Take Landis Name off the MVP Award

[Brock Beauchamp]

Sign of the times, even with typos, I guess.

 

Damned adaptive autocorrect.

 

Flood. FLOOD.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But, for the record, I'm totally on board with Rickey being celebrated with an award in his name.

He was a beast, and in such an amazing way throughout his career in baseball. There are few people who can we look back to the 1920s and say they were a good person but Rickey was one of those people.

 

In the 1930s, Rickey started playing minor league teams and guess who fought him, releasing many players out from under Rickey?

Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

Rickey kept fighting and a few years later, the entirety of MLB had established minor league teams.

Then, about a decade later, Landis died.

Two years later, Rickey sat a player down and told him he was going to be the first black player in major league baseball. We all know that player's name.

 

**** Landis.

Yay, Branch Rickey.

 

If we want to celebrate an establishment baseball persona, it seems pretty obvious to me.

[h2oface]

Award's like this don't need superfluous names attached to them, ever. They should only honor the winner of the year. Who knows how they will behave later (Puckett). And if you must, who cares if it is named one thing and changed later? They do it with stadiums all the time now. Sure, that is for $, but there is not a second thought. Perhaps just make it a size 8 or less font.....

[h2oface]

 

......

Vince Lombardi was often accused of racism, should we remove him from the superbowl trophy and the statues around Green Bay?

 

Sure. Why not? No names like this on trophies that are for another player or team are ever needed. Statues? Move the art, museum the art, but never destroy it. More art. New art. Move it later too. We are the art we leave behind.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Kenesaw Landis may have been a racist SOB but he shaped the direction of MLB for better or worse. What are we supposed to answer when asked who was Commissioner of Baseball from 1920-44, "He who shall remain unnamed?"

The concern over the award is to stop deifying an individual who should not be. That doesn’t take away from Landis’ achievements as commissioner. The man made significant contributions to the sport. He should be in the history books. Just not on the trophy.

[biggentleben]

 

about 10 posts up I typed

As I said in my first post, remove his name, don't care, didn't know it was there.

 

I mean honoring a guy that saved baseball (which they obviously didn't do a good job of since very few people know he is even on the trophy) from the black sox scandal  and gambling or not honoring a guy because 100 years ago baseball was not integrated?

The players that were able to win a MVP award and now are offended by the guy on the trophy, should also be educated that without this man there might not be MLB around for them to play.

 

I think the writers need to do some research (since it is their award) present their findings and suggestions to the players union and figure this out.

 

At the end of the day if removing him, makes feel good and better about themselves than that is what should be done.

Most who have researched the Black Sox scandal have widely agreed that Landis made things much worse rather than better. Rather than truly getting to the bottom of what was going on and removing the bad apples in the game, he attacked a group of accused that had varying levels of actual evidence against them with no ability for appeal, essentially removing all ability for true justice. That cloud still hangs over the game as many still hold gambling as a "no questions asked" lifetime ban, and some have attempted to toss other issues (PEDs, for one) into that bucket.

 

What saved the game was the offensive explosion of the 1920s, not Landis.

[biggentleben]

I still like the idea of renaming the MVP award after Frank Robinson, a major innovator in the sport and still the only one to win MVP in both leagues.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I still like the idea of renaming the MVP award after Frank Robinson, a major innovator in the sport and still the only one to win MVP in both leagues.

A fine idea.

[Nine of twelve]

 

I still like the idea of renaming the MVP award after Frank Robinson, a major innovator in the sport and still the only one to win MVP in both leagues.

If it's possible for a Hall-Of-Famer to be underrated Frank Robinson was that man. And that was just as a player. He was also a good manager and served MLB well as an executive. If MLB feels the need to have a name on the award there is no better candidate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If it's possible for a Hall-Of-Famer to be underrated Frank Robinson was that man. And that was just as a player. He was also a good manager and served MLB well as an executive. If MLB feels the need to have a name on the award there is no better candidate.

Robinson has over 100 career rWAR, just ahead of Mike Schmidt and only three rWAR behind Mantle.

 

A woefully underrated player.

[Trov]

 

That wasn't my question, nor was it me stating any opinion. I wanted to know who knew the award was named for him BEFORE reading this thread. That's my question.

Until I read the article I spoke of at beginning of thread I did not know.  I actually find it interesting that they never would say it was his award.  Most other sports will say the name of the person they are honoring for the award.

[jmlease1]

I'm good with removing Landis from the MVP trophy. 1) His views on race and role in keeping baseball segregated, while not uncommon for the time, make him unworthy of additional honors. It's not good enough to be "average" based on your era, and it's not like there weren't people who weren't racist at the time.  2) commissioners are always overrated and overpraised and Landis is no different. While his role in chasing gambling out of baseball was important, he also painted with a very broad brush and didn't seem to care if he screwed people in the process. They get named for stuff and really probably shouldn't (this would be the Larry O'Brien Rule).

 

I only vaguely remembered Landis was on the trophy. It's not well known and is rarely reported in conversation about the award, so it's not going to be hugely impactful to change it...but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I have trouble seeing how it's bad to stop honoring racists. It's a stain on someone's character that cannot be removed by other deeds. 

[yarnivek1972]

I’m not really sure Happy Chandler could be called a contemporary of Kenesaw Landis. Chandler was more than 30 years younger. Landis was born during Civil War reconstruction.

 

Regarding Landis being responsible for the reserve clause remaining in effect for 30 years after his death, that’s just absurd. Any subsequent Commissioner could have eliminated it. The owners could have. Congress could have. Courts could have.

 

As for Landis’ name on the trophy, I would say there probably shouldn’t be names attached to any awards. As I said in a different post, if one looks deep enough one can likely find unsavory information about just about anyone, living or dead.

[jkcarew]

Most who have researched the Black Sox scandal have widely agreed that Landis made things much worse rather than better. Rather than truly getting to the bottom of what was going on and removing the bad apples in the game, he attacked a group of accused that had varying levels of actual evidence against them with no ability for appeal, essentially removing all ability for true justice. That cloud still hangs over the game as many still hold gambling as a "no questions asked" lifetime ban, and some have attempted to toss other issues (PEDs, for one) into that bucket.

 

What saved the game was the offensive explosion of the 1920s, not Landis.

Huh? He eliminated the bad apples and established the hard line on gambling that still exists today and was absolutely required for the game to survive given it’s vulnerability to gambling and the information and circumstances that existed at the time. And it hurt baseball how? Hurt Joe Jackson maybe...and maybe ‘unfair’ to some, like 1000 rulings that have come down from commissioner’s offices since. But really hard to make a sound argument that it hurt baseball. Would the game’s popularly have come around regardless based on Babe Ruth and the long ball in the 20’s. Probably. At least until the next major gambling scandal came around...which didn’t happen, due in no small part to the hard line that had been drawn. Landis did exactly what he had to do with the Black Sox at that time.

 

Separately, I’ll not enter into an argument for his name remaining on the trophy, given his entire legacy. Like others here, I didn’t even realize his name was on it. And, we’re probably better off without names.

[biggentleben]

 

Huh? He eliminated the bad apples and established the hard line on gambling that still exists today and was absolutely required for the game to survive given it’s vulnerability to gambling and the information and circumstances that existed at the time. And it hurt baseball how? Hurt Joe Jackson maybe...and maybe ‘unfair’ to some, like 1000 rulings that have come down from commissioner’s offices since. But really hard to make a sound argument that it hurt baseball. Would the game’s popularly have come around regardless based on Babe Ruth and the long ball in the 20’s. Probably. At least until the next major gambling scandal came around...which didn’t happen, due in no small part to the hard line that had been drawn. Landis did exactly what he had to do with the Black Sox at that time.

Separately, I’ll not enter into an argument for his name remaining on the trophy, given his entire legacy. Like others here, I didn’t even realize his name was on it. And, we’re probably better off without names.

Except the side money was always there. It just came in different ways than gambling. He rooted out the players, not the problem. That's always been the Landis legacy with the Black Sox, one that subsequent commissioners have seemingly defaulted to - when stuff hits the fan, blame the players, when that doesn't work, punish the players, when that doesn't work, remove the players, and if that doesn't work, then it's probably the players' fault for that as well.

 

Cocaine, PEDs, free agency, all of it has been publicly labeled against players by owners, yet we only hear about one major collusion period in the sport because it ended up in court. There have been many such periods where players were not signed or not signed to equitable contracts on a collective agreement among owners. Landis never solved gambling in the game. Just like PEDs have been in the game since the early 1900s, the gambling has always been there. It simply moved to different angles is all. The true root of the problem still has never been addressed.

[Tomj14]

 

Except the side money was always there. It just came in different ways than gambling. He rooted out the players, not the problem. That's always been the Landis legacy with the Black Sox, one that subsequent commissioners have seemingly defaulted to - when stuff hits the fan, blame the players, when that doesn't work, punish the players, when that doesn't work, remove the players, and if that doesn't work, then it's probably the players' fault for that as well.

 

Cocaine, PEDs, free agency, all of it has been publicly labeled against players by owners, yet we only hear about one major collusion period in the sport because it ended up in court. There have been many such periods where players were not signed or not signed to equitable contracts on a collective agreement among owners. Landis never solved gambling in the game. Just like PEDs have been in the game since the early 1900s, the gambling has always been there. It simply moved to different angles is all. The true root of the problem still has never been addressed.

So are you saying that players are still taking money to affect the outcome of games? That seems like something that probably should be looked into.

 

 

You have taken this thread from if Landis should or should not be on a trophy (Which I think most on here agree it would be fine to remove him from an award given by the writers) to blaming him for just about everything bad in baseball.

 

 

[strumdatjaguar]

Landis' name was not put on the award because of support for racism.  Instead, it was put there because of the actions he took to save baseball after the Black Sox throwing the World Series in 1919.  Most confederate statues were erected long after the Civil War to support Jim Crow and promote racism.   Big difference. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Landis' name was not put on the award because of support for racism.  Instead, it was put there because of the actions he took to save baseball after the Black Sox throwing the World Series in 1919.  Most confederate statues were erected long after the Civil War to support Jim Crow and promote racism.   Big difference. 

 

There are similarities as well.  Those statues in the south were also built to rebrand those men absent their failures as human beings.  Hence the South being portrayed as plucky underdogs, "Rebels with a Cause", etc.  Those statues were not just intended as support of racism, they were intended as falsified versions of those men to glorify/whitewash them.  Likewise, having the name Landis on a trophy as a celebration deliberately ignores all of the many awful things he did as well.

 

I guess I tend to think that if we are choosing to celebrate someone we should directly celebrate specific accomplishments.  In more generic examples like this one, perhaps their great acts or tendencies shouldn't be massively overshadowed by their awful ones.  In such a case, and Landis easily fits that, I'm not sure why we should feel remorse for choosing a better representative.

 

As a suggestion, how about Ken Griffey Jr.?  Very few men who have played baseball have better represented the idea of an MVP than him.

[Tomj14]

 

There are similarities as well.  Those statues in the south were also built to rebrand those men absent their failures as human beings.  Hence the South being portrayed as plucky underdogs, "Rebels with a Cause", etc.  Those statues were not just intended as support of racism, they were intended as falsified versions of those men to glorify/whitewash them.  Likewise, having the name Landis on a trophy as a celebration deliberately ignores all of the many awful things he did as well.

 

I guess I tend to think that if we are choosing to celebrate someone we should directly celebrate specific accomplishments.  In more generic examples like this one, perhaps their great acts or tendencies shouldn't be massively overshadowed by their awful ones.  In such a case, and Landis easily fits that, I'm not sure why we should feel remorse for choosing a better representative.

 

As a suggestion, how about Ken Griffey Jr.?  Very few men who have played baseball have better represented the idea of an MVP than him.

Griffey was great and one of my favorites, but playing most of his career in the ERA of Bonds (7 MVPs) and Pujols(3 MVPs), doesn't it seem weird to put a lesser players name on the trophy?

 

Going on the career WAR list.

Ruth - out - I guess for many reasons

Bonds - out - PED

Mays - out drugs

Cobb - out racist

Aaron - out amphetamines

Speaker - out only played with whites

Wagner - out only played with whites

Musial -  seems like a possibility, but was he better than Williams, probably not.

 

When you have to get this far down the list, I think you the name the trophy

American League MVP & National League MVP

[MMMordabito]

Until now, I only knew the Jackie Robinson Award (rookie) and Cy Young Award (pitcher) had names attached to them.  This seems like low hanging fruit for equality.  Just call it the MVP Award (likely what 99% of people thought it was anyway) and you're good to go. 

 

I wonder if Barry Bonds could have won four or five MVPs without roids, then this would be easy. 

 

 

[biggentleben]

 

So are you saying that players are still taking money to affect the outcome of games? That seems like something that probably should be looked into.

 

 

You have taken this thread from if Landis should or should not be on a trophy (Which I think most on here agree it would be fine to remove him from an award given by the writers) to blaming him for just about everything bad in baseball.

That's far from what I'm saying, but I'm also not going to glorify him for saving baseball either. He didn't take steps to "save" the game. He took an easy answer instead of actually addressing the problem. Essentially, he chopped off the weed rather than pull out the root.

 

As far as players taking money...that's not what I said either. Gambling has never lost its influence on the game. It's just finding different angles to get that influence. It's been investigated, sometimes things have been done, but no one goes scorched earth in the way Landis did with players because it would mean burning potential advertisers and sponsors.

[yarnivek1972]

Just as an fyi, the Twins MVP award is still technically called the Calvin Griffith Award. It was last year, anyway. Has the team made any announcement that it intends to change that?

 

I’ve said it before, but there probably shouldn’t be any names associated with awards for the simple reason that if one digs deep enough one can find “bad things” about just about anyone.

[strumdatjaguar]

Until now, I only knew the Jackie Robinson Award (rookie) and Cy Young Award (pitcher) had names attached to them. This seems like low hanging fruit for equality. Just call it the MVP Award (likely what 99% of people thought it was anyway) and you're good to go.

 

I wonder if Barry Bonds could have won four or five MVPs without roids, then this would be easy.

I like the idea of naming baseball trophies after people, even rogues. Here are more named after persons:

Warren C Giles: trophy given to NL Champ

William Harridge: AL Champ

Willie Mays: World Series MVP

Ted Williams: All-Star Game MVP

Roberto Clemente: Sportsmanship, Community Invilvement

 

I’m sure there are more. If names start to be deleted from trophies, then the ultimate result will be a league that takes no chances and put no names in trophies. That would be a shame a sport with such a legendary history Play ball

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Although no overt statements that say, "I will not let a black player play," or something like that, it was stated for very long time that he had great influence over the owners and would behind the scenes help keep the owners to the unwritten rule of no blacks.  There was never a rule on the books, it was the understanding by all owners that was the rule, and Landis would keep the owners in line with that rule.  There are many stories that state Landis was behind much of the color barrier, but being a smart judge he knew not to come out and say it.  There is a story of him blocking purchase of a team that had intentions to hire many black players.  There is not coincidence that shortly after his death a black player was signed and then made the majors.  

 

So no smoking gun, he was too smart for that.  He knew how to keep the oppression hidden from the public.   

 

I'm not sure why he would need to do that covertly given the era he lived in.

[yarnivek1972]

I'm not sure why he would need to do that covertly given the era he lived in.

Landis was a judge. If he openly showed bias that would be grounds to remove him from a case.

[Trov]

 

I'm not sure why he would need to do that covertly given the era he lived in.

Because he was a former federal judge and understood the law.  He knew making a statement like that would lead to law suits, and possibly challenge the reserve clause they had back then, which later was successfully overturned.  It is not about public perception, it was about the law and he knew the law.  He wanted to keep baseball out of the courts as much as possible because he knew they would lose.