The votes for Blyleven (0-6-13-6-1 = -1), Sutter (1-5-12-7-1 = -1) and Raines (0-4-6-14-2 = -7) are also notable, though they really only show you that voters weren't ready to vote for these guys yet.

And therein lies Raines' problem. He certainly didn't do anything after 91 (he had only 2 full-time seasons after that) that would move him up in their estimation. If you weren't ready to vote for Raines by 91, you're not likely to vote for him now. In fact, by the index they cooked up, Raines has the lowest score (by a good bit) of anyone in the list. That's the importance of milestones. As the article notes, neither Molitor nor Murray was given a particular good rating but they were a few years removed from reaching their milestones.

The rankings also show how set those impressions can become. The only case of a player who they gave a good chance of making it who didn't is Canseco. But they already had Henderson and Boggs ahead of Gwynn and all 3 as pretty clear HoFers. Puckett's heroics, after just 7 seasons, already had him ahead of Carter, Murray and Molitor.

The strangest is, without question, Rice. He'd already been retired 2 years yet they did not consider him an HoFer. Quisenberry was given as good a chance and Saberhagen and Smith are both ahead of him as are Mattingly, Murphy and Trammell. Hell, he was behind Steve Garvey. By the index, Rice & Quiz were tied with the second-worst scores. When did the "he was seen as an HoFer when he played" meme start? Really it would be a fascinating media study to track the history of Rice's candidacy.

Interesting. I had no idea there was so little pro-Molitor or pro-Murray, or pro-Rice!! sentiment at the time. Milestones really are important, I guess.

Probably there are actually fewer people who "seemed like a consensus Hall of Famer at the time" than there are people in the Hall of Fame. I would have thought the opposite was the case, that there were a lot of people who seemed like Hall of Famers but had careers that got derailed along the way. But no, it does seem like they take stock of a player's career differently after it ends than while it was happening.

Just because some voters don't think X is a HoF'er two years after his retirement doesn't mean that a lot of voters thought player X was a HoF'er during his prime.

When Frank Thomas was the right handed Ted Williams you couldn't find a reporter who didn't think he was a HoF'er. After 2000 you started hearing several reporters wonders if Frank was a HoF'er afterall. Reporters and fans tend to view players based on what they have done most recently.


Rather quickly had a pretty solid block of voters who thought he was a HoF'er. You figure for non-inner HoF'ers that first year is probably always going to be lower then what is the true level of support for that player. I'm sure there is a bunch of reporters like Corky who don't for a player that first time around if they don't view the player on the same level as the all time greats. So I would say the 35% is a truer representation of his support then his first year numbers.

Who was the idiot that said, in 1991, that Gary Carter had "no chance" at the HOF?

To emphasize Walt's point about the importance of milestones, take a look at Eddie Murray. Through the 1991 season, Eddie had played for 15 seasons with 398 homers and 2502 hits. If his career had ended then (at age 35), in all likelihood he's on the outside looking in. But he sticks around another 6 years, during which he picks up 753 hits and 106 homers--pushing him beyond the two magic milestones for hitters.

Now, never mind the fact that Murray put up a line of .273/.329/.440 (102 OPS+) as a 1B/DH in those last 6 years. There's a decent argument that Murray had a better HOF case at 1991 than when his career ended after the 1997 season. But in the minds of most of the MSM, the last half dozen years of mediocrity were integral to establishing Murray's claim to baseball immortality.

Just to address Walt's post real quick... I agree with pretty much everything he said, but I think it's important to note that Raines is only the lowest ranked player of those 43 or so that I selected for the list. There are about 30 other players included on the list, and none of them are really interesting to us nearly 20 years later. Other names on the list include: Don Baylor, George Bell, Bill Buckner, George Foster, Dave Kingman, Rick Reuschel, Ted Simmons, and a bunch more.

Making a quick look at the list, the lowest ranked players are probably: Dave Kingman (0-0-1-4-21 = -23pts), Rick Reuschel (0-0-1-13-12 = -18.5), Bill Buckner (0-0-4-11-11 = -16.5pts), Rick Sutcliffe (0-0-3-16-7 = -15pts), and Dave Steib (0-0-2-15-9 = -15.5pts).

It's is rather interesting to see how low Stieb is on the list, especially considering where Jack Morris is ranked. As Tom Tango has point out (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/jack-morris-babblefest-2009/), Stieb probably has a better claim to the title of "Pitcher of the '80s" than Morris does... I guess it's more evidence that a lot of W's and a legendary game will get you far with the HOF voters.

When Frank Thomas was the right handed Ted Williams you couldn't find a reporter who didn't think he was a HoF'er. After 2000 you started hearing several reporters wonders if Frank was a HoF'er afterall. Reporters and fans tend to view players based on what they have done most recently.

While I think that Thomas will still get in without too much resistance, your general point is spot on. And I think that this explains the resistance to Rice back in 1992, when his final years of relative mediocrity were still fresh in the writers' minds. And as to why Rice's reputation has now been resurrected, it's perhaps a bit like the way that 20 years later you might remember how good your first girlfriend was in bed, and forget about how her subsequent nagging about your failure to help with the housekeeping gradually made you lose interest.

I had no idea there was so little pro-Molitor or pro-Murray,

You're spot on with Murray, but Molitor had a lot left in the tank after 1991. Full seasons of .320, .332, and .341 (twice) go a long way toward the hall, milestones or no. After 1991, he set or tied career highs in hits, doubles, HR, and RBI, and highs in BA, OBP, and SLP excepting his 118 game 1987 season, and won his only WS ring and highest MVP finish (2nd).

And therein lies Raines' problem. He certainly didn't do anything after 91 (he had only 2 full-time seasons after that) that would move him up in their estimation.

Not sure I agree with this -- Raines had excellent years in '91 and '92, and his rate stats were better than (for example) Murray's after '91. In fact, even with Murray's slight PA edge after '91, it seems to me that Raines helped his cause post-91 than Murray did.

Raines post 1991 didn't anything to help his cause with the voters. No MVP votes, no ASG appearances, no milestones, and no postseason heroics.

Murray helped his cause tremendously post 1991. 500 homers and 3000 hits.

Murray helped his cause tremendously post 1991. 500 homers and 3000 hits.

Also, after 91, Raines had just two full-seasons. Between injuries and other stuff, he was basically a 4th OF for most of the last 11 years of his career (and completely so for the last 6). Raines may or may not have done "more" than Murray post-91, but then Raines was 4 years younger than Murray. Murray was still a full-time player at age 40 -- maybe he didn't deserve to be but he was. From 1991 on, Murray had 6 seasons and about 3000 PA; Raines has 11 seasons and about 3400 PA. If we're comping to Murray (not the best comp), Raines had to do a lot more post-91 to "catch up" and he simply didn't. For his career, Murray has nearly 2500 more PA than Raines and that is why Murray is in the HoF while Raines waits.

Give Raines 2500 more PA and he sails past 3000 hits, should hit 1200 RBI, has a shot at 1000 SBs, and even has a shot at 2000 runs. Take away 2500 from Murray and you've got a very interesting HoF case -- about 2600 hits, 400 HR, 1500 RBI, 1300 runs and a 136 OPS+; 8 time AS, no MVP but lots of good finishes, 3 gold gloves, almost no black ink and he might well miss his last two post-season appearances. Career length matters.

EDIT: which is not meant to suggest that Raines had a short career. 10,000 PA is a long career. Murray's career is one of the longest -- #7 all-time in PA.

Raines by this point was already done as a star player, his last All-Star season four years in the past. It's really a testament to the strength of the analytic community's pushing of Raines' case for years that he has even gotten the support he has.

The reason Carter was "doubtful" and "no chance" in some people's minds by that point was that the image of a crummy backup catcher was still fresh in their minds. Raines' best impression came 20 years before he made the ballot. That's really hard to overcome. With people consistently writing about how good he really was, maybe he eventually will overcome it, but it's an uphill climb, for sure.

I think Rice is a case of a collective romanticizing of the memory of the player, along with, to some degree, people wanting to place him on the pedestal of one of the last "natural" sluggers. From this survey, you can see that people were clearly convinced at the time that Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson were superior players, which, of course, is true.

after 91, Raines had just two full-seasons

Actually, he had three - 1992, 1994, and 1995. The latter two were just strike-shortened, but Raines played in 101 of 113 White Sox games in '94 and 133 of 144 White Sox games in '95. Somebody else pointed this out in an earlier thread recently, but the '81 and '94-'95 strikes really hurt the appearance of Raines' career. He was a regular from 1981 - 1995 (15 seasons) with significant time missed in 1988 and 1993 and lesser time missed in 1987 and 1990 (the former of which was also because of labor strife - he was basically locked out for a month because of collusion). But the strikes make it look like he didn't become a regular until 1982 and, coupled with the missed time in 1993, stopped being a regular in 1992 (only 11 seasons), which gives the illusion of knocking four seasons off of Raines's prime.

I think the influences on the change in Murray's support are being over-simplified to fit a prescribed narrative here. The positive influence of count stats are certainly a factor that worked to Murray's benefit . . . but I don't think the '91 reading is free from other biases. At that moment the negative influence of his owner having bad-mouthed him out of town was still a stigma Murray carried.

It didn't help that he didn't care to disabuse anyone of the allegations made during that time, but without cross-examination the perception stuck that (1) Murray babied an injury, (2) Murray was a bad teammate & (3) Murray was a clubhouse cancer.

The next 10 years before Murray faced a true vote brought milestones, but also refutations to EBW's potshots from 86-88. (1) The 15-day trip to the DL that he was criticized for remained the one & only trip of his career (indeed at 21 years, his career's long but not "one of the longest"; it's one of the healthiest, missing as many games to labor stoppage as for health/rest), (2) none other than baseball's savior, St. Cal, used the bully-pulpit of a national audience for his on-field speech during game 2162 to correct history by citing Murray as being the influence that taught him work-ethic upon his arrival in Baltimore, (3) possibly with influence of the speech, Murray was commonly cited as being a positive influence in Cleveland, ironically as juxtaposed to Albert usually.

The bounce seen here is not from some 0-point on the graph , but from a sizable trough that was overcome by more events than milestones. Which is not to say that these perceptions, positive or negative, should have been especially convincing to anyone.

Actually, he had three - 1992, 1994, and 1995. The latter two were just strike-shortened, but Raines played in 101 of 113 White Sox games in '94 and 133 of 144 White Sox games in '95. Somebody else pointed this out in an earlier thread recently, but the '81 and '94-'95 strikes really hurt the appearance of Raines' career. He was a regular from 1981 - 1995 (15 seasons) with significant time missed in 1988 and 1993 and lesser time missed in 1987 and 1990 (the former of which was also because of labor strife - he was basically locked out for a month because of collusion). But the strikes make it look like he didn't become a regular until 1982 and, coupled with the missed time in 1993, stopped being a regular in 1992 (only 11 seasons), which gives the illusion of knocking four seasons off of Raines's prime.

But of course Murray had all that labor strife too except for missing a month due to collusion. Raines also missed 53 games in 88, 17 in 89, 32 in 90, 18 in 92, 47 in 93 plus. That's over a season's worth of games over 6 years. And after 95, the most starts he had in a season was 83 and usually less than 50.

Like I said, nothing really wrong with all of that, he had a long career, essentially the same length as Dawson.

That's over a season's worth of game over 6 years. And after 95, the most starts he had in a season was 83 and usually less that 50.

Like I said, nothing really wrong with all of that, he had a long career, essentially the same length as Dawson

And also like Dawson, Raines spent the bulk of his peak playing on concrete up there in Montreal, a fact that nobody ever considers when they look at Raines' career & the games he missed, especially in his 30s. Since Dawson's knees will likely be pictured on his HOF plaque, I think Raines might also enjoy a slight bump due to the erosion of his skills as a result of that damnable playing surface...

And also like Dawson, Raines spent the bulk of his peak playing on concrete up there in Montreal, a fact that nobody ever considers when they look at Raines' career & the games he missed, especially in his 30s. Since Dawson's knees will likely be pictured on his HOF plaque, I think Raines might also enjoy a slight bump due to the erosion of his skills as a result of that damnable playing surface...

And yet Tim Raines could still run like a madman after he left Montreal (51/15 in 1991, and 45/6 in 1992). With numbers like those, no one is going to believe that his career was hurt by playing in the Big O, unless there`s some study out there showing that Astroturf causes Lupus. Until 1996 (six years after leaving Montreal), he was a remarkably healthy player, at least in terms of DL stints.

But of course Murray had all that labor strife too except for missing a month due to collusion. Raines also missed 53 games in 88, 17 in 89, 32 in 90, 18 in 92, 47 in 93 plus. That's over a season's worth of games over 6 years. And after 95, the most starts he had in a season was 83 and usually less than 50.

The difference is that Murray's career started in 1977, so he had four full years to establish himself as a regular before he ever missed any time to a strike. Raines's first full season was strike-shortened.

The difference is that Murray's career started in 1977, so he had four full years to establish himself as a regular before he ever missed any time to a strike.

Thanks to the strike, Eddie Murray holds the distinction of winning a HR title with a total number of HRs that is lower than 12 other of his non- HR title seasonal totals.

Looking over Tim Raines' career, the other thing that I think hurts a real appreciation for his career is that his decline phase coincided with the spike in offensive levels in the mid-90's, so, superficially, his post-prime career looks the same as his prime but with fewer games. For example, in 1989, Raines batting line was .286/.395/.418 in 618 PAs. In 1998, he put up a line of .290/.395/.383 in 382 PAs. Superficially, that looks like the same season, and nobody thought that Raines' 1998 season for the Yankees was HOF-worthy. But that 1989 line was good for an OPS+ of 131 whereas that 1998 line was good for an OPS+ of 107.

If you go to BB-Ref and neutralize Raines' stats, he becomes an obvious Hall-of-Famer. His neutralized career is over 11,000 PAs at a .314/.409/.455 line which leads to exactly 3,000 hits, along with 968 SB, 1,532 BB, and 1,714 runs scored. His career also takes on a much more "normal" look - a peak in the mid-80s with a gradual decline to a very good player in the early '90s down to a useful part-timer in the late '90s.

And therein lies Raines' problem. He certainly didn't do anything after 91 (he had only 2 full-time seasons after that) that would move him up in their estimation. If you weren't ready to vote for Raines by 91, you're not likely to vote for him now. In fact, by the index they cooked up, Raines has the lowest score (by a good bit) of anyone in the list. That's the importance of milestones.

Raines just hit the wrong milestones. He ranks 49th in runs scored, clearing 1500, but nobody looks at that (of the 48 above him, only some 19th century guys and a smattering of actives and recently actives are not in the Hall (a pattern which holds until #71-Dewey Evans)). He ranks 5th in stolen bases, but hardly anybody gives him props for that, for some bizarre reason (as SBs at least have the patina of flashiness). He's 33rd in walks, but again... If he had hit numbers that any of the writers even bother to care about, he'd be much more viable in their eyes.