His exclusion from the HOF is glaring.
See, I don't agree. I don't think he belongs in the HOF, despite his influence.
Both loved and despised, depending on which side of the aisle you sat, but no disputing that few individuals have had as big an impact on the business side of sports.http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8682184/marvin-miller-mlbpa-first-leader-dies-95
I think his influence is overstated, he was doing his job and getting paid to represent the players. If he wasn't going to look out for the Curt Floods and Andy Messersmiths, they would have found someone who would.
I guess it depends on the what one feels the scope of the hall should be. If the goal is to be a museum that documents the history and changes of the sport, then he should be in it. If it is meant to be a sanitized MLB-approved historical fiction then no.And also it depends on what you mean by "in" the Hall. Milo is "in" the HOF despite the fact that he's not actually in the HOF.
I mean a "member" of the Hall of Fame...like the kind of member Milo is not. I never suggested it should be sanitized or even MLB-approved. In fact, I think the HOF does a good job of *not* making it those things. Come to think of it, I'm not sure where you even got that idea.
Are any non-players "members" of the hall of fame?
I think by ignoring Pete Rose and so far the "steroid era" the Hall is trying to be a sanitized version of history and not an accurate historical exhibition.
Are any non-players "members" of the hall of fame?I think by ignoring Pete Rose and so far the "steroid era" the Hall is trying to be a sanitized version of history and not an accurate historical exhibition.
Sure...there are managers, umpires and executives.
They have plaques just like the players? I haven't been to the HOF since 1997, so I don't really recall.
No one ignores Pete Rose. He chose to break the one rule you can't break in baseball.
That's it. His sentence was just.
Milo Hamilton's in the hall of fame.