What he did:If baseball awarded the equivalent of Oscars, Pinson would have been a perennial Best Supporting Actor nominee. One of the quintessential role players of the 1960s, Pinson did many things well, hitting for average and power, stealing 305 bases lifetime, and finishing just shy of 3,000 hits. He was never really a star, overshadowed by Cincinnati Reds teammates like Frank Robinson and Pete Rose, though Pinson placed as high as third in MVP voting in 1961 when he led Cincinnati to the World Series. In another era, a fellow blogger told me, Pinson might have been more.
...Why: First of all, count Pinson as another great hitter who may have missed out on the Hall of Fame because his prime years happened to fall in the 1960s. Like Jimmy Wynn, Frank Howard, Bob Watson, and maybe a few others from this decade, Pinson might have had a better shot at Cooperstown had he not peaked at a time that so clearly favored pitchers. As it stands, he went the full 15 years on the writers ballot for the Hall of Fame, and if he’s not a viable Veterans Committee candidate today, he at least rates an honorable mention.
Maybe the ’70s and ’80s weren’t the 1920s or ’30s or late 1990s, able to add 40 batting average points and 50 to 100 home runs to Pinson’s lifetime totals. But it’s likely his .286 batting average and 256 home runs would rise enough in any other time in baseball history since the Deadball Era to get him enshrined. He might not approach Dawson’s 438 home runs, but he’d surely increase his .327 to .323 advantage in on-percentage and have a chance at 3,000 hits (and near-automatic enshrinement.) And one can only wonder how many more bases Pinson would have stolen than Dawson’s 314.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Perry Posted: August 05, 2011 at 03:48 PM (#3893392)The author must have a different definition of "role player" than I do. Pinson averaged about 155 games a year in CF throughout the 60s. That's not what I call a role player. And it's true that he played most of his career in a pitchers' era, but it's also true that Crosley Field was consistently one of the better hitters' parks in the league.
Very, very good player for a very long time. But I don't think playing in the 60s kept him out of the HOF.
I don't see "role player" as having anything to do with playing time. A role-player is a player who is good enough to contribute to a pennant-winner, but not good enough to carry a team on his own.
Pinson was apparently a pretty mild-mannered man, although Earl Lawson, the old-guard Cincy sportswriter, pissed him off and Pinson lost his head and punched him. Varying accounts of what set it off. He comes off very well in both of Brosnan's books, although Brosnan did not appear to interact with him all that often, the times being what they were (and with Pinson's not being a fellow pitcher).
His HOM thread was one of the few I have read and as noted, his daughter Kim showed up and argued on her dad's behalf.
I don't agree with the assertion that a role-player is someone "good enough to contribute to a pennant winner, but not good enough to carry a team on his own," or I would restrict it further.
A role player fulfills a single role, hence they contribute to a team (pennant winner or not), but certainly couldn't carry a team. On the great Bulls teams, Steve Kerr was a role player, he came in and stretched the defense shooting 3's. Will Purdue was a role player, he.....well, he was pretty big. Although Scotty Pippen was probably better at his sport than Vada Pinson was at his, they are similar in that they were very talented, did things to help their teams win, and did many things well. Or, fulfilled many roles. I wouldn't call Pippen a role player, maybe a "complementary player."
Does he mean the same Bob Watson that accumulated less than 3.2% of his ABs in the 60's?
Dykes: The batter, he hit ball, you run. He no hit, you no run. Comprende?
Pinson: Perfectly, Mr. Dykes.
Dykes: Where the hell are you from?
Pinson: Oakland, California, Mr. Dykes.
That's because he was good enough to carry a team on his own.
In 61 and 62, the NL averaged about 4.5 runs per game, matched only by 1970 and 1987 until 1993. And other than 68, the 60s weren't that different from the 70s and 80s (r/g):
63-67: 3.81, 4.01, 4.03, 4.09, 3.84
71-76: 3.91, 3.91, 4.15, 4.15, 4.13, 3.98
78-85: 3.99, 4.22, 4.03, 3.91, 4.09, 4.10, 4.06, 4.07
88-92: 3.88, 3.94, 4.20, 4.10, 3.88
In terms of HR, HR/g was generally higher in the 60s than the 70s or 80s. BAs were generally a bit higher in the 70s and 80s but just by a couple of points. SBs were much higher in the later period.
1967: 249/310/363
1988: 248/310/363
Since Dawson is the comp ... lgBA/lgOBP/lgSLG for both: 265/331/396 for Pinson; 265/332/396 for Dawson ... don't think you could get any closer. There's no need for a further era/park adjustment for these two, just compare their raw stats, the difference between them being Dawson's superior defense.
Pinson had 2757 hits on a 286 career BA ... to make it to 3000 in the same number of AB, he would have had to hit 311. So, yes, he would have needed the late 1920s NL to make it to 3000 hits.
As is, Pinson's lack of enshrinement has virtually nothing to do with his era and everything to do with the way he aged. From ages 29-36, he had a 95 OPS+ and about 6 WAR. Playing on the astroturf of the 70s isn't likely to have helped his career longevity.
In comparison, from 29-36, Dawson had a 122 OPS+ and about 19 WAR, with one decent year left in the tank.
He did carry his own team. That team was the Chicago Bulls.
Ted Simmons would have been first ballot without having to play 2 seasons in the Sixties.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main