Yes, he does belong in Cooperstown....

after all, as bad as he is, he still wouldn't be the biggest lout of an owner in the hall.

I think that executives of all sorts are overrepresented in the Hall. That said, I think that in the 1970s George created a much fiercer competitive landscape in baseball that survives to this day. I think he's the most important off the field figure of the era, including Miller, James, and Jobe/Andrews.

“It would be a great thing for him to get on while he’s still alive,” said a Yankees executive who requested anonymity.

QFT

I agree that character and integrity have been assessed for HoF induction based on a sliding scale.

Two words any opponent should use in an argument why Steinbrenner should not be in the Hall: John Sterling.

Its HOF day on BTF today - Jack Morris and Stinebrenner for the HOF. Here is my vote - put EVERYBODY in the HOF. Then we can stop reading these stupid articles on who should and shouldn't go in.

Steinb killed the Yankees of the 80s-early 90s with his boorish behavour, manager treatment (FIVE Billy Matrins??) and insane trades. Then, the late 90s teams win specifically because he was not around to stop Gene Michael and others from building a great team.

Owners from the contemporary "toys for wealthy people that generate free cash" era really shouldn't be Hall of Famers. Steinbrenner's got some great stuff on his record, as well as a whole bunch of terrible stuff. I guess he was a more active owner than most, but that counts both for and against him.

He'll surely get inducted, but it's more a story of how much our society loves to honor rich people than a story about a deserving great from the game of baseball.

He'll surely get inducted, but it's more a story of how much our society loves to honor rich people than a story about a deserving great from the game of baseball.

It's partly that, but it's more about recognizing the executives who've shaped the game in ways that go far beyond the ordinary, regardless of what we may think about their personal characteristics or obvious flaws. Love him or not, Walter O'Malley is the only post-WWII owner whose influence exceeded Steinbrenner's. It's easy to dismiss his success as little more than a fortunate byproduct of the New York market, but the best counter to that is to look at the Mets, who were the darlings of New York and outdrawing the Yankees by more than 2 to 1 when Steinbrenner bought the team.

It's partly that, but it's more about recognizing the executives who've shaped the game in ways that go far beyond the ordinary, regardless of what we may think about their personal characteristics or obvious flaws.

I'm not talking about Steinbrenner's obvious flaws as a human being, I'm talking about all the negative things he did that prevented the baseball team he owned from winning. "Shaped the game" is a weird standard for induction, and not one I would support with regard to owners.

Though, again, I think inducting modern owners is mostly a stupid idea.

“It would be a great thing for him to get on while he’s still alive,”

At this point, would he even notice?

Owners from the contemporary "toys for wealthy people that generate free cash" era really shouldn't be Hall of Famers.

Granting that at least of subset of the early owners represented were true pioneers of the game, I'd say that the "toys for wealthy people" era started a bit earlier than you might think. Comparing Steinbrenner to a Charlie Commiskey (or even a Bill Veeck) is ridiculous, but I don't know that Tom Yawkey ever did anything all that worthy of a plaque.

how interesting that "character" is pushed into everyone's face when it comes to barry lamar and sammy sosa (we can't let any guy in who weighs more than he did when he was 19 - well if he hit home runs because he MUST be a drug user)

but george steinbrenner is a convicted felon and far more of a shtthead than barry lamar OR sammy - and that is ok

at least he didn't do DRUGS!!!!

I'm not talking about Steinbrenner's obvious flaws as a human being, I'm talking about all the negative things he did that prevented the baseball team he owned from winning. "Shaped the game" is a weird standard for induction, and not one I would support with regard to owners.

Why is "shaping the game" a weird standard? What other category would be more appropriate for an owner? Just presiding over multiple championships?

Though, again, I think inducting modern owners is mostly a stupid idea.

If that's your axiom, then of course no owner since ?????? is worthy of the HoF.

Which seems like an extremely narrow concept of what the Hall of Fame should be about. The owners, writers, and broadcasters have been every bit as much a part of advancing the game as the players themselves, and to imagine otherwise is a pure fantasy. Without owners, writers, and broadcasters, baseball would have remained a local sport with no national spine, and almost certainly would have died out by now, at least in its highly skilled hardball version. The Hall of Fame recognizes this basic interdependence, and well it should.

Granting that at least of subset of the early owners represented were true pioneers of the game, I'd say that the "toys for wealthy people" era started a bit earlier than you might think. Comparing Steinbrenner to a Charlie Commiskey (or even a Bill Veeck) is ridiculous, but I don't know that Tom Yawkey ever did anything all that worthy of a plaque.

1) Tom Yawkey is not merely the least deserving member of the Hall of Fame, I'd say that of the thousands upon thousands of men and women who have been involved in baseball in some way over its multi-century history, he is less deserving than nearly all of them. I'd induct Bill Haselman, Izzy Alcantara, and Rob English first.

2) You're probably right on the general point, too. Owners at least post-WWII are basically never deserving of induction, and I reserve the right to extend that claim further back into the history of the game.

how interesting that "character" is pushed into everyone's face when it comes to barry lamar and sammy sosa (we can't let any guy in who weighs more than he did when he was 19 - well if he hit home runs because he MUST be a drug user)

but george steinbrenner is a convicted felon and far more of a shtthead than barry lamar OR sammy - and that is ok

Steroids directly affect the game on the field. Steinbrenner's felony conviction had nothing to do with baseball. You can ridicule that distinction if you wish, but not everyone else will.

Then, the late 90s teams win specifically because he was not around to stop Gene Michael and others from building a great team.

Steinbrenner was most certainly around. Don't let the suspension fool you, he most certainly was calling the shots back then.

Without owners, writers, and broadcasters, baseball would have remained a local sport with no national spine, and almost certainly would have died out by now, at least in its highly skilled hardball version. The Hall of Fame recognizes this basic interdependence, and well it should.

Writers and broadcasters, absolutely. I see no reason to lump an easily replaceable group of rich guys who liked free profit from their toys in with folks whose talent appreciably benefited the game.

1) Tom Yawkey is not merely the least deserving member of the Hall of Fame

That's probably true, but that has nothing to do with the mere fact of his ownership. It has to do with the fact that at best he was a local fixture with a disposition to overpay his pet players, and at worst it had to do with the fact that his prejudices helped to keep his team down in the dumps for an entire decade and a half. But those characteristics apply to Yawkey, and they don't rub off on the likes of Steinbrenner, Veeck or O'Malley.

at least he didn't do DRUGS!!!!

How do we know he didn't?

The owners, writers, and broadcasters have been every bit as much a part of advancing the game as the players themselves, and to imagine otherwise is a pure fantasy.

Writers and broadcasters each have their own annual award, which comes with an invitation to make a speech at the induction ceremony and all that, but not with a place in the plaque room. I think that's an important distinction.

Which other owners of the recent past do you think are worthy of enshrinement?

Steinbrenner had a massive influence on the sport. If he somehow prevented his teams from winning, that only means they would have won every year without him, because he won tons of championships. And whatever his standards of ethics, you do have to acknowledge that he was trying to win, all the time, with whatever means he possessed. That seems to me to clear the bar for a sports Hall of Fame. Professional baseball is not about being nice and letting everyone have a turn :)

what the hell, just use your initials or something Posted: July 04, 2010 at 11:26 AM (#3578404)

at least he didn't do DRUGS!!!!

How do we know he didn't?

- wow
you are absolutely right

well, he wasn't named in the mitchell report

but

his players certainly did drugs!!! which is because he enabled them. and steroids are TEH HORRIBLEST thing EVAH to happen in baseball!!!!! because they broke The Sacred Home Run Record!!!!

therefore The Boss is definitely the same kind of roider as sammy sosa and should not be allowed in The Hall without a ticket

steroids ... broke The Sacred Home Run Record!!!!

Steroids should be enshrined. They certainly had a massive influence on the sport!

Without owners, writers, and broadcasters, baseball would have remained a local sport with no national spine, and almost certainly would have died out by now, at least in its highly skilled hardball version. The Hall of Fame recognizes this basic interdependence, and well it should.

Writers and broadcasters, absolutely. I see no reason to lump an easily replaceable group of rich guys who liked free profit from their toys in with folks whose talent appreciably benefited the game.

Well, I'm glad to see that at least you might make room for J. G. Taylor Spink and Ernie Harwell. That's a starting point.

And I'd agree that the standards for owners (and other executives) should be much higher than that for players, writers, or broadcasters. My list of post-WWII owners would be limited to Veeck, O'Malley and Steinbrenner.

Writers and broadcasters each have their own annual award, which comes with an invitation to make a speech at the induction ceremony and all that, but not with a place in the plaque room. I think that's an important distinction.

If they'd thought of extending that distinction to owners before the first one was inducted, I'd probably agree with you. But they didn't.

Which other owners of the recent past do you think are worthy of enshrinement?

See # 21: Veeck, O'Malley, and Steinbrenner. And that's it.

I'd say Ray Kroc and Ted Turner were bigger owners in terms of shaping baseball in the 70's. In the 80's and early 90's George took a big old dump on his HoF chances and then he had a great team in the latter half of the decade. After that his team has acted like any other big revenue would act. I don't see why any of that is HoF worthy. Perhaps getting a billion dollars from the taxpayers is HoF worthy in some people's books but it isn't in mine.

Steinbrenner had a massive influence on the sport. If he somehow prevented his teams from winning, that only means they would have won every year without him,

Yeah, the Evil Side of me can only wonder what a smarter version of Steinbrenner might have done to add to the ranks of Red Sox Therapy.

I'd say Ray Kroc and Ted Turner were bigger owners in terms of shaping baseball in the 70's.

You could make a case for Turner because of TBS, but Kroc?

In the 80's and early 90's George took a big old dump on his HoF chances and then he had a great team in the latter half of the decade. After that his team has acted like any other big revenue would act.

You mean like the Mets did after 1986? Or like the Dodgers have when they haven't even gotten into a World Series for the past 22 years?

Jeez, I know sportswriters like Springsteen, but c'mon...

You could make a case for Turner because of TBS, but Kroc?

Both were active participants in FA and shaping FA.

You mean like the Mets did after 1986? Or like the Dodgers have when they haven't even gotten into a World Series for the past 22 years?[/i

You mean signing Giambi, Johnson, Mussina, ARod, Tex, Clemens, and others required HoF level skill from the owner?

You mean signing Giambi, Johnson, Mussina, ARod, Tex, Clemens, and others required HoF level skill from the owner?

It takes something, considering Steinbrenner was intent on winning at the expense of his profits.

I think it's ludicrous to even suggest that a guy who was twice formally banned from baseball should be honored with a plaque in the Hall of Fame. At least Shoeless Joe had the courtesy to only disgrace himself and the game one time.

I think it's ludicrous to even suggest that a guy who was twice formally banned from baseball should be honored with a plaque in the Hall of Fame. At least Shoeless Joe had the courtesy to only disgrace himself and the game one time.

I'm with Vlad on this one. On his merits, I think Steinbrenner deserves to be in, but he's gotten himself tossed out twice. You can't be putting that guy in.

You mean signing Giambi, Johnson, Mussina, ARod, Tex, Clemens, and others required HoF level skill from the owner?

I would say an emphatic yes to this. The single most important thing an owner can do is build up the franchise to the point where they can compete long termm. As others have mentioned the MEts were more popular than the Yankees when Steinbrenner bought them, and other teams also play in large markets. The Yankees under Steinbrenner have leveraged and expanded their resources more effectively than any franchise in any sport, in an effort to win.

Steinbrenner was most certainly around. Don't let the suspension fool you, he most certainly was calling the shots back then.

I don't buy it. The guy was absolute poison for the franchise for a long time. Yankee fans hated him, and were calling for his head. Then he was suspended and the problem disappeared.

Then he returned to a stacked team that had been built so well specifically because of his lack of meddling. This team was winning championships regularly so there was no reason for him to meddle too much. We still saw moves like Ruben Sierra and Raul Mondesi, or playing the rotting corpse of Bernie Williams rather than signing Beltran. The Yankees were just so overwhelmingly good that it was hard for George to hurt them too much.

It takes something, considering Steinbrenner was intent on winning at the expense of his profits.

I find any claim that the Yankees were losing money in any year highly suspect. It may very well be that the financial folks were able to play games with the books to make it appear like the Yankees lost money (like showing a large profit for YES, and a loss for the Yankees), but that's really not costing Steinbrenner any profits.

The thing Steinbrenner was really good at was buying the Yankees on the cheap, and then manipulating the system (either himself or through smart employees) to make tremendous profits. If there's a business HOF (particularly one that doesn't care for ethics, much like baseball's HOF), then he's a first-ballot candidate. I would not put him in baseball's HOF, and O'Malley?

Stabbing in the neck is too good for O'Malley.

You mean like the Mets did after 1986? Or like the Dodgers have when they haven't even gotten into a World Series for the past 22 years?

You mean signing Giambi, Johnson, Mussina, ARod, Tex, Clemens, and others required HoF level skill from the owner?

The Yankees have made the playoffs every year but one since 1995. The Mets occupy the same city, and at the start of George I's reign were by far the most popular team in New York. How many playoffs have the Mets been in since 1972, and how many titles have they won?

The Dodgers don't have the same cable money that the Yankees do, but I don't think you can seriously argue that they've maximized their demographic potential nearly to the extent that the Yankees have. They're not even the best run team in their own market anymore.

It would be very fitting to induct Steinbrenner and Marvin Miller on the same day.

Put Steinbrenner, Charlie Finley and Marvin Miller in the HOF the same year.


Steinbrenner was definitely involved in running the Yankees in the late 1990s. Read the Joel Sherman book "Birth of the Yankee Dynasty". Let's also remember the Yankees in the 1980s won more games than any other franchises. Yet people nowadays speak of it as if it were the Phillies or Browns of the 1930s.

Does anyone seriously believe that if SeeBS had held onto the Yankees in the 1970s (after selling it at a loss to Kaiser George), they would have had the same success?? How many championships have the NY Knicks and Rangers won in the Steinbrenner era and they spend lavishly.

Perhaps owners shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. But they are. Sreinbrenner, Finley and perhaps Turner deserve to be in it.

I have not noticed Charlie Finley's name mentioned. Except for Veeck, he might top my vote (which I don't expect to have).

It would be very fitting to induct Steinbrenner and Marvin Miller on the same day.

I couldn't agree more. It's funny how many people see the case for one, while dismissing or being totally blind to the case for the other, which mostly seems to boil down to people who either hate free agency or who just hate the Yankees, and use Miller or Steinbrenner's HoF candidacy as a surrogate means of venting against their real enemies: "greedy" players or The Evil Empire.

I think it's ludicrous to even suggest that a guy who was twice formally banned from baseball should be honored with a plaque in the Hall of Fame. At least Shoeless Joe had the courtesy to only disgrace himself and the game one time.

Agree. The man is(was?) reprehensible, sh1ts on others whenever he feels like it, etc. He was a net negative for the sport. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Uday and Qusay? No bargain either.

Hey look! Frank Rich is defending the Fish-shooters again! WTF?

In light of the current steroids/HoF barking, how about Steinbrenner striking the steroid penalty clause from Giambi's contract?

Banned twice. Game over.

It would be very fitting to induct Steinbrenner and Marvin Miller on the same day.

I couldn't agree more. It's funny how many people see the case for one, while dismissing or being totally blind to the case for the other

And why does Alexander Graham Bell get all the credit for the success of the telephone? What about telemarketers?

The whole question is silly. Enshrine players based on their on-field performance. Enshrine managers for winning and contribution to the game.

Non-uniform characters (owners, announcers, labor lawyers, etc.) can be covered in separate rooms in the Hall.

I'd put him in just for Glory Days alone.

The whole question is silly. Enshrine players based on their on-field performance. Enshrine managers for winning and contribution to the game.

Non-uniform characters (owners, announcers, labor lawyers, etc.) can be covered in separate rooms in the Hall.

I agree, I could care less what owners are in and which ones are out. That would also be true of sports writers, announcers, organ players, agents, vendors or advertisers. Otherwise I would think the architect for Fenway or Wrigley should be in the discussion, they have impacted baseball for almost 100 years.

No, because of the Howie Spira thing alone. Also, he attended college in the pits of hell.

Osborn Engineering should definitely be in the Hall of Fame.

I realize it technically "had nothing to do with baseball", but c'mon, their CEO threw Gwen Stacy off a bridge.

The whole question is silly. Enshrine players based on their on-field performance. Enshrine managers for winning and contribution to the game.

Non-uniform characters (owners, announcers, labor lawyers, etc.) can be covered in separate rooms in the Hall.

Again, the problem is that you'd have to remove the plaques of 29 current "Executive" category members to do that. It's beyond being a non-starter.

Again, the problem is that you'd have to remove the plaques of 29 current "Executive" category members to do that. It's beyond being a non-starter.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You don't have to remove them, if they changed the voting percentage that a player needs to get in order to get in tomorrow, I don't think they need to remove everyone who previously did not get that percentage.

Why not just move tbe HOF to Yankee Stadium and be done with it?

I realize it technically "had nothing to do with baseball", but c'mon, their CEO threw Gwen Stacy off a bridge.

And? The Red Sox's owner filled Superman's shoes better than anyone while Supes was dead, and it's not gonna win him a single HOF vote.

I'd vote for Steinbrenner and Marvin Miller. I'm not sure what Charlie Finley did though....green uniforms and orange baseballs?

I'm not sure what Charlie Finley did though....green uniforms and orange baseballs?

Awesome moustaches.

at least he didn't do DRUGS!!!!

I'll eat someone else's baseball hat if George didn't do any coke in the 80's.

I don't understand the lack of credit that some people are giving Steinbrenner. They're at the center of every discussion about competitive imbalance and it's almost totally down to Steinbrenner's efforts.

There's absolutely nothing inevitable about the current situation the Yankees find themselves in. And per #35, he didn't make tremendous profits. All of the extra revenues he's brought in have been funneled back into the team. Yeah the franchise value grew as he did this -- and he borrowed against this too.

Yes, there was a phase when he was an impediment to the team's success. He finally found the right people for him.

I see him as without question the most important factor in the Yankees long-term run of success and if that's not a HOFer I don't know what is.

I'm not sure what Charlie Finley did though

The DH is by far the largest rule change since Ray Chapman died, no? That's "shaping baseball", or being "part of the narrative of baseball", or whatever the hell. I hate that standard for a player, but for an executive/owner, it does seem to make sense.

That said, like Big Stein, Finley fails any "character" test, which also would seem to be more relevant when we're talking about the more intangible world of evaluating execs/owners.

Should Steinbrenner be in the hall? He did put together winners as owner - of course, he also tinkered in ways to damage teams that he had (helped) put together. He did help the Yankees become a tremendous revenue behemoth. However, he did not actually innovate in that way, not in a major way. He took the innovations of others (like Ted Turner) and then applied them to his advantageous situation in New York. So he doesn't really deserve credit for innovation, but does deserve some credit for applying innovations to larger situations. He also got bans from baseball twice - one for outside activities, which is serious, but could be forgiven. The second was for associating with a professional gambler to try to get blackmail material on one of his players. That is extremely serious, and especially with the previous ban should not have ever been reversed - even if reversed, would be enough to keep him out of the Hall even if he had been an innovator in the way that Turner was in terms of finding a new revenue stream that altered the game tremendously. He wasn't even the great innovator on the owner's side in terms of free agency - that title goes to Turner also. I see Steinbrenner as a man who had the foresight to buy the Yankees at a discount, and then applied lessons that other owners provided to take advantage of by far the largest market in baseball. Just because he applied the lessons better than the owners of the Mets does not mean that he should be in the Hall.

I just don't see any overwhelming or even particularly strong reasons for him to make the Hall, and the two bans explain why he doesn't even make the ballot.

whoa. akrasian's post was so awesome, i have to agree with it, and eschew capital letters.

Should Steinbrenner be in the hall? He did put together winners as owner - of course, he also tinkered in ways to damage teams that he had (helped) put together. He did help the Yankees become a tremendous revenue behemoth(**). However, he did not actually innovate in that way, not in a major way. He took the innovations of others (like Ted Turner) and then applied them to his advantageous situation in New York. So he doesn't really deserve credit for innovation, but does deserve some credit for applying innovations to larger situations.

Turner owned TBS and then bought the Braves in large measure to provide content for that network, which was a huge innovation, no question, since beyond the revenue stream for TBS and the Braves it also made the Braves into baseball's first truly "national" team. Turner deserves full credit for showing by example the enormous revenue potential of cable TV, but for owners who didn't also own their own cable network it still left them with less than total control of the revenue stream. The example of Turner's brilliant synergy between TBS and the Braves was only fully exploitable by the Braves and the Cubs.

And in founding the YES Network, Steinbrenner was even more creative, in that he enabled the Yankees to control a much larger percentage of the cable money, by eliminating the middleman. And even more to the point, his model could (and still can) be used by others, without needing to own a pre-existing cable network.

He also got bans from baseball twice - one for outside activities, which is serious, but could be forgiven. The second was for associating with a professional gambler to try to get blackmail material on one of his players. That is extremely serious, and especially with the previous ban should not have ever been reversed - even if reversed, would be enough to keep him out of the Hall even if he had been an innovator in the way that Turner was in terms of finding a new revenue stream that altered the game tremendously.

That's an entirely separate question, and admittedly a serious one. As a practical matter, though, the horse has already left the barn, Steinbrenner's ban ended over a decade and a half ago, and it's up to the HoF voters to decide whether or not that second offense in particular should be an automatic HoF disqualifier. And like the case of Barry Bonds, it comes down entirely to the BBWAA's collective definition of "character"---and it isn't just a matter of saying "if you ban the one, then 'you have to' blackball the other." The HoF doesn't exactly work that way.

He wasn't even the great innovator on the owner's side in terms of free agency - that title goes to Turner also. I see Steinbrenner as a man who had the foresight to buy the Yankees at a discount, and then applied lessons that other owners provided to take advantage of by far the largest market in baseball. Just because he applied the lessons better than the owners of the Mets does not mean that he should be in the Hall.

I've never made any claims for Steinbrenner's role in free agency, because he has none. No owner has any such claim, since they all fought free agency tooth and nail. All he did with free agency was to make successive leaps into salary ranges that others had dared not to go, but that's not anything that by itself would make him (or Tom Hicks) Hallworthy.

I see Steinbrenner as a man who had the foresight to buy the Yankees at a discount, and then applied lessons that other owners provided to take advantage of by far the largest market in baseball. Just because he applied the lessons better than the owners of the Mets does not mean that he should be in the Hall.

You're still operating under the assumption that pretty much any old millionaire could have taken a franchise that was at its lowest relative point since before World War One---a distant second in its own city---and transformed it into the juggernaut that it's been for the past baseball generation. That's a highly questionable assumption that demands at least some sort of a fact-based case to be presented for it, if not any absolute "proof." It's a bit like imagining that any old owner could have duplicated what O'Malley did in Los Angeles, simply due to the size of the Los Angeles market.

Sure, and Ichiro could hit 40 home runs any time he wanted to.

(**)By limiting Steinbrenner's Behemothness to revenue creation, you're kind of ignoring the rather incredible on-field success of his ballclub, as if that was also akin to rolling off of a log for any owner blessed with the New York market. Again, tell that to Fred Wilpon.

And in founding the YES Network, Steinbrenner was even more creative, in that he enabled the Yankees to control a much larger percentage of the cable money, by eliminating the middleman. And even more to the point, his model could (and still can) be used by others, without needing to own a pre-existing cable network.

YES hit the air 8 seasons after NESN. So the Yankees don't really get a lot of credit for innovation there.

But Turner's innovation and what it meant for baseball wasn't just that he realized owning a cable station with inexpensive popular shows was good. What he showed was that there was a big market for baseball to be shown on tv far more frequently than it had been. Before it was mostly Saturdays, with local teams maybe appearing a dozen times or so on local stations in addition. Suddenly everybody's media potential increased, because it was seen that games could be shown multiple times per week. That was huge for the game's revenue, AND for the fans. He also showed that free agents were not just a way to win, but a way to enhance marketing - he did that from the get go with Messersmith.

You're still operating under the assumption that pretty much any old millionaire could have taken a franchise that was at its lowest relative point since before World War One---a distant second in its own city---and transformed it into the juggernaut that it's been for the past baseball generation.

Any millionaire? No. But the standards for being in the Hall are higher than that. He was always willing to spend, and even push it further if needed to win - which is a good thing. But not enough for the HoF. He was willing to cut into immense profits to win, but many owners are willing to do so, just with lesser profits to play with. In terms of revenue potential, only one team is equal. He's done better than one team in terms of building up the New York market.

But the big thing is that he hasn't actually done major innovations to benefit the game - he's copied others innovations, and applied them smartly to New York. But done so while being banned from the game twice, the second for such a serious infraction that it alone should shoot down his candidacy.

Incidentally, earlier in this thread it was argued that Steinbrenner kept active control of the Yankees even during his periods of being banned. If so, these are two cases of cheating - it certainly doesn't help his HoF case on character grounds that he surreptitiously ran the team after agreeing not to during the time of the ban.

As the article implies, Steinbrenner is surely as worthy as Abner Doubleday . . .

Also, he attended college in the pits of hell.

So when did you graduate from Amherst?

Won't anyone step forward to make a stirring if disingenuous "Put Him in the Hall of Merit But Not the Hall of Fame" argument for Big Stein?

Also, he attended college in the pits of hell.

Sideshow Bob: What about the buffoon lessons, the four years at clown college. Cecil Terwilliger: I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.

Ken Phelps! Ken Phelps!

I find any claim that the Yankees were losing money in any year highly suspect. It may very well be that the financial folks were able to play games with the books to make it appear like the Yankees lost money

Michael Ozanian (the guy who does the Forbes valuations) doesn't have direct access to team financials. So any of those accounting tricks you refer to would have no impact.

The one piece of gaming that goes on (or at least used to) is that Steinbrenner is on the books as a very well paid consultant.

It seems to me that an owner shouldn't be put in for making his team win a lot or making it more profitable. I'd want owners in the Hall for innovation or for contributing to the game in other general ways.

On his merits, I think Steinbrenner deserves to be in, but he's gotten himself tossed out twice. You can't be putting that guy in.

Just so everybody's aware, the HOF has made it clear that once you come off the ineligible list you can be a candidate. Quoting from the old Pete Rose FAQ from the HOF: "If and when he is re-instated by Baseball, he then would automatically be a candidate for election, (were he to meet the other requirements for eligibility)."

Ditto for Jackson (and Cicotte -- not that Cicotte has a chance).

To be clear, I think I understand that you're saying that those two suspensions mean you think he doesn't merit selection. No formal ban required.

I suspect the game's movers and shakers disagree. As evidence of this I'd note that he was a member of the HOF board of directors for quite some time. And that while he was suspended for l'affair Spira he was on the US Olympic Committee. (Which is why the suspension was nominally indefinite even though a length had been agreed. For some reason a fixed term suspension would have ruled him out as a member while an indefinite suspension was fine. Hey I didn't write the rule)

It may very well be that the financial folks were able to play games with the books to make it appear like the Yankees lost money (like showing a large profit for YES, and a loss for the Yankees), but that's really not costing Steinbrenner any profits.

YES is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Yankees. Nor is it privately held by the Steinbrenner family. So gaming the books this way would actually cost George about forty cents on the dollar. Makes me think they're not doing it to anywhere near the extent that is commonly assumed.

I realize you're not supposed to invoke the "if X is in then Y should be ,too", but here's the list of poineer/executives in the Hall
2008 Barney Dreyfuss
2008 Bowie Kuhn
2008 Walter OMalley
2006 Effa Manley
2006 Alex Pompez
2006 Cum Posey
2006 Sol White
2006 J.L. Wilkinson
1998 Lee MacPhail
1995 William Hulbert
1991 Bill Veeck
1982 Happy Chandler
1980 Tom Yawkey
1979 Warren Giles
1978 Larry MacPhail
1972 Will Harridge
1971 George Weiss
1970 Ford Frick
1967 Branch Rickey
1953 Ed Barrow
1953 Harry Wright
1944 Kenesaw Landis
1939 Charlie Comiskey
1939 Candy Cummings
1939 Al Spalding
1938 Alexander Cartwright
1938 Henry Chadwick
1937 Morgan Bulkeley
1937 Ban Johnson
1937 George Wright

I don't buy it. The guy was absolute poison for the franchise for a long time. Yankee fans hated him, and were calling for his head. Then he was suspended and the problem disappeared.

You may not buy but according to virtually every bio on Steinbrenner and book on the Yankees he was still calling the shots during his suspension.

You may not buy but according to virtually every bio on Steinbrenner and book on the Yankees he was still calling the shots during his suspension.

as someone else pointed out, all that means is that he violated yet another baseball rule

I'm depressed and surprised that this isn't a Springsteen thread.

You know what's a good song? "Loose Ends."

You're still operating under the assumption that pretty much any old millionaire could have taken a franchise that was at its lowest relative point since before World War One---a distant second in its own city---and transformed it into the juggernaut that it's been for the past baseball generation.

I wrote a long response to this that was basically eaten by the outage, but nobody but the most unrealistic Met fan thought that the period of "Mets own NYC" was anything more than a blip on the radar. History shows that the Mets can very temporarily seize prominence in the market based on having a team that is historically great with young, exciting players like Gooden and Strawberry coming out of the farm system.

That does not negate the enormous power of the Yankee brand, something that was the most valuable (or second-most, if you want to argue the Cowboys) brand in professional sports. The Yankees have been hammering their immense competitive advantage since the 1920s, winning multiple titles each decade.

The idea that Steinbrenner was some sort of revolutionary owner that catapulted the Yankees into dominance is completely ignorant of history. Steinbrenner bought the team prior to the 1973 season, and his tenure (with suspension) includes the longest playoff drought in franchise history, a 13-year span. Ultimately, any owner who simply opens the pursestrings and gets out of the way will be contributing to championship after championship with the Yankees. Their market advantage is that strong.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


I would nominate him for trying to use Playboy bunnies to promote orange baseballs during the 1975 All-Star Game.

Pass.

Yankees, pre-Steinbrenner, 20 World Chanpionships in 72 years, 27.7%.
Yankees, under Steinbrenner, 7 World Championships in 37 years, 18.9%.

Barely replacement level!

have to agree with Akrasian... and Darren nails also, no owner should go in for his teams success on the field. It's strictly about innovation, character and other stuff, and Steinbrenner is short here. As pointed out Ted Turner deserves a heck of a lot more kudos than Steinbrenner. I do think it's harder for a modern(post 1950) owner to really impact the game enough to deserve enshrinement. But if I had to go with modern owners, Steinbrenner falls behind Turner and Finley and probably even Veeck as to impact on the game.

You're still operating under the assumption that pretty much any old millionaire could have taken a franchise that was at its lowest relative point since before World War One---a distant second in its own city---and transformed it into the juggernaut that it's been for the past baseball generation.

I wrote a long response to this that was basically eaten by the outage, but nobody but the most unrealistic Met fan thought that the period of "Mets own NYC" was anything more than a blip on the radar. History shows that the Mets can very temporarily seize prominence in the market based on having a team that is historically great with young, exciting players like Gooden and Strawberry coming out of the farm system.

All that response shows is that you have no idea just how much the Mets dominated New York's imagination at that time. Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in the Winter after the Mets had drawn over 2 million for the 4th straight year while the Yanks had failed to reach 1 million for the first time since WWII. You can talk all you want about the "Yankee brand," but in the aftermath of 1972 the Yankee brand was little but a name, having been run slowly but surely into the ground for the past decade.

The idea that Steinbrenner was some sort of revolutionary owner that catapulted the Yankees into dominance is completely ignorant of history. Steinbrenner bought the team prior to the 1973 season, and his tenure (with suspension) includes the longest playoff drought in franchise history, a 13-year span. Ultimately, any owner who simply opens the pursestrings and gets out of the way will be contributing to championship after championship with the Yankees. Their market advantage is that strong.

Yankees, pre-Steinbrenner, 20 World Chanpionships in 72 years, 27.7%.
Yankees, under Steinbrenner, 7 World Championships in 37 years, 18.9%.

That argument wilfully ignores the radically different context of the reserve clause / pre-draft and post-draft / free agency eras, and of course it also ignores the difference between needing four October games to win a title, and needing to win seven, eight or eleven games. In the reserve clause era, and especially when the American League was half stocked with owners who barely had two nickels to rub together, the Yankees could parlay a heavy investment in scouting and a farm system into a near lock on young talent. They can't do that today. A small market team like Tampa Bay simply couldn't have existed in the reserve clause era; the closest parallel to it would have been the Senators in the 20's, but like the big market A's, they were forced to sell off their best players once the effects of the Depression hit.

We could go back and forth forever on this, but it all comes down to whether you think that prolonged team success is simply a factor of money and market size. Obviously you think that to be the case, and obviously I don't, as it certainly hasn't proven true for the Mets, the Dodgers after O'Malley, the Cubs or the White Sox, or the Angels up until very recently. The character issue is completely separate, and is purely a matter of opinion, just like it is in the case of Barry Bonds. All I can say about that is that while I can easily see a certain character case against Steinbrenner, that's ultimately not likely to decide his election one way or the other. What's going to decide it is going to be the perceived overall impact that he's had on his team.

Or as George C. Scott might have put it in The Hustler, count what was in the Yankees' pocket in 1972, and look at what's in that same pocket today---money, championships, and their relative position in baseball. The assessment of that balance sheet is going to decide whether Steinbrenner makes the Hall of Fame, whether anyone here likes it or not.

That's an entirely separate question, and admittedly a serious one. As a practical matter, though, the horse has already left the barn, Steinbrenner's ban ended over a decade and a half ago, and it's up to the HoF voters to decide whether or not that second offense in particular should be an automatic HoF disqualifier. And like the case of Barry Bonds, it comes down entirely to the BBWAA's collective definition of "character"---and it isn't just a matter of saying "if you ban the one, then 'you have to' blackball the other." The HoF doesn't exactly work that way.

His second ban was for associating with a known gambler and trying to blackmail his own player. Under the Rose standard ("He associated with gamblers, how do we know he didn't throw games"?), he shouldn't get even a sniff of the Hall of Fame.

And he shouldn't.

The night his suspension was announced was the night Cecil Fielder hit his 50th HR. The "crowd" at Yankee Stadium erupted in an elongated standing ovation when it got word that Big Stein was out.

That argument wilfully ignores the radically different context of the reserve clause / pre-draft and post-draft / free agency eras, and of course it also ignores the difference between needing four October games to win a title, and needing to win seven, eight or eleven games. In the reserve clause era, and especially when the American League was half stocked with owners who barely had two nickels to rub together, the Yankees could parlay a heavy investment in scouting and a farm system into a near lock on young talent. They can't do that today. A small market team like Tampa Bay simply couldn't have existed in the reserve clause era; the closest parallel to it would have been the Senators in the 20's, but like the big market A's, they were forced to sell off their best players once the effects of the Depression hit.


In the era of his dominant influence, the Yankees won two World Series in 23 seasons. Big deal.

Then the Yankee cable TV advantage became overwhelming and a Yankee nucleus built when Big Stein was under suspension went on a nice run.

As previously covered in this space, the Yankee/MSG 10 year, $500M cable deal in 1990 -- when the Yankees stunk on toast -- is the seminal event in the modern baseball business. The Steinbrenner era was really two distinct eras.

History shows that the Mets can very temporarily seize prominence in the market based on having a team that is historically great with young, exciting players like Gooden and Strawberry coming out of the farm system.

Or by having a team that is historically bad with pure comedy gold on the field and in the manager's office.

Ted Turner deserves a heck of a lot more kudos than Steinbrenner

"Gentlemen, we have the only legal monopoly in the country and we're ####### it up."

The thing with Steinbrenner is that he's a business genius, not a baseball genius.

He was probably the first owner to see that, in a large market, it made more sense to plow money back into the tea to appreciate the franchise value rather than skim income off the top. He took his family's fortune out of the decaying Great Lakes shipping industry and sowed it into the Yankees, with wild success. He built the first championship team with a core of free agents. YES- in particular, the way it was structured from a legal/financial point of view- was extremely innovative. He decided to build a new stadium at, literally, the perfect time, leveraging the most favorable market for borrowing money in 50 years, and a loophole in the CBA which allowed revenue sharing money to subsidize the stadium, building a stadium in New York with only partial public financing.

The Yankees as they are today: a super-powerful brand, with a brand new (ugly, and atmosphere-killing) cash cow of a stadium, with a highly-respected front office and probably the best team in baseball? That's all George. As Andy has pointed out repeatedly, in 1972-1973, there was no guarantee that the Mets wouldn't replace the Yankees as the dominant team in NYC, and certainly, there was no WAY that anyone would have predicted that the Yanks would be drawing 50k a night to the Stadium, even if they had remained the most popular team in NY. Some of that is context; a lot of that is George.

It's a complicated case.

It's a complicated case.

It is, and I think it comes down to two questions:

---Could any other owner done as well, or better, than what Steinbrenner has done, given what the condition of the Yankees was in the Winter of 1972-73?

Sure they could. All they would have needed would have been to keep Steinbrenner's best points (his willingness to funnel his profits back into the team; his business skills in translating the Yanee brand into megamillions of dollars) while rejecting his worst (his megalomania and his meddling).

---Would any other likely potential owner in the early 70's have done as well or better as Steinbrenner did? If you were to apply the George C. Scott test, would any other likely owner at the time have taken the moribund Yankee franchise of 1972 and brought it up to its current state of near permanent postseason status and a concurrent dominance of the New York market?

I wouldn't bet on it. That whole line of argument seems a bit too close for comfort to the one that says that Ty Cobb or Ichiro "could have hit 40 home runs a year if they'd wanted to." Hypotheticals don't count.

You could reasonably argue, as some of you have, that Steinbrenner's only talent was for business, not baseball, but that business acumen was funneled to the benefit of the baseball team. Steinbrenner's bottom line legacy is the state he's left the Yankees in, and I'll be very surprised if that legacy doesn't get him into the Hall of Fame, warts and all.

It's complicated, and it's hard to assign credit for success in a collaborative enterprise like baseball, but I'm more persuaded by Andy than by CrosbyBird. If you recall the Yankees of 1966-1972, they were just another franchise. They had a history, sure, and they had pinstripes, but they also had Horace Clarke and Jerry Kenney, their stadium was a crumbling shell in the most iconically horrific neighborhood in America, and their pitching staff was best known for wife-swapping. Perhaps any old millionaire could have kick-started them back into success, but the fact remains that Steinbrenner was the millionaire who actually did it.

As for the long playoff drought in the middle of the Steinbrenner years (ruefully enough for me, during those years I worked in the Bronx and was a RF-bleacher regular at the Stadium), it's harder to figure. Some of it involved just missing during the Mattingly-Winfield years; some of it involved a normal low point in a success cycle. Some of it involved bad acquisitions: Steinbrenner was certainly not infallible, and he tended to acquire well-known players who had seen better days, as if he were a few years behind reading scouting reports. But whatever the reasons, the Yankees certainly learned from those days and have been on a better-than-ever run since then. As Andy points out, to have won so consistently in this era means just as much as winning consistently in the reserve-clause pre-draft days, in fact arguably more.

As for the long playoff drought in the middle of the Steinbrenner years (ruefully enough for me, during those years I worked in the Bronx and was a RF-bleacher regular at the Stadium), it's harder to figure. Some of it involved just missing during the Mattingly-Winfield years; some of it involved a normal low point in a success cycle. Some of it involved bad acquisitions: Steinbrenner was certainly not infallible, and he tended to acquire well-known players who had seen better days, as if he were a few years behind reading scouting reports. But whatever the reasons, the Yankees certainly learned from those days and have been on a better-than-ever run since then. As Andy points out, to have won so consistently in this era means just as much as winning consistently in the reserve-clause pre-draft days, in fact arguably more.

I'm a bit surprised that some of our "random chance" proponents haven't chimed in here to note that during the 1980's, which saw the heart of the Yankees' playoff drought, they also happened to have the best overall record in baseball. For the better part of that decade they were more like the Red Sox of the late 90's-early 00's** than anything else. They weren't the completely dominant force they've been since 1995, but they weren't quite the complete disaster of the popular imagination.

**Between 1983 and 1988, they averaged 90 wins a year

It's complicated, and it's hard to assign credit for success in a collaborative enterprise like baseball, but I'm more persuaded by Andy than by CrosbyBird. If you recall the Yankees of 1966-1972, they were just another franchise. They had a history, sure, and they had pinstripes, but they also had Horace Clarke and Jerry Kenney,

The Yankees finished 6.5 games out of first place in 1972 and weren't mathematically eliminated until the last week of the season. The pre-Steinbrenner regime pulled off the Danny Cater for Sparky Lyle heist.

Horace Clarke and Jerry Kenney have taken on a mythical life of their own among baseball watchers, but it's not as though they're the worst players of all time. It's more convenient to say "Horace Clarke and Jerry Kenney" than "the type of players the Yankees had when their checkbook couldn't buy them players." The '76 Yanks had Jim Mason.

their stadium was a crumbling shell in the most iconically horrific neighborhood in America

Right. After the growth of cable TV, the biggest factor in the baseball business was the return to the cities by the young and people generally and the conversion of former slums to great neighborhoods.(**) It happened all over the country, and in New York City perhaps more than any other city. The country re-urbanized during Big Stein's reign. He, of course, had nothing to do with either secular change.

(**) Not that the South Bronx itself has become a great neighborhood.

Right. After the growth of cable TV, the biggest factor in the baseball business was the return to the cities by the young and people generally and the conversion of former slums to great neighborhoods.(**) It happened all over the country, and in New York City perhaps more than any other city. The country re-urbanized during Big Stein's reign. He, of course, had nothing to do with either secular change.

Except that Steinbrenner kept his team in Deepest Ghettovia, renovating his stadium twice in lieu of moving out to the burbs. Had he left the Bronx, would the Yankees be what they are today?

(And I realize he flirted hard with the idea of moving to Jersey. But in the end, he didn't.)

Had he left the Bronx, would the Yankees be what they are today?

Had the country not re-urbanized, would the Yankees be what they are today?

Had the country not re-urbanized, would the Yankees be what they are today?

<bar exam> It is possible for two entirely separate causes to BOTH be but-for causes of a later event.</bar exam>

What more can be said of Mr. Steinbrenner than that he was so remarkably successful as an owner that the full enterprise of MLB decided to change it's entire financial system solely to hinder his Yankees. Obviously he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I think people are missing George's full impact. It's not in the championships won by the Yankees. I think that his "we will bury you" attitude forced a much fiercer level of competition in baseball generally, and in the American League in particular.

I think people are missing George's full impact. It's not in the championships won by the Yankees. I think that his "we will bury you" attitude forced a much fiercer level of competition in baseball generally, and in the American League in particular.

That's another good point. It's not just the Yankees who've stepped it up, but plenty of other teams who've been forced by the Yankees to ratchet it up or die.** It's not only helped the game as a whole, but it's transformed the present day American League into arguably the best league in MLB history.

**R.I.P. Baltimore and Kansas City

The Boss belongs in the Hall of Fame so long as his nurse shells out for his senior citizen discount admission ticket before wiping the drool from the corner of his mouth and wheeling him in.

The Boss belongs in the Hall of Fame so long as his nurse shells out for his senior citizen discount admission ticket before wiping the drool from the corner of his mouth and wheeling him in.

I certainly hope that you and your loved ones live in perfect health in to your old age, until the day you die quietly in your sleep.

I certainly hope that you and your loved ones live in perfect health in to your old age, until the day you die quietly in your sleep.

And that Kate Smith sings "God Bless America" at your funeral.

Compromise: Steinbrenner goes into the hall of fame -- physically. Mummified alive, as a warning to others. And gets a plaque

YES hit the air 8 seasons after NESN. So the Yankees don't really get a lot of credit for innovation there.

Actually, NESN started in 1984, eighteen years before YES. Your point still holds.

Many of the trades (Ellis, Randolph, Figueroa, Rivers, Gamble) and signings (Hunter, Billy Martin) that built the 1976 pennant-winning team took place while Steinbrenner was suspended the first time. It's pretty well accepted that the foundation of the 1990s championship teams was built while Steinbrenner was suspended the second time. And the roster was remade for the 2009 championship team well after control of the team was transferred to his sons. Either you can give him credit for moves made during his suspensions, in which case you're admitting he violated MLB orders, which is another "character" mark against him; or you can disavow his involvement, in which case the "results" argument gets a lot weaker.

Many of the trades (Ellis, Randolph, Figueroa, Rivers, Gamble) and signings (Hunter, Billy Martin) that built the 1976 pennant-winning team took place while Steinbrenner was suspended the first time. It's pretty well accepted that the foundation of the 1990s championship teams was built while Steinbrenner was suspended the second time. And the roster was remade for the 2009 championship team well after control of the team was transferred to his sons. Either you can give him credit for moves made during his suspensions, in which case you're admitting he violated MLB orders, which is another "character" mark against him; or you can disavow his involvement, in which case the "results" argument gets a lot weaker.

I guess we've pretty much determined by now that if it hadn't been for Steinbrenner, the Yanks would be cruising towards their 38th straight championship while solving the Arab-Israeli problem in their spare time. This has indeed been a real education.