11/21/24
September 27, 2005
Hall of Fame Intangibles.: The courage of one player 35 years ago continues to make other players better. [more inside]
posted by ursus_comiter to baseball at 11:16 AM - 21 comments
Frankly, I agree with the article. Curt Flood changed the game immeasurably in ways that every single player, owner and fan now takes for granted. It's only fair that he be recognized for his courage. He won't, of course. Too many owners, many of whom are still in business from those days (as well as their fartcatchers in the media) feel that Flood fucked them over and consider him a pariah. But he should.
posted by chicobangs at 11:45 AM on September 27, 2005
Yeah, there really shouldn't be a Hall of Fame without Flood.
posted by yerfatma at 12:06 PM on September 27, 2005
Good information, thanks for posting.
posted by cl at 12:14 PM on September 27, 2005
He's still got a chance. Maybe not a great chance, but a chance nonetheless. On long list in 2003 and 2005; probably will be in 2007 also.
posted by graymatters at 01:48 PM on September 27, 2005
This writer fails to recognize that Hall of Fames are almost always accompanied by museums, i.e. the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown. The museum side of things is where you deal with the history, the stories, the personalities, the "intangibles" etc. of the game. The museums are almost always much bigger places than the actual HOF for this very reason.
posted by the red terror at 01:52 PM on September 27, 2005
I don't get that logic. Is Curt Flood simply a relic to be dusted off and shown on anniversaries? He's had as much of an affect on the game as Ruth, Williams or any other player you can name.
posted by yerfatma at 02:24 PM on September 27, 2005
Well, I see that Curt Flood has left an enduring legacy. But is he a HoFer? I don't like politicizing it like that. His career to me makes him a 'very good' - below a 'damn good', which is below a 'hell ya', which is below a 'fuckin' A'. You must be a 'fuckin' A' to warrant consideration.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:21 PM on September 27, 2005
I'm going to side with the red terror on this one. I have no problem with an exhibit (be it a plaque, display, short movie) about Curt Flood (and Andy Messsersmith and Dave McNally and Marvin Miller) on how they changed the face of baseball (and sports in general). Same as I have no problem with Charlie O'Brien getting a small display for pioneering the new (safer and better looking) catcher masks. The Hall of Fame is for players who displayed talent at a level (both in breadth and length) that stands above the regular player. Curt Flood really doesn't fit into this category, so I don't think he should get in.
posted by grum@work at 03:49 PM on September 27, 2005
Wow, my life is enriched for the reading of that piece, thank you.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 04:01 PM on September 27, 2005
The Hall of Fame is for players who displayed talent at a level (both in breadth and length) that stands above the regular player. "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
posted by yerfatma at 05:15 PM on September 27, 2005
Curt Flood excelled in everything from "integrity" forward in that list. His contributions were not just to his own team, but all teams, both leagues, the sport itself, and the greater sporting landscape, in North America and around the world. If these are the criteria, I'd say he has to be in.
posted by chicobangs at 05:25 PM on September 27, 2005
Cooperstown has permanent exhibits in their museum collection that tell the story of the game. Flood will always be a part of that history. Flood had very good numbers, but clearly the longevity isn't there. Which leads to the Sandy Koufax argument. Koufax didn't play very long; in fact his first six seasons he was only a .500 pitcher. His entire legacy rests on the remaining six seasons, when he dominated the league in an era that perhaps only Bob Gibson can compare, and retired as the best in the business. He had the wins, the ERA and the strikeouts. Four no-hitters during those years didn't hurt either. I am not convinced Flood had Koufax-like numbers, I am not convinced he was one of the 1% elite players at his position or during his era. If you have to appeal to emotion and pad a guys resume with "intangibles" to make the HOF, dear me, we really have gone down a slippery slope for induction. The only barometer I like is, did this player scare the living shit out of me every time he threw his rosin bag downon the mound or every time he tapped his bat on the plate, year-after-year-after-year.
posted by the red terror at 06:16 PM on September 27, 2005
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Rating Curt Flood's HOF eligibility based on these criteria: Flood's playing record = not good enough Flood's ability = not good enough (based on his record, since I can't say I ever saw him play) Flood's integrity = good enough Flood's sportsmanship = at least league average (I don't know of any stories that would suggest his was more than that) Flood's character = good enough Flood's contributions to his team(s) = not good enough The only thing he qualifies with are two of the categories that can't be properly measured and are purely subjective. And if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could always claim that Flood cleared the way to produce the system where New York's $200,000,000 payroll can play against Tampa Bay's $25,000,000 payroll, and ARod can sign a contract for over a quarter of a billion dollars. Listening to others speak, it sounds like baseball is ruined because of this development...
posted by grum@work at 06:28 PM on September 27, 2005
The Hall of Fame is for players who displayed talent at a level (both in breadth and length) that stands above the regular player. "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Flood would have to go in through veterans committee which has a little different consideration: "The Committee shall consider all eligible candidates and voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game." So it's not just Flood's team contributions, but his contribution to the game. I don't think there is any dispute that he contributed to major changes in the game, whether you agree with the changes or not. And remember, it is not just players who get elected to the Hall of Fame anymore. There are managers, umpires and executives. This somehow makes Marvin Miller eligible, though I wasn't aware that he ever worked for baseball. He was just a union lawyer. His biography says he never played the game.
posted by graymatters at 06:41 PM on September 27, 2005
Flood's integrity and character are legendary, and how can you say he didn't contribute to his team? He contributed to all teams, in all professional sports, everywhere. He dragged professional sports out of the pre-industrial age. If ever there was a special case for inclusion, it's here. Graymatters has it; if Marvin Miller somehow clears the bar for inclusion, then Flood should (should) be unanimous.
posted by chicobangs at 07:06 PM on September 27, 2005
He was also a terrific defensive centerfielder and a halfway decent offensive player (see the Lou Brock comparison in the link).
posted by yerfatma at 07:27 PM on September 27, 2005
If ever there was a special case for inclusion, it's here. Special cases? C'mon, this ain't the Special Olympics. Curt Flood was a magnificent outfielder and had a few great seasons with the bat. But not once in his career did the outfielder drive in 100 runs, in fact, the highest he ever drove in was 83 RBI, and that was the only time he ever got over 80 RBI. Sorry, that's not good enough. Flood's career BA is .293. Sorry, that's not good enough. Some might argue that, yeah, he didn't have a lot of pop in his bat, and truly, averaging something like 65 RBI/season is kinda puny for an outfielder, but hey, he got lots of hits, his job wasn't driving in runs, he was paid to get on base. O-kay. He got lots of hits. Or did he? The barometer for HOF induction is usually 3000 hits. Flood didn't even reach 2000. He didn't even reach 1900. Sorry, that's not good enough. (Jeebus, Flood's hit total is actually less than that of Devon White, who also had a fantastic glove. You may recall that White was maligned in California as a selfish cancer in the clubhouse, but he didn't make any fuss in Toronto. White won a couple of World Series rings there and a bunch of gold gloves and he made that "Catch," those are intangibles too, huh, anybody ready to jump on the Devo For Cooperstown Bandwagon yet??) Flood's story tugs at your heart-strings. He makes me sniffle and get out the kleenex too. But guys, again, sorry, that's not good enough to merit induction. Flood belongs in the Museum. Not the HOF.
posted by the red terror at 09:42 AM on September 28, 2005
Agreed.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:36 AM on September 28, 2005
Uhm, what just happened? Do you know where Curt Flood typically hit in the lineup? I mean, if we're going to base decisions on crap stats like RBI, let's at least be fair about it. Wade Boggs didn't drive in too many runs when he hit leadoff. If we're going to use half-crap stats like batting average, maybe we could provide some context around them, like the league average in those years. Telling me someone hit .293 means nothing. Telling me he did it in 1968 or the 1930s is much more instructive (for reference: in 12 full seasons, Flood was at or above league average offensively (OPS+) in 7, so he was no great stick).
posted by yerfatma at 12:09 PM on September 28, 2005
Put your hankies away, baby. Did it ever occur to you guys that he not only hurt his on-field performance by focusing so much on this important development in modern sports, but that he was then run out of the game for opening the whole can of worms? I stand by my statement. There is no case for admission to the Hall more unique than Curt Flood's. In, in, in.
posted by chicobangs at 09:29 PM on September 28, 2005
Curt Flood's suit against baseball is something every baseball fan should know about.[2] [3] [4] Considered blasphemy by owners at the time, Flood's resistence to being treated as a piece of property eventually got him to the Supreme Court. He lost there, but the shaky logic of the majority decision and the publicity it drew weakened the foundations of the reserve clause, leaving it vulnerable to challanges in the future.