I'm not sure how many times Alan Trammell has been elected in our mock ballots but this isn't the first time.

Had to be 75% as well?

I would imagine that the correct answer to DL's question is "every time".

And thanks DL for doing all this.

From eyeballing the election thread, I sure thought Miller was a stone cold lock. I didn't vote for him because he didn't do anything for the game of baseball until you get out to tangential stuff like allowing players to train year-round instead of selling cars or insurance in the winter. He's a first-ballot inner-circle inductee for the Contracts, Unions, and Collective Bargaining Hall of Fame but doesn't move the needle any for me when it comes to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

From eyeballing the election thread, I sure thought Miller was a stone cold lock

There were a couple people (myself included) who mentioned that we were inclined to vote for Miller had it not been for him asking not to be inducted posthumously.

Free agency is the most significant institutional change to MLB since integration. If you're against recognition for off-field contributions generally, then I can see exclusion of Miller on the merits (he never donned a uniform). But he had a historically significant impact on MLB, both good and bad.

Final comment: the support for the pitchers on the ballot (John, Morris, Tiant) was interesting to me. The final results got it right, IMHO:
Tiant (40%) >> John (26%) >>> Morris (8%)

But I was really surprised by the number of ballots that included Morris but not Tiant. In my mind, it's defensible to say that none are worthy (i.e., small Hall argument) or even that all are worthy (i.e., large Hall argument). But I have a hard time wrapping my head around an evaluation that ranks Morris ahead of Tiant, including their respective BBWAA vote totals. That is, I'm not convinced that Morris isn't a HOFer (or that Tiant is, for that matter), but there's no doubt in my mind that Tiant is far more deserving than Morris.

Fun exercise. Thanks for putting it together, DL.

Three people declined to vote for Miller due to Miller's request. Add those three and his % is 72% or just shy. 49 votes were required to be elected.

There were a couple people (myself included) who mentioned that we were inclined to vote for Miller had it not been for him asking not to be inducted posthumously.

For a 5-second span I was influenced by your stance on this and took him off my ballot, but I think the point is that it is not for him, but for future acknowledgement and knowledge that he should be included, so I kept him on. I kinda don't care what he wanted or why, he's dead now.

For a 5-second span I was influenced by your stance on this and took him off my ballot, but I think the point is that it is not for him, but for future acknowledgement and knowledge that he should be included, so I kept him on. I kinda don't care what he wanted or why, he's dead now.

For me I just figured that this was only a mock ballot, and since our votes have no actual impact on whether or not he gets elected, his wishes not to be inducted posthumously didn't really apply.

YMMV, of course.

If you're against recognition for off-field contributions generally

That was my rationale for voting for Trammell but not Miller.

Maybe it makes no sense, though, given that the Hall is what it is, and Bowie Kuhn is already in it. But I'll give the principle a few times round the block to see what I think of it.

What's pretty obvious (as many have said) is that players and ancillaries shouldn't mix on a veteran's ballot at all. It's just distracting.

Three people declined to vote for Miller due to Miller's request

I was one of the three.

I kinda don't care what he wanted or why, he's dead now.

I can see that perspective, but for me it was kind of like this...

Me: Well, it looks like your time is almost up, Mr. Miller. Is there anything I can do for you to help your transition into being one of the unliving?

Miller: Don't put me in the HOF! I don't want it.

Me: Well, I don't know, that's kind of asking a lot of me isn't?

Miller: How so? I'm tired of being screwed around. I wish to have no association with them.

Me: Jeez, Mr. Miller, I think you've lost perspective on this. No, I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you in the Hall of Fame, despite you not wanting to be in there.

Miller: Why the #### did you ask me if there was anything you could do for me, if you weren't going to do anything for me? What kind of perverse freak does stuff like that? All you have to do is not try to get me in there. It's like this DNR on my chart. Let it go, don't work at it. You don't have to do anything!

Me: I mean, if you had wanted me to put a pillow behind your head, or sneak you in a grilled cheese sandwich or something, I would have done that. But...what you're asking...just can't do it. Sorry. Do you want me to get you a Slurpee?

On the other hand, Miller won’t know that you disrespected his wish. His kids might be pissed off, though.

I think Miller's candidacy gets disserved by a lack of detail. I don't know how much of the union's progress in his tenure came about from Miller's abilities, or if it was just low hanging fruit because the union never had effective representation before him. When it comes his time, Theo Epstein deserves credit for World Series wins, but those shouldn't be magnified because the Sox and Cubs were run haphazardly for 100 years before he arrived. I don't really know how much of the free agency credit belongs to Miller, to legal counsel, or to agents. As to salaries, those increased during a time of steeply rising incomes for entertainment elite generally. I tend to be very "big Hall" for players and managers, just the opposite for off-field figures*. Part of that is because in a lot of off-the-field cases (e.g., John Schuerholz) I think cases shrink rapidly once you start assuming a reasonable allocation of input among multiple contributors. I don't see these points get addressed much when talking about Miller, it's just a before/after comparison.

*Just taking a quick look at inductees, I could live with it if they hadn't inducted an MLB executive since Rickey in 1967.

I don't know how much of the union's progress in his tenure came about from Miller's abilities, or if it was just low hanging fruit because the union never had effective representation before him.

Much of it is also due to the player leadership that came to the fore at that time, and much of it is also due to the timing of when Miller came along.

The MLBPA could not have become the force that it became 10 years earlier, or 10 years later; it required the general societal unrest of the 60s to create the necessary leadership among the players - which in turn allowed Miller to be an effective leader of the players. Miller's primary contribution was in educating the player leadership, and through them the rank-and-file, on the value of taking a position that benefited the players as a whole rather than focusing on their own individual situations, and in sticking to it even in the face of pressure by individual owners on the players they controlled.

The reason I don't support Miller for the HoF is that Miller didn't really have any "skin in the game", so to speak - he wasn't putting his career on the line, and had the MLBPA not worked out he could have gone back to the USW. The players were putting everything on the line - some saw their careers come to unceremonious ends due to their labor activity - and they deserve much more of the credit for what happened than did Miller, IMO.

-- MWE