Modern Era HOF Ballot: Who do you think should get in?

[clydepepper]

Luis Tiant
Marvin Miller
Alan Trammell
Ted Simmons
Tommy John
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Don Mattingly
Steve Garvey


My choices are in bold.

[dgo71]

Murphy definitely gets my vote. Tiant and Trammell are deserving too imo.

[packs]

Don Mattingly

[CW]

Weird... I thought Dale Murphy was already in.

[cardsfan44]

Ted Simmons to me is an issue one that got the shaft many years ago. He was essentially punished for not being in the same category as Johnny Bench. His numbers for a catcher should make him a lock

[bn2cardz]

Lou Whitaker... oh wait a second...

I like a few guys on the list, but in my opinion Marvin Miller is the most important and should've been in a long time ago.

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandBaseBallist

I like a few guys on the list, but in my opinion Marvin Miller is the most important and should've been in a long time ago.

+1 The others make the list of the "very good," but not HOF worthy.

[steve B]

Dwight Evans isn't even on the list? Some cutoff date thing?

[packs]

I'm having trouble understanding why Miller is even included. Every other name on that list is a former player. Why would Miller not have to sit out until the next Executives vote?

[Peter_Spaeth]

None of the above unless we want to further expand the Hall of the very good.

[KMayUSA6060]

Mattingly definitely shouldn't get in. The time for stat forecasting is long gone when it comes to voting. Puckett is the last one to get in based on the forecasting of stats.

The others, we'll see. I tend to agree that they are at the "very good" level, but not "Hall of Fame" level.

[bravos4evr]

My head says Trammel, Simmons and Marvin Miller


My heart adds Dale Murphy

[bravos4evr]

Tho, I might add that I think Tommy John should be in for a combination of his career numbers AND his contribution to the game of baseball by subjecting himself to the surgery. So, kinda more of a "contribution to the game of baseball" thing than a "you were one of the all time great players" thing

[packs]

Would be nice to see Fred McGriff on that list. To me he's a HOFer and much better than a lot of those listed.

[clydepepper]

Is there a block on Cuban-born candidates?

Neither Tony Oliva nor Minnie Minoso were ever seriously considered...


and Luis Tiant was as good or better than many that are already in the Hall:

Marquard, Rixey, Haines, Drysdale, Bunning and Hunter come to mind.

[bbcard1]

Based on the criteria established by the current membership, you can't go wrong with any of the people on the list.

I know Miller was important, but I would be fine if there were no executives in the hall of fame. Just not interesting to me.

[rats60]

I think Alan Trammell will get in. If I had a second choice in would be Steve Garvey. Sabermetrics don't treat him kindly and you wouldn't want him on your fantasy team. He didn't walk much. All he did was get a lot of hits, drive in a lot of runs and win games. 5 Pennants and 1 Championship between 1974-1984. He led those championship teams in RBIs every time. An MVP award, 10 time All Star and 4 Gold Gloves. He was even better in the postseason. .910 OPS with over 200 at bats and 2 LCS MVPs.

[chaddurbin]

trammell. this is not the nba where everyone and their grandmother get in, i don't care about contributions to the game or what you do outside of it. tommy john can mail his ligament to the hall of fame after he dies.

[BearBailey]

I think Trammel deserves it and will get in, probably Miller too, but dont see any of the others making it. But all of the players were at least really good players.

[quinnsryche]

Simmons, Parker & Garvey. Based on what I saw growing up and looking at the stats now. Just my opinion, feel free to blast away.

[dgo71]

Honestly I wouldn't be all up in arms if any one of these 10 get in. I'm not a small hall guy that thinks if your name isn't Ruth or Gehrig you shouldn't be in. Morris and TJ are probably the least deserving in my eyes but if they got in it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'm probably biased because I already have their autographs...

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

My head says Trammel, Simmons and Marvin Miller


My heart adds Dale Murphy

This.

Also wondering where Rick Reuschel is.

Tom C

[Steve D]

Honestly, I would vote for all 10 of them in the HOF.

Steve

[Big Six]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Honestly, I would vote for all 10 of them in the HOF.



Steve

I agree...good bunch of guys who would add a lot to the Hall. Can you imagine that induction ceremony?!?!?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[seanofjapan]

I'd say they all belong (and as one other poster noted, Fred McGriff too, who would be close to the top of my list among those guys).

The hall is way too clubby than it needs to be. Also, you can't go back and kick the guys from the 30s out whose careers fall pretty clearly into what we consider "Hall of Very Good" territory today thanks to basically arbitrary changes in standards over the years. Those guys are the standard for admission, not Ruth.

There is easily enough deserving players out there today to double the HOF population.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

None of the above unless we want to further expand the Hall of the very good.

Agreed, too many mistakes in the past seems to make the standard low which it shouldn't be. To me, its ridiculous that Andre Dawson is a HOFer and he shouldn't be the standard by which others are judged. No one on that list is worthy.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Is there a block on Cuban-born candidates?

Neither Tony Oliva nor Minnie Minoso were ever seriously considered...


and Luis Tiant was as good or better than many that are already in the Hall:

Marquard, Rixey, Haines, Drysdale, Bunning and Hunter come to mind.

Didn't Oliva come pretty close to getting in the last time?

[btcarfagno]

This is what the ballot (player-wise) should look like:

Billy Pierce
Rick Reuschel
Dave Stieb
Bill Freehan
Ted Simmons
Keith Hernandez
Bobby Grich
Willie Randolph
Lou Whitaker
Dick Allen
Ken Boyer
Darrell Evans
Graig Nettles
Alan Trammell
Jimmy Wynn
Dwight Evans
Reggie Smith

These are the players that I feel are no brainer Hall Of Famers

Ted Simmons
Bobby Grich
Dick Allen
Ken Boyer
Dwight Evans

These are the others from the list that I would vote for

Dave Stieb
Keith Hernandez
Lou Whitaker
Graig Nettles
Alan Trammell
Reggie Smith

Tom C

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandBaseBallist

Didn't Oliva come pretty close to getting in the last time?

Honestly, I can't recall how he did in these 'veterans' type 'secondary' votes - and BBR doesn't seem to have records of those previous votes.

I was referring to the BBA voting from which he got 36% his last year on the ballot (1996) and topped out at 47% (1988) - I guess, in retrospect, that's fairly serious consideration, but not at all close to getting in...and, IMO, it is a real shame!

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I'd say they all belong (and as one other poster noted, Fred McGriff too, who would be close to the top of my list among those guys).

The hall is way too clubby than it needs to be. Also, you can't go back and kick the guys from the 30s out whose careers fall pretty clearly into what we consider "Hall of Very Good" territory today thanks to basically arbitrary changes in standards over the years. Those guys are the standard for admission, not Ruth.

There is easily enough deserving players out there today to double the HOF population.

Fred is in a different Veteran Committee bucket (called the Today era or something like that) that handles players of the last 20 years or so. So, I suspect whenever THAT particular committee vote occurs in the next few years, he'll be on the list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Agreed, too many mistakes in the past seems to make the standard low which it shouldn't be. To me, its ridiculous that Andre Dawson is a HOFer and he shouldn't be the standard by which others are judged. No one on that list is worthy.

To me, if there's a substantial doubt or debate, that should in and of itself mean no. I think the Hall should be reserved for unquestionable all time greats, guys about whom there is no room for argument -- guys like Gwynn, Maddux, Ripken, Henderson, to give a few relatively recent examples.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Luis Tiant
Marvin Miller
Alan Trammell
Ted Simmons
Tommy John
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Don Mattingly
Steve Garvey


My choices are in bold.

I agree with the OP 100%.

[the 'stache]

I watched Simba play at Milwaukee County Stadium. When you consider the dimensions of the field, and its proximity to Lake Michigan, that the Brewers hit as many home runs as they did in the early 80s is a miracle. Of all those guys, Ted Simmons, I swear, hit the ball the hardest. It just made a different sound.

He should have been in years ago.

Originally Posted by cardsfan44

Ted Simmons to me is an issue one that got the shaft many years ago. He was essentially punished for not being in the same category as Johnny Bench. His numbers for a catcher should make him a lock

[the 'stache]

Agreed. The Hall should be for the greats of the game. It's not the Hall of really, really good.

I look at a player, and use two criteria. Peak and length of career. Playing in the league for 18 years alone is not enough. Playing for 18 years, and being one of the very best players in the game for a substantial period of time should warrant serious consideration.

I also used to think that 3,000 hits, for example, meant a lock. Now, I'm not so sure. Playing long enough to get 3,000 hits is a feat in and of itself, but some guys are getting close to that threshold, or have passed it, and I just wring my hands while considering their eligibility for the Hall.

I look at a guy like Adrian Beltre. He just went over 3,000 hits. Great defensive third baseman. That and 3,000 hits will likely get him in. But people look at his being a no brainer. I don't. The guy was decidedly average offensively his first twelve seasons. He had one MVP caliber season in 2004 when power numbers were ridiculous (a 163 OPS + is real good, but hardly historic). With that season included, from 1998 to 2009, he had a 105 OPS +. That means he was only 5% above league average.

Anybody think he was a Hall of Famer then at age 30? Nope. Not close. Not even in the discussion. One Silver Slugger, two Gold Gloves, one single season getting MVP votes-even one.

Rhen he goes to Boston, steroid central, and his career takes off. Age 31-38 he has a 133 OPS +, including a 139 OPS + from 2010 to 2014. Boston and Texas, where steroids were handed out like Pez.

Now, he's over 3,000 hits. 462 home runs. Five Gold Gloves. That's a good resume. But do we just ignore the fact that he was a league average played for the first half of his career? Never won an MVP, and finished top five only one other time besides 2009. That's a stat compiler if I've ever seen one. A 117 OPS + career is not Hall-worthy, to me.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, if there's a substantial doubt or debate, that should in and of itself mean no. I think the Hall should be reserved for unquestionable all time greats, guys about whom there is no room for argument -- guys like Gwynn, Maddux, Ripken, Henderson, to give a few relatively recent examples.

[clydepepper]

But Bill, does his moving the on-deck circle get him in?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Agreed. The Hall should be for the greats of the game. It's not the Hall of really, really good.

I look at a player, and use two criteria. Peak and length of career. Playing in the league for 18 years alone is not enough. Playing for 18 years, and being one of the very best players in the game for a substantial period of time should warrant serious consideration.

I also used to think that 3,000 hits, for example, meant a lock. Now, I'm not so sure. Playing long enough to get 3,000 hits is a feat in and of itself, but some guys are getting close to that threshold, or have passed it, and I just wring my hands while considering their eligibility for the Hall.

I look at a guy like Adrian Beltre. He just went over 3,000 hits. Great defensive third baseman. That and 3,000 hits will likely get him in. But people look at his being a no brainer. I don't. The guy was decidedly average offensively his first twelve seasons. He had one MVP caliber season in 2004 when power numbers were ridiculous (a 163 OPS + is real good, but hardly historic). With that season included, from 1998 to 2009, he had a 105 OPS +. That means he was only 5% above league average.

Anybody think he was a Hall of Famer then at age 30? Nope. Not close. Not even in the discussion. One Silver Slugger, two Gold Gloves, one single season getting MVP votes-even one.

Rhen he goes to Boston, steroid central, and his career takes off. Age 31-38 he has a 133 OPS +, including a 139 OPS + from 2010 to 2014. Boston and Texas, where steroids were handed out like Pez.

Now, he's over 3,000 hits. 462 home runs. Five Gold Gloves. That's a good resume. But do we just ignore the fact that he was a league average played for the first half of his career? Never won an MVP, and finished top five only one other time besides 2009. That's a stat compiler if I've ever seen one. A 117 OPS + career is not Hall-worthy, to me.

Yet you think Ted Simmons is a Hofer? It took him 19 seasons to accumulate 50 WAR. About 2 1/2 WAR per season is very average. Thurman Munson would be far more deserving, 46 WAR in 9 1/2 seasons, almost 5 per season. I would take Bill Freehan over Simmons and his 44 WAR in 14 seasons plus 5 gold gloves and 2 top 3 MVP finishes.

He is easily the worst candidate on that list. He never finished top 5 in MVP voting. At least those other guys all had short peeks, won MVP awards, top 5 finishes, gold gloves. If you are going to elect a marginal candidate, it should be someone who was great for a short period, not a compiler who wasn't very good at compiling.

I never heard anyone ever say Ted Simmons was a Hofer during his career. Tiant yes, Trammell yes, Morris yes, Murphy yes, Parker yes, Mattingly yes, Garvey yes, Munson yes, Whitaker yes, Tony Oliva yes, Dick Allen yes and now with 96 WAR Beltre yes.

[glynparson]

I actually would not care if every single one of them got in the hall of fame. By the way its not the Hall of greats either, it is the hall of fame. In my opinion it is there to tell the games history and honoring any of these men for their contributions to the game I feel would be warranted.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yet you think Ted Simmons is a Hofer? It took him 19 seasons to accumulate 50 WAR. About 2 1/2 WAR per season is very average. Thurman Munson would be far more deserving, 46 WAR in 9 1/2 seasons, almost 5 per season. I would take Bill Freehan over Simmons and his 44 WAR in 14 seasons plus 5 gold gloves and 2 top 3 MVP finishes.

He is easily the worst candidate on that list. He never finished top 5 in MVP voting. At least those other guys all had short peeks, won MVP awards, top 5 finishes, gold gloves. If you are going to elect a marginal candidate, it should be someone who was great for a short period, not a compiler who wasn't very good at compiling.

I never heard anyone ever say Ted Simmons was a Hofer during his career. Tiant yes, Trammell yes, Morris yes, Murphy yes, Parker yes, Mattingly yes, Garvey yes, Munson yes, Whitaker yes, Tony Oliva yes, Dick Allen yes and now with 96 WAR Beltre yes.

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

[clydepepper]

I think a lot of these guys don't get in because they didn't have the Baseball equivalent of a 'Heisman' moment...something that sticks in your memory forever...like Flutie's Hale Mary.

Of course the have to have the good stats over a prolonged period of time...as Baseball is 'a marathon, not a sprint', but the biggest moments are what is recalled decades later.

Kirk Gibson had THE MOMENT but not the lengthy career...but, IMO, that's exactly the kind of truly Legendary Moment I'm referring to.

Grinders do get in, but they are Eddie Murrays, not Harold Baines.

[rats60]

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.

[btcarfagno]

From Beyond The Boxscore:

"Ted Simmons, to me, is the most bewildering Hall snub. While the advanced metrics strongly support his case, I feel that he actually fares better if you look at him by his traditional numbers.

Simmons ranks 11th all time among catchers in WAR and 10th in wWAR. Those are excellent, Hall-type rankings. But you know what's better? First.

Before Ivan Rodriguez came along, that's exactly where Ted Simmons ranked among the hit leaders for catchers. First (he's now second). Can you imagine the all time leader in hits for a catcher debuting on the ballot and failing to collect the 5% to stay on the ballot? It's actually pretty insane.

Simmons is also second to Rodriguez in doubles (meaning he was #1 all time when he retired), second to Yogi Berra in RBI, fifth in extra-base hits, sixth in runs scored, and 11th in home runs (among catchers). He was an 8-time All Star. He finished in the top ten in batting average six times, hits four times, doubles eight times, and RBI six times. Again, the traditional numbers seem to set him up perfectly for induction.

The issue, apparently, is that Simmons doesn't have the best reputation as a defensive catcher. The numbers just don't back it up, though. Researcher Bill Deane (as Bill James describes in Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?) ran the numbers and found that Simmons' handle on the running game was actually a slight asset to his teams, not a liability. Total Zone essentially agrees and rates him as just eight runs below average. Over 1771 games caught, that's just another way of saying "league average".

One other unique aspect of Ted Simmons' career is how he finished. In his final five seasons (after his excellent age 33 season), he was—worthless. He was worth a combined –2.8 WAR in 1591 plate appearances. So, if he had quit five seasons earlier, he would have been a 53.2 WAR player rather than a 50.4 WAR player. Not a huge difference, but that's a lot of golf he could have been playing.

Through a more traditional lens, in those last five seasons he added 356 hits, 70 doubles, 26 home runs, and 194 RBI to his career totals. So, while Simmons looks good as a 2472-hit catcher, he actually would have had a more valuable career as a 2116-hit catcher, retiring after the 1983 season. Go figure.

Still, Simmons is among the top ten offensive catchers in history. He would need to be pretty lousy defensively to ruin his Hall of Fame case. The fact that he was basically a league-average catcher (or better) means that it doesn't affect his ranking. A Top 10 catcher should be inducted."

Also here is a great read from the Hardball Times where he isn't completely sold on Simmons to the Hall, but believes he is the equal of Gary Carter. So....

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/does-t...-hall-of-fame/

Tom C

[MCoxon]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Is there a block on Cuban-born candidates?

Neither Tony Oliva nor Minnie Minoso were ever seriously considered...


and Luis Tiant was as good or better than many that are already in the Hall:

Marquard, Rixey, Haines, Drysdale, Bunning and Hunter come to mind.

I suspect Minoso, and possibly Oliva, will get into the HOF at some point

[bravos4evr]

For those arguing Garvey and besmirching Simmons they have nearly the same stats except one of them played catcher and is 9th in fWAR all time as a catcher and the other played 1b and is 61st all time for 1b.


Simmons is one of the ten best catchers of all time and he's not a HOF'er? That seems.... well I'm fairly "small hall" and even I think he's overdue.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

For those arguing Garvey and besmirching Simmons they have nearly the same stats except one of them played catcher and is 9th in fWAR all time as a catcher and the other played 1b and is 61st all time for 1b.


Simmons is one of the ten best catchers of all time and he's not a HOF'er? That seems.... well I'm fairly "small hall" and even I think he's overdue.

It is your opinion that Simmons is a top 10 catcher. I disagree. One of my problems with WAR is that it undervalues defense. It is particularly important for catcher. Simmons was below average defensively. In my opinion, that negates a positional bonus.

Bench
Carter
I Rodriguez
Fisk
Piazza
Berra
Dickey
Cochrane
Hartnett
Campanella

Those guys are all better than Simmons. Josh Gibson is high on that list, but how do you compare him? From not in the HOF, I have Munson, Freehan, probably Posey, maybe Mauer. So, that puts him 16th and as I said, if the Veterans Committee is liberal with their selections, after Garvey, Munson and Freehan are in, I have no problem with Simmons. I just wouldn't put him in ahead of Trammell, Garvey, Murphy, Mattingly or Parker.

[btcarfagno]

Simmons Munson Freehan and Hartnett are all in one big bunch to me. I agree with you that Campy, when you take his work in the Negro Leagues and extrapolate that to major league equivalency, was ahead of Simmons. Not if you look just at his major league numbers, but you just can't do that. So Campy is ahead of Simmons.

But I have Simmons slightly ahead of Hartnett who is slightly ahead of Munson who is slightly ahead of Freehan. Posey is not there yet. Mauer may be ahead of Simmons by this point.

If you're still convinced that Garvey is a HOFer there's not much else I can say. He is borderline way bottom top 50 1B of all time. That's just not HOF material. Parker isn't there either but I don't feel like getting into that discussion. Below average fielder. Had he not taken 5+ years off in the middle of his career....that would be another matter. But he did. Dale Murphy and Donnie Baseball are legitimate discussions for sure. But Simmons is an all time leader at his position unlike these other players.

Tom C

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is your opinion that Simmons is a top 10 catcher. I disagree. One of my problems with WAR is that it undervalues defense. It is particularly important for catcher. Simmons was below average defensively. In my opinion, that negates a positional bonus.

Bench
Carter
I Rodriguez
Fisk
Piazza
Berra
Dickey
Cochrane
Hartnett
Campanella

Those guys are all better than Simmons. Josh Gibson is high on that list, but how do you compare him? From not in the HOF, I have Munson, Freehan, probably Posey, maybe Mauer. So, that puts him 16th and as I said, if the Veterans Committee is liberal with their selections, after Garvey, Munson and Freehan are in, I have no problem with Simmons. I just wouldn't put him in ahead of Trammell, Garvey, Murphy, Mattingly or Parker.

Ya'll need to make up your mind, one side says WAR overrates defense and says Andruw Jones isn't a HOF'er then the other says it underrates defense and claims Simmons isn't.

According to the number, without you assigning arbitrary, biased values to it, both are HOF'ers.

[SAllen2556]

Of the all-time top 80 players ranked by WAR, who is not a member of the Hall of Fame?

Answer:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Albert Pujols
Adrian Beltre
Chipper Jones
Mike Mussina
Curt Schillling
Pete Rose

and...
Lou Whitaker.

Of the top 16 second basemen ranked by WAR, there are 3 players NOT in the Hall. They are Bobby Grich, Robinson Cano, and...Lou Whitaker

Among 2nd basemen, he's ranked 7th in games played, 14th in JAWS (ahead of Alomar, Biggio, Doerr, Fox), 10th in home runs, 5th in walks, 4th in double plays turned, 11th in putouts, 18th in range factor (ahead of Morgan and Sandberg, Kent, and Cano), and 6th in assists.

1978 Rookie of the year, 3 gold gloves, 4 time silver slugger, 5 time all-star

And he's not even on the damn ballot!

[bravos4evr]

Whitaker should be in, I wonder if the committee is still too beholden to offensive numbers to notice his stellar defense at 2b.

9th in fWAR all time for 2b. If you are top 10 at your position WAR you should be in the HOF.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Of the all-time top 80 players ranked by WAR, who is not a member of the Hall of Fame?

Answer:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Albert Pujols
Adrian Beltre
Chipper Jones
Mike Mussina
Curt Schillling
Pete Rose

and...
Lou Whitaker.

Of the top 16 second basemen ranked by WAR, there are 3 players NOT in the Hall. They are Bobby Grich, Robinson Cano, and...Lou Whitaker

Among 2nd basemen, he's ranked 7th in games played, 14th in JAWS (ahead of Alomar, Biggio, Doerr, Fox), 10th in home runs, 5th in walks, 4th in double plays turned, 11th in putouts, 18th in range factor (ahead of Morgan and Sandberg, Kent, and Cano), and 6th in assists.

1978 Rookie of the year, 3 gold gloves, 4 time silver slugger, 5 time all-star

And he's not even on the damn ballot!

From a prior post in this thread regarding players from this era:


These are the players that I feel are no brainer Hall Of Famers

Ted Simmons
Bobby Grich
Dick Allen
Ken Boyer
Dwight Evans

These are the others from the list that I would vote for

Dave Stieb
Keith Hernandez
Lou Whitaker
Graig Nettles
Alan Trammell
Reggie Smith

Tom C