Rating: 
Summary: fantastic volume !
Review: what a truly wonderful piece of work, once again from my favorite author, bill james. i just wish they would let me do the proofreading. christy matheson could not have been one of the top pitchers of the 1950's as he had been dead for over 2 decades. awesome reading though !
Rating:
Summary: Bold, brilliant, and endlessly entertaining tour de force
Review: I am not the fanatical type whom one might think is the typical buyer of this book. I am just a lukewarm baseball fan, and while I knew the author when we lived in the same town and worked at the same place twenty-five years ago, I never discovered his brilliance as a writer, statistician, observer of the human condition, even philosopher, until I started reading his annual "Baseball Abstracts" in the '80s. I looked forward to the appearance of that paperback every year, and bought copies for friends.But I never got around to buying or reading the first "historical" abstract. Never mind. This book is informative, convincing, subversive, and above all, entertaining.
It addresses virtually every aspect of the sport, including its history, its future, its best players, even, through the contributions of James' wife, the appearance of players. And, of course, you get a huge dose of statistics, including some that James introduced to the game. He is utterly convincing in the use of these statistics to support his opinions--many of which are surprising. (Such as that my current local team-- a perennial loser in the post season, have two players who are among the top 100 in history.) Like the annual "abstracts", this book's commentaries on the players are different according to what James wants to say about the player--or possibly some other issue. So sometimes you get a lengthy essay about something tangential; sometimes you get a few sentences. That is part of the charm of the book. Just try opening any page and you find a gem of a commentary, whether about Pete Rose or Dan Quisenberry. James' rigorous analysis of almost all the players you know and remember, and some you don't, are right on--try his analysis of, for example, Rickey Henderson or Craig Biggio. This is a wonderful book; it's the kind that you want to keep on reading, pick up again and again. Or can't put down. because the author's comments on one subject or player stimulate you to want to see what he says about something or someone else.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: If you like baseball books, in depth analysis and have a keen interest in the history of the game ... you NEED this book. Bill James' revision to his classic historical abstract weighs in at a hefty 1000 pages and a big price tag. But it's worth it. You really get two books. Book I: A decade-by-decade look at the game. As James says in his preface, he's not trying to give times and dates. Each section gives the reader a feel for what baseball was like in that decade - who the popular players were, how they played, where they played. Who was the biggest player, the smallest player, which team had the best infield, best outfield, best pitchers. He gives an OJ Simpson award for each decade, a Clint Hartung award for the biggest flop, the Paul Krichell award for the dumbest trades and signings. He also details the biggest problems the game had in each decade. You can read a chapter and almost hear the fans debating Wagner vs. Cobb, commenting on what a jerk Rogers Hornsby was and venting frustration as New York teams dominated the 1950's. He also has one section on the Negro Leagues. The last section has his (brilliant) solutions to the problems the game has in the 90's. Book II introduces James' new method of player evaluation -- Win Shares. A quantum leap forward in analysis, Win Shares quantifies everything a player contributes - pitching, hitting and defense -- in terms of how many WINS it brought his team. This corrects for park effects, different eras (you'll be surprised to learn how good those 60's hitters were) and is a massive improvement in evaluation of defense. He rates the top 100 players in history based on career value, peak value, clutch performance, etc. This top 100 includes 12 Negro League players and has some surprises (Oscar Charleston at #4). He rates the top 100 players at each position. Some of this can get dull when you get down to the low #'s. But you'll learn a lot, such as that the 1901 Beaneaters had the best pitching staff of the decade, that Arky Vaughn was the #2 all-time shortstop and that Craig Biggio and Barry Bonds are two of the best all-time at their position (this was written before Bonds' historic 2001 season and Biggio's 2001 comeback). One last thing. Throughout the book, James' cites reference to other great baseball books. You could build an amazing baseball library just from his bibliography. All of this comes with James' wit, insight and love of the game. He combines hard-boiled statistical analysis with an apprection of the intangible aspects of the game.
Rating: 
Summary: Great, but very different
Review: In his updated version of his classic historical abstract, Bill James dazzles us with his usual analytical genius. Howvever, from the perspective of someone who has internalized the logic and axioms of the original work, this book comes as something of a surprise if not a disappointment. James seems to have abandoned many of the positions he argued passionately in the original book. As an example, one of the fundamentals of the original book was that no reasonable discussion about player rankings could be undertaken unless one first stipulated whether one was discussing "carreer value" or "peak value". In the new work, James disregards this premise and replaces it with one-dimensional player rankings based on his new "win shares" system. While he explains how his rankings are designed to capture elements of both career and peak value, the very notion of combining them was something he regarded as silly in his original book. Having expected to find his original rankings in their original form updated to reflect the players of the last 15 years, this came as a shock.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth Buying, But Keep Your Old One
Review: Although I like this book, I have to admit I'm disappointed. The first version had ratings on fewer players, but had much more depth on them. There were longer treatises on many players, and tremendous statistical backup to support the ratings. This book rates over 1000 players, but because Bill James rates so many, the comments on each are much more limited. I would have preferred to see more in-depth write-ups on the top 25 or 50 players at each position, than thumbnails on 100 players at each position (reading a short passage on Jake Stenzel, the 89th-best right fielder, and Hubie Brooks, the 89th-best 3rd baseman, is less interesting than an in-depth discussion of Cal Ripken vs. Honus Wagner). Bill James's new Win Shares system seems fascinating; however, all we see on each player are totals. How does Willie Mays stack up defensively against Ty Cobb? We aren't told of details like this, except occasionally in the comments. There is some comment about a book called Win Shares, and perhaps when this comes out (has it already?) we'll know the answers to these questions, but right now, you get to see only Bill's totals. I trust the guy - his systems usually make sense, but I think we need to see more of these details in this book, rather than ratings of players like Pinky Whitney and Lyn Lary. Even a short section that gives defensive and offensive values would improve the book. I have the impression that this is more of a work in progress, and that Bill will make adjustments to it when he has time.
Rating:
Summary: Historical Abstract Remade and Remodeled For 2001
Review: The best baseball book has goten better. James has thoroughly rewritten his original Historical Baseball Abstract and this is not a book that I haven't put down since I received it last week. The book containes a history of the game by decades as well as very insightful player rankings. The player rankings section is the best part of the book because it provides new information on familiar players and on players not quite as famous (but should be). James has also come up with a new statistic call the Win Shares method. It attempts to place players in context of their times as well as compare them to players of another era. What I like about James is that he is a great writer. Too many of these stats books are either too esoteric or they spew out numbers which make no sense to the average baseball fan. James is a writer FIRST, which always makes his books a pleasure to read. Highly recommended for all baseball fans as one of the most intelligent books on the subject.
Rating:
Summary: James does it again
Review: If I were stranded on an island and could take two books, I would choose the Bible and this book; the latter supplants the original Historical Baseball Abstract, to which I have turned again and again for nearly 15 years. If you enjoy baseball history, get this book! If you like to speculate on the best players in baseball history, get this book now!! Bill James is clever, funny, provocative, and an outstanding writer. He challenges some aspects of baseball lore, reinforces other beliefs, and he doesn't mind provoking the reader (sometime I think he does this just to wake us up!). Over the years I have gobbled up every bit of his writing I can find, and never been disappointed. Bill James has enabled me to think about baseball in ways I never did before, and for that I'm grateful. But prepare for some surprises. The "best player in the game today"? Not Griffey, not Barry...see page 362. Best second baseman ever? Another surprise, perhaps. Best catcher of all time? Not Bench, not Cochrane, not Campy... Read it for yourself. You'll be really glad you did.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding, not as good as the first edition
Review: I consider the first edition of the Historical Abstract the most influential book in my life, and therefore hold in great reverence. This book, while clearly one of hte best baseball books ever written (along with Total Baseball, Ball Four, and Curveball), is probably less accessible. The first section is actually much improved. The breakdown of the decades of baseball is more succesful in giving a fan a flavor of how baseball has changed over time. James has kept most of hte essays in place, but is now more uniform in how he presents the information. He has also added an excellent section on the Negro Leagues. The Player sections is vastly different. I love that he rates and discusses the top 100 players at each position. What I really don't like is that he relies heavilly (almost exclusively) on a method of analysis called Win Shares. This method might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the method is not developed enough in the book for me to have a tangible grasp on the method, so as an analyst myself, the method is a black box. Basically, when he says that George Brett rates ahead of Eddie Matthews, he says that he has used a statistical method, but we can't see the method and we'll just have to take his word for it. In his defense, he claims that a new book is on the way that will explain the method in more detail. But I don't read Bill James to "take his word for it." I read him because I want to learn more about how to think about baseball. I think his rankings now have hindered my thought process more than it has helped. For example, my friends and I have a long standing argument about how was the better- Glenn Hubbard or Jim Gantner. James ranks Gantner higher, but Hubbard ranks higher by his own criteria. The rankings aren't consistent with his own analysis. Take this review with a grain of salt- I still think this is one of hte best books ever written about baseball. It just should have been more.
Rating:
Summary: High Quality As Expected
Review: The first edition of the Historical Abstract is the best baseball book I own, and I own a lot of them. So this updated version was eagerly anticipated. The decade by decade breakdowns are entertaining; who do you think the ugliest players of the 90s were, or who the most aggressive baserunner is? For the more serious fan, the book improves on the original by including a great deal more player comments, this time, writeups on the top 100 alltime at each position (Joe Kuhel, Hank Severeid....). The Win Shares concept is new and innovative, so the stat crunchers will enjoy that. But really, the book is great for everyone who has a passing interest in the history of the game.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, but a bit short of the original
Review: James's long-awaited update of his seminal 1985 work is finally here, and is indeed a treasure for anyone's baseball book shelf. The decade-by-decade reviews, which are exceptionally educational and fun to read, have been updated through the 80s and 90s. The player ratings have been greatly expanded and now include the top 100 at each position. This is an outstanding book - the best baseball text to come out in a long time. That said, in my opinion many of the changes James made to the original are disappointing. First, he has removed some of the most interesting stories from the original decade summaries. If you have the original, this is not such a loss, but for those who don't already have it, this text is missing some important insightful reporting. Second, in the original, James was explicit in making the point that ranking players is highly dependent on whether the criteria is peak value (that is, how great was a player at his best) or career value (how great was a player over the totality of his career). This distinction was a breakthrough; to the best of my knowledge, no one had explicitly created this delineation before. Unfortunately, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the original. Whereas in the 1985 book, James presented two top-ten lists at each position, one for peak value and one for career value, in this version he has conflated the two somewhat arbitrarily. And he gives no explanation for backing away from his original stance. This is particularly curious since he was adamant about the point fifteen years ago. A third quibble: James has created a new tool for player evaluation, something called win shares. He apparently has a detailed book coming out on the subject next year. Unfortunately, he gives precious little explanation of the tool in this text, especially its use in evaluating defense. Yet he clearly uses win shares as the overriding methodology for his final rankings. The reader is left feeling that there is something hidden behind the curtain. I would have been happier had he published the win shares book first, even if that meant delaying this one by a year. On the same point, James makes some (in my opinion) questionable tactical decisions in his analysis. While this is not the forum for a complete critique of his methods, I am far from certain that his evaluations of offensive performance have improved in the intervening decade and a half. Defense is another story; he is clearly quite proud of the leap forward he has made in defensive evaluation. But again, the reader is teased because James provides very little explanation of exactly what he is done, and we are left to take a lot on faith. Please don't misunderstand the above criticisms. This is an outstanding contribution to the study of baseball history. You will learn more from this book than from all the others on the shelf at your local B&N combined. If James has not quite cleared the exceptionally high hurdle I have set for him, based on his own previous performances, he still outleaps virtually every other contributor to the field. Well worth the ...
|
