You might recall that a few weeks ago I wrote something about Marvin Miller's comments about his continuing Hall of Fame candidacy, and particularly about some inflammatory comments Miller made about Jim Palmer (who is one of the voters this year), in an interview with Murray Chass.
Well, it seems that Miller didn't mean any such thing about Palmer. I just found the following in my ESPN mailbag, from (as it turns out) Marvin Miller's son, Peter:
- Marvin Miller wishes to correct an inaccurate report of remarks attributed to him as follows:
"From the beginning of the Major League Baseball Players Association in 1966, and continuing throughout his entire outstanding pitching career, Jim Palmer was a voluntary, supportive, dues-paying member of the union, during a period which included the strikes of 1972 and 1981.
"My references to Jim Palmer were confused with my descriptions of the substitutions made this year in the management section of the Hall of Fame's voting committee. I doubt if anyone would quarrel with the description of Jerry Reinsdorf, who is new to the committee this year, as anti-union. He wears that badge proudly.
"The clue to the inaccuracy is in the reference to Jim Palmer's role in 1969. I am well aware there was no strike in 1969, so there could have been no reference to crossing a picket line in that year. I am also well aware that Jim was on the disabled list when the 1969 season started and had been on that list for more than two years. So he could not have been talking about going past a non-existent picket line."
Peter Miller apparently sent this message to a number of writers, including Craig Calcaterra, who called Marvin Miller this morning and confirmed the veracity of the correction.
Obviously, someone made a mistake here, either Miller or Chass. It never made any sense, though, and in retrospect someone (yes, maybe even me) should have called Miller immediately, to confirm that he really meant to say what we thought he said about Jim Palmer.