Customer Reviews

The Best Chicago Sports Arguments

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a Chicago sports fan, I enjoyed this book, but when I rated it I tried to step back from being a Chicago fan to being a sports fan. Some folks outside of Chicago might enjoy this book, but not many. Even those in Chicago will only be marginally interested. Let's face it, sports radio is the real venue for these types of arguments, not books.

Still, if you're a Chicago sports fan, you'll enjoy Mullin's book. You'll find things to argue with (and that's the point) and you'll find things you'll agree with, and you'll remember things that'll still drive you nuts, like 1984, 2003...oh, who am I kidding? All of Cubs history will drive you nuts, unless, of course your a Sox fan. Some of the debates are boring, such as which golf courses are best and what killed tennis in Chicago, but all in all it's interesing. But, like I said, these are arguments better heard on the radio.

The organization of the book was nice - no debate will take more than a few minutes to read, so it's easy to pick it up for only a few minutes a day and read a complete section.

I can't disagree with most of Mullin's arguments, but I do take issue with a few of his comments:
1) He calls Nolan Ryan an "over-hyped sham" - Ryan won over three hundred games with some of the worst teams in MLB. He could have won 370, possibly 400, if he had ever played for a decent team. For instance, he had the best ERA one season but finished 7-17.
2) He says Ted Lyons won "only" 260 games. Only 260? That's a huge total.
3) Sosa's 66 home runs are only "marginally more" than Hack's 56. If by marginally you mean only a month's total (in a six month season), then I guess you're right.

But really, aren't those arguments what make sports fun? I recommend this book for Chicago sports fans, but I can't give it a high rating, because there's nothing particularly original about it and it won't reach much of an audience outside Chicago.