Vada Pinson for the HOF?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Was there some kind of explanation for where Pinson's power went? Looking at the stat lines, the way he lost his power but kept his other skills reminds me of Don Mattingly a bit.

Did Pinson have some kind of a back injury sometime in the late 60's? Or was it something else physical? Or did he purposely change his style?

Pinson was listed as being born in 1938 for much of his career when he was actually born in 1936. There has been some discussion of the possiblity that he was actually born in 1934, although 1936 is the accepted date as of now. This may explain some of Golden Bear's questions.

Pinson won't be the worst CF in the HOF. He's ahead of Earle Combs, Max Carey and Harry Hooper (ok Hooper's a RF playing out of position). Why Carey and Combs are there is beyond me.
(Combs is a Frankie Frisch pick, but who decided Max Carey was a Hall of Famer is beyond me.)

Leaving aside Ted Simmons, Joe Torre, Gary Carter, and Ron Santo (the big 4 who should be in, IMO), let's look at a list of CF who are not in who are, or will soon be eligible.

Brett Butler
Reggie Smith
Dale Murphy
Willie Wilson
Fred Lynn
Chet Lemon
Marquis Grissom
Devon White
Curt Flood
Dom DiMaggio
Bobby Bonds
Andre Dawson
Jimmy Wynn
Willie Davis

Some of these guys are not up to Pinson's level. Some clearly are better (Murphy). Many of these players on this list could be advocated as forcibly as Rinkster advocates here for Vada.

I believe that Murphy was a better player than Vada, as was Brett Butler, though I could be mistaken. I believe that Bobby Bonds was better, and a surprising case could be made for Jimmy Wynn.

Of all the players on my list, let's compare Vada to Fred Lynn:

LYNN: .283 BA, 306 HRs, 1111 RBI, .360 OBP, 1063 runs, 1960 hits

VADA: .286 BA, 256 HRs, 1170 RBI, .327 OBP, 1356 runs, 2757 hits

Pinson played in exactly 500 more games over his career than Lynn.

Is Vada Pinson THAT MUCH BETTER than Fred Lynn? Even adjusting for park, and for the era Pinson played in, was he so much better than Lynn that he IS HOF-worthy and Lynn ISN'T? If not, who will start the thread advocating Lynn's induction? Lynn had a shorter career, but should Pinson get credit for hanging on in an attempt to get 3,000 hits? Did Lynn not hit for considerably more power and demonstrate significantly more plate discipline over the course of his career? Is Pinson's defense THAT MUCH BETTER as to push him ahead of Freddy Ballgame?

Maybe it is. Pinson was a quality player, and Earl Lawson is/was a petty big fish in a little pond. He'll answer to someone other than NetShrine for his treatment of Pinson.

However, I cannot advocate the selection of a ballplayer to the HOF who is not demonstrably better than Fred Lynn. Fred Lynn is NOT, in my opinion, a HOFer. He fell short. Please, somebody, tell me (I'm open-minded on this!) why Pinson is better than Fred Lynn. I might buy his candidacy if this can be shown.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Pinson was listed as being born in 1938 for much of his career when he was actually born in 1936. There has been some discussion of the possiblity that he was actually born in 1934, although 1936 is the accepted date as of now. This may explain some of Golden Bear's questions.

Wow; I'd never heard that before. If he was in his early 30's in the late 60's, when the power vanished, that could be chalked up to just naturally diminshing bat speed that just happens to some guys (Dale Murphy, Gus Bell, Rocky Colavito)

Baseball-Reference.com still lists Pinson at 1938. Could this be a particularly nasty Lawson rumor?

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Of all the players on my list, let's compare Vada to Fred Lynn:

LYNN: .283 BA, 306 HRs, 1111 RBI, .360 OBP, 1063 runs, 1960 hits

VADA: .286 BA, 256 HRs, 1170 RBI, .327 OBP, 1356 runs, 2757 hits

Pinson played in exactly 500 more games over his career than Lynn.

Is Vada Pinson THAT MUCH BETTER than Fred Lynn? Even adjusting for park, and for the era Pinson played in, was he so much better than Lynn that he IS HOF-worthy and Lynn ISN'T? If not, who will start the thread advocating Lynn's induction? Lynn had a shorter career, but should Pinson get credit for hanging on in an attempt to get 3,000 hits? Did Lynn not hit for considerably more power and demonstrate significantly more plate discipline over the course of his career? Is Pinson's defense THAT MUCH BETTER as to push him ahead of Freddy Ballgame?

Maybe it is. Pinson was a quality player, and Earl Lawson is/was a petty big fish in a little pond. He'll answer to someone other than NetShrine for his treatment of Pinson.

However, I cannot advocate the selection of a ballplayer to the HOF who is not demonstrably better than Fred Lynn. Fred Lynn is NOT, in my opinion, a HOFer. He fell short. Please, somebody, tell me (I'm open-minded on this!) why Pinson is better than Fred Lynn. I might buy his candidacy if this can be shown.

Short answer: He's 800 hits better and 300 runs better. Lynn didn't crack 2000 hits; Pinson was knocking on the door of 3000. That's a HUGE difference.

Before someone bursts a blood vessel, I know 2000 hits is arbitrary, and 40 more hits for Lynn wouldn't matter. However, if Pinson had played two more years and gotten to 3K, Lawson couldn't have kept him out with a double-barrelled fountain pen. And I'd agree with that, based more on the two more productive years than reaching the 3000 number.

But 800 hits and 300 runs (and with the same number of RBI) is a career for some guys. That's not a trivial difference. 50 HR, considering that neither of them had better than low 20's HR power (other than Lynn's fluke 1979), really isn't a big deal, and probably washes away in period and park effects (Fenway v. Crosley).

[Skip]

Cumulative stats do matter. Yeah, a short career, high peak guy like Koufax can get in because the peak was so high, but I don't think you can hold a guy's longevity against him just because an MLB team felt he was good enough to keep under contract even during his decline phase. I don't think of it as penalizing guys who left early so much as rewarding (already very good) guys who took advantage of all the opportunities they had.

Yes, I know that's sophistry.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear


Wow; I'd never heard that before. If he was in his early 30's in the late 60's, when the power vanished, that could be chalked up to just naturally diminshing bat speed that just happens to some guys (Dale Murphy, Gus Bell, Rocky Colavito)

Baseball-Reference.com still lists Pinson at 1938. Could this be a particularly nasty Lawson rumor?



Short answer: He's 800 hits better and 300 runs better. Lynn didn't crack 2000 hits; Pinson was knocking on the door of 3000. That's a HUGE difference.

Before someone bursts a blood vessel, I know 2000 hits is arbitrary, and 40 more hits for Lynn wouldn't matter. However, if Pinson had played two more years and gotten to 3K, Lawson couldn't have kept him out with a double-barrelled fountain pen. And I'd agree with that, based more on the two more productive years than reaching the 3000 number.

But 800 hits and 300 runs (and with the same number of RBI) is a career for some guys. That's not a trivial difference. 50 HR, considering that neither of them had better than low 20's HR power (other than Lynn's fluke 1979), really isn't a big deal, and probably washes away in period and park effects (Fenway v. Crosley).

I do think, however, that there is a BIG difference between a .327 OBP and .360 OBP, especially when the guy with fewer career HRs and a .003 higher BA has the lower OBP.

I also think that the only was Pinson would get 3,000 hits would be to occupy a regular position despite being well below replacement value. Pinson took his career to age 39, and was 243 hits away. That's a lot of hits at age 39.

Now, he may have been 41. Pinson's age issue is relevant to the segregation/racial quota issues of the 1950s. Pinson may have been in the major leagues earlier had he been white. Gavy Cravath may have compiled 500 lifetime HRs had he been born in 1955. Don Buford may have been a HOFer if he were born in 1960. My aunt would be my uncle if she had a Y chromosome.

Had Pinson stayed around to get 3,000 hits, it wouldn't have been pretty. I suspect that Earl Lawson (who was alive and writing in the 1970s) would have never ceased to point out that Pinson would have had the lowest lifetime BA of any 3,000 hit man (Cal Ripken would have beaten that) and the lowest OBP of any 3,000 hit man (Pinson probably would have had that dubious distinction). Pinson may have been, fairly or unfairly, the first 3,000 hit man to be denied the HOF. He played for as long as anyone could justify giving him semi-regular playing time. When he retired, he was as done as done can be.

Again, was he as good as Fred Lynn? Was he further above the mean, as a CF, for peak, as well as career, than Fred Lynn. How did he do, versus mean, compared to Fred Lynn? From my standpoint, Lynn had more power, and was on base more. It takes a lotta letha to overcome that.

[SmedIndy]

I never thought baseball posts would become as lengthy as "Remeberance of Things Past", however.

1. Someone here dissed 19th century players. I know who it was. Shame on thee.

Seriously, I'd like Van Haltren in the HOF. Ryan maybe or maybe not. Perhaps they should both go. But we don't understand that era like we do the 60's. Of course the players were better, as a whole, but I don't like to exclude someone because they played then. Many, many other factors not present in the 1960's were at work.

2. Pinson falls into the Evans/Murphy/Parker/Lynn memorial close-but-no-cigar wing.


3. Can we be a bit more concise, please? I need a blue pencil, or something. I'm afraid valid points are lost in the verbiage salvo.


Thanks.

[Rinkster]

A couple of comments, and question...

Regarding Pinson's loss of power toward the end of his career.

During Pinson's last two seasons with the Reds, he began have problems with his legs. During his one season with the Cardinals, Pinson started out the season on fire before suffering a major ankle injury. The rest of the season he fought off more leg problems, problems that plagued him the rest of his career.

Another reason for the drop-off in power was the fact he played in 4 horrible home run and/or hitter's parks to end his career.
Busch Stadium, Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, Anaheim Stadium, and Royals Stadium.

As for the "change" in Pinson's date of birth...

Pinson has always been recognized as being born in August, 1938. The first place I have ever seen that stated Pinson was born in 1936 rather than 1938 was Bill James' New Historical Abstract. I was shocked.

Now, I've seen it in a couple of other places since then. One person who posted on this thread advised he has seen where Pinson may even have been born in 1934. But I have yet to see the source where this information came from, including in James' book.

I HAVE seen a reason why Vada Pinson could have fudged about his date of birth, and it's the same reason it's in the news today regarding players such as Neifi Perez and Bartlo Colon. I even know that Rob Neyer believed this is why Vada Pinson may have fudged his date of birth.

The reason? Vada Pinson, because he was hispanic, thought it would help his chances.

One problem.

Pinson was not hispanic. He was black.

During his first year in the big leagues, because he was so shy and never spoke, Pinson was thought by Reds coach Wally Moses to be a Cuban. Moses would only speak to Pinson in broken english...or sometime not at all, deciding to act out batting tips to Pinson. After a couple of weeks, Pinson finally spoke to Moses in perfect english, which shocked poor Wally so much it nearly made him faint.

If Pinson was born in 1936, it would make him only one year younger than Frank Robinson. Robinson was born in August 1935, or three years to the month of what has always been known as Pinson's date of birth.

Yet...

Pinson and Robinson were NOT childhood friends. They went to the same high school, but Pinson hardly even knew who Frank Robinson was as Robinson was three years ahead of him in school. Pinson only knew Robinson as an older boy from the same neighborhood that was a great baseball player. They never played baseball together before becoming teammates on the Reds.

In all of the articles from 1959 regarding Pinson, when there is talk about his youth, Pinson and even members of his family talk about the Pinson family's move to Oakland, California when Vada was five or six years old. They give the date as 1944. That would put Pinson's date of birth as 1938.

Pinson born in 1934? Hell, that would make him two years OLDER than Robinson. That is ludicrous. Pinson's own high school coach talks about how Pinson was a late-bloomer physically, how he was small and somewhat frail, but incredibly athletic. There is no way Pinson could have been born in 1934.

Pinson was described as being intelligent as a child, and very-well spoken as a player. What caused him, then, to be so far behind in school, if accepting that he was really born in 1936?

So, if any of you know where this information showing that Pinson was actually born in 1936, I would like to have it.

As for his qualifications...no need to rehash again. Pinson is qualified based on the criteria established by the Hall of Fame. One thing that was brought up was Bill James' HOF standards. As James writes, this system will hurt those who played in the 1960s as the formula is not adjusted for time. Pinson still scores 44, which is between a marginal HOFer and the midpoint HOFer. Adjusted for era, simply on batting average, Pinson closes in on a score of 50. If you adjust for other stats, doubles, triples, which you have to do since it is reasons that if it's harder to get hits, it's also harder to get doubles and triples and homeruns...etc, Pinson is easily at the midpoint score of 50.

Okay, enough about Vada. I know he belongs, many on here do too. But there are others just as qualified, and perhaps more so (Santo, Minoso).

One last thing. Pinson belted Lawson after Lawson wrote degrading remarks about how Pinson was not living up to the potential he showed his first full season. Lawson specifically was upset after Pinson missed a cutoff in a game. Lawson, in retirement, admitted he felt he was an important part of getting a player fired up to perform better. Lawson held enormous power as the nation's source of info on the Reds, and he loved to flaunt it. Well, in the 1950s he actually traded punches with Johnny Temple over his articles personally attacking Temple. When he got in Pinson's face and challenged Pinson to do something about it, Pinson did, belting Lawson in the face.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Rinkster
As for his qualifications...no need to rehash again. Pinson is qualified based on the criteria established by the Hall of Fame. One thing that was brought up was Bill James' HOF standards. As James writes, this system will hurt those who played in the 1960s as the formula is not adjusted for time. Pinson still scores 44, which is between a marginal HOFer and the midpoint HOFer. Adjusted for era, simply on batting average, Pinson closes in on a score of 50. If you adjust for other stats, doubles, triples, which you have to do since it is reasons that if it's harder to get hits, it's also harder to get doubles and triples and homeruns...etc, Pinson is easily at the midpoint score of 50.

Rinkster would have fit in well with Thomas Hardy and that ilk...a lot of words, blurring the points...

There is no established criteria for the HOF. It's only as strong as it's weakest member, and each time you use the weaker members as a divining rod you weaken the institution.

Vada would get a crowbar. Sad to say, but true.

[Skip]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Vada would get a crowbar. Sad to say, but true.

Contradicting HE WHO WILL NOT BE MOCKED, I disagree with this conclusion - but not vociferously. It's a close call, and I tend to think of myself as more often on the overly restrictive side than not. Verbosity of the arguments aside (), I've been moved toward acceptance of VP in the HOF.

[VNV Nation]

yeah, I think Rinkster's done a pretty convincing job.

[SmedIndy]

Hasn't convinced me. In fact, I think he's driven me further the other way on Pinson.

[Rinkster]

How would someone who would rank in the top half of games, hits, runs, doubles, home runs, RBI, stolen bases, extra base hits, total bases, runs + rbi of HOFers at his postion lessen the standard or weaken the Hall? How would someone who ranked so high in most statistics at the time he retired, higher than most HOFers by the way, lessen the standard.

Does Kirby Puckett lessen the standards? Pinson has better career numbers than Puckett in most statistics, and if you shorten Pinson's career to his first twelve full seasons (as Puckett played only 12 full seasons), his numbers are almost identical to Puckett's.

Puckett's career stats are listed first, followed by Pinson's stats from 1959-70, his first 12 full seasons.

Runs__Hits___2B__3B___HR__RBI__BB__AVG_ SB__EBH__TB___

1071_2304__414__57__207_1085_450_.318_134__678_345 3

1090_2145__385_108__218__958_461_.294_230__711_340 0__

Puckett and Pinson both had 2 season's of 30+ Win Shares.
Puckett and Pinson both had 9 seasons of 20+ Win Shares.
Puckett and Pinson both had 226 Win Shares over their best 9-year consecutive seasons.

Was Puckett better? Sure, I guess. But not first ballot HOF vs. never exceeding 16% of the vote better. Some voters admitted they voted for Puckett based on what he could have done, others have voted against Pinson because of his decline phase. Yet, there was not that much difference between the two over the same length of time.

Puckett had to compete for outfield glory with Rickey Henderson, a young Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr., Dave Winfield, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, Robin Yount, Darryl Strawberry, Joe Carter, Jose Canseco, and Tony Gwynn. Yet most of the outfield talent was not in the league that Puckett played in.

Pinson's competition for recognition was incredibly tougher. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Carl Yastrzemski, Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Lou Brock, Al Kaline. Most were players in his league, including one on his own team. That's a tough peer group.

Instead of electing defensive specialists or sluggers with stats that are a dime by the dozen, why not elect a player that is not truly comparable to any player in history. As Bill James writes, "In looking for Hall of Famers, I have always assumed, one should look first for complete players, players who are good hitters and good fielders."

Pinson was, and still is, a unique talent. No player in history is truly comparable statistically to Vada Pinson, scored by James' similarity score. That is a huge point in Pinson's favor. Most great players are not truly comparable to any one else, according to James. Most of the other candidates supported by others have several truly comparable players to them. Once again, James writes...

"That's the absolute truth proof that a player does NOT belong in the Hall of Fame: that there are too many guys just like him. If a player has "common skills"--not common in the sense that you can find a guy like him anywhere, but common in the sense that there are many just like him in the history of baseball--then that player does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Uniqueness is a fundamental test of quality."

So go ahead, elect Bob Johnson, Gil Hodges, Dick Allen, Orlando Cepeda, Ozzie Smith, Bill Mazeroski, Tony Oliva, Joe Torre etc. We've seen their like before they came along, and again after they were gone. To me, THAT weakens the HOF.

[SmedIndy]

The HOF isn't for UNIQUE players. The HOF is for ELITE players.

That's a big difference.

Vada isn't elite. Perhaps Jimmy Wynn was better than Vada Pinson? Wynn's not a HOF player. I can't really put someone who ranks lower than Wynn, Murphy, or Fred Lynn in the HOF.

[pwdennis]

The case for Pinson is borderline in either direction. His OBP was poor and (for what it's worth, he was terrible in the 1961 World Series).

As a lad, Vada Pinson was one of my favorite players, but his absence from Cooperstown does not upset me. His inclusion would not not upset me either.

[Skip]

OK - we're pretty much into bicker mode here. I don't think any opinions are going to be changed that haven't been changed already based on what's been posted. Anything new to add ... or is this an interesting thread which has now run its course??

[VNV Nation]

Well, before it dies I think we should all gives kudos to Rinkster for such an interesting discussion.