"The Book on the Book" by Bill Felber

[Mizzou]

I just picked this book up this afternoon and I was wondering if anyone here has read it. If so, what are your thoughts on it?

[CubinNY]

I've never heard of it but I bet Murton and Cedeno aren't in it.[/i]

[UK1679666180]

It's a good book and has good thoughts on in game managing, platooning players, building via FAs or trades, etc.

[TB_11]

It's a decent read, and is based on BFWs (Batter Fielder Base Stealer Wins), not Bill James's Win Shares. The chapter on earned value vs salary is pretty interesting.

 

One caution - Felber tends to get bogged down in describing his statistics, instead of just providing a chart. It helps to just imagine a chart or graph when he's in one of these writings.

[cubbieinexile]

Bad Book, about 10 years too late. I thought I wrote a book review on it but the search engine has been disabled.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Bad Book, about 10 years too late. I thought I wrote a book review on it but the search engine has been disabled.

 

I remember you writing something about it, how you haven't been as disappointed since Neyer's lineup book, or something to that extent.

[cubbieinexile]

Yeah something to that effect, heck I just got my hands on a first edition copy of Total Baseball and within 24 hours have already gotten more new info from a book that is over 15 years old then Felber's book.

 

Books I recommend:

Clearing the Bases by Barra

Lords of the Realm by John Helyar

Bill James New Historical Abstract

Veeck-As in Wreck

Slouching toward Fargo

Ball Four by Jim bouton

Foul Ball by Jim Bouton

Numbers Game

Essential Cubs

Paths to Glory by Armour & Levitt

Baseball Dynasties by Neyer

Eight Men Out

Money Ball

[Magnetic Curses]

what about mind games by steve goldman?

 

i'm thinking of checking it out.

[treebird]

what about mind games by steve goldman?

 

i'm thinking of checking it out.

 

i thought it was pretty great.

[Magnetic Curses]

what about mind games by steve goldman?

 

i'm thinking of checking it out.

 

i thought it was pretty great.

 

right on..

[kroth1342]

I thought Mind Game was ok, although a lot of the stuff would be familiar to Baseball Prospectus readers and followers. Still good to see lots of applied analysis to the context of that season.

[RockTheIvy]

Anybody read 9 innings? I thought that was pretty good.

[cubbieinexile]

I haven't gotten around to checking out Mind Game yet, perhaps I'll check out my local library for it. The description and attitudes of the writers are just a little too smug for me. Every year before that we heard about Oakland and how the playoffs are a crapshoot, and then suddenly the Red Sox win it and its because they were so smart and were applying sabermetrics. Yeah some of the little things worked but luck, the wild card, and a whole lot of money helped too.

[Proven Veteran]

I thought Mind Game was a bit disappointing. I'm a BP subscriber, I didn't think it was up to the quality of their best stuff. There were a number of grammar and spelling mistakes as well.

[Mizzou]

Something I'd recommend is Wrigley Field: A Celebration of the Friendly Confines by Mark Jacob. It's more of a coffeetable book than anything else, but it does a great job explaining the day to day operations of Wrigley and how it became the shrine that it currently is.

[Magnetic Curses]

I haven't gotten around to checking out Mind Game yet, perhaps I'll check out my local library for it. The description and attitudes of the writers are just a little too smug for me. Every year before that we heard about Oakland and how the playoffs are a crapshoot, and then suddenly the Red Sox win it and its because they were so smart and were applying sabermetrics. Yeah some of the little things worked but luck, the wild card, and a whole lot of money helped too.

 

it seems like people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom of baseball often see the new guys as smug.

 

if anything, it's the unwillingness to change or see something as an improvement that maddens me.

 

who cares if they're smug if they're right? does it matter? is it reasonable to go on believing myths because the guys who've busted those myths are sort of jerks?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I haven't gotten around to checking out Mind Game yet, perhaps I'll check out my local library for it. The description and attitudes of the writers are just a little too smug for me. Every year before that we heard about Oakland and how the playoffs are a crapshoot, and then suddenly the Red Sox win it and its because they were so smart and were applying sabermetrics. Yeah some of the little things worked but luck, the wild card, and a whole lot of money helped too.

 

it seems like people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom of baseball often see the new guys as smug.

 

if anything, it's the unwillingness to change or see something as an improvement that maddens me.

 

who cares if they're smug if they're right? does it matter? is it reasonable to go on believing myths because the guys who've busted those myths are sort of jerks?

 

Did you read the description of the book at amazon? I'm all for new thinking, and the editorial review is probably supposed to be exaggerated a little, but it's almost over the top. I remember being turned off to the book reading that the other day when the thread first came up.

[cubbieinexile]

 

it seems like people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom of baseball often see the new guys as smug.

 

if anything, it's the unwillingness to change or see something as an improvement that maddens me.

 

who cares if they're smug if they're right? does it matter? is it reasonable to go on believing myths because the guys who've busted those myths are sort of jerks?

 

No I would bve considered a new guy, and I found them smug because they are crowing after the fact. These same authors ran around for years saying the playoffs were a crapshoot, that it was luck, and that even though Oakland didn't win it didn't mean their theories were not sound. Then Boston wins it all and suddenly its because of Sabremetrics and smart thinking. All the excuses get thrown out the window and its all hail smart guys. BP and there authors are the same guys that wanted to run Kenny Williams out of town and thought he was a fool, yet him and his stupid ways won it all. The authors didn't bust any myths, heck they didn't even come out with anything original, the basic tenants of sabremetrics were laid down many many decades ago. They didn't invent the wheel or even reinvent it.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

it seems like people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom of baseball often see the new guys as smug.

 

if anything, it's the unwillingness to change or see something as an improvement that maddens me.

 

who cares if they're smug if they're right? does it matter? is it reasonable to go on believing myths because the guys who've busted those myths are sort of jerks?

 

No I would bve considered a new guy, and I found them smug because they are crowing after the fact. These same authors ran around for years saying the playoffs were a crapshoot, that it was luck, and that even though Oakland didn't win it didn't mean their theories were not sound. Then Boston wins it all and suddenly its because of Sabremetrics and smart thinking. All the excuses get thrown out the window and its all hail smart guys. BP and there authors are the same guys that wanted to run Kenny Williams out of town and thought he was a fool, yet him and his stupid ways won it all. The authors didn't bust any myths, heck they didn't even come out with anything original, the basic tenants of sabremetrics were laid down many many decades ago. They didn't invent the wheel or even reinvent it.

 

i'm not considering you a "new guy" at all.

 

kenny williams didn't win because of any offensive philosophy, either.

 

and the reason that they crowed about boston winning it all is because so many crusty, old mythologists have bashed oakland for so long for not winning a series.

 

there were folks saying: "if what oakland and boston are doing is so groundbreaking, why haven't they won a world series?"

 

then boston wins a world series, and even after all that criticism from the "conventionally wise" minds of baseball, they aren't allowed to revel in the victory? after all the negation, the discreditation, the mockery, and the indignancy, you're telling me that Boston's statistical approach to organizational philosophy can't be lauded but somehow kenny williams' pitching-first approach can be held up as some sort of proof that small ball is the only ball?

 

holy crap. what a freaking joke. these guys can be bashed and shunned from baseball front-offices, discrimated against by old world minds, but when boston achieves the ultimate success and the a's are competitive every single year--they can still garber no praise?

 

and it makes me laugh when the very same people who pointed at the three oakland aces as the reason for the a's success are the exact same people who ignore the white sox rotation in handing out post-season credit for the series victory.

 

hypocrisy is such a double-edged sword.

[cubbieinexile]

Yes hypocrisy is which is why its odd that the folks at BP would revel in it.

 

The Boston Red Sox didn't win becuase they were smarter or because they used new-fangled stats. New fangled stats don't get you to win a series after you are down 3 games to none.

 

Curt Schilling, Derek Lowe, and Pedro Martinez are not gems that stat-head only unearthed. Jason Varitek and Manny Ramirez were not on that team because some stat-guru crunched the numbers and found them. Keith Foulke despite what Jerry Manuel thought was a good closer who many liked. Johnny Damon was a highly coveted player ever since the Royals put him up on the trading block.

 

BP and other guys went running around for years defending Oakland and its playoff failures then when a team that sort of has that stathead feel to it wins and wins largely because of luck they chalk it up to design, It wasn't, the same reasoning that they used to defend Oakland has to be applied to Boston's success. Nor does it matter that Boston's grand way of doing things netted them a first round loss this year in which they did not have Lowe, Pedro, or Curt.

 

Boston in 2004 had money, had luck, had pitching, had a weak division, and had great talent on offense. Mark Bellhorn, Kevin Youklis, and Bill Mueller are not the reason they won 98 games, went to the playoffs and won it all.