Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Two All-Star Games (1959-62)?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Two All-Star Games (1959-62)?

    I was wondering why there were two All-Star Games per season from 1959-62? And why did they discontinue?
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  • #2
    Why ask Why

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
      Why ask Why
      Why ask why ask why?

      Sultan, don't you believe the All-Star games are meaningless?
      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
        Why ask why ask why?

        Sultan, don't you believe the All-Star games are meaningless?
        Why ask why I asked you why ask why you asked

        Actually. Out of all the major sports, I think the baseball all star game is the best. It stays most true to what it actually is, probably because nobody is being guarded with a ball. The NFL one is just a glorified vacation, hockey and basketball are both all offense and nothing else.

        If they are going to let fans vote for the players, I don't think the outcome should mean anything. If they want the winning league to be awarded home field in the World Series, then they shouldn't treat it like an exhibition by allowing the fans to vote.

        I think it's meaningless when talking about how many a guy went to or whatever. So if that's your question, yes. It's about popularity and reputation, just like gold gloves for the most part.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm not positive, but I think it was to generate more money for the retired players' fund. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I think the proceeds from the original All-Star games went to help indigent former players. So, if they had two All-Star games, then that would double the money raised, according to my Texas Instruments calculator.
          "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

          Comment


          • #6
            The revenue generated went towards the players pension fund. The added a second one to generate more revenue towards the pension fund and other causes.

            Comment


            • #7
              how did that come about? - there was no union at the time

              Comment


              • #8
                The players had a pension since after the war. It was tied to 80% of the World Series radio and tv money. But it only ran for 5 years. Because of things like the Mexico League and other owner actions the players went and got a lawyer to represent. The owners stonewalled the rep and the players, which ticked them off. Pushed them further towards union. In 1954 they came to an agreement in which the players would get 60% of the World Series and ALl star money. The contract would last through 1967. That contract expiring was one of the reasons the players ended up uniting at the end of the 60's and into the 70's.

                The owners were always threatening the pension in the early days. Be nice or we'll take it away and when you are old and grey you'll get nothing. The players organized themselves and said "oh no you don't"


                Really great book about the history of player-owner relationship is Lords of the Realm by John Helyar. Simply a great read, interesing and informative. Not dry at all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  good info - i would argue that the players didn't organize themselves - marvin miller organized them - they were in no way united until he painstakingly showed them the benefits of doing so - i would also argue that that didn't take place until the mid-1970s not the "end of the 60's and into the 70's" - not one - not one active player stood up for curt flood

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not quite sure you got your history right on the player union. Marvin Miller wasn't born unto the players fully formed, they went looking for him. Nor did he start in the 70's. The build up to get to the Flood case and Messersmith case took place in the 60's. Without the foundation of the 60's, nothing would have happened in the 70's. Again I urge you if you are interested in this topic and wish to know more to read Lords of the Realm as well as Millers own book.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      if you think that marvin miller entered a union that enjoyed a strong backing by its members and had any organized and systematic approach to what they were doing than i suggest you revisit the topic - they had no clue what they were doing - i am well aware of how miller was hired, by whom and why and what it took for him to first teach the players what the goals of a workers union even were - they even pressured miller to have richard nixon (a pro-management man if there ever was one) as his general counsel

                      The Players Association actually began in the early 1950s as a fraternal organization. It was run by management toady Judge Robert Cannon who himself aspired to be commissioner, an arm of baseball management. In fact, Cannon was sponsored by management and often would lecture the players about how good they had it and how happy they should be to be taken care of by their clubs

                      miller was perhaps the most influential and significant off-the-field figure in 20th century major league baseball - for more reasons than you are apparently aware

                      what build up led to flood? - who backed him? - what player or player actions aided him in his cause? - please explain who that book says helped him? - what players sat in concert to assist him?

                      yes a build up did happen in the 1960s - miller was hired in 1966

                      i urge you - if you are interested in the topic - and wish to know more - to broaden your sources and reexamine the one you tout
                      Last edited by Brian McKenna; 03-11-2006, 09:03 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm glad you find those who think you wrong arrogant, it helps me understand you better. I find it amazing that you didn't know about the All-star games, how the pensions came about, and yet now suddenly you are an expert on the subject.

                        You stated that you believe the union came together around mid 70's. Thats wrong. You stated that the players were in no way united until the Miller came along. Thats an extreme position. "No way", its an absolute as in never, and again that is wrong. The players got their pension, they negotiated it twice, they got Marvin Miller. It may not have been MLBPA circa 1982 but in "no way" could one say that the players before were never united in anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                          Really great book about the history of player-owner relationship is Lords of the Realm by John Helyar. Simply a great read, interesing and informative. Not dry at all.
                          You're right, Ubi, that is a really good book. A very interesting read that delves into the business end of baseball.

                          The owners, for the most part, deservingly take a beating in the book but Helyar doesn't spare the players either.

                          I can honestly say that book pretty much made up my mind that I don't begrudge the players any amount of $ they can get.

                          Yankees Fan Since 1957

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by yanks0714

                            I can honestly say that book pretty much made up my mind that I don't begrudge the players any amount of $ they can get.
                            you're absolutely right - the money is there - the talent deserves a fair % of it - if that makes them millionaires so be it

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              what i was referring to concerning the mid-1970s was the organizing power of the union - just because the union popped up one day didn't make it fully functioning and influential - the lag, in my view, was due to player indifference or lack of foresight and the time and effort it took to chip away at the owners to make any significant changes in the system

                              i can't buy your view that miller was a byproduct of the players' revolution - players have always been united in their concerns - at times they formed organizations and hired people to oversee their interests - i understand that - it goes hand in hand with what i am saying - i just can't buy your theory that Jim Bunning, Robin Roberts, Bob Friend and Harvey Kuenn said "hey mr. miller this is what we've done, this is how we're progressing and here is where we would like you to lead us" the day that they hired him

                              the arrogance i found was in your last sentence not the argument - but take it anyway you like

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X