I received a review copy of Mark Frost’s Game Six: Cincinnati, Boston, and the 1975 World Series: The Triumph of America’s Pastime
| Player | Year | Age | OPS+ | wRC+ | wOBA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ted Williams | 1939 | 20 | 160 | 168 | .464 |
| Dick Allen | 1964 | 22 | 162 | 167 | .403 |
| Fred Lynn | 1975 | 23 | 161 | 163 | .427 |
(OPS+ from Baseball-Reference; wRC+ and wOBA from Fangraphs.)
So Ted Williams – who, by the way, played for one of the two teams in Frost’s book – had 37 points of wOBA+ over Lynn despite being three years younger during his rookie season. But it is “beyond dispute” that Lynn’s season was the “most sensational” ever by a rookie? Okay, sparky. I’ll just put the book down now, because when I read a baseball book, I want it to at least get the baseball stuff right.
That quote wasn’t the only problem I found in the first fifteen pages; Frost is clearly out to lionize his subjects, including the reporters who covered the game, and he prints inner monologues from long-dead people that have to be his own interpretations or creations, which had me questioning every statement that wasn’t backed up by an actual quote from someone involved in or covering the game. If this was a book about a famous soccer match, perhaps I wouldn’t have noticed these inaccuracies or errors and just kept right on moving, but knowing a little about the game and even knowing some of the people mentioned in the book (or at worst being two degrees away), I found it unreadable.
“florid prose with huge, unsourced, inaccurate statements on baseball”
It fills out most baseball commentary I hear to be fair. I don’t know the game quite well enough to mute the sound….
Worst example NFL coverage of Brett Favre apparently he has extreme personal qualities including an amazing ability to have more FUN than anyone, ever!
Does the casual viewer/reader really need all this pumping of the players?
Just finished that book last night. Keith is right; it was pretty bad. It was literally pitch-by-pitch account of the game. That being said, it was not as disappointing as Joe Posnansky’s awful book on the Big Red Machine. I had no expectations for Game Six but after reading Soul of the Game, I was really looking forward to Joe’s book on the Big Red Machine. Still can’t believe how bad it was.
I haven’t read the book, but when he says “most sensational” in regards to Fred Lynn’s rookie season that he didn’t mean it was the best season by a rookie. I’m not that familiar with Fred Lynn’s career since it was before my time, but maybe there was just something about Lynn’s rookie season that was especially captivating?
Also I was curious, why is part of the title “The Triumph of America’s Pastime”? What was so special about this game that made it “the triumph of America’s pastime”?
Haven’t read the book and won’t. But regarding Lynn versus both Allen and Williams, I think it is safe to say he was appreciably better as a defender than both players and played a premium defensive position.
So while I agree there is a dispute to be made (and there is probably other rookie seasons you aren’t pointing out), I’d argue that the better defensive season plus an equivalent OPS+ gives Lynn the advantage over both Allen and Williams.
Wait, is this the same Mark Frost that helped create Twin Peaks with David Lynch?
I’m pretty sure the “most sensational” rookie season ever actually took place one year after the book is set – Mark Fidrych. Whatever “most sensational” means I’m pretty sure that the Bird’s season covers it.
Damien: If so, then why wouldn’t Frost spell it out? And how could anything as subjective as “most sensational” as you define it ever be “beyond dispute?” It’s just bad writing, in that case.
JoeWro: I believe it is.
If we’re talking about sensational rookie seasons, wouldn’t Jackie Robinson be the hands-down winner?
Hey, I haven’t read Game Six and I have no intention of doing so. But I *was* planning on reading Posnanski’s book on the topic, since I think he does a terrific job with his blog. Can anyone else back up Rod’s views on the book? I don’t especially want to waste time on Posnanski’s book if a bunch of folks agree that it’s disappointing.
I’m just glad the book wasn’t about Game 6 2001. That game sucked.
You mean Game 6 2002? 🙁
Wait, Really:
Posnanski’s book is certainly not disappointing. His writing, just as in his blog, makes the characters in the book come alive and makes you care about the outcome. It’s certainly worth reading and is incomparably better than this drivel.
Actually, it was game 6 1986 that really sucked! I don’t have a problem saying that, given the defensive premium, Lynn was better than Williams (or Richie Allen) as a rookie. However, claiming something is beyond dispute is usually a pretty good indication that the person making the claim isn’t too confident about backing it up with facts and logic.
I haven’t read Poz’s new book, but I will. I loved The Soul of Baseball, although you all probably already know that.
Jonathan DS @1-
The problem is, the casual fan is susceptible to that crap. My mom knows little about sports, but tries to stay on top of big things going on, like the Super Bowl or World Series. 99% of what she knows is what she hears from the likes of Joe Buck. As far as she knows, he’s “handsome” and he’s on the TV, so he must know his stuff, right? I get emails telling me how much fun Brett Favre must be having, almost word-for-word what the broadcaster is saying. And my mom is a fairly smart woman. The air of authority given to broadcasters makes people who don’t know better often take them at their word.
Keith, I really enjoyed this review of the book when it first came out too: http://pitchersandpoets.com/2009/10/19/pnp-book-review-game-six-cincinnati-boston-and-the-1975-world-series-the-triumph-of-americas-pastime/
Its pretty sad so many people will read it.
Since we’re all complaining about game 6’s here, game 6 of the 2003 NLCS has to be in the conversation too.