Vada Pinson

[Double Steal]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-07-02 AT 12:48 PM (EST)]Discuss...


Show me a guy who can't pitch inside and I'll show you a loser. - Sandy Koufax

[LouGehrig]

I saw Pinson play and he was a good player. I remember after the Cardinals won the pennant in 1968 but lost in the World Series to Detroit, they added Pinson and seemed to have a good or excellent player at each position as well as a more than adequate pitching staff. Ironically, they were never in the 1969 division race.

Pinson could hit, was fast and could steal bases, and had fair power. He was overshadowed by Robinson in Cincinnati, but was the second best player on the 1961 Reds.

[VELCROHIDE]

I've spoken about this before, but in 1960 Vada Pinson got ousted by a rookie by the name of Willie McCovey.
Mc Covey, in just 52 games, 192-ABs managed to compile a .354 batting average with 13HRs and 38RBIs which is modest at best. Meanwhile Pinson batted .316, 648ABs, 131-Runs scored 205-hits, 20-HRs and 84-RBI and stole 21 bases. He only played in 29 games the year before and somehow this overqualified him for Rookie of the year.
Of course, McCovey went on to have a Hall of Fame career while Pinson was mired in mediocrity he did have a respectable career but not one worthy of Cooperstown.

[Freakshow]

>I've spoken about this before, but in 1960 Vada Pinson got
>ousted by a rookie by the name of Willie McCovey.
>Mc Covey, in just 52 games, 192-ABs managed to compile a
>.354 batting average with 13HRs and 38RBIs which is modest
>at best. Meanwhile Pinson batted .316, 648ABs, 131-Runs
>scored 205-hits, 20-HRs and 84-RBI and stole 21 bases. He
>only played in 29 games the year before and somehow this
>overqualified him for Rookie of the year.
>Of course, McCovey went on to have a Hall of Fame career
>while Pinson was mired in mediocrity he did have a
>respectable career but not one worthy of Cooperstown.

I think Pinson was a lot better player than you portray him. He still ranks in the top 50 all-time in several major categories (Hits, total bases, games, doubles). His poor image among fans is due to: being an outfielder in the NL during the days of Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson; playing in the shadow of Frank Robinson on his own team; spending his prime years in the low offense era 1963-68; sticking around five years at the end of his career as a below-average player.

The fact is, Pinson received no votes for the ROY award in 1959 (not 1960, as you said) because he was NOT a rookie under the rules at that time. The rule then was 90 at bats, so Pinson's 96 AB in 1958 disqualified him from consideration in 1959.

Dan

[Crosley Fielder]

If Gary Carter is in the Hall of Fame then Vada should be there too. He's got better, overall offensive stats than Gary Carter. But Pinson was a 'tweener.' I see him as a player who was much better than the typical starter but not quite a Hall of Famer in the Mayes, Aaron, Mantle, Robinson arena. He was 'in between' a competent starter and a star. I enjoyed watching him perform.

[538280]

If Gary Carter is in the Hall of Fame then Vada should be there too. He's got better, overall offensive stats than Gary Carter. But Pinson was a 'tweener.' I see him as a player who was much better than the typical starter but not quite a Hall of Famer in the Mayes, Aaron, Mantle, Robinson arena. He was 'in between' a competent starter and a star. I enjoyed watching him perform.

Gary Carter isn't a HOFer in the first place, but that's another matter.

My real point is that, who cares if Vada has the same offensive numbers as Carter? Carter was a catcher, Pinson was a corner OF. Obviously you expect different levels of offensive production from different positions. If Carter was a corner OF, his offense wouldn't be that great. But, he was a catcher, and his offense was very, very good for a catcher. On the other hand, you have Pinson, who has Gary Carter's offensive numbers as a corner OF. That isn't great offense from a corner OF. Pinson isn't even close to being a HOFer.

[BoSox Rule]

Gary Carter is a Hall of Famer.

[LouGehrig]

Gary Carter is a Hall of Famer.

Only because he was voted in. Hall of Famers don't hit .262 for their careers.

Of course, some did, and they don't belong. The fact that those with the power (Carter had good power) voted him in doesn't mean that their evaluation was valid.

Joel Sherman, New York Post, August 7, 2005
August 7, 2005 -- RAFAEL Palmeiro was not a Hall of Famer even before the revelation that he is the lone member of the five hundred-one club; that is homers and steroid-related suspensions for those of you scoring at home.
Palmeiro is the hitting Don Sutton. He has been great at being very good for a long time and accumulating provocative numbers. But I never voted for Sutton because I believe greatness and dominance must be part of the candidacy, and Sutton never filled that requirement. Sutton was a contemporary to pitchers such as Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer, and just was not in their class.

I have heard the argument that if you set the bar that high, no one would get in, and I find that sentiment ridiculous. The Hall of Fame is for the truly great, the no-brainer great. If you have to think about it, the player is probably not a Hall of Famer. The Hall of Fame is defined as much by who is left out as which players are put in. If Dave Parker and Jim Rice are out, what does it say about the quality of those who are in?

Believe me, the ballot is filled with almost exclusively tremendous players. The borderline between in and out is subtle, and to not vote for someone is almost always about finding your borderline to determine if the tremendous careers of players such as Parker, Rice, Keith Hernandez, Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, Bert Blyleven and Dave Concepcion - just to name a few who have been on the ballot annually in recent years - move those final few inches from excellence into immortality.

I have respect for the emerging society of number crunchers who likely can offer reams of readouts providing a compelling case why Palmeiro is one of the best first basemen ever. But, again, I say the Hall of Fame has to be about more than numbers. What if some organization had mercy and brought Fred McGriff back to hit seven homers, do I vote for him automatically because he reached 500? How about if rather than retire after the 2001 season, Harold Baines would have limped back for one more year of 134 hits; does he go in simply because he reached 3,000? They are just numbers that end in zero and we give them more relevance because of that.

Meanwhile, Edgar Martinez did not come close to even 400 homers or 2,500 hits. Yet I will vote for him despite his mostly DH status because if I am to truly believe the cliche that hitting a baseball is the toughest thing to do in sports, than I cannot come up with a list of 10 people I saw hit a ball as consistently hard and well as Martinez. It is simple: I watched Edgar Martinez and thought I was watching a Hall of Famer. And I think our eyes matter now more than ever. Because I think the Hall has to transcend numbers now more than ever. In part, due to what chemistry has done to this game, and I am not talking that hard-to-quantify clubhouse kind.

Yes, Palmeiro falls into rarefied company when the numbers are crunched. But did anyone ever eyeball him for a sustained period and think they were watching a Hall of Famer like when you have watched Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera, Manny Ramirez and Ken Griffey Jr.? It is not all about the drugs. I will vote (perhaps with my hands clenching my nose) for Barry Bonds because how do you deny his greatness?

[leecemark]

--If you don't think Gary Carter is a Hall of Famer you must want to kick out over half the members. Carter was on the top 10 catchers ever to play the game. Pinson was arguably one of the top 20 CF, but probably not. Just under the line IMO.

[zman]

"Pinson received a $4,000 bonus to sign with the Reds out of McClymonds High School in Oakland. Cincinnati had signed Frank Robinson and Curt Flood out of the same school a couple years earlier."

That High School must have had one of the greatest coaches ever. It was in a rough neighborhood too where opportunity seldom extended a helping hand to it's youth. This coach probably helped a lot of lesser known youth in addition to gifted athletes like Robinson, Pinson, Flood and basketball great Bill Russell. Takes a special sort of man to do all that, don't it? Here's a link to an article about Coach George Powles.

http://www.museumca.org/picturethis/4_6.html

[mordeci]

I don't know about now, but a couple of years ago Pinson had the most career hits of anyone who was eligible for the hof but not in it. I don't think he deserves to be in the hall, but he's among the best of those who don't belong.

[Crosley Fielder]

He was 'in between' a competent starter and a star.

This is/was my basic opinion about Pinson. I'd say the same about guys like Gary Carter, Tony Perez, and Davey Concepcion. I'm not sure what a 'corner outfielder is.' All I know is that Pinson played CF and did it very well. Pinson's own approach to the game kept him from having a better average. He kept swinging for the fences when what he did well was get singles, doubles and triples.

[flash143817]

Vada Pinson was a good player, but not a HOFer. Sure he played in the offensively-challenged '60s, but his OPS+ was still only 111. Above average, but far too low to make the HOF as an outfielder. Only a catcher or an extremely good fielding middle infielder (Ozzie Smith) should make the HOF with an OPS+ of 111.

And as far as Pinson having the most hits of anyone not in the HOF, if Harold Baines is eligible yet, then he will pass Pinson on that list. But neither of those 2 are HOF-worthy, so they will probably stay at the top of that list for awhile.

[Crosley Fielder]

Crosley Fielder concurs with your assessment. Pinson was not quite Hall of Fame material. The Hall should be reserved for baseball gods. However, a few non-deities have gotten in. ha

[DoubleX]

If Gary Carter is in the Hall of Fame then Vada should be there too. He's got better, overall offensive stats than Gary Carter. But Pinson was a 'tweener.' I see him as a player who was much better than the typical starter but not quite a Hall of Famer in the Mayes, Aaron, Mantle, Robinson arena. He was 'in between' a competent starter and a star. I enjoyed watching him perform.

Carter was a catcher and is thus genearally subject to different standards of production. Comparing outfielders to catchers is comparing apples and oranges and isn't a good argument. Comparison Pinson to another Hall of Fame outfielder, specifially a centerfielder, would be a better argument. Comparing him to Earl Averill or Kirby Puckett or Richie Ashburn or Earle Combs and Lloyd Waner (both of whom should not be in the Hall), would probably be more appropriate comparisons.

Personally, I believe Carter belongs. I have him as about the 9th or 10th best catcher ever and arguably the best of his generation (Fisk gets longevity points, but I think I'd go with Carter for peak value) and I believe baseball has been played long enough that it's fair to honor the top 10 at each position in the Hall of Fame. Carter is no Bench or Berra, but the notion that only players of the extreme finest quality are allowed in was dismissed long ago.

Anywho, I have Vada Pinson in that grey area just below Hall of Fame caliber (though I actually have him ranked ahead of Richie Ashburn). Pinson seemed to get off to a tremendous start, but didn't age well. Had he been a good ballplayer after 30, he'd likely have compiled 3000 hits and be a Hall of Famer.

[Crosley Fielder]

DOUBLE X....Thanks for your comments, they are very good. Pinson came up with the Reds full-time in 1959 and seemed to be heading for the Hall of Fame. But...many have come out of the starting blocks that way. (Another Reds CF suffered the same fate...Eric Davis.)
As I mentioned in an earlier post Pinson started going for the long ball too much. He was a left-handed hitter and the rightfield fence at Crosley Field was a hefty 366 feet away.
Who do you rate as the all-time best catcher? My choice is Bench. I remember his seeming nonchalance behind the plate. He stayed in the crouch and caught balls off the dirt that other catchers stopped after assuming hockey goalie tactics. His arm was inhuman.

[Sockeye]

Vada Pinson is one of the most underrated player on BBF IMO. At least a boarderline candidate for the HOF.

[KCGHOST]

Pinson was a pretty good player who racked up 2700+ hits but wasn't particularly productive. Of the 57 players who have that many hits he ranks 54th in RCAA with a mediocre 147. The only guys below him are Brooks Robinson, Bill Buckner and Doc Cramer. Robinson made the HoF despite his mediocre productivity not because of it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Only because he was voted in. Hall of Famers don't hit .262 for their careers.
:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Yes, that how players become HoFers, by being voted in, right?

[LouGehrig]

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Yes, that how players become HoFers, by being voted in, right?

Not really. Players become Hall of Famers by being better than their comtemporaries and those who preceded them.

Have the right to vote is not correlated to having the knowledge to apply the vote most effectively. Ask the American people.