Vada Pinson for the HOF?

[Rinkster]

The mention of Lou Brock and the power/speed number brings to mind another thought. We all know how easy it seems to forget what a player accomplished, especially as time goes on.

But Lou Brock is the one of the best examples of a player that has credentials/accomplishments added to his legacy, credentials that, in reality, never existed.

I live close to Kansas City, and it's mentioned from time to time what a great power/speed guy Brock was, and some yahoo sports talk host goes on how Brock used to pop out twenty-or-so home runs a season from time to time. I've even heard it from St. Louis stations. Brock reached twenty home runs only once.

I've heard the same thing about Rod Carew. Just last week, on a national sports talk show, the host talked about how Carew didn't try to hit homeruns, but he'd hit fiftenn to twenty a year, and to shut people up, he hit around thirty one season. Huh? Carew's career high was 14, which he did twice...and he never reached double figures again.

Here's something interesting...

Two of the following players were first ballot HOF famers. The other never came close in 15 years on the ballot. Their careers overlapped. Who are the first ballot guys?

Games__Hits___2B__3B___HR__RBI__RUNS__SB__OPS_Defe nse
2616__3023__486__141__141__900_1610__938_754__C-
2469__3053__445__112___92_1015_1424__353_825_C & C-
2469__2727__485__127__256_1170_1366__305_775__A-

The Defensive rating comes from Bill James' Win Shares. The second player played half of his career at second base (C rating) and half at first base(rating: C-).

Career Win Shares were, in the same order above: 348, 384, 321

Okay, the first two guys did get to a magical number, but wow, is there all that much difference? Enough to scream out that the first two players are first ballot guys, and the second guy never gets more than 67 votes any year he was on the ballot?

For a HOF first basemen, the second player was a hell of a high average hitter but with little power. (But he still belongs)

For a HOF left fielder, the first player didn't have much power. (But he still belongs)

As for the third player? Well, for all current and future players...be careful who you punch, even when provoked, because that guy covering your team that you just gave a shiner to may someday head-up the BBWAA...while you are on the BBWAA HOF ballot. And not only that, the chump you punched will end up in the HOF himself as a "writer."

[Golden Bear]

Hey, help out us young guys! Don't tease us!

I know the stats: the players are Brock, Carew, and Vada Pinson.

But who did Pinson punch, and why?

For that matter, what happened with his vote totals? Did he even come close? What did his proponents and opponents say at the time.

Of course, the career lines are deceptive: Brock got in for all the hits AND the then-steals record; and Carew had 8 or so batting titles. Pinson had none of that going for him. He also had an awkward decline phase, so he didn't hit key magic numbers -- especially 3000 hits. He peaked early, which hurts with voters in terms of whether a guy "seems" like a HOF. He also ran into the 60's statistical buzzsaw which depressed his numbers.

But was he a better all around player than either Carew or Brock? Yeah, probably -- he was a better hitter than Brock, had more power than Carew, and was a far better fielder than either of them (though Carew did spend half his career at a tougher position).

This is the old preference of HOF voters for specialists rather than all-around players.

Of course, Carew and Brock were not enshrined when Pinson came onto the ballot, so this argument was unavailable to his proponents.

[pwdennis]

Power/Speed. At least in his first nine years Pinson had them both. As a kid, I liked Vada Pinson a lot. He was a good fielder and exciting to watch on the bases. I think playing in the 60s probably cost Vada a legitimate chance at some fancy numbers 300 HR, 1500 R, 1400 RBI, 500 D and 3000 H (although I think Vada would still would have missed 3000 H winding up with 2875-2925). The one weakness in Pinson's game was strike zone judgment - although he didn't strike out all that much, he walked very little - his OBP of .327 isn't very good. His OBP over the last nine years of his career was quite poor.

I would consider Pinson to be better than Lou Brock by a decent margin. Carew is a different sort of player. Used as a leadoff or #2 hitter, Carew was better. Used elsewhere in the order, Pinson was better.

Pinson's three closest comps are :
Roberto Clemente (871) *
Al Oliver (861)
Willie Davis (860)

Which puts Pinson somewhere between being a sure-fire HOFer and merely an excellent player. Pinson was the first Power/Speed player that I was really cognizant of, and thought of in those terms. To me Willie Mays was a power player as was the Hammer, whereas I though of Pinson being of both types. In his case the Power/Speed ratio does help highlight an otherwise forgotten player.

[Golden Bear]

Pinson had an odd career arc.

Most power/speed guys start out speedy and develop power as their speed fades with age. This is true of Dawson, Barry Bonds, Eric Davis, Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Schmidt, Winfield, etc.; it looks like it will be true of ARod as well.

In Pinson's case, it looks like he pretty much lost his power in his late 20's or so, (outside of a one-year revival at the age of 31), but kept his speed. That's pretty weird.

It's easy to understand in some ways why the voters didn't know what to make of this guy.

[Skip]

I peeled the prior posts out of the Bonds/Dawson/Power-Speed thread since it appeared there was some interest in going down this not-so-related road. Hope this works out for everyone. Rinkster, you get credit as thread starter - I bet you feel truly honored.

I have no particularly strong feelings about Brock or Pinson, but I'm at work on a Saturday afternoon so I thought I'd see whether Pinson is so unappreciated.

Nope.

He made 2 All-Star games. He had 2 Top 10 MVP finishes, a 3rd and a 10th. He had one gold glove. It's pretty obvious that he wasn't considered to be a great player while he was playing.

He is an outfielder who once hit 24 homers in a season, his career best. He has a career BA of .286, and a poor OBP. One time, he stole 30 bases. One time. He didn't even hit 300 homers in his career.

Say what you want about Brock, he hit for a higher average, got on base a lot more, got 3000 hits, and owned the 2 major records for stolen bases back when SBs were prized more than they are now.

Vada Pinson had a cool name. But he's not a Hall of Famer.

[Max Power]

Folks will think I'm nuts; but, if Brooks Robinson is in the Cooperstown HOF, then Pinson should be there too.

[LeGrandOrange]

That Pinson only made two all-star games, only was in the MVP race twice, and only had a single gold glove is misleading...this doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. Pinson could've had maybe 2 to 4 more all-star games in his earlier years if they were wiser, same with MVP voting. He also showed enough range to pick up a few extra gold gloves, had he not've been playing with Clemente, Mays, and Flood. Bill Virdon was also there, he was exceptionally graceful for the time. It was damn near impossible for Vada to win more gold gloves.
Even still, he's borderline on career value. But I would vote for him to be in, mainly because I just do. Granted, you'd have to consider Cesar Cedeno if you put Vada in...but what's wrong with that? Do keep in mind that I have an inordinately large amount of people that I'd like to see in the hall, so my opinion is messed up considerably.

[sweaver]

Pinson is one of those on-the-fence guys--his numbers do not scream out for induction, but that is partly because he played in the 1960s, which had lower offensive stats. He was a terrific outfielder, but not flashy, and played at the same time as Mays so he didn't get recognized for defense. He neither sticks out as a glaring omission, nor would he drag down the standards of the Hall by being inducted.

I'm not sure what to think. I like him, as a Reds fan, but I don't know if that's enough.

[Rinkster]

In response to the posts above...

Pinson had two physical confrontations with Cincinnatti Reds' sports writer Earl Lawson. Lawson was no stranger to provoking players with his words both in newspaper column, and in the clubhouse. The first incident took place in 1962, and the very quiet, and very shy Pinson ended up belting Lawson in the face.

In 1963, Lawson, once described by New York sportwriter Maury Allen as an "the ultimate jerk in the profession," began writing articles about Pinson's not bunting as often as Lawson felt he should, degrading Pinson's charater. But get this, Lawson was not blasting Pinson about not bunting because he felt Pinson could help the team. No, Lawson was blasting Pinson because Pinson was not being selfish! Lawson wanted Pinson to stop being a team player and go for the batting title.

Lawson would call upon former players such as Pie Traynor to join in the bashing of Pinson with quotes about how Pinson is costing himself a chance at the batting title and the Hall of Fame by not bunting like the old-timers did.

See, in 1963, the Reds were in contention, but Frank Robinson was having an off year. Pinson was having a great year, and was supplying the Reds with his extra-base-power. With Robinson battling injuries that drained his home run power, Pinson was called on by the team to take up the slack. Once again, how often should a three-hole hitter, which was Pinson's role on the Reds, bunt?

Once again, Lawson was not satisfied berating Pinson in the press, and he confronted Pinson in the clubhouse. When Pinson, prodded on by his teammates who got a kick out of watching the usually quiet and emotionless Pinson upset, saw Lawson walk into the clubhouse one night, Pinson began yelling at Lawson for writing such bull crap. Lawson basically said to Pinson that if Pinson wanted to "do something about it" well, Lawson was right there. When Lawson tried to pass Pinson, Pinson grabbed him and ripped his shirt. Lawson went into the manager's office, called the police, and had Pinson arrested.

For the rest of their lives, Lawson would take a jab at Pinson's legacy. Lawson was extrememly influential, and was head of the BBWAA for a time when Pinson was eligible for the Hall of Fame on the BBWAA ballot.

In a May 1988 article Lawson advised Baseball Digest that the reason why Pinson "lost" the 1959 NL Rookie of the Year award
was because the press did not like Pinson personally.

Now, I have dozens of articles on Vada Pinson from 1959, and there are three things that are in every article. 1. Pinson's shyness and humbleness. 2. Pinson's greatness and 3. How it was a shame Pinson was not going to be eligible for the 1959 NL award due to exceeding the limit of at-bats to be considered a rookie by six at-bats from the previous year.

Next...
All-Star games/Gold gloves

Very, very questionable measurements of players.

We all know that Gold Gloves are like an avalance, once it gets going, it's hard to stop. There was no way Pinson was going to unseat Mays or Clemente, even though he was better than Mays for quite a few seasons. Then along came Curt Flood, and well, there was your gold glove team for the 1960s.

As for the All-Star game, I have articles by writers saying it was a shame Pinson was not put on more, but there has never been an era that had as many dominant, all-time great outfielders playing at the same time in the same league. In the NL, Pinson was not only hurt by competing for a spot with Mays, Aaron, and Clemente, but also his own teammate, Frank Robinson!

And there was one more. Stan Musial. Unfortunately for Pinson, Musial moved from first base back to the outfield for the last four years of his career(1960-63)...just as Pinson entered the league. Musial was always an automatic for a spot.

Pinson was thought of as a great player while he played. Late in the 1961 season, Reds manager Fred Hutchinson called Pinson the best player in the game. As Hutchinson was Pinson's manager that may seem biased, but remember that playing next to Pinson in the Reds outfield was Frank Robinson...who would win the 1961 NL MVP award. Other literature of the 1960s also speaks of Pinson's greatness, although there were now rumbles about how Pinson never became better than Mays and Aaron as predicted...by the same writers. Even when he was in his decline phase he was still thought of as a great player to put on the your team, as when the Cardinals dealt for him.

Next...

Pinson had a odd career arc. So did Roberto Clemente and Dwight Evans, only the opposite way of Pinson. But so what? Some players are great from the beginning, some towards the end. Some suck at the beginning and the end, but were great in the middle.

It should be meaningless. People keep promoting all of these yahoos that played 12, 13 years but then quit/got hurt/or whatever without realizing that the only reasons these careers look so spotless and the OPS looks so cool is that these players were lucky enough not to play long enough to have a decline phase.

Next...

Name a single player elected to the HOF based on OPS. The answer is that there never has been. Players have always been elected based on on achievement in basic statisical catagories, even if the voters did not really have a good grasp on them, or by being buddies with Bill Terry and Frankie Frisch.

The fact is that when Pinson retired he ranked very, very high on the all-time lists in several statistics, and in most catagories every player that was ahead of him is in the Hall of Fame. Not only that, but he ranked far above most of the players already in the HOF. This was pointed out in a previous post on another thread.

Next...

From 1959-1967, a 9 year period, Pinson led all Major League players in games, hits, doubles, triples. Pinson was 4th in runs scored, stole bases, extra base hits, and total bases. Pinson was 5th in runs + RBI, 7th in Win Shares, 8th in batting average, 12th in RBI, and averaged exactly 20 homers a season. Find another eligible player player outside the Hall of Fame that can match that.

If elected to the Hall of Fame, Pinson would become the 16th 20th Century Hall of Fame centerfielder. That means the midpoint in career ranking would be 8-9. Among the other fifteen 20th Century Hall of Fame centerfielders, Pinson would rank:

5th in games played
7th in runs scored
4th in hits
4th in doubles
9th in triples (dominated by the dead ball guys)
5th in home runs
7th in RBI
5th in stolen bases
7th in runs + RBI
6th in extra base hits
5th in total bases

Not too bad for a player whose career paralled the worst offensive era since the early dead ball days.

Bill James often writes that the first thing you should look for in a Hall of Famer is a player that does many things well, not a "specialist." That is Vada Pinson to a T--a player who did many, many things well.

There are 122 players eligible for the HOF on the new Veterans Committe format. Among ALL POSITION PLAYERS, Vada Pinson ranks:

1st in games
1st in hits
1st in extra base hits
1st in total bases
2nd in doubles
7th in runs scored
12th in RBI
13th in triples
13th in stolen bases
22nd in home runs

Take out the 19th century players, and Pinson ranks

1st in games
1st in hits
1st in extra base hits
1st in total bases
1st in runs scored
2nd in doubles
6th in stolen bases
7th in triples (3rd among post dead ball era players)
10th in RBI
22nd in home runs

So you have a player who was among the best of his era, the best all-time at his position, stacks up well on the Veterans' list, and not too shabby among all players all-time.

I think in Pinson's case the argument should have already shifted from "Why should Vada Pinson be in the Hall of Fame" to "Why shouldn't Vada Pinson be in the Hall of Fame."

The most common answers, lack of gold gloves, all-star appearances, "low batting average" are 90% the result of when Pinson played and who his contemporaries were. For example of the top 10 players in Win Shares 1959-1967, the top four, Mays, Aaron, teammate Frank Robinson, and Mickey Mantle, were outfielders. Pinson was 7th, followed by Kaline and Clemente. Not too shabby an era for outfielders.

Add to the above facts that Pinson was a key, perhaps THE key if you read the literature of his day, in the development of power hitters utilizing their speed as base stealing threats and, well, let me just say that the Hall of Fame could do a lot worse.

As for the original premise, Brock did hold major records (stolen bases) and reached 3000 hits. I have no problem with him being in the Hall of Fame. Pinson was simply as good of a player, and if not quite as good, well not far enough behind that Brock was a first-ballot HOF and Pinson never even reached 16% of the votes on a HOF ballot. As Frank Robinson has stated, you can thank Mr. Lawson and his influence for that little obstacle.

[TGwynn19]

Rinkster don't be shy to go on a rant and tell the world what you think!!

Behind Santo and Dawson I think Pinson is the most deserving to be in the HOF.

[sweaver]

Speaking of Win Shares, James ranks Pinson #18 among CFs, between Fred Lynn and Hack Wilson. That does not scream "Hall of Famer."

However, he was a fine player for a long time, and the Hall would not be hurt by his presence.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Pinson had an odd career arc.

Most power/speed guys start out speedy and develop power as their speed fades with age. This is true of Dawson, Barry Bonds, Eric Davis, Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Schmidt, Winfield, etc.; it looks like it will be true of ARod as well.

In Pinson's case, it looks like he pretty much lost his power in his late 20's or so, (outside of a one-year revival at the age of 31), but kept his speed. That's pretty weird.

It's easy to understand in some ways why the voters didn't know what to make of this guy.

Rinkster is right that the odd career arc shouldn't matter; it just affects impressions. Players are evaluated in large part by comparing them to other like players. In Pinson's case, there really isn't a similar player. That could be part of an argument for his enshrinement, as a matter of fact.

The odd career arc is not just that Pinson started off with power and lost it -- there Clemente and Evans are his reciprocal -- but that he seemed to pretty much keep his speed. Keeping his speed while not keeping the power is the unusual part.

The way he lost his power but kept his other skills reminds me of Mattingly a bit. Did Pinson have some kind of a back injury sometime in the late 60's?

That Lawson guy sounds like a real prince. What got Pinson to sock him in the mouth in 1962? Once that happened, it's unsurprising that Lawson went after Vada in 1963.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by sweaver
Speaking of Win Shares, James ranks Pinson #18 among CFs, between Fred Lynn and Hack Wilson. That does not scream "Hall of Famer."

However, he was a fine player for a long time, and the Hall would not be hurt by his presence.

Were we speaking of Win Shares?

Since you brought it up, though...I haven't studied this new metric yet; what I've seen so far hasn't sold me on its utility, although I'm still willing to give it a hearing sometime when I've got the attention span.

In Pinson's case, though, his ranking between Lynn and Hack begs the question: Does Win Shares adjust for era; i.e., does Pinson get extra credit for compiling his numbers in the 60's, and does Wilson get downgraded for compiling his numbers in the 30's?

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Were we speaking of Win Shares?

Rinkster brought it up, about page 22. Perhaps you missed it.

In Pinson's case, though, his ranking between Lynn and Hack begs the question: Does Win Shares adjust for era; i.e., does Pinson get extra credit for compiling his numbers in the 60's, and does Wilson get downgraded for compiling his numbers in the 30's?

Yes, Win Shares adjusts for era.