I always thought Ted Simmons was overlooked by the Hall of Fame voters. I had never really analyzed him, I just knew the basic stat line, knew he compiled quite a terrific career for himself, and knew he was part of a great era of catchers.

​

So when I got this project going, I was looking forward to going a bit deeper on some players, seeing how they rated based on criteria I deemed appropriate. I fully expected my previously held opinions on some players to change - as it did with Thurman Munson, for example. 

​

I did not expect my opinion on Simmons to change.

​

“Simba” scored a 91 on the initial AFB monitor, a borderline case but just shy of the 100 needed for induction. I was shocked he came up short. 

​

A big thing for me in developing the formula for the Hall of Fame monitor was I didn’t want to build it to suit my predispositions for a certain player or players. That’s merely fabricating support for your case. So I wanted to set up my formula first with full consideration of what I valued and then plug guys in and see what happened. And, overall, I’ve been thrilled with the results. 

​

That said, I’ve found it somewhat odd over the years the disdain many fans show for a player not making it into the Hall initially but then getting in later. “How did they get better since then when they don’t play anymore,” or similar, is the argument there.

​

But in everything we do, aren’t we trying - or shouldn’t we be, anyway - to be seeking more information, more data, so that we can formulate the best conclusion possible. If voters have delved deeper into the data on a player and became more educated on his place in his era or history as a whole, why would that be a bad thing?

​

And so, when the announcement came on Dec. 8 that Simmons had been elected to the Hall of Fame by the Modern Era committee, I was thrilled, regardless of what my formulas said. Thrilled that a player I’ve long respected and appreciated is earning his place in Cooperstown, and excited to have more reason to perhaps dig a little more, examine my own methods a little bit further, and see if perhaps there’s a component or variable I wasn’t taking into account that I should have.

​

My conclusion is that my bias against “compilers” is a bit too strong. Yes, I will always take the five years of 5 WAR player over the 10 years of 2.5 WAR player. But doing so doesn’t require burying the latter player. Longevity is an achievement, and something my formula shorted not only Simmons to the point of it dropping him below that 100 threshold, but very solid players like Dave Parker to a point where their scores are far cries from meriting Hall of Fame consideration, let alone entry. Their careers deserve more credit than that.

​

And so an added component of the monitor is the addition to bonus points of “Historical Context.” Based on all players in history who played at least 162 games and more than half of their games at the same position, 10 points for ranking in the top 1 percent, 5 points for ranking in the top 5 percent in a major category: Hits, Home Runs, RBIs, Runs and WAR for hitters; Wins, Strikeouts, ERA, Shutouts and WAR for pitchers.

​

A score of 100 remains the threshold, but anyone between 90 and 110 can, I believe, be reasonably debated.

​

This change lifts Simmons to a 100.3, making him a borderline case who lands just barely on the right side. Parker now scores a 93.2, a borderline case in his own right, but one who falls just short.

​

Thanks, Ted!