Torre, La Rusa & Cox get the call.....
 

Well deserved in my humble opinion.

Agree.....now Glavine & Maddux have to go in..........curious to see who else.....

That's who I guessed would go in and they are the only ones I think deserved it out of this group, though you could make a strong case for Ted Simmons. I've just never heard support for him, so I didn't think he would get any.

I'm glad Steinbrenner didn't get in. I'm not even sure how he gets support with his two extended suspensions from the game. He was hated for most of his time and the team only really built up when he wasn't around serving his second suspension. It would be like Manny Ramirez getting a HOF push after all his suspensions. Ramirez isn't getting in, no chance, yet an owner that was suspended twice for lengthy times by baseball, is a legit candidate for some people? Kind of a crazy double-standard going on, never mind the fact that Steinbrenner was one of the owners turning a blind eye to steroid use, yet profiting off of it, then pretending like they had no idea. I wouldn't put in any owner from the 90's, don't care what his team did on the field.

Marvin Miller is another one I don't get the support for. How about drumming up support for some long-time scouts, coaches, deserving players not in already, not some guy that helped make a family trip to the ballpark, something you need to take out a loan to do. MLB went on strike/lockout five times during his time in charge, thanks for that. They don't need to go down that path because next thing you know, Scott Boras will be on the ballot. Stick to the guys on the field and the ones employed by the teams that are doing work in the trenches. Not some suit and tie making the players rich and fans poor.

Apparently, no one else was close. The other candidates got fewer than 6 votes out of 16.

Real class shown by Yankee Prez. Levine for blasting Hall of Fame for not putting George in yet.

The people voting for those guys were ex-players though--right? You'd think Miller would get some support from them based on the salary escalation that he caused.....Steinbrenner for the same reason! He's caused EVERYONE's salaries to be upped due to his big checkbook. I think they'll get in some day but it might be a while. Will they be re-listed on a similar ballot in the future?

Charlie O. had the best idea: all MLB player contracts are for one year only. A guy has a great season, he gets big bucks. A guy gets old overnight, he gets a reduced salary. Of course everyone [players and owners] hated that concept.

I have no qualms about the elected managers; they were the best over approximately two decades. Not an easy job being a manager, especially with the sheer number of spoiled brat rich players with giant but thin egos that they had to deal with.

I never have figured out why Ted Simmons is not in. Better than Fisk and Carter IMO.

Agree 100%. The stats don't lie.

Fisk and Carter played in Boston and New York on wildly popular teams (75 Sox and 86 Mets). Simmons played for mostly bad teams in St Louis in the 70's and only made it to the series once for small-market Milwaukee.

How about Frank Thomas?

Thanks,
ChiSoxFan

Can't argue much with the managers.... I agree too about Ted Simmons...he certainly had the offensive numbers...but he was underrated as a catcher too...

Ricky Y

I personally don't think either Torre or Cox deserved it. Unlike some others here, I think Steinbrenner deserves to be in. Opinions are like ass holes, right?

Nuts that Marvin Miller hasn't gotten in yet.

I wonder how these inductions will effect the prices on these three players/manager's cards....for example, since the announcement of Ron Santo in Dec 2011, his 1960s cards have commanded a premium over BV due to increased demand by the HOFer collectors. Torre's cards from the 60s and Cox's 69 card already have a slight premium over BV, so will they have an even greater demand following this announcement then they currently do?

I agree, I just didn't want to play the "East Coast Bias" card :)

I totally agree on the call for all three Managers. 3 of the top 5 Managers of all time in wins should make it a no brainer......

I am certainly not sure but I believe the morality clause in the selection process for the Baseball Hall of Fame eliminates Steinbrenner from ever going in?

He has a conviction for the illegal contributions plus the suspension for what he did to Winfield?

Of course there are plenty of rogues already in but the BBHOF does make a distinction opposed to the Pro FB HOF which seems to encourage criminals?

Plus what did George ever do for baseball, he only did things for Geroge and I grew up a Yankee fan.

If LaRussa is in, then McGwire should be in too.

Brent....I know you're kidding, right?

Nope. Why does the manager of cheaters get a free pass? He has always supported the actions of McGwire and his win totals were padded from his steroid use. Their cheating impacted the results of games.

Because they were catchers and he was a DH.

Might be a damn good point...

Olbermann last night...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LK-5WtXQCY

He only played 5 of his 20 seasons in the AL so it's a pretty good stretch to consider him a DH. Fisk did some DHing himself late in his career.

Agreed, that was a curious reply.
There may be a multitude of reasons that Simmons is not in the HOF, the fact that he was briefly a DH is not one of them.

He was a natural DH that was trying to play catcher. There are no doubts regarding Fisk or Carter behind the plate.

It's hypocrisy that the Hall bans players who used PEDs then votes in La Russa. He was and is the most blatant PED enabler and apologist. A real anti-PED message for the ages would have been sent if he was kept out along with Bonds and McGwire.

A newspaper writer once wrote, "When I heard that Sidney Ponson was getting a tryout with the St. Louis Cardinals, my first reaction was: Why would the Cards be interested in Ponson? He wasn’t named in the Mitchell Report."

I'm a Simmons fan and I dislike Fisk and Carter. I decided to check some basic numbers at BB Reference. After looking at the numbers, I'm ranking Carter and Fisk ever so slightly above Simmons.

Carter
2092 hits 220 HR 823 RBI .262/.335/.439 BA/OBP/SLG 115 OPS+
11 All Star games, 5 silver sluggers, 3 GG Baseball Reference WAR 69.8

Fisk
2356 hits 376 HR 1330 RBI .269/.341/.457 117 OPS+
11 All Star games, 3 silver sluggers, 1 GG WAR 68.3

Simmons
2472 hits 248 HR 1389 RBI .285/.366/.459 118 OPS+
8 All Star games, 1 silver slugger, 0 GG WAR 50.2
Simmons split 1983 behind the plate and DH.
Mostly a DH/1B after that, but wasn't a very good one. His numbers took a dive from 1984 to 1988.

That was good. I've previously heard the argument against LaRussa, but Olberman makes it a better case.

LaRussa
 

I have to agree with the opinion that LaRussa shouldn't be in. Looking the other way when you know your players are juiced should be punished, not rewarded. If a good portion of your wins happened because your players were cheating then it isn't much of an accomplishment.

Rick

There is an interesting article about this very subject on espn.com by Rick Reilly pertaining all 3 Managers overlooking players doing steroids....

No problem with Larussa
 

But of course I would elect Bonds, Clemens and several other juicers.

I read that story this morning and it really made sense to me. If you are going to keep players out who juiced or are thought to have juiced, why do the managers that benefited from them juicing get in?

What about their teammates? A lot of players won the World Series with teammates who were juicers. Jeter benefited from playing with Clemens, for example. Should he give back his rings or get excluded from the HOF?

This is obviously an exaggeration, but punishing the players who committed the crime is where it should end IMO.

Punishing only the players? PEDs roll uphill. A couple of players on a team help garner more wins and larger contracts for themselves. As a result the manager also gets extended and more dough. Then so do the GMs. Teams owners pat themselves on the back (of their bank account) and regional cable advertising revenue, and flatter the Commissioner. You mean to tell me that none of them, the Commisioner included, had/has never an idea? I'll bet Selig had three earfuls of it. MLB can hardly get a Game Of The Week. Selig will get in The Hall.

Other players knew, coaches and managers, GMs and surely the commissioner all knew - how are you going to prove they were complicit? Do you just ignore a whole generation of players and managers? Can't do it.

Yes, but your idea is to punish only the players who failed urine and blood tests. To me that's sort of narrow and seems discriminatory. Why not administer some polygraph tests to the upper echelon? There's enough guilt to go around.

Ummm.... No, not surprising at all.

Jeff - I appreciate many of your posts here and I know you have a fine collection, and maybe you can enlighten me, but over the last 20 or so years no one in the "Marvin Miller camp" has ever been able to tell me a single thing that he did FOR THE GAME.

--Increase player salaries thru free agency and arbitration? Sure.
--Increase player endorsement dollars? Absolutely.
--Help the players realize that by using the disabled list instead of playing thru injuries, they can better their chances for more personal money (even if they're hurting their team)? Yep.
--Increase the rights of players to the point that the union could fight for cheaters? You betcha.

Marvin Miller should be in a lot of Halls of Fame (maybe he is, I don't know):
--Union Hall of Fame (first ballot, I'm sure)
--Lawyer Hall of Fame
--Agent Hall of Fame
--Endorsement Hall of Fame
--Arbitration Hall of Fame

If I had a vote, I'd put him in all of the above and then some. But I would never put him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. In general, even the players he helped to make millions of dollars haven't supported him in this.


See above (regarding Marvin Miller and the Basic Agreement he fought so hard for). No one seems to remember that the managers and GMs and owners, despite numerous attempts to intervene, were expressly prohibited from stepping in. I'm not saying they would have, but they couldn't if they'd tried. The MLBPA was steadfastly against any kind of PED testing until the early 2000s and it was not allowed by the Basic Agreement.

Point all the fingers you want about who knew what, but the players had it in their power to implement testing as early as 1994. Plain and simple.

Hi Brad, If you read me closely I am not exonerating the players either. But let me say this: All sides are looking to get a leg up. I'm not defending any party. I'm so old that 1994 that is like yesterday to me...well, the day before yesterday...and the whole Curt Flood ordeal is like two days before yesterday. Of course, I'm never to old to not be a fool:)

I agree with you, Jason. I had the good fortune of seeing Simba several times in person once he was traded to Milwaukee. He was, of course, in his early thirties by then, but he could still rake. People that look at his career numbers and see 248 home runs have no idea how hard this man hit the baseball. I grew up seeing some great hitters, including Cecil Cooper, Robin Yount, Paul Molitor, and some great power hitters in Gorman Thomas and Ben Oglivie. Simmons hit the ball as hard as any of them. There were times I wondered how County Stadium kept some his blasts from going out. And he was underrated defensively. More on that below.

When Ted Simmons was acquired by the Brewers, he immediately assumed his place behind home plate. Charlie Moore, who was our #1 catcher before Ted arrived in Milwaukee, moved to right field.

In 1981, Simmons caught 75 of the 100 games he played (strike season).
In 1982, Simmons caught 121 of the 137 games he played.
In 1983, Simmons caught 86 of the 153 games he played.

From 1984 going forward, yes, he was pretty much a full time DH, catching occasionally. But he didn't move to DH because of any defensive deficiencies. His knees were giving out. He was 34 then, and had played nearly 2,000 games.

You are being a bit unfair in suggesting that Simmons was a liability defensively. In 1982, when we went to the World Series, he had the highest fielding percentage of all AL catchers, and threw out 36% of all base stealers, which was league average. Earlier in his career, he was better. In 1971, he threw out 42%. In 1973, he threw out 44%. In 1976 he threw out 44%, second in the NL. In 1972 and 1978, he led all NL catchers in assists. In 1973, 1974, and 1976 he was second. in 1975 and 1979 he was third. So while he was not the top defensive catcher in the National League, and there are much better methods of evaluating his defensive prowess now in the Saebermetric age, using these old standards shows he was not exactly a slouch behind the plate.

Johnny Bench was clearly the best catcher of the 70s. Then there's Fisk, Carter and Simmons (I'd include Thurman Munson in this discussion, but I don't think he played long enough at a high level). Two are in, and Simmons should be as well.

Completely agree, Jeff. KO hypothesized this is the direct result of executives that were embarrassed by Miller utilizing their influence to stack the vote against him. I have no doubt this is true.

Keith referenced a line by Red Barber, who said that Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth and Marvin Miller were the most important men in baseball history. I would certainly include Curt Flood and Henry Chadwick in that short list. That Miller is not in the Hall of Fame is a joke. That he was excluded while Tony LaRussa was unanimously voted in by the Exansion Era committee is disgraceful.

This is a hot-button issue for me, and I almost posted about this while watching Olberman's show the other night. We agree, Brent.

We know McGwire and Canseco were using, and I'm betting that other A's eventually used, too. LaRussa clearly knew that steroids were being used, and looked the other way.

If the BBWAA are going to hold the hitters that used PEDs accountable by excluding them from Cooperstown, then how the heck would anybody be ok with some committee allowing the managers that enabled their drug use to get in? It's like sending a bunch of bank robbers to jail, but letting the getaway driver off scot free. Either accountability is all encompassing, or there shouldn't be any.

Nice work sir. Do you think that being overshadowed by Bench in the 70's hurt his chances?

Thanks :)

It's certainly possible that Bench hurt his chances, but I don't think it's likely. It's difficult to extrapolate why Simmons was shunned by the voters without knowing who the voters were, and what biases they may have had. Bench was part of that Big Red Machine in Cincinnati that won four NL pennants and two World Series. He was an elite player defensively, winning ten gold gloves, and offensively he was without peer. By the time he was thirty, he'd led the National League in home runs twice, RBIs three times, and had amassed over 300 home runs, and 1,100 RBIs. He was also a two-time NL MVP. That's why I feel that the other great catchers of this era should be compared against each other. Bench was on a level of his own.

When you look at the next tier of catchers in the 70s, the disparity between their initial Hall of Fame votes is puzzling.

Gary Carter received 42.3% of the vote, or 200 votes, his first year of eligibility in 1998. He was elected in 2003, his sixth year of eligibility.
Carlton Fisk received 66.4% of the vote, or 330 votes, his first year of eligibility in 1999. He was elected in 2000, the next year.
Thurman Munson received 15.5% of the vote, or 62 votes, his first year of eligibility in 1981. He remained on the ballot for 15 season, but never again attained over 10% of the vote. Is it possible, even likely that he gained additional votes his first year because he died tragically in a plane crash? Yes. While Munson was a very good player, and for a short time a great player, there's no way that I would consider him more worthy of a Hall nod than Simmons.
Ted Simmons only received 3.7% of the vote, or 17 votes, in his first year of eligibility in 1994. That eliminated him from further consideration by the BBWAA.

Bill James' Hall of Fame monitor (HOFm) attempts to quantify a player's likelihood of being elected into Cooperstown. A score of over 100 means a player is a likely inductee.

Ted Simmons HOFm was 124, which well exceeded the threshold for Hall worthiness in James' estimation.

Even if you look at the initial HOFm of Simmons' peers, there wasn't a disparity that would shed light on why they were elected (or in Munson's case, remained on the ballot for 15 seasons), and Simmons was not.

Gary Carter's HOFm in 1998: 135
Carlton Fisk's HOFm in 1999: 120
Thurman Munson's HOFm in 1981: 90

Ted Simmons HOFm in 1994: again, 124

Now, the HOFm metric, like WAR, is far from perfect. It considers a number of factors. But it is puzzling that, based on the merits this metric considers, only Gary Carter was considered more "worthy" of Hall induction than Simmons, yet Carter, Fisk and even Munson all received substantially more votes.

When one again compares their career numbers, and their per 162 game averages, there is nothing that suggests Simmons would be a less deserving member of the Hall:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6125/9pbp.png

I cannot logically come to any conclusion as to why Ted Simmons did not at least gain enough votes to remain on the ballot beyond his first year of eligibility.

Consider, also, some of the players who also appeared on the 1994 ballot, and were later elected to the Hall: Tony Perez (HOFm score of 81), Ron Santo (HOFm of 88), Bruce Sutter (HOFm of 91), and Joe Torre (HOFm of 96). Orlando Cepeda's HOFm score of 130 was close to Simmons', and eventually he was voted in by the Veteran's Committee in 1999 after falling 7 votes short in 1994, his final year of eligibility. Santo, too, was elected by the Veteran's Committee, while Perez and Sutter were elected by the BBWAA.

Will Simmons ever receive the consideration he is due by the Veteran's Committee? Or will they look at the era, and decide that three catchers being inducted was enough?

In his prime, from 1971 to 1980, Simmons averaged 19 home runs and 100 RBI, along with a .301 AVG and an .834 OPS per 162 games played. He also provided solid, if unspectacular defense. If you told me that a catcher for nearly a decade provided 100 RBI and a .300 AVG every season, I'd say that was definitely Hall worthy. We will see if the Veteran's Committee agrees.

John, you know I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you.

It is true that baseball salaries have skyrocketed, and as a result, it's difficult for the average fan to attend games on a regular basis. Ticket prices, concessions and even parking, in the aggregate, have become cost prohibitive. But I don't know if it's fair to say that is a direct result of Miller's actions. The Reserve Clause needed to be abolished. Players were basically beholden to ownership. Prior to the actions of Curt Flood, and Miller, there was no established forum to address grievances against team owners, and a player never had any say where they played. As former Baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent summed it up, Marvin Miller emancipated all baseball players, and by extension, all professional athletes.

Neither can I. I also don't know why Lou Whitaker and Al Oliver received the same fate.

Whitaker and Alan Trammell were spectacular together. And I do find it interesting that Trammell continues on the ballot every year, yet Whitaker was off after his first shot. Consider their lifetime stats:


Trammell: 1,231 runs, 2,365 hits, 412 doubles, 185 HR, 1003 RBI, 236 SB. A slash line of .285/.352/.415/.767. 6-time AL All Star, 4 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Sluggers. Only a career year from Jorge Bell kept Trammell from winning the 1987 AL MVP.

Whitaker: 1,386 runs, 2,369 hits, 420 doubles, 244 HR, 1,084 RBI, 143 SB. A slash line of .276/.363/.426/.789. 5-time AL All Star, 3 Gold Gloves, 4 Silver Sluggers.

If you look at the similarity scores on Baseball Reference, Whitaker most closely compares to Ryne Sandberg, Trammell, Roberto Alomar, Buddy Bell and Joe Morgan. Of course, Sandberg, Alomar and Morgan are Hall of Famers.

Al Oliver is a real head scratcher to me. Like Whitaker, I don't know if he should be in the Hall of Fame. But both men should have received more consideration than they received. Oliver was a seven time All Star. He was a career .303 hitter, with 2,743 hits, 529 doubles, 219 home runs and 1,326 RBI. He was a career .300 hitter in 6,768 career at bats in the National League, and a .313 hitter in 2,281 at bats in the AL. He hit over .300 eleven times, and won the 1982 AL batting title.

Well, I think you're doing way more analysis than any of the voters would ever do. We're talking about a Hall of Fame - if you're sorely lacking in the fame department, it's much harder to get in.

Carter started 7 All-Star games and was named to 11 AS squads. He won 3 Gold Gloves. He won 5 Silver Sluggers. He was a fiery team leader who was the Mets team captain. He played some of his peak seasons in NY, and he had a lot to do with his team winning the 1986 WS, leading the Mets with 2 HR and 9 RBI. Gary was pretty famous for quite a few years, and accomplished a number of notable achievements.

Fisk started 7 All-Star games and was named to 11 AS squads. He won a Gold Glove. He won 3 Silver Sluggers. He was a ROY. He was a fiery team leader. He'll forever be known as the guy who waved that WS home run fair. He finished his career having caught more games than any one in history, and having hit more HR than any catcher in history. Carlton was famous for quite a few years, and accomplished a number of notable achievements.

Simmons started 2 All-Star games and was named to 8 AS squads. He never won a Gold Glove. He won only 1 Silver Slugger. He was not a fiery team leader. He didn't win any WS and didn't hit well in the post season. He never led the league in anything. He was never very famous for anything. Deserved or not, his reputation was good hit-no field. In 1,771 games caught, Simmons had a whopping 821 combined errors/wild pitches/passed balls. Fisk had 100 fewer in nearly 500 more games; Carter had 150 fewer in nearly 300 more games.

Simmons also didn't catch much his last 5-6 seasons, and played only 70% of his career games at catcher; Fisk and Carter caught in about 90% of the games they appeared in. I don't think Simmons is as strongly identified as a catcher as are the other guys.

All that said, I think Simmons is HOF-worthy if you base the argument on him being as good as some other catchers already in there. I'm one of those guys, however, who thinks the HOF already has 50+ guys that shouldn't be in there.

I think the most glaring stat in Bill's comparison chart is the number of strikeouts that Fisk had, double Simmons' career totals.