Bud Selig

[hairmetalfreek]

Should he go in? Why or why not?

[BlueBlood]

He will go in. He served as commissioner for quite some time which makes you a lock. Also to his credit, his reign occurred during a lot of big changes in baseball: more expansion, steroids, a strike that led to no world series, interleague play, etc..

Should he? I don't think any commissioners deserve such an honor. Somebody had to do their work.

[hairmetalfreek]

The four things you mentioned are reasons that I don't think he should go in, among others. I don't believe any commissioner should be inducted just on the basis of their longevity, but rather on their positive influence on the game...which Selig has not had in my opinion.

[Brian McKenna]

Selig is by far the most significant commissioner in the game's history. The Hall can and should elect those that have played a significant part in developing and playing the game. Selig qualifies. No other commissioner produced positives (progressive strides to the lasting health of the game) at anywhere near his level.

The great genius Landis never even considered one progressive step, rather he stood in way of progress.

[Paul Wendt]

Commissioner's Office since 1992 - "accomplishments"

The people who vote will see many accomplishments.
[B]edit=/b]: reformat as list with minor changes
Bud Selig & his Commissioner's Office: maybe accomplishments --a working list of suggestions
-- re-established proper order after three commissioners who were not always accountable,
-- abolished the two leagues,
-- introduced three divisions and a wild card,
-- ended the losing streak in collective bargaining,
-- won a good stadium deal in Milwaukee,
?- handled the PED explosion, [too soon to say whether anyone will give credit]
-- gained control of world baseball championships.

If the Commissioner's Office is involved in
?- supporting or orchestrating all of the stadium deals,
that may be enough by itself. --the big ticket

------ add everything below this line ------

add: I was thinking that this is by far the most important cause of the good financial health of Baseball. That was probably a misjudgment. Even regarding the great increase in most franchise values, public financing of stadiums (usually single-purpose "ballparks") may be less than one dominating cause.

What else should I have mentioned? (maybe --I don't know enough of this history)

-- developed new sources of revenue overseas (chiefly merchandise?) and overnet (mlb.com)
-- international forays such as Opening Day abroad, Padres games in Mexico, moves toward MLB in Europe
?- from jjpm below: getting Japanese free agents into the US
?- from jjpm below: getting the MLB into Japan or was that before his reign?

Which of these are developments important to the industry, since Fay Vincent (1992), which the Commissioner's Office has helped organize or negotiate if not initiate and lead?
Essentially the Commissioner personally gets credit for everything in the Commissioner's Office. --now the MLB Office, I suppose

[Brian McKenna]

The people who vote will see many accomplishments. He re-established proper order after three commissioners who were not always accountable, abolished the two leagues, introduced three divisions and a wild card, ended the losing streak in collective bargaining, won a good stadium deal in Milwaukee, handled the PED explosion, gained control of world baseball championships.

And you didn't even mention the financial health and well-being of the game the boom that's forecasted for years to come.

[KCGHOST]

A lot will depend on how you view the Commissioner's job. If you see it as some mythic figure who sits above the game and acts primarily in the fans interest then he hasn't a snowball's chance in the Sahara at high noon. On the other hand if you recognize his job is really to enhance the prosperity of the clubs that make up the game then he has one heck of an argument. For those that prefer the first view I might point out that both the players and the teams greatly prefer the latter.

As for me, there is no reason to elect executives, umpires, managers, labor leaders, etc. I think the recent election of Bowie Kuhn confirms the wisdom of my position.

[jjpm74]

The people who vote will see many accomplishments. He re-established proper order after three commissioners who were not always accountable, abolished the two leagues, introduced three divisions and a wild card, ended the losing streak in collective bargaining, won a good stadium deal in Milwaukee, handled the PED explosion, gained control of world baseball championships.
If the Commissioner's Office is involved in supporting or orchestrating all of the stadium deals, that may be enough by itself.

Didn't he also play a roll in getting Japanese free agents into the US and getting the MLB into Japan or was that before his reign?

[jalbright]

One can certainly argue for Bud, and he'll probably make it. I wouldn't do it. He made some really awful decisions (the blind eye toward PEDs until Congress embarrassed him out of it leads the pack), and I have yet to be convinced that he deserves a lot of personal credit for baseball's boom in prosperity. He'll likely get enough such credit from those charged with that decision for him to make it.

[Paul Wendt]

And you didn't even mention the financial health and well-being of the game the boom that's forecasted for years to come.

"The financial health and well-being of the game" is superficial. It might be a direct explanation for a Commissioner's reelection rather a citation for his election to the Hall of Fame.

Among other things, I was trying to list developments that might be causes of "the financial health and well-being of the game", one of them directly (public finance of stadiums), others indirect in transparent ways.

Above (#5) I have added several lines including the two points by jjpm, but I don't know enough to assess this growing list. I can't vouch for it in particulars.

[Colorado Express]

I voted "no", but I think Bud has been good for the game. 10 years from now, I may change my opinion, but I think we need more time to evaluate his impact.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted "yes".

Bud has been a successful commissioner, and has been perhaps the most influential commissioner since Judge Landis. He has ushered in a huge number of innovations to the game, and he has also brought labor peace to baseball.

Bud deserves some criticism for PEDs, and I am not wild about every innovation he ushered in, but the game is in solid economic condition, all things considered. People have poo-poohed him, but he has been a remarkably significant figure in the history of baseball, something that no one would have predicted when he began his tenure.

[hairmetalfreek]

I think we need more time to evaluate his impact.

That is a good point. To me, interleague play was a terrible idea from the get-go, and I believe it diminishes the quality of the season as well as the magic of the World Series. Sure, I'll have a chance to see Boston this year when they play the Reds in Cincinnati, so it's "cool" in that aspect...but I think the cons far outweigh the pros.

I do not like the MLB season opening outside of the USA. Exhibition games have been played overseas for decades, and I have no problem with those. But regular season games should be played at the home team's ballpark (unless there are extenuating circumstances to prevent it).

And don't even get me started on expansion. Of course, Bud didn't start expansion initially, but he facilitated the recent boom (and diminished the overall quality of play).

[Brian McKenna]

"The financial health and well-being of the game" is superficial.

But it'll significantly affect the mood of the voters.

[six4three]

We'll see.

I fully admit that I was dead wrong about the Wild Card. I railed against it at the time, and predicted that it would make the regular season meaningless, but it has enhanced countless games and made the last half of the season more exciting than it has been in a very, very long time.

The single greatest thing Selig has done.