NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-02-2017, 12:37 PM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 3,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
No thanks. He ruined the game for me. 1 small market team has won a championship in the last 25 years. So, for the fans of that bottom third of teams, he is the devil along with his disciple Donald Fehr. I would like for the team I root for to have a chance, but I doubt I will see another championship in my lifetime. Baseball's popularity peaked in the 70s and has been declining ever since. In my opinion this is why. It is hard to invest much in the game when your team has no chance to win.

Donald Fehr is responsible for steroids. He blocked the testing. The problem with Miller/Fehr isn't that they fought for the players. The problem was their tactic of "burnt earth" to destroy the owners and in turn fans and the game. We were their enemies, don't expect me to support someone who has shown nothing but hatred for the fans. Baseball used to be the #1 sport. Now it is #3 behind NFL and NBA. Destroying the national pastime is not a reason for induction to the HOF. Bud Selig was the worst selection for the HoF. Marvin Miller would be even worse.

And how many championships did the St Louis Browns win back in the good old days?

Again I must ask how he or Fehr destroyed the game? Changed it? Sure. But there is more money in the game for everyone than there ever has been. Attendance is stronger than ever. The talent level has never been better. By no objective metric has the game been "destroyed".

Speaking as a fan of the Pirates, I will tell you that postseason appearances has far more to do with decision making within a front office than it does money. Money guarantees merely the opportunity to make expensive mistakes and thus take larger risks.

Tom C
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-02-2017, 01:05 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by btcarfagno View Post
And how many championships did the St Louis Browns win back in the good old days?

Again I must ask how he or Fehr destroyed the game? Changed it? Sure. But there is more money in the game for everyone than there ever has been. Attendance is stronger than ever. The talent level has never been better. By no objective metric has the game been "destroyed".

Speaking as a fan of the Pirates, I will tell you that postseason appearances has far more to do with decision making within a front office than it does money. Money guarantees merely the opportunity to make expensive mistakes and thus take larger risks.

Tom C
You can always cherry pick one particular team, I am talking about the bottom 10. If you don't think that a 248 million dollar payroll vs. 96 million doesn't make all the difference, then there is no reason to continue this discussion. The inbalance that the MLBPA caused is absurd. I'm still waiting for someone to answer where the 30 million viewers went and why they have quit watching? Is it just a coincidence that the decline started soon after free agency started?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-02-2017, 01:15 PM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 3,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
What about TV ratings? Attendance is a very small part of popularity, many more people watch games by TV. If MLB is so popular, then why are the World Series ratings so poor? 2012 7.6 12.6 million, 2013 8.9 15 million, 2014 8.2 13.9 million, 2015 8.6 14.5 million. Even with a historic WS in 2016 12.9 22.8 million. In 1978, the World Series had a 32.8 rating and 44.2 million views. Do you really think a few thousand more people going to games is more reflective of baseball's popularity than losing roughly 30 million fans watching the most important games of the year? The general population doesn't care about baseball like it used to.

Let's compare that to the NFL. The highest rated Super Bowl in the 70s was 1978 47.2, 79 million. Last year 45.3 111 million viewers. If this year's game only draws 30 million viewers, would you say that the NFL is still growing in popularity? Those raw attendance numbers tell us very little. I would like to see how many fans are attending games vs. corporate sales for business just using the game as a write off. The average fan cannot afford to go to many games. I would like for you to tell me why those average fans don't care to watch the game anymore.
A football team plays what? 20 games per season at most? Add up all those numbers for all of those teams versus the numbers for all MLB teams for their 162 game regular season plus their postseason. Get back to me when you see which one is higher.

Tom C
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-02-2017, 01:17 PM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,720
Default

Quote:
"What about TV ratings? Attendance is a very small part of popularity, many more people watch games by TV. If MLB is so popular, then why are the World Series ratings so poor? 2012 7.6 12.6 million, 2013 8.9 15 million, 2014 8.2 13.9 million, 2015 8.6 14.5 million. Even with a historic WS in 2016 12.9 22.8 million. In 1978, the World Series had a 32.8 rating and 44.2 million views. Do you really think a few thousand more people going to games is more reflective of baseball's popularity than losing roughly 30 million fans watching the most important games of the year? The general population doesn't care about baseball like it used to."
Well, for one thing, leaving aside that you cherry-picked the most highly rated World Series ever from 1978 as your comparison point, there are several reasons why that event might be less watched on TV than before that do not have anything to do with baseball's overall popularity. First, in 1978 baseball was far less available to watch all season--now you basically can watch all 162 games of any team you wish, such that the World Series is less of an "event" for TV viewing. It would be more relevant if you could show that total viewership of baseball games overall has dropped, which you have not. Second, interleague play takes away the mystique of watching the best of two leagues, again, something that wasn't around in 1978. Third and similarly, there are more postseason games-- one wonders why if the game is supposedly less popular. Fourth, many people watch the games on devices now, which are not accurately captured (if at all) when evaluating "ratings". Fifth and similarly, the proliferation of sports bars this century has greatly increased viewership on fewer sets, and although Neilson now tries to capture this, its ratings system has not thus far.

In sum, your premise that baseball is not as popular has not been proven (at least by you), and is misleading in that it both fails to account for overall viewership of all baseball games, and instead focuses on a vastly different technological time.

EDITED To add that Neilson WS ratings, at least in large measure, examine the number of metered televisions that are watching the targeted event as opposed to other programming. Because the average television viewer now likely has anywhere between 150-250 more channels available to watch then s/he did in 1978, there is far less of a captive audience than in the past. There were large parts of the country that lacked even basic cable then, leaving many viewers with three main networks (one of which had its normal programming pre-empted by the game), maybe an educational or public service station and the odd independent channel or two. In sum, look at what the choices were back in the 70's and early 80's and compare them to where we have progressed since.
__________________
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. - Ulysses S. Grant, military commander, 18th US President.

Last edited by nolemmings; 12-02-2017 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-03-2017, 09:44 AM
mark evans mark evans is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 605
Default

I'm sure I'm missing something, but if the alternative to free agency is the former system which locked players to one team, and frequently a losing franchise (Ernie Banks), and forced them to accept contracts dictated by owners, then I would have to say the current system is preferable regardless of its other consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:22 AM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

I can't help but find it pretty confusing when people say Miller should be in for his contributions, which essentially boil down to free agency, without saying Curt Flood should be in before him. Flood actually lost something. Miller's contributions didn't cost him a thing.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:03 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 8,946
Default

I was born and raised in St Louis. Attended my first World Series in 1964 there. They had some fine teams in the 60s. I remember how sad I was when the Cardinals traded Flood. I think we got him from the Reds. His post baseball story is a fairly sad one

As I recall Musial' highest salary was $ 100,000 in 1958. That came after 7 years with no salary increase. In 1960 I think he took a $20,000 pay cut. By contrast Pujols eventually got more money per game than Musial per season. But at least Musial was treated as a icon for the remainder of his life in St Louis. Truly a great person as well as a great player

I get the argument both ways, but think Miller and Flood were both inevitable.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:19 AM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

Inevitable or not though you can't deny Flood lost his career. I think he deserves a lot more recognition than he gets.

PS while Stan made his 100K in 1958 the average American made under 5K. I don't think he was hurting for cash.

Last edited by packs; 12-04-2017 at 09:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:32 AM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 3,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
Inevitable or not though you can't deny Flood lost his career. I think he deserves a lot more recognition than he gets.

PS while Stan made his 100K in 1958 the average American made under 5K. I don't think he was hurting for cash.
Flood is certainly an interesting case, as not only was he the sacrificial lamb for the cause to get rid of the reserve clause, but he also was a pretty darn good player for over a decade. He likely would have gotten to 2,500 hits had his career taken a normal trajectory.

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive in terms of HOF discussion. Flood was the opening salvo and the unsuccessful martyr to something greater than himself. Without him, Miller likely would have eventually gotten what he was looking for. It just would have taken a bit longer perhaps.

As I said, I am certainly open to discussing the merits of Flood for the Hall in some capacity. But to me, without Miller, Flood is a moot point. Without Flood, Miller likely still gets it done eventually.

Tom C
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-04-2017, 12:34 PM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 13,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
I can't help but find it pretty confusing when people say Miller should be in for his contributions, which essentially boil down to free agency, without saying Curt Flood should be in before him. Flood actually lost something. Miller's contributions didn't cost him a thing.
Miller was the driving/organizing force, intellectually and financially, behind the MLBPA's sponsorship of Flood's free agency lawsuit. But free agency wasn't the only Miller contribution. He took over a sham union that was being run, illegally, by owners' stooges and money, and turned it into a legitimate bargaining force for the players. He has had more effect on the game than any executive. And I love him for making it possible for the Yankees to sign Reggie and Goose in the Bronx Zoo days. Gave me some of the best memories of my childhood. Plus he was in full agreement with the expansion of baseball cards beyond Topps; that alone qualifies him in my eyes.

As for the effects of free agency and a strong union...I am supposed to feel bad because a few billionaires and large corporations don't get to suck up all the proceeds from a very profitable business and have to pay their employees a market wage instead under threat that the employees will quit and go elsewhere? Boo-friggedy-hoo; I cry for the plutocrats. You are living in Fantasyland if you think the sudden end of the MLBPA and free agency would result in a lower cost to attend the game. When has any large business ever passed on reduced costs to its customers when they are willing to pay more for the product? I don't go to baseball games any more because I don't think they are a good entertainment value, but millions do, happily. If that changes the economics of the game may change. That's called a 'market'; preventing workers from leaving their jobs for better ones is a distortion of the labor market.

I wish there was a union like the MLBPA for my wife's job. She just put in an 80 hour week at a job that has given her only one 2% COLA bump over the last five years, while making record profits and having a soaring stock price, and raising our contribution to health insurance every year.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...

Last edited by Exhibitman; 12-04-2017 at 12:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:05 PM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 3,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
Miller was the driving/organizing force, intellectually and financially, behind the MLBPA's sponsorship of Flood's free agency lawsuit. But free agency wasn't the only Miller contribution. He took over a sham union that was being run, illegally, by owners' stooges and money, and turned it into a legitimate bargaining force for the players. He has had more effect on the game than any executive. And I love him for making it possible for the Yankees to sign Reggie and Goose in the Bronx Zoo days. Gave me some of the best memories of my childhood. Plus he was in full agreement with the expansion of baseball cards beyond Topps; that alone qualifies him in my eyes.

As for the effects of free agency and a strong union...I am supposed to feel bad because a few billionaires and large corporations don't get to suck up all the proceeds from a very profitable business and have to pay their employees a market wage instead under threat that the employees will quit and go elsewhere? Boo-friggedy-hoo; I cry for the plutocrats. You are living in Fantasyland if you think the sudden end of the MLBPA and free agency would result in a lower cost to attend the game. When has any large business ever passed on reduced costs to its customers when they are willing to pay more for the product? I don't go to baseball games any more because I don't think they are a good entertainment value, but millions do, happily. If that changes the economics of the game may change. That's called a 'market'; preventing workers from leaving their jobs for better ones is a distortion of the labor market.

I wish there was a union like the MLBPA for my wife's job. She just put in an 80 hour week at a job that has given her only one 2% COLA bump over the last five years, while making record profits and having a soaring stock price, and raising our contribution to health insurance every year.
Yes. All of this.

I would also add that Miller got former players a pension that they never would have received without him. I am guessing those guys should have just been shit out of luck?

Tom C
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:24 PM
George George is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 37
Default Miller and Flood

Tom:

You seem to be under the impression that it is somehow in the interest of the public (specifically, the fans) to elevate the status of the players from the top 1%, which it has been for the last 120 years, to the top 0.01%, or 0.001%, or as high into the stratosphere as they can possibly attain. And if they have to go on strike, or do whatever else they need to do, good for them, because the end justifies the means.

I, on the other hand, believe that they have been handsomely and adequately compensated for longer than any living person has been alive. As Lawrence Ritter famously and correctly noted in his great book, describing the players of the Deadball Era, "All these were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their times." I doubt that a single one of them would have traded his career for any other. I therefore believe that it is their ancillary duty to respect and support the fans who follow them, and it is by extension the duty of the Hall of Fame to honor those individuals who have contributed to this process. That would exclude Marvin Miller, whose sole interest was to strengthen the power of the MLBPA. The welfare of the fans was not his interest, nor his problem.

Curt Flood was an outfielder who had 83 RBI's in his best season. Del Ennis, whose career overlapped Flood's, drove in over 100 runs in seven different years. If Del Ennis was not good enough, neither was Curt Flood.

George
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:30 PM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

Curt Flood's case would be as a contributor, not a player. It's not about stats. His induction would be about what he gave up and what other players gained.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marvin Miller Died Today gtx440 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 10 11-27-2012 09:28 PM
Card ID - Marvin Gudat cincicards Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 04-16-2012 03:09 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:02 AM.


ebay GSB