Travel World guide

I disagree with a great deal of the material in this book. Not surprisingly, I found the ‘refutation’ of Pitcher Abuse Points weak and flawed.

But that doesn’t really matter. This is a fun book to read. It’s a great way to spend some time.

Maybe some minor changes that could have been made in terms of format, editorial decisions, and whatever, but that’s true for every book. I think it’s fascinating and entertaining to learn what’s behind some of the numbers for guys I never got the chance to see.

I can disclaim and state that Rob is a friend and colleague, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is a very entertaining book, and has a bunch of angles that will appeal to a bunch of different people. It’s clear that Rob was passionate about this book, and I’m grateful for that. This is a winner, it’s not expensive, and when you read it, your mind fills with images of baseball. That’s high praise, and it’s well earned here.

I felt like a kid at Christmas when my copy of the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract arrived yesterday. I tore open the box and began reading and did not put it down until I was finished. I have been waiting over a year for publication and the book lived up to my expectations and even exceeded them.

Having worn out my copy of the original (It is bound by duct tape), I wanted to see what changes drove the new book. I was pleased to find that Mr. James did not merely update passages; instead he completely reassessed each decade and the players that make baseball the wonder that it is.

I was pleased by the thoroughness of the work, not merely the statistical work but the thought processes and theories employed. The thoroughness of the work, combined with the writing style of Mr. James — a style that combines the subtle humor of Thurber with the tartness of Perelman — makes this a book that a casual baseball fan can enjoy as well as a baseball nut like myself.

The historical viewpoints are carefully constructed and designed to give the reader a feel for the game as it was played during the decade in question. The book educates without being stodgy or dull and it challenges the reader to give the book the attention it deserves.

If you have a baseball fan on your shopping list, or just someone who enjoys reading a thought provoking writer, this book is a must buy.

First of all, the price is definitely right. There is a lot of valuable information in this book and it’s fairly inexpensive.

The first section of the book consists of some interesting biographies of some very good pre-war pitchers that baseball fans should probably know more about, as well as some lists of who threw the best types of each pitch and definitions of different pitches. Best pitch I’ve ever seen? Has to be Mariano Rivera’s cutter.

The second section is a census of pitchers with 1000 IP or 400 games, showing what pitches they threw. This section can get a bit dry at times. It is interesting to see, in certain cases, how pitchers threw differently pitches at different times in their careers.

The final section is a collection miscellaneous Jamesian-style essays that we know and love. There are some trivialities, such as the essay on “unique records” (i.e. only one pitcher has ever gone 24-5) but I enjoyed this section. James also tries to shoot down pitcher abuse statistics, but I didn’t find this very compelling since the data set seemed too small and had the potential of serious biases (as mentioned in the follow-up article).

My one major criticism about this book is that a lot of the information in the pitcher’s census part (which comprises at least 2/3 of the book) is more useful from a historical records point of view rather than an interesting read. It’s an incredible research job, no question, but reading that some pitcher in the 1920s threw “1. Fastball 2. Nickel Curve” does not do it for me.

I would definitely recommend this book overall though. I’m sure I’ll be dipping in and out of it for most of the summer. It’s something you can come back to again and again, not something that you are necessarily going to read cover to cover. The essays are very good as always and the book has a “replacement-level” price and “all-star” (though not “hall-of-fame”, to be sure) content

I make no bones about being a loyal Bill James-ite, so when I found out he and his old running buddy Rob Neyer (now of ESPN) were working on a book about pitchers and pitches, I knew it would go immediately to the top of my “must buy” list.

Now, a word of warning: “The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers” IS A REFERENCE BOOK! If you’re looking for a book with nothing but the interesting, thought-provoking, often caustic, always entertaining essays that are R.N.’s and B.J.’s bread and butter, there are a few (and they’re very good). But at its heart, the book is a reference volume, listing the pitches and pitching styles of pretty much every significant pitcher in Major League and Negro League history (and many of the less significant ones too).

But be that as it may, the reference material is probably more entertaining than most prose by other writers. It’s the sort of book that, if you like baseball history, you can open at random and find something you a) didn’t know, and b) will find funny, intriguing or just plain enlightening. One example: if you’ve ever read “Ball Four”, you know that one of the running jokes is about Seattle pitcher Steve Barber and his arm (“it’s not sore, it’s just a little stiff” — notwithstanding that he probably spent more time with the diathermy machine than he did with his teammates). Wonder why he was so racked up? Turn to page 126 in Neyer/James — Barber was a fastball/slider pitcher who threw ACROSS his body, absolutely the worst combination of pitch selection and pitching motion if you want to keep your arm healthy. I could cite 20 more examples easily.

So thank you, Rob and Bill, for filling a gap in the baseball research library, and making it fun to boot. I know when I’m drafting pitchers in my all-time fantasy league at Legends of Baseball, I’ll be glad to have this book by my side.

This review is not about the quality of the book (of course it is excellent and well thought out, its by Bill James), but the proof reading. There were at least 50 errors in this book (typo’s, wrong verbage, etc). It is a trend that I find to often in today’s publications. Is it asking too much after paying $45.00 for a book, that it not seem as if it were edited by a ten year old.

James’s long-awaited update of his seminal 1985 work is finally here, and is indeed a treasure for anyone’s baseball book shelf. The decade-by-decade reviews, which are exceptionally educational and fun to read, have been updated through the 80s and 90s. The player ratings have been greatly expanded and now include the top 100 at each position. This is an outstanding book – the best baseball text to come out in a long time.

That said, in my opinion many of the changes James made to the original are disappointing. First, he has removed some of the most interesting stories from the original decade summaries. If you have the original, this is not such a loss, but for those who don’t already have it, this text is missing some important insightful reporting. Second, in the original, James was explicit in making the point that ranking players is highly dependent on whether the criteria is peak value (that is, how great was a player at his best) or career value (how great was a player over the totality of his career). This distinction was a breakthrough; to the best of my knowledge, no one had explicitly created this delineation before. Unfortunately, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the original. Whereas in the 1985 book, James presented two top-ten lists at each position, one for peak value and one for career value, in this version he has conflated the two somewhat arbitrarily. And he gives no explanation for backing away from his original stance. This is particularly curious since he was adamant about the point fifteen years ago.

A third quibble: James has created a new tool for player evaluation, something called win shares. He apparently has a detailed book coming out on the subject next year. Unfortunately, he gives precious little explanation of the tool in this text, especially its use in evaluating defense. Yet he clearly uses win shares as the overriding methodology for his final rankings. The reader is left feeling that there is something hidden behind the curtain. I would have been happier had he published the win shares book first, even if that meant delaying this one by a year. On the same point, James makes some (in my opinion) questionable tactical decisions in his analysis. While this is not the forum for a complete critique of his methods, I am far from certain that his evaluations of offensive performance have improved in the intervening decade and a half. Defense is another story; he is clearly quite proud of the leap forward he has made in defensive evaluation. But again, the reader is teased because James provides very little explanation of exactly what he is done, and we are left to take a lot on faith.

Please don’t misunderstand the above criticisms. This is an outstanding contribution to the study of baseball history. You will learn more from this book than from all the others on the shelf at your local B&N combined. If James has not quite cleared the exceptionally high hurdle I have set for him, based on his own previous performances, he still outleaps virtually every other contributor to the field. Well worth the …

So the WinShares concept might need a shard more explanation? So be it. It hardly detracts from the essential enough point that baseball’s designated diagnostician has seen and raised his previous masterwork by quite a few notches. He never fails to instruct, challenge, provoke, delight, and amuse.

The historical sections have been bolstered just right and remain as engaging as they are revealing; the players’ sections include both intriguing anecdotes, a few striking revelations, and some very acute analyses of their values. He also, wisely, rolled a few choice essays over from the previous edition, most notably his striking essay on the contemptible Hal Chase, which he changed not one syllable and bless him for that – Chase was probably the most corrupt baseball player of his and most eras.

My only regret: that Mr. James didn’t include with this edition that which so enhanced the player ratings sections the last go round, the more detailed career charts. And, since he does allude to this in several points, I would have loved to see an array of the prime clutch hitters of all time, defining clutch hitting as who hits how and with what from the sixth inning onward and particularly in the final two innings (and, by the way, Joe Carter DOES have a reputation for clutch hitting out of all proportion to his actual performance, and you can look it up).

But why complain about a few missing peas when the prime rib is so delectable and the salad just the right mix – and, by the way, Tom Seaver WAS a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan, Eddie Murray WAS a better player than Willie McCovey, Darrell Evans WAS better than Tony Perez, and the 1961 Yankees are probably one of the most overrated teams of them all.

Put Bill James on your shelf right alongside Roger Angell and Thomas Boswell. They are the best baseball writers alive (Red Smith, alas, is dead).

I waited with such excitement and enthusiasm for this book. At worst I thought okay, we now get a section on the 1990′s. At best, we now get a section on the 1990′s. What happened to the original books content? Most of it is gone! In it’s place are meaningless and useless evaluations of players who simply only took up a position in the field and did nothing of note or glamour to differentiate themselves from the very ground they played on. In otherwords…So what!

Is this what I waited the better half of a decade for? Don’t get me wrong, the book is still good, but not as great as it’s predecessor, not even close. I must rate this book a 3 for shock factor alone. In trying to make a great book even greater, Bill James messed with a winning formula and it exploded in his face.

I was going to buy this book, expensive as it is. However, after sitting down for four hours and going over it…I’ll take a pass. Mediocre effort of a re-write of a masterpiece. I’ll settle for my old book. Much more fun and informative.

The great classic returns in somewhat different form.

The original version was James’ greatest achievement and belongs on a short list of the most essential baseball books ever written. And the new version?

Most of the new book has been completely rewritten, yet it retains the same flavor as the original. If pressed, I prefer the earlier edition. This is partly because I read it often in the last decade and thus am somewhat biased in its favor, but also because James’ new rating system – Win Shares – is introduced in only in general, without demonstrating the nuts and bolts. James promises that his next book (out next year?) will tell us a lot more about this interesting and probably excellent system, but in the meantime we have to take Win Shares on faith.

However, this reservation pales next to the excellence of the book. The historical overview and the player rankings are a tour de force, as before. In particular, the ranking section is much more ambitious and comprehensive, with many more comments than before.

This is one of those books that is more fun to read by skipping from place to place rather than from cover to cover.

Note: this is actually the 3rd edition of this book. The “original” was actually two very similar editions – a 1985 hardcover and a 1988 paperback.

Here are some things I particularly liked:

* Decade-by-decade outlines of the game.
* Greatly expanded capsule lists of odds and ends in each decade.
* Sidebars descibing interesting events and stories from each decade.
* New 1980s, 1990s, and Negro Leagues chapters. The Negro Leagues chapter is the best addition to Section 1, the historical overview.
* Comments and reasoning about the 100 greatest players overall in addition to raw list.
* Vastly expanded section 2 – now there there are 100 greatest cited at each position (instead of 25 or 50), most of them with substantial comments and/or stories.
* Fielding overview – James clearly explains why traditional fielding statistics mislead.
* The stories and narratives keep the book from revolving around statistics.
* Excellent new articles about the Union Association, the greatest teams ever, the best way to use a relief pitcher, power pitchers, the future of the game, and more.
* Excellent returning articles on the Black Sox era scandals, the evolution of the minors, catchers blocking the plate, and more.

Here are some things I wish were different:

* The layout in the old book was more informal, part of its charm.
* Some outstanding articles from the old book – such as those on the 1912 World Series, platooning, and the history of relief pitching – are gone.
* The old book’s glossary is omitted. New readers should have a place to check exactly what “secondary average” and “the pythagorean method” mean.
* The old Section 3 was a reference section showing major players’ yearly records, including fielding, hit-by-pitch (omitted from most references!), notes, and more. The new Section 3 replaces this with Win Shares by year for major players. While most of this is available in Total Baseball, it was useful to have it here.
* In the old book, James goes to some length to describe his Runs Created and Offensive Winning Percentage methods, and proves their accuracy. In the old hardcover, he takes Pete Palmer and John Thorn to task for not likewise proving their Linear Weights method. But in the new book, he mentions that there are new, more advanced Runs Created formulas but does not say what they are. Likewise, I must reserve judgement about Win Shares.
* In the old book, James strongly asserts that a player must be ranked for his peak and career value separately. He has two separate lists for each position because it’s “an unavoidable concern,” and “I think it’s silly to try and put them together.” In the new book, he does put them together. He is certainly entitled to change his mind, however since he so emphasized this point in the old book, I would like to hear why he changed it.
* The book’s tone at times assumes the reader is familiar with James’ earlier works. This may disconcert new readers.

James is a brilliant baseball historian. By sharing his insights into the game, many people, including myself, view it through different eyes. He communicates the grand sweep of the game’s history very well, and his player evaluations, already fascinating and sometimes amusing, are now much more comprehensive. His statistical innovations have revolutionized baseball analysis.

The only real drawback to this edition is that it sometimes assumes the reader has read James’ earlier work. I’m not sure new readers will accept Runs Created or Win Shares, and they may wonder about the meaning of some of James’ terms.

My introduction to Bill James was the 1988 edition of this book. I had no problem understanding it, including his explanation of Runs Created and Offensive Winning Percentage. I was impressed enough to read all of his other books out at the time and obtain his later books as they appeared. (I particularly recommend his books on the Hall of Fame and on managers.) If this edition was my introduction to Bill James, I might be less enthusiastic.

My reservations about this book are minor compared to my admiration for this achievement. This is a magnificent overview of baseball’s history and its greatest players. This book is too good to get less than five stars.

If you’re a big baseball fan like I am, then this book is worth it. If you’re a fan of Rob Neyer’s ESPN.com columns or books, then you probably already own it. If you’re a fan of Bill James, then you probably will never read this because you’ve read it twice already. Suffice to say, it’s really a niche work, but one that’s very interesting to longtime baseball fans.

The book is split into sections detailing the history of different pitches, some of its innovators and analysis. The bulk of the pages are dedicated to capsules about almost every pitcher to have had a significant career. What pitches did they throw? How effective were they? Surprisingly, there was never a reference work that compiled all this information. You would read here and there about Pedro Martinez’s changeup, Koufax’s curveball, or Nolan Ryan’s fastball, but what about other less famous pitchers? They’re all here.

The one thing this book lacks is the context to go with these capsules. In the interest of saving space, the book doesn’t tell you which teams they played for, their best seasons, or most other stats that you would expect. The assumption here is that, as a baseball fan, you already own or have access to books that tell you that. It’s intended as a book to compliment other baseball reference books.

All in all, a fine baseball book, one that I’ve found myself referring to numerous times since I bought it. Highly recommended for baseball fans.

The star of this book is the data: an encyclopedia of thousands of major league pitchers and information on their pitch repetoire, along with sources. This is groundbreaking, never-before-collected data and it will surely prove to be a boon for baseball researchers. For their work collecting this data, Neyer and James deserve serious kudos.

The book also features articles describing pitches, how they’re thrown, variations, their evolutions, and their key practitioners. This is good information as well.

However, these articles and others in the book seem to suffer from the authors’ informal tone. Often, we’re treated to disagreements between the two authors which don’t particularly add to our understanding of the subject.

Though it could have used tighter editing, the book is still a joy. James remains a tremendously gifted writer and analyst and, again, this data is priceless.

I think the main complaint in the reviews so far have been that this book is not the same and not as good as the original. I would say that both of those comments are correct. However, that does not dimenish the quality of this title.

I don’t know why so many people are upset that this book doesn’t rehash everything James has said in the previous edition, except with profiles on 5-10 players from the ’90s. I for one am glad I didn’t pay [the current cost] for the same book I read in 1985 with 25 new pages.

James attempts to give a feel for what the different eras were like, as well as the players in each era. Not just the Ted Williams’ and Mike Schmidts, but the players who were valuable in their day, but have been largely forgotten. This book is succesful at meeting that objective.

The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract should not be viewed as a replacement to the first edition, but as a title that can placed next to it and add value to original work.

I’ve been a big fan of Bill James for a long time and the New Version of the Historical Abstract didn’t disappoint. Any fan of baseball history will love this book. James’ is a great writer and his approach to studying the game is, as always, fascinating. I loved the comments on Negro Leagues, Minor Leagues, evolution of the game, the game’s politics, explanation of the post-1993 hitting explosion… You don’t have to agree w/ all of James arguments, but his insights are at worst, great food for thought. I liked his suggestions for changes to the game that would lessen the impact of homeruns and strikeouts – too bad nobody at MLB is listening.

The majority of the book is dedicated to introducing his *Win Shares* system and ranking the greatest players of all time. Win Shares is a great approach, but not without flaws. Win Shares are based upon a team’s actual Wins – an odd choice considering James was the guy who invented the formula for projecting a team’s *Pythagorean* wins. Using actual wins unfortunately distorts some of James’ arguments. I noticed this in his discussion of the 1961 Cincinnati Reds where he used Win Shares to illustrate the dramatic improvement in performance by players on the ’61 NL pennant winning team. James obviously knows that the 1960 Reds UNDERperformed their pythagorean projection by 5 games, while the 1961 team OVERperformed their pythagorean by 11 games. Yes, the players got better, but they also got a lot luckier. That James would select such an obviously distorted example is disturbing.

Wins Shares also shows Ted Williams 1946 season to be over 20% better than his 1941 season (when he hit .406). Because of the relatively low offensive levels in 1946, you can make a reasonable argument that Williams was as good or even slightly better in ’46, but not 20% better! The big difference in Win Shares for the two seasons results from the team’s performance – not Williams. This flaw in James evaluation method makes Win Shares (like the often ridiculed RBI statistic) highly dependent on the context of the team’s performance. It’s a great approach, but it still needs more work.

Finally, James continues the hatchet job on Dick Allen that he started in his Hall Of Fame book. Dick Allen was without question one of the top 25 hitters in the entire history of major league baseball and Bill James knows that. There’s only so much that a big ego and a weak glove can take away from you. Shame on you Bill.

The nitpicking notwithstanding, Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract is a MUST READ for any serious baseball fan.

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw “The New Bill James Historical Abstract” in the bookstore. James is every baseball fan wrapped into one and has always been able to see the cold statistical side of baseball along the human side. He even talks about uniform styles and baseball players’ looks, which my wife enjoys. This is the kind of book that it takes months to completly consume, the reader starts at the beginning, but then a short tale leads us to another area to compare, then off we go to another similar player who we remember,then to something else. For baseball lovers this book is a must, but for the casual fan this is also a teriffic book. I became obsessed with his 1985 “Historical Abstract” and his yearly publication when I was in my early twenties, I hope young people today find this book and share some of my experiences.

I have been a big fan of Bill James for 15+ years, so it with regret that I cannot recommend purchasing this book (especially at [the price]). Since the flaws in it are too many to enumerate, I will confine myself to a few key points. I do not understand how so many other readers can give this book 5 stars. It falls short of his previous excellence. A few of my criticisms of the book are:

1. In his (superior) first abstract, he makes it crystal clear that you can not combine peak and career value for baseball players and for every position has rankings divided accordingly. Here, he suddenly combines the two with no explanation whatsoever. Since he makes this such a crucial point in Book I, this change absolutely called for an explanation. If he changed his mind, fine, but let’s hear why.

2. Too much inconsistency. For instance, he ranks Roger Clemens ahead of Sandy Koufax in the 100 greatest Players of all-time section, but has Koufax ahead of Clemens in his ranking of the 100 greatest pitchers. Also, Mark McGwire was one of the greatest players of all time, but Cecil Fielder is just a “fat guy who hit home runs.” Right, we know what a great fielder and baserunner Big Mac was through his career.

3. In his first volume, he ranks (correctly, in my view), Lefty Grove as the greatest pitcher of all time. He shrugs off Walter Johnson’s advocates with the following point: dead-ball pitchers could pitch more innings because there were no home runs. Solid argument, Bill. So why did you put Johnson ahead this time? Shouldn’t you at least explain why you were wrong the first time? The answer,I think, is his over-reliance on his career Win Shares statistic. Sometimes, you have to use common sense over pure stats. I didn’t see that in this book.

Maybe James spoiled me with the first historical baseball abstract. That was a truly terrific book. This one, to be sure, has some interesting and insightful points. It’s not a bad book, and if you have a half hour to kill, why not browse it at your library or bookstore. It just isn’t up to the high level of excellence that James demonstrated in his first book.

The original 2001 “New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract,” which makes up the bulk of this 2003 edition, is a fantastic book, perhaps James’ magnum opus. If someone said that no baseball library is complete without this book, he would be wrong. No baseball library is adequate without this book.

However, there is no reason for owners of the 2001 edition to consider buying the new edition. There’s really nothing new here. Well, sure, James has added a few pages of new material, but it’s not very good and it does not add anything substantive to any of the myriad topics raised in the book’s 2001 text. Most of the genuinely new material consists of James’ corrections. But the editors of the new edition have not actually made any of these corrections to the text itself. For example, James writes that he erred in saying that the 1914 A’s had history’s best infield, judged by Win Shares; a mathematical error led him to overlook the 1913 A’s, whose infielders earned even more Win Shares. But page 548 still lists the 1914 A’s as the Win Sharingest infield of all time.

Most infuriatingly of all, James casually mentions in this edition that all index references to pages after 945 were off by a page in the previous edition. But the new edition does not correct this error; the new index is just as wrong as it was in the old edition. So when you go to look up John Dopson, the index tells you to look on page 956. Only his name does not appear there; it appears on page 957.

Here, then, is something innovative: A reference book that cannot be referred to, and a new edition that mentions but does not correct errors in the previous edition.

All in all, this might be the sorriest excuse for a “new edition” in recent publishing history. Considered in the abstract, “The New Bill James Historical Abstract” deserves five stars. But considered as an updated edition of a classic, the 2003 version deserves no stars at all.

In his updated version of his classic historical abstract, Bill James dazzles us with his usual analytical genius. Howvever, from the perspective of someone who has internalized the logic and axioms of the original work, this book comes as something of a surprise if not a disappointment. James seems to have abandoned many of the positions he argued passionately in the original book. As an example, one of the fundamentals of the original book was that no reasonable discussion about player rankings could be undertaken unless one first stipulated whether one was discussing “carreer value” or “peak value”. In the new work, James disregards this premise and replaces it with one-dimensional player rankings based on his new “win shares” system. While he explains how his rankings are designed to capture elements of both career and peak value, the very notion of combining them was something he regarded as silly in his original book. Having expected to find his original rankings in their original form updated to reflect the players of the last 15 years, this came as a shock.

I’m not the first person to remark that this book isn’t nearly as good as the original and I won’t be the last. Why? Well the main reason is the whole Win Shares fiasco. Players are ranked based mainly on an uberstat and 5 months later we still don’t know how this stat is calculated. James would never have accepted that approach from someone else; why should we accept it from him?

Mind you the book is still good. It just could have been better.

Bill James has done it again, with a marvelous history of baseball that includes dozens of vignettes, baseball history new to all but baseball scholars, and a fascinating look at the 100 best players of all time. This is a book that is three things at once: an essential reference work when you’re learning about players of the past; a book you can pick up, open to any page and read a few paragraphs when you’ve got the time; and a book you’ll want to read from cover to cover to ensure you don’t miss any of the great information it contains.

Although it draws the most attention through its ranking of the 100 greatest players of all time and the 100 greatest players of all time at each position, that’s only a fraction of the book. James follows the history of baseball, decade by decade, that talks about how, where, and by who the game was played. For each decade there’s also a chart with notes on attendance, home field advantage, which teams were having their best and worst decades, and much more. If you’re interested in the history of baseball, this is the place to start, to get a baseline for how it evolved.

James also has scattered tens of short demi-articles discussing various topics relevant to each decade. What will baseball be like in the future? Why were the 1910s baseball’s decade of greed? The answers to these questions and dozens of others are covered in James’ work.

James has an easy to read, conversational writing style that makes the book a pleasure. And while James does cover his share of sabrmetrics, his love of the game covers far more than statistics. If you love baseball, you’ll love this book. If you enjoy baseball, you’ll love it even more when you’re done here.

I like this book, but I must caution the prospective buyer that Bill James is an acquired taste, even for fans of advanced baseball statistics.

The most ironic thing about James is that he has been for the past 25 years the vanguard of a group that seeks, among other things, to examine the game of baseball objectively by using numbers instead of impressions, gut feelings, etc. Yet for all of the statistics in the book, much of it is dedicated to VERY opinionated commentaries that
1) are somtimes very amusing,
2) but are often pure demagoguery
3) and read like an extended weblog
4) because they are irratic in length and quality of argument
5) and have too many annoying lists of points like this one.

With all of that being said, the dedicated baseball fan who can take the obnoxious side of James with a grain of salt will find this a rewarding read.

The Historical Baseball Abstract is one of the most important books ever written about baseball. It covers the history of the Major Leagues in a very enlightening and entertaining way. This book puts the lie to the image of Bill James as a number-crunching statistician. Stats are only part of this book – it’s also full of interesting historical information, insights into personalities and commentary about players and teams.

This version of the Historical Abstract is considerably different from the original. In my opinion, it’s worth having both.

To the guy from Jersey City, give it a break and read a little closer. Neyer didn’t put Ryan in his top 10 (although he suggested that Ryan was his No. 11), but it was James who ranked Ryan as the best in 3 half-decades, not Neyer. Anyway, you think Ryan has the best fastball (or is in the Top 10), that’s fine and supportable, but it’s not beyond debate (Neyer explains why Ryan isn’t in his Top 10, and can’t say his reason is absurd). That’s one of the beauties of baseball (in fact, if James had done a Top 10 list, he’d likely have Ryan in it since only 2 other pitchers in his half-decade rankings — beginning in 1880 — got the top slot 3 times). Very enjoyable and, dare I say, ground-breaking book. They examine a part of the game in a way that I’ve never seen before, and, in my opinion, they do it well.

If you like baseball books, in depth analysis and have a keen interest in the history of the game … you NEED this book.

Bill James’ revision to his classic historical abstract weighs in at a hefty 1000 pages and a big price tag. But it’s worth it. You really get two books.

Book I: A decade-by-decade look at the game. As James says in his preface, he’s not trying to give times and dates. Each section gives the reader a feel for what baseball was like in that decade – who the popular players were, how they played, where they played. Who was the biggest player, the smallest player, which team had the best infield, best outfield, best pitchers. He gives an OJ Simpson award for each decade, a Clint Hartung award for the biggest flop, the Paul Krichell award for the dumbest trades and signings. He also details the biggest problems the game had in each decade. You can read a chapter and almost hear the fans debating Wagner vs. Cobb, commenting on what a jerk Rogers Hornsby was and venting frustration as New York teams dominated the 1950′s. He also has one section on the Negro Leagues. The last section has his (brilliant) solutions to the problems the game has in the 90′s.

Book II introduces James’ new method of player evaluation — Win Shares. A quantum leap forward in analysis, Win Shares quantifies everything a player contributes – pitching, hitting and defense — in terms of how many WINS it brought his team. This corrects for park effects, different eras (you’ll be surprised to learn how good those 60′s hitters were) and is a massive improvement in evaluation of defense. He rates the top 100 players in history based on career value, peak value, clutch performance, etc. This top 100 includes 12 Negro League players and has some surprises (Oscar Charleston at #4). He rates the top 100 players at each position. Some of this can get dull when you get down to the low #’s. But you’ll learn a lot, such as that the 1901 Beaneaters had the best pitching staff of the decade, that Arky Vaughn was the #2 all-time shortstop and that Craig Biggio and Barry Bonds are two of the best all-time at their position (this was written before Bonds’ historic 2001 season and Biggio’s 2001 comeback).

One last thing. Throughout the book, James’ cites reference to other great baseball books. You could build an amazing baseball library just from his bibliography.

All of this comes with James’ wit, insight and love of the game. He combines hard-boiled statistical analysis with an apprection of the intangible aspects of the game.

This is a truly fascinating book, particularly for a person that never made it (even in little league) as a baseball player.

The bulk of the book I haven’t read yet, but have used if some for reference, the majority of the pages (about 500) are the Pitcher Census. It has the major pitches thrown by EVERY pitcher to throw over 1000 innings.

There are also bios about several important or interesting pitchers, and then a description of where the major pitches come from, who is credited with creating it, and other info.

I’d highly recommend this book to any baseball fan.

The New Historical Baseball Abstract isn’t a perfect book. It has way too many typographical errors. Bill James’s wonderfully cogent analysis sometimes gives way to moralistic railing about the state of the world today (his mini-essay on “professionalism” in the Steve Carlton entry veers into a critique of the Great Society), some of which has little to do with the topic at hand.

The biggest flaw is the introduction of Win Shares, his new statistic that rates the overall worth of a player’s contribution, counting it as a percentage of the team’s overall victory total. It isn’t straightforward enough to explain; in fact, it isn’t explained in full at all. For that we have to wait for a book called Win Shares, to be published in the spring.

Bill James has no peer as a logical writer, analyst or researcher, so I’m quite confident (…).

The first section, The Game, is largely similar to previous editions of the book, with the welcome addition of a series of essays called The Greatest Team What Ever Was, which discusses different ways of evaluating which teams are the greatest in history. He reaches no final conclusions (though, oddly, he never mentions the 1939 Yankees as one of the best one or two teams ever, which the recent Baseball Dynasties unequivocally does), but it’s plenty entertaining.

James’s writing remains uniquely satisfying. He can switch between withering sarcasm and groan-worthy punning, between thoughtful analysis and curt dismissal, like no other writer. The comments about Cecil Fielder’s and George Scott’s weight are alone worth the price of the book.

Finally, James’s book makes you want to read more good baseball writing. For some worthy titles to take on, just pay attention to the excerpts he cites. I know I’ll be buying Whitey Herzog’s You’re Missing a Great Game and Mike Sowell’s The Pitch That Killed, right away.

This is a much needed book, but is not 100% complete and should be viewed as a work in progress. I liked the section on pitches in the beginning but would like to see more info such as when, when and where various pitches are used. For example most pitchers only throw changeups low and away to opposite handed batters. Why is that? Where does a pitcher aim curveballs to both left and right handed batters? Why? Also a note to the author if there is ever another update: In the book ‘Inside Baseball’ by Greg Garber,(1994 and revised in 1996) Tommy John states in addition to his sinker and curve he throws a slider, forkball and changeup and stated his fastball was clocked at 84. It doesn’t specify but I assume he was referring to the end of his career. Also, the book has a full page photo of him on the mound for the Yankees throwing the ball with a wide forkball grip. His website states “I have four basic pitches: fastball, curve, slider and change-up…plus eight illegal ones.”

I know what to expect when I read a Bill James book–a good many nice anecdotes, lots of huffing and puffing about his view of how baseball has and should work, and some nifty new statistical formulae which are usually more miss than hit, but an honest try nonetheless.

This book is no exception. The chapters on each decade are nice strolls down memory lane with some fun stories about some baseball characters. The details are often sketchy–he lists player names as winning the “O.J. Simpson Award” or “Best Curve Ball” or “Better Man than a Baseball Player,” but usually doesn’t tell us why the player(s) are bestowed these honors. Still, I found the “decades” section of the book to be interesting, even though the complete lack of proofreading mystifies me (in one paragraph, I’m referred to “page 000″).

His self-exhaulted “Win Shares” formula, which he seems to have worked very hard to create, is a large part of the rest of the book. He goes over just why and how he doles out merits and demerits, ultimately computing a single Rotisserie dollar value for each player. There is a lot of arm waving and much hocus pocus and fudge factoring going on in this “statistic,” and I’m not entirely sure I care all that much after all the adjustments he makes. But, like most of James’ statistics, you can take home pieces of his analysis–like first basemen’s unassisted putouts and assists to fielders other than the pitcher (though he misses the boat somewhat here, too)–and you get a good partial statistic or two. All in all, this is an interesting calculation, but not something I expect will sweep the baseball world.

Finally, he uses these Win Shares and his own subjective thought processes to list the best 100 players at each position. The reading gets a bit tedious, but you’ll often find a nugget within one of those vignettes, so if you’re like me, you wind up reading all of them just trying to find where the “meat” of this book lies.

I say it’s a good one to check out in the library. If you’re one who collects “statistical expository” books, go ahead and purchase it and you won’t be too disappointed. This would have passed as a seminal work 20 years ago, but now we expect much more hard evidence and true statistics from sabermetricians. Bill is slipping a little.

I’ve been buying Bill James’ books since the first nationwide Abstract and have been hooked on him for two decades. His insights are remarkable and the new historical abstract is no exception. It must have been an enormous task to rate over a hundred players at each position. As great as the book is, however, it has the same consistent flaws that James is noted for:

1) He does not give the formulas for Win Shares. I am sure that we would all love to see it.

2) His subjective analysis is EXTREMELY subjective. While the Negro League stars were certainly great players, it is impossible to place them in a top 100 with absolute certainty. How can one use statistical analysis as the gospel in one case while throwing it away in another? The great stars of the Negro Leagues are not worse players; it is like comparing apples to oranges.

3) His personal biases are transparent. His hatred of Rogers Hornsby is almost pathological. He seems to delight in finding any way possible to downgrade his greatness at all costs. His analysis of Joe Morgan is downright obsequious, notwithstanding the little barb thrown at him in the end. Morgan was not a great defensive second baseman. He was sure-handed, but his range was below average. Many observers believe Morgan (like so many others) won those Gold Gloves with his bat. James also assigns somewhat undue greatness on multifaceted talent, and appears irritated that everyone else disagrees with him on Hornsby. James uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost; for support rather than illumination. As great as Little Joe was, it appears that James’ evaluation of him was done with an agenda in mind: to exalt him at Hornsby’s expense. He is sensitive about arrogance, yet he does not seem to recognize the arrogance in rating a player to be FAR worse than anyone else’s rating. If everyone thinks Hornsby is in the Top 10 of all players, it is NOT because they do not care about defense. Bill, if Babe Ruth was a second baseman, he would be the best of all time. There is just too much, and I could give a rat’s behind how much of a jerk he was.

4. He gives credit where credit is due for players who miss seasons for reasons beyond their control, but does not do so for banned players. We are not talking about morality in evaluating players; we are talking about abilities. It is just as valid to factor in what Buck Weaver would have done had he continued playing as it would be for Joe D. Again, he does this because he injects his morality into the equation.

Bill James could care less what I think, and he did not write the book to cater to me. Those are his opinions, and he is entitled to it. When his next book comes out, I will dutifully purchase it, enjoy it from page to dog-eared page, and call him on my disagreements. I will also tell you, however, that I learned much more about how to view history (and how not to) from reading James than I ever did in college. Keep it coming, Bill.

Bill James is famous for his ability to collect, publish and analyze statistics about baseball. This is the second edition of his history book covering through the entire 20th century. But as James says in his preface this is more than just an update. In reviewing the first book he found that he didn’t like a number of things that he did and so he has changed. Some may think for the better others for the worse but in my case I never read his 1980s edition so I have no basis for comparisons.
James is not a professional statistician but has good statistical intuition and is respected by professional statistician who specialize in sports statistics.

James covers the rules of the game and is very detialed about the players and the rule changes and strategy changes. What I enjoyed most about the book was his lists of the all time top 100 players at each position. This is something sports statisticians think about often and using statistical adjustment techniques and Bayesian methods professional statistician like Schell and Berry have written articles and in Schell’s case a book on how to do this. Schell’s book includes a list of the all time greatest hitters with Tony Gwynn at the top. The book tells you how the list is constructed and teaches statistical methods along the way.

James has no formal statistical method for constructing his lists. At each position he ranks the top 100 players and does a good job of mixing the old timers with the present day players. Though subjective, this is a difficult task for anyone and James is one of the few who knows enough detail of the history and players in baseball to be up to the task. I may not agree with all of his rankings but that is part of what makes talking about baseball fun. James provides descriptions of the players on his list that may be thought of as justification for their inclusion or rank.

The list of number 1 players by position is as follows:
1. catcher – Yogi Berra
2. pitcher – Walter Johnson
3. 1st base – Lou Gehrig
4. 2nd base – Joe Morgan
5. shortstop – Honus Wagner
6. 3rd base – Mike Schmidt
7. left field – Ted Williams
8. center field – Willie Mays
9. right field – Babe Ruth

The American Statistical Association formed a section SIS (Statistics in Sports). I am a member and so are many other statisticians including Carl Morris, Hal Stern, Mike Schell, Jim Albert, Jay Bennett and Scott Berry. We all have the common ground of interest in sports (particularly baseball). The introduction of true statistical methods in sports has turned sports partly intp a science. Mike Schell wrote a statistics book about statistical adjustment of individual player statistics based on the effect of the home ball park. Albert and Bennett have also contributed books. Efron and Morris long before this movement was in full force wrote a major statistical paper for the Journal of the American Statistical Association that used predicting baseball player averages using Stein shrinking estimator (an Empirical Bayes estimator).

It is books like this that amass large amounts of baseball data and use baseball knowledge and common sense ot look at the game in a differnt way.

I first heard about Bill James when I read Moneyball, which is about the odd general managing strategies of Billy Beane, Oakland Athletics general manager and James devotee.

This book lists the best 100 players at each position. While I cannot even pretend to understand the methodology of his rankings, I enjoyed the mini-biographies about some of my favorite players and James’ unique assessment of their worth. James also provides a decade by decade synopsis of the major leagues, even down to the styles of uniforms and stadium attendance figures, and the style of play that predominated each era.

From Wikipedia: “Sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball through objective evidence, especially baseball statistics. The term is derived from the acronym SABR, which stands for the Society for American Baseball Research. It was coined by Bill James, who has been its most enthusiastic (and by far its most famous) proponent.”

James’ story is fascinating. He is an everyman. A fan’s fan. He wrote his first abstract in 1977 while working nights as a security guard. Now he works as a consultant for the Boston Red Sox and played a role in their 2004 pennant.

…. but not quite as ground-breaking as the original edition.

Overall, it is a definitive book to have on your baseball shelf. James rates many more players than he did in 1987 and introduces a new statistic called “Win Shares” from which most findings are based. I was disappointed with his explanation for wins shares theory and even more frustrated to learn that you had to buy the “Win Shares” companion piece [not cheap] just to understand his derivations. The preface/introduction in the historical abstract does not fully describe the intricacies of the method (particularly for defensive win shares), making it difficult to appreciate his conclusions. His finding that Craig Biggio is the 35th greatest player of all time, for example, is met with skepticism because the reader is not given complete proof. Yes, we know Biggio can create runs — that is a Jamesian throwback — but how precisely do these runs contribute to wins? The reader won’t know all the details until he purchases the “Win Shares” volume…….

Some of James’ conclusions arbitrarily deviate from the quantitative analyses. He goes to the trouble of developing a systematic approach for win shares but then does not do us the service of explaining why certain players rate higher than their individual values would indicate (see Don Mattingly). Such deviations do not lend confidence to a value scheme which Mr. James himself is VERY fond of.

In reading this book, you can see the differences between the two writers – in fact, gimme a sentence or two and I can probably tell you which one wrote what – but I think I expected a little too much from this book. Obviously, info on what pitches a pitcher used during his career is subject to availability and maybe I expected Neyer, and especially James, to come up with more info than they did – it is mainly newspaper quotes and maybe just a handful of direct quotes from the pitchers themselves, via e-mail. I thought the chapters on each type of pitch was interesting in how they ranked pitchers and how those pitches differed but I can’t help but think they were just filler, done only to probably fill out the book – I was hoping there would be more pitchers listed than there were in the book but I guess only so much info was was available to them.

I judge a book not by what it doesn’t have, but what it DOES have. And this book has all the things you’d expect in another great book from Bill James or Rob Neyer.

It has information you can’t find anywhere else and probably never thought you could. Where else could you find accounts of exactly HOW all these pitchers pitched, all in one volume? It’s the result of a decade of research by the two authors and their assistants.

In additional to the basic information, there are the usual essays, plus the usual Bill James digressions and asides. It’s all very well organized. There’s no trouble knowing where to find what you want.

And, as usual, it makes you THINK, and it makes you realize things that are relevant not just to baseball but to everything. One of the opening chapters focuses on how much the subject depends on linguistics and vocabulary, and how we might think a source tells us something but it doesn’t really, because we don’t understand the meanings of the words and phrases that are being used. Usually this is because the language has evolved over time, but sometimes it’s because the language is used arbitrarily or sloppily. This is true about “knuckleballs” and “sliders” and “curves.” But we readily realize that it can apply to anything.

The introductory chapter includes some duelling between the authors about things, some of which would seem to be “facts” but which are hard to pin down. It’s interesting to see how much remains debatable about such a seemingly straightforward subject, even after years of research, and how much it will forever be arguable.

Especially interesting is the material about how the mechanics and strategy of pitching have evolved over the years, and WHY. In most instances there were specific reasons and fairly clear dividing lines for the major changes.

My one criticism would be that the content is indeed a bit erratic. One of the book’s purposes is to catalog any noteworthy idiosyncrasies of a pitcher’s style. But I notice that on some of the guys with the very most famous idiosyncrasies, you find nothing or almost nothing. For example, there’s nothing about what Al Hrabosky was famous for, and almost nothing about Luis Tiant’s hilarious mannerisms.

Still…..highly recommended for Bill James/Rob Neyer fans, and for anybody who enjoys interesting baseball material that’s unlike what you’ve ever seen.

I’ve gotten into email wars with Neyer in the past, but I was trying to be fair-minded about this book.

In the past, I’ve argues for Nolan Ryan in the top 20 all time pitchers list.

Now, it seems he doesn’t even make the top 10 Fast ball pitchers list.

But logic escapes Neyer, as it normally does:

Ryan is listed as #1 (fastball pitcher) from 1970-1984 and dropped to #3 from 1985-1989. But Clemens is #1 only in 1985-1989 and drops to #3 and then #6 in the next 5-year brackets.

Generally, Neyer will throw out “have you ever heard of ERA+” comments to support some of his games, and as a mathmetician, I can say ERA+ and park-adjusted ERA are about 60% accurate devices and Neyer can’t even explain them other than to say what each purports to tell us.

So back to Ryan… #1 for 15 years and doesn’t make the top 10.

Oh, Clemens is #4 …. go figure.

Simply consider what would have happened if Ryan pitched in the NL in the early 70s (say 1974 when the DH rule meant he would have faced more pitchers than DHs). Or how many Wins would he have had on the Reds or Pirates? Throw Clemens to Milwaulkee or Detroit and not New York or Boston or Houston or Toronto and see how his other stats would have fared.

This book is nowhere near as good as the original classic. There are too many players rated, and too few insights into those players. It is riddled with typos and the win shares system is not well explained. The author also appears to have become deluded or is just not too bright (several of his little non-baseball essays indicate the latter).

He tells us that the best active player in baseball at the turn of the decade was Craig Biggio. Getting hit by a lot of pitches and bunting well cancel out the home runs that Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. hit. His response to those with the temerity to question this nonsense: “Craig Biggio is better. The fact that nobody seems to realize this … well, that’s not my problem.”

But of course it is his problem. When a system names a player to be the best in baseball and every expert on the game disagrees, the fault is not with the whole world, but with the system. If a geopolitical formula named France the leading economic and military power in the world in 2000– it would not make it so, it would mean that the formula was flawed.

It is a requirement of any real baseball fan to have this book in their library.

The first section of the book focuses on the history of the game, decade-by-decade. James presents a very readable and enjoyable view of strategy evolution, baseball economics, and throws in a few odds and ends for good measure.

The second section rates the top 100 players at each position and includes short (sometimes lengthy) comments for each player. The section also provides a general description of the “Win Shares” system that is the basis for the player ratings.

The third section of the book is a reference section containing statistics and Win Share data for several teams of varying quality.

If you’ve never read James before, you’ll understand why he is the greatest baseball writer of our time. James mixes insightful analysis, personal opinion, and humor to create an enjoyable reading experience. A big plus for the book is the structure. The book is designed for those who want to read about how baseball was played in the 1930′s, then skip over to find out who James ranks as the 53rd best 2nd baseman.

Readers of the original Historical Baseball Abstract or the yearly Baseball Abstracts will probably be somewhat disappointed by this edition. After all, the first edition of this book is one of the greatest baseball books ever written.

Personally I prefer the first section of the book. I am more interested in the history of platooning or the evolution of the minor leagues than who is ranked as the 87th best left fielder. Unfortunately, the first section of the book has not changed a whole lot from the first edition, and the more interesting articles are edited or eliminated entirely. The new section on the Negro Leagues and the series of articles on the greatest all-time team are notable exceptions.

My opinion on the player rating section is mixed. It’s nice to be reminded that Don Money played baseball, or to read about players like Johnny Bassler (who knew anything about him?). On the other hand, the best part of the first edition was the controversy over the player ratings. In this book, James is much more factual than argumentative (maybe he’s softening up), plus the most interesting part of the first edition, the Peak Value vs. Career Value argument, is no longer included in the book.

But it is still Bill James. Read it, think it, agree or disagree, but most of all enjoy.

Bill James combines analysis, facts, and opinions, seamlessly into this informative and entertaining volume. It should be on the bookshelf of both the intense and casual baseball fan. It is a pleasure to read, but, with nearly 1000 pages, it takes some time. It can be read straight through, or can be picked up anywhere that seems interesting.

Part 1 provides a historical perspective of the game, decade by decade. It includes the changes in the game, the uniforms, the players, the ball parks, and many thumbnail sketches of different events in each decade-and much more. You want to know about the game in the 1930s, just turn the book to that area, and you will find much of what you are looking for.

The biggest part of the book, well more than half, is Part 2, however. It provides player ratings of the top 100 players at each position, and the top 100 players of all time. These selections are based on a system developed by James, which he calls “win-shares.” While not fully explained (we have to wait until spring 2002 for the full explanation in a book to be published), it seems to me to be an excellent rating system. He gets win-shares for each player, than uses a different system to rank the players. The ranking system is heavily balanced toward peak performance (as opposed to entire careers) and is bound to cause controversy among fans. He also throws in (as he admits) his own personal opinion from time-to-time in these rankings. Otherwise, why would George Brett rank higher than Eddie Mathews at third base, when Mathews has higher win-share scores? The big problem I have with the rankings is that James does not usually explain why he chooses to rank some players higher than others, despite their lower win-share scores. Hey, Bill, why does John Olerud rank lower than about 20 players who have lower win-share scores? And why does Eddie Murray rank higher than Willie McCovey?

Still, the book is well worth the price. James writes well, keeping the book interesting throughout. And a little controversy, or disagreement, does not diminish the book in any way.