RIP Marvin Miller

[Frobby]

Marvin Miller was one of the most influential people in the history of professional sports. It's ridiculous that he didn't live to see himself inducted into the Hall of Fame. Every athlete in pro sports, not just baseball, owes him a debt of gratitude. RIP.

[waroriole]

He changed the game more than anyone else in baseball history. Agree that it's absurd he's not in the Hall.

[SeaBird]

I wonder if Selig will attendf his funeral?

I doubt many past or present owners will shed a tear.

[DrungoHazewood]

Knowing how the Hall works they'll probably vote him in now. Or, maybe they'll have to wait for the Vet's committe (or whatever they're calling the special committee to elect old guys and non-playing personnel) is mainly made up of players who spent their whole careers making good money. The committee(s) are still chock full of players who played pre-Miller and pre-free agency, and are none too pleased that Wayne Garland and Sparky Lyle made more in a year than they did in a decade.

[OFFNY]

.

One of the best books that I ever read was "A Whole Different Ballgame," by Marvin Miller.

O

[Moose Milligan]

Damn shame that he's not in the HoF. Probably the biggest oversight, IMO.

Changed the face of sports, not just MLB.

[DrungoHazewood]

Damn shame that he's not in the HoF. Probably the biggest oversight, IMO.

Changed the face of sports, not just MLB.

Yea, but imagine how much cooler and richer MLB owners would be if they only had to spend 5% of revenues on player salaries rather than 45%. And how much easier it would be to relate to star players who had to bag groceries and sell insurance in the offseason to pay their bills. Back then everyone danced lazily about an idyllic green field, playing like children for the love of the game. Miller ruined all that.

All tongue-in-cheek, of course. Miller was brilliant, orchestrating the overturning the nonsensical and unfathomable reserve clause(1), and should have been in the Hall years ago. Would have been if not for old MLB owners' substantial influence over the Hall.

(1) How in the world could any court uphold a contract that bound an employee to an employer (in a monopoly!) in perpituity?! Especially when that clause was poorly written, ambiguous, and certainly could have been interpreted to mean "for one year" instead of "forever". It's amazing that it stood for nearly a century despite multiple court challenges. I'm still dumbfounded. I'd like to hear a Frobby interpretation.

[Frobby]

How in the world could any court uphold a contract that bound an employee to an employer (in a monopoly!) in perpituity?! Especially when that clause was poorly written, ambiguous, and certainly could have been interpreted to mean "for one year" instead of "forever". It's amazing that it stood for nearly a century despite multiple court challenges. I'm still dumbfounded. I'd like to hear a Frobby interpretation.

The original decision that baseball was a game, not a business, and therefore was not subject to the antitrust laws was very stupid. But, once that decision was made in the 1920's, it was never challenged for about 50 years. When the issue came up again, the Supreme Court essentially applied the rule of stare decisis. Loosely stated, that means that once the Supreme Court has spoken on a specific issue, it won't second guess itself later. That's especially true when the decision was interpreting a statute, because if Congress thinks the decision is misguided or outdated, then Congress can just amend the statute and fix it, and if they don't, then the Supreme Court treats the legislature's silence as evidence that their original interpretation of the statute was correct, or at least, endorsed.

The fact that the Courts never extended the decision to football, basketball or any other pro sport tells you that they knew the Supreme Court's decision on baseball made no sense.