Rating: 
Summary: If only it were a textbook for a dream grad-school course!
Review: "Total Baseball" is fantastic, pure and simple. It does have its short-comings, of course (for example, I agree that full, basic fielding statistics are a necessity, especially since the authors' fielding runs statistic is very flawed; it would also be great if the book had a catalog of trades, like the "Encyclopedia" has had), but it more than makes up for these minor faults with some of the best statistics available and almost 300 pages devoted to original history, analysis and opinion. This book helps settle old arguments, but it never fails to incite new (but always more informed) feuds as well. New hall-of-fame caliber players (just look at Cupid Childs's stellar career!) make themselves known to the reader, and inspire further investigation into the history of the game: Why has Childs been overlooked? How did he turn the still evolving rules of the 1890s to his advantage?) This is truly a Bible, and, along with fresh "Baseball Prospectus" editions in the years that intervene between new editions, makes up the cornerstone of my baseball library.
Rating:
Summary: Total Baseball is the best baseball book ever published.
Review: "Total Baseball" is the most comprehensive baseball book ever published. Period. EVERYTHING you would ever need to know about the history of the game you can find it here. Complete statistical analysis, individual and team, dating back to the 19th century, box scores of all World Series games ever played, starting lineups for every major league team since 1876, and wonderful articles at the front of the book. No basenball library can be considered complete without "Total Baseball"
Rating:
Summary: If only it were a textbook for a dream grad-school course!
Review: "Total Baseball" is fantastic, pure and simple. It does have its short-comings, of course (for example, I agree that full, basic fielding statistics are a necessity, especially since the authors' fielding runs statistic is very flawed; it would also be great if the book had a catalog of trades, like the "Encyclopedia" has had), but it more than makes up for these minor faults with some of the best statistics available and almost 300 pages devoted to original history, analysis and opinion. This book helps settle old arguments, but it never fails to incite new (but always more informed) feuds as well. New hall-of-fame caliber players (just look at Cupid Childs's stellar career!) make themselves known to the reader, and inspire further investigation into the history of the game: Why has Childs been overlooked? How did he turn the still evolving rules of the 1890s to his advantage?) This is truly a Bible, and, along with fresh "Baseball Prospectus" editions in the years that intervene between new editions, makes up the cornerstone of my baseball library.
Rating:
Summary: All you could ask for
Review: For babseball statistics nuts, "Total Baseball" is as good as it gets.
Rating:
Summary: Good for Baseball Nuts and Normal People
Review: I am doing my own study on baseball's greatest players, this book has been invaluable in this regard. The narratives are generally well-written and the statistics layout is superb. The explanation of the statistics is complete. The stats include the important common stats + Total Baseball's own stats to measure hitting, pitching, and fielding effectiveness relative to other players, both for each season and the player's career.I do wish, though, that they had retained the pitching statistic called "Wins above team." Over a pitchers career it shows clearly how much a pitcher tended to help or not help his team. Oh well, the book is not perfect. I hope they come out with an Edition 7 soon which wraps up the last century.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but some reservations
Review: I've been using this book extensively for the past few months, and have given a lot of thought to its merits. Is it worth what Amazon is charging for it? Definitely. But could it be better? Absolutely. As you may have heard, Total Baseball has made a rule change: during 1876 walks were counted as at bats, and in 1887 walks were counted as both at bats and hits. Since the Baseball Encyclopedia was published in 1969, the customary practice has been to ignore this rule and score walks just as they have been scored in every other year of major league history. And why not? Even in their time those rules were recognized as stupid and misguided, and repealed in the season following. But Total Baseball has changed this practice, on the grounds that the rules of the day should reign. Now ordinarily I agree with this position, so I say give Debs Garms & Ernie Lombardi their batting titles: but frankly some rules are too stupid to take seriously, and the walks rules of 1876 and 1887 are in that category. Because of this rule, any relevance batting average has as a measure of ability has now been completely rendered meaningless. For instance, Gip Gardner now has a .307 batting average in 1887, with a .238 slugging average (for some reason which TB never attempts to explain, even though walks in 1887 are going to be counted as base hits and allowed to inflate batting averages, they are not used in calculating slugging percentage: why not? what's the rationale governing this decision?). Tip O'Neill's impressive .435 average (even for that high hitting year) is now completely obscured by his so-called "restored" average of .485. And most absurdly, thanks to the walks-into-hits rule Denny Lyons now has a 52-game "hitting" streak in 1887, second only to DiMaggio. (One other thing on that: the piece by Jerome Holtzman announcing the rule change is most unsatisfactory. Instead of trying to support TB's new position by arguing its merits, he unnecesssarily attacks the members of the Eckert committee which first overturned the rules of 1876 and '87. Eckert "didn't have a schoolboy's knowledge of the game," and Holtzman insinuates that the members made the changes only to increase profits for the new Baseball Encyclopedia, which "went on sale the next year." That may be true [although Holtzman doesn't seem all that concerned to present much evidence for it] but it is also totally irrelevant: good history debates the facts, not the personalities of other historians you oppose.) One other big change is that Total Baseball has decided to "restore" batting titles that had been taken away in earlier editions because modern research had found that someone else actually had a higher batting average. They argue that if he got it in his day, no player should have his "championship" taken away, which is fine with me; but when I think the average person thinks "batting title," they don't think "championship," they think the highest average, and if a player hit higher than anyone else, he ought to get the black ink, fair and square. This is "a policy shift endorsed by Major League Baseball," but also one that is inconsistently applied. As Total Baseball notes, in the 1884 American Association, Dude Esterbrook was the official "champion," even though we now know Dave Orr hit higher; and in the 1886 AA Orr was the official "champion," even though modern research has established that Guy Hecker hit for higher average that year. Yet unlike the the practices TB takes for the American and National Leagues, the official "champions" for the American Association are not given the batting titles. Why this blatant inconsistency? Total Baseball offers no explanation, but since with this edition TB became the official encyclopedia of MLB (which wanted the official "champions" recognized), I worry this inconsistency may be a result of that relationship. The AA of course is defunct, and is not now represented by MLB, which probably doesn't care who got the AA "championship" in 1884. But whichever way TB chooses to score the batting championships, it ought to establish a consistent practice for ALL leagues. If you're going to recognize the official "champions" of the day, recognize all of them. In addition, Total Baseball is badly in need of re-editing. In the Glossary under "Bases on Balls," we are informed that they were "counted as outs for batters in 1876 and as hits for batters in 1887, but as neither through this book." That statement, of course, is no longer true. In the articles within the book, the pre-"restored" averages of players in 1876 and 1887 are constantly referred to, rather than the "restored". Also, under "Streaks and Feats," although Denny Lyons' 52-game "hitting" streak of 1887 is mentioned, it is not given official recognition as one of the longest hitting streaks in baseball history. But if TB is going to count walks as hits for that year, I do not see how they can honestly shove Lyons under the rug. Finally, one major deficiency in Total Baseball is its nearly complete lack of fielding data. All it has is fielding average (but with all the positions a player played in that year combined together to form it) and fielding runs. For an edition that calls itself "Total," it ought to at least have data for putouts, assists, double plays, range. Fielding tends to be neglected by the books, but at least the Baseball Encylopedia has some fielding data.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Many Hokey Stats
Review: If you're a baseball stats junky (like me), how can this not be the perfect book? They decided to add a whole bunch of hokey stats, while leaving out some of the vital one's. Come on guys..."adjusted" batting averages instead of pinch hitting stats? A seperate section for (incomplete) post-season stats, rather than listing them with regular season stats? Let's bet back to basics and skip the nonsense!
Rating:
Summary: Exhaustive and authoritative
Review: The good folks at Total Baseball have once again offered a hefty volumn for the curious baseball fan to dig into - and you need not be a baseball savant to enjoy this thing. While some of the statistical abra-ca-dabra explanations are fumbling in their presentation, the bulk of the familiar, traditional stuff is also there for the casual, less mathematically inclined fan. As usual with a Total Baseball publication, there are plenty of errors and discrepencies to mull over. The 19th century rule changes that have affected individual player stats from that period are, in particular, flatly presented, and offer no insight or logic train to support there over-all impact. As well, the editorial writing occasional borders on the self-absorbed; and the actual paper used is easily crumpled, while the binding won't last the summer if you are an active reader. All in all, however, it is a 'must have' for the ardent fan, especially if you want an (albeit limited) introduction into the world of sabermetrics and situational stats.
Rating:
Summary: One glaring problem
Review: This is a vital book if one is a serious baseball fan. It has all the key (and not so key) stats from every season of big league ball. It also has team histories, greatest player profiles, and an overview of the game's history by John Thorn. So yes, I recommend this. However....
The editors made a decision to revert to the 1876 and 1887 scoring methods. (In 1876 walks were outs; In 1887, they were hits). So Tip O'Neill is now listed as having the best batting average ever (.492 in 1887).
While I disagree, I could respect the decision if it were consistent. However, the editors themselves can't even agree. In the Braves' team history, it says that Hugh Duffy's .440 mark in 1894 is the best average ever. This completely contradicts the book's listing of all-time top averages.
Furthermore, saves did not become a stat until 1969, so if Thorn & Co. were serious about going with how things were scored in a certain year, there would be no saves listed before that season.
Finally, if it is revealed that batting averages from a given year were in error, the correct totals are listed instead. But (and this is just plain nuts), if the correct totals result in a change to the batting champion, they list the person with the lower average first! For instance, for the year of the Cobb/Lajoie controversy, it lists the batting leaders as:
Cobb .383
Lajoie .384
Total Baseball recognizes that Paul Hines led the NL in average, home runs and RBI the same year. Yet it refuses to list him as a Triple Crown winner because that year it was erroneously believed he did not lead the league in average! Such silliness is not in keeping with an otherwise excellent reference.
Rating:
Summary: Yearly Update is needed...
Review: This is the Holy Writ of baseball's statistical gurus. The problem is that they ohly update about every other year. As the "OFFICIAL" tome of MLB, the least they could do is release an update after each season. This book rates every player against his own and other eras. The highest ranked player NOT in the Hall of Fame is the great Cubs shortstop Bill Dahlen. That said, 2002 is the year, Cub fans. The ghost of Bill Dahlen is back, looking like Alex Gonzalez! Play Ball!
|
