TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
13.08.2008
There's No Populism in Baseball

I'm not the world's biggest Sherrod Brown fan, but his op-ed in today's Washington Post (refreshingly, if somewhat gratuitously, suffused with anti-Yankees fervor) is dead on: It's a disgrace to baseball that mediocre ex-commissioner Bowie Kuhn was posthumously inducted into the Hall of Fame last month while trailblazing union leader Marvin Miller, whose vision ended up triumphing over Kuhn's, is denied entrance to Cooperstown. And the reason seems clear enough:

[T]here's no surprise about Kuhn's induction into the Hall of Fame. Baseball as a business is no different from oil companies or the pharmaceutical industry. Management--hold your breath here--is known for taking care of itself.

Unlike the standard route to Hall of Fame immortality, which requires the votes of more than 400 sportswriters, Kuhn needed only nine votes from a special committee of executives--made up of seven representatives of team management, three sportswriters and two retired players.

And Marvin Miller?

The management committee--er, Veterans Committee--has not seen fit to support his induction. Now 91, the former economist for the United Steelworkers of America, and executive director of the baseball players' association from 1966 through 1983, was close to getting the votes for induction when the rules were changed to stack the executive committee.

Frankly, it would be nice to see more of today's players, who reap the huge rewards of Miller's work, take a stand and lobby publicly for his induction. But one wonders how many of them could even identify him.

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:58 AM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

thejauntyboulevardier said:

As a Hall of Fame financial supporter since 1990, I have always wondered about some of their choices, especilaly the ones by the Old Timers Committee. Why are racists like Tom Yawkey and Calvin Griffith enshined? Why is Walter O'Malley kept out? Of course the obvious answer is that he was the devil incarnate to the East Coast writers but his vision of moving the team west radically changed baseball and made it a national sport. But his chances of entering the Hall are about as good as Jimmy Carter's chances of ever getting a good word at the Spine.

And I hate to harp on Yawkey but his personal racism kept AA players off the Bosox and thus the Red Sox were the last time to integrate...in 1961!!!!! Yet, go to Cooperstown and Tom Yawkey is portrayed as a lovable old time owner. These are the times when I really feel like an alien in my chosen environs. Tom Yawkey was a mean old cracker, as was Calvin and Clark Griffith, and the ownership of the dynastic Yankees, which included George Weiss...

August 13, 2008 12:25 PM

Rhubarbs said:

jaunty, the best thing about the new Nationals Park in Washington is that now I can walk from the Metro to the ballgame without being accosted by the monument to the memory of George P. Marshall that stands just outside RFK Stadium.

Or, as he should always be identified on first reference, "former Redskins owner and noted bigot George P. Marshall."

August 13, 2008 1:03 PM

williamyard said:

As someone who appreciates perversion (I know: stop the presses) as others appreciate, say, a sip of complex Chilean cabernet after a mouthful of medium rare ribeye or an aptly rendered sheet bend aboard a blustery Boston whaler, I confess to harboring much secret admiration and not a little relief at the soiled, sacrilegious, so-called sorry state of The Game.

Among baseball's onion layers that we fans weepily peel are several in the realm of pure metaphor. Anyone who heard the play-by-play, as this schoolboy did, when Bill Mazeroski stepped to the plate in the bottom of the ninth inning that fateful fall afternoon at Forbes Field can write the book on metaphor. Until improbable Maz beat the mighty Yanks, David and Goliath were merely dead.

Make baseball fair and you ruin a cornucopia of baseball's lessons, emotions, insights, fables.

Next thing, someone will argue that life should be fair, i.e., what we picayunities think it should be. The last time I checked, we're nothing more than the grayish goop that Time scrapes from under its toenails, from time to time. Make life fair--or even baseball, life's duly elected representative--and you've just squandered much of the romance and intrigue, humility and grace, valor and redemption that I for one cannot afford to lose.

August 13, 2008 1:26 PM

lymon1 said:

First things first: http://www.blackbetsy.com/

August 13, 2008 1:33 PM

cspencef said:

Ah, sir yard, but how many people feel that anymore?  Are we such a nation of bandwagoners that nobody can get excited about the upstart threatening to upset the Goliaths of the world?  The 2003 Series was at least as improbable an upset, yet nobody seems to romanticize it so much.  And don't give me the 2004 ALCS--Goliath 1 vs. Goliath 1a?  Sorry, no.  I fear the ability to glory in the triumph of the underdog is fading from the American soul.  

And don't give me this year's Cubs either.  Any romance in that is strictly in the minds of folks living forty-some years ago.  They should be embarassed if they don't win it all, at this point.  

August 13, 2008 2:09 PM

WoodyBombay said:

You'd think that making "Birth of a Nation" would be enough to disqualify Calvin Griffith.

But if you're going to cut out the racists in the Hall, you're going to lose a whole wing of that building.

August 13, 2008 2:39 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

woody...

hee,hee...maybe even more. Ty Cobb, Bob Feller, Rogers Hornsby...it is a long long list...

August 13, 2008 3:18 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

Woody,

DW Griffith made Birth, not Calvin Griffith...but not much of a difference really...

August 13, 2008 3:19 PM

boneill said:

I think it is largely circumstance about the underdog thing, cspence- in 2003 no one really cared much about the Marlins- they were the team that won when the Cubs suffered a heart-breaking (or warming, life-affirming) collapse.    After the insane drama of both the ALCS and NLCS the WS was a bit of a let-down.   I think plent yof people would have gotten romantic if the Rockies had beat the BoSox last year.  

August 13, 2008 3:20 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Yes, that was my standard "Old Guys With the Same Name" joke. I should have winkied it.

Hornsby and Tris Speaker were *allegedly* in the KKK. Keeping blacks out of pro ball ended up being Landis' chief goal. Babe Ruth was called "nigger" all the time by opponents because word was his broad nose came from some mixed blood in his heritage. Cobb, a particularly vicious SOB, did that. In his later years, though, Cobb supported baseball integration, so maybe he lightened up. In fact, thinking about racial attitudes a century ago, you could probably pick out the non-racists a zillion times faster than you could the racists.

August 13, 2008 3:49 PM

jmurph79 said:

All of these things and more are reasons why you guys should be reading Crazy 08, by Cait Murphy, about (what she dubs) the greatest season in baseball history, 1908.  Great book (so far; I'm not done and I suppose it could fall apart at some point, but probably not).

http://www.crazy08.com/

August 13, 2008 4:25 PM

williamyard said:

Thanks for the tip, murph!

August 13, 2008 6:36 PM

derekcatsam said:

jaunty -- it doesn't effect your larger argument, but the Red Sox integrated with Pumpsie Green in 1959. Still shameful, but facts do matter.

jmurph -- Murphy's book is good, but I never buy "greatest season" arguments, and I don't know if the book really makes the case.

As for the Yanks and Sox being Goliath1 and Goliath 1a, I don't really buy it. for one, with the exception of one year the Sox payroll has always been closer to the median than to the Yanks. For another, the Sox put their revenue into the team, unlike many gazillionaires (Carl Pohlad, hello!) and lots of teams could choose to. I do not see how the Sox can be condemned for spending the money the Red Sox derive from the Red Sox on the Red Sox.  

dcat

August 13, 2008 6:40 PM

cspencef said:

dcat, give it up.  When you're looking from the perspective of any of the other 28 teams the difference is zero.  They have a cash cow in Fenway that they can charge prices that would choke a cow virtually anywhere else (people won't pay that to get into the park in San Francisco, as nice as it is).  And funny, John Henry somehow didn't have that much money to spend when he owned (coincidentally) the Marlins.  

boneill, I'm not sure I saw that much romance building for the Rockies last year.  I would have loved to be wrong, but my suspicion was that all the talk would have been "what happened to the Sox?"  Put it this way; do you see a lot of underdog support building for the Brewers or the Rays?  (Although given that Sox/Yankee hatred is pretty strong, the latter may just be building.)

Woody, if I recall correctly, *allegedly* one of the worst was Cap Anson, who supposedly had a lot to do with eliminating some early black players from baseball, the likes of Fleet Walker.  But yes, it's hard to tell the early-baseball raging racists without a scorecard.

August 13, 2008 7:06 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

dcat....

hee, hee, you're right...would you believe that it just seemed like two more long years????

Good to see you back dcat. I have missed your razor sharp insights and your capacity to render old jacksondyer a sputtering frustrated hobgoblin...

and I like that you're one pointy headed intellectual with a set of real ones and the temperament to match...good to see you back...

August 13, 2008 11:57 PM