Ted Simmons' and Lou Whitaker's vote totals have always puzzled me. It seems that voters only consider huge offensive totals and quirky stat players, but don't consider defensive positional value. Alan Trammell has hung around on the ballot but doesn't sniff Jim Rice's support. Of course Trammell was much more valuable than Rice. But, Simmons and Whitaker, who are also more valuable than Rice over their careers didn't even spend a second year on the ballot.

I've always assumed that both Simmons and Whitaker's vote totals were the result of the writers' obsession with the whole first ballot thing - basically that they all thought that these guys should be on the ballot, but that they shouldn't go in on the first ballot, so they wouldn't vote for them now, but expected enough other guys to vote to keep them above the 5% mark, so that they could vote for them next year.

Unfortunately, enough guys assumed that someone else would actually place the vote that both Simmons and Whitaker dropped off.

If I remember correctly, weren't the rules for eligibility for election by the Veterans Committee changed almost immediately after Whitaker was bounced on his first ballot?

I'd give a guy two chances to stay above 5%, idiotic "unwritten first ballot rules" or not...

growing up Ted Simmons was my favorite ball player. (my girlfriend has even managed to complete my Ted Simmons Topps baseball card collection getting me his second year and one of his last seasons cards, which I didn't have for a birthday one year) but as a kid I never thought he was a hof'er, and his defense was constantly harped on (mostly, like Piazza his arm, which is funny that he was given credit for teaching Kendall how to throw this season) As I started reading more, the more I thought he should be in the hof, but then I find myself falling into a trap where I think that positions should be equally represented (or close) and of course that is not truthful, and it should never be used as an argument for someone to be included into the hof.

This article mentions Posada who I had always assumed was a shoo-in, but after just glancing at the numbers it's obvious he isn't close to being deserving right now (If Posada goes in, then Simmons should fly in easily)

Simmons was a first-ballot Hall of Merit selection. (As was Trammell, as was Whitaker.)

Its the old argument though isn't it? Simmons was a very good player for a long time. Most Primer readers would seriously consider him, however it is the hall of FAME...and well for most of the voters he just wasn't that famous...nor as good as Bench. I know this argument is a sh*tty one, but its the truth of the way most of those voters think.

Ted strikes me as the Mike Mussina of catching, though perhaps with a longer (position-adjusted) career: A very, very good player with a good but not great peak.

There is an inherent contradiction in the current voting rules and habits:
- Numerous voters only pick someone on the first try if they are "clear first-ballot Hall of Famers."
- You have to get 5 pct in your first try, or you're out.

That's why the preference in post 3 should be rather obvious - they're then finally getting one chance to show they're worthy of being on the ballot at all, which I suspect was the intent of the rule anyway.

I really don't think the "first ballot" thing explains guys getting under 5%. It hasn't kept a whole lot of not particularly outstanding players, many cited in the article, from getting 5% their first time out. Simmons, Whitaker, et al didn't get 5% because, for whatever reason, almost none of the voters considered them HoFers.

As to Concepcion's support, that's fairly easy to explain I think -- he was the best SS of his era. I suspect that "best" of an era always garners reasonable support (e.g. Jack Morris). His "problem" is that SS of his era stank like you wouldn't believe. In today's game, he'd be Omar Vizquel at best.

And that was part of Simmons' problem -- he was greatly outplayed by Bench and later Fisk and, once you consider defense, Carter. Bill Freehan has a case for being better than Simmons (though their careers don't overlap that much) as does Torre (if you want to consider him a C) although both were earlier. So, again similarly to Mussina, he has the problem of possibly being the 4th-5th best guy at his position during his era.

What is a bit odd is that he was an 8-time AS and received MVP votes in 7 seasons -- so the public, managers and the writers did consider him something of a star in his day. You'd think that might be worth more in HoF votes. He might be a case where he was hurt hanging on as long as he did. Through 33, he was at 292/355/453 with a 124 OPS+, 222 HR and nearly 1200 RBI -- probably still not good enough for election but that 292 BA sure would have looked nice. After that, he hit 248/312/357 with an 84 OPS+ and dropped his career rate stats substantially.

Simmons is an awful lot like Thurman Munson: Munson was a seven-time All-Star who received MVP votes in seven seasons, plus he won once (unlike Simmons), and also was a Rookie of the Year. Munson was at .292/.346/.410 when he died, which isn't far behind Simmons with the stick. He was also more highly regarded defensively, with three Gold Gloves.

Simmons turned useless after 33, and of course Munson died at 32. Up to those points, they were broadly similar, and Munson never got any support, either.

Yes.