Simmons vs. Munson is the interesting question.
There are lots of exceptions on both sides, so this is more of a rule of thumb than a law, but a player usually gets into the HOF conversation when they get up to about 60 WAR. (Not saying that people are looking at their WAR, just that the time at which lots of people start saying "hall of fame? yeah, I can see it" usually happens right about the time a player reaches 60 WAR.)
This is a bad rule of thumb for catchers though. They miss so much time that very few catchers ever get that high. Heck, Yogi Berra didn't quite make it. Whatever the point is that catchers start becoming good candidates has got to be lower than that, unless you want, like, a total of four catchers in the hall. (Didn't check that number, but it's pretty low.) Ted Simmons is at 50, in a dead heat with Mark Langston. Now, some guys get in with that figure: Orlando Cepeda and Tony Lazzeri did, but it's pretty low for the hall of fame. For a catcher though, maybe it's okay. The only non-HOF catchers between him at the 60 WAR line are Joe Mauer (HOF status TBD) and Joe Torre (who was only sort of a catcher, and got in as a manager anyway). So anyways, it's pretty low, but maybe okay given that he was a catcher.
Now, Munson is at 46. Tied, down to the decimal place, with Bartolo Colon and Willie Wilson. If Simmons is at the "okay, I guess, considering that he's a catcher" point, Munson is really pushing the lower bounds of that. Catchers (that I recognize as such) between them: Gene Tennace, Ernie Lombardi, Buck Ewing, Wally Schang, Mickey Cochrane. All of those guys had more valuable careers than Munson, and, by HOF standards, they're a mixed bag. You also might not want to count Ewing as a 100% catcher, given that he played only a plurality of his innings there.
On that basis, I'd be inclined to say "yes" to Simmons and "no" to Munson.
But here's the thing that makes it interesting. At his best Munson was a lot better than Simmons. He accumulated a somewhat lower WAR total in a much shorter career. One way to measure this is by Wins Above Average (WAA); it's like WAR, but instead of comparing a player to a AAA scrub, it compares him to an average major league player. Simmons was worth 19 WAA, Munson was worth 25. And peak performance does make a difference to how valuable a player was - to win pennants you need above average players (just be definition). But of course just being a competent major leaguer is also valuable, and Simmons did a lot more of that than did Munson. (For obvious reasons.)
So basically I don't know how to think about them. They've both got cases, although built in very different ways. Whether both, or either, or neither, is deserving, I don't know.
|