I got wrapped up in this book right away. I knew many pieces of the story already, but there was so much more to it than I thought. Mostly, the book hI got wrapped up in this book right away. I knew many pieces of the story already, but there was so much more to it than I thought. Mostly, the book helps put all the disparate stories around the Astros and cheating across the league into a coherent context. The chapters are topical and engaging, and the book is hard to put down. As much as anything, it does a great job of painting the picture of the office and clubhouse culture that could produce this scandal in the first place. This is a great book for understanding incentives behind the scenes in modern baseball, and anyone with a passing interest in the state of the sport would likely get something out of reading it....more
A very difficult book to rate. My feelings about it swung around wildly, and I'm not sure where to land. This is not helped by the fact that Roth spenA very difficult book to rate. My feelings about it swung around wildly, and I'm not sure where to land. This is not helped by the fact that Roth spends part of the epilogue writing negative reviews of the book you've just read, so you feel a little silly agreeing with the critiques he saw coming before publication.
The title is such a challenge! You know that it isn't what it purports to be because the great American novel wouldn't refer to itself as such. Right? So the book is lying to you from the cover. It starts with the testimonial of the fictional author of the main text, an alliterative addict named Word Smith. And that's not a name. Right? So it's fiction. It's silly. It's clearly silly, right? But you knew that going in of course. It told you on the cover it was a novel, so why shouldn't he be named Word Smith? Would John Smith be any less fictional?
As you weave through Smith's "historical novel" telling the stories of the forgotten Patriot Baseball League, you meet some well-named and unreal characters. Gil Gamesh. Luke Gofannon. Hothead Ptah. Nickname Damur. Applejack Terminus. These unreal fictional characters talk you through America in 1943. In this great American novel, we visit America's Greatest Generation.
And it sucks. For large stretches of the book you will be left wondering where the joke is, who it's on, whether the levels of irony have been stacked too high that they come out as sincerity. The text is, on its surface (as the epilogue itself acknowledges), unkind to every demographic available. The discrimination of power against powerless is not subtle and it's not debatable; it's right there. The novel does not condemn it; the novel reports it. At times, it even appears to condone it. This makes for an uncomfortable read. Even as you believe that Roth has a purpose in choosing the approach, that doesn't make it enjoyable.
But Roth didn't write this novel; Word Smith wrote this novel, this Great American Novel. For a novel that claims to tell the defining story of the nation to be confrontingly and unrelentingly cruel to everyone who is not a wealthy, white American man... well when you step back, perhaps that is not so odd as it seems in the moment.
It's not perfect, but my goodness is it ambitious! It's not always enjoyable to read, frankly, and in its 400 pages there might be some diversions that are more necessary than others (once again, a critique Roth anticipates in his epilogue). But the layers of doubt and questions of authorship make this unlike most books you'll read. This is fiction that makes the reader reassess reality in a way that only fiction can do. I think, even if only for that uncommon impression alone, it's worth reading....more
Look, an English-language history of baseball in Taiwan is pretty niche. So as a reader, you shouldn't be surprised that the text itself is niche. SomLook, an English-language history of baseball in Taiwan is pretty niche. So as a reader, you shouldn't be surprised that the text itself is niche. Some parts of this book will sail over the head of the general baseball fan because it's more concerned with applying theories of colonialism from the lens of the professional historical analyst than with who the best teams in Taiwan were in the 90's.
The book is often less about the "what" of baseball so much as the "why" of baseball. Why did this sport, of all sports, persist as the national game despite its origin as a game reluctantly made available to Taiwan by its colonial Japanese overlords? And why would this sport manifest so much of the ethnic disunity between the various groups that have called Taiwan home over the centuries?
If you're interested in investigating the big ideas of this topic from someone very concerned with ideas, you'll enjoy it. But you have to know what it is before you begin and read it for what it intends to be. ...more
A briskly-written, empathetic four-person biography of an important, unheralded team. While Epplin situates his narrative squarely in the time of its A briskly-written, empathetic four-person biography of an important, unheralded team. While Epplin situates his narrative squarely in the time of its setting, he is willing to look askance at his subjects in the terms of their own time. Each of these figures is more robust than I expected them to be, and even though I'd read Veeck's autobiography before, there was a lot here that was new to me. The book doesn't idealize or cheapen the team or the time with unreality. It feels like a very lived-in space, and people curious about the early years of baseball integration will not be disappointed with the level of detail provided here. ...more
"... as with an under-boiled potato, O'Malley's warmth was mostly external." -Roger Kahn
The flairs are literary and they are incisive. They are morall"... as with an under-boiled potato, O'Malley's warmth was mostly external." -Roger Kahn
The flairs are literary and they are incisive. They are morally charged and they are nostalgic. The asides make the book because the plot doesn't matter. There are one hundred pages of plot, one hundred pages of baseball history and championships and striving. And then we see that the real lives, even the ones lived amidst that strife, were asides and flairs and intangibles.
The title is so misleading. I avoided this book for a long time because it seemed like it would merely bask in the nostalgic glow of long gone halcyon days. The Brooklyn Dodgers, that small thing uprooted and transformed into the picture of capital-centric glitz, tend to take on the hue of a baseball martyr. So I hesitated and demurred.
The title is there for a reason though. Kahn, having seen the reality of the team from the front row, knew well enough that he could value the importance of the team without making it something that it isn't. So he does his best to say what it was for him, and then he lets its central cast say what it was for them too. No one here is presented as a god incarnate, just as people thrust into a unique circumstance together and trying to make sense of it apart.
The story of Jackie Robinson tends to fit into history texts as a heroic but inevitable token of progress. It wasn't so simple for the people who made it happen, and hearing how they rationalize the experience in retrospect makes it all much more human. They can still be heroes without being gods.
It's the story of burdened men and how they handle their burdens. The burden of success and subsequent feelings of inadequacy. The burden of Vietnam, a colossal conflict dwarfing their own and scooping up their sons. The burden of having overperformed and being underpaid. The burden of living in a tumultuous time and trying to explain that they lived through tumult too, that even though it looks like nothing in retrospect, it was something. It was real. Deteriorating bodies and deteriorating respect. This is a picture of transitional moments, not yet far enough removed from glories for it to be history. Just folks....more
What you have to realize, what took me some time to realize, is that this isn't a book about the remembrances of players. It's about the connections bWhat you have to realize, what took me some time to realize, is that this isn't a book about the remembrances of players. It's about the connections between their memories.
At first I was annoyed because the speakers had a tendency to list names of great players long-past and great games long since played. It felt simply foreign. But as you read one voice after the other, you hear them describing the same people and the same moments from many perspectives. Ritter does a great job of arranging these stories so that they build on and respond to one another. Were the veterans too hard on rookies or just creating a team culture? Were they underpaid? Was Babe Ruth really the best player ever? Are modern players any better than they used to be? There are so many questions that get bandied about between the stories and are answered so many ways. You get the sense that you're overhearing a dynamic conversation from an insular world long gone but no so foreign as it might have seemed. This actually encourages re-reading, since you have so much more context at the end of the book for what you read at the beginning.
I also want to offer one note on the title. I have hesitated for a long time to read this book because I thought it would simply be a shining, uncritical evocation of "the good old days." I believed that it was the times in which they played which were glorious. As the reader digs in, they find that there was nothing special about their times, and they are not described as perfect. Though of course many of the speakers are grateful for their youth and in some ways long to relive it, it's not universally described as superior.
Instead, it is these players themselves who were glorious. They were the glories of an unglorious time. And this is an effort to see that their moments in the sun are remembered for what they were in their time. I'm grateful for having gone on the journey. ...more
It's strange that a book from 2015 is now best read as a historical document, but here we are. Specifically, this is a document of one phase in the deIt's strange that a book from 2015 is now best read as a historical document, but here we are. Specifically, this is a document of one phase in the development of baseball analytics.
The biggest issues the book has are simply how it has held up over time. The 2013 Pirates had a few unique points of emphasis that come through in this text: 1) aggressive infield shifting, 2) prioritize catcher framing, and 3) pitching sinkers low in the zone.
Infield shifting is certainly still a thing, but it's seen as less game-changing than it was at the time. And while the Pirates were among the teams showing a newfound focus on it, the introduction of better batted ball tracking meant that they were far from the only ones. Each team had to get over the hurdle (no pun intended) of applying the shift, but the Pirates were not game-changers. In a similar way, catcher framing became less of a distinguishing feature in short order because negative framers were mostly moved out of the game or into other positions, so it became difficult for a team to have a truly standout framer.
The issue of the sinker has aged the worst. With the onset of the fly ball revolution (coincident with the changes in the MLB ball construction in 2015), slower balls low in the zone were converted to home runs at a much higher rate. Despite this, the Pirates continued to emphasize inducing ground balls, even as they became less common. The uniform approach toward their pitchers has resulted in many of their starters improving measurably upon their departure (Gerrit Cole, Charlie Morton, Tyler Glasnow).
It's not the author's fault that he couldn't see the future. I do think there are several sections where the text tends to take the subject's word for things that could be analyzed: Bob Nutting's spending is seen as a self-evident necessity, Hurdle's disinterest in his pitchers getting strikeouts, the writing-off of development in areas like framing or pitch selection. I think I would have enjoyed this and learned more from it if I'd read it upon release. But the industry has evolved in the interim and this one is largely out of date. Like Moneyball, it's a snapshot in time. Unlike Moneyball, it didn't change the game; the game was already moving beyond these tenets as it was published.
This is a baseball book, but you won't learn much information you didn't already know if you're a fan. Because this isn't a book about information; itThis is a baseball book, but you won't learn much information you didn't already know if you're a fan. Because this isn't a book about information; it's a book about a feeling.
In the form of several essays, the author examines several figures that made the Washington Nationals 2014-2015 seasons possible. But his focus is not on the specifics of their accomplishments but on the generalizability of their circumstances. So a chapter on the experience of being married to a baseball player is less about the specifics of one family arrangement and more about the burdens borne generally by baseball families. By examining the particular, we get a sense for how the seemingly-endless baseball season affects the many figures in its orbit and what mental coping strategies they use to persist through it.
Some specifics will change; I doubt, for example, that the scout section would be written in precisely the same way. But the grind itself persists. If you are interested in a short, readable text that helps you empathize with the many contributors to professional baseball, this is a good place to start. ...more
There's no baseball played in it, mind you. But this is a play about the psychological ramifications of a system that all7/10/20 It's a baseball book.
There's no baseball played in it, mind you. But this is a play about the psychological ramifications of a system that allowed people of certain pigmentation to play baseball in the limelight while others were not afforded the same opportunity. We don't meet Troy at his height but at his downswing, when his resentments and pain have begun to seep out and become intolerable to those around him. He is a victim. He is a victimizer.
In the varied characters we see varied reactions to pain, both personal pain and public pain. It's a picture of the private consequences of general indifference to inequality.
And also, it's very good.
10/16/23 I don't disagree with anything in my previous review. I think one thing I'd add is thinking about the play in terms of its scale.
On one hand, the play is very small. It takes place in the front yard of a single house. The family is small. From a distance, even their issues seem small: indignities at work, unmet career ambitions, playing football. Even adultery seems small when it's at a remove from the audience.
At the same time, we see angels. Troy has met the Angel of Death, although no one believes him. His brother claims to be the Angel Gabriel, although no one believes him.
The battles they are fighting are small, so small that to the audience they are invisible. Cory fights his father's shadow, but his mother says that he hasn't been fighting anything. Is it a battle or is it a mirage? Lyons fights to keep his music alive. Or is he just a grifter? Troy fights to keep death away from his family, to fence in what's his against a cruel world. Or is he just a tyrant?
The battles are small or nonexistent. Or, as the final sequence asks, are they what the kingdom of God is like? ...more
If you want a small book that artfully demonstrates the "baseball as microcosm" approach, this is a good place to start. If you want a small book that artfully demonstrates the "baseball as microcosm" approach, this is a good place to start. ...more
Fans of baseball cannot help but hear about the fly ball/ home run/ launch angle revolution over the last five seasons. Batters have increasingly retoFans of baseball cannot help but hear about the fly ball/ home run/ launch angle revolution over the last five seasons. Batters have increasingly retooled their swings to focus on uppercut motion, matching the plane of the ball's approach, and keeping the bat in the strike zone longer. This book explains some of those responsible for that shift.
If that seems a little niche, it is. The book is for fans of the game who want to understand a phenomenon that is ubiquitous but simultaneously hard to see unless you're looking for it.
The text is very readable and the narrative aspect keeps things moving. There is a lot of overlap between the stories and philosophies of the coaches profiled, so they sometimes can blend together. But ultimately, it is less about the innovators themselves and more about the process of innovation into an industry that doesn't want you. Also, the author subjecting himself to a similar training regimen was a good way to tie together the disparate coaching tips in the book, and I loved the epilogue.
The book probably could have been 50 pages shorter as much of the information and stories tend to run together. Sometimes it feels like there are anecdotes there just for the sake of being anecdotes without adding to the arguments.
Overall, if you're someone who has wondered about the surging home run rates in MLB since 2015, you won't regret the read. ...more
I think a lot of the issue is the assumptions built into the title. It would be more accurate if it were simply "A History of Ten Pitches."
The structI think a lot of the issue is the assumptions built into the title. It would be more accurate if it were simply "A History of Ten Pitches."
The structure is almost purely anecdotal, the summaries of myriad interviews covered in two-to-five page injected in sometimes-chronological order. Sometimes the anecdotes feel supplemental rather than complementary; more data rather an evolving narrative. And the relationship from one chapter to the next is limited; they're best considered as ten separate essays.
The issue with an anecdotally-driven history is that not all anecdotes are created equal. Some chapters have stronger connections between anecdotes, like the knuckleball, spitball, or cutter chapters. That's usually because the pitchers who specialize in that area have a kind of connection and build on one another's work. But it's not as if there's a brotherhood of four-seamer pitchers, so those anecdotes, among others, come across as more scattershot.
The highs are reasonably high, but they're randomly interspersed. The lows aren't loathsome, just skimmable. I would recommend reading the three chapters I mentioned as holding together. If you like them, you might like the rest of the book; if not, you won't find much more to latch onto. ...more
As one must expect with an essay collection, there are ups and downs. The ups make you wonder how anyone else would dare write about the game of basebAs one must expect with an essay collection, there are ups and downs. The ups make you wonder how anyone else would dare write about the game of baseball in Angell's wake. The downs make you skim, though not resentfully.
In general, Angell is at his best when he is examining a specific person and how they fit into the baseball landscape. He draws his characters beautifully, often imparting a melancholic edge while also being self-aware enough to critique his penchant for imparting melancholic edges. This helps paint a picture of baseball in the 1970's: how much is different and how much is unchanged. By contrast, he is less compelling as he describes the play-by-play of championship series, the reader having the feeling that not much is gained by his description that one could not get elsewhere. Angell certainly has a way with words, but it's hard to make game summaries compelling in themselves when he's so far removed from the human element, half the time watching them on TV.
It's worth taking some time with this one, but a reader shouldn't feel bad if they don't dig deep into each essay. If I were to re-read this one someday, I'd probably limit myself to the following essays: -On the Ball (how pitching works) -Landscape, with Figures (statistical analysis, 70's style) -Sunny Side of the Street (good anecdotes from spring training) -Gone for Good (the Steve Blass "yips" story) -The Companions of the Game (the end of the Horace Stoneham era with the Giants) -Scout (the transition into the draft-era of amateur scouting)...more
This is a fun little time capsule. Starting off with essays from nine major leaguers, which mostly encourage "grit" and also chewing tobacco, it proceThis is a fun little time capsule. Starting off with essays from nine major leaguers, which mostly encourage "grit" and also chewing tobacco, it proceeds with an overview of baseball as an industry in the mid-1950's. Some things seem very old, like a patronizing defense of the reserve clause or the idea that clubs need to coach prospects to ditch bad habits like uppercut swings (now the standard for the sport) and turn them into real slap hitters. At the same time, the book discusses how they're not sure how to make minor league teams economically viable in small towns and how younger players are contributing more to team success than ever, both of which are critically important issues in current labor negotiations. There's plenty that is unfamiliar, but mostly it's fun to see how much we talk about this silly sport in the same way decades on.
The second part of the book is a thorough list of statistics, mostly from the 1954 season. While we can just check FanGraphs now, you can see how critical that would be for the fan who wanted to stay informed.
It also has diagrams of each stadium, and man, I never quite realized how bananas the Polo Grounds dimensions were. It makes the Yankee Stadium short porch look positively reasonable by comparison....more
It took me a bit to get into the book because I wasn't sure what it was. I came to identify two functions it serves: to be a snapshot and a textbook. It took me a bit to get into the book because I wasn't sure what it was. I came to identify two functions it serves: to be a snapshot and a textbook.
As a snapshot, this book attempts to give a thorough picture of what the professional baseball scouting industry was like in late 2019. The references are up to the minute, and it will be interesting to see how they age. But the important thing for the authors, I think, has less to do with the specific players profiled and is more focused on how those players exemplify processes and trends in the industry. They don't attempt to predict the future, despite the title; they just want you to know what's going on.
As far as a textbook, the book attempts to piece together the disparate topics that all relate to scouting generally. This is a contrast to other scouting-focused texts like Prophet of the Sandlots: Journeys with a Major League Scout, which tend to focus more on personal narratives than broad pictures of the industry in which they operate. In this respect, the text can hold up in its broad strokes even as the particular details shift with new bargaining agreements and general managers. But also, this textbook has profanity and pop culture references and anti-corporate messaging so you know you're learning from the Cool Teacher *puts on shades*.
As other reviewers have noted, it can be a little bloated as there is repetition of key ideas (how many times do rising fastballs need to be explained?) and some chapters lack a clear throughline. It's best to think of it as several semi-related essays rather than a unified text. If a chapter is doing nothing for you, skip it, that's fine. The chapters mostly stand alone, though some like the "how to" of scouting chapters are more clearly related.
The book has a narrow appeal, but if you read the title and description and something in you said "Oh, I've always wondered about that!" then you likely won't be disappointed by what you find. ...more
You're almost certainly reading this because of Giamatti's "Green Field of the Mind" essay, which opens the collection. At times, the author is able tYou're almost certainly reading this because of Giamatti's "Green Field of the Mind" essay, which opens the collection. At times, the author is able to recapture that level of heightened poetry, but it's not consistent. There's just not enough material to really create a unified impression. And although he has one paragraph that baseball fans quote with a sigh every September, the rest doesn't quite click as well. It's short and enjoyable, but not something I'll be inclined to return to in depth. ...more
Good summary of the many incremental changes that created the modern baseball rule book. It relies heavily on archived newspaper reports, so you get tGood summary of the many incremental changes that created the modern baseball rule book. It relies heavily on archived newspaper reports, so you get the added flavor of seeing how reactions and expectations around the sport have and haven’t changed over the last 150 years. ...more
Loading...
