put this man in HOF already!

austinchau · December 15, 2008 7:52AM

ebay

Dennis Johnson - The "best player" Larry Bird said he ever played with.

Saw this auction and made me think about why the heck isn't DJ in the hall of fame yet!

None of the HOF is perfect but there are some blatant omissions as many of you have known. Let's share your favorite players NOT in HOF but ought to be.

Austin

austinchau · December 15, 2008 7:54AM

a close second Spencer Haywood. This man was Dwight Howard before Dwight Howard, a regular 20/20 (points rebound) player!

ebay

austinchau · December 15, 2008 7:55AM

The Captain needs to be the baseball HOF

ebay

markj111 · December 15, 2008 7:57AM

<< The Captain needs to be the baseball HOF

No way. NFW. He was good, but he was not a HOFer.

DrJ · December 15, 2008 7:58AM

I was always a DJ fan. Too bad he left the world all too soon....

Here is my DJ Auto....

theczar · December 15, 2008 8:01AM

if munson goes in, ted simmons should be in many years before.

austinchau · December 15, 2008 8:03AM

<< I was always a DJ fan. Too bad he left the world all too soon....

Here is my DJ Auto....

>>

I second that Justin. You think he has a chance in 2009? There might be too much competition with Malone and Robinson on the ballet as well..

VitoCo1972 · December 15, 2008 8:10AM

Loved DJ. He was for sure a Hall of Famer. A 3 time NBA champion who was the best player on one of those teams (the Sonics). He could have put up better "numbers" if he didn't play with so many great players later in his career. Ray Allen will have trouble getting into the HOF for the same reason unfortunately. DJ is FOR SURE a HOFer.

Estil · December 15, 2008 8:12AM

Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat. I think this could very well be Mr. Blyleven's year.

austinchau · December 15, 2008 8:14AM

<< Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat. I think this could very well be Mr. Blyleven's year. >>

I am not sure if Bert Blyleven can make it this year. I hope this is the year for Jim Rice (baseball) and DJ (basketball)

TheThrill22 · December 15, 2008 8:19AM

if munson goes in, ted simmons should be in many years before

Czar, you are absolutely correct that Ted Simmons should be in the HOF. The guy never gets his due. Good call.

bman90278 · December 15, 2008 8:21AM

<< Loved DJ. He was for sure a Hall of Famer. A 3 time NBA champion who was the best player on one of those teams (the Sonics). He could have put up better "numbers" if he didn't play with so many great players later in his career. Ray Allen will have trouble getting into the HOF for the same reason unfortunately. DJ is FOR SURE a HOFer. >>

I agree with you..I would like to see him get in the HOF....DJ always played some killer Defense too from what I remember and he did know how to play in the big games. He's another local hero in his old city Compton, CA. Compton is not too far where I live and it has some very hard and dangerous neighborhoods...Lots of gangs and drug problems just like South Central LA. After high school he went to our local Junior College before he was able to go to Pepperdine University. From what I've read about DJ, it could make a great story.

Brian

Estil · December 15, 2008 8:23AM

<< 

<< Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat. I think this could very well be Mr. Blyleven's year. >>

I am not sure if Bert Blyleven can make it this year. I hope this is the year for Jim Rice (baseball) and DJ (basketball) >>

After I just read that the 2008 major league leader in shutouts has only three this season, and would need 20 more of those seasons to equal Mr. Blyleven's 60 shutouts, I'd say he'd better make it this year!

austinchau · December 15, 2008 8:25AM

<< 

<< 

<< Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat. I think this could very well be Mr. Blyleven's year. >>

I am not sure if Bert Blyleven can make it this year. I hope this is the year for Jim Rice (baseball) and DJ (basketball) >>

After I just read that the 2008 major league leader in shutouts has only three this season, and would need 20 more of those seasons to equal Mr. Blyleven's 60 shutouts, I'd say he'd better make it this year! >>

here goes for Mr Blyleven -

otwcards · December 15, 2008 9:22AM

And to add another sport, Al Wistert deserves to be in the NFL HOF. The father of stand up blocking, this poor man made the Pro Bowl only once, but that was only because the Pro Bowl was suspended except for the final year of his career (which he made it). He was All Pro Team 8 straight seasons and was named to the NFL's 1940's ll Decade Team, and captained those great Eagles teams (NFL Champions in 1948 and 1949, both title games won by shutouts) led by Steve Van Buren, Pete Pihos, Alex Wojciechowicz, Tommy Thompson and in 1949 added Chuck Bednarik. Bednarik has even stated that the most deserving player NOT in the HOF is Al Wistert.

austinchau · December 15, 2008 9:25AM

<< And to add another sport, Al Wistert deserves to be in the NFL HOF. The father of stand up blocking, this poor man made the Pro Bowl only once, but that was only because the Pro Bowl was suspended except for the final year of his career (which he made it). He was All Pro Team 8 straight seasons and was named to the NFL's 1940's ll Decade Team, and captained those great Eagles teams (NFL Champions in 1948 and 1949, both title games won by shutouts) led by Steve Van Buren, Pete Pihos, Alex Wojciechowicz, Tommy Thompson and in 1949 added Chuck Bednarik. Bednarik has even stated that the most deserving player NOT in the HOF is Al Wistert. >>

Al Wistert:

Estil · December 15, 2008 9:40AM

Speaking of the NFL Hall of Fame, how about inducting the first punter? For those of you who follow football a lot more closely than I do, who do you think is most deserving of being the first punter to go into the HOF, and why?

austinchau · December 15, 2008 9:43AM

<< Speaking of the NFL Hall of Fame, how about inducting the first punter? For those of you who follow football a lot more closely than I do, who do you think is most deserving of being the first punter to go into the HOF, and why? >>

ADAM VINATIERI

SDSportsFan · December 15, 2008 9:47AM

<< Speaking of the NFL Hall of Fame, how about inducting the first punter? For those of you who follow football a lot more closely than I do, who do you think is most deserving of being the first punter to go into the HOF, and why? >>

Ray Guy. In my view, it is absolutely criminal that he is not in the hall of fame (and I'm a die-hard San Diego Chargers fan and avowed Raider-Hater!!!!!)

Steve

tugboat2648 · December 15, 2008 9:52AM

I think Joe Torre undoubtedly needs to get into the baseball HOF as a player

He'll certainly get in as a manager so I cant be too upset I guess (you get more respect though as a player)

I also agree that its a shame that Ted Simmons isnt in already

austinchau · December 15, 2008 10:36AM

<< I think Joe Torre undoubtedly needs to get into the baseball HOF as a player

He'll certainly get in as a manager so I cant be too upset I guess (you get more respect though as a player)

I also agree that its a shame that Ted Simmons isnt in already >>

Ted Simmons -

HighChopper · December 15, 2008 10:42AM

Yes, Blyleven and Kaat.

This guy, too.

VikingDude · December 15, 2008 11:34AM

If we're talking football, my vote is for Jim Marshall

recbball · December 15, 2008 11:40AM

I'm still pissed Dean got in ahead of Dent.

otwcards · December 15, 2008 11:44AM

<< Speaking of the NFL Hall of Fame, how about inducting the first punter? For those of you who follow football a lot more closely than I do, who do you think is most deserving of being the first punter to go into the HOF, and why? >>

And I included a few more that deserve to be in.

DavidPuddy · December 15, 2008 11:49AM

austinchau · December 15, 2008 12:31PM

How about Mr A Train - Artis Gilmore, the great ABA and NBA center! HOF really need to bring ATrain and DJ into them in the next few years

skilow · December 15, 2008 12:55PM

For the NFL HOF, Dick Lebeau is more than deserving. Just look at the career INTs.

Hoopster · December 15, 2008 1:18PM

davidpuddy,

Everyone you have pictured, except Jack Morris, has HOF merit. Dave Stieb and Ron Guidry and Bret Saberhagn and....well and a lot more ahead of Morris.

MeteoriteGuy · December 15, 2008 1:19PM

Tabe · December 15, 2008 3:17PM

<< 

<< Speaking of the NFL Hall of Fame, how about inducting the first punter? For those of you who follow football a lot more closely than I do, who do you think is most deserving of being the first punter to go into the HOF, and why? >>

ADAM VINATIERI >>

Uh, punter. Punter. Vinatieri ain't a punter

Great call on the Ted Simmons praise. Many-time all-star that put up big numbers for a long time. He definitely deserves to be in - long before Thurman Munson, for sure.

Tabe

Estil · December 15, 2008 3:54PM

*notices CBS logo on the 1973 Ted Simmons card*

I hope Topps double checked and made sure it was CBS soaps, not ABC soaps that he liked.

My wife and my mom were both into ABC soaps. I for one was quite surprised how many ballplayers are into soap operas (from the 1991 Studio set).

VitoCo1972 · December 15, 2008 4:39PM

oops, wrong thread!

rbdjr1 · December 15, 2008 9:23PM

I would be unamerican to have a thread like this without him!

rd

IchiroDeported · December 15, 2008 9:44PM

over time I have come to accept that Pete Rose might not get in the HOF, and I really dont feel all that bad for him.

rbdjr1 · December 15, 2008 9:49PM

Copied this from another thread (Sports Talk).

about Rice & Tenace

rd

From Billjamesonline.com:

By Dave Fleming

In my last article, I wrote that people who advocate that Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame ought to fight for Gene Tenace instead.

It was an off-hand comment: a snarky remark made without too much consideration. When I wrote it I knew three things about Gene Tenace: he was a catcher for the A’s, he had a good World Series once, and he has a better OPS+ than Jim Rice.

By comparison, I know a lot about Jim Rice. He was one of the most popular players on my favorite team. He once broke his bat on a checked swing. He had over 400 total bases in 1978, which sure seemed like a damned big deal. And he was the leftfielder for the Red Sox, the guy who replaced the great Yaz.

Tenace over Rice: it was glib comment and the good readers at BJOL seemed content to let it pass. ChiSox wrote: “Some assertions just have to be let go without a comment.” Evan, taking the bait, wrote some thoughtful comments about Tenace and Rice before concluding: “You probably didn’t get a debate because it’s a preposterous assertion.”

Evan is correct: the suggestion that Gene Tenace was better than Jim Rice is preposterous. On the one hand you have one of the most prominent hitter of the late 1970’s, a player who was a legitimate Triple Crown threat. On the other hand you have Gene Tenace, a lifetime .241 hitter. There should be no comparison.

The Golden Years

Let’s stick with 1975-1979. Five years in which the careers of Jim Rice and Gene Tenace overlapped.

1975-1979 is Jim Rice’s best five years stretch. He had another fine run between 1982 and 1986, but 1975-1979 represents the peak of Jim Rice’s career

These are not Gene Tenace’s best years: Fury’s best five-year stretch was 1973-1977. Tenace is seven years older than Jim Rice, and his peak years came a little earlier. So we’re comparing the best of Jim Rice with the not-quite-best of Gene Tenace.

Enough talk. Here are their numbers between 1975-1979:

G R HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS+
Jim Rice 778 509 147 570 .311 .360 .556 142
Tenace 726 334 102 342 .246 .396 .438 140

It doesn’t seem a fair fight, does it? Tenace has a 36-point edge in on-base percentage, but Rice has a 65-point edge in batting average and a 118-point edge in slugging percentage. He had 45 more homeruns, 174 runs scored, 228 RBI.

Just to pile on: here are their season-by-season Triple Crown numbers:

BA HR RBI
1975 Rice .309 22 102
Tenace .255 29 87
1976 Rice .282 25 85
Tenace .249 22 66
1977 Rice .320 29 114
Tenace .233 15 61
1978 Rice .315 39 139
Tenace .224 16 67
1979 Rice .325 46 130
Tenace .263 20 50

The only time Tenace beats Rice in any Triple Crown category is 1975, when he hit 7 more homers than Rice. Otherwise, Rice destroys Tenace. It’s never particularly close.

I’ll add that the consensus opinion of people who watched these players was that Rice was a far greater player than Tenace. Jim Rice finished 3rd in the 1975 AL MVP vote, 4th in 1977, 1st in 1978, and 5th in 1979, which means that four times in those five years, the people who watched him closely believed that Jim Rice was one of the very best players in the league. That counts for something.

For what it’s worth, Gene Tenace also had his best showing on the MVP ballots during this years, finishing 18th in both 1975 and 1976. Those were the only years he ever appeared on the MVP ballot.

Context Elements

We could stop there. The raw numbers give a decisive edge to Rice. The opinions of educated and thoughtful observers support this. So, too, does our common perception. No need to recount hanging chads: Rice is winning in a landslide.

But since we’ve gone this far, it can’t hurt to consider some contexts.

Let’s start with parks. Most of us know that Fenway Park is a terrific hitter’s park. Most of us know that Jim Rice benefited from playing in that park. Here are his home/road splits, 1975-1979:

Rice BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1975 Home .313 .357 .520 Road .304 .343 .464
1976 Home .299 .339 .509 Road .266 .291 .455
1977 Home .321 .375 .683 Road .319 .377 .509
1978 Home .361 .416 .690 Road .269 .325 .512
1979 Home .369 .425 .728 Road .283 .337 .472

We all know that Rice benefited from playing in Fenway Park. What is misunderstood is just how much Rice benefited from playing there. Take Rice’s MVP year, 1978. He wasn’t just better at Fenway: he was a completely different hitter:

G R HR RBI BA OBP SLG
1978 Home 82 69 28 75 .361 .416 .690
1978 Road 81 52 18 64 .269 .325 .512

That’s not cherry-picking, either: the same thing holds true for 1977 and 1979. In those three years, Rice hit 124 homeruns. Of those, 82 were hit in Fenway Park, while only 42 came on the road.

Gene Tenace played in some terrible parks. The Oakland Coliseum, where Tenace played until 1977, was a lousy hitter’s park. San Diego’s Jack Murphy Stadium, where he moved in 1977, was even worse.

Tenace BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1975 Home .254 .405 .467 Road .256 .385 .461
1976 Home .218 .368 .389 Road .277 .377 .518
1977 Home .205 .412 .300 Road .260 .417 .511
1978 Home .247 .389 .468 Road .204 .395 .355
1979 Home .256 .402 .332 Road .271 .403 .550

In 1977, his first year in San Diego, Tenace posted a .511 slugging percentage on the road, but only a .300 slugging percentage at home. Same hold true for 1979 (though his home/road splits flip in 1978).

Let’s compare Rice’s road numbers with Tenace’s road numbers:

Rice BA OBP SLG Tenace BA OBP SLG
Road .304 .343 .464 Road .256 .385 .461
Road .266 .291 .455 Road .277 .377 .518
Road .319 .377 .509 Road .260 .417 .511
Road .269 .325 .512 Road .204 .395 .355
Road .283 .337 .472 Road .271 .403 .550

Rice has the higher batting average, but Tenace laps him in on-base average. What’s more, Gene Tenace outslugs Jim Rice on the road in three of the five seasons.

Positions on Positions

Gene Tenace was a catcher/first baseman during these years. Jim Rice was a leftfielder and designated hitter. How do we measure across positions? How much credit do we give Tenace for playing a little over half his games behind the plate? How much should we penalize Rice for playing a position that is low on the defensive spectrum?

To step back a moment: there are a number of things that statistics are really good at quantifying, and a number of things that statistics are still trying to understand fully. We can easily quantify how many balls go over the fence, or how many runs are driven in. It’s harder to determine how many balls an average shortstop would get to, and compare that to Ozzie Smith or Derek Jeter.

One of the reasons that Jim Rice will probably be elected to the Hall of Fame is that he excelled at those measures that are easy to quantify. He hit a lot of homeruns. He drove in a lot of runs. A high percentage of his at-bats turned into hits.

It’s harder to give accurate value to something like a walk. It’s a positive result by way of non-action: the batter isn’t acting to draw a walk: instead, he is resisting the impulse to act. The pitcher is the catalyst for the walk: the pitcher has to throw the ball outside of the strike zone.

Jim Rice had one specific talent, and I think guys who have one specific talent are more likely to get elected to the Hall of Fame than guys with a diversity of skills. Alan Trammell could hit for power and average, he was a fine baserunner, and he played a key defensive position very well, but it’ll be some time before he gets into the Hall of Fame. Jim Rice was a good hitter: that’s the most you can say about him. And in reality, he wasn’t that good: his park inflated his numbers dramatically.

To compare Tenace to Rice, we need statistics that measure a player’s full range of skills. There are two statistics that do a thorough job at capturing a player’s full talents and drawbacks. One is ‘Win Shares,’ invented by Bill James. The other is ‘Wins Above Replacement Player,’ or WARP, created by the good folks at Baseball Prospectus.

Win Shares measures a player’s contribution in relation to its team’s wins: a team that wins 100 games will have 300 Win Shares to distribute among its players. WARP measures the number of wins a player adds to his team when measured against a replacement-level player. Both metrics strive to measure the entirety of a player’s contribution to his team, within the contexts of the league and park. Because both measures consider defensive contribution, position is accounted for.

Sorry….a tad boring there. Hope you’re still with me.

So how do Rice and Tenace compare on the Win Shares and WARP measures? Let’s go year-by year:
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1975 Rice 20 3.9 178th
Tenace 32 10.5 13th

Remember, this is the year Rice came in 3rd in the MVP vote. Tenace came in 18th. Rice’s numbers (.309/22/102) are pretty, but WARP tells us that 177 other players contributed more wins to their teams than Rice. Win Shares agrees: Tenace was far more valuable than Jim Rice.

Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1976 Rice 17 3.8 212th
Tenace 22 6.4 74th

This was Rice’s worst year of the five, and Tenace beats him in both Win Shares and WARP. In 1976 Rice wasn’t one of the 200 best players in baseball.

Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1977 Rice 26 6.5 82nd
Tenace 25 8.6 30th

Rice posted a .320/29/144 Triple Crown line and finished 4th in the MVP vote. Tenace finished at .233/15/61, and received no votes.

Win Shares narrowly gives the season to Rice, 26 to 25. WARP says Gene Tenace was overwhelmingly the better player.

Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1978 Rice 36 9.6 9th
Tenace 22 7.5 49th

This is Rice’s MVP year, and both metrics says he was the better player.

Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1979 Rice 28 7.1 56th
Tenace 24 9.4 19th

Again we have a split. Rice wins the Win Shares tally, Tenace wins in WARP.

I don’t know the reason for this, but I’ll speculate that Rice does better in Win Shares because it is measuring his contributions against his team’s success, while WARP measures players against replacement-level players. I don’t know if that’s a completely accurate explanation, so I won’t take it any further.

Their totals over the five-year period between 1975 and 1979:

Win Shares WARP
Jim Rice 127 30.9
Gene Tenace 125 42.4

Win Shares is a dead-heat, and WARP gives a considerable edge to Tenace. I’m willing to call it: between 1975-1979, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.

Fine: Tenace was more valuable than Rice over those five years. But Jim Rice played 500 more games than Gene Tenace. How do we account for that?

Win Shares gives Jim Rice an edge in career value: Rice has 282 Win Shares to 231 for Tenace.

That said, Win Shares recognizes that when they played Tenace was the better player. Per 162 games, Tenace averaged 24.07 Win Shares, while Rice averaged 21.86.

And even with those 500 extra games, WARP still gives the career edge to Tenace: 77.5 to 73.0. The reason? WARP is a position-adjusted metric, and Rice’s contributions are set against a replacement-level DH. Because it’s easy to replace a DH, Rice doesn’t earn a lot of points.

There is still that pesky problem of Rice’s 51 more Win Shares. But that’s a deceptive count: to be fair, one would have to add the Win Share contributions of a replacement-level player for the three years Rice played when Tenace did not. That is to say, the Red Sox had Rice for fifteen years: the A’s/Padres had Tenace for twelve years, plus a replacement-level player for those three extra years of Rice’s career.

The Whole > The Sum of Its Parts

I think the Tenace or Rice debate is fascinating because it delineates, in stark terms, two distinct ways of measuring baseball players. One is atomistic: the events of player’s career exist in isolation. A .315 batting average means someone is a good player. 46 homeruns are 46 homeruns, context be damned.

The other way is a holistic approach; an effort to understand the events of a player’s career within a broader context. How did that .315 batting average help his team win? How many of those 46 homeruns mattered in games? What position did the player play? Was he a good defender? Did he ground into double plays?

We are moving towards the second, more holistic approach. We are beginning to place a player’s contributions within larger contexts. Stats like ‘WARP’ and ‘Win Shares’ as complicated as they are, as foreign as they may seem, they are attempting to do merely that: consider a player’s contributions against larger contexts.

Atomisticly, Jim Rice was better than Gene Tenace. Rice had a better batting average. He hit far more homeruns. He drove in and scored more runs. He played more games. He won more awards, played on more All-Star games, and had more articles written about him in the press. His rookie card is worth more money, and someday he will make the Hall of Fame.

But Gene Tenace did more to help his teams win baseball games than Jim Rice did. He was more important to the success of his teams than Rice was, and he offered more diverse skills than Rice did. Considering the whole of the player and the contexts that surrounded him, looking at it from a holistic, all-encompassing perspective, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.

rbdjr1 · December 15, 2008 9:57PM

<< over time I have come to accept that Pete Rose might not get in the HOF, and I really dont feel all that bad for him. >>

His play should be awarded. Not his "post player" bone-headed gambling chippy.

Don't feel bad for him, feel bad for baseball. There is a void in Cooperstown. Every ball player mentioned in this thread does not come close to Pete Rose, the player. (We all know about Pete Rose, the gambler!)

rd

julen23 · December 15, 2008 9:57PM

agreed

IchiroDeported · December 15, 2008 11:00PM

unfortunatley one of the merits of the hall of fame is character and Pete fails that test miserably. I have no doubt he bet against his own team.

rbdjr1 · December 15, 2008 11:17PM

<< unfortunatley one of the merits of the hall of fame is character and Pete fails that test miserably. I have no doubt he bet against his own team. >>

...and you base your "no doubts"

on what?

tea leaves, kismit, or do you have evidence that he bet against his own team?

I do not remember hearing the he bet against his own team?

rd

P.S. IMO, his ego is soooooooooooo large, he played sooooooooooo hard, I would be hard to imagine that he could disappoint his own players, by betting against them?

Put him in "The Hall" already, ...and explain to all "kids" just what the "evils of gambling" did to Pete Rose, keeping him out of the HOF for decades. Better than having that "large void", that "blank wall" that should belong to Mr. Rose.

Ladder7 · December 16, 2008 4:09AM

Rose, An egotistical cheat that had terrific skills. Baseball's Hall has the toughest requirements, save the slot for someone honorable.

'Rose was granted a concession in which he could apply for reinstatement once a year for as long as he lived. As of 2006, he has applied for reinstatement twice. Commissioners Fay Vincent and Bud Selig have both refused to act on the respective reinstatement requests, and Rose remains permanently ineligible. Rose has recently admitted that "everything" the Dowd Report contained was the complete, unadulterated truth.'

austinchau · December 16, 2008 4:17AM

This video is why Pete Rose is banned from HOF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eAs7DM6u_Q

put this man in HOF already!

Comments