Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • CaliforniaCajun
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
    I was wondering why there were two All-Star Games per season from 1959-62? And why did they discontinue?
    I'd like to know myself. I'm not a fan of the AS Game because of the unfairness of the selection process. The fans got the vote back and what's one of the first things they do? Vote for Luis Aparicio who was hitting .151 at the time. There aren't enough roster spots for all of the deserving players, and supposedly Selig pushed for the winner to have home field World Series advantage because players weren't taking it seriously. They haven't added more roster spots after the last expansion.

    I might be interested if it expanded to two games or the best two out of three and expanded the roster so that a fan favorite or last hurrah guy doesn't take the spot of a deserving player. And quit having the World Series home field advantage ride on this game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --I think it worked both ways. The players knew they needed to have a stronger, cohesive union if they were ever going to get fair play from the owners. Guys like Bunning and Roberts were smart and had a good general idea where they wanted to go, but they had no expertise in the field and were fuzzy on the details and process. They sought out a professional in the field of labor negotiations and found Marvin Miller. Miller brought focus and direction to union.
    --No question Miller was the key figure in making the union the controlling force in baseball it became, but he was able able to do so because he arrived at the right time in the games history. He was recruited to do what he did (even if the players didn't know exactly what that would be).
    all good points - there was a progression of the process - i say from 1876 - i'm just saying there was a huge burst with miller's hiring that took the players exponentially past any preconceived ideas they may have had - in fact if we are talking about the players as a whole i doubt if there was any real concensus on the preconceived ideas - perhaps miller came along at the right time or perhaps he made it the right time

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --I think it worked both ways. The players knew they needed to have a stronger, cohesive union if they were ever going to get fair play from the owners. Guys like Bunning and Roberts were smart and had a good general idea where they wanted to go, but they had no expertise in the field and were fuzzy on the details and process. They sought out a professional in the field of labor negotiations and found Marvin Miller. Miller brought focus and direction to union.
    --No question Miller was the key figure in making the union the controlling force in baseball it became, but he was able able to do so because he arrived at the right time in the games history. He was recruited to do what he did (even if the players didn't know exactly what that would be).

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • yanks0714
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    how did that come about? - there was no union at the time

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victory Faust
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X