Rating: 
Summary: Mindless Pabulum
Review: Bill James is an outdated hack beloved only by aging yuppie geeks. His books remind one of Newsweek Magazine's moronic annual ratings guides of the colleges. James's book appeals only to that mindset, the compulsive "raters," the same folks who want to rate the world's great writers, being the Cliff's Notes authorities that they are. Discriminating fans, don't bother.
Rating: 
Summary: sequel not quite as good
Review: the new historical abstract isn't quite up to the standards of the old one. bill tries to do a little too much (1000 players) to provide his ususal in-depth profile of very many players. indeed, a numbers of players have no real value added comments at all. however, james remains by far the best baseball author on the market and his second best is still a must for any serious baseball fan. anyone who reads and likes this book and hasn't read the original should get a copy as soon as possible.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Baseball Book Ever
Review: The new abstract is great fun to read. I'm not so concerned about data being old. As of last year I was still flipping through his first edition at least once a week over breakfast or downtimes. That said, with the time James should be giving to such projects, I definitely agree that he needs better proofreading. This has been a recurring problem for books that James eventually gets published. James gets a bit defensive in his comments about Quisenberry, but that's understandable given that he's a huge Royals fan. It also gives him a chance to say what a wonderful person Quisenberry was, and that's worth something. As for his explanation for the general overrating of Clemente, I think he's being kind there too in isolating Clemente's heroic death. I'm a huge Pirate and Clemente fan, but I feel his general overrating is more a result of three factors: 1) grace and charisma on the field that made him more important to many people than his stats otherwise deserved 2) the glorification of his batting average, especially since he was number one in NL batting for four years 2) retrospective guilt about the abuse Clemente took as an outspoken Hispanic who didn't attempt to fit the white baseball world's image of Mr. Wonderful, in combination with his impact as a Latin American sports pioneer. As for individual complaints that always seem to arise and expand concerning individual rankings, readers need to get over that. I'm guessing that Gene Alley is not too concerned to see he's only in the 90s among shortstops all time, or that as of 2000 Jason Kendall and Brian Giles hadn't cracked the top 100 at their positions. Fun reading is fun reading. James has never attempted to put forward his chosen quotes as fully representative of the individuals described. In fact, he provides more caveats to his observations than most historians or writers in any field. I have a little trouble with the "ugliest" rankings, especially when they serve no other purpose. It's OK to read historical perspectives of Ernie Lombardi's physique, but it's not especially enlightening to read that either Bill or Susan or some combination of others think George Foster doesn't look too good. James mentions a thank you at one point for recognizing a handsome face - that should clue him in as to how people might feel to be singled out in the opposite direction. It's not even funny. And poor Don Mossi. Relatively minor complaints, for sure. It's by far the best baseball book I've ever read.
Rating: 
Summary: Not enough data
Review: Don't expect a rich dataset you can pore over and glean interesting observations from. This is mostly a list of the best players at each position and a few comments about each one, some of which have a some statistical grounding, others of which are merely anecdotal. And it was clearly written a few years ago. This seems like it should be a much slimmer volume than it is. I wish Bill James would do his annual book again with lots of interesting facts and figures.
Rating:
Summary: Once again, James' output is staggering
Review: After a decade of relative inactivity, Bill James' incredibly prolific muse returns with a bang.
The book contains, I'm guessing, 85% new material with respect to the original 1985 Historical Abstract. But in that 85%-- hoo boy. James objectively ranks the top 125 players at each position, with comments of varying length on 900 of them. He also ranks the top 100 regardless of position, including Negro Leaguers. Some of the rankings are surprising (Jimmie Wynn as the 10th greatest CF ever, and is Jeff Bagwell really the NL's greatest 1B of all time?), but they will certainly provoke thought.
This is where James unleashes his latest sabermetric creation, the Win Shares system, which attempts to turn a player's value over the course of a season into a single integer directly proportional to the number of games he won for his team. The Historical Abstract only contains a brief synopsis of the system's methodology: the entire thing can be found in the book "Win Shares", the companion volume to this one. (And I don't think James did that specifically to sell twice as many books, although in my case he did; rather, containing it in the Historical Abstract would make a 1000-page book an 1100-page doorstop.)
This book is worth it just for James' analysis of defense. He calls it the most important work he's done in maybe 20 years, and I don't necessarily disagree. He elegantly reworks the data to show that despite their misleading numerical totals, Bill Buckner really was a mediocre 1B and Johnny Bench really was the brilliant catcher we always suspected. Once again, what James does best is force people to look at baseball in different ways. The downside- the book could have used more illustrations. James reprints an essay on Ty Cobb (part of the 15%) which references a particular photo that appears in the original Historical Abstract but, maddeningly, not this one.
Also, the book was released immediately after the 2001 season but the player comments were obviously completed a year earlier.
Finally, the proofreading is egregious. Even the opening flap of the dust jacket contains several errors, including 3 in one sentence. (Regarding Jim Baumann, who hit 72 homers for Roswell, TX one year. "Bauman" should be spelled with one "n"; his name was Joe, not Jim; and Roswell is in New Mexico, not Texas.) A paragraph on Ron Fairly mentions him 9 times. His name is spelled properly 5 times, and "Fairley" the other 4. There are mistakes like this on almost every page. To James' credit, he clearly hired a more capable copy editor for "Win Shares".
Rating:
Summary: The Most Engrossing Baseball Book I've Ever Read
Review: Bill James makes baseball history come alive with comprehenive analysis, wonderful insights and unique tidbits of information about each decade. The second half of the book with the 100 best players at each position will have you shouting Amen for some overdue recongition for some, who in the world is that for some people you've never heard of, and what is he thinking about others. In short, it's a wonderful time to sit down and argue baseball with someone who is a true fan.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Of The Best, Of The Best.
Review: Bill James is the (at least in my mind) undisputed Master of Baseball knowledge. I was an avid reader of his earlier publications, and devoured over and over the 1985 version of this book. That is until the owner/player disputes in the early and mid 1990's. Haveing been away from baseball for the last 6 or seven years, it had been drawing further and further from my daily thoughts. That is until I recieved this book as a gift!!! Darn, hooked again. Bill (I can't call him Mr James, his writting is much to personal for that) has a way of making it all magic again. This book covers it all, from the good to the bad, and even the ugly (see his comments on the ugliest player of each decade. Weather you agree with his conclusions or not, you will be enthralled and captivated by his writting style and very detailed analysis of the "true national pastime". Witty, observant, not afraid to ruffle feathers and totally entertaining. That in a nutshell is Bill James. If you want a quite evenings read of a hundred or so pages, or just want to pick it up for a quick five minute fix, this book will take care of you. Enjoy it over and over, I have.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing and Dishonest Work
Review: First, let me say that this is an entertaining book. It is rich in both detail and anecdote and I enjoyed reading it. It was also, unfortunately, both a dishonest book and a very disappointing book, for a number of reasons. Other readers have already mentioning the sloppy editing, and they're right. They've mentioned the lack of a detailed explanation of the Win Shares system, and they're right about that, too. If this book had been written by anyone else, and Bill James was asked to review it, I can't imagine that he would fail to criticize any rating system that is admittedly subjective, at least in part, withhout giving any explanation of how that subjectivity was weighted. I didn't read this book to get Bill James' opinion - I read it to get his analysis. And the presence of subjectivity is a real problem for this system because, as others have mentioned, there is ample fodder for those who feel James' is overly biased for or against some players. Maybe he really doesn't despise Rogers Hornsby, but it sure seems that way. It also seems that James decided this would be the book where he would 'get' Jim Rice. He literally didn't say a single positive thing about Rice, either as a player or as a man, and harshly labeled him the most overrated player of the last 30 years. He says nice things about Albert Belle, but not Jim Rice. Well, that's his opinion and, frankly, he probably needed a startling comment or two just to make the book more marketable. Hey, maybe Jim Rice once treated James like dirt and he has every reason to think he's a jerk. Unfortunately, Jammes resorted to unethical behavior to get even. In his brief bio of Rice, James uses a quote by Bill Lee from Peter Golenbock's book "Fenway", in which Lee apparently says Rice was distinctly unlikeable, by fans and teammates alike. Well, that part was true, Lee really did say that to Golenbock. What James omits is Lee's glowing assessment IN THE SAME QUOTE of Rice as a player - the very thing James was supposed to be evaluating. James decided to edit that part of the quote out, save for the opening sentence, "Jim Rice was one of the best left fielders I ever had out there [but]..." That [but] is the dishonest part. Historians, which I am and James is supposed to be, are trained to use brackets to inject a clarifying word or two of their own into a quote that might otherwise not be clear. Omitted words are to be marked with an ellipsis (...) and are never supposed to alter the nature of the original quote. James violates both rules here, first by using brackets to imply that he was merely clarifying Lee's words when, in actuality, he was omitting about half of Lee's quote, and next by altering the original to such a degree that the readers are led to belive that Lee had nothing good to say about Rice at all. What's more, the quote isn't representative of the tone of Golenbock's book, in which not a single other fan, player, or manager, has anything negative to say about Jim Rice. Meanwhile, Lee slammed everyone in range, from Rice to Fred Lynn, to Denny Doyle, to Carl Yastrzemski, to Reggie Smith, to essentially every hitter on the 1974 team, while also dishonestly retelling his own failures in Game 7 of the 1975 World Series. In short, James used a quote that wasn't representative of the book in which it was published, from a player whose own reputation as a person is laughably bad, and then manipulated and misrepresented that quote to read differently than it was originally published. It's intellectual dishonesty, and I think James knows it. If you want to be entertained, then please go ahead and read "The New Abstract", but please don't take it as serious history, because it isn't. It's one man's clearly biased view of the baseball world, and he'll take a lot of liberties with the truth to get you to agree with him.
Rating:
Summary: Essential Reading for any Fan
Review: Bill James has done it again, with a marvelous history of baseball that includes dozens of vignettes, baseball history new to all but baseball scholars, and a fascinating look at the 100 best players of all time. This is a book that is three things at once: an essential reference work when you're learning about players of the past; a book you can pick up, open to any page and read a few paragraphs when you've got the time; and a book you'll want to read from cover to cover to ensure you don't miss any of the great information it contains. Although it draws the most attention through its ranking of the 100 greatest players of all time and the 100 greatest players of all time at each position, that's only a fraction of the book. James follows the history of baseball, decade by decade, that talks about how, where, and by who the game was played. For each decade there's also a chart with notes on attendance, home field advantage, which teams were having their best and worst decades, and much more. If you're interested in the history of baseball, this is the place to start, to get a baseline for how it evolved. James also has scattered tens of short demi-articles discussing various topics relevant to each decade. What will baseball be like in the future? Why were the 1910s baseball's decade of greed? The answers to these questions and dozens of others are covered in James' work. James has an easy to read, conversational writing style that makes the book a pleasure. And while James does cover his share of sabrmetrics, his love of the game covers far more than statistics. If you love baseball, you'll love this book. If you enjoy baseball, you'll love it even more when you're done here.
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.
|
