Who was better, Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays? At their peak, who was more valuable, Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams? If Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, and Roger Clemens had pitched at the same time against the same hitters, who would have won the most games? If Jackie Robinson had been white, would he be deserving of the Hall of Fame? Who was the greatest all around player of theWho was better, Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays? At their peak, who was more valuable, Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams? If Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, and Roger Clemens had pitched at the same time against the same hitters, who would have won the most games? If Jackie Robinson had been white, would he be deserving of the Hall of Fame? Who was the greatest all around player of the last century?Clearing the Bases is the first book to tackle these and many other of baseball's most intriguing questions and offer hard, sensible answers---answers based on exhaustive research and analysis. Sports journalist Allen Barra, whose weekly sports column "By the Numbers" has earned millions of readers in the Wall Street Journal and whose outspoken opinions in Salon.com are discussed regularly on National Public Radio, takes on baseball's toughest arguments. Using stats and methods he developed during his ongoing tenure at the Wall Street Journal, Barra takes you to the heart of baseball's ultimate question---"Who's The Best?"---in this, the ultimate baseball debate book, one guaranteed to spark thousands of heated debates and to supply the fuel for thousands more....
|Title||:||Clearing the Bases: The Greatest Baseball Debates of the Last Century|
|Number of Pages||:||261 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Clearing the Bases: The Greatest Baseball Debates of the Last Century Reviews
Baseball fans will love this, although you can get bogged down in the numbers.
In recent years, books like this one (or "thinking books", as I like to call them) have seen an explosion in popularity. Instead of just biographies of old baseball stars or waxing nostalgic about "the good old days", these books throw all the past perceptions out the window and start fresh, crunching the numbers to make interesting observations about arguable topics."Clearing the Bases" is, by and large, a success in this category. Author Allen Barra tackles such notions (among others) as:-Jackie Robinson: Greatest second baseman ever?-Willie Mays vs. Mickey Mantle: By the Numbers-Minnie Minoso--greatest Hispanic player ever?-Clemens vs. Koufax vs. Grove-The "myth" of Babe Ruth.-Why pitchers can't "go 9" anymore.Generally speaking, Barra brings up some interesting points and will get you thinking about certain topics/ideas that perhaps you had never considered before. Baseball myths/legends are hard to break down sometimes, so reading a book like this is sometimes a shock to the system, yet Barra explains himself reasonably well and stands by his convictions. Some you may agree with, some you won't, but they will get the cognitive wheels turning nonetheless.However, I can't consider this book to truly be a must-read because of the author's defiance/arrogance throughout the text. Perhaps this is just Barra's sense of humor, but I found it very disrespectful for him to continually call certain people "idiots", "morons", and the like. It almost seemed (at times) that the book was written from the seed of anger, not passion.Overall, though, this is an intriguing read that will engage the brain. I more highly recommend "Baseball Between The Numbers", but this one will suffice if you don't have enough time to get through hundreds of pages.
I disagree about this, but I am a Boston fan. Anyways, here goes: There is a case to be made that Joe DiMaggio was a better player than Ted Williams. But I don't think Barra made it here. You could argue that DiMaggio's all-around play edged Williams's superior hitting when each was at the top of his game. But Barra focuses on intangible qualities of DiMaggio. Sorry, but I am not buying it. I would like to see him make a stronger case for it.
A fine read to spark debate, but there seemed to be a typo per chapter. Perhaps the WSJ editors are better than the Thomas Dunne Books editors. It was interesting fodder, but there have been other books of similar ilk I enjoyed more.
Unorthodox opinions supported by the numbers. There were just too many numbers.