Quote:
Originally Posted by btcarfagno
I agree with you regarding Freehan as being a viable name. He is realy forgotten but was an incredible defensive catcher who had two huge seasons where he was one of the best players at any position in the league and several others where he was pretty darn good.
I disagree regarding Simmons however. By my estimation it could be argued that he is one of the ten best catchers in baseball history. He hung around too long but by that point he was no longer a catcher. 1983 was his last as a catcher, and through the end of that season, his career OPS+ was 126 in 7,244 AB 95% of which were as a catcher. I like the win shares statistic. Do you know how many catchers in the history of baseball had 10 consecutive 20+ win share seasons? Three. Yogi Berra 12 straight, Mike Piazza ten stright and Ted Simmons ten straight. To be fair, Johnny Bench had fourteen straight years of 19+ win shares. Still, that is some really good company to keep.
By using Munson as a comparison, you give Munson credit for not having a career end slope. His career OPS+ would have dropped had he been around to have a natural career arc.
Simmons had the fourth most hits in baseball history as a catcher. For his career, only two catchers had more total bases than he did (Fisk and Pudge). He also has the ninth most hits in history for a switch hitter.
JAWS ranks Simmons tenth in baseball history as a catcher. Behind Bench, Carter, Rodriguez, Fisk, Piazza, Berra, Mauer, Dickey, Cochrane. Ahead of the likes of Hartnett, Ewing, Munson, Lombardi, Posey, Bresnahan, Schalk, Campanella, Ferrell.
Tom C
|
Simmons was a slightly below average defensive player at a position that is primarily know for defense. He had a negative total zone rating and a dWAR of 4.7. If you are going to be that bad defensively, you should be a great hitter like Mike Piazza.
Munson and Freehan are top 25 in dWAR. Of the top 25, only 5 have an OPS+ of 110 or more, Bench, Carter and Fisk plus Munson and Freehan.. Great defensively and above average offensively should be in the HOF.
Hartnett had more WAR despite playing 466 less games. Had a higher dWAR despite using inferior equipment, of the top 25 in dWAR only Ray Schalk played prior to WW2. He also had an OPS+ of 126. I will take him over Simmons.
Ewing played in the 19th century. Most of those guys wouldn't get elected today. He is in representative of his era.
Munson only played 9 1/2 seasons because he died in a plane crash. If he had been able to finish his career, his OPS+ would have dropped, but his WAR would have exceeded Simmons. His WAR7 was higher than Simmons.
Posey is still playing. His HoF worthiness is yet to be determined. His WAR7 is already higher than Simmons despite only playing 7 full seasons.
Schalk was the best defensive catcher when he was elected. He is a weak, but understandable pick. He wouldn't be in today, but you don't kick guys out.
Campanella has more dWAR and a higher OPS+ than Simmons. His WAR suffers from only playing 9 1/2 seasons. His first full season was at age 27 because he was black and banned from playing those early years in the majors. I will take him over Simmons.
Bresnahan has a higher dWAR and OPS+ than Simmons. His WAR is lower because he played 1000 less games than Simmons. Like Ewing he is in as a representative of his era. He wouldn't be elected today.
Lombardi and Ferrell should have never been elected. When your comparables are dead ball era players and two of the worst HOF picks, that isn't a good case. When Munson and Freehan get elected and about a dozen other guys get elected, then Simmons should be considered. He is not some slam dunk pick.