Is Bud Selig really so bad?
As I'm sure anyone who follows baseball knows there are a lot of people who just think Bud Selig is absolutly the worst (or one of the worst) people involved in the game. Personally I disagree with that and I think that Selig has done a number of good things for the game. Also I think that people who dislike him for one reason or another try to pin a lot of problems on him that aren't really his fault.
As for the good things: You've got inter-league play. I suppose that's not something everyone would call a good thing but I personally like it and I think it has been good for the game in terms of attention and, of course, financially. You've also got the wildcard, which is something I think almost everyone would agree that this has been a good thing; it adds a whole new dimension to the playoff race and the last three World Series winners have all been wildcard teams. He was able to avoid a strike a few years ago and get more revanue sharing and a luxery tax, helping to even things out.
He's been blamed for stuff that isnt his fault. The most obvious of these was the All-Star game in Milwaukee. Both managers had used all their pitchers - that was their fault, not Selig's. If anyone really thinks this is Selig's fault I have to ask them what they would have done differently to salvige the game. Trying to contract teams was a flop...I dont think it was necessarily a bad idea (though I think the D-Rays and Expoes should have been the ones offered up), but the timing was horrible and trying to contract Minnesota? That's crazy.
I'd put steroids in this catagory as well. While I suppose Selig could have done more to push for testing earlier being hardline on this issue would have made it more difficult to get a labor contract done and definetly think Fehr is much more to blame in this area.
I also think that giving home field advantage to whichever leagues wins the all-star game is idiotic.
Anyhow, it's just that when I look at his record, while I am certianly not amazed, I see that he has done good for the game.
So I'm curious - am I missing something; is Selig really that bad? Or is he just a scapegoat for some people?
As for the good things: You've got inter-league play. I suppose that's not something everyone would call a good thing but I personally like it and I think it has been good for the game in terms of attention and, of course, financially. You've also got the wildcard, which is something I think almost everyone would agree that this has been a good thing; it adds a whole new dimension to the playoff race and the last three World Series winners have all been wildcard teams. He was able to avoid a strike a few years ago and get more revanue sharing and a luxery tax, helping to even things out.
He's been blamed for stuff that isnt his fault. The most obvious of these was the All-Star game in Milwaukee. Both managers had used all their pitchers - that was their fault, not Selig's. If anyone really thinks this is Selig's fault I have to ask them what they would have done differently to salvige the game. Trying to contract teams was a flop...I dont think it was necessarily a bad idea (though I think the D-Rays and Expoes should have been the ones offered up), but the timing was horrible and trying to contract Minnesota? That's crazy.
I'd put steroids in this catagory as well. While I suppose Selig could have done more to push for testing earlier being hardline on this issue would have made it more difficult to get a labor contract done and definetly think Fehr is much more to blame in this area.
I also think that giving home field advantage to whichever leagues wins the all-star game is idiotic.
Anyhow, it's just that when I look at his record, while I am certianly not amazed, I see that he has done good for the game.
So I'm curious - am I missing something; is Selig really that bad? Or is he just a scapegoat for some people?
Comment