Reputationally, and from a visibility standpoint, as Munson played in New York, for the Yankees, and was a member of World Series teams. Also, what Gray Ghost already said. 
Fair enough, thanks!
Paid employee he might have been but Marvin Miller fought for freedom. He’s way overdue and I bet it’s mostly because a bunch of old sportswriters still resent the end of the Reserve Clause. Fuck them.
Another for Whitaker, Evans and Miller. I could be convinced to vote for Simmons, but felt three was enough.
None of the others are close for me.
Jut to be clear on the facts, Garvey wasn’t Rookie of the Year and didn’t even get any votes. He never really had a full rookie season, but kind of slid into the role over the course of a few years. He started out as a third baseman but failed at it because he didn’t have an arm (something that you would think would have been noticed in a young third baseman before they promoted him.)
If we use the mistakes of the past to justify future selections we’re gonna have to induct at least one thousand other players. None of the players on this year’s ballot could possibly be denied if the erroneous selections of the past are in; all those guys are way, way more deserving than Rube Marquard or Harold Baines. Don Mattingly was twice the player Lloyd Waner was, and Thurman Munson is vastly more deserving than George Kelly. Shit, if the standard is Lloyd Waner, you’d have to induct Lloyd Moseby.
All owners and “builders” are bad selections, and anyone chosen on the basis of that precedent is a bad selection.
The selection of Harold Baines last year by the Veterans Committee really mucks up the HOF picture for a lot of guys. Baines may very well be the lowest rated guy if he were included on this poll.
Thanks for the correction, RickJay.
Unfortunately, the actual voting rules specify that you can only vote for four, which is what I did:
Whitaker
Miller
Simmons
Evans
We voted for…nobody. Whitaker barely cracked 60%. No one else had even 40%.
The committee saw things differently, though, voting in Marvin Miller and Ted Simmons. I’m pleased…excellent choices both.
How Whitaker got just six votes, tying him with Steve Garvey, is a puzzlement. And a shame, IMHO. Oh well.
Do these guys get recycled next year or is that it?
I see. Modern era doesn’t come up again until 2022/23:
UPCOMING ERAS COMMITTEES ELECTIONS
Modern Baseball: December of 2019 for inclusion in the Class of 2020
Golden Days: December of 2020 for inclusion in the Class of 2021
Early Baseball: December of 2020 for inclusion in the Class of 2021
Today’s Game: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Modern Baseball: December of 2022 for inclusion in the Class of 2023
Today’s Game: December of 2023 for inclusion in the Class of 2024
Modern Baseball: December of 2024 for inclusion in the Class of 2025
Golden Days: December of 2025 for inclusion in the Class of 2026
They inducted Simmons and Miller, so I’m now convinced these committees are going to make the HOF worse.
Today’s Game, Modern Baseball, Early Baseball, and Golden Days?? WTF??
Used to be just the regular ballot and the Old-Timers’ Committee (or whatever its name was). Sounds like they didn’t think that was complicated enough.
I think these are two very different arguments.
One argument is about the syllogism:
- Player X is in the HOF.
- Player Y > Player X.
- Therefore Player Y deserves to be in the HOF.
The other is about the syllogism:
- Team owners and executives are in the HOF.
- If owners and executives are in the HOF, then Marvin Miller deserves to be in the HOF.
- Therefore Marvin Miller deserves to be in the HOF.
The problem with the first syllogism is that we all know there are players in the HOF who are extremely undeserving of a place in the HOF. If Player X is one of those players, “Player Y > Player X” isn’t much of an argument.
The reason we can agree that the argument doesn’t work is that we all agree that there are players in the HOF who are extremely undeserving of a place in the HOF. The shared understanding of the failure of that argument rests on a shared understanding that there are players in the HOF who don’t have any business being there.
Now just as there are undeserving players in the HOF, there damned sure are undeserving executives in the HOF. (How the hell did Bowie Kuhn get in??) But that’s different from saying MLB executives as a class don’t belong. I’m sure you’ve got a good argument in support of that, but it’s ultimately a matter of opinion to a much greater degree than “there are players in the HOF that don’t belong” is. So you can’t really kick out that first step in the second syllogism.
The other thing that comes to mind is that owners (and I guess other executives) have been in the HOF from the very beginning; while none were inducted in 1936, several were inducted over the next three years. If it’s a sin that they’re in, it’s the HOF’s original sin. I don’t know if undeserving players were in the HOF from the get-go or whether that crept in later, but it certainly wasn’t the intent of the HOF from the beginning to induct mediocre players, while it was their intent from the beginning to induct owners and other executives.
And, I think we can all say the early days of baseball have been examined enough. Anyone who is worthy is already in.
And yes, I’m tired of the HOF creep. It should only be for players or managers, those who affected the game on the field. If in the building itself they want to have an exhibit on owners and others, that’s fine. I’d skip it if I visited.
While Simmons isn’t the worst selection, it still continues the HOF down the path of the Hall of Very Good.
Well, my argument is that it’s ridiculous. I find it just utterly, brainlessly stupid to induct men into the Hall of Fame because they were rich enough to buy baseball teams, and the fact that the ones selected are, as a class, WAY likelier to be imbecilic choices than the players are backs me up. Miller isn’t in for that; he’s in for being a good negotiator, which is pretty much just as stupid. I’m struggling to understand WHY he’s in. He won money for the players, but so what? I’m glad the players got the money; I think the world is just barely better off with more millionaires and slightly less wealthy billionaires, but other than that Miller’s contribution to the sport has little discernible positive impact on the fans.
Are they going to induct Scott Boras some day? Why not? He’s done a great job representing his clients; why not Scott Boras?
That’s kind of the thing. You’re right; it’s a very old sin, just as inducting undeserving players is old news. But we can get it right starting now (or else why bother?) The thing is, if I argue for the induction of, to use an example, Lou Whitaker, I have no concerns at all that choice will lead to bad future choices; an All-Star, world champion, Gold Glove player who played outstanding baseball for one team for nineteen years is a supporting argument only for high quality ballplayers. Miller is a supporting argument for Scott Boras, Rob Manfred, and Jeff Loria.
And, as I’ve mentioned before, why not the architect of Camden Yards? Or why not Tom Ricketts? Not only did the Cubs win a World Series but he’s also somewhat responsible for the complete transformation of the Wrigleyville neighborhood. Now, the neighborhood transformation may have happened regardless as it did coincide with the nation coming out of the Great Recession and the real estate crisis.
Let’s keep it at players and managers who actually influenced the game on the field.
That’s a really, really good example, actually, and I do remember you saying that. One could make a similar argument for the architect of SkyDome, which actually kicked off the modern superpark explosion; Camden Yards because the preferred STYLE, but SkyDome was the first “mallpark.”
I think is extremely obvious that the modern stadium frenzy has had a much, much greater positive impact on Major League Baseball and the fan experience than anything Marvin Miller, or any other executive, ever did, and it’s not a close call. Prior to 1989, the great majority of MLB parks were what we today would consider total shitholes. There were a few jewels - the best were Dodger Stadium and Royals Stadium, and the old parks like Fenway and Wrigley were charming, though they needed improvement. Most, however, were dreadful. Everyone liked them then, but the new stadia just blew them off the map. Modern stadiums caused a surge in attendance, made billions for MLB, and wildly improved the fan experience. Prior to 30 years ago no stadium in MLB provided anywhere near the comfort and amenities as a place like Oracle Park (that’s what they call the Giants’ home now) or Citizens Bank Park or Citi Field or Nationals Park or Petco or Great American and on and on.
Modern stadia are the best thing to happen to MLB fans in my lifetime.
I think the point about stadiums is a good one. I think it would be a good idea for non-field personnel to have a separate designation as “architects of the game” and for players and managers to have an on-field performance portion to themselves. The contributions of both sides are indispensable (leaving aside debates over the worthiness of specific inductees), but are so wildly different that they shouldn’t be in one overall “Hall of Famer” category.
They’re both very old sins, but one was an affirmative choice by the folks who originated the HOF, and the other was just shit that would inevitably happen over time, no matter what the founders of the HOF did.
Lots of good things can be used to support bad arguments.
Why Miller belongs is that he was responsible for a major revitalization of the game. If you think the same thing can be said about Scott Boras, I’d be interested in your argument.