O T Ted Simmons in the HOF

[billiken_roy]

4 minutes ago, courtside said:

So you are saying it was a good trade because the Cardinals got rid of the players received in the trade the next 3 seasons? Those particular players sent helped the Brewers whereas the players received were less help to the Cardinals. 

i am from the same hometown as whitey and had the occasion to discuss the trade with whitey personally in a barroom discussion in 82.     whitey plainly stated he felt it was important to make porter the undisputed catcher for team chemistry sakes.   (roy interpretation, this team isnt big enough for the both of em).   so from whitey's viewpoint it was likely more of a trade to better the team by subtraction than the players concerned.  

let's not forget, everyone had these grand dreams of david green's potential.   only to find out after the fact he was much older than everyone believed and a closet alcoholic.   dream killers.  

[courtside]

23 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i am from the same hometown as whitey and had the occasion to discuss the trade with whitey personally in a barroom discussion in 82.     whitey plainly stated he felt it was important to make porter the undisputed catcher for team chemistry sakes.   (roy interpretation, this team isnt big enough for the both of em).   so from whitey's viewpoint it was likely more of a trade to better the team by subtraction than the players concerned.  

let's not forget, everyone had these grand dreams of david green's potential.   only to find out after the fact he was much older than everyone believed and a closet alcoholic.   dream killers.  

Team chemistry was fine for Simmons in Milwaukee. It was fine for Hernandez in NYC. It’s perfectly fine to like Herzog and appreciate his success while at the same time point out things that were not as successful. Many new coaches make changes some good, some not, some in the middle. But if the return is less successful it’s ok to point it out it out in those instances. And Whitey has a few of those too. 

 

[brianstl]

42 minutes ago, courtside said:

So you are saying it was a good trade because the Cardinals got rid of the players received in the trade the next 3 seasons? Those particular players sent helped the Brewers whereas the players received were less help to the Cardinals. 

The players sent to the Brewers were excess players at that point for the Cardinals.  The Cardinals got Fingers in a trade just days before with the intention of trading him away.

The players the Cardinals got actually did help them on the field.  Sorenson was the second best starter on the 1981 Cardinals.  If you believe stats like FIP and ERA+, Sorenson was a better pitcher in 1981 for the Cardinals than Vuckovich was for the Brewers in 1981.  Lezcano had a better WAR with the Cardinals than Simmons had with the Brewer in 1981.  After the season Sorenson got us Lonnie Smith in a three team deal.  Lonnie went on to finish second in the MVP voting in 1982.  Lezcano was packaged with Templeton to get us Ozzie Smith after the season.  LaPoint went 9-3 in 1982 with advanced stats that were surprisingly similar to the Cy Young winning Vuckovich's.  Plus, LaPoint was a better pitcher in the World Series.  Green never lived up to his hype, but was part of the package that included LaPoint that brought the Cardinals Clark.

[Clock_Tower]

32 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I'm going to remark on this post and Clock's 

Clock … Simmons threw out 34% which was exactly league average for his career. 

I believe Yadi is the best defensive catcher of the last 50 years. I won't comment on before then as I was too young. He's better defensively than Bench, Sunny ( who I watched live probably 150 times ) Boone, and Carter. Pudge had a better throwing arm (the best I've ever seen) but that's it. However, Bench combined great defense with great offense so I'd have to give the best all time to him 

Overall I go Bench, Yadi, Pudge, Carter

A good discussion for example 3 star says 60/40 offense, I say 70/30 maybe 65/35 defense

Mike Piazza probably the best offensive catcher in the last 50 years or Yadi, Who do you take?  Obviously Yadi for me

Appreciate the stat on the league average -- 34% throwing out runners.   

Does appear that Whitey wanted his own guy and addition by subtraction.   Simmons still had good years in 1981 (wasn't that the strike/divided season)?  and in 1982.   I am certainly not anti-Ted Simmons.  Frankly, I would like to pull for him, again am glad to have another Cardinal in the Hall.   Another rehash of stats by Courtside is not helpful -though I do appreciate hearing more about Ted as a teammate, a leader, etc.   Obviously, not fair that the Cardinals had such poor ownership and management, not fair that we traded away Carlton and did not have a dominate pitcher following Gibson, not fair that St. Louis and Milwaulkee were not major media markets, not fair that he wasn't on the best teams - though he under performed himself in the post-season, not fair that he could not live up to the standards set by Johnny Bench.... 

[courtside]

6 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Appreciate the stat on the league average -- 34% throwing out runners.   

Does appear that Whitey wanted his own guy and addition by subtraction.   Simmons still had good years in 1981 (wasn't that the strike/divided season)?  and in 1982.   I am certainly not anti-Ted Simmons.  Frankly, I would like to pull for him, again am glad to have another Cardinal in the Hall.   Another rehash of stats by Courtside is not helpful -though I do appreciate hearing more about Ted as a teammate, a leader, etc.   Obviously, not fair that the Cardinals had such poor ownership and management, not fair that we traded away Carlton and did not have a dominate pitcher following Gibson, not fair that St. Louis and Milwaulkee were not major media markets, not fair that he wasn't on the best teams - though he under performed himself in the post-season, not fair that he could not live up to the standards set by Johnny Bench.... 

The stats matter though. That’s why we’re here. There are a lot of good guys in the Hall of Fame, bad guys, guys in the middle. If it makes you feel better, by many reliable accounts, Simmons was and is a good guy. First you say Simmons was this or that or wasn’t this or that. When factual and/or statistical information is presented to you that shows otherwise, you aren’t interested in the stats. It’s the analytics. It’s probably good for Simmons’ sake you weren’t on the committee. The following people were this time:

Ozzie Smith, Walt Jocketty, George Brett, Dennis Eckersley, Eddie Murray, Robin Yount, Rod Carew, Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski, David Glass, Doug Melvin, Terry Ryan, Bill Center, Steve Hirdt, Jack O’Connell, Tracy Ringolsby. 

 

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

i am from the same hometown as whitey and had the occasion to discuss the trade with whitey personally in a barroom discussion in 82.     whitey plainly stated he felt it was important to make porter the undisputed catcher for team chemistry sakes.   (roy interpretation, this team isnt big enough for the both of em).   so from whitey's viewpoint it was likely more of a trade to better the team by subtraction than the players concerned.  

let's not forget, everyone had these grand dreams of david green's potential.   only to find out after the fact he was much older than everyone believed and a closet alcoholic.   dream killers.  

The only problem with Whitey's explanation is that Simmons was already an established very good player.  He did not need Porter.  He wanted and liked Porter because Porter was his guy in KC.  Bottom line was that Porter was damaged goods and he never came close to delivering overall  for the Cardinals during his time here.  Long term we would have been better with Simmons.  Because we did not have Simmons and Porter was finished we made that bad trade for an injured Pena.  As smart as Whitey was he blew this one.

[Clock_Tower]

Courtside.    You missed my point.  You have repeated your stats over and over again.   I read them.  They are important. No need to repeat them if I don't fully agree with you.  In response, I ask you if stats are important?   And if so, all of them or just some of them?  If so, what is your response to his post-season stats?   his post-seasons awards and accomplishments?  Johnny Bench certainly exceeded him -- statistically, regular and post-season, championship, etc.  Maybe being in shadow of Bench truly hurt him more than his long hair, his position on Vietnam with the older writers, etc. And Whitey Herzog carries alot of weight and influence - both generally in baseball and on the committees reviewing him.

Other aspects of a player are also important, such as intangibles, and yet I find nothing in about intangibles, leadership, or other signs of a player carrying his team on his back at certain points -- sorry, I I did not see that in your WAR stats.

Admittedly, some guys in the Hall (baseball and otherwise - Kurt Warner comes to mind) may have lesser career stats, have played less years, but have had a bigger impact in a shorter time frame or have multiple championship and/or individual post-season awards.  Fact is that Simmons has none even though his team was strongly favored to win the 1982 World Series - and yet he and his team under performed on the national stage.

And yes, if I were on the HOF Board, I would have an open mind, would review the stats you presented but I also would be asking contemporaries of his:   how good was he calling pitches and handling the pitchers, how good was he in the locker room, how much did other teams game plan around him.   Statistically, he certainly has impressive as a hitter.

[DoctorB]

55 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Great point!!  Let’s let another 100 guys in!!   But you will then argue against letting in player 101. Always has to be a line.

No, let’s put everyone in Hall.  Trophies and medals for all!!

Right, Clock: that was precisely my point, gold star for reading comprehension!  Yes there is a line: somewhere between Simmons and, say, Chico Ruiz, or Marv Throneberry. Or Ed Kranepool, Bernie Carbo; or even Ed Head.  But which side of that line is Maury Wills? or Roger Maris?? or Tony Oliva???  Just 3 worthy guys off the top of my head... 3 who will never make it.

Should they? Actually, I don't care that much about these things as I once did -- in the big scheme of things, it doesn't mean a lot, except maybe to the guy and his family and team.  I don't really see myself "arguing" about it much anymore, and will not check to see where Maury is on the all-time steals list (3rd? 4th??); or how many homers Maris hit (did he make 300? doubt it -- I used to memorize that kind of stuff back in the day). Or how many batting titles did Oliva win (3? 4??).  Whatever the numbers, those are great players and I idolized them all. 

So, like others, I guess I do want "my guys" in the Halls - Larry Walker, Isaac Bruce, and the Doobies (who would be inducted with all the various members/lineups, like other groups [Byrds, Eagles] with multiple lineups, as they should, because all the records under the Doobies or Eagles banner are officially by those bands; and by the way Roy, McDonald is touring with the Doobs again this summer, here in Aug. for the 50th anniversary tour!)

[Clock_Tower]

Just now, cheeseman said:

The only problem with Whitey's explanation is that Simmons was already an established very good player.  He did not need Porter.  He wanted and liked Porter because Porter was his guy in KC.  Bottom line was that Porter was damaged goods and he never came close to delivering overall  for the Cardinals during his time here.  Long term we would have been better with Simmons.  Because we did not have Simmons and Porter was finished we made that bad trade for an injured Pena.  As smart as Whitey was he blew this one.

Gene Tenace was truly an important piece of the 1982 puzzle - good in the locker room,  alot of experience, stability - though he was pretty done as a player. 

And as disappointing as Darrell Porter was for his entire career with the Cardinals, and while the trade was certainly not our best trade, still Darrell Porter came up big in the national spotlight and was the 1982 World Series MVP - and he was our catcher in 1985 when we went back to the World Series (and would have won but for Don Denkinger)  -- could have had 2 World Series title with us as well 

[courtside]

18 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Courtside.    You missed my point.  You have repeated your stats over and over again.   I read them.  They are important. No need to repeat them if I don't fully agree with you.  In response, I ask you if stats are important?   And if so, all of them or just some of them?  If so, what is your response to his post-season stats?   his post-seasons awards and accomplishments?  Johnny Bench certainly exceeded him -- statistically, regular and post-season, championship, etc.  Maybe being in shadow of Bench truly hurt him more than his long hair, his position on Vietnam with the older writers, etc. And Whitey Herzog carries alot of weight and influence - both generally in baseball and on the committees reviewing him.

Other aspects of a player are also important, such as intangibles, and yet I find nothing in about intangibles, leadership, or other signs of a player carrying his team on his back at certain points -- sorry, I I did not see that in your WAR stats.

Admittedly, some guys in the Hall (baseball and otherwise - Kurt Warner comes to mind) may have lesser career stats, have played less years, but have had a bigger impact in a shorter time frame or have multiple championship and/or individual post-season awards.  Fact is that Simmons has none even though his team was strongly favored to win the 1982 World Series - and yet he and his team under performed on the national stage.

And yes, if I were on the HOF Board, I would have an open mind, would review the stats you presented but I also would be asking contemporaries of his:   how good was he calling pitches and handling the pitchers, how good was he in the locker room, how much did other teams game plan around him.   Statistically, he certainly has impressive as a hitter.

You keep saying things without evidential support. Perhaps if you say them often enough you and maybe a few others will believe them. But the facts are as others kindly pointed out, his defense in some areas was better than your vague recollection. When you are corrected, that doesn’t seem to matter. 

In no particular order:

Ted Williams never won a World Series. (How is it possible he is in the Hall of Fame?) Ken Griffey Jr, Harmon Killebrew, Tony Gwynn, Ty Cobb, Ernie Banks, Carl Yastremski, Ichiro Suzuki, Carlton Fisk (uh oh a catcher) Mike Piazza (uh oh another catcher) Willie McCovey, Rod Carew, on and on and on.....

Please show me where his teammates didn’t like him. Link please. (and of course that wouldn’t matter even though they did)

 

 

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

The only problem with Whitey's explanation is that Simmons was already an established very good player.  He did not need Porter.  He wanted and liked Porter because Porter was his guy in KC.  Bottom line was that Porter was damaged goods and he never came close to delivering overall  for the Cardinals during his time here.  Long term we would have been better with Simmons.  Because we did not have Simmons and Porter was finished we made that bad trade for an injured Pena.  As smart as Whitey was he blew this one.

Porter's total OPS, OPS+, WAR and defensive WAR where all better than Simmons from 1981-1985.

OPS - Porter .749, Simmons .711

OPS+ - Porter 109, Simmons 100

WAR - Porter 11.7, Simmons 6.1

dWAR Porter 4.5, Simmons  -1.6

In every way Porter was a better catcher for those years than Simmons was.

[almaman]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

The only problem with Whitey's explanation is that Simmons was already an established very good player.  He did not need Porter.  He wanted and liked Porter because Porter was his guy in KC.  Bottom line was that Porter was damaged goods and he never came close to delivering overall  for the Cardinals during his time here.  Long term we would have been better with Simmons.  Because we did not have Simmons and Porter was finished we made that bad trade for an injured Pena.  As smart as Whitey was he blew this one.

He treated some of the already here stars in a way reminds me of RM with TL3 and KL.

[Clock_Tower]

28 minutes ago, almaman said:

He treated some of the already here stars in a way reminds me of RM with TL3 and KL.

Tony LaRussa did not treat Ozzie Smith very well either.   Like everyone else, I sure did like Ozzie Smith - but there was a real divided in that clubhouse and Ozzie was a stronger leader.  Maybe - on purpose to truly be in charge of the clubhouse you install your own guys.

[Clock_Tower]

1 hour ago, courtside said:

You keep saying things without evidential support. Perhaps if you say them often enough you and maybe a few others will believe them. But the facts are as others kindly pointed out, his defense in some areas was better than your vague recollection. When you are corrected, that doesn’t seem to matter. 

In no particular order:

Ted Williams never won a World Series. (How is it possible he is in the Hall of Fame?) Ken Griffey Jr, Harmon Killebrew, Tony Gwynn, Ty Cobb, Ernie Banks, Carl Yastremski, Ichiro Suzuki, Carlton Fisk (uh oh a catcher) Mike Piazza (uh oh another catcher) Willie McCovey, Rod Carew, on and on and on.....

Please show me where his teammates didn’t like him. Link please. (and of course that wouldn’t matter even though they did)

 

 

I get it.  The old wear you out by Courside...   have seen this before.

Please first address the post-season stats of Ted Simmons.   OK..  I'll hang up an listen.

[almaman]

13 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Tony LaRussa did not treat Ozzie Smith very well either.   Like everyone else, I sure did like Ozzie Smith - but there was a real divided in that clubhouse and Ozzie was a stronger leader.  Maybe - on purpose to truly be in charge of the clubhouse you install your own guys.

of the 3 cases this only one I was on management side. Big GT fan.

[courtside]

44 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

I get it.  The old wear you out by Courside...   have seen this before.

Please first address the post-season stats of Ted Simmons.   OK..  I'll hang up an listen.

What didn’t you understand? Simmons is still good enough to warrant entry into baseball’s HOF despite not playing on many playoff teams. The other list of players I gave you are also HOF worthy despite not playing in many playoff games or winning a World Series. Entry into baseball’s HOF is not based on number of playoff games played. It isn’t a trick. No one is trying to fool you. There are a variety of ways to enter the HOF. There are a variety of things that can help someone’s case to enter the HOF. 

Ted Williams batted .200, .533 ops in the post-season. How do you explain that? Could it possibly be that a small sample size is not indicative of the play of a few decade career? Could it be Williams had numbers good enough for the HOF regardless of what he did in the post-season? 

You are free to keep cherry picking all you like though.

 

[Billiken Rich]

21 minutes ago, courtside said:

What didn’t you understand? Simmons is still good enough to warrant entry into baseball’s HOF despite not playing on many playoff teams. The other list of players I gave you are also HOF worthy despite not playing in many playoff games or winning a World Series. Entry into baseball’s HOF is not based on number of playoff games played. It isn’t a trick. No one is trying to fool you. There are a variety of ways to enter the HOF. There are a variety of things that can help someone’s case to enter the HOF. 

Ted Williams batted .200, .533 ops in the post-season. How do you explain that? Could it possibly be that a small sample size is not indicative of the play of a few decade career? Could it be Williams had numbers good enough for the HOF regardless of what he did in the post-season? 

You are free to keep cherry picking all you like though.

 

Game and set to Courtside.......

[cheeseman]

3 hours ago, brianstl said:

Porter's total OPS, OPS+, WAR and defensive WAR where all better than Simmons from 1981-1985.

OPS - Porter .749, Simmons .711

OPS+ - Porter 109, Simmons 100

WAR - Porter 11.7, Simmons 6.1

dWAR Porter 4.5, Simmons  -1.6

In every way Porter was a better catcher for those years than Simmons was.

So are saying that Porter should be in the HOF?  Had Simmons was here we would have had him for 3 more years and not had to make that poor trade for Pena.  

[cheeseman]

4 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Gene Tenace was truly an important piece of the 1982 puzzle - good in the locker room,  alot of experience, stability - though he was pretty done as a player. 

And as disappointing as Darrell Porter was for his entire career with the Cardinals, and while the trade was certainly not our best trade, still Darrell Porter came up big in the national spotlight and was the 1982 World Series MVP - and he was our catcher in 1985 when we went back to the World Series (and would have won but for Don Denkinger)  -- could have had 2 World Series title with us as well 

Fair points

[brianstl]

28 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

So are saying that Porter should be in the HOF?  Had Simmons was here we would have had him for 3 more years and not had to make that poor trade for Pena.  

No, I am not saying Porter should be in the HOF.  I am saying Porter was a better player for that 5 year period and the numbers back that statement.  When Simmons left here he forgot how to take a walk.  His dramatically lower walk total really hurt his offensive productivity after St. Louis.  

 

And no keeping Simmons would not have prevented us trading for Pena.  Simmons last season as a catcher was 1983.  Simmons only caught 50 games total over 5 seasons after 1983.  He physically couldn't play the position even on a semi regular basis.

[Clock_Tower]

1 hour ago, courtside said:

What didn’t you understand? Simmons is still good enough to warrant entry into baseball’s HOF despite not playing on many playoff teams. The other list of players I gave you are also HOF worthy despite not playing in many playoff games or winning a World Series. Entry into baseball’s HOF is not based on number of playoff games played. It isn’t a trick. No one is trying to fool you. There are a variety of ways to enter the HOF. There are a variety of things that can help someone’s case to enter the HOF. 

Ted Williams batted .200, .533 ops in the post-season. How do you explain that? Could it possibly be that a small sample size is not indicative of the play of a few decade career? Could it be Williams had numbers good enough for the HOF regardless of what he did in the post-season? 

You are free to keep cherry picking all you like though.

 

Thank you.  Now, I know you are not comparing Ted Williams to Ted Simmons.   Ted William, of course, may have been the greatest hitter to ever play the game -but yes, I see the comparison with William's post season batting average/stats.   You mention small sample size - fair point.   Still, it should be pointed out Williams played in only 1 series -- a 7 games with the Cardinals in which he had 30 PAs, 25 ABs and 5 hits.   Compare that to Simmons who had played in 3 series, over 2 years with a 68 PAs, 59 ABs and 11 hits.  Still not the largest sample size - but much larger and alot more chances and opportunities for Simmons.

Which goes back to my original point, if you are at all a borderline player, then the other aspects are delved into.   For instance, if play in a big market (Williams - Boston v. Simmons - STL & Milwaukee), you have a career batting average of .344 (Williams) v. .285 (Simmons), you have a WAR of 123.1 (Williams)  v. 50.3 (Simmons), you are not borderline and no one cares or even looks at your .200 postseason batting average from a single, 7 game series.   But Simmons is no where close to Ted Williams, so if we agree on that, then why is it fair to treat Simmons the same as Williams - by not even looking at his post season stats (which BTW are lower than Williams and came from a larger sample, from 3 series and over 2 years).  I get that ignoring post-season stats, the lack of championships and down playing his defensive abilities helps your argument - that his regular season stats, alone, are sufficient but apparently I others have been a little skeptical as well - which is why he hasn't been inducted since 1994.

Blame the unknown, conservative, elderly baseball writers, blame it on his long hair, blame MLB brass who did not like his stand on the reserve clause, blame it on Herzog, but there are others who have not been so sure about Ted Simmons.  Me?   Again, mostly prior to my time.  I am just asking you and others to fully make the case.  Go back and re-read my statements - not once did I say Simmons' teammates did not like him.  If you do know Ted Simmons personally and his teammates, give us some stories and quotes!

 

 

[courtside]

18 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Thank you.  Now, I know you are not comparing Ted Williams to Ted Simmons.   Ted William, of course, may have been the greatest hitter to ever play the game -but yes, I see the comparison with William's post season batting average/stats.   You mention small sample size - fair point.   Still, it should be pointed out Williams played in only 1 series -- a 7 games with the Cardinals in which he had 30 PAs, 25 ABs and 5 hits.   Compare that to Simmons who had played in 3 series, over 2 years with a 68 PAs, 59 ABs and 11 hits.  Still not the largest sample size - but much larger and alot more chances and opportunities for Simmons.

Which goes back to my original point, if you are at all a borderline player, then the other aspects are delved into.   For instance, if play in a big market (Williams - Boston v. Simmons - STL & Milwaukee), you have a career batting average of .344 (Williams) v. .285 (Simmons), you have a WAR of 123.1 (Williams)  v. 50.3 (Simmons), you are not borderline and no one cares or even looks at your .200 postseason batting average from a single, 7 game series.   But Simmons is no where close to Ted Williams, so if we agree on that, then why is it fair to treat Simmons the same as Williams - by not even looking at his post season stats (which BTW are lower than Williams and came from a larger sample, from 3 series and over 2 years).  I get that ignoring post-season stats, the lack of championships and down playing his defensive abilities helps your argument - that his regular season stats, alone, are sufficient but apparently I others have been a little skeptical as well - which is why he hasn't been inducted since 1994.

Blame the unknown, conservative, elderly baseball writers, blame it on his long hair, blame MLB brass who did not like his stand on the reserve clause, blame it on Herzog, but there are others who have not been so sure about Ted Simmons.  Me?   Again, mostly prior to my time.  I am just asking you and others to fully make the case.  Go back and re-read my statements - not once did I say Simmons' teammates did not like him.  If you do know Ted Simmons personally and his teammates, give us some stories and quotes!

 

 

These are some of your quotes in this thread:

“I admit I was too young to really watch and remember his playing career.” “Great person.” “Great baseball mind.” “Are their worse players in the hall, sure.” “Will he be the best in the Hall? Probably not.”

”To me the most questionable guys who still made the Hall, did so because of their post-season play.”  

“Again I was young and don’t really remember Simmons in his peak years.” “I remember more his later years in St. Louis and Milwaukee.” “I never saw saw Simmons play well.” 

“If it was so obvious how good Ted Simmons was, why didn’t he get in sooner?”

”Weak arm with very low figure of throwing runners out.”

”Did not excel playing other positions than catcher.”

“No need to repeat stats if I don’t fully agree with you.” 

“If you are at all a borderline player, other aspects are devied into...For instance if you play in a big market.”

So let’s take a look:

1) You seem overly preoccupied in your own personal viewing experience at the time, what you personally remember, which is admittedly not a lot, and, this all is after the best decade plus of his Simmons career. Just because you didn’t see it or don’t remember it, and didn’t see some of it later, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It did.

2) It’s perfectly fine if Simmons is neither the best nor worst Hall of Famer. As you said, he’s somewhere in the middle according to you. That’s perfectly fine.

3) The most questionable guys made it based on post season success according to some random idea you had. Well.....here are just some random examples where that is not the case. The following took a while to get elected into the HOF. Since you seem more comfortable with players from a certain era, I tried to include many of that era:

Burt Blyleven. Harold Baines. Andre Dawson. Edgar Martinez. Tim Raines. Jim Rice. Lee Smith. Jim Thome. Vladimir Guerrero. Trevor Hoffman. 

They didn’t get in because of their over the top post season performances. 

...and so on...and so on...

Is he somehow less worthy because it took him longer to get in? No. It means some of the people deciding in the past got it wrong. 

 

 

 

 

[Pistol]

On 12/12/2019 at 9:49 AM, Box and Won said:

He played here for 13 seasons - five in Milwaukee, three in Atlanta.  He made the All-Star game six times here and won the Silver Slugger once.   I don't see why he wouldn't go in as a Cardinal.

He usually makes an appearance or two in STL every year.  His post-playing career in the Pirates' front office and later as a scout has likely kept him from being more involved with the Cards.

Simmons just confirmed he's going into the Hall as a Cardinal.

[courtside]

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/ted-simmons-to-be-inducted-into-hall-of-fame-wearing/article_f8d7d451-d030-5fe7-bf8b-036d70435354.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

[Bay Area Billiken]

1 hour ago, courtside said:

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/ted-simmons-to-be-inducted-into-hall-of-fame-wearing/article_f8d7d451-d030-5fe7-bf8b-036d70435354.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

Very good news!  Cardinals may have gotten ahead of Milwaukee by inducting Ted Simmons into the Cardinal HOF and giving him the red jacket.  Simmons really should go into the HOF as a Cardinal.