Customer Reviews

Who's Better, Who's Best in Baseball?

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is the first Elliott Kalb book I've read and I'm extremely disappointed with the numerous errors that pepper this book throughout. Younger readers who are trying to learn something about the greats of the game will be inundated with incorrect or contradicting information and readers who consider themselves somewhat educated about baseball history will soon become annoyed at the mistakes, which seem to adorn every single page. Kalb states in one player's comments that the first All-Star game took place in 1934 (incorrect), then in another player's comments writes that the first All-Star game was played in 1933 (correct). Confusing, no? This is one of many examples that I found.

It appeared that some errors were the result of just plain laziness, while others came from poor research. In the Mike Schmidt chapter, Kalb writes: "In 1977, he (Schmidt) scored 114 runs on his .274 batting average. That's the record for most runs scored on a sub-.280 average in baseball history." Not only is that NOT the record, it's not even close. The record is held by Hub Collins, who scored 148 runs while hitting .278 in 1890. In fact, there have been 73 times in baseball history that a batter scored at least 114 runs while hitting below .280. And if you ignore the 19th century and only consider modern-day (1900-present) players, Red Rolfe holds the record with 143 runs scored on a .276 average in 1937. The feat has been accomplished 36 times since 1900 and Schmidt is tied for 32nd (and last) place. This may be nitpicking, but it's errors like this that make me not take this book seriously.

My second point of contention is that Kalb rarely "sells" his opinions why he thinks one player is better than another. He states facts (sometimes even correctly), and compares the numbers and contributions of each man, then leaves most of the job to the reader to decide who was better. But I bought the book hoping that "Mr. Stats" could convince me why one player should be considered better than another or perhaps change my mind about some of my own opinions. Instead he came on with all the conviction of a wet noodle.

I'm not going to bash Kalb for his rankings because, frankly, they're based on his opinions and he's entitled to them. Just because I may disagree doesn't make him wrong and me right. But his infatuation with Barry Bonds and insistance on bringing up his name every chance he could, became overbearing at times. We get it, Mr. Kalb. You think Barry Bonds is the greatest player of all time. It's bad enough that I had to read about it on the first page, let alone be constantly reminded of it on every other page.

As you can tell by now, I wasn't impressed with the book at all and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It wasn't particularly well written and there are too many errors and inaccuracies to receive my endorsement.

There were a few aspects of this book I did like. It was very informative, and as a young baseball fan I was opened up to four or five baseball player that I had never heard of before. Plus, there were several good points in this book. Hank Aaron was very underappreciated.

I have to say though, the bad outweighs the good in this book. Barry Bonds is not the greatest player to ever play baseball, I do not think that this cannot be given to one particular player. Plus, it irked me when Kalb said,"If Bonds took steroids it was to become the best player he could become." What a horrible and stupid statement, it left a distate for me during the rest of the book.

This book is interesting because it does what it sets out to do--start a dialogue about the subjects. However, the book is filled with errors, and the opinions are those of just one person, although a number of baseball people's opinions are cited. Who is "better" or "best" ultimately becomes subjective, of course. Kalb seems to be an apologist for Bobby Bonds, possibly because the book was published before any truly "smoking gun" was pointed at Bonds, or possiblty just to incite controversy. But to push for Binds in what seems like nearly entry is just too much. And to give great weight to MVP or performance in World Series is absurd (check, for example, Ted Wiliams). There is also a huge contradiction. Kalb suggests that Oh would have performed about the same in the US as in Japan, but he denies that same potential to early players and to those in the Negro leagues. If Oh faced less potent pitchers, so did the others. Also, Kalb does not account for the expansion of major league baseball in any really substantial way, except to assume that, because of expansion, all the weak players are gone. One could argue exactly the opposite. (For example, how strong would teams be if both major leagues still had only eight teams to field the top players? Isn't that what used to happen?) Kalb does point out that the players today are bigger, stronger, and better trained (he does not make much of better equipment, though), and then he ruins that by seeming to condone steroids and the like (just Bonds making himself the best he could be) without factoring in how someone like Ruth or Musial or Mays or Aaron might have performed on steroids.

This book was a great read for long time baseball fans and of course will stir up much controversy in the various rankings. I happen to feel that some of the subjective evaluations of players should have more value than just the pure numbers that Kalb uses in his rankings.
1. Joe DiMaggio had perhaps the greatest years of anyone to start a career with, after the Babe. His 1937 season was one of the all time greatest. His RBI numbers rank at the very highest in terms of RBI per game, and I think in some ways this stat is the most neglected in Kalb's book, while he puts so much rank into slugging %. Players like Bonds and Williams had such high on base % due to their walks, which also influences slugging %. DiMaggio by being willing to hit, not walk, drove in the runs that wins games, and he still struck out rarely. Bonds put up huge numbers after 1998, but had surprisingly less RBI than one would expect from those other numbers; thats because he wouldn't go after the ball and would walk. Subjectively the respect and awe DiMaggio's teammates had for him speaks very highly. Winning 9 series and 10 pennants in 13 years, with his reputation of clutch hitting and fielding has to mean more, together with stats, than a ranking of 21. Just read the wonderful book " The Summer of '49 " to get an idea of what DiMaggio meant to the Yankees, and his virtual one man defeat of William's Red Sox when they were leading the pennant race. Great stuff.
2. What players do in clutch and playoff -world series times should mean something in evaluation. I would much rather have the great player with a shorter career, than the player who accumulates huge numbers just because he played for over 20 years. Mantle was a great world series player. George Brett was one of the all time prime time players. Ruth and Gehrig were the all time greatest series players, and that should mean something in their ranking. Koufax is always included in high rankings because of this and the subjective evaluation that at the time he pitched he was the greatest anyone had ever seen, although his career was quite short compared to all the other greats.
3. Bonds is certainly one of the all time greats, but his rather apparent steroid use can't help but taint his numbers ( which I would agree are astounding after 1998 ). For this reason I don't think one can rank him ahead of Ruth, Aaron or Mays.

The main focus of this review is the astounding amount of errors in this book. I noticed a few so then I decided to investigate and see how many I found. Well, I found a lot. Some of them are listed below, but I'll say something about his opinions, too. I've talked to a lot of big-name baseball guys (Bill James, ESPN and Sports Illustrated guys, BBWAA members, SABR members and leaders, etc.) and their rankings are very different. Some of Kalb's rankings are just plain absurd. Honus Wagner, usually ranked in the top four, is eighth. Mantle, usually in the top eight, is 12th. Mathewson, usually in the late thirties, low forties, is 13th. Sammy Sosa, usually ranked outside of the top 200, is 53rd, and Derek Jeter, Mark McGwire, and Manny Ramirez, all players usually not included in the top 100, are in the 60's. None of the guys I've talked to has a reliever in the top 250, but Kalb puts Mariano at 62nd. If you want to learn about baseball and you base your opinions on this book, without a doubt, fans will laugh at you.

And now, for the mistakes, I got to page 39. I already found 11 of them. Here's a little sampling:



PAGE 5
Error:
"By 1990, there were 42 players who struck out at least 100 times. In 2001, 69 different players struck out 100 or more times. In 2002, there were 71 players that whiffed that much".

Truth:
Only 37 players struck out at least 100 times in 1990. In 2001, 77 players struck out 100 or more times. In 2002, 73 players whiffed at least 100 times.



PAGE 10
Error:
"By contrast, the majors have averaged over five runs per game in every year since 2000."

Truth:
The average number of runs per game in 2000 was 5.14. However, every year after that, it was under five (4.78 in 2001, 4.62 in 2002, 4.73 in 2003, 4.81 in 2004, 4.59 in 2005, and so on).



Again, PAGE 10
Error:
"Barry batted `only' .283--but the league average was .255 that season. Barry slugged `only' .491--but the league average was .363, and Darryl Strawberry led the league at .545.

Truth:
The National League average in 1988 (the year Kalb is talking about) was .248. The Major League batting average in 1988 was .254.



PAGE 18
Error:
Slugging Percentages, 1920-1924
1. .777 Babe Ruth
2. .650 Rogers Hornsby
3. .591 Harry Heilmann

Truth:
From 1920-1924, Heilmann had a SLG of .559. Third place should belong to Ken Williams, who had a .589 SLG in that period.



PAGE 30
Error:
"...the only time in Mays's 21 year career..."

Truth:
Mays had a 22 year career. In fact, Kalb wrote on the page before, "and his [Mays's] 22nd and last season."



PAGE 34
Error:
"Mays never drove in more than 127 runs in a season."

Truth:
Mays had 141 RBI's in 1962.



PAGE 39
Error:
"In 1959, Aaron led the league in slugging for the first of four times, duplicating the feat in 1961, 1963, and 1965."

Truth:
Aaron led the league in slugging in 1959, 1963, 1967, and 1971. I have no idea where Kalb is pulling those years from.

At times this book can be interesting, but mostly it's irksome. Several other reviewers have touched on the factual inaccuracies and numerous contradictions. I won't waste any more time on that, so I'll just mention that the writing is incredibly thin and weak, often making the book boring. His constant analogies when he compares players to musicians, basketball players, and other various public figures are pretty annoying, and one of them (the Charlie Parker one) really bugged me for some reason, probably because I doubt he could name a Parker song (though I have no way to back this claim up, it seemed like his source of information on Parker was wikipedia.)

I also have a problem with the fact that he brings up Barry Bonds in nearly every player ranking, often when it's completely unnecessary. I get that you think he's a great player Elliott, but the stuff you write about him makes me think you're also in love with the man.

I just got this book in time for the baseball season, and it is the best book I've ever read. Kalb makes great points about Bonds being better than everyone else, but I loved some of the other chapters even more. Josh Gibson the greatest catcher of all time? Pedro Martinez ahead of Randy Johnson? This is a great book for people who want to get to know about the top players of all time.

I dig Elliott Kalb's Books big time. His Basketball Book was on point&This Baseball Book is another Winner. Barry Bonds is the Greatest Ever to me as well.Josh Gibson was so ahead of his time it ain't even funny. I enjoy how Elliott Kalb breaks things down&he makes you look at all the possiblitys.He is a very gifted writer&I dig how He challenges you on players.

Now don't get me wrong. This book is about as entertaining as they come for a baseball fan. The way that Kalb uses numbers to rate players in different leagues and eras is quite an undertaking. Sometimes though his arguments become transparent. I have found several examples throughout the book where he will just stop trying to cite numbers and examples and seems to be overtly subjective in his opinion. My favorite example is when comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. He argues that in Ruth's time he faced tired starters who yielded many of Ruth's HR's. And that Bonds was superior because he faced modern relief pitching and not tired washed up starters. He however also eludes to (in the same comparission mind you) thin pitching staffs and lauching pad stadiums in modern times. Not discounting Barry for that at all. If he would give me the numbers I would conclude that Barry is the better hitter. However, when he tries to put his numbers in context very often he compares what he wants to compare to get the result that he has already predetermined. There are a few mistakes as previous reviewers have pointed out. But as this review is proof to the book sparks debate. I just have a problem with the way that the analysis is done. Great book though.

I'm a baseball fanatic, and have read other books like this, esp. Bill James Historical Abstract. This book doesn't come close. Kalb's ratings are generally pretty good but the writing is sort of mediocre and his reliance on the clown princes of baseball Broadcasting (McCarver and Buck) just completely destroys any pretense of integrity. As Lewis says in MOneyball, most of what the average fan learns about baseball is bull-----, and most of it is from broadcasters. I do not know anyone who listens to Mc and Buck who doesn't marvel at their stupidity, so using them to bolster an argument about who's best is pretty feeble. OK reading for a trip or airplane trip but not especially well done.