Peter Miller grew tired of seeing his father rejected, in life and in death, by the baseball Hall of Fame and set out to find an honor for him that he felt would be even more suitable. The result is scheduled to be unveiled Nov. 15 at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C..
Just weeks after the World Series and weeks before we learn the outcome of Marvin Miller’s eighth appearance on a Hall of Fame ballot, the late labor leader will become the newest member of the National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian. Miller’s portrait will not be the first of a sports figure to hang at the venerable gallery, but sports in general, and baseball in particular, don’t command viewers’ attention. Nevertheless Peter Miller is determined to elevate his father to an appropriate level of recognition even though after several rejections Miller asked the Baseball Writers Association to include him on the ballot no longer.
In an email last week, Peter Miller wrote:
“My father, were he alive, would wish all the player-candidates the best. As he requested repeatedly during his lifetime, and confirmed to me within days of his death, I would ask on his behalf that his name not be placed in nomination on this or any future HOF ballot. As promised to my father, I will not participate in any Hall of Fame activities that might involve him.
“Marvin Miller’s place in Baseball history and labor-management relations is well-known to everyone. The advent of free agency ended the era of indentured servitude in Baseball, and has benefited Major League players and owners alike. And by example this has enhanced human freedom throughout America and internationally.
“In recognition of this contribution, Marvin Miller’s portrait is now in the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC. The portrait will be on view there from this November 15.”
Miller declined to say why he thought his father was placed on a Hall of Fame ballot for an eighth time. However, his name and HOF credentials clearly stand out in relation to the other nine candidates on the Modern Baseball Era ballot:
Dwight Evans, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Thurman Munson, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Ted Simmons, Lou Whitaker.
They were all fine players, but none of them did anything that was anywhere comparable to what Miller did for players and all of baseball. Yes, all of baseball, individually and collectively, have benefitted from Miller’s efforts.
Why isn’t he already in the Hall of Fame? Good question with no good answer.
The most ridiculous reason I have heard is that before he died in 2012 Miller was quoted as saying had he still been the union’s executive director he would not have agreed to allowing players to be tested for performance-enhancing drugs.
I have no direct knowledge of Miller’s having made that remark, but what if he did? He was never in position to do anything about steroids testing. Are you going to use his words against him? Bud Selig, on the other hand, was in position to do something about it and chose to sit it out until Congress badgered him and the union sufficiently to take action. Yet Selig is in the Hall of Fame
No, the real reason, as far as I am concerned, is the owners simply don’t want Miller in the Hall even though only a few of them were in baseball when Miller was. With his general counsel, Richard Moss, Miller snatched the dominance of Major League Baseball from the owners, giving misguided post-Miller owners reason to resent him.
If members of the 16-man electorate want to use steroids as an excuse to keep Miller out of the Hall, shame on them and their ignorance. Maybe in that case Miller was right in asking the Baseball Writers Association not to put him on its ballot.
One reason I don’t buy the steroids excuse for not voting for Miller is the Hall always loads the voting committees with owners and other management representatives. The last time Miller was on the ballot his electorate included John Schuerholz, Sandy Alderson, Paul Beeston, Bob Castellini, Bill DeWitt and David Glass. If those six owners and management executives voted against Miller, he would be unable to get the requisite 12 votes.
No union official has ever served on a voting pane, not Don Fehr, not Gene Orza, not Richard Moss, not Lauren Rich. When I once mentioned this to a management official, he replied, “They’re union,” as if they’re a different breed and can’t be trusted.
And Jane Forbes Clark, the Hall’s chairman, knows to keep those owners and executives coming because the clubs are the ones that keep the Hall afloat.
Miller wasn’t even a HOF candidate until 2003, 21 years after he retired as the union’s executive director. Before that time, his absence from consideration for the Hall was explained by the foolish argument that the Hall had no category in which to consider him. Even Leonard Koppett of The New York Times, a staunch supporter of Miller, bought that vacuous argument and cited it when asked about Miller.
Eventually, though, Hall officials expanded their pool of categories and candidates, and Miller had his niche. Not that it resulted in anything positive for him.
Miller’s best chance for election should have come in his first two times on the ballot, 2003 and 2007, when Hall of Fame players primarily made up the electorate. However, in 2003 he received 35 of 79 votes when 60 votes were needed for election and in 2007 he received 51 of 82 votes when 62 were needed for election.
No satisfactory explanation has ever been offered for why players didn’t elect Miller, but perhaps one story offers a clue. After Terry Miller, Marvin’s wife, learned that Reggie Jackson had not voted for Marvin that first year and subsequently encountered him, she reprimanded him.
Jackson explained that he didn’t vote for Miller because he felt the Hall of Fame was for players. Jackson did not make that mistake a second time.
Before Miller’s third appearance on a HOF ballot, in 2008, the Hall, as it often has, changed the voting format. On one of those instances Miller accused Hall officials of changing the format after he got close to election. It certainly looked like that was what they were doing.
In 2008 candidates needed nine votes for election; Miller got three. In 2010 the magic number was 9 out of 12; Miller received 7.
It almost happened in 2011. With 12 of 16 votes needed for election, Miller received 11 votes.
Miller died in 2012, and I thought the Hall might relent because Miller would not be there to make a severely critical speech, not that he would have if he were alive. But Miller would be placed on two more ballots and two more times be rejected. In 2014, with 12 votes required from 16 voters, he received fewer than 6 votes – the Hall disclosed no other details, presumably not wanting to embarrass any candidates.
Then came last year when Miller gained 7 votes when he needed 12.
It’s possible but unlikely that some voters took Miller at his word that he didn’t want to be voted into the Hall of Fame. I’m not sure what I would do if I had a vote –honor Miller’s wish not to be voted on or honor him for the significant role he has played in baseball history. I think the latter option would win even though Miller was an honorable person and deserves to be treated in kind.
He also belongs at the Washington gallery with Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris, Casey Stengel, Robin Roberts, Pedro Martinez, Jackie Robinson and Yogi Berra. Overall, the National Portrait Gallery has 157 baseball-related pieces of artwork in its collection.
Miller’s portrait would certainly look more distinguished hanging at the National Portrait Gallery than a bronze plaque at Cooperstown.