Modern Era Hall of Famers: Marvin Miller and Ted Simmons

[Seth Stohs]

On MLB Network, it was just announced that there are two new Hall of Famers, players union legend Marvin Miller and catcher Ted Simmons.

 

The Modern Era ballot included players who played in the era from 1970-1987. Ten people were on the ballot. A group of 16 voted on them. Included in that group were Rod Carew (among 6 Hall of Famers) and Terry Ryan (among 6 executives). Four historians also were voters. 

 

Marvin Miller deserved this a long time ago for all he did to make the game better for the players. 

 

I admit not knowing as much about Ted Simmons as I should have. 21 seasons, .285/.348/.437 (.785) with 483 doubles, 248 homers. 8 All Star games.  Pretty impressive career. 

[gil4]

I'm not crazy about the selection of Simmons, other than it helps Joe Mauer's case. There were at least three other guys on the modern era list I would have preferred (Whitaker, Evans, John), and I'd really only choose the first two. 

I will say that his dWAR stats surprised me because his reputation as I remember it was that he was a catcher in name only and his best defensive position was DH. I remember his time with the Brewers more than his time with the Cardinals, and that was probably after his defense had declined.  

[sweetmusicviola16]

Simba, one of the dominant catchers of his time. Along with Pudge Fisk, Thurman Munson and Johnny Bench. This was an era where a catcher was relied on to be able to hit above his weight. Congrats to Ted. I enjoyed him

[mikelink45]

I am fine with Simmons, but Miller - Bleh!  Sorry but Kuhn and all the executives are a waste of space.  Create an exhibit about the business and baseball, but for me the HOF is about players.  

[biggentleben]

As far as people who impacted/changed the game, Miller is in a realm that only Ruth, Jackie Robinson, and Branch Rickey can argue higher impact overall.

 

Simmons was SO good, but he did it for so long under the radar with arguably the greatest catcher in history in the same league in Johnny Bench.

[gunnarthor]

I liked both of these picks. A few others on the ballot might also deserve to be in but I'm ok with just those two for now.

Agree with Ben on Miller, his impact was titanic. Absolutely deserves to be in the hall.

[cardsfan]

I grew up watching the Cards. I only remember one season, 1979, in which Ted Simmons was on a homerun pace of 35 before he broke his hand, but, still ended up with 26. He was feared that year.

 

But, fans didn't say I'm going to see him play tonight like say Lou Brock terrorizing pitchers by stealing bases or Bob Gibson pitching or Musial or Pujols hitting or Ozzie Smith at shortstop.

 

He accumulated a lot of hits as a catcher, but, I could see why he wasn't elected by the BBWAA. He needed some peak seasons that were special or some outstanding defensive years and or being a major reason why your team won the World Series such as Brock hitting .348 in 1964 after being traded by the Cubs at the trade deadline. No Brock in 1964 no NL pennant by 1 game.

 

We have several players like catcher Simmons that if you can accumulate numbers you can get in. 3000 hits and 500 homeruns usually does it for the BBWAA.

 

Using WAR to get Blyleven in the HOF after 15 years on the ballot,

like really? . Did anyone come to the ballpark with their kids just to see him before he retired? No. Tommy John? Scared to face him? No.

 

Same with Winfield who did get 3000 hits and lasted a long time in the big leagues, but, you wanted seasons where he terrorized pitchers. You went to the ballpark to watch Baines terrorize the opposition?

 

Or Gaylord Perry who won a lot of games, but, who thought if Perry pitches against us we have little chance of winning? People went to see Drysdale and his 209 wins because he could give you a dominating pitching performance you wouldn't forget.

 

The Veterans Committee especially admitting Frankie Frisch's teammates in from the Giants and Cardinals leaves a little to be desired most of the time.

 

Simmons is in. Oh, well fans who know baseball will say it took the Veterans Committee.

[biggentleben]

 

I grew up watching the Cards. I only remember one season, 1979, in which Ted Simmons was on a homerun pace of 35 before he broke his hand, but, still ended up with 26. He was feared that year.

But, fans didn't say I'm going to see him play tonight like say Lou Brock terrorizing pitchers by stealing bases or Bob Gibson pitching or Musial or Pujols hitting or Ozzie Smith at shortstop.

He accumulated a lot of hits as a catcher, but, I could see why he wasn't elected by the BBWAA. He needed some peak seasons that were special or some outstanding defensive years and or being a major reason why your team won the World Series such as Brock hitting .348 in 1964 after being traded by the Cubs at the trade deadline. No Brock in 1964 no NL pennant by 1 game.

We have several players like catcher Simmons that if you can accumulate numbers you can get in. 3000 hits and 500 homeruns usually does it for the BBWAA.

Using WAR to get Blyleven in the HOF after 15 years on the ballot,
like really? . Did anyone come to the ballpark with their kids just to see him before he retired? No. Tommy John? Scared to face him? No.

Same with Winfield who did get 3000 hits and lasted a long time in the big leagues, but, you wanted seasons where he terrorized pitchers. You went to the ballpark to watch Baines terrorize the opposition?

Or Gaylord Perry who won a lot of games, but, who thought if Perry pitches against us we have little chance of winning? People went to see Drysdale and his 209 wins because he could give you a dominating pitching performance you wouldn't forget.

The Veterans Committee especially admitting Frankie Frisch's teammates in from the Giants and Cardinals leaves a little to be desired most of the time.

Simmons is in. Oh, well fans who know baseball will say it took the Veterans Committee.

...and fans who know baseball will shake their heads and wonder why it did. Simmons was an elite backstop that was considered at that level for many years. I was too young to buy a ticket, but living in South Dakota, I was a Ted Simmons fan. My great-grandma, who taught me the game and was a HUGE Cubs fan, HATED Simmons because of the way he tortured her beloved Cubbies (her memory was good, too, as he hit .334/.396/.507 over his career against the Cubs), and she was one of the first to point out to me how a guy pitched better with certain catchers, using Steve Carlton throwing to Simmons as her example She swore that when both were young with the Cardinals, Carlton settled in with Simmons behind the plate in '71 before Carlton was traded, and Simmons hit significantly better when he was working with Carlton.

[gil4]

 

Using WAR to get Blyleven in the HOF after 15 years on the ballot,
like really? . Did anyone come to the ballpark with their kids just to see him before he retired? …

...People went to see Drysdale and his 209 wins because he could give you a dominating pitching performance you wouldn't forget.
 

They should have.

 

People went to see Drysdale because he played on great teams. Blyleven at his best was better than Drysdale at his best. Blyleven wasted what ended up being his peak (age 20-26 seasons) averaging 6.8 WAR per season while playing for crappy teams.

 

What most people remember was Blyleven's second stint with the Twins, when he was good but not great, but he played a key role in a World Series win. 

 

Bill James used to describe the difficulty in comparing peak and career value by asking something like "who is bigger, the guy who is 7 feet tall or the guy who weighs 400." The answer is it depends on what you are looking for. Koufax' career is the 7 foot skinny guy.  Blyleven's career is 6'8" / 360 - just big enough by either measure.  Drysdale's was an inch shorter and quite a bit lighter, but people forget the tall part of Blylevens 's career and remember Drysdale's. (Go look at Blyleven's 1973 season.) 

 

 

 

[biggentleben]

More than one "old-timer" I've talked to said that they faced all the best, and no one could compete with Bert's curve. It was, bar none, the best in the game.

 

People may not have been going to watch, but he also had one of the lowest team W/L records of any player with more than 250 wins. His teams were not fun to watch. When he was on good teams in his prime, he was considered a vital part of those teams. It wasn't JUST WAR that made Blyleven's case after the fact, otherwise, he'd not have still been on the ballot to have the case made.

[cardsfan]

...and fans who know baseball will shake their heads and wonder why it did. Simmons was an elite backstop that was considered at that level for many years. I was too young to buy a ticket, but living in South Dakota, I was a Ted Simmons fan. My great-grandma, who taught me the game and was a HUGE Cubs fan, HATED Simmons because of the way he tortured her beloved Cubbies (her memory was good, too, as he hit .334/.396/.507 over his career against the Cubs), and she was one of the first to point out to me how a guy pitched better with certain catchers, using Steve Carlton throwing to Simmons as her example She swore that when both were young with the Cardinals, Carlton settled in with Simmons behind the plate in '71 before Carlton was traded, and Simmons hit significantly better when he was working with Carlton.

[cardsfan]

I admire Simmons, also. But, there are reasons why he only received 3.7% of the writers votes.

[cardsfan]

Blyleven's curve. Drysdale was feared when he was on the mound and was done by the age of 32

 

 

Blyleven picked by managers twice to the All-Star Game. Drysdale was 8 timer chosen by managers. Use that WAR if you want, but, after Blyleven turned 23 he never got better. I don't really care one way or the other that Blyleven is in the HOF and would vote for him eventually, but, facing Blyleven wouldn't intimidate your team.

[biggentleben]

 

Blyleven's curve. Drysdale was feared when he was on the mound and was done by the age of 32


Blyleven picked by managers twice to the All-Star Game. Drysdale was 8 timer chosen by managers. Use that WAR if you want, but, after Blyleven turned 23 he never got better. I don't really care one way or the other that Blyleven is in the HOF and would vote for him eventually, but, facing Blyleven wouldn't intimidate your team.

 

You can say that, but I've talked to HOF players who faced him who say otherwise...

 

Before attempting to disparage a man's accomplishments solely based on your own view of them, it's often good to research for perspective. Reggie Jackson, who faced Blyleven more than any pitcher in his career, called him Captain Hook in reference to his devastating curve. Jim Kaat once said Blyleven is the one teammate that he was ever jealous of in mound skills and work ethic - paraphrasing, but he said, "I could outwork the guys with better raw stuff but lazy, I could outpitch the guys with good work but less stuff, but Bert had both, and, if I'm honest, better than me at both."

[biggentleben]

 

 

I admire Simmons, also. But, there are reasons why he only received 3.7% of the writers votes.

 

Yeah, it's been considered one of the largest voting travesties of HOF voting, followed closely by Lofton being a one-and-done, though I'm sure that will be changed soon as well.

[mikelink45]

 

You can say that, but I've talked to HOF players who faced him who say otherwise...

 

Before attempting to disparage a man's accomplishments solely based on your own view of them, it's often good to research for perspective. Reggie Jackson, who faced Blyleven more than any pitcher in his career, called him Captain Hook in reference to his devastating curve. Jim Kaat once said Blyleven is the one teammate that he was ever jealous of in mound skills and work ethic - paraphrasing, but he said, "I could outwork the guys with better raw stuff but lazy, I could outpitch the guys with good work but less stuff, but Bert had both, and, if I'm honest, better than me at both."

Personally, I would love to see Kaat in the HOF - take a look at his stats - https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kaatji01.shtml

 

In many ways this kind of election is really good for baseball because it brings up names and memories that connect us with the history of the game.  

[mikelink45]

As I already stated, I would not put in Miller and I would certainly remove Kuhn and all the executive owners from the Hall.  But now that Miller is in my real question is - does Boras go in?  Since we want those who make a difference off the field as well as on, I find it hard to think of anyone more outrageous and effective than Boras.  

 

Just to be clear, I would not put Boras in, but I think the Miller inclusion is a good comp.

[cardsfan]

You can say that, but I've talked to HOF players who faced him who say otherwise...

 

Before attempting to disparage a man's accomplishments solely based on your own view of them, it's often good to research for perspective. Reggie Jackson, who faced Blyleven more than any pitcher in his career, called him Captain Hook in reference to his devastating curve. Jim Kaat once said Blyleven is the one teammate that he was ever jealous of in mound skills and work ethic - paraphrasing, but he said, "I could outwork the guys with better raw stuff but lazy, I could outpitch the guys with good work but less stuff, but Bert had both, and, if I'm honest, better than me at both."

When a pitcher strikes out 3700 batters he will make the Hall of Fame. He started out young like Kaat, stayed healthy, and pitched a lot of innings for small market teams.

 

The teams that traded him away didn't really trade him for other All-Stars.

 

Telling, 1973 when he received a decision in all but 3 games he was 20-17 with 9 shutouts. In the 17 games he lost his ERA was 4.48 and a WHIP of 1.46. That about sums his career.

 

He would pitch some shutouts and then lose some games.

 

Durability, for sure, but, not dominating like a Carlton or a Seaver could be. Only 2 all-star selections despite some below 3 ERA seasons. Traded for cash and minor players a few times though who would trade a starter who would have plenty innings left on his arm?

[nicksaviking]

 

Blyleven's curve. Drysdale was feared when he was on the mound and was done by the age of 32


Blyleven picked by managers twice to the All-Star Game. Drysdale was 8 timer chosen by managers. Use that WAR if you want, but, after Blyleven turned 23 he never got better. I don't really care one way or the other that Blyleven is in the HOF and would vote for him eventually, but, facing Blyleven wouldn't intimidate your team.

 

Sure, not like Drysdale because he was a notorious head hunter. I'm not sure regularly intentionally beaning guys is really a qualification for the HOF though.

[cardsfan]

As I already stated, I would not put in Miller and I would certainly remove Kuhn and all the executive owners from the Hall. But now that Miller is in my real question is - does Boras go in? Since we want those who make a difference off the field as well as on, I find it hard to think of anyone more outrageous and effective than Boras.

 

Just to be clear, I would not put Boras in, but I think the Miller inclusion is a good comp.

[cardsfan]

Talking about Miller, do you think he would advise his union players not to cross a picket line such as the umpire's when the umps went on strike?

 

Probably not.

[IndianaTwin]

I love Hall of Fame discussions, at least partially because there are so many times when there isn’t a single “right” answer; that discussion is good for the game. Maybe it happens, but I don’t think there’s nearly as much discussion about whether people should be in the basketball or football hall as there is about baseball’s.

 

That said, I appreciate that the wave of new statistics has made it easier to make a compelling case for the Bert Blylevens of the world, but the downside is that it seems to have become a case where only stats matter for some people.

 

I take seriously the “Fame” part of the title, so I think there is room to consider things other than stats. It’s not the “Hall of Best Players,” after all. For example, Tommy John is probably borderline as a player, but I give bonus points for having a surgery named after him. Sure, it was desperation to keep his career alive and not life-threatening in any way, but I think it’s noteworthy that he had the courage and self-discipline to be the first to accept a procedure that would alter the game in significant ways. (My son has joked that John and Frank Jobe should go in together.)

 

Similarly, I’ve said that any player who makes more than a million bucks had better be voting for Marvin Miller. Though I can’t say that I LIKE all the changes that have resulted from his work, it’s undoubtable to me that very few people have had the effect on the game that he did. The comparisons to Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson as game changers probably aren’t too far off. Someone above raised the question of, “if Miller, why not Boras?” Good question, and one I hadn’t thought of. He’s also made a big difference, but I think a distinction is that Miller worked directly with all the players and formal position with the MLBPA, whereas Boras only worked with some players (though clearly, his work with those players had carryover effect to others).

 

After having been to Cooperstown a couple times, including for Puckett’s induction, I’ve also come down on the side of a bigger hall. Being there is a fun place to be, and this is a game that is, after all, about fun. I could go either way on Simmons, but if having him included brings a new set of people to Cooperstown, I’m cool with that. If including Simmons lets a dad my age get fired up about taking his daughter or grandson, I’m cool with that.

[mikelink45]

 

Sure, not like Drysdale because he was a notorious head hunter. I'm not sure regularly intentionally beaning guys is really a qualification for the HOF though.

The question is - in a really big game - do you choose Drysdale or Blyleven?

[biggentleben]

 

The question is - in a really big game - do you choose Drysdale or Blyleven?

Koufax.

 

All this talk, and his own team didn't go to Drysdale in those games.

[gunnarthor]

 

The question is - in a really big game - do you choose Drysdale or Blyleven?

Post season stats for both.

Blyleven - 5-1 (8 games, 6 starts), 47.3ip, 2.47 ERA

Drysdale - 3-3 (7 games, 6 starts), 39.67ip, 2.95 ERA

[mikelink45]

 

Koufax.

 

All this talk, and his own team didn't go to Drysdale in those games.

When you bring Koufax in the conversation stops no matter what other pitcher is discussed.

[Mr. Brooks]

When you bring Koufax in the conversation stops no matter what other pitcher is discussed.

I wasn't alive when Koufax pitched, but I'll put peak Pedro Martinez against anyone.

[mikelink45]

 

I wasn't alive when Koufax pitched, but I'll put peak Pedro Martinez against anyone.

That confirms that you were not alive when Koufax was so dominate, but I am glad you have someone who fills that role in your lifetime.

[cardsfan]

The question is - in a really big game - do you choose Drysdale or Blyleven?

Same offense for both sides, neutral ballpark, no DH? Drysdale wins 55-60% of the time.

[gunnarthor]

 

Same offense for both sides, neutral ballpark, no DH? Drysdale wins 55-60% of the time.

Almost certainly not. Blyleven pitched against the DH - although that seemed to be a foreign concept to the Cardinals in 87 - and he pitched in parks better for hitters with a lower mound and still put up the better numbers.