Curt Flood

[plask_stirlac]

7 gold gloves
.293 hitter
Never struck out 100 times a season
3 times led the league in singles


I'm not automatically putting a player like that in the All-Star game if he can't hit for power, let alone the Hall.

[AlecBoy006]

True, Curt Flood was an above average player at best, but he's a pioneer as far as I am concerned. Any pioneer should be in the Hall of Fame.

But however

7 gold gloves
.293 hitter
Never struck out 100 times a season
3 times led the league in singles

Curt Flood gets my vote. Don't think of him as a baseball player, but someone who did SOMETHING for baseball.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

True, Curt Flood was an above average player at best, but he's a pioneer as far as I am concerned. Any pioneer should be in the Hall of Fame.

But however

7 gold gloves
.293 hitter
Never struck out 100 times a season
3 times led the league in singles

Curt Flood gets my vote. Don't think of him as a baseball player, but someone who did SOMETHING for baseball.

For those of us that do not know what Flood exactly pioneered, you might consider clarifying what he is known for.
BTW, I voted nay, even dispite his contribution to the game of baseball.

[EvanAparra]

Free Agency...

[leecemark]

--I'm not laughing at the idea, but I vote no.

[Los Bravos]

As I stated in the thread about him, I feel the same way about Curt as I feel about Marvin Miller: a huge influence on the modern game, which should qualify him. Added to this is the undeniable fact of him being an outstanding player for a decade on some of the best teams in Baseball at that time.

His career numbers alone would leave him short, but the facts assembled together argue for his inclusion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As I stated in the thread about him, I feel the same way about Curt as I feel about Marvin Miller: a huge influence on the modern game, which should qualify him. Added to this is the undeniable fact of him being an outstanding player for a decade on some of the best teams in Baseball at that time.


His career numbers alone would leave him short, but the facts assembled together argue for his inclusion.

Curt Flood is in no way, shape, or form a HOFer based on what he did on the field. If we put Flood in the HOF, why not Davy Force?

What Flood did in no way led to free agency. His case was lost; the Supreme Court shut the door on Flood, and on free agency. In truth, free agency was FARTHER away for the players after Flood lost his case. Flood was a lost cause, a rallying point, but his suit set the FA cause back.

[KCGHOST]

Just another silly candidate. As a player he was distinctly average. The only thing he attempted to pioneer was player's "right" to break a contract.

[Dalkowski110]

I voted no. Heck, Flood lost his case. If you want somebody in the Hall for free agency who was also a player, you might as well toss in Andy Messersmith, who isn't even close to borderline status. Either you put in Marvin Miller (who I wouldn't put in) or just forget it.

[candy curveball cummings]

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that sees Curt Flood as less of a pioneer and more of a selfish player who refused to go to work?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Free Agency...
Flood did NOT pioneer free agency. Was Flood the first free agent?

[leecemark]

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that sees Curt Flood as less of a pioneer and more of a selfish player who refused to go to work?


--Neither. Flood did NOT do a great deal to help the cause of player freedom and there is no direct link between his case and the eventual victory of the players. I do think he had a right to refuse to go to Philadelphia when the Cardinals decided they would rather have somebody else. If my company wanted to transfer me to another city I would have the option of saying no and going to work where I wanted (assuming I was wanted there:p ). Ballplayers should have that same right.

[Dalkowski110]

Agreed leecemark. Hence, my reference to Andy Messersmith (and arguably Dave McNally) IF you want to put in a player instead of Marvin Miller (which is flawed logic, anyway).

[JamesWest]

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that sees Curt Flood as less of a pioneer and more of a selfish player who refused to go to work?

You are not.

[64Cards]

Just another silly candidate. As a player he was distinctly average. The only thing he attempted to pioneer was player's "right" to break a contract.

I'll agree that Flood's numbers aren't HOF worthy, but he was hardly an "average" player. A consistent .300 hitter and a superb CFer, Flood could chase down a flyball with the best, although it's ironic that the single play he is best remembered for was when he misjudged Northrups fly to deep cf in the 7th inning of game 7, 68 WS. Still, I saw him play a lot of excellent CF, especially at Sportsmans Park, my dad would buy tickets for the rf pavilion area and sit towards the cf end, because he loved to watch Flood play outfield. Also, because he was rather tight with a buck.:laugh

Flood didn't have much power and didn't get many walks, but he excelled at hitting behind the runner. It's anecdotal evidence, but it seemed that they the Cards would consistently score runs in the 60's with Brock getting on, stealing 2nd. Flood hitting a ball to the right side to move Lou to 3rd and them scoring on a sac fly or groundball to the right side.

As far as his refusal to go to Philly, yeah, I've thought it was mostly because of his self-interest, rather than out of some noble consideration of advancing the rights of MLB players. I've wondered what would have happened in 69 if Flood had been traded to say, SF or LA [Flood was from the Bay area] and offered a 20% salary hike, from the 90K he was making [an excellent MLB salary in 1969] My guess is that he wouldn't have objected. Instead, he was traded to Philly, the dung-heap of the NL at the time, where the fans treated a black superstar, Richie Allen, who was from the area, like a piece of dogcrap.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just another silly candidate. As a player he was distinctly average. The only thing he attempted to pioneer was player's "right" to break a contract.

Well, an arbitrator later on decided that "one year" meant "one year". Of course, it wasn't Flood that got the players to that point.

Flood is not a credible candidate now, but I rechecked his stats. Through age 31, Flood had 1,851 hits. He was fast, and he was the best defensive CF in the NL in the sixties, if one goes by Gold Gloves won. He didn't walk a lot, but he didn't walk a little either; he walked just enough to where that issue didn't threaten his playing time.

Players of Flood's type usually age well. Flood had an off year in 1969, and that off year was worse than appears because of the improved BAs and conditions for hitters in 1969, but the whole Cardinal team had an off year that year; he was likely to rebound. Flood averaged 171 hits per 162 games, and that takes in his below average years, from age 20-22. Those years weren't good years; Flood wasn't a regular two of them, but he was in the majors at a young age. Given the improving conditions for hitters, plus the upcoming Astroturf era, Flood probably had a 40-45 percent chance at 3,000 hits, barring major injury.

Then, perhaps not. I've read Flood's autobiography The Way It Is, and it's not the writings of a happy camper. Flood was a very bitter man, and it is easy to see how Flood's bitterness could have impacted his career negatively. I used to blame Flood's flop with Washington as a matter of losing his skills after missing a year, but I don't think that's it. Bruce Bochte came back after a year off at an older age and had a better year than Flood; he didn't lose all that much, granting that he didn't have all that much to lose. I believe that Flood's 1969 dropoff was partially a result of that bitterness seeping in. Flood compared himself to a slave in his autobiography, and while the reserve clause was unduly restrictive, Flood was far from a slave, and everybody knows that.

But if he had gotten his head together enough to focus on playing, and if he had not been out of baseball in 1970, Flood may well have ended up a marginal HOF candidate. At worst, he would have been the new Doc Cramer, ending up with over 2,700 hits (let's say he didn't get the 3k which would have clinched the HOF for Flood). Flood, however, had several things going for him that Cramer never did:

(A) A bit more plate discipline
(B) Unquestioned defensive excellence in CF (Cramer's credientials on defense are debated)
(C) Being a key player on two world champions and a third pennant winner in a 5 year period. (Three of Flood's best seasons coincide with the years the Cards won the pennant; without Flood, the Cards would not have won all of those pennants, particularly the 1964 pennant.)

So he's another "what if" case. Flood should not go into the HOF, but he was making better progress toward the HOF at the point where he walked away from it all at age 31.

[Los Bravos]

I'm not wading through all the hidebound rhetoric and faulty assumptions here on a point by point basis.
Deny him credit for his part in a long term multifront strategy to overturn a rather patently absurd set of rules, impugn him personally...whatever. I think the record on the matter is clear.

[jalbright]

I'm not wading through all the hidebound rhetoric and faulty assumptions here on a point by point basis.
Deny him credit for his part in a long term multifront strategy to overturn a rather patently absurd set of rules, impugn him personally...whatever. I think the record on the matter is clear.
Bravos,

You and I were on the same side on Miller, but we're not on Flood. The difference--Miller was part of the winning strategy. Flood was a failed part of that strategy at an earlier time. Miller had to get the arbitration system in place and try again to have success. That interim separates Flood's stand (brave, foolhardy, egotistical, or some combination of the three) from the success in overturning those rules. It's kind of like a player coming to a team and helping make them good, but leaving before they develop into a World Series winner. That player doesn't get a ring for helping start the trend because he wasn't there when the payoff came. Harsh, perhaps, but it's the way of the world.

Had Flood's risk paid off with a win in court, I could see honoring him for the risk he took. But he lost--and his ballplaying career, as it is, isn't particularly close to HOF levels. It's not enough for the HOF in my book.

Jim Albright

[philkid3]

Simple question. Feel free to explain, though.

[KCGHOST]

Not much to explain. An average hitter with above average defensive skills. On the field he will always be remembered for his misplay in CF in the 7th game of the WS that might have cost the Cardinals a championship.

Mostly remembered for his Quixotic law suit that people put way too much stock in.

[jalbright]

merged the new thread with a previous one.

[Macker]

The ironic thing is Flood wasn't seeking the ability to bring his services elsewhere. He wanted to stay in St. Louis. If the Cardinals had wanted to keep him, Flood was contented as could be with the reserve clause. Miller latched onto his case, but Flood is hardly a pioneer and far from worthy of the HOF.

[Los Bravos]

I reiterate my last post.

[Cowtipper]

I don't really think Flood is Hall of Fame worthy. Should we put Rob Blomberg in the Hall of Fame? He was the first DH after all.

Flood was a very solid player defensively, however.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not wading through all the hidebound rhetoric and faulty assumptions here on a point by point basis.
Deny him credit for his part in a long term multifront strategy to overturn a rather patently absurd set of rules, impugn him personally...whatever. I think the record on the matter is clear.

Flood chose to sue baseball over a contract issue. His suit had ramifications for every player active in the game. But the outcome of Flood v. Kuhn for EVERY player in MLB was simple; they were stuck with the reserve clause. Period. On top of being still stuck, the Reserve Clause was now reaffirmed by a new Supreme Court decision, and at a time where the Court was still a relatively liberal body.

I see no evidence that Flood took this action as some kind of martyr for the body of MLB. Flood did this for himself, for his own reasons. Anyone who wants to ascribe greater altruism to Flood's motives need to read his autobiography The Way It Is and judge for themselves what Flood's motives were. My read on this is that Flood was motivated not so much by money as by an incredible sense of personal bitterness; he was ALWAYS an iconoclast and a loner, and never a "team player", even in his reserve clause challenge.

Not that I judge Flood harshly for his bitterness. Flood had things to be bitter about; things that money (and he made good money, even if it wasn't today's money) didn't make go away. It was good for other players that a guy so motivated by bitterness would take up this particular torch; more contented individuals would accept the reserve clause as a concession to the shortness of both their careers in baseball and to life, itself. But I don't see him as part of a "team" strategy to overturn the reserve clause; Flood was going to do this if he had to go it alone, and it was about his own issues, and not about the issues of others.

If Flood is going to be honored, it is more fitting that he be honored by the Labor movement in America. He turned out to be a bit of a martyr, even if he didn't intend to be one. He's become a rallying point for the MLBPA; Marvin Miller often told players of a particular benefit "Curt Flood got you this." But that wasn't really true; MARVIN MILLER got them this, together with the solidarity of the MLBPA, which is quite remarkable, given the money ballplayers make and the general conservative narcissism and self-centeredness of so many jocks. Nathan Hale died for his country; Hercules Mulligan lived to become an invaluable spy for the Colonial army. In recognizing who became the rallying point, one also needs to recognize who actually did more to advance the cause at hand.

[Los Bravos]

Nathan Hale died for his country; Hercules Mulligan lived to become an invaluable spy for the Colonial army. In recognizing who became the rallying point, one also needs to recognize who actually did more to advance the cause at hand.That's fair enough and I don't really disagree. Anyone who knows how things developed recognizes that it was Messersmith and McNally's suit that was the deathblow. Still, Flood was the first guy to truly take on the system. I don't really care much about his motives. Unlike T.S. Eliot, I have no problem with doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

You wrote earlier that Curt's case "in no way" led to free agency and that is an overstatement. It didn't immediatey lead there, but it was part of the process and part of the long term strategy.

As far as the HOF is concerned, it's a pretty bitter irony that the guy who carried MLB's water in the case, Bowie Kuhn, is actually now a member. His behavior in that case was an intellectually dishonest embarrassment, one of many he would eventually inflict on the game.

[BigRon]

Back to Flood the ballplayer for a minute. There are several on this site who seem to feel that Flood was a distinctly average player. I disagree. He was a good contact hitter who hit for good averages. He had modest extra base power. He didn't walk a lot, which prevented his offense from being well above average for a top of the order guy. He was a good baserunner, though not a particularly good base stealer, which is a bit surprising, since he was both quick and fast.

As a flychaser/catcher, he is among the best I've seen. He was very much in the mold of Richie Ashburn- outstanding reactions, ability to go well in all directions. As I recall, his arm was not special but his fly chasing/catching abilities were truly outstanding.

Flood was not a great player, but he was quite good for his type for nearly 10 years. He doesn't merit HOF inclusion as a player, but I believe that he merits respect. Had he continued to play without interruption and had 3 or 4 more productive years and increased his counting numbers, he would be viewed very positively- probably still not a HOFer, but a very good player nonetheless.

[Paul Wendt]

As a flychaser/catcher, he is among the best I've seen. He was very much in the mold of Richie Ashburn- outstanding reactions, ability to go well in all directions. As I recall, his arm was not special but his fly chasing/catching abilities were truly outstanding.

In the Win Shares book he was the 1876-2001 leader by fielding win shares per game (or inning?) --except for the 5+ seasons by Andruw Jones.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Back to Flood the ballplayer for a minute. There are several on this site who seem to feel that Flood was a distinctly average player. I disagree. He was a good contact hitter who hit for good averages. He had modest extra base power. He didn't walk a lot, which prevented his offense from being well above average for a top of the order guy. He was a good baserunner, though not a particularly good base stealer, which is a bit surprising, since he was both quick and fast.

As a flychaser/catcher, he is among the best I've seen. He was very much in the mold of Richie Ashburn- outstanding reactions, ability to go well in all directions. As I recall, his arm was not special but his fly chasing/catching abilities were truly outstanding.

Flood was not a great player, but he was quite good for his type for nearly 10 years. He doesn't merit HOF inclusion as a player, but I believe that he merits respect. Had he continued to play without interruption and had 3 or 4 more productive years and increased his counting numbers, he would be viewed very positively- probably still not a HOFer, but a very good player nonetheless.

Flood is an example of a guy that was a guy who would have made the HOF had he reached 3,000 hits. Could he have done so had he not left the game after 1969? Possibly. The upcoming years were more favorable to hitters, and especially hitters of Flood's type. Flood was an EXCELLENT defensive outfielder, and that skill could have kept him in the game late into his 30s.

Was he talented? Flood was a guy who was a MLB regular at age 20. He wasn't a GREAT MLB regular at age 20, and he initially regressed, but most guys at age 20 are in the low minors. In looking at how Flood was doing in 1971, he started slow, but his OBP was .300, a full .100 above his BA. I personally think Flood could have rebounded had he stuck with it, but the consensus at that time was that missing a full season was fatal to a career, and I think that Flood, who seemed depressive and prone to being discouraged, threw in the towel a bit early on his career. (Of course, moving from a team like the Cardinals to the HORRIBLE Senators must have been mind-numbing for Flood.)

Flood is a guy who COULD have had a HOF career. He did some things that were very consistent with being a HOFer, and he was good enough to have been a HOFer if every little variable had gone right. You couldn't say that about Ron Swoboda or Cleon Jones, but you COULD say that about Flood. What he put up isn't HOF-caliber, but it possibly could have been, had he not walked away, and had he gotten lots of breaks (right park, good health, etc.)

[64Cards]

Back to Flood the ballplayer for a minute. There are several on this site who seem to feel that Flood was a distinctly average player. I disagree. He was a good contact hitter who hit for good averages. He had modest extra base power. He didn't walk a lot, which prevented his offense from being well above average for a top of the order guy. He was a good baserunner, though not a particularly good base stealer, which is a bit surprising, since he was both quick and fast.

As a flychaser/catcher, he is among the best I've seen. He was very much in the mold of Richie Ashburn- outstanding reactions, ability to go well in all directions. As I recall, his arm was not special but his fly chasing/catching abilities were truly outstanding.

Flood was not a great player, but he was quite good for his type for nearly 10 years. He doesn't merit HOF inclusion as a player, but I believe that he merits respect. Had he continued to play without interruption and had 3 or 4 more productive years and increased his counting numbers, he would be viewed very positively- probably still not a HOFer, but a very good player nonetheless.

Good evaluation of Flood.

[Freakshow]

From last year, my quick take on Flood:

In his fight against the PTB (Powers That Be), I thought Flood deserved some credit for 1970, at least. I gave him 10 WS, 3.3 WARP3. He didn't stay in shape, and flopped in 1971 and his career was over.
...
For someone who sees Flood as entirely victimized by the PTB, you'd want to project the rest of his career after 1969 as it would be expected to progress. That would probably get him over 300 career win shares. It would be a Willie Davis II career.

[Iron Jaw]

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that sees Curt Flood as less of a pioneer and more of a selfish player who refused to go to work?

I was a fan of Curt Flood when he was playing for the Cardinals.

Excellent singles hitter - combined with Lou Brock, the two made a nasty pair of baserunners that Kenny Boyer and Bill White could drive home (later Orlando Cepeda).

But I disagreed with his movement against baseball and refusal to report to the Phillies in 1970. Curt was only 32 at the time and probably had 4-6 years left if he stayed in shape and played - he was shipped to the Phillies with teammate Tim McCarver and Cardinal reliever Joe Hoerner, for Richie Allen, Jerry Johnson and Cookie Rojas.

After the refusal to report, the Cardinals had to give up minor leaguers Willie Montanez and Jim Browning. Montanez would become a decent player.

After losing his battle in the courts and missing the entire 1970 season, the Phillies traded Flood to the Senators. Curt would play just a few games for Washington, and then hang up his spikes.

He lost the challenge to the Reserve Clause, but opened the "flood"gates for future challenges.

I disagreed with his stance then, and still do.

[Iron Jaw]

Back to Flood the ballplayer for a minute. There are several on this site who seem to feel that Flood was a distinctly average player. I disagree. He was a good contact hitter who hit for good averages. He had modest extra base power.

Flood was an above average player........he was also one of the few players to hit over .300 during the 1968 "year of the pitcher" season. Flood was a major cog in the Cardinal pennant drives of 1964, 1967 and 1968. It took a while before an adequate replacement could be found in St. Louis.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Flood was an above average player........he was also one of the few players to hit over .300 during the 1968 "year of the pitcher" season. Flood was a major cog in the Cardinal pennant drives of 1964, 1967 and 1968. It took a while before an adequate replacement could be found in St. Louis.

These are the arguments for Flood as a HOFer, or, at least, as a HOF-quality player who might have been a HOFer under different circumstances.

I'm not sure how much to value Flood's defense. Flood, however, was not a leadoff hitter, and had he been, he probably would not have been particularly outstanding, due to his relative inability (or was it mere unwillingness) to take a walk. Flood deserves at least SOME extra credit on this, in that (A) he played in an extreme pitchers' era with a large strike zone, meaning that there were fewer walks, period, and (B) Flood batted #2 in the St. Louis order, behind Lou Brock; it was Flood's job to do the hit-and-run, or "put the bat on the ball" to aid Brock stealing a base. Had Flood been the leadoff man, he MIGHT have shown a bit more plate discipline in a different role.

I don't believe that any of that extra credit adds up to a HOFer, but it would have added up to a more viable HOF candidate had Flood's career been of normal length.