He personalized the battle.   Marvin did battle for many years with Bowie Kuhn, and Miller won EVERY skirmish, without exception, and won the war.  It was really remarkable how LITTLE Kuhn understood about labor relations or labor law, and this lack of understanding made it inevitable that (a) that there would be serious conflicts between players and owners, and (b) that the establishment would lose the battles.  I'm understating it a little, not quite getting there.   Marvin got blamed by the public for "causing" strikes, but in Marvin's mind it was Kuhn who had caused the labor strife by trying to do things that were not in good faith and not consistent with labor law.  

 

There was a point when Marvin Miller would have been honored to be selected for the Hall of Fame, and there was a point when he felt that the moment had passed, but he could have been persuaded to accept the honor.   But when Kuhn was named to the Hall of Fame in 2008, Marvin was like "You have GOT to be #@&*CSBS(*&F KIDDING me."   It was pretty much the way that Bob Gibson would have reacted if the Hall of Fame had selected Ray Sadecki and not selected him.  Ray Sadecki is maybe too good there; maybe more like Al Jackson, or Barney Schultz.  Jay Hook.   He was personally offended.  It was not difficult to understand why.   

 

Never heard of him, but I did see the movie, Three Days of the Condorcet.   Sorry.  

 Yeah. . .well, every time somebody bugs me about it, I put it off for another week or so.  If people will stop asking me about it I'll eventually get it done.  

 Yeah, I remember the rule; I'm not completely informed about it, but I have brushed across it before.   I think the rule just lasted a few years.  I didn't accomplish what it was intended to accomplish, and it created more problems than it solved.  

 Marvin asked me personally, when he was within a month of two of his death, not to support his candidacy for the Hall of Fame, and not to accept the award on his behalf if I were asked to do so.  I obviously have to honor his request.  

 I thought about this, but decided that it was not true.  If you look at the players who were included in the study but just drew NO support, they are almost all guys who won MVP Awards--Jackie Jensen, Bob Elliott, Dick Groat, Dolph Camilli, Hank Sauer.   I think that, in choosing who should be included in the study, I placed too much reliance on having won an MVP Award, and wound up including players like this who probably should not have been included in the study at all.  

 

Please don't post multiple questions in a post.  When people entangle issues like that, there is usually nothing I can do with the question except delete it without answering.  

 Well, yes, of course we move closer to the native pronunciation over time; it just takes time.  The pronunciation of Kiev as we have pronounced is rooted in the way the English have pronounced it for hundreds of years; it's not necessary to beat up Americans about it.  

 

The ones that always puzzle me are the "correct American mispronunciations", like Jean-Paul Sartre and Antonin Dvorak.   If you pronounce Satre as "Sarter" or "Sart-ree" people look at you as if you were stupid, but if you say "Sart" you are OK.  But "Sart" is not actually how the French pronounce it, either; it's just the propoer American mispronunciation.   The same with Dvorak, which we pronounced Duh-VOR-zhock; if you say D-vor-ack people look at you like you stupido, but Duh-VOR-zhock isn't actually the Czeck pronunciation, either.  

 I'll throw the question to the audience; I'm not a good source on those things.   In my way of thinking about WAR, the question you pose is the third major question we get to, the first being "What does it mean?", and the second being "Can I believe that this might be true?"   The issue of how it is figured only really occurs to me in cases where it seems to fail.   WAR might give credible representations of value 90 or 95% of the time, but then there are the cases when it just looks screwy.   When that happens, then I get interested in how it is calculated and in what might have gone wrong, what options were passed by in the process.   Until then I don't really worry about how it is figured.    Anyway. . .if anyone can answer your question, I'll try to publish their answer.  

 I appreciate your thought. 

 Elway is retired.   Well, he's not on the field anymore.  

 It may be difficult for you to believe, but it is nonetheless true.   It's an 11 to 4 ratio.   It's difficult for me to understand why that would be difficult for you to believe.   What is hard to believe about there being a 3-to-1 ratio of individual accomplishments between teams, in the most extreme case?  

 I blame your youthful material on too much time reading Baseball Abstracts.  

 Thanks.  I didn't know that.  

 I have spelled out my reasoning at substantial length on many occasions.  

 Starting with 6-year-olds playing soccer.