Pedro by Pedro Martinez and Michael Silverman

Photo: the hardcover, from its Goodreads page

Better-written than usual for this type of book, Pedro nonetheless continues a string of multi-millionaires complaining of lack of respect and then throwing their teammates and colleagues under the bus. Mike Napoli, for example, may wake up one morning, read a page of this, and wonder WTF?

It is well-written and it has a better narrative flow than is usual for the genre. Michael Silverman has created a structure of Pedro's voice, narrative voice (certainly not Pedro's), author voice (same) and then enmeshes direct quotes from others, like you're reading a screenplay of a documentary. It doesn't sound like it works (and, sporadically, it doesn't), but overall it does work and you read on.

You get the childhood background, but without the grittiness that you think the self-proclaimed poverty would demand. It's smoothed over when maybe it shouldn't have been, but then this isn't really a documentary, it just sounds like one. You get the beginning, with the Dodgers, then the other teams: the Expos, the Red Sox, the Mets and the Phillies. (Did you remember that Pedro's last start was in the 2009 World Series against the Yanks? I did, but it seemed surreal, then and now.) You get the typical beef about the management: the Dodgers and Sox especially.

And this is the first of two things that made me rate this a three rather than a four: it's hypocritical about two things, so glaring you wonder they weren't amended. The first: Every Sox fan knows Pedro's last game was Game 4 of the 2004 World Series. Immediately he let it be known that he wanted a 3-4 year contract, and the Sox wanted to give him the shortest one possible, a year, or two, at most. That was known before the season ended and for as long as it took for him to get a guaranteed 3-4 year deal with the Mets. And it was also known that his shoulder and arm were frayed. More time on the DL; more injuries; more babying at the end...All of this was known. And it was just as well-known that the Sox were right: Pedro had one good year left for the Mets, and then the rest of that contract he mostly spent on the DL. If the Sox had given him a 3-4 year deal, they were going to eat 2-3 years of it. They said that out loud, and they were right. If you were Sox ownership, do you make that deal? The Mets did, as they candidly said, because they had a newer ballpark and the fan base was dwindling, and they had to bring in a name.

The hypocritical part is that this book whines about a lack of respect from the Sox about all this--and then shows in following chapters that they were right! He acknowledges he lasted just one more good season (a very good 2005) and then had one injury after another. The 2009 season with Philadelphia was a half-season for him--he was 5-1 and basically started in September. The rest of the year he was the same place as the previous three--on and off (mostly on) the DL. He narrates all this without saying the Sox were right, but clearly shows in his narration that the Sox were right. He calls it a lack of respect that the Sox weren't willing to give him a long guaranteed contract and then eat 75%-80% of it. But of course that's not what businesses do. And the casual fan could see his physical regression in 2003 and 2004. It was obvious. I wouldn't have given him that contract, either. (He's made hundreds of millions from baseball and endorsements, so don't feel bad for him.)

The other blatant example of hypocrisy is how he states all book long that he was misunderstood, that he was mislabeled, that he didn't throw at batters intentionally, that he wasn't a headhunter--and then, often in the same sentence or paragraph, admits that he hit someone on purpose, and that he often told the player he would do so, and then does it. He threatened players verbally with it all the time, then hit the player--and then says he's misunderstood, that he's not a headhunter. This is so obvious in the book that you shake your head.

But, again, that's what these books do, right? They complain about money, about disrespect, about how the media screws them, all that same stuff all the time. It makes you yearn for another Ball Four, and to truly appreciate how direct and honest it was. Say what you want about Bouton, but he was well aware of how not a God he was, about how lucky he was to do what he did and to make the money he did, and he had actual thoughts to say, and didn't complain too much about management or anything else. Yes, he was traded for Dooley Womack, but he never says he shouldn't have been.

Opening Day 2015 Red Sox 8 Phillies 0

Photo: Dustin Pedroia, in Baltimore, 2012.  From his Wikipedia page.

It's just one game.  But my observations so far:

--You can't ask for more than 7 shutout innings from Buchholz.  He struck out 9 and allowed only three hits and a walk.  He'll face teams better than the Phillies this year, but he came through in a start in which he had to show he could step up and be the Jon Lester fill-in.  He did that.

--And don't miss the work by the unknown starting catcher (with Christian Vazquez on the shelf), Ryan Hanigan.  He called a good game and caught a good game, and even had a base hit and a walk.

--Dustin Pedroia, of course, had two homers and two Gold-Glove calibre plays.  Good to see that his finger injuries are behind him for the first time in a couple of years.

--And Hanley Ramirez's 2 homers and 5 RBIs, including an Opening Day grand slam.

--And Mookie Betts had a homerun, a walk and a single so far.  Experts have picked him to lead the league in runs scored.  Let's hope he does.

--Pedroia had seven homers all of last year, and has had two already.  Thou shalt not try to sneak a fastball inside on Pedroia.

--Or Mookie Betts, apparently.  Also, Mookie Betts has one of the great baseball names today.

--As does umpire Fieldin Culbreth.  That's right: Fieldin.

--Pablo Sandoval turned two walks into two outs when he flailed on garbage with a 3-2 count on him each time.  He needs to take more and sport a better OBP.  But he's clearly a better fielder than Middlebrooks was.  I'll say it again as I said it frequently last year and already this year: I do not miss Middlebrooks.  Except for how he kept Jenny Dell happy, of course.

--Jenny Dell can do better, by the way.  The word is that she's actually a very nice person.  She'll talk to anyone, and went to a kid's prom, and didn't just treat it as a publicity stunt.  She'll sign and take pics without a problem, too.

--Right, Salad?

--Speaking of Salad, I dedicate this year's blog posts to ya, big guy.  Thanks for all the games.

--First up: April 14th, the second Fenway game of the year.  Against the Washington Nationals, so I'll probably blog about their pitching staff--the best since the Braves' staffs of the mid-90s. 

Parity

Cliff Lee to the Phillies.  That gives them an embarrassment of riches on pitching and offense.  I was surprised when Philly didn't go deeper in the playoffs last year, and I'll be shocked if they don't make the Series this year.

I'll go on a limb and pick a Sox/Phils World Series.  Sox in six.

Having said that, it seems to me now that the teams to beat in the majors now are the Red Sox, Yanks, Angels, Rangers (replacing the Rays as a potential division-leading team without deep pockets) and Twins (perennial leaders also without the cash of the first three teams) in the American League and, in the National League, the Dodgers, Phillies (which has more money now than ever before), Mets (constant disappointments despite deep pockets), Braves (which doesn't spend as much as the others, without reason), with the Giants contending for now, but with little money to keep up after The Freak leaves.  The Padres are an example of this now.

I say this because I suppose that there is better balance in MLB, yet the same teams--with the sporadic surprises every year--keep making the playoffs, don't they?  Anyone expect the Nationals or Royals to make the postseason?  I'm glad I'm a fan of a team constantly in contention, that's all I'm sayin'.

Take a look at my writers/readers blog, and look at the entry for this blog.  One of those subjects will be on this blog soon.  Topics include HOF voting (Why did Ruth, Williams, etc. have a surprisingly large percentage of voters vote against their inclusion in the Hall?); Pedro's greatness as measured in different ways than maybe you've seen before; a positional analysis of the Sox (and whatever other team I feel like); and a trip around the American League, and a coast through the National.  Lots to get to.  Just tryin' to find the time.