Quote:
Originally Posted by George
No. Some people, including Bud Selig, advocate electing Marvin Miller to the Baseball Hall of Fame because he "had an impact." I am trying to understand why anyone, particularly a baseball fan, would like to honor an individual whose activities were totally counterproductive to their best interests.
Instead of simply "having an impact," I think the criteria for election should include something like "having a helpful impact," or "having a desireable impact." If having an impact is the only thing that matters, why not elect Tony Bosch from Biogenesis?
Did you enjoy the strike in 1994? As I recall, most of the players did not even know what the goal was. Thanks again, Marvin Miller.
|
Helpful to whom? Desirable to whom? Who gets to define that one? You?
How about this.
The quality of major league baseball is as amazing as it is solely and completely because of Marvin Miller. If you enjoy watching the best possible players in the world playing baseball then you absolutely have him to thank.
Why?
Because the extreme money in the game draws people who may have done something else with their lives to playing baseball. While people would always play the sport because they wanted to, throughout the history of the game are examples of people leaving to "get a real job" or to play outlaw ball or minor league ball instead of major league ball because the pay was better elsewhere. So it goes to reason that the money in the game draws out the best possible talent.
How's that?
Tom C