Poll: Vada Pinson

[PVNICK]

The late Vada Pinson was always a favorite of mine. He was a great player who probably was as overlooked in his own time as he is now. What's your take?

Here are some of his numbers:
lifetime - league
.286 .264 batting average
.327 .331 OBP
.442 .396 SPct
.769 .726 OPS
111 OPS+
.604 OWP

His career line
AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB SBPct BB K
9645 1366 2757 485 127 256 1170 305 71% 574 1196

From 1959 through 1967 with the Reds he was at his peak and may have been the best CF in the game not named Mays or Mantle. He went to the All-Start game twice in 1959 and 1960 and won the Gold Glove in 1961. While neither is a "plus," it was a stacked field considering he was competing for one GG spot, with Clemente and Mays taking the other two, while Aaron and Frank Robinson among others were competing for OF spots on the All-Star team.

He led the reague in runs scored, 2B in 1959, 2B in 1960, hits in 1961 and hits and 3B in 1963 and 3B in 1967.

Black Ink: Batting - 18 (122) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 135 (122) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 36.0 (179) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 93.0 (166) (Likely HOFer > 100)

[2Chance]

I liked Pinson too, and for years he was thought of as the best player outside the Hall.

Still, I think they got it right. He's just outside looking in.

It is a shame he doesn't get more discussion though.

[PVNICK]

Pretty much my take as well. I think he, Rusty Staub and Buckner still have the most career hits (other than Rose, active or not yet elibible players) without being in the Hall.

[KCGHOST]

Nice player with some longevity. We have done him several times.

[DoubleX]

Pretty much my take as well. I think he, Rusty Staub and Buckner still have the most career hits (other than Rose, active or not yet elibible players) without being in the Hall.

Harold Baines right now has the honor of most hits of players eligible for the Hall but not in. Here's the top 10:

1) Harold Baines: 2866
2) Andre Dawson: 2774
3) Vada Pinson: 2757
4) Al Oliver: 2743
5) Rusty Staub: 2716
6) Bill Buckner: 2715
7) Dave Parker: 2712
8) Doc Cramer: 2705
9) Lave Cross: 2645
10) Steve Garvey: 2599

[Cougar]

Here's a segmentation of Pinson's career I posted a few years ago, edited slightly:

Cup of Coffee (1958) -- Welcome to the bigs; unnoteworthy

Early Reds (1959-1965) -- Great. Probably best CF in league other than Mays (who may be best CF ever, so no shame there).

Late Reds (1966-1968) -- Slips a little. Hard to tell if it's part of the overall offensive drought -- certainly it's partly that -- but he does fall back to the pack. There's a cluster of quality CF of which Pinson is a part, as is Mays (who had started to slip), Wynn, both Alous (Matty and Felipe), and Flood. (Willie Davis didn't really hit full stride until later.)

But -- Pinson is still among the league leaders in hits, runs scored (11th - 1967, with 90), total bases, doubles, triples, extra-base hits, and stolen bases during this period.

In 1966, he's 8th in the league in hits, 9th in stolen bases, and 3rd in doubles.

In 1967, he is 3rd in the league in hits, is 4th in steals, 6th in extra-base hits, and leads the league in triples, plus 90 runs scored as noted above.

In the worst year of all, 1968, (both for him and for every hitter in the live ball era), he still finished in the top 10 in doubles, triples, and steals.

This is still a very good player.

Cardinals (1969) -- Bottoms out here. Also moved to RF. Just a bad season all around. It happens.

Indians (1970-1971) -- Comeback year with Cleveland in 1970, finds power stroke, hits 24 HR, drives in 82 runs, bats .286. Not All-Star level, but rather good. In 1971, he hits for power less, runs more -- steals 25 bases while hitting .271. RBI and runs scored quite low, but Indians are an awful 102-loss team. Also moves back to CF for last full season in 1971.

I suspect he led off in '71 based on stats, but don't know for sure. Anyway, he and Nettles are easily the best players on this team over these two years; maybe Fosse's in the discussion too, before Rose leveled him at '71 ASG. Sudden Sam McDowell is the best pitcher.

Angels/Royals (1972-1975) -- Now he's in his career twilight as an underpowered, part-time corner OF, although the only season I'd call him unhelpful is '75, when he was apparently done. Still runs well on the bases and fields well; hits for average OK.

Summary -- Seems to me that Pinson had about 7 years as great and 3 years at very good on the Reds; maybe 6 and 4 if you want to throw 1964 into the lower category. St. Louis was a bust, but he bounced back in Cleveland with two more good years before winding up his career with a couple expansion teams. 12 good seasons, half of them great ones. That's pretty typical of a lower half HOF, which is what I believe Pinson is.

[PVNICK]

Thanks. I wondered looking at his numbers if he was hurt in 1968 because he played only 130 games where he usually was in the 155-160 range. Also by today's standards it looks like he should have been eligible for rookie of the year in 1959. I know McCovey came for a half season but it's hard to see how Pinson would lose unless he was ineligble by the standards of the time.

[tearforamariner]

I always think of Pinson as being a guy who was on a Hall of Fame pace. Vada Pinson had 2000 hits by the time he was 30. At the age of 30, only 4 members of the 3000 hit club had more hits by the time they were 30 than Vada Pinson. And then he declined. To me, his decline is what ruined his Hall of Fame chances.

[yankillaz]

Harold Baines right now has the honor of most hits of players eligible for the Hall but not in. Here's the top 10:

1) Harold Baines: 2866
2) Andre Dawson: 2774
3) Vada Pinson: 2757
4) Al Oliver: 2743
5) Rusty Staub: 2716
6) Bill Buckner: 2715
7) Dave Parker: 2712
8) Doc Cramer: 2705
9) Lave Cross: 2645
10) Steve Garvey: 2599

Of all these, i only consider Dave Parker a possible HOF'er. I once rooted for Pinson, but then looke closer to his career, and he wasn't better than say Bernie Williams, who won't make the Hall either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most sources I see show Pinson's birthdate as 1938. I question this. I have seen him listed as being born in 1936, and some accounts have shown Pinson as being born in 1934.

I tend to believe that Pinson was born in 1936. I say this because he was born in the segregated South, then moved to California. It would not have been unheard of for Pinson to have started school at age 6, then have been left back a year due to the poor Southern schools (at the time) versus California schools (which were ahead of Southern schools).

Players as good as Pinson was from age 21-27 (if you believe the 1938 birth date) do not go to seed at age 28 mysteriously. There is no major injury or other factor mentioned for the fact that Pinson went from a star to just another pretty good player at age 28; it just doesn't happen barring unusual factors. Pinson's career reflects the normal progression of a player who is a star at age 23. I tend to view the 1938 birth date as a "baseball age".

I used to be more enthusiastic about Pinson's candidacy until I compared it to Fred Lynn's. Lynn had a higher peak, offensively and defensively, than Pinson, even adjusting for era. Lynn had fewer hits, but more power, and was on base more often, even if you adjust for era. I go back and forth on which player had the better career, and I'm really not sure who was better, but Pinson is not so far ahead of Lynn, by the most generous evaluation, for one to say he's a clear HOFer (unless you believe that Lynn is a HOFer, which few do). Lynn was CLEARLY perceived as a greater star, while active, and while Pinson was playing in a league with Mays, Aaron, and Frank Robinson, Lynn WON an MVP award and four Gold Gloves.

The other thing that bugs me about the Pinson candidacy is that I view retention of ability as a sign of greatness. From age 31 (age 33, if you believe that Pinson was born in 1936), he was no longer a star; he really was nothing more than a guy who could hold a regular job. He lost his ability to hit the ball, and his lack of plate discipline, which NEVER improved throughout his entire career, hastened his decline. Additionally, Pinson's power ebbed early; the ebbing of his power is, IMO, related to his lack of plate discipline. Pinson would have gotten into the HOF if he had gotten his 3,000 hits, but guys with his skill base that don't learn how to take a walk simply don't make it to 3,000 hits because they don't have the plate discipline to compensate the skills that fade as they age.

[Yankwood]

He's been around too long and I think when voters or committees see a name hanging around that long and tend to ignore it unless there is a huge groundswell of support. I really don't see that happening and I can't see Pinson getting more support than Andre Dawson. Just my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's been around too long and I think when voters or committees see a name hanging around that long and tend to ignore it unless there is a huge groundswell of support. I really don't see that happening and I can't see Pinson getting more support than Andre Dawson. Just my opinion.

I rate Lynn ahead of Pinson and Dawson. Lynn had a significantly higher Offensive Winning Percentage than both of these guys, plus, he played the highest percentage of games in CF.

[henrich]

Vada Pinson is way behind Dawson who will get in, and above Lynn (who was a favorite of mine growing up). I score Pinson at the 9900 range. 10,000 is needed most of the time at this era. He's 2nd to Mays though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Vada Pinson is way behind Dawson who will get in, and above Lynn (who was a favorite of mine growing up). I score Pinson at the 9900 range. 10,000 is needed most of the time at this era. He's 2nd to Mays though.


Other than career length, on what basis do you rate Pinson ahead of Lynn?

[henrich]

Other than career length, on what basis do you rate Pinson ahead of Lynn?

Pinson 17th overall 9885, Lynn 32nd 8853 overall in CF.

Total bases Pinson 4264, Lynn 3352.
Runs+RBI's+SB 2841 Pinson
Runs+RBI's+SB 2236 Lynn
1090 in bonuses for leading the league in major categories for Lynn
1000 in bonuses for Pinson
Average for Lynn x 5 1415
Average for Pinson x 5 1430
Lynn was in one more playoffs then Pinson. There pretty close, but the edge goes to Pinson due to his career total bases and speed primarily.

[Brad Harris]

I liked Pinson too, and for years he was thought of as the best player outside the Hall.

Had Earl Lawson not been head of the BBWAA when Pinson became eligible, the writers probably would have elected him.

[Freakshow]

Had Earl Lawson not been head of the BBWAA when Pinson became eligible, the writers probably would have elected him.
Year Votes PCT
1981 18 4.5%
1982 6 1.4%
1983 12 3.2%
1985 19 4.8%
1986 43 10.1%
1987 48 11.6%
1988 67 15.7%
1989 33 7.4%
1990 36 8.1%
1991 30 6.8%
1992 36 8.4%
1993 38 9.0%
1994 46 10.1%
1995 32 7.0%
1996 51 10.9%
Based on the above voting support, it hardly seems likely that Mr. Lawson's lack of support kept Vada from being elected. In fact, Pinson had the rules bent for him every step of the way:

1 - Kept on the ballot after drawing <5% in 1981, in violation of the Hall's rules.
2 - Kept on the ballot after drawing <5% in 1982, in violation of the Hall's rules.
3 - Reinstated along with several other 5% victims in 1985.
4 - Reinstated again in 1986, finally reaching 5%.
5 - Stayed eligible in 1996, more than 20 years after retiring, a violation of the Hall's rules.

[Brad Harris]

Perhaps I should have said Pinson would have received more serious consideration from the BBWAA otherwise. Lawson spent a career trashing Pinson at every possible opportunity because of a personal grudge, from the '61 Series on. At the time, Lawson was considered the authority on Cincinnati baseball and his word was gospel. The popular image of Pinson as an underachiever was cultivated, nourished and disseminated by Lawson and the writer undoubtedly carried the same unprofessional behavior and attitudes he had as a writer into his role as a voter. It might not have made the difference between the in/out line, but I'm sure it made a wholesale difference in Pinson not receiving significantly more support. For any number of years, the general public seemed to feel that Pinson was arguably the best player outside Cooperstown.

[THE OX]

Somewhere I've seen a thread concerning when a player should begin to be considered for the HOF. Vada Pinson would be an excellent example of why we should wait until the career is at about the 10-year mark.

His first 8 years or so certainly suggested that he might be on the HOF track, but the last 8 years or so "derailed" him.

I thought he was one helluva player, and certainly would have thought of him as a HOF'er in the making up to the middle-to-later 1960s, but ultimately I have to agree with the majority that he doesn't quite measure up.

I don't know exactly what the problem was, but he was certainly a candle who burned VERY brightly for the first half of his career!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Perhaps I should have said Pinson would have received more serious consideration from the BBWAA otherwise. Lawson spent a career trashing Pinson at every possible opportunity because of a personal grudge, from the '61 Series on. At the time, Lawson was considered the authority on Cincinnati baseball and his word was gospel. The popular image of Pinson as an underachiever was cultivated, nourished and disseminated by Lawson and the writer undoubtedly carried the same unprofessional behavior and attitudes he had as a writer into his role as a voter. It might not have made the difference between the in/out line, but I'm sure it made a wholesale difference in Pinson not receiving significantly more support. For any number of years, the general public seemed to feel that Pinson was arguably the best player outside Cooperstown.

Pinson slugged Lawson; that was the basis of their feud. Of course, Lawson called him out, so he's not entirely blameless in this.

Lawson aside, Pinson has many of the characteristics that many guys who were, at one time, "potential HOFers" that fizzle in the voting have:

(A) He started hot, but finished poorly. The HOF seems to be kinder to guys who finish strong, and is unkind to guys who have their best years early, then hang on. In that respect, Pinson joins Fred Lynn, Will Clark, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, and any number of guys who spent the last 8-9 years of their careers being not much over replacement valud.

(B) He attained no single career stat that is a "difference-maker". He didn't hit 500 HRs; indeed he didn't even hit 300 HRs. He didn't reach 3,000 hits, and he hung on way past stardom to get to 2,757 hits. He didn't reach 1,500 RBIs, or 1,500 runs scored. He didn't hit .300 for his career; in fact, he didn't hit .290.

(C) He won no major award. No MVP, no Rookie of the Year. He played in four (4) ASGs, but two of them were in 1959 and two of them were in 1960; he was not an All-Star in his best year, 1961. The one award he did win was a Gold Glove (in 1961).

(D) He was never the best player in the league at his position. Pinson can't be faulted for that too much because the best CF in baseball for most of his career was Willie Mays. The bigger problem for Pinson was that after 1961, he was probably not perceived as the SECOND best CF in the NL. I would argue that after 1963, the writers perceived the second best CF in the NL to be not Pinson, but Curt Flood. Flood was the Gold Glove CF from 1963-69, and hit for a higher BA than Pinson over that time. Pinson hit for more power, but that was the only edge Pinson had over Flood from 1963 onward. (That Flood would play on three (3) pennant winners and two (2) World Championship teams, while Pinson played on a pennant winning team that is somewhat discounted and forgotten didn't help Pinson either.)

(E) He was never the best player on his team. Granted, in his best years, he played with Frank Robinson, but he also took a back seat to Pete Rose from 1965 onward. Pinson moved back to the second best player in 1966, but by that time, the Reds were out of contention.

Broad-based players often have a tougher time being recognized as HOFers because they don't have the "no-brainer" stats to make it easy for some folks, but that's not Pinson's problem. Pinson's problem is that he didn't do anything well enough to push his career over the line from good to great. He didn't walk enough to be the offensive force he could have been, given his skill base. He didn't play defense enough to stay in CF past his prime. He had good power, but not the kind of GREAT power needed to be a cleanup hitter. Pinson was a good player, and he was victimized, to some extent, by the pettiness and goading of Earl Lawson, but he was not an "unrecognized great player". Indeed, the assessment the HOF voters have made of him is, by and large, defensible. They looked, they looked again, they reconsidered more than once, but the evidence of greatness, in all honesty, just wasn't quite there.

[Paul Wendt]

His first 8 years or so certainly suggested that he might be on the HOF track, but the last 8 years or so "derailed" him.

I thought he was one helluva player, and certainly would have thought of him as a HOF'er in the making up to the middle-to-later 1960s, but ultimately I have to agree with the majority that he doesn't quite measure up.

I don't know exactly what the problem was, but he was certainly a candle who burned VERY brightly for the first half of his career!
He played almost every game for nine seasons, never again. In his tenth season he missed about 30 games, the power went out, and he put up a career-low steals rate (17-11).

At the same time one can focus on OPS+ and say that he was already over the hill. He was a little better in first three seasons than his second three and a little better in the second three than in the third three.

There are not many players with full careers who enjoyed their best seasons as rookies and Vada Pinson is not quite in that group. Close, with those four all-star games as a rookie and sophomore.

He was a little bit up and down, and with bad timing. The Reds were close to winning another pennant in 1962 or 1964, finishing 3 games and 1 game out; his big year was 1963.

[Cowtipper]

When I first voted, I gave Pinson a "maybe." I'd probably change that to a "yes", because despite the fact that he played a large chunk of his career in the second deadball era, he was still able to slug 256 home runs and collect over 2700 hits.

[henrich]

I think of Vada as a borderline case, but just inside the line for me, though i can hear the arguments against for sure. He does look better and better as more players are tarnished.

One wonders whether the Veterans committee will be stronger in years to come to put players in, rather than the writers, as the players of this era have such a stigma.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pinson's career OWP was .590. I'll credit him with .610 or so, if you factor out his years of hanging on.

Was he really better than Amos Otis? By how much? Was he really better than Fred Lynn? He certainly, no way, no how, was better than Jim Edmonds.

I can't see what puts Pinson ahead of any of those guys.