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

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

Customer Rating:
Summary: EHhhh
Comment: 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.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Well Okay, It Was Better Than I Thought It Would Be ....
Comment: A sometimes interesting book in where Kalb tries to rank players, which is always an argument starter anyway and usually a bad idea - there are quite a few factual errors, which i just rolled my eyes at and overlooked, and he used too many great individual game performances to justify a player's ranking - I found myself skipping over a player's great performance in the 19XX Championship Series or the 19XX World Series because they were just individual games - I think Kalb needed to state his cases for/against players with more of an emphasis on their entire careers. His "Better Analogy" pieces on some of the players were at times insightful but I would have preferred more cross generational comparisons among different players - there are times when he compared players who he really shouldnt have been comparing and yes, there were quite a few times when he came to no conclusions with these comparisons and even more times when there was no explanation for his conclusions. Not a groundbreaking book but pick it up if you can get it for a pittance.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: One Man's Fancy
Comment: 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.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Great read
Comment: This is a book that will appeal to all baseball fans and stat junkies. My own personal opinions on that overall list aside (I am a diehard Giants fan, but I don't think Barry Bonds is that best overall player). The first review here basically states everything one needs to know before buying this book. However, I have a problem with some people saying that certain facts Kalb states in the book as false. The record for most runs scored in a sub-.280 season by Schmidt IS the record. Records in baseball now are generally called as such based on every game played post 1901, when the two league system was invented, thus beginning the sports' modern era. The rules were completely different before this time, and even after, certain things were not changed until a few years later. Hell, when Nap Lajoie set the record for average in a season, he did so in a year that foul balls were not considered strikes, and this was after 1901. Thus, Schmidt holds the modern day record, which, except in a few instances (Cy Young, Cap Anson, to name a couple), is what players today are judged by.

When we are comparing players in a sport that has such a rich and diverse history as baseball, one must take into account that era in which the players played and rate them based on how they compared to their peers. How many homeruns would Aaron have hit had he played in the launching pad in Atlanta for a larger portion of his career? Would Ruth have hit 700 homeruns playing in a less condusive park to his particular talents? How would Ted Williams final career numbers have looked had he not lost five years in his prime fighting in TWO different wars, and would he finally, without argument, be considered the greatest hitter who ever lived? How about Johnny Mize and Hank Greenberg; would their numbers be even more impressive considering they also lost three-four prime years in a war? And honestly, why is Alex Rodriguez ranked so high and Manny Ramirez so low? Ramirez has just slightly better career stats in most every offensive category in fewer career at-bats. Defensive skills aside, does that really rank Ramirez, that man who will set the career mark for RBI, 60 spots lower than A-Rod?

One gripe I have is that the list, even the final twenty-five spots he summarizes at the very end to make up the best hundred, he only includes one NPO player, Sadaharu Oh, deservedly so, but what aboout Shigeo Nagashima? I can name at least eight other Japanese leaguers who deserve to be on this list.

READ THIS BOOK and make your own arguments.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Mr. Numbers is far too often Mr. Fan
Comment: 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.

---

More Reviews for Who's Better, Who's Best in Baseball?