Clearing The Bases - Allen Barra [merged threads]

[Slippery Pedro]

The full title is:
Clearing the Bases - The Greatest Baseball Debates of the Last Century

Just picked it up and have only been thumbing through it - meaning I haven't read it yet. Still, I'm a bit pissy already about one thing - - - the book has 22 chapters and the last 6 are about:

Don Shula, QBs, Running Backs, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, and Wilt v. Russell.

For me, that's a waste of 30 pages and a tad of false advertising in the title. (I got it thru amazon - - had I seen this in a store, I may have been pissed enough to pass on the book.)

[nyy26wc]

I saw it in the bookstore and refused to buy it because of its waste of pages on non baseball material.

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
I saw it in the bookstore and refused to buy it because of its waste of pages on non baseball material.

Hey - you shoulda warned me! :loud:

[pwdennis]

I purchased this book recently, and while I would have preferred that Barras stick to baseball, the last thirty pages on football and basketball are interesting as he attempts to extend his baseball methodology to some other topics.

The book is well written and quite readable. It appears to me that he is using a methodology more akin to linear weights than to Win Shares, although his writing suggests that he is more in tune to Total Average. Among the topics he discusses are Mays vs Mantle, Williams vs DiMaggio (referred to as Gary Cooper vs John Wayne), a chapter devoted to demythologizing the Babe, Pete Rose (overrated) vs. Tim Raines (underrated), the HOF case for Minnie Minoso, the case for Jackie Robinson as the greatest 2B ever, Gibson vs Marichal, the case for Mike Schmidt as the greatest player ever.

While this book does not break any new theoretical ground, (other than the concept of multiply OBP X SLG, rather than adding them together - a concept referred to as SLOB). Barras' ideas make for interesting reading. Other than Bill James, I don't think I've seen any writer make as compelling a case for Minoso's admission to the HOF. I remember Minoso from the end of his career and at the time wondered why he didn't get to the majors until he was 28. He was a terrific player.

I must admit that I am getting tired of writers, such as Barras, making the case that baseball in the pre-integration era was somehow inferior to that which occurred after 1947, and, by corollary, bringing the greatness of all pre-1947 players is in question. While I fully agree that Black and Hispanic players have added greatly to the fabric of professional baseball, it should be noted that before the 1950s:

(1) Nearly all great all around athletes tended to try for careers in baseball as the NFL and what passed for pro basketball were distinctly lesser creatures to major league baseball, both in prestige and salary. Now baseball gets its share but nothing more. Since baseball is more skill dependent and less dependent on sheer athleticism than football or basketball, many of the super athletes avoid baseball where their competive advantage is less.

(2) While travel in the pre-expansion era was not coast to coast, it was done in often unairconditioned trains and buses, leaving players exhausted. I don't especially like flying, but a two hour flight is less tiring than a ten hour train ride.

(3) While it is true that the baseball does not carry as well at night qas it does during the day, neither is it as tiring to play at night as it is in 90+ degree summer day games.

The improvements in fielding are a natural evolution of improved conditioning methods, a better understanding of nutrition and superior equipment, rather than a reflection of the race and ethnicity of the players involved.

What I am willing to concede is that the influx of Black and Hispanic players (and now Oriental players) has prevented the quality of competition from eroding. Without this influx, the competitive level of the game would be below the level of the pre-integration era.

To paraphrase Tony the Tiger, baseball before 1947 was great , and it is still GREAT

[wbonnell]

This is a newly published book that I stumbled upon at my local library. Of course, the title of the book and the summary on the dust cover intrigued me, so I checked it out. I've only read a couple of the debates (gary cooper vs john wayne, mays vs mantle), but that's enough- I think- to get a feel for the writing style. The book reads like a newspaperarticle- simple prose and simple ideas. Had I not been exposed to much of the sabermetric literature (both in print and on the Internet), some of the ideas would have blown me away. But claiming that Williams was much more valuable than Dimaggio because of his incredible advantage in walks is, to me, obvious.

Are there any nuggets to glean from this book? Should I keep reading?

[Max Power]

wbonnell - welcome to the forum
see the posts above yours for some feedback on the book

[Craig S.]

I read this one in bits and pieces. I didn't take much away from it, since it really is simply a set of arguments about topics we're almost all very familiar with.

As for the non-baseball parts, I didn't mind them. However, I could have guessed the reaction they would raise from members of this forum! ;)

[wbonnell]

whoops! I performed a search but didn't find anything- must have mistyped...

[gyb13]

welcome, wb! please head on over to the Icebreakers forum and tell us a bit more about yourself!

[GGC]

This is a book to borrow from a library, but not really worth buying IMO. I like Barra, but I've seen better stuff from him.

Gary Geiger Counter

[sweaver]

Agree with GGC, and pw summed this up well. It's a pretty good book, but better borrowed from a library (as I did) than purchased. It's readable, but I found myself shaking my head at times as I thought Barra glossed over important issues. But the more I read, the more it grew on me.

[Firpo Marberry]

I enjoyed the book. Didn't mind the football stuff.

No one is right all the time. For example, when he projects Ted Williams' numbers, I get a little curious. He makes the point Williams and DiMaggio were both fragile players. OK. So if Williams does NOT miss his war years and plays, that's wear and tear. But despite making the point Williams was fragile, he projects totals for Williams that includes the war years PLUS the rest of his career, and, to my recollection, never suggests, "Of course, had Williams played all those games during the war years, it's likely he would have been worn down in 1956 and had to retire then."

(As well, if Ted had been playing during a war season, maybe he rips up something and he's done. Projecting doesn't work for me when people refuse to project downside as well as upside.)

Sure, it's logical to assume his numbers from the "missing years" would be better than the ones at the end of his career, being he was in his "prime," but you still MIGHT have to lop off those final years. That would leave Ted with better projected totals than he actually had, but they would fall short of the totals mentioned in the book.

[pwdennis]

...No one is right all the time. For example, when he projects Ted Williams' numbers, I get a little curious. He makes the point Williams and DiMaggio were both fragile players. OK. So if Williams does NOT miss his war years and plays, that's wear and tear. But despite making the point Williams was fragile, he projects totals for Williams that includes the war years PLUS the rest of his career, and, to my recollection, never suggests, "Of course, had Williams played all those games during the war years, it's likely he would have been worn down in 1956 and had to retire then."

(As well, if Ted had been playing during a war season, maybe he rips up something and he's done. Projecting doesn't work for me when people refuse to project downside as well as upside.)

Sure, it's logical to assume his numbers from the "missing years" would be better than the ones at the end of his career, being he was in his "prime," but you still MIGHT have to lop off those final years. That would leave Ted with better projected totals than he actually had, but they would fall short of the totals mentioned in the book.

I sm not sure that the wear and tear sustained by additional baseball would have been worse than the damage suffered in surviving a jet fighter crash !