For decades, some sort of committee has been in place to consider players, team execs and managers who were not elected to baseball's Hall Of Fame via the sports writers' vote. The latest iteration of those committees is called the "Today's Game" committee. This committee's results are in and are hardly inspiring. Harold Baines was elected and should not have been. Lee Smith was elected and teeter-totters on the fence at face value and George Steinbrenner received less than four votes out of sixteen. Say what!?
George Steinbrenner bought baseball's most glittering franchise (with partners) for $10 million, a low figure because CBS had run the team into the ground. His tenacity, ferocity and controversial reign took a shabby franchise and made it the glittering jewel of all sport teams.
There is some understanding of why people would not vote for him. There were the suspensions from baseball. Steinbrenner was bombastic and disliked my many. His treatment of Dave Winfield was particularly odious. There are many stories about his terrible treatment of employees. There was a lot to dislike. But look, if Tom Yawkey is a Hall Of Fame owner, Steinbrenner should be too.
Steinbrenner defined a baseball era. George Steinbrenner was the first to exploit the free agent market. He was the first to spend big money to win. He dominated the news to such an extent that baseball and the Yankees were hot topics. He did not just raise the status of the New York Yankees. His success in building the franchise value rubbed off on all baseball franchises around Major League Baseball.
Baseball players owe Steinbrenner a debt for raising their value. Teams own Steinbrenner a debt for raising the value of their own franchises. That sounds like someone whose contributions should be remembered and enshrined.
The biggest thing about whether Steinbrenner belongs in the Hall of Fame is this: You cannot discuss Major League baseball from the 1970s to the 1990s without mentioning George Steinbrenner in the narrative. It does not matter if he was mouthy, arrogant and did some bad things (among many good ones). What matters was that he mattered. He mattered a great deal.
Not having George Steinbrenner in the Hall Of Fame along with Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds defeats the purpose of having a Hall of Fame. If making a moral stand dilutes the narrative of people who defined their eras, then just tear the whole thing down.
Showing posts with label George Steinbrenner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Steinbrenner. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2018
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Marvin Miller - Steinbrenner HOF Debate
The Veterans Committee, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, will soon vote to give some former players a second look and decide if the writers overlooked them when they were on the Hall of Fame ballot. Ted Simmons is one of those players and this writer wholeheartedly supports Simmons for the Hall of Fame. Among the players, some non-players will also be considered. Billy Martin is one of those who will be considered as a manager. The two biggest names on the list are also the most controversial. They are George Steinbrenner and Marvin Miller. It's sort of ironic that these two men are being considered together after years of being on the opposite sides of the negotiation table.
Let's start with George Steinbrenner because that seems to be the easiest. But for some, he may be the most difficult. The arguments this Fan has heard (read) include that he was indicted for improper campaign contributions. They will also argue that his dirty investigations of Dave Winfield should keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Others say he just died and it should wait a while.
The last argument is the one with which this Fan has the biggest problem. It's very similar to the notion that only a select few players should be voted into the Hall on the first year of eligibility. What a bunch of hooey. The only decision to make is whether or not a player--or in this case, a person--should be included in the Hall of Fame or not. It's that simple. Yes or no. Black or white. Decide. If Steinbrenner deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because of his contributions to baseball, that won't change two years from now or five or ten. Either he should be elected or he shouldn't. If he should, now is just as good a time as five years from now.
What these elitists are trying to do is to put artificial layers to the players voted into the Hall of Fame. In other words, if a guy is a top tier player or person then the first ballot (or now) is okay. If he is a second tier player or person, then wait a year or five. There are no layers in the Hall of Fame. There isn't a raised area dedicated to only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. There is no second layer for a guy like Joe Morgan and Bob Gibson with a third layer for the Lou Brocks and Phil Neikros of the world. Nobody announces Joe Morgan as a, "Second Tier Hall of Famer." He's simply a Hall of Fame player. Simple. So waiting to vote on Morgan a year or five or ten is just stupid. The only time it isn't stupid is if a voter has a change of heart down the road and a bunch of other voters do the same thing and a guy gets elected.
Thus the Steinbrenner argument that his bones are barely cold in the ground are stupid. Either his accomplishments and his influence on the game are Hall-worthy or they aren't. This Fan happens to think he is. Look, the guy made some mistakes. But he paid for them. He served his suspensions. Yeah, he broke the law. So did Paul Molitor. But Steinbrenner took a once proud franchise that had fallen on hard times and made it the most amazing brand in sports. By doing so, he raised the interest level in the game, helped bring road attendance up so that all teams made more money playing the Yankees. He meddled too much with his teams, but no one can deny the state of the Yankees when he bought them versus when he died.
Marvin Miller is a tougher argument. He was a labor leader. He helped establish a climate that shut the game down for two seasons. 1991 would never have happened if he hadn't united the players and set a goal that eventually raised their stake in the game. That's one way of looking at it. The other is that he was an emancipator. He helped end an unconstitutional premise that the owners carried out for years. He helped usher in a new era where players could participate in the profits of the game and contrary to the dire predictions, those events did not lead to the downfall of baseball. Baseball is in tremendously good shape despite the economy. There are very few people in the last fifty years that have influenced the game more than Marvin Miller. Not all of those influences benefit fans. But so be it. For all we know, Miller could care less about being in the Hall of Fame. And for all we know, he may covet that vote. It doesn't matter. The only question is if Marvin Miller helped shape and influence major league baseball in a way that is worthy of the Hall of Fame. This Fan says yes.
The Fan didn't always like Steinbrenner and never liked Marvin Miller. But perhaps, those are just two of the reasons that make them the influences they were. The sport is different because they touched it. And that is the true test of whether a non-player belongs in the Hall of Fame. And that touch doesn't always have to be one that sits well in the stomach.
Let's start with George Steinbrenner because that seems to be the easiest. But for some, he may be the most difficult. The arguments this Fan has heard (read) include that he was indicted for improper campaign contributions. They will also argue that his dirty investigations of Dave Winfield should keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Others say he just died and it should wait a while.
The last argument is the one with which this Fan has the biggest problem. It's very similar to the notion that only a select few players should be voted into the Hall on the first year of eligibility. What a bunch of hooey. The only decision to make is whether or not a player--or in this case, a person--should be included in the Hall of Fame or not. It's that simple. Yes or no. Black or white. Decide. If Steinbrenner deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because of his contributions to baseball, that won't change two years from now or five or ten. Either he should be elected or he shouldn't. If he should, now is just as good a time as five years from now.
What these elitists are trying to do is to put artificial layers to the players voted into the Hall of Fame. In other words, if a guy is a top tier player or person then the first ballot (or now) is okay. If he is a second tier player or person, then wait a year or five. There are no layers in the Hall of Fame. There isn't a raised area dedicated to only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. There is no second layer for a guy like Joe Morgan and Bob Gibson with a third layer for the Lou Brocks and Phil Neikros of the world. Nobody announces Joe Morgan as a, "Second Tier Hall of Famer." He's simply a Hall of Fame player. Simple. So waiting to vote on Morgan a year or five or ten is just stupid. The only time it isn't stupid is if a voter has a change of heart down the road and a bunch of other voters do the same thing and a guy gets elected.
Thus the Steinbrenner argument that his bones are barely cold in the ground are stupid. Either his accomplishments and his influence on the game are Hall-worthy or they aren't. This Fan happens to think he is. Look, the guy made some mistakes. But he paid for them. He served his suspensions. Yeah, he broke the law. So did Paul Molitor. But Steinbrenner took a once proud franchise that had fallen on hard times and made it the most amazing brand in sports. By doing so, he raised the interest level in the game, helped bring road attendance up so that all teams made more money playing the Yankees. He meddled too much with his teams, but no one can deny the state of the Yankees when he bought them versus when he died.
Marvin Miller is a tougher argument. He was a labor leader. He helped establish a climate that shut the game down for two seasons. 1991 would never have happened if he hadn't united the players and set a goal that eventually raised their stake in the game. That's one way of looking at it. The other is that he was an emancipator. He helped end an unconstitutional premise that the owners carried out for years. He helped usher in a new era where players could participate in the profits of the game and contrary to the dire predictions, those events did not lead to the downfall of baseball. Baseball is in tremendously good shape despite the economy. There are very few people in the last fifty years that have influenced the game more than Marvin Miller. Not all of those influences benefit fans. But so be it. For all we know, Miller could care less about being in the Hall of Fame. And for all we know, he may covet that vote. It doesn't matter. The only question is if Marvin Miller helped shape and influence major league baseball in a way that is worthy of the Hall of Fame. This Fan says yes.
The Fan didn't always like Steinbrenner and never liked Marvin Miller. But perhaps, those are just two of the reasons that make them the influences they were. The sport is different because they touched it. And that is the true test of whether a non-player belongs in the Hall of Fame. And that touch doesn't always have to be one that sits well in the stomach.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Okay, It's Time to Put Out a Post for Steinbrenner
[[switching to first person]] Losing George Steinbrenner was like a death in the family of that powerful old grandfather that people alternatively respected and loathed at the same time. He's been a part of this Fan's life for 37 years now. There were so many times when he infuriated us and so many times he touched us as well. But Steinbrenner was a bottom line guy. That bottom line was mostly about winning. But it was also about piling up the most income in baseball too. The latter is what most people hated. But the former endeared him to Yankee fans who grew up through the awful CBS times before 1973.
I have written several times in this space about growing up in New Jersey and how my whole world as a youngster was the New York Yankees. Yeah, I try to remain neutral in this blog because I want you to commiserate with a passionate fan of baseball. I want you too to share your passion and that includes all of you with favorite teams all along this continent. Some times that actually hurts this blog as the team-centered blogs seem to have more loyal followings. But it's impossible to deny that experience of youth and those allegiances. The Yankees were it for me.
But I've also written about how that experience came at a price. For much of my childhood, the Yankees were terrible. They were absolutely miserable. Sure there were great stories, but some of them were more weird than glorious. A movie is in the works about the famous Fritz Peterson/Mike Kekich wife swap. We had a guy named Joe Pepitone (the original Broadway Joe) who could have been a great player except he was a fool by most people's standards (including his own) and threw away his career being a ladies man and a bad boy.
As is the case with most bad teams, it started at the top. The Yankees were bungled at every level. They were purchased by CBS, which had no idea what to do with the team and the President of the club was a former mayor who was pretty good at running New York City, but was way clueless when it came to running the Yankees. The team became a joke and drew less than a million fans to their seats on several occasions, which is astonishing since NYC has a tremendous population from which to draw from, not just from the city, but also from Long Island and New Jersey which in many cases were populated like NYC, but had a bunch more trees scattered about.
And then along came George Steinbrenner. Long before it was understood what good management was, we cheered because we innately understood what bad management was and that the Yankees were Exhibit A. Steinbrenner had to be better than that. And he looked impressive and imposing and dashing and we hoped he would get things going again.
Yeah, there was the Nixon thing, but anyone who believes that Steinbrenner stayed away from Yankee business during that suspension is misguided. And the results were nearly immediate. The team came in second in 1974. 1975 was a setback year, but Steinbrenner brought in Billy Martin the second half of that year and from 1976 to 1981, the team made it to the post season in five of those six years, won two World Series and appeared in two others. It was like we had died and gone to heaven. We had gone through the Horace Clarke/Gene Michael/Tom Tresh/Lindy McDaniel years and loved the team though they never had a chance to win or even compete and suddenly our favorite team was valid and feared and successful.
But there was always stuff. There was Billy Martin stuff and Yogi Berra stuff and Reggie Jackson stuff and Bob Lemon stuff and even the good years were filled with tension and cringing.
But hey, all that stuff made headlines and our Yankees, who were nobodies for so long, were headline news all the time. It was exciting even in the times when it was distressing. It was a heck of a lot better than the moribund days of 2-0 losses in bland shades of gray. Steinbrenner gave us validity and color.
But then a pattern was formed that would repeat itself. After the championships came upheaval as George couldn't keep his fingers out of the pie and kept buying players that didn't fit and the period from 1982 to the early 1990s were bad ones. The same thing happened after 2000 when the Yankees had a flood of Jeff Weavers, Robin Venturas and Rondell Whites.
Another thing happened that pissed us all off at the time was the beginnings of Yes as a network. The Yankees were always on free television. WPIX, Channel 11 showed all the games and suddenly, they were half gone with many of the games on this pay network that many of us couldn't get. That development led to the untold riches that is the Yankees today, but at the time, it sure took a lot away from most of the fans in the metro area.
So, yeah, Steinbrenner was that patriarch in the family that gave our family relevance while at the same time tickled us hard until it hurt and we couldn't breathe. Trust me, coming from an Italian family, that archetype was familiar. But he made the Yankees big again. He made them front page news all the time. He gave us championships after so many futile years. He also made us wince and shake our heads. Poor Dave Winfield and Dick Howser and Lou Piniella. But all of that was worth it because we mattered again.
We loved the Yankees when they stunk and nobody else did. We loved them when the entire infield batted .220 or lower. We loved them when you could go to the stadium cheap and wait until the fourth inning (when the ushers left) and we could get close to the dugouts and see our favorite but awful players. But after all that, George Steinbrenner gave us carbonation in our drinks. He gave us Fizzies when all we had before was Koolaid. And it sure was exhilarating.
And then toward the end, he gave us softness. He cried when the Yankees won in 1996 and 1998-2000. He was grateful and satisfied. And so were we.
I wouldn't have missed all of it for all the anger and vehemence he caused from fans across the country. He built my generation a legacy, which much like America's was a very flawed one, but it was the best show on earth.
Thanks, George, and this here Fan hopes it won't be much of a shock when those angels in that great big outfield don't jump at your command.
I have written several times in this space about growing up in New Jersey and how my whole world as a youngster was the New York Yankees. Yeah, I try to remain neutral in this blog because I want you to commiserate with a passionate fan of baseball. I want you too to share your passion and that includes all of you with favorite teams all along this continent. Some times that actually hurts this blog as the team-centered blogs seem to have more loyal followings. But it's impossible to deny that experience of youth and those allegiances. The Yankees were it for me.
But I've also written about how that experience came at a price. For much of my childhood, the Yankees were terrible. They were absolutely miserable. Sure there were great stories, but some of them were more weird than glorious. A movie is in the works about the famous Fritz Peterson/Mike Kekich wife swap. We had a guy named Joe Pepitone (the original Broadway Joe) who could have been a great player except he was a fool by most people's standards (including his own) and threw away his career being a ladies man and a bad boy.
As is the case with most bad teams, it started at the top. The Yankees were bungled at every level. They were purchased by CBS, which had no idea what to do with the team and the President of the club was a former mayor who was pretty good at running New York City, but was way clueless when it came to running the Yankees. The team became a joke and drew less than a million fans to their seats on several occasions, which is astonishing since NYC has a tremendous population from which to draw from, not just from the city, but also from Long Island and New Jersey which in many cases were populated like NYC, but had a bunch more trees scattered about.
And then along came George Steinbrenner. Long before it was understood what good management was, we cheered because we innately understood what bad management was and that the Yankees were Exhibit A. Steinbrenner had to be better than that. And he looked impressive and imposing and dashing and we hoped he would get things going again.
Yeah, there was the Nixon thing, but anyone who believes that Steinbrenner stayed away from Yankee business during that suspension is misguided. And the results were nearly immediate. The team came in second in 1974. 1975 was a setback year, but Steinbrenner brought in Billy Martin the second half of that year and from 1976 to 1981, the team made it to the post season in five of those six years, won two World Series and appeared in two others. It was like we had died and gone to heaven. We had gone through the Horace Clarke/Gene Michael/Tom Tresh/Lindy McDaniel years and loved the team though they never had a chance to win or even compete and suddenly our favorite team was valid and feared and successful.
But there was always stuff. There was Billy Martin stuff and Yogi Berra stuff and Reggie Jackson stuff and Bob Lemon stuff and even the good years were filled with tension and cringing.
But hey, all that stuff made headlines and our Yankees, who were nobodies for so long, were headline news all the time. It was exciting even in the times when it was distressing. It was a heck of a lot better than the moribund days of 2-0 losses in bland shades of gray. Steinbrenner gave us validity and color.
But then a pattern was formed that would repeat itself. After the championships came upheaval as George couldn't keep his fingers out of the pie and kept buying players that didn't fit and the period from 1982 to the early 1990s were bad ones. The same thing happened after 2000 when the Yankees had a flood of Jeff Weavers, Robin Venturas and Rondell Whites.
Another thing happened that pissed us all off at the time was the beginnings of Yes as a network. The Yankees were always on free television. WPIX, Channel 11 showed all the games and suddenly, they were half gone with many of the games on this pay network that many of us couldn't get. That development led to the untold riches that is the Yankees today, but at the time, it sure took a lot away from most of the fans in the metro area.
So, yeah, Steinbrenner was that patriarch in the family that gave our family relevance while at the same time tickled us hard until it hurt and we couldn't breathe. Trust me, coming from an Italian family, that archetype was familiar. But he made the Yankees big again. He made them front page news all the time. He gave us championships after so many futile years. He also made us wince and shake our heads. Poor Dave Winfield and Dick Howser and Lou Piniella. But all of that was worth it because we mattered again.
We loved the Yankees when they stunk and nobody else did. We loved them when the entire infield batted .220 or lower. We loved them when you could go to the stadium cheap and wait until the fourth inning (when the ushers left) and we could get close to the dugouts and see our favorite but awful players. But after all that, George Steinbrenner gave us carbonation in our drinks. He gave us Fizzies when all we had before was Koolaid. And it sure was exhilarating.
And then toward the end, he gave us softness. He cried when the Yankees won in 1996 and 1998-2000. He was grateful and satisfied. And so were we.
I wouldn't have missed all of it for all the anger and vehemence he caused from fans across the country. He built my generation a legacy, which much like America's was a very flawed one, but it was the best show on earth.
Thanks, George, and this here Fan hopes it won't be much of a shock when those angels in that great big outfield don't jump at your command.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Steinbrenner's Death
The passing of the Yankees' principle owner was a shock and provoked a lot of strong emotions; more emotions than a post right now can handle. The Fan is going to have to percolate about that news for a while. But expect a post soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)