Well it’s plausible anyway, but that’s not really how it happened. According to Curt Flood Jr., his father and mother were denied Service at Musial’s restaurant, but Stan the Man himself was not there that evening, and so had nothing to do with the incident (whether the restaurant was segregated as a rule or this was an isolated event I don’t know, and really is neither here nor there to me. We’re talking about St. Louis in 1963, so even if Musial was operating a segregated business, at worst he was a coward or on the wrong side of history. He’s hardly history’s greatest monster). What’s more, Flood’s son goes on to say very nice things about Musial as a person.
So what do we have here? Chass takes a story that was recounted to him third hand, doesn’t contact any of the parties involved or anyone close to them (it appears that the only source Chass uses is 93 year old Marvin Miller’s memory), strips out the social context completely, and proceeds to write the most fire-breathing, reactionary blog post internet column he can. And this is why Chass is completely useless these days; even when he presents you with something that, on the surface, looks like an interesting story, once you actually investigate it a little, it turns out that blogger Chass is taking poetic license with the facts.
Also, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that not contacting the people he’s accusing of various sins on his blog is becoming something of a bad habit for blogger Chass. Maybe that’s the way things are done in Murray’s basement, but the rest of us have higher standards than that.
No wonder blogger Chass can’t find a respectable outlet to publish his internet columns.
This is becoming a pattern for me:
1. Check Chass's blog for new post.
2. Read new post.
3. Chuckle to myself.
4. Click to IIATMS.
5. Read Jason's or Brien's reaction.
6. Howl.
7. Wait a few days, repeat.
Well, I think you have to be careful that IIATM doesn't just become an outlet that exists largely for Chass-bashing. Debunking Chass' anti-SABR rants is an interesting meme, but when it devolves into "Chass said Diet Coke is better than Diet Pepsi and he has no evidence to back it up," it becomes a snooze.
I know what you mean, but obviously that's not what's going on here. Debunking an instance of a writer/journalist/blogger smearing an individual with shoddy work for the purpose of smearing them is another matter then engaging in debates over sabermetrics entirely. That's true no matter who the writer is, frankly.
Is FireMurrayChass.com taken?
To clarify, even I'm pretty well burnt out on Chass' anti-stats stuff, unless there's a larger point buried in there somewhere. It's just predictable tripe and not even particularly annoying anymore.
But Chass also has a tendency to take to his blog and smear people like he did to Musial, and while we like to make fun of him, Chass is still a longtime baseball writer with a somewhat high profile. On those occasions where he sees fit to engage in these sort of smears, I think it's worth responding to and pushing back against, because guys like Musial, Mike Piazza, etc. deserve defending, and because at some point, ignoring these smears starts to look like accepting them.
For a longer take I pretty much agree with in full, see Calcaterra from yesterday:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/24/why-…
Anyway, I'm sure it's annoying to some, which is why I try to put most of the post below the jump, and identify what it's about early so you can skip over it if you prefer. If you don't want to read it, I don't necessarily blame you.
And the “Chass Meets the Beaver” comic thing was just something really funny I wanted to share.
I am a professional journalist, and I find Chass' standards for reporting offensive to the profession.
That said, I think you go overboard. Chass never calls Musial a racist (even if he comes close to insinuating as much), as you say he did. What he did write is that he "discriminated against blacks." Being motivated by cowardice, or being on the wrong side of history, rather than racism, does not mean he didn't discriminate. So, your proposed defenses are not actually defenses.
There are other areas where you critique goes beyond what Chass wrote. Chass is not a great journalist, but don't fall to his level.
usumojinga, one definition of "racist" is "discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion".
Okay, but that's not the best definition here. Brien's using the word in a sense of motivation, not action, because his defenses of cowardice or custom would be irrelevant otherwise.
1. I'm not naive to what Chass is doing, but I think it is odd that this post tries to defend Musial's actions as cowardice. Because if that is the defense, then it falls far short when you are talking about the presidential medal of freedom. Yes, you could probably accuse anyone between Anson and Robinson of racism, but (a) they didn't just receive a medal from the president, and (b) this happened 16 years after Robinson's debut, at the height of the desegregation movement (another relevant social context, for what it's worth).
2. All Flood Jr.says is that Musial wasn't at the restaurant – and Chass writes as much. Chass just says that the maitre d' said it was the owner's (Musial's) orders. Flood Jr. does not say Musial had nothing to do with the incident.
Saying Racist or not, he wouldn't bring up an incident from 50 years ago unless he was trying to smear musial. Not sure where the relevance or point of his writing an article like this was.
In his great book “October 1964,'' David Halberstam — one of the great journalists of his era — related this about Musial when the Cardinals first arranged for a way to have black and white players stay in the same motel during spring training:
“Even Stan Musial, who had both the right, as a senior star, and the money to rent a house for his family during spring training — something he had looked forward to in the past — stayed at the motel and was a part of the team. That made a great difference, for Musial was not only one of the two or three greatest players of his era, he was one of the most beloved as well: he seemed to live in a world without malice or meanness, where there was no prejudice, and where everyone was judged on talent alone.''
I don't believe there's a racist bone in Musial's body.
Another thing — the version of the story Chass mentions about Flood and his date appears in a history of St. Louis baseball called "The Spirit of St. Louis" (which quotes Flood directly, instead of third-hand) . If one turns the page from the start of that anecdote, the book (by Peter Golenbock) relates — in Flood's words — that he told Musial about it, that Stan “turned livid,'' and that Flood was treated like royalty the next time he went to Musial & Biggies.
The same book, n the page BEFORE Flood's anecdote, Bob Gibson is quoted about Musial's actions in integrating the Cardinals' spring training hotel:
“Several of the white players had traditionally stayed with their families in beachfront cottages during spring training, but when Musial and Boyer gave up their private accomodations to move in with the rest of the team — blacks included — the Cardinals had successfully broken down the local custom.''
Seems maybe Murray could have taken the trouible to turn the page before intimating that this fine man is a racist.
Musial came from Donora, Pa. and in Stans book he mentions how he played with Griffey. If I had to guess it would be a relative of Ken Griffey.
To keep it short, Chass belongs to the always priviledged class which somehow always stokes hatred through the Media and scientifically divides society with ugly passion.