<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Off base and unoriginal
Review: Allen Barra, a terrific columnist for the Wall Street Journal and Salon, unfortunately disappoints in this book. Most of the book consists of recycled,unoriginal conclusions. Yes, most knowledgable baseball fans know Babe Ruth didn't save baseball single-handedly and was a womanizer, Mantle was a better offensive player than Mays, Ted Williams was a better hitter than Joe Dimaggio, etc... As another reviewer pointed out, most of these ideas were originally proposed by Bill James years ago. I cannot recommend this book.
Furthermore and far worse, Barra makes several factual errors in Clearing the Bases. In his misguided attempt to tear Babe Babe Ruth down, he incorrectly states that Ruth benefited from good homerun parks in Boston and New York. This is absolutely false. One thing Barra didn't learn from Bill James: Fenway Park in 1919 was a very tough homerun park. Ruth hit 20 of his 29 homers on the road. For his career Ruth had more homers on the road. I sent the author an e-mail informing him of this fact, which he has not acknowledged. Another misstatement occurs in the Lefty Grove section. Barra says that Grove missed time in 1934 because Connie Mack was overusing him. That would have been unlikely, since Grove was traded to Boston before the season and wasn't being coached by Mack that year. Barra can do better and I hope he will try again. Don't waste your time and money on this book.
Rating: 
Summary: SLOBs Rule!
Review: Barra's "Clearing the Bases" settles some of the 20th century's most persistent baseball arguments with both hard numbers and lively prose. Fans looking for a fast read will be entertained, while those who want to get statistical will be more than satisfied. Barra demonstrates that passion lurks behind the SLOBs.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Fun!
Review: Barra's book is enjoyable, thought provoking, and informative... this is a must have book for even the most casual baseball fan... now I can hold my own with even the most bombastic baseball arbiter...thanks Mr. Barra for such an interesting and fun book!
Rating:
Summary: disgruntled mays fan
Review: i recommend this books as a great, smooth, interesting, infuriating read. but i am still burned by barra's argument that mantle was better than mays. i saw them both play many times and it seemed mays was so much better. he was much more consistent in a much stronger league. he missed two years due to war service which cost him 70 to 100 home runs and prevented him from being the first to break ruth's alltime record. he was a much better fielder than mantle and a better baserunner. but all these niggling stats seem to indicate mantle was superior. heck. i guess i can't believe my own eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating!
Review: This book asks the questions you always asked yourself and gives you the answers. I usually can't get through baseball books with a lot of numbers, but this one made a lot of sense to me. My favorite chapter was the one comparing Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, and Roger Clemens. I can't wait for a second volume!
Rating:
Summary: Exciting!
Review: This book has a great premise, which is to use statistics to question some of the "great" debates of baseball and generally shed some new light on the subject. It is a fascinating idea. However to me it feels rather poorly executed.The chapters seem to go from statistics to anecdotes, to statistics, to anecdotes with no clear path. The problem with this approach is that Barra never even settles on one or another as being his criteria for settling his dabates. On this level this book is highly unsatisfying. For example in comparing Ted Williams to Joe DiMaggio he "proves" that one batter was clearly the statistically only to decide that he would choose the inferior player for intangible reasons if he could go back in time. Considering that in other chapters he uses numbers almost exclusively, to argue that the 1919 Black Sox shouldn't have been favorites no matter takes away the necessary bias. Essentially the author uses numbers that prove his point, but often only presents the data he puts forth in his argument. In the chapter I found most unsettling the author examined the legacy of the 1986 New York Mets. He does nothing less than insult Sid Fernandez for his weight problems and dismisses Dwight Gooden's career tail off as solely due to drug and alcohol problems. He compares Gooden's early career to that of Roger Clemens and rightly points out that Gooden was the better pitcher at the end of 1986 based on statistics and essentially relates his subsequent pitching performances to his personal demons. However if the reader were presented with career statistics they would see that Gooden pitched approximately 500 innings in his first 2 seasons. The man led the National League in innings pitched in his second season with 276. Add to that Gooden's high strike out totals and high complete game figures and one could argue that Gooden suffered from arm abuse as well as drug problems. To fail to mention such data seriously hinders the credibility of the author's arguments. It makes me curious as to what pertinent information is left out of his other analyses. As such I cannot place much weight on the particular merits of the authors arguments as they present very skewed statistics. I know statistics can say whatever you want them too. It's even easier when you don't get to see all the numbers. A nice idea but poorly executed. It may present the greatest baseball debates, but it does not end them.
Rating:
Summary: Mantle better than Mays?
Review: This book reviews a lot of baseball myths and debates and sheds new light on ones the experts thought were settled. As a Yankee fan from the 1950s and 1960s I was particularly interested in the chapters on Ruth and DiMaggio and questions about Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle. Barra address questions such as: Was Mays really a better all-around player than Mantle? Should Joe Jackson be in the Hall of Fame? Should Roger Maris be in the Hall of Fame? Was the asterisk on Maris' home run record a myth? Would Jackie Robinson have made the Hall of Fame if he were not black? Was Juan Marichal slighted when compared with Koufax and Gibson? How great was Mike Schmidt? Barra address these and many other issues with sometimes startling but always convincing agruments and statistics to back up his points. Many of the debates have been clouded by emotion and Barra tries to take a very dispassionate and objective approach to the issues. The result is some new and refreshing ideas that provoke thought and controversy!
Rating:
Summary: mays was better
Review: When it comes to the question of who was better -- Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle -- I have to agree with Mickey Mantle: Mays was better. I think Barra is a darn good writer and this is a great book, but just what stats was he looking at? Mays was well ahead of Mantle in virtually every lifetime statistic. Mantle was better than Mays in two or three peak seasons. Mantle had only four 100-rbi seasons. Don't get me wrong. I love Mantle. But Mays was clearly better and everyone in baseball knows it. All that aside, this book is truly invigorating for shaking up some long held beliefs about sports stars. However, I retain my right to be stubborn about the Mantle-Mays debate. Buy the book though. Barra is to writing what Berra was to catching.
<< 1 >>
| 
