badger80:

brewguru:

badger80:

brewguru:

badger80:

sidney lanier:

badger80:

Are there any commissioners that were really any good, or are they all just money grubbers who, at best, just happened to let a social revolution happen on their watch?

This one wasn't bad. He may have been a little hard on the Shoeless, but he carved out a role for the commissioner to act in the best interests of the game independent of the owners that it took Bud and the boys about 75 years to undo.

Was segregation in the best interest of the game?

 

Was segregation in the best interests of the country?

Because baseball led the way in regards to integration.

Baseball may have led the way, but it was after Landis was gone.

I'm just saying that we need to consider a person's whole body of work.

 

I'm just saying that baseball gets ripped for segregation when the United States was that way and for 20 years later. There were still drinking fountains for whites and coloreds in the south in the early 60s.

I agree and I'm not ripping baseball.  Sidney was holding Landis up as a great baseball commissioner and I was just pointing out that he had some major flaws.

And another thing -- why didn't he make those guys wear batting helmets back then? Ray Chapman might still be alive today. OK, he'd be 118 years old, but you get the point. Everyone should be held to the moral standards of people yet unborn, including us. I wonder what they are.

One eternal verity, though, is the recognition that there is such a thing as the good of the game, and having a real, independent commissioner at least gives it a fighting chance. If we're going to play the anachronistic cross-generational moralizing game, the ghost of Landis would have a lot of tut-tutting to do in the offices of Allan H. Selig, "Commissioner" of Major League Baseball.

sidney lanier:

badger80:

brewguru:

badger80:

brewguru:

badger80:

sidney lanier:

badger80:

Are there any commissioners that were really any good, or are they all just money grubbers who, at best, just happened to let a social revolution happen on their watch?

This one wasn't bad. He may have been a little hard on the Shoeless, but he carved out a role for the commissioner to act in the best interests of the game independent of the owners that it took Bud and the boys about 75 years to undo.

Was segregation in the best interest of the game?

 

Was segregation in the best interests of the country?

Because baseball led the way in regards to integration.

Baseball may have led the way, but it was after Landis was gone.

I'm just saying that we need to consider a person's whole body of work.

 

I'm just saying that baseball gets ripped for segregation when the United States was that way and for 20 years later. There were still drinking fountains for whites and coloreds in the south in the early 60s.

I agree and I'm not ripping baseball.  Sidney was holding Landis up as a great baseball commissioner and I was just pointing out that he had some major flaws.

And another thing -- why didn't he make those guys wear batting helmets back then? Ray Chapman might still be alive today. OK, he'd be 118 years old, but you get the point. Everyone should be held to the moral standards of people yet unborn, including us. I wonder what they are.

One eternal verity, though, is the recognition that there is such a thing as the good of the game, and having a real, independent commissioner at least gives it a fighting chance. If we're going to play the anachronistic cross-generational moralizing game, the ghost of Landis would have a lot of tut-tutting to do in the offices of Allan H. Selig, "Commissioner" of Major League Baseball.

Landis was responsible for baseball not integrating.  He actively kept the door closed.  It wasn't a matter of Landis not taking steps towards integration, he didn't want black ballplayers in the game.

Real leaders make difficult choices that force change.  You can say that Landis was progressive in many ways, but you can't overlook how he kept incredible talent from playing in the league.  I'm not saying that he is or isn't a Hall of Fame commissioner, just that you're only looking at one side, Sid.

Einsteinhood:

Landis stood directly and repeatedly in the way of integration. There were surveys of players that came out that said they weren't opposed, he didn't budge. The negro leagues had success, he doesn't budge. MLB needs to attract new patrons in the depression, he doesn't budge.

The guy may not have been worse than other men of his generation on stuff like this, but he certainly wasn't any better.

 

There were also surveys of players who said they didn't want to integrate. Why do you think Jackie had such a hard time?

 

Just saying dem's were the times.

badger80:

Landis was responsible for baseball not integrating.  He actively kept the door closed.  It wasn't a matter of Landis not taking steps towards integration, he didn't want black ballplayers in the game.

Real leaders make difficult choices that force change.  You can say that Landis was progressive in many ways, but you can't overlook how he kept incredible talent from playing in the league.  I'm not saying that he is or isn't a Hall of Fame commissioner, just that you're only looking at one side, Sid.

No, I'm looking at the man in his time. He had to figure out a way to keep baseball alive. Had he fought a two-front war against corruption and segregation, he might have lost both.

Which is not to say that he was an enlightened thinker on race. Being a Southerner and a man of his time, I doubt it. But again, it's specious to apply our 2009 moral standards to 1922.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, baseball fans in 2109 consider us bigots for not allowing women in MLB. Would they be justified in criticizing Selig for not pushing to allow women in the game?

Rather than answering the moral imperatives of future generations, commissioners should be held to this standard: did you act for the good of the game and all three of its constituencies (players, owners fans)? Selig fails that standard; Landis created it.

 

sidney lanier:

badger80:

Landis was responsible for baseball not integrating.  He actively kept the door closed.  It wasn't a matter of Landis not taking steps towards integration, he didn't want black ballplayers in the game.

Real leaders make difficult choices that force change.  You can say that Landis was progressive in many ways, but you can't overlook how he kept incredible talent from playing in the league.  I'm not saying that he is or isn't a Hall of Fame commissioner, just that you're only looking at one side, Sid.

No, I'm looking at the man in his time. He had to figure out a way to keep baseball alive. Had he fought a two-front war against corruption and segregation, he might have lost both.

Which is not to say that he was an enlightened thinker on race. Being a Southerner and a man of his time, I doubt it. But again, it's specious to apply our 2009 moral standards to 1922.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, baseball fans in 2109 consider us bigots for not allowing women in MLB. Would they be justified in criticizing Selig for not pushing to allow women in the game?

Rather than answering the moral imperatives of future generations, commissioners should be held to this standard: did you act for the good of the game and all three of its constituencies (players, owners fans)? Selig fails that standard; Landis created it.

Are you related to Landis?  I'm curious why you're so quick to make excuses for the guy.

He didn't allow baseball to populate the game with the best players available.  That is not good for the game.

badger80:

sidney lanier:

badger80:

Landis was responsible for baseball not integrating.  He actively kept the door closed.  It wasn't a matter of Landis not taking steps towards integration, he didn't want black ballplayers in the game.

Real leaders make difficult choices that force change.  You can say that Landis was progressive in many ways, but you can't overlook how he kept incredible talent from playing in the league.  I'm not saying that he is or isn't a Hall of Fame commissioner, just that you're only looking at one side, Sid.

No, I'm looking at the man in his time. He had to figure out a way to keep baseball alive. Had he fought a two-front war against corruption and segregation, he might have lost both.

Which is not to say that he was an enlightened thinker on race. Being a Southerner and a man of his time, I doubt it. But again, it's specious to apply our 2009 moral standards to 1922.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, baseball fans in 2109 consider us bigots for not allowing women in MLB. Would they be justified in criticizing Selig for not pushing to allow women in the game?

Rather than answering the moral imperatives of future generations, commissioners should be held to this standard: did you act for the good of the game and all three of its constituencies (players, owners fans)? Selig fails that standard; Landis created it.

Are you related to Landis?  I'm curious why you're so quick to make excuses for the guy.

He didn't allow baseball to populate the game with the best players available.  That is not good for the game.

No relation. I do like people with Mountain as their middle name, though.

badger80:

sidney lanier:

badger80:

Landis was responsible for baseball not integrating.  He actively kept the door closed.  It wasn't a matter of Landis not taking steps towards integration, he didn't want black ballplayers in the game.

Real leaders make difficult choices that force change.  You can say that Landis was progressive in many ways, but you can't overlook how he kept incredible talent from playing in the league.  I'm not saying that he is or isn't a Hall of Fame commissioner, just that you're only looking at one side, Sid.

No, I'm looking at the man in his time. He had to figure out a way to keep baseball alive. Had he fought a two-front war against corruption and segregation, he might have lost both.

Which is not to say that he was an enlightened thinker on race. Being a Southerner and a man of his time, I doubt it. But again, it's specious to apply our 2009 moral standards to 1922.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, baseball fans in 2109 consider us bigots for not allowing women in MLB. Would they be justified in criticizing Selig for not pushing to allow women in the game?

Rather than answering the moral imperatives of future generations, commissioners should be held to this standard: did you act for the good of the game and all three of its constituencies (players, owners fans)? Selig fails that standard; Landis created it.

Are you related to Landis?  I'm curious why you're so quick to make excuses for the guy.

He didn't allow baseball to populate the game with the best players available.  That is not good for the game.

 

If the majority of owners had wanted integration, it would have happened.

After Jackie debuted in April of '47 and then Larry Doby in July, there was a trickle. It's not like every team went out and signed the best available negro players.

You can't criticize the man for NOT being Martin Luther King, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams or anyone of that ilk.

brewguru:

badger80:

sidney lanier:

badger80:

Landis was responsible for baseball not integrating.  He actively kept the door closed.  It wasn't a matter of Landis not taking steps towards integration, he didn't want black ballplayers in the game.

Real leaders make difficult choices that force change.  You can say that Landis was progressive in many ways, but you can't overlook how he kept incredible talent from playing in the league.  I'm not saying that he is or isn't a Hall of Fame commissioner, just that you're only looking at one side, Sid.

No, I'm looking at the man in his time. He had to figure out a way to keep baseball alive. Had he fought a two-front war against corruption and segregation, he might have lost both.

Which is not to say that he was an enlightened thinker on race. Being a Southerner and a man of his time, I doubt it. But again, it's specious to apply our 2009 moral standards to 1922.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, baseball fans in 2109 consider us bigots for not allowing women in MLB. Would they be justified in criticizing Selig for not pushing to allow women in the game?

Rather than answering the moral imperatives of future generations, commissioners should be held to this standard: did you act for the good of the game and all three of its constituencies (players, owners fans)? Selig fails that standard; Landis created it.

Are you related to Landis?  I'm curious why you're so quick to make excuses for the guy.

He didn't allow baseball to populate the game with the best players available.  That is not good for the game.

 

If the majority of owners had wanted integration, it would have happened.

After Jackie debuted in April of '47 and then Larry Doby in July, there was a trickle. It's not like every team went out and signed the best available negro players.

You can't criticize the man for NOT being Martin Luther King, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams or anyone of that ilk.

Yeah, but Landis was actively against integration.  Even if the owners would have wanted it, he would have stood in the way.

I guess I'm with cricher in thinking that a commissioner better do something really special to be enshrined, and just being a hardass isn't enough.  Yes, it's an incredibly high standard, and it should be.  Sidney has a point that I'm judging him by a more current standard, but I think Landis was so far behind the curve on the issue that it should legitimately be held against the guy.  He wasn't progressive for his own time.

badger80:

Yeah, but Landis was actively against integration.  Even if the owners would have wanted it, he would have stood in the way.

I guess I'm with cricher in thinking that a commissioner better do something really special to be enshrined, and just being a hardass isn't enough.  Yes, it's an incredibly high standard, and it should be.  Sidney has a point that I'm judging him by a more current standard, but I think Landis was so far behind the curve on the issue that it should legitimately be held against the guy.  He wasn't progressive for his own time.

 

How was Landis "behind the curve"?

In the '40s (and earlier), blacks were considered an inferior species.

When Ty Cobb jumped into the stands to beat up the fan in the teens, his teammates said they would refuse to play if Cobb was suspended. The reason? Cobb was called a "half-n*****" and that insult was considered one of the most grievous you can call someone. Cobb was anything but popular with his teammates, but they stood behind him on that one because they didn't blame him.

Blacks had to use seperate bathrooms, seperate water fountains and had to eat at special restaurants (or in special parts of restaurants).

No other team sport was integrated.

It's the times we were living in.

Sidney had a great example in that in 100 years, will people look to baseball today and rip on the sport for not allowing women to play.

brewguru:

badger80:

Yeah, but Landis was actively against integration.  Even if the owners would have wanted it, he would have stood in the way.

I guess I'm with cricher in thinking that a commissioner better do something really special to be enshrined, and just being a hardass isn't enough.  Yes, it's an incredibly high standard, and it should be.  Sidney has a point that I'm judging him by a more current standard, but I think Landis was so far behind the curve on the issue that it should legitimately be held against the guy.  He wasn't progressive for his own time.

 

How was Landis "behind the curve"?

In the '40s (and earlier), blacks were considered an inferior species.

When Ty Cobb jumped into the stands to beat up the fan in the teens, his teammates said they would refuse to play if Cobb was suspended. The reason? Cobb was called a "half-n*****" and that insult was considered one of the most grievous you can call someone. Cobb was anything but popular with his teammates, but they stood behind him on that one because they didn't blame him.

Blacks had to use seperate bathrooms, seperate water fountains and had to eat at special restaurants (or in special parts of restaurants).

No other team sport was integrated.

It's the times we were living in.

Sidney had a great example in that in 100 years, will people look to baseball today and rip on the sport for not allowing women to play.

I was ignoring Sindey's comment because it was so ridiculous.  Women aren't excluded from playing MLB.  If you find a woman that can compete at that level, I'm sure she'll be offered a contract by a major league team.

We're just going to continue disagreeing on Landis' role in segregation.  I understand what you're saying, but I still think Landis played a larger role in institutionalizing segregation than you're giving him credit for.

badger80:

brewguru:

badger80:

Yeah, but Landis was actively against integration.  Even if the owners would have wanted it, he would have stood in the way.

I guess I'm with cricher in thinking that a commissioner better do something really special to be enshrined, and just being a hardass isn't enough.  Yes, it's an incredibly high standard, and it should be.  Sidney has a point that I'm judging him by a more current standard, but I think Landis was so far behind the curve on the issue that it should legitimately be held against the guy.  He wasn't progressive for his own time.

 

How was Landis "behind the curve"?

In the '40s (and earlier), blacks were considered an inferior species.

When Ty Cobb jumped into the stands to beat up the fan in the teens, his teammates said they would refuse to play if Cobb was suspended. The reason? Cobb was called a "half-n*****" and that insult was considered one of the most grievous you can call someone. Cobb was anything but popular with his teammates, but they stood behind him on that one because they didn't blame him.

Blacks had to use seperate bathrooms, seperate water fountains and had to eat at special restaurants (or in special parts of restaurants).

No other team sport was integrated.

It's the times we were living in.

Sidney had a great example in that in 100 years, will people look to baseball today and rip on the sport for not allowing women to play.

I was ignoring Sindey's comment because it was so ridiculous.  Women aren't excluded from playing MLB.  If you find a woman that can compete at that level, I'm sure she'll be offered a contract by a major league team.

We're just going to continue disagreeing on Landis' role in segregation.  I understand what you're saying, but I still think Landis played a larger role in institutionalizing segregation than you're giving him credit for.

How is that?

What was he doing that wasn't typical of the period?

anyone else watching this game?? if so could I get an update, just finished watching an awsome bucks game!

you think jason werth wins the WS MVP if philly loses?

WiscoKing13:

just finished watching an awsome bucks game!

An oxymoron if there ever was one. No NBA game is awesome.

wisblue:

WiscoKing13:

just finished watching an awsome bucks game!

An oxymoron if there ever was one. No NBA game is awesome.

Depends on your definition of awesome.   Some people love big wheel races at timeouts.  Free T-shirt bazookas.  Funky beats when the game is being played.  Loud annoying PA announcers screaming some dudes name after a basket.  Every play is an on the ball pick and roll. worst fan atmosphere of any sport.

Awesome doesnt describe it