If Fisk and Carter Are In The Hall, Why Not SIMMONS?

Question

None of them really belong, but compare the stats. Simmons is just as good and even better.

http://www.baseball-reference.com

Answer 1

Simba never was known as a good defensive catcher and it's possible that he was the slowest runner to ever play. And even knowing all of that, it's ridiculous that he's not in.

Few are aware that when he retired and when he became eligible for the Hall He was #2 in BB history in career HR's by a switch hitter, Only Mickey Mantle had more. That stat held until Simmons was surpassed by Eddie Murray

Answer 2

Fisk is in based on longevity, and it doesn't hurt that he hit one of the more memorable homers of all time, or that he played in a couple of big media markets. He also hit a ton of homers, which doesn't hurt his cause.

Gary Carter was the best NL catcher of the 1980s, although there wasn't much competition. He was also an outgoing, photogenic guy who endeared himself to fans and the media. He also became a Met at just the right time, having a 100-RBI season the year the Mets won the Series. That New York exposure didn't hurt his cause. I know his offensive numbers weren't all that impressive career-wise, but he was the best at his position for a while.

Simmons has a strong Hall case, but I can think of a couple of reasons he's not there. First off, he happened to play in the NL during the Johnny Bench era. I know he still made 8 or 9 All-Star teams, but there's no doubt that he was overshadowed. The second point against Simmons is that he didn't endear himself much to the media with his outspokenness. He was very pro-union at a time when that wasn't popular, and he didn't go out of his way to kiss the media's butt.

I can see a strong case for Simmons, but I also think that both Fisk and Carter belong in the Hall.

Answer 3

Do you mean Ted Simmons? When I looked up his stats, a bunch of Simmons came us, so I assumed you meant him.

I think the only reason Fisk is a Hall of Famer, is because of his homeruns. He's a career .269 hitter (he batted over .300 once in a full season), but has 376 career homeruns, which was the all-time catcher homerun record, until Piazza broke it.

Simmons should be a Hall of Famer, if Fisk is one. He has more hits (2472 to 2356), a higher career average by 16 points, and a higher OBP by 7 points.

Compare their career stats yourself (I'm sure you already did, though)
Simmons
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/stats/historical/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=bos&playerID=122247

Fisk
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/stats/historical/player_locator_results.jsp?c_id=bos&playerLocator=Fisk

I'm going with Simmons should go in the Hall (Like you), but I don't see why Fisk is in (other than the HR), so maybe you'll see a stat I'm missing

Answer 4

You're right. As a catcher -- and a good one -- he was an awesome bat. People often over-look guys like him because catchers usually have lower career numbers. But then, catchers have the hardest job of all the hitters. I would agree. I think Ted Simmons was a volital character and my guess is the writers didn't feel that he was subservient enough to them.

Answer 5

That's a great question, you should ask this at RootZoo. The web's most exciting community for sports fans. Talk sports, join groups, meet other fans, win free stuff, and do much more. I'm hooked and I know you'll be too.

http://www.rootzoo.com/users/register/247