench was.

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Feb 12, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First off I never claimed it all had to do with

mitt technology. But for the record better mits allowed for single handed catching which inturn made doing things quicker, possible.

As far as chucking the helmet, again this was a sign of the times as (I believe) players only started wearing helmets in the 1960s and weren't required to do so until 1971.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Feb 14, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no respect

for Simba...only 3 catchers (Bench, Carter, and Fisk) have made the Hall among catchers that played since the 1970's. Not that any others really deserved it other than Simmons. Munson and Bob Boone are the only ones to even stay on the ballot after their first year of eligibility. Unfortunately I think we'll see Piazza and Pudge enshrined before Ted. Would the Cardinals retire his number if elected? Sutter pitched just four seasons for the Cardinals.

"Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead!" - Wayne Hagin after the cardinals snapped a losing streak

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Feb 12, 2008 3:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Simmons

I'll pass on the Simmons HOF debate but as a teen in the 70s (yeah, I'm old), I'll comment on my observations of Simmons

horrible luck having a career that parralled Bench - Bench was the darling of everyone and understandably so but there was a great Simba in his shadow
Ted one of my all-time favorites - showed up everyday for a hard 9, took no crap off of anyone, was a line drive machine
with no defensive prowess and Darrell Porter available, he never had a chance with Whitey - his raised the biggest ruckus in Cardinal Nation I have ever seen
last week I caught a few innings of classic Reds baseball on FOS Sports Ohio - Tom Seaver no-hitter (unfortunately against the Cards) - Simmons had such a classic swing - if it was in the strike zone, he was hammering and 3 times out of ten it was a line drive to an open spot
anyone who can catch that many games and smoke cigarettes at the time has to be a tough guy

I'd applaud if a made the Hall of Fame

by Hinkster on Feb 12, 2008 8:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

btw

I'd have no problem with a big number 23 displayed prominently beyond the fence at Busch III..........right behind number 20 would be appropriate........who do you think drove him in from scoring position more than anyone else?

by Hinkster on Feb 12, 2008 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

simba

he defense may be avg, but his numbers with the stick are outstanding, he is in the top ten in almost every offensive statistic for catchers, in the top 5 for most. If he would have played on one of the coasts he would be in. carter played for the mets, fisk for boston/ chicago, and bench is the greatest catcher of all time.

I have my doubts if he will ever get in though, its kinda sad.

"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell

by elirock83 on Feb 12, 2008 10:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

mixed

since I don't give a flip about the HOF, my addition here is oblique. BUT... like Hinkster above, Teddy Bear was in the very shank of my best baseball days, and I loved him dearly.
One of the best pure line drive hitters I have ever seen -- and he did it equally well both sides of the plate.
BEHIND the plate, he was at the very least adequate, but I would add FEARLESS. I can still see him squatting his Cartman-like frame right in front of the plate, daring a runner to try to knock him over.

If Simba is put in the "no wheels" group {Joe Torre would be another example) he'd be one of the ten best ever.

p.s. tho' I disliked Mr. Bench in practically every sense, he remains hands-down the best defensive catcher I've ever seen.

by the Tewk on Feb 12, 2008 6:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You're absolutely right

that Bench, like him or not, was one of the best, if not the best, catcher of all time. As far as Simba in the hall that discussion mirrors one we've been having related to Yadi. If you're in the camp that catching defense isn't that important then Simba is a slam dunk hall of famer and amongst the best catchers of all time. He was, indeed, a tough guy and, as people noted at the time, hit the ball as consistently hard as anyone in the game. I, however, until otherwise convinced, am in the camp that says catching defense is a very important factor in winning baseball games. My Cardinal heritage may have something to do with that. McCarver, Porter,Pena, Matheny, and Yadi would all be considered better defensively than Simba and have all gotten the Cards into post season play. Ted was on some very talented teams and, as much as I liked him, I gave him some of the blame for them not being better. Given all of that, though, he still just misses my vote for the hall. As an old veteran of the 60's the memory of the Mad Hungarian pitching to the lion maned catcher warms my heart more than reruns of Woodstock.

by easy on Feb 12, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

catchers lead us to post-season?

perhaps.....no one will argue that Simmons was even an average defensive catcher or that defensive catchers are important but when you look at the Cardinal pitchng staffs of the Simmons era you find an aging Bob Gibson, Bob Forsch, John Denny, Al Hrabosky and not alot more.........perhaps Simmons was responsible to some difficult to measure degree for the poor pitching of the 1970s but I tend to blame the sorry pack of hurlers that dotted those rosters and the execs who hired them......Simmons would probably have looked alot more like Bench had he been catching a young Gibson, Carlton, Andujar, Tudor, Cox, Kile, Carpenter or any number of other talented pitchers that teamed with McCarver, Porter, Pena, Matheny and Yadi.

btw, I agree that catching defense if very important and that Bench was the best

by Hinkster on Feb 12, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep. But it could be argued that those guys

would not have been what they were with a lesser catcher. I'm not confident enough about this to argue that but I do believe that the pitcher/catcher relationship is an intimate one and that the majority of "old school" managers, coaches etc. would say the same. The "old school" folks have been proven wrong before and I don't know how we can measure this but Ted was the catcher for a very long time when the pitching seemed to be the culprit for some disappointing teams. I really did like Ted but those years were frustrating. I also think that there is only so much you can ask from one player before something has to give. The Cardinals were asking Ted to be the fulcrum of the offense, a task that none of the other catchers were asked to do. Something has to give when you're asking someone to do everything. TLR has only asked Matheny and Molina to do the job defensively and they have done the job. Simba may have been asked to do more than anyone, except Bench and a few others, can do.

by easy on Feb 12, 2008 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no doubt that defense is important...

but isn't it important at every position? Why focus so much on just catchers' defense. Their are plenty of sub-standard fielders in the Hall of Fame. The fact is Ted Simmons offensive numbers are amongst the best ever for catchers. They may not be HOF numbers for a third baseman or an outfielder but measured against just his peers at catcher they are surpassed by few.

"Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead!" - Wayne Hagin after the cardinals snapped a losing streak

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Feb 12, 2008 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yep....

You make a damn good point! The tradition of the no stick, all glove catcher cuts a couple of different ways.

Id rather have one deliver some offense. Whos to say Simmons handling of pitchers was also below average, from what I recall he was above average in that dept.?

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 13, 2008 5:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

more on Simba

the argument (catcher vs pitcher) does cut both ways but we can't blame Teddy for a decade of lousy pitching........the realtionship between pitcher and catcher is indeed intimate and that has been capitalized on much more in the last ten years (personal catchers, defensive specialists) than it was in the 1970s but I would say that guys like John Curtis, Lynn McGlothen, Don Durham, Reggie Cleveland and a thousand other below average pitchers of the 1970s would have been below average even if pitching to Johnny Bench..............man, that was a long sentence......I would propose that Johnny Bench made Billingham, Gullet, Nolan, Eastwick, Carroll, Borbon and others BETTER pitchers......Bench didn't teach them how to pitch, he made them comfortable, prevented runs and put them in a better position to win and keep the ERA low

Let's face it........Simba will not be in the HOF because other than losing in 82 with the Brewers, he had zilch in terms of post-season appearances

Being perhaps next in line behind Bench, Fisk & and a step ahead of Gary Carter (who likes this guy?) warrants HOF status for Simmons but I am in the minority.........maybe someday when the voters are in a gracious mood

by Hinkster on Feb 13, 2008 10:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Give US the vote!!

Good points all. I am obviously in the minority too! The attention Carter received from post season play worked well in his favor and the lack of it against a guy like Ted.

Of the Herzog departed, he's the one guy I wish had earned a WS ring as a Cardinal in 82.

If we can't be good, can we at least be lucky?

by cardschinmusic on Feb 14, 2008 4:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Voting for the Hall

The best HOF voting methodology would be a committee, independent of MLB and teams, led by guys like lboros and others who are somewhat objective, intelligent and capable of setting reasonable standards and making logical analysis. Most of the sportswriters and vote holders have no business making these decisions.

The only problem with this methodology would be it's value only going forward - they could not correct poor selections of the past nor rightfully honor, while alive, those who were jobbed.

So, it's probably best for this little imperfect process to continue on its merry imperfect way.

by Hinkster on Feb 14, 2008 8:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Simmons vs Fisk

The comparisons between Simmons and Fisk are remarkable and tilt slightly in favor of Simmons

Simmons Fisk Bench

Years 20 24 17 Games 2456 2499 2158
BA .285 .269 .267
Hits 2472 2356 2048
2B 351 421 381
HR 182 376 389
RBI 1389 1330 1376
OBP .341 .348 .342
SLUG% .457 .437 .476

Past Balls 182 129 97
Stolen Bases 1188 1302 610
Caught Steal 611 664 469
Assists 915 1048 850
PO 8906 11369 9249
Errors 130 155 97

Difference in put outs is obviously because Fisk caught more high strikeout pitchers.

Compare with Bench--very acceptable comparison.

Ted played for average Cardinal teams at best.
Bench played in several WS.
Fisk has THE HOMER in the play offs

I'm afraid Simmons will suffer because of these--too bad--I'd take him anyday--great hitter and Cardinal.

Simmons will suffer in HOF balloting because of th Boston and East Coast mentality.

by MikeCard6 on Feb 13, 2008 5:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cleaned up



            Simmons       Fisk      Bench

Years 20 24 17 Games 2456 2499 2158 BA .285 .269 .267 Hits 2472 2356 2048 2B 351 421 381 HR 182 376 389 RBI 1389 1330 1376 OBP .341 .348 .342 SLUG% .457 .437 .476

Passed Balls 182 129 97 Stolen Bases 1188 1302 610 Caught Steal 611 664 469 Assists 915 1048 850 PO 8906 11369 9249 Errors 130 155 97

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 15, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs