Do you really think this deserves it's own spot on the BCB main page? Couldn't you have found a diary to put this in?

and for the record: totally kidding.

very pointed and harsh words by Vincent, but I'm glad he spoke his true feeling on this terrible decision.

...and although I consider myself a baseball enthusiast, I do not know much of these former commissioners.  The few snippets you included, however, suggest quite a shamming.  

The other day in the Writers' Association thread, I commented how much of what is wrong in baseball these days is, IMO, due to a lack of proper leadership.  

My own personal analogy helps me frame this topic, so I will share: I am a first semester doctoral student and have been taking classes in, for lack of a better phrase, a dissection of our meta-cognitive approaches, essentially "Thinking about our thinking".  When I develop a research project, I need to not only think of the research study itself, but must also address questions related to "scaling".  If my research project is successful, is my research easily replicable, able to be scaled up to larger initiatives, etc.  This specifically requires vision, mission, and goal statements.  

In my 25 years, I have never felt as if Selig or MLB as a whole has had strong vision, mission, or goal initiatives.  Any successful business needs clearly defined objectives.  Some issues are obvious - illegal substances - but have not been explicitly defined.  Others, like reconnecting with a declining adolescent fanbase, sharing MLB globally, or in this case, acknowledging the successes of our predecessors, appear to be wholly irrelevant to Major League Baseball's vision.  

Pulling from other professional organizations successes - the NFL's globalization, the NBA's connection with youth - might be a good place to start.  The World Baseball Classic, in my opinion, was a good start to addressing one issue.  It placed MLB on a national platform, creating excitement and growing interest.  Substance banning, however, has been hazy at best.  This year's playoffs demonstrated how weak MLB leadership is: Fans old and young alike cannot be expected to follow their favorite team - or any playoff team, for that matter - when games are not nationally broadcasted, in an on-again, off-again format.  

Finally, this issue of accepting some - but clearly not all those deserving - into MLB's elitist Hall of Fame highlights this discrepancy.  I feel as if the suits in charge fail to identify baseball's true purpose: To recognize the achievements of those past, and promote the successes of its current athletes.  And I believe that failures, and those discussed, are directly related to its leadership.

Dan

I must admit to having some difficulty over Marvin Miller's worthiness of a spot in the hall of fame. His efforts to make the baseball union the potent force that it is are laudable, but I can't help feeling that the ridiculous monopoly-money salaries and $50 Wrigley bleacher seats we are seeing are attributable to him as well, and frankly, that pisses me off. (I realize the owners are at fault as well and that there is much more to this issue.) While  I feel that athletes should be properly rewarded for their efforts. As such, he very well may have helped the the last two generations of ball players, he didn't help the game or the fans.

However, that said, I don't think Kuhn was deserving either.

Various articles I read indicate Marvin Miller received only three votes from the 12 member panel, but I never saw anything about who those three were - or more importantly, who were the nine morons that didn't vote for Miller.  Given the level of outrage registered in most of those articles, the omission of who voted for who tells me this isn't exactly public knowledge.  However, the 12 member panel is and here they are:

• Jerry Bell  (current executive)
  
• Bobby Brown  (ex-exec)
  
• Bill DeWitt  (current exec)
  
• Bill Giles  (current exec)
  
• David Glass  (current exec)
  
• Paul Hagen  (writer)
  
• John Harrington  (ex-exec)
  
• Rick Hummel  (writer)
  
• Monte Irvin  (ex-player)
  
• Harmon Killebrew  (ex-player)
  
• Andy MacPhail  (current exec)
  
• Hal McCoy  (writer)

Anyone know who the three yes votes were for Miller?  Simple (albeit stereotypical) logic would dictate that players would vote for Miller, executives would not, and one would think that writers would be objective enough to realize Miller's impact and vote yes.  So you'd think at first blush, Miller would have gotten at least five votes.  Plus, as little as I thought of MacPhail's efforts leading the Cubs, I thought that as a lifelong baseball guy, he would have voted for Miller.  So that would be six.  Not enough to be elected, but respectable enough in that it would have exposed the rest of the executives for being the bitter old dinosaurs in suits that they are.

But Miller only got three.  And I'd love to know who those three were.  If I had to guess, I'd say it was Killebrew and MacPhail for sure, and either Irvin or one of the writers.  Normally I would have guessed McCoy as I've heard great things about him from friends who know him and worked with him, but lately I'm not as impressed with him - he seems to be getting more and more righteous and bitter.  I really don't know anything about Hummel or Hagen but it just boggles my mind that a veteran baseball writer, regardless of their personal opinions, would deny the impact Miller had.

Miller belongs in the HOF because he fundamentally changed the game -- he made it possible for ballplayers to have what most of us take for granted:  the ability to work for anyone, anywhere.  He did not write the contracts granting ever more astronomical salaries -- the owners alone have done that, friends.

It is misguided in the extreme to blame Miller for what has happened to baseball over the last 30+ years (after all, just look at the rest of professional sports).

And, c'mon, if Bowie gets in, how can Miller be out ???