Posted By:
PaulI agree with Fay Vincent's view of Kuhn, but I still don't see Marvin Miller as a Hall of Famer. I have a tough time putting any executive in the Hall of Fame, but I see it as legitimate for someone who most reasonable people believe made an overwhelmingly positive contribution to the game. So, for example, William Hulbert and Ban Johnson get in for founding the National and American Leagues.
A lot of rational people think Marvin Miller made an overwhelmingly positive contribution to the game. But a lot of rational people think he was an overhelming negative force. No doubt he improved the lives of players, but some think he hurt the game.
I know the Hall isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, but I wouldn't let any executive in (labor or management) unless there was a consensus that his contribution was positive. To me, it's sort of like voting politicians into a Hall of Fame. Abe Lincoln and George Washington get in. But most other politicians, no matter how sincerely their supporters believe in them, don't make the cut because 40-50% of the people think they were lousy. Only the few who rise above it all, to the point that everyone agrees they made a positive contribution, should be let in. Maybe that means Charles Comiskey and a few others should be booted out. But even if they were mistakes, I don't think that justifies more mistakes.