The 'Modern Era' Ballot: Who You Got?
 

The players listed on the ballot and their WAR:

Lou Whitaker...………………………………………..75.1
Dwight Evans...………………………………………..67.1
Tommy John...………………………………………….62.1
Ted Simmons...………………………………………..50.3
Dale Murphy...………………………………………….46.5
Thurman Munson...………………………………….46.1
Don Mattingly...……………………………………….42.4
Dave Parker...………………………………………….40.1
Steve Garvey...………………………………………..38.1

elected last year:
Baines...…………………………………………………….38.7

and the three Cubans who, IMO, should already be in:

Luis Tiant…………………………………………………….65.6
Minnie Minoso…………………………………………….50.5
Tony Oliva...……………………………………………...43.1

I realize that WAR is not the only measurement used, but it's a convenient starting place (the list had already been put together - so lazy me is just using their 'trade craft')

The ESPN writer had Ted Simmons as the only one with an excellent chance of getting in, but also made comment on Harold Baines.

All of these guys are in the Hall Of Good. With the people they have put in recently most if not all might go in eventually.

Marvin Miller is on the ballot as well and his exclusion to this point is a complete joke. The pettiness of executives who sat on the various incarnations of these committees is the only thing that has kept Miller out all these years. His contributions to the game are undeniable and IMHO more significant than those of Bud Selig or Bowie Kuhn. It's a shame he didn't live to see his induction but it's time the Hall erased this black mark on its voting history and elect him. Aside from that, Whitaker and Simmons have the "steam" heading into this election and I don't feel the HOF is significantly lessened with their inclusions.

Edited to add, I would've liked to see some new blood on this ballot. All but 2 of these guys have been examined ad nauseum on past veterans committees and fell short, so unless they are specifically trying to shoehorn a couple of these players in, it's probably time to look more closely at players like Bobby Grich, and a man I was definitely hoping to see get his shot this year, Al Oliver.

I think Munson should be a lock for sure. His career untimely cut short shouldn’t effect his induction. Yankee Captain, ROY, MVP, 7 AS, 3 gold gloves and 2 World Series championships in a abbreviated career. He was in route so I would put him in.

Don't forget his great playoff and WS numbers. I think too many people dismiss him because they think his career was too short. Anyone thinking that the hall would be less for putting him in is just flat out wrong.

I dont think any of those players should be in the HOF

The HOF is showcase of the history of the greatest players of each era.


Joe Jackson
Pete Rose
Bonds
Arod
Schffield
Clemens

Imo all should be in 😳

Yes pete should be banned from the dugout never to return, but that dosnt erase his stats.

In MY opinion, as long as there are deserving players who DID NOT cheat who aren't in, those bums should NEVER get in.

But, you are entitled to your opinion...but you are, of course, wrong.

.

There are many players in the HOF who cheated.

Heres the argument for bonds and the rest

https://metsmerizedonline.com/2014/0...-of-fame.html/

Munson was on the decline, when he died. Yankee Captain...who cares. Rookie of the Year, who cares.

Unfortunately, I just don't think he played long enough. He might have rebounded, but catchers don't usually drop off, and then spring back. Ultimately, I'm on the fence when it comes to him.

=

Ted Simmons and Marvin Miller
 

The Hall has two new members after this committee vote.

Interesting that veteran catcher Simmons was more well regarded than our board seemed to think. 21 seasons of being pretty good can get you in the Hall now.
I liked Ted as a player , and don’t mind that he got voted in, but I don’t recall anything dominant about his game. That skill is usually observed in Hall of Famers.

The 1971 Topps set adds another card moved to the HOF column...

He was the only catcher in baseball history with a 50 + WAR not in Cooperstown. I've felt he deserved to be in a long time. The guy was a fantastic hitter from a position that just didn't get a lot of offense, especially in the 70s and 80s.

I'm thrilled both Marvin Miller and Simba are in.

Ted was the best hitting catcher of his era, Bench hit very well in big moments but day-to-day Simba was the man! He now held in high reverence by baseball insiders as the best talent judge in the game. A true gentleman too.

Comparing Simmons to Bench...interesting...certainly never thought of that.

Ted Simmons seems like the epitome of having to take someone's word for how good they were. He never finished higher than 6th in MVP voting in any single year over his entire career. Seems like "best hitting catcher of his time" would have a better showing.

Even by WAR, Bench is 1 among catchers, Simmons is 10. Let's not get carried away.

I'm not picking up on the 50 WAR thing either. It seems like that's just a coincidence. Simmons had 50 WAR but it took him 21 years to do that. Munson only played 11 seasons, finished with a WAR of 46 and people think he's not even close to the Hall.

Bench had 75. I would say he was the man, not Simmons.

I just can't figure it out. Even Simmons' defense was league average. His caught stealing percentage and fielding percentages are both exactly league average. He's got more walks than strike outs and his career on base is still below 350. How is he not only one of the greatest players of all time but also the best hitting catcher of his era?

Carter and Fisk were better too.

Easy folks...Harold needs company. :rolleyes:


.

I'm old school, and Johnny Bench is one of my all time favorite players...best catcher of all time in my opinion as well. With that said, Bench was a "slugger" more than a hitter. You can take all the new metric WAR this and that, and that's fine, but Simmons was a better "hitter". Simmons hit over .300 seven times and had more BB's than K's. All I can say is that you try catching 1771 games (those are the games he played catcher, not just played) and still have a career .285 avg. Too many people lump catchers with other position players, and that's a shame because it's the toughest position out there...and comparing Simmons with Baines is just wrong on so many levels.

Mike - no slight intended. I was trying to lighten the discussion with a little humor.

Yeah, that's what I figured but I forgot to put a funny emoji at the end of mine. It's all good. It's just that there's a real obvious gorge between the people that want only Babe Ruth/Lou Gehrig etc in the hall, and the people that are more for the best of an era. Obviously there has to be a happy medium...I mean, it is called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of only the freakishly talented. :eek:;)

Bench had an OPS+ of 126, Simmons 118. If you are going strictly by batting average, Munson was better, so was Manny Sanguillen. I am not aware of any metric that says Simmons was the best hitting catcher of his era.

Doesn't hitting include power?

Hof
 

To me it was disturbing after Baines; haven’t followed much after. The only ones I like are the three Cuban players. Always thought they were at least borderline and I wouldn’t have any issue with any of them. The others were good, but fall short in my opinion.

Mark- I'm so glad to read that someone else feels so strongly about Minoso, Tiant and Oliva.

This is a glaring omission!

I thought it was terrible that Minnie was not voted in while he was alive...just like Ron Santo.

There's still time for whoever votes to do the right thing for Luis and Pedro(Tony) - and I remain hopeful it will be done.


.

Vada Pinson is a player worth looking at. 18 year career and 2,757 career hits. Solid numbers but never hear his name even mentioned but Baines actually gets in.

One thing worth thinking about with Simmons that's different than Baines....where Baines election came out of nowhere, Simmons was only one vote shy last time he was voted on by the vets...and in a year where two other players (Trammell & Morris) were selected. That's a LOT of momentum, for what it's worth.

There weren't many other candidates for "best catcher not in the Hall of Fame"...some liked Munson, and his career trajectory might have gotten him there...tough to say...but Simmons did play 1,000 more games in parts of 10 more seasons.

When it comes to "borderline" guys....longevity matters.

From your words to the ears of the powers that be Tomi.

ramblings...
 

A Hall of Famer should be easily recognizable as unquestionably the top 1 or 2 players at a particular position. Y'kinow - a guy that is an all-star most every year for quite a while. Someone who is at least to some minor degree in the discussion to garner regular MVP votes. Someone when you mention their name to a casual baseball fan would reply, "oh, yeah, that guy was really really good." Most importantly, I am looking at players that was actually Famous - its called the Hall of Fame, is it not. Famous for their ultra high talents on the ballfield. Sorry to be a buzz-kill to the "on the fence" guys, but they were exactly that...on the fence guys...not HOF'ers. A player could be genuinely famous for a limited time due to other factors, but none the less truly Famous. I realize some of you are more lenient, and thats ok. But for me I want Famous, someone who raises eyebrows like Wow ! Look at it this way, as a kid collecting cards way back, when I would get a star players card, I was one very happy camper (Seaver, Ryan, Reggie, Bench, Schmidt, Carew type guys). Did y'all WooHoo do the skip dance when you got a Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons, Harold Baines, Louie Tiant, Tommy John type card?

Murphy, Mattingly, Munson, Parker and Garvey were all "star players cards" at their peak. They all won MVPs (Murphy 2). Parker 6 top 10 MVPs, Garvey 5, Mattingly and Murphy 4 consecutive top 10s, Munson 3.

I will go back and look at stats, but yeah, if Mattingly, Munson, Parker & Garvey won MVP's and were consistent All-Stars, ok I could go for letting them in. How about Whitaker, Ted Simmons, Baines, Tiant & Tommy John - were they also MVP winners (or at least top 3) consistent All-Star for years?

I wouldn't have voted for anyone on the ballot, but all of them are better picks than Baines. I think Garvey would make a very bad selection, but the rest would not lower the standards of the hall or be poor picks, all are just narrowly on the "not quite" line for me.

There are several others, like Pinson, Oliva and Tiant, that could easily fall on either side of the line. Kaat, Vida Blue, McGriff, Dick Allen.

The two that seem to clearly belong to me, who have fallen off the writers ballot, are Minoso and Hodges. Hodges is, or is almost, a hall of famer as a 1st baseman, and after factoring in that he was also a great manager who led the Mets to the WS, he should make it easily just as Joe Torre did. Minoso is a no-brainer in my book.

On the Pre-War side, there are many other borderline guys who could fall either way. Dahlen seems to be the clearly deserving choice, to me.

Ross Barnes and Jim Creighton seem to me the most egregious examples of a players not selected, and with the current ruleset, will not ever be selected.

[QUOTE=G1911;1940171]I wouldn't have voted for anyone on the ballot, but all of them are better picks than Baines. I think Garvey would make a very bad selection, but the rest would not lower the standards of the hall or be poor picks, all are just narrowly on the "not quite" line for me.

There are several others, like Pinson, Oliva and Tiant, that could easily fall on either side of the line. Kaat, Vida Blue, McGriff, Dick Allen.

The two that seem to clearly belong to me, who have fallen off the writers ballot, are Minoso and Hodges. Hodges is, or is almost, a hall of famer as a 1st baseman, and after factoring in that he was also a great manager who led the Mets to the WS, he should make it easily just as Joe Torre did. Minoso is a no-brainer in my book.

On the Pre-War side, there are many other borderline guys who could fall either way. Dahlen seems to be the clearly deserving choice, to me.

Ross Barnes and Jim Creighton seem to me the most egregious examples of a players not selected, and with the current ruleset, will not ever be selected.[/QUOTE]


...and Dummy Hoy!

A couple of reactions
 

Not sure I agree with the “famous” test or guys like Valenzuela and Gooden and Marge Schott get in (yes i said guys).

That said, I collected cards as a kid during the time Simmons was in his prime. I would buy a box of cards and sort out the stars who I thought would be HOF candidates for keeping separate and putting into sheets/binders. Sometimes I was wrong about a guy and ended up with a lot of guys who ended up with just pretty good careers like Murphy and Garvey. But never did I sort out and set aside a Ted Simmons card, for what that’s worth. In his day he wasn’t regarded in that conversation.

I wasn’t a kid when Allie Reynolds played and I know the WAR isn’t there but he should be in.

If you read my post, a HOF'er is a combination of factors, yes, famous being one of several, not only criteria.