Rating: 
Summary: Don't Leave Home Without It
Review: This is without a doubt the best baseball reference book you can buy until the next edition is published. It's got the statistics of every player from every season from 1871 to 2000, as well as a number of excellent essays about the history of the game and those who played it. Those essays are enjoyable and informative, as are the world series and playoff accounts and the awards register, but the real triumph of the tome is the player register, pitcher register, annual record, and all-time leaders sections. This is where the hot stove beauty of baseball meets its ultimate argument settler. And even given its ultimate status, there remain some arguments that evolve from its numbers. Did Cap Anson win the NL's batting title in 1887 with his .421 average (counting walks as hits), or did Sam Thompson have the NL's best batting average at .472 (not counting walks as hits). As of this edition, John Thorn and Pete Palmer say that Anson won the batting title and had the best batting average. In all previous editions they stated that Thompson deserved these honours. Their argument in this edition is that Anson won the batting title fairly by the rules of the day and that it is not for us to take away this crown retroactively. In this they are correct, but they have gone too far. While Anson cannot justifiably be stripped of his batting title, it is obvious that the NL's best batting average in 1887 belonged to Sam Thompson. Similarly, while Abner Dalrymple may have won the NL's batting title by the rules of the day in 1878 with his .354 average, it is obvious that Paul Hines had the higher batting average at .358. Dalrymple cannot have his title stripped from him, but we should acknowledge that Hines had the higher batting average. Ultimately, while good-intentioned, Thorn and Palmer's decision obscures - instead of clarifying - the historical record. In fact, they are not even consistent with their application of the decision. They state in the glossary (and I think elsewhere) that in some of professional baseball's early years pitchers were awarded an assist for strikeouts (unlike the current practice). However, they have decided that they will not follow this practice despite the fact that their decision regarding batting averages in 1876 and 1887 necessitates that they do so. Quite frankly, I'm glad that they do not, because doing so would only similarly muddify the historical record. I fear that the reason for the decision stems from the status of "Total Baseball" as the Official Encyclopaedia of Major League Baseball. As a result, they are hamstrung by the decisions rendered by the chowderheads who have run Major League Baseball since its formation. This means that they follow Major League Baseball's hysterically ludicrous decision not to consider the National Association (1871-1875) a major league, despite the fact that they admit that it should in fact be considered as such. Also, I would like to see the players and teams and seasons of the International Association (1877-1878) included in the registers. It was not a minor league, as even this book sporadically attests, although Bob Hoie does acknowledge that fact in the first paragraph of his fine essay about the minor leagues. This league saw itself as being in direct competition with the National League, despite having the flawed structure that doomed the National Association. As such, it should be viewed as a major league, regardless of what Major League Baseball would erroneously have us believe. This would place baseball's first major league African-American ballplayer forward by six years to Bud Fowler's appearances for the Lynn (Massachusetts) Live Oaks in 1878, and would put the first pennant outside of the United States ahead by 115 years to the London (Ontario) Tecumsehs of 1877.Also, I must take umbrage at the decision to arbitrarily devalue the performances of players in the Union Association and Federal League. Their arguments are impeccable but irrelevant. Even if these leagues were inferior, they were still major leagues and their games counted for just as much as did those of the National League, American Association, and American League. If they take this stand, why not also devalue the National League and American Association of 1890, or the NL and AL of 1942-1944. These leagues also had inferior talent; why not arbitrarily devalue them as well? I am very disappointed by the lack of an all-inclusive fielding register, and the lack of pitcher batting, but I do understand that the economics of space must be acceded to. Nevertheless, it would be nice if Thorn and Palmer would provide us with a website from which we could access this data (sort of an unpublished appendix). I don't ask that they place the entire record online, but for the sake of 'total'-ness I do ask that they make the information accessible for those of us who need to know that Joaquin Andujar had 32 strikeouts in his 57 at bats of 1979, while turning two double plays in that same year. Complaints aside, this is an excellent book that is truly magnificent. I don't envy Thorn and Palmer in their task of trying to please millions of baseball fans who demand nothing short of perfection. As with umpires, we demand that Thorn and Palmer be perfect, and then we expect them to continue to improve. Amazingly, they somehow manage to do so.
Rating:
Summary: Exhaustive and authoritative
Review: This reference has more or less picked up the torch from the late lamented "Baseball Encyclopedia," and is indispensible for serious fans (and probably casual ones as well). Included in the hefty (nearly 2,000 pages) volume is everything you'd expect (player stats, franchise histories, postseason results) and a number of things you might not (Curt Smith's wonderful roster of radio/TV announcers, for instance). It's perfect for whiling away the hours on rainy Sunday afternoons, and invaluable for settling arguments or answering trivia questions. It would be nice if the next edition included a few more historical essays such as those found in its NFL counterpart, "Total Football II." That's a minor quibble, however, and perhaps impractical considering the voluminous size of the current book. All in all, this is a must-buy for baseball lovers.
Rating:
Summary: The best baseball reference book
Review: Total Baseball is definitely a must for every baseball fan, from hardcore to casual. And it can be a gateway for many who haven't enjoyed the blessings of this beautiful game. There's everything you need to know: from team histories, great essays on the Negro Leagues. There's stuff for the stat nut as well: from sabermetrics to a handy guide on how to score a game, some insights on Women and Baseball, and of course, the hefty, precise and so accurate register of every player in Major League history. There's even a chapter on International Baseball results, that suprisingly, does NOT include the champions of the Venezuelan League, and does have the Dominican and Mexican team champions. Anyway, all in all, if you love baseball or simply you want to understand baseball, this book is for you.
Rating:
Summary: Total Baseball is the ultimate baseball reference book.
Review: Without a doubt, Total Baseball is the premier reference book on baseball. It is so far superior to The Baseball Encyclopedia that I cannot imagine any serious baseball fan, writer, or researcher not using it (Total Baseball). As a person noted for his "penchant for completeness", I can truly appreciate the comprehensive nature of this tome: not just the numbers (including the so-called "modern" statistics) in the game, but the stories behind the game, as well. And as far as the alterations to certain records and facts are concerned, it is MUCH better to have data based on accuracy than tradition! Kudos to you, John Thorn and gang, and congratulations on receiving the endorsement from Major League Baseball that you truly deserve!
|
