Melville's award-winner

[Craig S.]

So "Early Baseball and the Rise of the National League" won the Seymour Medal for the best work of history/biography.

I read it, and I have to say that I found it incredibly dull. It may have contributed to the field of baseball history, but it didn't do much for me. Possessing nothing in the way of color or character, it seemed more like a dissertation than a book.

I realize that SABR is all about research, and this book may deserve the award. However, if anyone is looking for a baseball book to read and enjoy, I'd hardly recommend it.

Did anybody here like this one? Maybe it's just me.

[Skip]

Havent read it, but love your title for the thread. :cool:

[SmedIndy]

Looking at the description on Barnes & Noble.com, and the chapter titles, it is a scholarly tome. I'll probably get it. Can't resist the 19th century....

[Craig S.]

Scholarly it certainly is. I would recommend a glass of water with it, because it couldn't be any drier.

[SmedIndy]

I just finished this, and it's wonderful.

It is an analytical book, but is thorough and easy to read for an analytical history book.

I wish more baseball history books were scholarly in tone and not spoon feeding us, but that's just me!

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I just finished this, and it's wonderful.

It is an analytical book, but is thorough and easy to read for an analytical history book.

I wish more baseball history books were scholarly in tone and not spoon feeding us, but that's just me!

After reading your post, and upon further reflection, I may have been a little harder than deserved on this one.

You're right about the spoon-feeding. I guess some writers figure we can't just have information given to us, but that we need help in figuring out what it means.

But I still need a mix of scholarly and anecdotal, I think. Too much of either one would likely bore me. And I don't think I was in a mood to learn much when I read this one.

[SmedIndy]

To each his own. I am going to read Seymours and Vogt's books soon. Perhaps they will have the right balance. I think James has done a good job as any in straddling the two. Too bad there wasn't a Roger Angell, or even Ring Lardner, then.

Much of the history of that era is rooted in the sociological aspects of the game, and the grand debates between amatuerism and professionalism. Most think the Reds of 1869 were the first professional team, and blythely assume that the modern day Reds are dervied from then, when NOTHING could be FURTHER from the truth, on either case.

Anyway, the grunt work has to be done in an analytical fashion. Otherwise all we get is myth and caricature, things which have unfortunately affected our understanding of baseball from the 19th century.