Marvin Miller cards?

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the argument is that an overwhelming plethora of players have left baseball or pursued other careers due to a lack of compensation...

yet Turkey and Lange - players from a past century - are the only examples?

Who said anything about an "overwhelming plethora"?

And I don't think anybody is arguing that lots of players who were already competing at the major league level have left the sport because they weren't paid enough. The argument (as I understand it) is that the more MLB salaries increase, the more they will attract talented athletes who might have otherwise chosen a different career than playing professional baseball. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with that argument in this context either, because now there are several other very well-paying professional sports competing for many of the same athletes, whereas in the early 1900s there was basically just baseball and boxing (and hockey for Canadians, like George Gibson). Of course, there are plenty of other differences as well (such as the lack of black MLB players in the early 1900s), so it's hard to make comparisons.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Who said anything about an "overwhelming plethora"?

Tom.

"throughout the history of the game are examples of people leaving to get a real job" So with 150 years encompassing the "professional" game, a single player leaving the sport every couple years seems plausible I would surmise, as we're referencing "throughout the history" of the paid game. That would leave us at least 75 men that have said bye bye to the chosen sport they love.... all to take some menial, thankless "job" that pays more?? IN WHAT WORLD GOOD SIR?!?
Let's see how many you can find....

As you can tell... this is all light-hearted.

....but I think your argument only has merit over a century ago, but not by today's current context. In good fun, tell me the jobs that a pro baseball player would abandon the diamond for - an average player mind you - and what he would even be qualified to do making over the equivalent of $150,000.00 in pre-Miller 1967??

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Who said anything about an "overwhelming plethora"?

And I don't think anybody is arguing that lots of players who were already competing at the major league level have left the sport because they weren't paid enough. The argument (as I understand it) is that the more MLB salaries increase, the more they will attract talented athletes who might have otherwise chosen a different career than playing professional baseball. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with that argument in this context either, because now there are several other very well-paying professional sports competing for many of the same athletes, whereas in the early 1900s there was basically just baseball and boxing (and hockey for Canadians, like George Gibson). Of course, there are plenty of other differences as well (such as the lack of black MLB players in the early 1900s), so it's hard to make comparisons.

Problem with this argument is that those other sports can thank Marvin Miller as well. No sport would be as it is if not for him.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

There are also stories of players through the 1920's playing out west or in the minors because the pay could be better than in the majors.

But that wasn't the crux of my point and I think you know that.

If this kind of money went to doctors it would likely funnel some people to it that end up being really really good. People who would have, maybe, chosen something like baseball had it paid more.

If you enjoy great baseball, thank Marvin Miller. He helped that happen.

Tom C

[Misunderestimated]

There are not any career-contemporary cards of Miller based on my research...I did a lot of it at some point when I thought his HOF election was imminent. Its not anymore unless they decide to ignore his wishes. I'm still kind of shocked that the players involved in the HOF did not "go to bat for him" more.

Based on the Hall of Fame's definitions he clearly belongs. Also you can compare his accomplishments (like them or not) with the other HOFers who were not on-field contributors (or GMs) and he tops almost all of them. I mean the various commissioners and owners for the most part.

If you don't like his contributions that's another thing. In the history of MLB he is a giant like Judge Landis and few others. Incidentally, I don't particularly like a lot of what Judge Landis did but he indisputably belongs in the HOF.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

There are not any career-contemporary cards of Miller based on my research...I did a lot of it at some point when I thought his HOF election was imminent. Its not anymore unless they decide to ignore his wishes. I'm still kind of shocked that the players involved in the HOF did not "go to bat for him" more.

Based on the Hall of Fame's definitions he clearly belongs. Also you can compare his accomplishments (like them or not) with the other HOFers who were not on-field contributors (or GMs) and he tops almost all of them. I mean the various commissioners and owners for the most part.

If you don't like his contributions that's another thing. In the history of MLB he is a giant like Judge Landis and few others. Incidentally, I don't particularly like a lot of what Judge Landis did but he indisputably belongs in the HOF.

Brian,

LOL, I actually HATE much (most?) of what Landis did and I definitely hate all of who he was as a person in terms of his racism, bigotry and whatnot. I also don't buy the different times excuse for him or anyone else too much. But that's a different discussion. In any event, it is hard to disagree with your assessment of Landis as belonging in the HOF, although I would very much like to.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

There are not any career-contemporary cards of Miller based on my research...I did a lot of it at some point when I thought his HOF election was imminent. Its not anymore unless they decide to ignore his wishes. I'm still kind of shocked that the players involved in the HOF did not "go to bat for him" more.

Based on the Hall of Fame's definitions he clearly belongs. Also you can compare his accomplishments (like them or not) with the other HOFers who were not on-field contributors (or GMs) and he tops almost all of them. I mean the various commissioners and owners for the most part.

If you don't like his contributions that's another thing. In the history of MLB he is a giant like Judge Landis and few others. Incidentally, I don't particularly like a lot of what Judge Landis did but he indisputably belongs in the HOF.

Thank you for the "contemporary card research" response. While I appreciate the lively discussion about Miller's HOF merit (and by all means, let it continue), I truly was curious as to his earliest appearance on cardboard - which seems to be 1994 (commercially distributed). As a HOF collector, my goal is to acquire a card of ALL MEMBERS, whether I agree with their selection or not. And contemporary with their active career, if possible. That's my "set."

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by triwak

Thank you for the "contemporary card research" response. While I appreciate the lively discussion about Miller's HOF merit (and by all means, let it continue), I truly was curious as to his earliest appearance on cardboard - which seems to be 1994 (commercially distributed). As a HOF collector, my goal is to acquire a card of ALL MEMBERS, whether I agree with their selection or not. And contemporary with their active career, if possible. That's my "set."

One thought. Perhaps there are postcards out there? No idea, but they are gaining cache as rookie cards now. Perhaps there is a career contemporary one floating around out there somewhere.

Tom C

[triwak]

Yeah, a contemporary PC would certainly be desirable.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

There are also stories of players through the 1920's playing out west or in the minors because the pay could be better than in the majors.

But that wasn't the crux of my point and I think you know that.

If this kind of money went to doctors it would likely funnel some people to it that end up being really really good. People who would have, maybe, chosen something like baseball had it paid more.

If you enjoy great baseball, thank Marvin Miller. He helped that happen.

Tom C

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.

[packs]

I think it would better for players if they didn't make so much money. Look at Stanton. He's entombed in Florida because of how much money he's making. And even if his team is able to trade him, it'll never get anything back, thus having a negative effect on the quality of baseball being played.

[ALR-bishop]

I guess if the money is such a prison for him he could give some of it back for freedom

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by rats60

Baseball's popularity peaked in the 70s and has been declining ever since.

Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support your claim. Below are the attendance figures for the NL and AL each year from 1970 through 2017, from Baseball-reference.com. Total MLB attendance this year was 67% more than in 1979, and per-game attendance was 44% more. Per-game attendance this year was more than twice as much as in 1970. By any objective measure, baseball is a lot more popular now than it was in the 1970s, which was itself a decade of tremendous growth for the sport. It has been that growth, especially the exponential growth of TV money flooding into the owners' coffers over the past 40 years, that has been the primary driver of the huge increases in players' salaries. Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr merely helped the players get a larger share of that flood of cash than they would have otherwise received.

[bobbvc]

Thanks for the chart David! I don't think "evidence" is going to work on the anti- Miller crowd though. Couple things I noticed. About 3,000 people per game prefer not having a DH. And since about 1980 the average MLB game has out drawn the 2017 "LA" Chargers.

[George]

It appears that attendance peaked in 1993 and 1994, dropped precipitously in 1995, and then took almost ten years to recover. I wonder what the reason for that might have been.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support your claim. Below are the attendance figures for the NL and AL each year from 1970 through 2017, from Baseball-reference.com. Total MLB attendance this year was 67% more than in 1979, and per-game attendance was 44% more. Per-game attendance this year was more than twice as much as in 1970. By any objective measure, baseball is a lot more popular now than it was in the 1970s, which was itself a decade of tremendous growth for the sport. It has been that growth, especially the exponential growth of TV money flooding into the owners' coffers over the past 40 years, that has been the primary driver of the huge increases in players' salaries. Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr merely helped the players get a larger share of that flood of cash than they would have otherwise received.

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.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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?

[nolemmings]

"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.

[mark evans]

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.