I’m so excited to tell all of you first that I have signed with the amazing folks at Dutton Publishing to write my next book: WHY WE LOVE BASEBALL. We literally just worked out the basic details, so there’s still a lot of stuff to iron out, such as timing. I would expect the book to be published in 2023.
An idea for Why we Love Baseball. This is something that happened in the recent past that, barring serious rule changes, will never happen again. The event was four straight completes games in the 2005 ALCS. After dropping the first game, Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, and Contreras each tossed a complete game. In the game they lost Contreras went 8 1/3 in a 3-2 loss. That’s 133 of 135 outs by the starting pitchers. Only 2/3 of an inning tossed by a single reliever. This is a reason why we love this game.
Additionally in the WS every starter went at lest seven innings. The starters tossed 28 1/3 innings of 41IP. There was that great 14 inning contest in Game 3.
Between the two series the four starters threw 72 2/3 of 86IP. This is the stuff of modern legends.
Also for fun, Game 1 of the ALCS was also the game that made Pierzynski (im)famous.
I am a Sox fan, but I’m not a homer. If I can’t get the Sox game I’ll watch one that is available.
great idea. I am about to start my signed copy of The Baseball 100 (right after I finish re-reading Jay Jaffe's "Cooperstown Casebook"). Two ideas to get you in the mood for writing--Daniel Okrent's fun book "Baseball Anecdotes" and re-watching Ken Burns' 'Baseball". While we await the results of billionaires fighting with millionaires over the CBA, Burns shows us why we love baseball. Good luck with the writing, looking forward to the results.
If I am right that what has set baseball apart from other sports is the history it offers its devotees, might this not explain why its popularity is flagging? We don't seem to be a culture today that has much use for history. Although perhaps in a way this isn't a different take from the usual one, which is that we've become too much a society of instant gratification for baseball. I do think there is a ridicule for things that happened before the announcers' memory when they have to confront the game's history that wasn't there when I was a child some 30 years ago. They are typically almost quizzical.
So this post made me do some soul searching about why I love baseball. There's no getting around it, at the simplest level, it is because I love the statistical record. I don't think the like exists in other sports. James was called "the Mozart of baseball statistics." That you can even be a Mozart when it comes to baseball statistics says something. There is richness in the statistical record that can take you places and that deserves all of the rhapsody that baseball inspires from the Costases and George Wills. Now, what really is the statistical record? What is it about? It is not, as some may think, a matter of tapping our nerdiness. The record is a history. I love baseball because I love history, and I think the history of baseball is like no other sport -- not just different, but superior in some way. So I think it is so interesting that Joe (perhaps unconsciously) linked what is special about baseball, why we love baseball, to history, citing "A Little History of the World."
The field of play and how that statistical record is captured grabs me to some degree. I live far from a major league city, but we have an international semi-pro tournament annually and just got a franchise in an independent baseball league. These games don't have much of a statistical record to follow or look back on, but spending time at the park is great and I am one of those guys that likes to keep score. Maybe not for the entire game, but I like the scorecard and the marks and how you can quite easily record the play on the field.
That is something quite difficult to do in most sports.
While watching I don't think of or look up stats, yet I've embraced the analytics to better understand what is going on. I just very much enjoy the game. Maybe there is something to knowing how to follow it and there is an easy expectation of what is to come.
I am also a big basketball fan, but seeing the offence come together or identifying the play being run isn't always easy. There is some similarity in statistical record in hitting and shooting and both have seen an analytical revolution that attempts to make the game more efficient and readable across eras.
The big difference I see is that the NBA is willing to change rules and alter the game in order to make the analytical influence more watchable. MLB has always been slow to change and slow to try out changes. The owners and Manfred don't even have the interests of the game and long term growth at heart. They seem only concerned with the economics and only for the short term. When issues such as PEDs and Cheating scandals amid the World Series, they are slow to deal with them and just sweep them aside rather than make bold moves. It doesn't help that all these old-school broadcasters yell at the sky during baseball's biggest stage either. I believe this is at the centre of MLBs inability to grow and capture new fans.
MLB will never lose a fan like me, (I'm near 50 years old FWIW), but the NBA has a commissioner with a vision and makes changes and grabs young viewers. I just don't see that with MLB.
I wish Joe would write a book in which he rewrites baseball history by making his choices for all of the major awards (including HOF induction). Case in point: Joe could've "righted" the wrong that saw the 1987 AL MVP go to George Bell instead of Alan Trammell. And he could have given a Cy Young or two to Quiz, whom he would've later - perhaps - voted into the HOF. In fact, Joe could go through each year of the HOF ballot and choose which players got in. I think it would be positively fascinating!
One thing I wonder about is the title of the book. I know publishers sometimes take the lead in choosing a title, and I know what turns off cognoscenti often leads to more sales total, but the title certainly does not scream originality. Once you become known as one of these baseball worshippers, as Roger Angell did and Bob Costas, it distracts from the work itself. It seems over the top to most people. Extreme. Costas clearly deeply resented becoming known as a baseball purist. He seemingly felt that people did not listen to what he said and wrote off his opinions. Now, with The Soul of Baseball and The Baseball 100, Joe has been trending a little bit that way in terms of his program of writing and the work he is known to deliver, so I don't know that this one title makes or breaks things. But I have a feeling that the impression of Joe from those who don't read him is probably pretty different from the impression of those who do. And I don't know if that's a good thing. Of course, we may not be a sophisticated enough populace now that anyone in public view can realistically hope to be known as himself. Certainly, it is impressive that Joe can appeal to both audiences, both popular and sophisticated. His writing style certainly also comports with that.
Hi Joe,
An idea for Why we Love Baseball. This is something that happened in the recent past that, barring serious rule changes, will never happen again. The event was four straight completes games in the 2005 ALCS. After dropping the first game, Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, and Contreras each tossed a complete game. In the game they lost Contreras went 8 1/3 in a 3-2 loss. That’s 133 of 135 outs by the starting pitchers. Only 2/3 of an inning tossed by a single reliever. This is a reason why we love this game.
Additionally in the WS every starter went at lest seven innings. The starters tossed 28 1/3 innings of 41IP. There was that great 14 inning contest in Game 3.
Between the two series the four starters threw 72 2/3 of 86IP. This is the stuff of modern legends.
Also for fun, Game 1 of the ALCS was also the game that made Pierzynski (im)famous.
I am a Sox fan, but I’m not a homer. If I can’t get the Sox game I’ll watch one that is available.
It would super cool if this made the book.
great idea. I am about to start my signed copy of The Baseball 100 (right after I finish re-reading Jay Jaffe's "Cooperstown Casebook"). Two ideas to get you in the mood for writing--Daniel Okrent's fun book "Baseball Anecdotes" and re-watching Ken Burns' 'Baseball". While we await the results of billionaires fighting with millionaires over the CBA, Burns shows us why we love baseball. Good luck with the writing, looking forward to the results.
How similar is this going to be to the "60 Greatest Moments" list from The Athletic?
Can’t wait!!!
Looking forward to it Joe
If I am right that what has set baseball apart from other sports is the history it offers its devotees, might this not explain why its popularity is flagging? We don't seem to be a culture today that has much use for history. Although perhaps in a way this isn't a different take from the usual one, which is that we've become too much a society of instant gratification for baseball. I do think there is a ridicule for things that happened before the announcers' memory when they have to confront the game's history that wasn't there when I was a child some 30 years ago. They are typically almost quizzical.
So this post made me do some soul searching about why I love baseball. There's no getting around it, at the simplest level, it is because I love the statistical record. I don't think the like exists in other sports. James was called "the Mozart of baseball statistics." That you can even be a Mozart when it comes to baseball statistics says something. There is richness in the statistical record that can take you places and that deserves all of the rhapsody that baseball inspires from the Costases and George Wills. Now, what really is the statistical record? What is it about? It is not, as some may think, a matter of tapping our nerdiness. The record is a history. I love baseball because I love history, and I think the history of baseball is like no other sport -- not just different, but superior in some way. So I think it is so interesting that Joe (perhaps unconsciously) linked what is special about baseball, why we love baseball, to history, citing "A Little History of the World."
The field of play and how that statistical record is captured grabs me to some degree. I live far from a major league city, but we have an international semi-pro tournament annually and just got a franchise in an independent baseball league. These games don't have much of a statistical record to follow or look back on, but spending time at the park is great and I am one of those guys that likes to keep score. Maybe not for the entire game, but I like the scorecard and the marks and how you can quite easily record the play on the field.
That is something quite difficult to do in most sports.
While watching I don't think of or look up stats, yet I've embraced the analytics to better understand what is going on. I just very much enjoy the game. Maybe there is something to knowing how to follow it and there is an easy expectation of what is to come.
I am also a big basketball fan, but seeing the offence come together or identifying the play being run isn't always easy. There is some similarity in statistical record in hitting and shooting and both have seen an analytical revolution that attempts to make the game more efficient and readable across eras.
The big difference I see is that the NBA is willing to change rules and alter the game in order to make the analytical influence more watchable. MLB has always been slow to change and slow to try out changes. The owners and Manfred don't even have the interests of the game and long term growth at heart. They seem only concerned with the economics and only for the short term. When issues such as PEDs and Cheating scandals amid the World Series, they are slow to deal with them and just sweep them aside rather than make bold moves. It doesn't help that all these old-school broadcasters yell at the sky during baseball's biggest stage either. I believe this is at the centre of MLBs inability to grow and capture new fans.
MLB will never lose a fan like me, (I'm near 50 years old FWIW), but the NBA has a commissioner with a vision and makes changes and grabs young viewers. I just don't see that with MLB.
This sounds great. Can't wait to see what you create.
I wish Joe would write a book in which he rewrites baseball history by making his choices for all of the major awards (including HOF induction). Case in point: Joe could've "righted" the wrong that saw the 1987 AL MVP go to George Bell instead of Alan Trammell. And he could have given a Cy Young or two to Quiz, whom he would've later - perhaps - voted into the HOF. In fact, Joe could go through each year of the HOF ballot and choose which players got in. I think it would be positively fascinating!
No one better to write this. Can’t wait, Joe. Happy wordsmithing!
No one could ever think that passage could be about Alabama football if the kids' book is sweet and peaceful...
One thing I wonder about is the title of the book. I know publishers sometimes take the lead in choosing a title, and I know what turns off cognoscenti often leads to more sales total, but the title certainly does not scream originality. Once you become known as one of these baseball worshippers, as Roger Angell did and Bob Costas, it distracts from the work itself. It seems over the top to most people. Extreme. Costas clearly deeply resented becoming known as a baseball purist. He seemingly felt that people did not listen to what he said and wrote off his opinions. Now, with The Soul of Baseball and The Baseball 100, Joe has been trending a little bit that way in terms of his program of writing and the work he is known to deliver, so I don't know that this one title makes or breaks things. But I have a feeling that the impression of Joe from those who don't read him is probably pretty different from the impression of those who do. And I don't know if that's a good thing. Of course, we may not be a sophisticated enough populace now that anyone in public view can realistically hope to be known as himself. Certainly, it is impressive that Joe can appeal to both audiences, both popular and sophisticated. His writing style certainly also comports with that.
Send a copy to Rob Manfred, STAT.
I need to pre-order 10 copies ASAP!
Can't wait.
This sounds amazing!
(You’d better do this right.) 😉