A Case for Ted Simmons
January 12, 2012 at 3:16 am 3 comments
Long held assumptions are the most difficult to extract. What an individual has believed for years, what has been assumed as simple fact, is not easily pushed aside by reason. The wall of assumption is one erected with sturdy fortifications and an onslaught of reasoned analysis oftentimes fails to chip away at the mighty structure. But reason is the greatest of all weapons–that mightiest of directors–that can spotlight the errors of assumptions and escort the misguided towards enlightenment. Many baseball fans assume that either Johnny Bench or Carlton Fisk was the best all-round catcher of the 1970s, with Gary Carter their strongest peer (although he performed primarily in the 1980s) but they fail to regard perhaps the best of the crop. Very few assume that Ted Simmons, the star switch-hitting backstop of the St. Louis Cardinals, was in the same class as Bench, Fisk and Carter, but the truth is, he is, perhaps, the valedictorian of this star-studded class.
Johnny Bench guided his Cincinnati Reds to several World Series contests, Carlton Fisk was the no-nonsense star of the Boston Red Sox and Gary Carter was the clutch star for the World Champion 1986 Mets, but these three Hall of Famers aren’t quite the well-rounded performer that Ted Simmons was. Although Bench, Carter and Fisk have an edge defensively–this edge isn’t a mammoth gulf, mind you, but a slight separation–Simmons was unquestionably the better offensive performer. He was a consistent threat to hit .300 and owned the best plate discipline of the quartet. His arm was on par with Carter’s and Fisk’s and Simmons’ career stats exceed his enshrined peers in many major offensive categories. Let us take a look at a few, shall we?
HITS: Simmons 2472, Fisk 2356, Carter 2092 and Bench 2048
DOUBLES: Simmons 483, Fisk 421, Bench 381, Carter 371
RUNS BATTED IN: Simmons 1389, Bench 1376, Fisk 1330 and Carter 1225
BATTING AVERAGE: Simmons .285, Fisk .269, Bench .267 and Carter .262
ON-BASE PERCENTAGE: Simmons .348, Bench .342, Fisk .341 and Carter .335
Also, of this amazing catching quartet, Simmons owned the best batting eye, indicated by being the only player who walked more than he struck out. In over 2,400 games, Simba struck out just 694 times while accepting 855 free passes. The switch-hitting Simmons was topped by the Hall of Famers in homeruns and slugging, but there is more to baseball than just swatting a long ball. Simmons was a well-rounded performer who could drill twenty dingers, but he never reached the 40 homerun plateau that Bench toyed with from time to time. Although Bench hit 40 homeruns in two separate seasons in his career, he also struck out in the excess of 100 times in two seasons (something Simmons never did) while his plate discipline got progressively worse after his 25th birthday. Most players gather a better understanding of the strike zone as they age, but Bench was the opposite. At the age of 24 he walked more than he struck out but never again achieved this astounding feat. At the age of 27, Johnny drew 65 walks but whiffed 108 times. In half of Simmons’ seasons he walked more than he struck out.
Striking out was something Ted rarely ever did. In fact, Simba was one of the most difficult strikeout victims of his time. In ten separate seasons, Ted was in the Top Ten in his league in batters that were most difficult to strikeout. As for his Hall of Fame peers, Gary Carter had two such seasons in which he made the Top Ten while neither Bench nor Fisk ever had such a campaign. His knack for making contact enabled him to lead all catchers in the game’s history in a unique little department: intentional walks accepted. Ted was put on base intentionally by the opposition 188 times over the course of his career. His mammoth total of free passes eclipses Bench’s by over 50 intentional walks and exceeds both Fisk and Carter by over 80. Of all players in the game’s history, only 17 batters were walked more than Ted intentionally.
Although Simmons never won a batting title, he was one of the few catchers often in the running. He had six Top Ten finishes in batting average over the course of his career. His Hall of Fame peers were never regarded as great hitters for average–they were sluggers and not hitters. In seven separate seasons, Ted eclipsed the .300 plateau while Fisk was a .300 hitter in just two of his many seasons played. Gary Carter was never a .300 hitter and Bench enjoyed his only .300 season on the cheap–the strike shortened 1981 campaign. And everyone knows that a lofty batting average tends to make an on-base percentage lofty as well. Simba’s best single season OBP was .408, which eclipsed his Hall of Fame peers’ highwater marks: Fisk .402, Carter .381 and Bench .379.
Simmons was able to post over 100 more two-baggers than both Bench and Carter when his career was all said and done. His drives often went to the gaps which enabled the St. Louis backstop to tally an ample amount of doubles. Although Ted wasn’t the power hitter that his peers were, he still possessed solid pop and was the only member of this legendary quartet that posted a 40 double/20 homerun season. Bench’s forte may have been the dinger, but Simmons’ forte was the two-bagger. Ted ranks second all-time in career doubles among backstops, trailing the future Hall of Famer Ivan Rodriguez with Fisk coming in third behind Simba. Simmons eclipses Carlton in many categories and some might be surprised that Ted threw out 34% of would-be base stealers–the exact same percentage as the more highly touted Fisk.
The strongest case for Simmons’ Hall of Fame induction comes in the most important category in the game: the scoring of runs. To cross the plate is the only way to tally a score, making runs and runs batted in the most important stats in the game. In this regard, Ted was an elite performer. Of all the all-time great catchers, only the legendary Yogi Berra drove in more runs than Simmons. Ted is second all-time in career RBI among receivers. Bench comes in third, Mike Piazza fourth and Ivan Rodriguez, who is still active, but not a threat to move Simba down the ladder, in the fifth slot. Take a gander at other positions and envision the RBI runner-up not dwelling in Cooperstown. The runner-up among first basemen is a fellow named Lou Gehrig. In right field, Babe Ruth is second in all-time RBI. Willie Mays is the second best center fielder in driving in runs while Honus Wagner plays second fiddle among shortstops in this important stat. Now, can you imagine the Hall of Fame minus any of those men?
Entry filed under: Cases for Enshrinement. Tags: .
1.
Adam Darowski | January 23, 2012 at 11:47 am
Interesting approach. I love Simba for the Hall, and for my money, he’s the most SURPRISING Hall snub. He has all the traditional numbers.
To call him a better hitter than Bench is a stretch, though. He lasted longer, and that’s worth a lot. But you need to adjust for run scoring context. Simmons didn’t play in an offensive era, but it was more conducive than Bench’s.
This can be seen in era-adjusted stats. Simmons’ OPS+ was 117 and his batting runs component of WAR was 208. On the other hand, Bench has an OPS+ of 126 and 245 batting runs above average.
Simmons gets a raw deal. He was great. But he wasn’t quite on par, value-wise, as Bench (and to a lesser extent Fisk and Carter).
2.
brettkiser | February 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Evaluating baseball players is more exciting–and more volatile–now than it has ever been, given the many systems to judge the “value” of a player. But “value” is a broad term, especially in baseball. The old-timer’s definition of value is based more on intangibles, that which isn’t presented in the “here it is numerically” sense of the statistician. Today, we have more numbers to judge the value of a player, such as adjusted stats and the now famous WAR, but the old-timers evaluated on what was seen on the field and not the slash line. Intermingling the two schools of thought–the antiquated and the modern “numbers-is-everything” appraoch–leads to the best method to place value on a player.
Johnny Bench has better numbers in many categories while Simba’s numbers look better in others. Defensively, however, there isn’t much comparison, because Bench was a wonder, which gives Bench added value. Taking into account their entire games, I have to agree with you, that Bench had the better value. I also agree with you that Simmons gets a “raw deal” in Hall of Fame voting. Had there never been a Bench, would Simmons be in the Hall of Fame already? Perhaps.
How do you rank the catchers of Simba’s time: Bench, Carater, Fisk, Munson, Sanguillen and Simba? I like all six and might even slot Simba into the number two slot if I get carried away–there were some good catchers then. A good catcher like Bill Freehan (who I think, off the top of my head, made 12 All-Star Games) came before Simmons
3.
Adam Darowski | February 7, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Thanks for the reply, Brett… If you’re curious, my strictly objective catcher rankings are:
1. Bench
2. Carter
3. Rodriguez
4. Fisk
5. Piazza
6. Berra
7. Dickey
8. Cochrane
9. Ewing
10. Simmons
11. Torre
12. Mauer (already, just based on value so far!)
13. Munson
14. Hartnett
15. Tenace
16. Posada
17. Bennett
18. Freehan
19. Campanella (though this doesn’t include Negro League performance)
20. Bresnahan
Now, just taking players from Simmons’ era… he played 1968 to 1988. Let’s find the top catchers who played their ENTIRE careers between 1963 and 1993.
By WAR, I’m seeing:
1. Johnny Bench (71.3)
2. Carlton Fisk (67.3
3. Gary Carter (66.3)
4. Ted Simmons (50.4)
5. Gene Tenace (48.7)
6. Thurman Munson (43.4)
7. Bill Freehan (43.3)*
8. Darrell Porter (40.6)
9. Lance Parrish (35.7)**
10. Jim Sundberg (35.1)
11. Tim McCarver (27.5)
12. Bob Boone (26.1)
Sanguillen comes a few lots later with 24.6.
* Freehan played a few games in 1961
** Parrish played 110 games after 1993
1-3 are already in the Hall.
I can’t believe Simmons isn’t in.
Honestly, I’d put Tenace, Munson, and Freehan in, too.
There aren’t many catchers in the Hall. These guys were among the best ever.