MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019418254 · doi:10.1353/nin.0.0074

One Man Out: Curt Flood versus Baseball (review)

2009· article· en· W2019418254 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Doris Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueNine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Sports and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythContext (archaeology)Subject (documents)Supreme courtBiographyLawHistorySociologyArt historyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: One Man Out: Curt Flood versus Baseball Lisa Doris Alexander Robert M. Goldman. One Man Out: Curt Flood versus Baseball. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008. 158 pp. Paper, $16.95. In 2009, the Veteran's Committee will decide whether Curt Flood should be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Flood's possible induction has made him a popular research subject: no less than five books have been written about Flood since 2006. Each has its own voice and unique take on Flood and his Supreme Court case. Robert Goldman provides the most recent study, and since this book is part of the University Press of Kansas's Landmark Law Cases and American Society series, it focuses less on Flood's biography and more on the legal aspects of his case. Chapter one provides a brief synopsis of the events leading up to Flood's lawsuit, including the rapidly deteriorated relationship between Gussie Busch and Flood; the trade from St. Louis to Philadelphia; and the early legal wrangling in federal court. The second chapter actually takes a step back and discusses Flood's life before baseball within the context of the Cardinals' integration attempts in the mid-1950s. For readers who are familiar with Flood's resume and baseball's racial history, the chapter sequence works well. However, readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter could be confused because Goldman explains what Flood did before painting a picture of who Flood was. In the book's preface, Goldman argues that his book "attempts to explain [Flood's] case in both its legal and historical perspective and setting" (xiii). Chapter three brings the reader to Goldman's purpose by discussing the reserve clause, the National Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players' challenges, and the early legal battles that pitted players against management. This is where One Man Out distinguishes itself. Most books on Flood casually mention these previous court cases involving baseball and the reserve clause, if they are mentioned at all. Here, readers can sift through approximately eighty years of jurisprudence in forty pages. Goldman provides readers with background information on the Sherman Act as well as a discussion of the central questions and judgment summaries for relevant court cases, from 1890's [End Page 166] Metropolitan Exhibition Company v. Ward to 1919's Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball, et al. to 1953's Toolson v. New York Yankees. Chapter four continues the legal trajectory by discussing cases brought against the NFL and NBA which helped cement MLB's "special" anti-trust status and chronicling the beginnings of the Players Association. The remaining chapters dive into Curtis G. Flood v. Bowie Kuhn et al. Chapter five tackles the trial itself and offers a detailed consideration of Judge Irving Ben Cooper's interesting behavior. While discussing the appeals process in chapter six, Goldman highlights Flood's brief and ultimately unsuccessful return to baseball. Chapter seven walks readers step by step through the entire Supreme Court process. Once again, Goldman offers far more detail about the actual procedures involved in bringing Flood's case before the Court than previous works, including a summary of the submitted briefs from both sides, a brief discussion of the Justices and how they were appointed, and an account of the controversy regarding how Flood's attorney, Arthur Goldberg, himself a former member of the bench, should be addressed during oral arguments. After detailing the oral arguments phase of the process, Goldman presents an inside look into the deliberations based primarily on material from Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (Avon Books, 1996). While the information may not give readers any peace of mind regarding the sanctity of the justice system, we learn that the final decision was "the result of several weeks of negotiation, switching sides, and implied 'vote-trading'" (114). Goldman finishes the chapter by outlining the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Flood. The final chapter naturally is a "postgame analysis" of the Flood case. Why has this case endured in legal circles? What impact, if any, did this case have on the impending end of the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNineSame topicAmerican Sports and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207