And how many championships did the St Louis Browns win back in the good old days?

Again I must ask how he or Fehr destroyed the game? Changed it? Sure. But there is more money in the game for everyone than there ever has been. Attendance is stronger than ever. The talent level has never been better. By no objective metric has the game been "destroyed".

Speaking as a fan of the Pirates, I will tell you that postseason appearances has far more to do with decision making within a front office than it does money. Money guarantees merely the opportunity to make expensive mistakes and thus take larger risks.

Tom C

You can always cherry pick one particular team, I am talking about the bottom 10. If you don't think that a 248 million dollar payroll vs. 96 million doesn't make all the difference, then there is no reason to continue this discussion. The inbalance that the MLBPA caused is absurd. I'm still waiting for someone to answer where the 30 million viewers went and why they have quit watching? Is it just a coincidence that the decline started soon after free agency started?

A football team plays what? 20 games per season at most? Add up all those numbers for all of those teams versus the numbers for all MLB teams for their 162 game regular season plus their postseason. Get back to me when you see which one is higher.

Tom C

Well, for one thing, leaving aside that you cherry-picked the most highly rated World Series ever from 1978 as your comparison point, there are several reasons why that event might be less watched on TV than before that do not have anything to do with baseball's overall popularity. First, in 1978 baseball was far less available to watch all season--now you basically can watch all 162 games of any team you wish, such that the World Series is less of an "event" for TV viewing. It would be more relevant if you could show that total viewership of baseball games overall has dropped, which you have not. Second, interleague play takes away the mystique of watching the best of two leagues, again, something that wasn't around in 1978. Third and similarly, there are more postseason games-- one wonders why if the game is supposedly less popular. Fourth, many people watch the games on devices now, which are not accurately captured (if at all) when evaluating "ratings". Fifth and similarly, the proliferation of sports bars this century has greatly increased viewership on fewer sets, and although Neilson now tries to capture this, its ratings system has not thus far.

In sum, your premise that baseball is not as popular has not been proven (at least by you), and is misleading in that it both fails to account for overall viewership of all baseball games, and instead focuses on a vastly different technological time.

EDITED To add that Neilson WS ratings, at least in large measure, examine the number of metered televisions that are watching the targeted event as opposed to other programming. Because the average television viewer now likely has anywhere between 150-250 more channels available to watch then s/he did in 1978, there is far less of a captive audience than in the past. There were large parts of the country that lacked even basic cable then, leaving many viewers with three main networks (one of which had its normal programming pre-empted by the game), maybe an educational or public service station and the odd independent channel or two. In sum, look at what the choices were back in the 70's and early 80's and compare them to where we have progressed since.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but if the alternative to free agency is the former system which locked players to one team, and frequently a losing franchise (Ernie Banks), and forced them to accept contracts dictated by owners, then I would have to say the current system is preferable regardless of its other consequences.

I can't help but find it pretty confusing when people say Miller should be in for his contributions, which essentially boil down to free agency, without saying Curt Flood should be in before him. Flood actually lost something. Miller's contributions didn't cost him a thing.

I was born and raised in St Louis. Attended my first World Series in 1964 there. They had some fine teams in the 60s. I remember how sad I was when the Cardinals traded Flood. I think we got him from the Reds. His post baseball story is a fairly sad one

As I recall Musial' highest salary was $ 100,000 in 1958. That came after 7 years with no salary increase. In 1960 I think he took a $20,000 pay cut. By contrast Pujols eventually got more money per game than Musial per season. But at least Musial was treated as a icon for the remainder of his life in St Louis. Truly a great person as well as a great player

I get the argument both ways, but think Miller and Flood were both inevitable.

Inevitable or not though you can't deny Flood lost his career. I think he deserves a lot more recognition than he gets.

PS while Stan made his 100K in 1958 the average American made under 5K. I don't think he was hurting for cash.

Flood is certainly an interesting case, as not only was he the sacrificial lamb for the cause to get rid of the reserve clause, but he also was a pretty darn good player for over a decade. He likely would have gotten to 2,500 hits had his career taken a normal trajectory.

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive in terms of HOF discussion. Flood was the opening salvo and the unsuccessful martyr to something greater than himself. Without him, Miller likely would have eventually gotten what he was looking for. It just would have taken a bit longer perhaps.

As I said, I am certainly open to discussing the merits of Flood for the Hall in some capacity. But to me, without Miller, Flood is a moot point. Without Flood, Miller likely still gets it done eventually.

Tom C

Miller was the driving/organizing force, intellectually and financially, behind the MLBPA's sponsorship of Flood's free agency lawsuit. But free agency wasn't the only Miller contribution. He took over a sham union that was being run, illegally, by owners' stooges and money, and turned it into a legitimate bargaining force for the players. He has had more effect on the game than any executive. And I love him for making it possible for the Yankees to sign Reggie and Goose in the Bronx Zoo days. Gave me some of the best memories of my childhood. Plus he was in full agreement with the expansion of baseball cards beyond Topps; that alone qualifies him in my eyes.

As for the effects of free agency and a strong union...I am supposed to feel bad because a few billionaires and large corporations don't get to suck up all the proceeds from a very profitable business and have to pay their employees a market wage instead under threat that the employees will quit and go elsewhere? Boo-friggedy-hoo; I cry for the plutocrats. You are living in Fantasyland if you think the sudden end of the MLBPA and free agency would result in a lower cost to attend the game. When has any large business ever passed on reduced costs to its customers when they are willing to pay more for the product? I don't go to baseball games any more because I don't think they are a good entertainment value, but millions do, happily. If that changes the economics of the game may change. That's called a 'market'; preventing workers from leaving their jobs for better ones is a distortion of the labor market.

I wish there was a union like the MLBPA for my wife's job. She just put in an 80 hour week at a job that has given her only one 2% COLA bump over the last five years, while making record profits and having a soaring stock price, and raising our contribution to health insurance every year.

Yes. All of this.

I would also add that Miller got former players a pension that they never would have received without him. I am guessing those guys should have just been shit out of luck?

Tom C

Miller and Flood
 

Tom:

You seem to be under the impression that it is somehow in the interest of the public (specifically, the fans) to elevate the status of the players from the top 1%, which it has been for the last 120 years, to the top 0.01%, or 0.001%, or as high into the stratosphere as they can possibly attain. And if they have to go on strike, or do whatever else they need to do, good for them, because the end justifies the means.

I, on the other hand, believe that they have been handsomely and adequately compensated for longer than any living person has been alive. As Lawrence Ritter famously and correctly noted in his great book, describing the players of the Deadball Era, "All these were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their times." I doubt that a single one of them would have traded his career for any other. I therefore believe that it is their ancillary duty to respect and support the fans who follow them, and it is by extension the duty of the Hall of Fame to honor those individuals who have contributed to this process. That would exclude Marvin Miller, whose sole interest was to strengthen the power of the MLBPA. The welfare of the fans was not his interest, nor his problem.

Curt Flood was an outfielder who had 83 RBI's in his best season. Del Ennis, whose career overlapped Flood's, drove in over 100 runs in seven different years. If Del Ennis was not good enough, neither was Curt Flood.

George

Curt Flood's case would be as a contributor, not a player. It's not about stats. His induction would be about what he gave up and what other players gained.