Thursday was the 100th anniversary of one of the titans of baseball, former Dodger owner Walter O’Malley. The popular perception of O’Malley as the robber baron who stole baseball from Brooklyn still endures, a topic that L.A. Times columnist Bill Plaschke investigates. Plaschke begins by noting that O’Malley’s fingerprints are all over the game today:

This fall’s baseball playoffs have stretched marvelously from coast to coast, from a grimy subway to a golden gate, from clam chowder to key lime pie, a national pastime renewed.

Walter O’Malley had something to do with that.

This fall’s baseball teams feature rosters that stretch from continent to continent, different languages, many colors, diversity in their clubhouses far greater than on our streets.

Walter O’Malley had something to do with that too.

This fall, baseball is enjoying a resurgence of old-fashioned teams playing in old-fashioned ballparks, winning with old-fashioned smarts.

Today being his 100th birthday, wouldn’t Walter O’Malley be proud.

Plaschke then wonders aloud why O’Malley isn’t in the Baseball Hall of Fame, while fellow owners such as the notoriously racist Tom Yawkey and the gimmicky Bill Veeck are. The answer isn’t difficult; even 45 years after moving the Dodgers, O’Malley carries “the stigma of having moved a team from the myopic neighborhood that is New York.”

But as I’ve written before, the simple explanation that O’Malley bolted town is a distortion. O’Malley tried in vain to get a replacement stadium built in Brooklyn (a domed Buckminster Fuller-designed number, even), but he ran into heavier hitters, particularly Robert Moses, the master architect of New York City, who wouldn’t give him the time of day. O’Malley didn’t hold a gun to the city’s head and say, “Build me a new ballpark or I’m gone,” he sought a ballpark built with private money but which required the city’s intervention to parcel all of the land into one package he could purchase. It’s a complex tale best told in Neil J. Sullivan’s The Dodgers Move West and also in Michael Shapiro’s recent The Last Good Season.

On the occasion of his centennial, Plaschke notes that the O’Malley family has created an official website, walteromalley.com, which contains a wealth of historical information about one of the most powerful executives in the game’s history. This isn’t just a one-page puff piece, either — we’re talking something in the scope of a presidential library; 600 web pages in all. In addition to photos and multimedia clips, O’Malley’s correspondances with the power brokers of New York City, particularly Moses, and Los Angeles, are on display for all the world to see. Also here are extensive features on the creation of Dodgertown in Vero Beach, Florida, the building of Dodger Stadium in L.A., the team’s history during his reign, bios of the Hall of Famers who starred for the Dodgers during O’Malley’s tenure and the owner’s legacy of expanding baseball orders. It’s too much to take in during one sitting, particuarly during the postseason, but this is a site that’s worth mining during the cold winter months. This is an essential piece of Dodger history, and of baseball history in general.

Consider this for a minute. How many owners besides O’Malley can you think of whose actions came under such scrutiny? Perhaps Charles Comiskey during the Black Sox scandal, but Comiskey was doing his best to cover up as much as possible, hoping not to lose his players or expose his own skinflint nature. Perhaps other scandal-mongering owners such as George Steinbrenner and Marge Schott, who were disciplined by commissioners for various infractions and indiscretions. But how many other owners can you think of whose affairs look better when dragged out into the harsh light of day?

The O’Malley family isn’t arguing that Walter belongs in the Hall, but Plaschke builds a solid case for the man which rests primarily on his legacy in speeding up the game’s integration (O’Malley was a co-owner when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, and continued Branch Rickey’s work long after the old master was forced out), in building Dodger Stadium, his jewel, “a clean ballpark at a fair price,” and in his grand vision of the game as a global entity.

It remains to be seen whether O’Malley will ever gain admission to Cooperstown. With the players now firmly in control of the Veteran’s Committee and reviewing non-playing candidates only every four years, he’ll have to wait quite a bit longer. Still, the O’Malley website speaks volumes as to the man’s qualifications.

• • •

Speaking of Dodger owners, the franchise has a new bidder in Frank McCourt, a Boston real-estate developer. With Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer’s bid to purchase the team, currently owned by News Corp. hitting the skids due to the complexities of satisfying two very different groups of owners, the Dodgers have sought other suitors. The McCourt bid is said to be in the vicinity of $330 million and is apparently moving very quickly because News Corp. wants to wash its hands of the club. According to the L.A. Times:

Although it is unclear how much News Corp. is willing to concede in its efforts to rid itself of the franchise it purchased for $311 million in 1998, it appears McCourt represents the only immediate option for the media giant to end its ownership of the Dodgers.

McCourt’s attempts to purchase the Boston Red Sox in 2001 and the Angels this year probably would help accelerate the approval process of his Dodger bid, executives said, because baseball officials conducted background checks at that time.

John Wiebe’s Dodger Blog has a look at some of the positives and negatives surrounding McCourt’s bid, and some relevant links to articles.