The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

Rating:
Summary: A must-have for any baseball fan
Review: Finding this at the bookstore was like getting a bonus Christmas present. The sheer size of the book nearly made me pass it up as it resembled a baseball encyclopedia (and how often do you need to look at the 1981 season for Barry Bonnell?). But when I opened it ... magic! It was text and anecdotes from the smartest baseball fan, Bill James.

I had to resist the urge to try reading the entire book in one sitting. The anecdotes are entertaining and the explanations he gives for his rankings is outstanding. His reason for ranking so many Negro League players as highly as he did was something I have argued for years. It was nice to see it in print.

I would have liked to have seen a review of all the mathematical formulas he has used in the past to determine various things, but the lack of that simply gives me an excuse to buy his old Abstracts online.

The only complaint is a real minor one. You know how some small thing sticks in your craw and you just can't let it go? In his catcher rankings, James did not have Benito Santiago among his top 100 catchers of all time. Now, I'm not a Santiago fan, but I remember the Bruce Benedict "glory years" and anyone in their right mind would have traded Benedict in favor of Santiago in a heartbeat. Nothing against Eggs, but Santiago hit for more power, a better average (most seasons) and had a better arm. I can only think this was an oversight on Mr. James' part ... and, again, it's pretty minor. But if that's the only real complaint, that should tell you how strong the book is. Unquestionably, the best money I've spent on a book in years.

Rating:
Summary: A delightful Reference.
Review: This is the kind of entertaining reference book that I love,I was even amused by the sweeping statement that appears early in the book, "Baseball is the only sport in which the defence has the ball", I'll bet that comes as a great surprise to anyone familiar with either Cricket or Rounders! (Bill, you ought to get out more.)
Every time I dip into this book there's always something of interest. I would have liked it heavier on the anecdotes and lighter on the player stats,some of which border on what I would call SGM (Statistics Gone Mad), but I'm not complaining.
This is a big book, and I wouldn't have minded it being even bigger.

Rating:
Summary: A delightful Reference.
Review: This is the kind of entertaining reference book that I love,I was even amused by the sweeping statement that appears early in the book, "Baseball is the only game in which the defence has the ball", I'll bet that comes as a great surprise to anyone familiar with either Cricket or Rounders! (Bill, you ought to get out more.)
Every time I dip into this book there's always something of interest. I would have liked it heavier on the anecdotes and lighter on the player stats, but I'm not complaining.
This is a big book, but I wouldn't have minded it being even bigger.

Rating:
Summary: Win Shares-The Holy Grail of Baseball Statistics
Review: The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract introduces a novel new way to evaluate players: The Win Shares System. What is revolutionary about the system is that it does not use statistics that are subject to variation as the game changes. It is based on how many games a player helps his team win, based on his performance. Since the ratio of win shares to wins is always 3-1, the system treats good players on bad teams as equally as bad players on good teams. James has also created the first effective system to measure fielding prowess. But most of all, it allows us to fairly look at players across eras, in one single integer. The system is brilliant. James application of it, however, is not. First, it does not evenly rate pitchers vs hitters. Pitchers are arbitrarily assigned one fourth of all win shares, hitters one half, and fielders one fourth. The numbers are not necessarily an accurate reflection of relative importance. But the system does allow for fair assessment of hitters vs. hitters. In evaluating hitters, James creates a six-step system to include all relevant data. Simply adding up raw win shares and rating the players against each other does not work, according to James. As proof of this, he cites the fact that Rusty Staub has almost as many Win Shares as Joe Dimaggio. So to even it out, he weighs a players three best seasons, five best consecutive seasons, and win shares per 162 games. It is these three values that skew his system, but more on this later. His fifth element is a time line adjustment, and the sixth a subjective element. The time line adjustment is a good factor, since players get better over time, but it is weighed a bit too heavily. And the there is a better way to deal with the sixth factor. The problem with the 2,3, and 4 factors is that they overate a players prime, while vastly underrating his career stats. This leads to some skewed ratings of players. James himself admits to one: His system rates Mickey Mantle higher than Ty Cobb, mostly since Mantle's prime numbers were so good. Similarly, the system underrates Hank Aaron, while overrating Honus Wagner, and overrates Mark McGwire while undervaluing Eddie Murray. The reason these three variables were introduced was to compensate for a situation that rarely occurs: Players like Dimaggio missing significant time due to wartime service. A better system would look at total win shares while extrapolating what a player would have done in the years he missed, based on performance before and after the time missed. This would give us a rough total win shares, while not overcompensating for peak values. There is no inherent reason why peak values are more important than total values. Longevity is a key factor in rating a players total worth. The only exceptions are players who hang around late in their careers to pad their stats, like Pete Rose and Rickey Henderson. One may argue that guessing what a player would have done is unscientific. Surely it is. But it is far better than skewing an entire system to accommodate for a couple of players who missed time.

Rating:
Summary: A step back alas.
Review: I'm not the first person to remark that this book isn't nearly as good as the original and I won't be the last. Why? Well the main reason is the whole Win Shares fiasco. Players are ranked based mainly on an uberstat and 5 months later we still don't know how this stat is calculated. James would never have accepted that approach from someone else; why should we accept it from him?

Mind you the book is still good. It just could have been better.

Rating:
Summary: Treasure Chest of Riches
Review: A Bill James book is comparable to one by Roger Kahn in that in each case baseball fans emerge with a treasure chest of riches. James once more leaves fans a tome filled with fascinating facts and opinions in "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract." As one who has enjoyed comparing outputs of players from different eras, I have thoroughly enjoyed using James' inventive electronic baseball encyclopedia. Where James shines is that he knows just what makes baseball fans tick. The diamond sport is intriguing due to its dramatic day by day element along with the numerous matchups and statistical possibilities that make watching the sport fun and second guessing inevitable to knowledgeable fans. Why do certain hitters shine against particular pitchers? Why do some excellent pitchers have tremendous difficulty with certain teams and particular batters? James knows enough to focus on the fine details of the game, from which knowledge is gleaned as to how certain managers can pull off major pennant victories by making the appropriate moves.

James has one section revealing an all-time all-star team of productive players beyond the age of 35. Perhaps the most fascinating section of the book is his all-time position by position choices and his rationale for his decisions. Yogi Berra edges out Johnny Bench for the number one spot among catchers, Willie Mays is selected number one at center field over Ty Cobb, and Walter Johnson is chosen as the greatest pitcher of all time with Lefty Grove in second place. Two Yankee immortals hold down their respective positions with Lou Gehrig James' choice at first base and the legendary "Sultan of Swat" Babe Ruth gaining the nod in right field.

Another James strength is his ability to see all aspects of diamond play, revealing a player's ability to achieve victory through offensive and defensive efforts, then further breaking matters down to hits, accomplishments on the base paths, along with the value of a strong throwing arm in the field and the ability to make circus catches and pounce on sharply hit ground balls. James sees the player in every dimension of his on field existence.

Mrs. James also comes into the picture. Bill notes that his wife fastidiously looked at his baseball cards and has made her opinions known on the best looking players of each decade. How many other baseball analysts have covered this point? James never runs out of interesting categories to discuss, making eager fans always beg for more.

Rating:
Summary: The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract
Review: I enjoyed this book immensely. I own the first 1985 version (missed the 1989 update), and thought it was great. I agree with some reviewers that the distinction between peak and career rankings was better in the first book. However, I am okay that some player rankings have changed over time. IMHO, the best part of reading the player rankings were the bottom 30-40 at each position. I had forgotten many of these players with 4-5 good years (Von Hayes, Juan Samuel, Dick Stuart, etc.) and they brought good and bad memories.

The two negatives I had with this book:
1. Am analysis/ranking of managers, general managers, umpires, and owners was needed to complete the book. Since the book is The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, not the Players reference, many key and interesting figures are overlooked in baseball history. James did a book on managers about 10 years ago. Maybe this is a potential sequel as well.

2. It seemed that pitchers were short changed by having the top 100. Splitting them up into starters, relievers, and maybe lefty/righty would have made the pitching section as comprehensive as each of the other sections.

If you notice, both of my complaints are that I wanted more. Since Bill James delivered 900 pages of great material, I should and am thoroughly satisfied. My main complaint with Bill James is that he can't pump out 900 pages a month :) .

Rating:
Summary: Did My Mother Proof-Read This?
Review: As usual, Bill James presents a phenominal book. This particular book would pale in comparison to previous baseball reference materials, except for one slight flaw: Whoever proof-read this must have given birth to a recent new-born, because they were frequently asleep on the job. I'm only going to give one example, because if you read this book as feverently as me, you'll know what I mean: In the 1950's, Christy Mathewson is listed on that decade's all-star team. I'm not sure, but I think he died before this decade began. If Bill James needs people to proof-read his recent publications, I would be more than willing to help out at the minimal of charges. Note the grammatical perfection in this review. Sincerely, Rich

Rating:
Summary: Not up to his previous standards
Review: I have been a big fan of Bill James for 15+ years, so it with regret that I cannot recommend purchasing this book (especially at [the price]). Since the flaws in it are too many to enumerate, I will confine myself to a few key points. I do not understand how so many other readers can give this book 5 stars. It falls short of his previous excellence. A few of my criticisms of the book are:

1. In his (superior) first abstract, he makes it crystal clear that you can not combine peak and career value for baseball players and for every position has rankings divided accordingly. Here, he sudenly combines the two with no explanation whatsover. Since he makes this such a crucial point in Book I, this change absolutely called for an explanation. If he changed his mind, fine, but let's hear why.

2. Too much inconsistency. For instance, he ranks Roger Clemens ahead of Sandy Koufax in the 100 greatest Players of all-time section, but has Koufax ahead of Clemens in his ranking of the 100 greatest pitchers. Also, Mark McGwire was one of the greatest players of all time, but Cecil Fielder is just a "fat guy who hit home runs." Right, we know what a great fielder and baserunner Big Mac was through his career.

3. In his first volume, he ranks (correctly, in my view), Lefty Grove as the greatest pitcher of all time. He shrugs off Walter Johnson's advocates with the following point: dead-ball pitchers could pitch more innings because there were no home runs. Solid argument, Bill. So why did you put Johnson ahead this time? Shouldn't you at least explain why you were wrong the first time? The answer,I think, is his over-reliance on his career Win Shares statistic. Sometimes, you have to use common sense over pure stats. I didn't see that in this book.

Maybe James spoiled me with the first historical baseball abstract. That was a truly terrific book. This one, to be sure, has some interesting and insightful points. It's not a bad book, and if you have a half hour to kill, why not browse it at your library or bookstore. It just isn't up to the high level of excellence that James demonstrated in his first book.

Rating:
Summary: It keeps getting better, but James' achilles heel still show
Review: I've been buying Bill James' books since the first nationwide Abstract and have been hooked on him for two decades. His insights are remarkable and the new historical abstract is no exception. It must have been an enormous task to rate over a hundred players at each position. As great as the book is, however, it has the same consistent flaws that James is noted for:

1) He does not give the formulas for Win Shares. I am sure that we would all love to see it.

2) His subjective analysis is EXTREMELY subjective. While the Negro League stars were certainly great players, it is impossible to place them in a top 100 with absolute certainty. How can one use statistical analysis as the gospel in one case while throwing it away in another? The great stars of the Negro Leagues are not worse players; it is like comparing apples to oranges.

3) His personal biases are transparent. His hatred of Rogers Hornsby is almost pathological. He seems to delight in finding any way possible to downgrade his greatness at all costs. His analysis of Joe Morgan is downright obsequious, notwithstanding the little barb thrown at him in the end. Morgan was not a great defensive second baseman. He was sure-handed, but his range was below average. Many observers believe Morgan (like so many others) won those Gold Gloves with his bat. James also assigns somewhat undue greatness on multifaceted talent, and appears irritated that everyone else disagrees with him on Hornsby. James uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost; for support rather than illumination. As great as Little Joe was, it appears that James' evaluation of him was done with an agenda in mind: to exalt him at Hornsby's expense. He is sensitive about arrogance, yet he does not seem to recognize the arrogance in rating a player to be FAR worse than anyone else's rating. If everyone thinks Hornsby is in the Top 10 of all players, it is NOT because they do not care about defense. Bill, if Babe Ruth was a second baseman, he would be the best of all time. There is just too much, and I could give a rat's behind how much of a jerk he was.

4. He gives credit where credit is due for players who miss seasons for reasons beyond their control, but does not do so for banned players. We are not talking about morality in evaluating players; we are talking about abilities. It is just as valid to factor in what Buck Weaver would have done had he continued playing as it would be for Joe D. Again, he does this because he injects his morality into the equation.

Bill James could care less what I think, and he did not write the book to cater to me. Those are his opinions, and he is entitled to it. When his next book comes out, I will dutifully purchase it, enjoy it from page to dog-eared page, and call him on my disagreements. I will also tell you, however, that I learned much more about how to view history (and how not to) from reading James than I ever did in college. Keep it coming, Bill.