A Hall of Famer is a person who made baseball or the experience of following baseball better. Miller didn't do that for anyone except the players. He had a large impact (although there are many people not in the Hall who had far greater impact: Bill James and Jose Canseco, for two) on salaries, although none on the game itself, and his impact was probably negative for most fans. That's a far cry from a Hall of Famer. There are literally thousands of people who deserve being in the Hall ahead of Miller. (Miller probably does deserve it more than Harold Baines, though.)
His impact was on more than salaries. Free agency has had a huge impact on the strategy of putting teams together, on how to analyze players, current day analytics etc. Such strategies have evolved over time and will continue to do so. It provides for a more interesting context. I for one, find the idea of still having baseball structured the was it was before his impact deplorable. There are so many more possibilities than there were in the good old days. I’m not sure if he belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of the game, but to ignore his large impact?
I agree that free agency has had a large impact on the game. I don't think that not voting someone in the Hall means their impact is ignored, though... I believe Pete Rose is represented in the Museum in many places.
That may be what a Hall of Famer should be to you, but the actual non-players inducted to the Hall of Fame don’t fit that criteria.
To take less controversial examples, I don’t think anyone ever argued that Bill Klem or Jocko Conlon were Hall of Famers because they made baseball or the experience of watching baseball better. They were inducted because in their day, they were considered the best umpires, umpires are a key part of the game, and so there should be a plaque for them in the Hall.
Tony LaRussa’s influence on the game is arguably more tortuous than Miller’s (parade of relievers, etc.), yet no one can deny his success as a manager. Did Barney Dreyfus get inducted for making the game better?
And I’m not even getting into the Kuhns, Seligs, and Yawkeys.
Note that I’m not arguing a lowest common denominator argument here - I’m not saying that X is in and Miller was more important than X, so Miller should be in. I’m arguing that the standard by which you think Miller should be kept out has not been applied to any other non-player inductee, so far as I can tell. Maybe Branch Rickey and Judge Landis. No one else is getting inducted because they made baseball better or more entertaining. The non-players are inducted because they are the best. And of baseball-related executives, Miller stands out.
It's fair to say that I'm using my own view of what a Hall of Famer should be, yes. But I think the best umpires do make watching a game better. I know a rotten umpire can ruin a game. I'm not really familiar with Dreyfuss, but the top paragraph on Wikipedia says he may have credit for inventing the modern World Series, which definitely made the game better, and won six pennants and built Forbes Field, all of which I'm sure the Pittsburgh fans appreciated. I suppose my definition of making baseball better is a wide one, but I'll stick with it.
I keep waiting for someone to say that they do enjoy baseball more because of Miller, because they're happier that the players are paid well, or that free agency is fun to follow. No one has said so, although I think both are perfectly valid reasons.
I'm very curious to see if any of the 1970's/80's players makes it, and if Joe will have an article on the nine players.
To amend my post, I should say, they are inducted because a small group of people deem them worthy at some particular point in time..but in theory they are deemed worthy because of their success, even if in practice that isn’t always true.
A Hall of Famer is a person who made baseball or the experience of following baseball better. Miller didn't do that for anyone except the players. He had a large impact (although there are many people not in the Hall who had far greater impact: Bill James and Jose Canseco, for two) on salaries, although none on the game itself, and his impact was probably negative for most fans. That's a far cry from a Hall of Famer. There are literally thousands of people who deserve being in the Hall ahead of Miller. (Miller probably does deserve it more than Harold Baines, though.)
His impact was on more than salaries. Free agency has had a huge impact on the strategy of putting teams together, on how to analyze players, current day analytics etc. Such strategies have evolved over time and will continue to do so. It provides for a more interesting context. I for one, find the idea of still having baseball structured the was it was before his impact deplorable. There are so many more possibilities than there were in the good old days. I’m not sure if he belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of the game, but to ignore his large impact?
I agree that free agency has had a large impact on the game. I don't think that not voting someone in the Hall means their impact is ignored, though... I believe Pete Rose is represented in the Museum in many places.
That may be what a Hall of Famer should be to you, but the actual non-players inducted to the Hall of Fame don’t fit that criteria.
To take less controversial examples, I don’t think anyone ever argued that Bill Klem or Jocko Conlon were Hall of Famers because they made baseball or the experience of watching baseball better. They were inducted because in their day, they were considered the best umpires, umpires are a key part of the game, and so there should be a plaque for them in the Hall.
Tony LaRussa’s influence on the game is arguably more tortuous than Miller’s (parade of relievers, etc.), yet no one can deny his success as a manager. Did Barney Dreyfus get inducted for making the game better?
And I’m not even getting into the Kuhns, Seligs, and Yawkeys.
Note that I’m not arguing a lowest common denominator argument here - I’m not saying that X is in and Miller was more important than X, so Miller should be in. I’m arguing that the standard by which you think Miller should be kept out has not been applied to any other non-player inductee, so far as I can tell. Maybe Branch Rickey and Judge Landis. No one else is getting inducted because they made baseball better or more entertaining. The non-players are inducted because they are the best. And of baseball-related executives, Miller stands out.
It's fair to say that I'm using my own view of what a Hall of Famer should be, yes. But I think the best umpires do make watching a game better. I know a rotten umpire can ruin a game. I'm not really familiar with Dreyfuss, but the top paragraph on Wikipedia says he may have credit for inventing the modern World Series, which definitely made the game better, and won six pennants and built Forbes Field, all of which I'm sure the Pittsburgh fans appreciated. I suppose my definition of making baseball better is a wide one, but I'll stick with it.
I keep waiting for someone to say that they do enjoy baseball more because of Miller, because they're happier that the players are paid well, or that free agency is fun to follow. No one has said so, although I think both are perfectly valid reasons.
I'm very curious to see if any of the 1970's/80's players makes it, and if Joe will have an article on the nine players.
To amend my post, I should say, they are inducted because a small group of people deem them worthy at some particular point in time..but in theory they are deemed worthy because of their success, even if in practice that isn’t always true.