OT: Curt Flood should be in the Hall of Fame
He changed the face of baseball, and he should be in the Hall of Fame. If you agree, join the Facebook group to support the cause.
almost 2 years ago
vonde6
54 comments
0 recs |
Comments
And why isn't there a Facebook page like this for Ron Santo?
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
That's a valid point. Santo deserves it for sure.
I’ve heard Flood lauded enough here in St. louis not to really care much about Flood. He did change the game completely. I’d vote for him because of that in some capacity.
Shut Up Joe Morgan
by Sandberg's evil twin on Jul 23, 2010 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I think that it could be helpful to him if it gets a large number of fans
It got Betty White a gig on Saturday Night Live.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
Was it Curt Flood or Marvin Miller who changed baseball?
Miller was head on the MLBPA in 1966 and got their first Collective Bargaining Agreement in 1968, followed by salary arbitration in 1970.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
And Miller has a better chance
He at least fits into a category for voting.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Jul 23, 2010 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Marvin Miller does not belong in the HOF
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Any reason?
Free agency as it stands would not exist without Marvin Miller. I think this is the primary reason he hasn’t been elected. Think what you want about overpaid players, but it’s light years better than the reserve clause.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
Would you be supporting the owners' lawyer if they had won the case?
Being the players’ union lawyer does not make you a baseball person IMO, but I am not wild about owners and announcers being in the Hall either. I would have preferred it was reserved for the people who played (or managed) the game.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
Technically
Announcers are not in the Hall of Fame. They receive the Ford C. Frick Award from the Baseball Hall of Fame, but it is not the same as induction.
In popular terms, however, most people who win the Ford C. Frick award are called “Hall of Famers.”
Marvin Miller is not a lawyer. He is a labor organizer and an economist.
Oh, and Bowie Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame, and he started as the Owners’ Lawyer. So yes, the Owner Lawyer is in the Hall. And essentially, the Commissioner is the owner’s equivalent of Marvin Miller, and Bowie Kuhn’s election proves that pretty much every Commissioner is going in to the Hall of Fame. Probably only Spike Eckert will be excluded.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 24, 2010 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bowie Kuhn should not be in
I lean toward putting Miller in, but I also do not believe any candidacy’s argument should begin or end with “If so-and-so is in…”
Just because a bunch of good-old boy, bourbon-soaked, frequently corrupt and often racist sportswriters of yesteryear saw fit to vote someone in doesn’t mean today’s overpaid, attention-seeking, dead-tree relics should make the same mistakes.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
This.
That good ol’ boy network should be ashamed of theirselves. Their petty reasoning goes beyond steroids and into stupidity quite often. But having said that, choosing a player because another player is in is equally as stupid.
By the way, Worf, whatever happened to our ol’ boy network and smoking cigars, drinking cognac out of snifters? seems like it only lasted a day, darn it.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Jul 24, 2010 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Every once in a while, they get theirs
Idiots like Mike Lupica had to try to explain why they felt Gaylord Perry’s cheating was “Nyuck! Nyuck!” and Mark McGwire’s was a sin against all that is holy.
That’s why I laugh when I hear today’s clowns say that A-Rod (among others) will never get into the Hall.
A-Rod will probably play until at least 2015. That means he isn’t eligible until 2020. He doesn’t come off the ballot until 2035.
In other words, every single panelist on Around the Horn, PTI and whatever crime against humanity that Skip Bayless thing is called will be dead, retired or about to retire.
A-Rod is getting in. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Dude, I have an old boy network. We just act like we’re 2.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Bowie Kuhn's election was a joke
A bunch of his old friends put him in.
All I’m saying is that Kuhn’s election demonstrates that every commissioner of baseball (except for Eckert, probably) is going in to Cooperstown, whether deserved or not.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 24, 2010 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions
no reason to make another mistake and elect union mouthpiece Miller
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 26, 2010 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions
It was both but
the lawsuit should not help or hinder Flood’s candidacy. It should be based on his on the field play only.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Then Flood will not get into the HOF
He does not have one stat that hits the HOF level.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Jul 24, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
debatable
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
That's why people discuss
During his 15 years of HOF voting, Flood topped out at 15.1%. His first 3 years were all under 5%, each of which would have dropped him from the HOF ballot now.
I can’t see anyone electing him based on his stats alone. Not with his HOF voting percentages.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
by RiskyBusiness on Jul 24, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe so, but Flood's on the field play should be the only factor considered
the lawsuit should be irrelevant is my point
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 26, 2010 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Why isn't there a facebook page
For Betty White for the Hall of Fame? Or is there?
Flood just wasn’t a good enough player. I’d put him in a Labor History Hall of Fame though.
Flood just wasn’t a good enough player.
Well, I dunno. Three-time All-Star. Key part of three pennant winning (two WS winning) teams. Got top-25 MVP votes six times. Won seven Gold Gloves as an OF.
Had a .293 lifetime average in a low-offense era.
And, MIGHT have put up better numbers had he not basically been forced to retire at age 31. His leadership role in getting what players have now, I think gives him a case. Remember, it’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Statistical Achievement.
Flood is one of the most famous players in baseball history.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You can't give credit
for what he might have done.
Flood’s career OPS+, which is adjusted for the hitting environment, is an even 100. Dead average. His career was short. If he came close to being a HOFer, then I’d say let his off-the-field actions put him in. But go to BR and look at his Hall of Fame statistics at the bottom of the page. He’s not even close.
Dick Groat was a five time All-Star and won an MVP award. He put up a .286 batting average in a low-offense era. He was an excellent defensive shortstop. Not as good as Flood was a center fielder, but very good. No one thinks Dick Groat is a Hall of Famer.
If you want to put Flood in for Meritorious Service to the Game, I’m fine with that. Marvin Miller should go in with him. But if you put him in as a player, then every single player who was better than Flood is going to have a campaign to get him in two. And that’s about 2000 players.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 23, 2010 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions
You can give reasonable credit in certain circumstances
For example, war credit, strike credit, and injury credit are reasonable. How much a voter wants to give is at his individual discretion. To illustrate this example, I believe that Sam Rice would have had 3,000 hits if he hadn’t served in WWI, Fred McGriff would have had 500 home runs without the 1994-95 strike, and Tommy John would be a 300 game winner if not for needing the surgery that bears his name. Of the three I mentioned, only Rice is in the Hall of Fame. I support the cases of John and McGriff.
I do not, however, support Curt Flood. His career ended far too early for reasons I understand, but it’s not like he was transcending the sport in his short career. When you look at similarity scores, none of those guys are Hall of Famers or even come close. A centerfielder with a 100 OPS+. Looking at WAR, he simply didn’t have an amazing peak. Those are the sorts of things you need when looking at a short career. I’m not saying it’s all stats, but looking at individual seasons, he just doesn’t belong.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
When Santo gets in, I'll start lobbying for someone else...not until.
Ron Santo - 8,143 ABs, .277 BA; 342 HR; 1331 RBI = NO Hall of Fame?
Brooks Robinson - 10,654 ABs, .267 BA; 268 HR; 1357 RBI = Hall of Fame.
Any more questions ?
he changed the game forever, Josh
How can Steinbrenner get in if he doesn’t?
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
DId you hear me
calling for Steinbrenner to go into the Hall?
Besides, he’s an owner, not a player. They’re judged on different criteria.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 23, 2010 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions
It's true that they are judged on different criteria.
The question raised by Curt Flood’s case is whether they should be.
There are some players that contribute to the game in one way and some that contribute in multiple ways. The current system tries to just look at their one primary contribution. Curt Flood had nowhere near the career necessary to merit Hall consideration as a player, and he probably doesn’t merit it solely as a pioneer. Maybe players that are very close in both regards should make it. I think of it like a distance formula in geometry. Say you need 5 to get to the Hall. If you’re 3 as a player and 4 as a pioneer, the current system says you’re a 4, a solid “Hall of Very Good” case, and that seems a bit too low. That doesn’t seem right. “Adding” the components makes you a 7, a shoo-in, and that seems a bit high. Applying a distance formula gives you 5, a borderline case.
I don’t know exactly what these numbers represent, and of course people have all kinds of different standards for what a HoF-caliber player is. I’m not sure I’d rate Flood’s playing career a 3 (I’m much too young to have seen Flood — some of this depends on whether he was merely a very good defensive CF or a game-changer; if he was the Ozzie Smith of CF while he played then he’s probably a “3” player… at any rate, I’m sure you’d agree that the linked article oversells his Hall potential had he played a full career) or his status as a pioneer a 4 — he lost the case, after all, and never played much after that. So he falls short under my “distance formula” rubric to me. But he gets a little closer.
(I don’t mean to say that we should literally assign players numeric scores for each contribution and do a distance formula, it’s just a way to think about it. If the distance formula is too generous, maybe base-2 log of sum of 2^n is better — in that model, 4 + 4 = 5, so you’d have to be just short of the Hall in two ways to have a borderline case. Anyway, I’m just trying to come up with ways to think about total impact.)
so did the first guy to put in lights for night games
but I don’t think earns you a spot in the HOF.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Debatable
293 career BA (in a pitching dominant time)
3 time All Star
7 gold gloves
He is certainly not an obvious HOFer, but his on field play warrants consideration.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I disagree
His career numbers just don’t amount to much. He has a 100 OPS+, which is abysmal for an outfielder. His best season according to WAR was 1967 where he had a 5.1 WAR. He simply doesn’t have enough quality seasons that when put together, you could give him a career shortened case. Then there’s the fact that he didn’t have much pop in his bat (less than 100 career home runs), so Flood would have needed to play at an offensive level similar to a Rod Carew to make up for that. He didn’t. For someone with a career as short as Flood’s, he’d need a phenomenal peak to make up for the lack of counting stats. He doesn’t have that and hence does not belong in the Hall of Fame.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
like I said, debatable
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions
Deserves some deep thought!
I would probably have to agree that both Flood and Miller deserve to be in the Hall because of how they changed the game. Question: is there something in the Hall giving honor to what they did?
HIs lawsuit should have zero bearing on his Hall worthiness
the only criteria should be is on the field play.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 24, 2010 10:24 AM CDT reply actions
A passing reference to Cleavon Little and "Sheriff Bart" in the "plunkeveryone" thread...
..along with this OT post, has me thinking about how well Little might have portrayed Curt Flood in any movie written to tell the story of baseball free agency. Both Flood and the sheriff were, after all, black men ready to sacrifice everything to promote schemes designed to make others rich and powerful. In fact, if you’re familiar with the movie, you may be able to spot some other interesting parallels between the 1870’s frontier town in "Blazing Saddles", and the landscape of traditional Major League Baseball in 1970, as well as the many similarities shared by the principal characters in both scenarios.
Mel Brooks, for example, would have been perfect as Steinbrenner. He would only have needed to reprise his "Saddles" role as the corrupt Governor ("Work, work, work…") LePetomane to achieve a spot-on portrayal of George. Meanwhile, the incomparable Harvey Korman could easily have handled the lead as Marvin Miller. True, his over-the-top performance as ruthless lawyer and land speculator Hedley ("That’s Hed-ley") Lamarr in "Saddles" would have required a little more restraint and sensitivity, but the similarities between Marvin and Hedley went beyond mere mustaches, and would have been more than enough to ease Korman into the role.
Like the uncomprehending residents of the little town in "Saddles" about to be swindled out of their land, baseball fans in 1970 had grown accustomed to an environment that generally served them well, as they enjoyed the way the game was played prior to its transformation by Miller, his "union," the networks, and the player agents who followed in their path. At one time, most everyone involved – owners, players and fans – understood the restraint necessary to sustain baseball as a public trust that held an almost unique legal status as a secular religion. Like high clergy, most franchise owners knew they had to observe limits, respect their patrons, and generally avoid the temptation to exploit and capitalize every aspect of the game.
But just like the handful of greedy politicians in "Saddles," baseball always had a few owners (e.g., Walter O’Malley and The Boss) looking for the Main Chance, which only worked to the advantage of a major player and budding revolutionary like Miller, whose values and ethics were forged in the cauldron of contract negotiations representing steelworkers. To him, baseball’s extralegal traditions were sentimental claptrap to be ignored. There were great fortunes and reputations to be made, the public interest and the nature of the game itself be damned. In his 45 years in the public eye, I can’t recall a single instance where Miller showed humor on any subject, or respect and generosity to those fans and adversaries who opposed any of the changes he wrought.
Now, in his 90’s, he seeks absolute vindication from the baseball establishment and the general public that pays him tribute every time they send a check to the cable company. Long ago, he managed to conflate his struggle for wealth and power with the civil rights movement, and it could not have been a coincidence that he selected a black man like Curt Flood to spearhead the cause of free agency. At first, both press and public didn’t buy this ludicrous disguise for Miller’s moneygrab, but with the advent of countless sports media outlets that need to hype the modern game, Marvin has become a secular saint – a regular Jackie Robinson – while Curt Flood is now an established martyr.
Each, along with Steinbrenner, likely has a spot reserved in the Hall, and I’m not opposed, even to Miller’s selection, with this proviso: Right under Miller’s name and title, his plaque should read "Godfather of Pitch-Count Baseball," with a quote from a well-known Sinatra song at the bottom that reads: "Some people get their kicks just steppin’ on a dream."
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
This is absolutely insane
Miller did not seek out Flood for free agency. Flood refused to be traded to Philadelphia and told the Player’s Association that he was not going to report and would instead file a suit.. In fact, you can argue that Miller really didn’t have a hell of a lot to do with Flood v. Kuhn. He provided moral support, advice and was a public face to the media, but Flood had his own lawyer arguing the case. Even if Miller had opposed Flood, there was nothing he could do.
To him, baseball’s extralegal traditions were sentimental claptrap to be ignored. There were great fortunes and reputations to be made, the public interest and the nature of the game itself be damned. In his 45 years in the public eye,
Isn’t “extralegal traditions” another word for “illegal”? Baseball players had no freedom to work their craft under any conditions other than the ones that the owners decreed. Salaries had barely increased at all from the 1930s to the 1960s. The pension was a joke and don’t even ask about disability payments. Heck, they barely fixed you up if you were still active.
As far as money to be made and the public interest be damned, isn’t that pretty much what the owners were doing? They were taking in money hand over fist and giving none of it to the players who made it for them. Brooklyn Fans? Who cares? There’s gold in California! Rocky Colavito is a hero to the children of Cleveland? Who cares? Trade him to Detroit. He doesn’t want to go? Who cares? Its absolutely ridiculous for you to claim that it’s Miller who had no respect for the fans or traditions of the game. It was the people who he stood up to who couldn’t give a damn about the traditions of the game as long as their was a buck to be made.
You’re crazy if you think the owners of the game back before Miller knew to “observe limits.” They were capricious robber barons who banned Danny Gardella from the game for life, simply for playing baseball in Mexico for a higher salary than what the Yankees were offering him to play in AAA. Some limits.
As far as “pays him tribute every time they send a check to the cable company,” again, that’s nuts. The contracts between the cable company and the owners are negotiated without any input for MLBPA. How you can claim Miller has any connection to that is beyond me.
Finally, it’s a little disturbing that you think that a proud, 31 year old man like Curt Flood, in the middle of the Civil Rights Era, didn’t make this decision on his own, but was manipulated by a New York lawyer to do something he didn’t want to do in the first place. You might want to re-examine your thinking on that.
Your calling Miller the “Godfather of Pitch-Count Baseball” is such a non-sequitur I don’t even know how to respond to it. The MLBPA has never gotten involved in pitch counts. At this point, I think you’ve just decided to blame everything you don’t like about baseball today on Marvin Miller. And that’s really sad, because I don’t think you’re tethered enough to reality to even further discuss this with you.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 24, 2010 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
You gave that claptrap far more than it deserved, Josh
Miller changed the game from a plantation to a democracy. Flood (and Messersmith and others) helped.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Agreed.
Remember, that ridiculous rant Josh responded to, came from someone who thinks the Cubs will get the city of Chicago to relocate Addison St. so they could expand the grandstand, something that isn’t even necessary.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Fortunately
I haven’t been following his earlier writings.
This is one that Henry Ford could have written, if you know what I mean.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 24, 2010 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Earlier this afternoon, I hesitated to go there...
but now I’ve had seven beers and about 30 wings with Caribbean Jerk sauce.
This guy basically blames Jews for messing up baseball.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Worf and Josh, you could not be more wrong...
I don’t know or care what Miller’s religion is, but I do know that the advent of “Pitch-Count Baseball” in recent years is one inevitable result of the free agency he worked so hard to achieve. As I’m sure you know, Miller is more than happy to take credit for the way the modern game is played, so he should hardly be exempt from criticism for its failings.
This Cubs’ season alone is a perfect example of how pitch counts can hamstring a team that has five good starters and two (now three) excellent relievers. Those set-up disasters in April and May were the key to this year’s failures, and are problems that might not have occurred if baseball still operated on the idea of starters going at least seven.
In any case, Miller’s achievements are remarkable, and thousands of people who are directly or peripherally involved in MLB owe him a debt of gratitude. But as a fan, I don’t like ballgames where pitch counts designed to preserve future earnings become more important than winning a game, and for that I blame free agency and Miller.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
Not sure why you are obsessed with pitch counts.
Nor how you make the connection between free agency and them. There’s no discernable connection.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Because, of all the fallout from free agency, pitch counts have had the greatest impact on how the game is played.
On offense, “getting into the bullpen” by building the opponent’s pitch count too often becomes as important as scoring runs. On defense, the indirect need to either protect an investment in an existing long-term contract with a pitcher, or to preserve his earnings potential, often trumps the need to have him go another inning.
When it was apparent during the off-season that Guzman would be out for the year, I believe a plan to have our starters go past their normal pitch counts should have been considered, along with either going after better right-handed middle relief or bringing up Andrew Cashner. Leaving those early-season setups to Grabow, Caridad and Samardzija, then sending Z to the pen, pretty much ruined this season before it began.
I know, the lack of offense has been frustrating, but if it weren’t for pitch counts, the Cubs still might have been able to salvage the season.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
Blaming pitch counts for the Cubs' failure...
…. is the reddest of red herrings. And blaming Marvin Miller for pitch counts is just silly.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Uh...WHAT?????
So, basically, you prefer a system where teams pay guys $100,000 a year and then have the freedom to make them throw 150-175 pitches a start (or more) because, hey, what the hell, it’s only $100k.
Loathsome.
By the way, every other team has ptch counts too.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Is there any aspect of modern baseball that you won't defend with insults and innuendo?
On rare occasions, I do see you start to make sense, but then you always revert to conventional thinking and cheap shots.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
You're so freaking far off base
Here is why young pitchers aren’t coming up with the ability to throw seven:
1) Baseball is no longer the favorite sport of youth, and when it is, it is overmanaged and over-organized. Today’s rocket arm pitcher is playing Pee Wee Football as a QB.
2) EVERY pitcher, bonus baby or no, is on a pitch count. Disposable arms in the low minors are on pitch counts. So the notion that the teams are protecting high-investments is false.
3) For every “good old day” story about a pitcher throwing 200 pitches, there are dozens of stories of pitchers getting their arms destroyed. (And having no pension and a forced retirement at age 28 — something the evil Marvin Miller managed to fix)
We simply know more about the human body and what throwing overhand at 95 mph repeatedly does to a man.
You are in over your head and you’re putting forward a theory that is laughable at best and disgusting at worst.
There, no innuendo. Not cheap shots. Not insults. You’re just wrong.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Here's the most important difference that you clearly point out.
For every "good old day" story about a pitcher throwing 200 pitches, there are dozens of stories of pitchers getting their arms destroyed.
Gary Nolan. Don Gullett. Steve Busby. Dennis Leonard. There are four examples from many in the 1960’s and 1970’s alone about pitchers whose arms were destroyed by overuse.
Gullett, in particular, could have been a Hall of Famer. Yes, he was that good.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
What do you think that proves?
Pitchers in today’s over-protected era still get injured, do they not? Are you saying they are less likely to get injured today than in the 60s and 70s?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 26, 2010 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I started reading through both those novels.
Next time I’m gonna look down and see if there’s a Worf Reader’s Digest version later.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Jul 24, 2010 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Curt Flood
Changed the face of the game, but not exactly sure that is was a good thing.
Jackie Robinson changed the game for the better.
13- Warner, 23- Sandberg, 40- Tillman, 11- Walter
I posted this
Because I read the original article and found it interesting, but the back and forth here was even more interesting. I didn’t have a strong opinion about this before, but I now think that there should be a special category in the hall for people who changed the game forever. And yes, Steinbrenner should be in there and Flood, and Marvin Miller. Because, like any good business, there is the manufacturing of the widgets, and there is the political intrigue behind the scenes.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk




















