David Ortiz's Book, Papi, Is A Huge Strikeout

Photo: from the book's Goodreads page, here.

Very disappointing book, more notable for the stuff he leaves out than for what he puts in. This is mostly a gripe session, with a surprising number of motherf---er bombs, considering his younger fanbase. If you want to read about what a motherf---er former Sox GM Theo Epstein was while they talked contracts, and about how much of a motherf---er Twins manager Tom Kelly was all the time, and about how much confidence he has in himself, which is necessary because everyone will disrespect you and you have to defend yourself and tell them who you really are, then this book is for you. He even takes a few stabs at Terry Francona, who he never respected again after Tito pinch-hit for him in Toronto three or four years ago. Yet wasn't he hitting about .220 at the time?

But I'd been hoping instead for a bit more about 2004, about the postseason. Those were covered in a few short pages. Or about 2007, and Curt Schilling's bloody sock, or something about J.D. Drew or Josh Beckett or, hell, anything at all about any of the more important games that year? Maybe something about Youkilis, who nobody remembers anymore. How about how Colorado finished the season 22-1 and then got swept in the World Series? Nope. Maybe 2013? How about some stories about Jonny Gomes, or Napoli, or anyone else? What about that ALCS against the Tigers, when Ortiz hit the season's most important homerun, before Napoli hit his against Verlander in that 1-0 game? How about how the Sox hit maybe the Mendoza line combined for the series, yet won it in 6 games? How about anything at all about Uehara? Maybe the World Series, which had a game that ended with a runner picked off third and was followed by a game that ended with a runner picked off first. Nope. Maybe a paragraph apiece, and nothing at all about any of the specific ALCS or World Series games. Not even anything about his World Series game-winning hits, except that he hit them, and who he hit them off. No commentary; no in-depth analysis, nothing. He proves he had a helluva memory for who threw what to him months ago, which he'd then look for months later, but that's it.

You get a really short chapter about what a butthole Bobby Valentine was, which I already knew, and I detested him then and now and for that whole year. Valentine was a baseball version of Trump, and it's no surprise to me at all that they're actually friends--if either guy can be said to have a friend, as opposed to a mutual, leech-like attraction. But there's nothing new here at all. The few things that may be news to some, like how his marriage almost fell apart, is never given specifics. I'm not expecting The Inquirer here, but give me something. Didn't get it.

I'm telling you, this book is at least 75% about how he was disrespected by contracts and PED accusations. He never mentions HGH, of course, and he never gave honest accolades to people he trashed, like Francona and Epstein. It all comes across as very bitter grapes from someone you might think doesn't have much to be bitter about. He has a few decent points that non-Sox fans may not know, like how the Sox underpays its stars (Pedroia notoriously got a home-discount contract that this book never mentions; Pedroia is more underpaid now than Ortiz ever was, dollar for dollar) and yet overpays its free agent signings--like Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. And Carl Crawford. And Julio Lugo. And Edgar Renteria. And Rusney Castillo. You knew this already as a fan, but the sheer number of examples is staggering. Yet even this is harped on again and again, its repetition taking up space you wanted reserved for funny or interesting anecdotes about some players. Hell, how about Orsillo, or Remy, or Castig? How about how he was able to have the single-best last season of any hitter in history? How about any stories at all about fans he's spoken to over the years, especially in 2013?

Nope. You get a chapter about his charity, but nothing about other players' charities. Very disappointing. Ortiz was one of my favorite players, and still is, but as a baseball memoirist, he swings and misses. This book is truly a money-making grab off his retirement. Even non-Sox fans won't learn anything new here, which is a mystery because it's clearly written for a common Sox fan. And believe me, I'm no baseball prude, but the loud volume of motherf---ers and other punches and jibes is shocking, considering he has to know that kids and pre-teens will want to read this. But, Dads out there, beware: They probably shouldn't. Also shocking because it's otherwise such a light read, you'd think it was meant for a light (ie--young and/or new) fan. The diatribes and whining don't make it any less light, so it's essentially a fluff piece with a lot of whining, swears and overall negativity.

Shockingly disappointing.

Don't Believe Everything You Read and Hear: Ty Cobb, A Terrible Beauty

Photo: from the book's Goodreads page (and from my review)


I've got a major sinus infection and fever, that the doctor said looked like strep or the flu, and and she just said she thinks I should be out of action for at least three days, so forgive the lack of structure here. Doing my best...

As Shakespeare's Caesar showed us (and Orwell's Animal Farm), when someone in charge repeats something often enough, the masses believe it. (Defense Exhibit A: Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Exhibit B: Everything Mr. Orange said to win the chair he never sits in.)  Charles Leerhsen's Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty attempts to show that everything we've thought, read and seen in a movie lately about Ty Cobb is either fiction, exaggerated, or misleading.

He largely succeeds, but he gets carried away with his own success. He inserts lame jokes into the text. He happily shows how he's correct and writers like Al Stump aren't. He's right, but does he have to be so gleeful and boastful about it? And most of the errors he points out about Cobb aren't direct falsehoods, but errors of degree. Was Cobb the psychotic we've learned about? No, he wasn't. But would you choose him over Honus Wagner to be on your team? No, you wouldn't. The Tigers desperately needed him, so they coddled him for as long as they needed to, but that was not a happy family in Detroit. Speaking of happy families, Cobb's mother did shoot his father, and Cobb apparently was emotionally and perhaps physically abusive to his kids, and perhaps his wife.

He favors Cobb with such a bias that he writes: "In Honus Wagner [the Pirates] had a marquee star who had almost all of Cobb's ability and none of his charisma..." (223). Now, there's a lot wrong there. Not so fast. Wagner had ALL of Cobb's abilities--including hits (Cobb 4,189; Wagner 3,420) average (.366 to .328) and stolen bases (963 to 897). The point isn't that Wagner surpassed the numbers; the point is we're talking about 2 all-time greats playing at the same time, amassing very similar numbers. And Wagner never saw the live ball era of the 1920s as Cobb did. Wagner retired in 1917 while Cobb hung up his spikes in 1928. Had they played during exactly the same years, their numbers would be closer. Though Cobb may have a slight edge with the bat, the numbers show that Wagner could have matched them, but didn't. Why? Perhaps the Pirates didn't need him to.

But the point Leerhsen never makes in his whole 400+ page book is that on defense for his career, Cobb owes 10 games to the Tigers (his defensive WAR is -10), while for his career Wagner gives his team +21 wins on defense. That's a swing of 30 games, which Cobb's 38 points of batting average, 700 hits and 66 stolen bases don't compensate for. (Cobb played 3 more years than Wagner, and Honus never saw the lively ball of the 20s.) Cobb was known as an average to below-average defender, at best, while Wagner made other players' jaws drop at shortstop. He played Gold Glove- caliber defense every day, according to his contemporaries, in The Glory of their Times. All of the players said Wagner was better than Cobb because of Wagner's defense, and that they all stood around and watched as Wagner hit. Nobody says that about Cobb.

Also consider Cobb's behavior. Leerhsen makes it clear that he was nowhere near the crazy butthole everyone thinks--but he also makes it clear that he was a pain in the ass to his own teammates, to anyone who got in his way on the basepaths (I can let that slide, as the players did. See what I did there?), to the team management that usually coddled him and adopted him, and to fans, both for him and against him. Did Cobb assault a black waiter? No, he didn't. Did he dislike African-Americans in general? The evidence says No, that he was indifferent, and that he was for them if they were good ballplayers, like how he spoke in favor of Jackie Robinson. Did he kill 3 people, as has been said? Nope.

But did he jump into the stands and beat the crap out of a paraplegic? Yes, he did! Did he slide with his spikes up? Yes, he did, but only if you were in his direct line on the basepaths. And if you were at a base, including home, he usually slid away from you. Did he say bad things to almost everyone, including his teammates, kids and wives? Yes. Did he drink too much as he got older and turn nasty? Yes, he did. You get the idea. Now, did Wagner do any of those things while active? Was the whole Pirates team against him? Did he piss off his ownership? Did he assault the disabled and chase after umpires and fight almost every guy he knew? Nope. And does that translate into a better team, so that it could be said that he helped his team by not being a butthole like Cobb was? You bet. (Though, like Cobb, Wagner drank too much when he got old. But while alcohol made Cobb angry, bitter and mean, the sauce just made Wagner babble incessantly, and start baseball stories that could last an afternoon.) In a nutshell, that's the argument Bill James makes when he says that Ted Williams was a better hitter than Stan Musial, but not a better ballplayer (or left fielder).

It's not clear by the numbers that Cobb was that much better than Wagner with the bat (though I'll concede the point that he may have been a little bit, like Ruth over Gehrig), but it's also very clear that Wagner was the much better defender and clubhouse presence. I don't give much credence usually to the latter, but I do when we're talking about a chronic problem like Cobb, though he may not have been the psychotic we've been led to believe he was. Having read this book, I see him now as a Jimmy Piersall type of neurotic, a nervous and anxiety-ridden guy, with an ability ten thousand times that of Piersall. But essentially the same temperament.

So that's what we've got here. The author makes the mistake of celebrating himself too much--ironic, since that's what he shows Cobb did too much, which made his teammates dislike him. He was better than they were, and different, and smarter, and faster, and that also made them dislike him. In fact, the T206 guys on his team actively bullied him, to the point that a few of them were suspended by the team. I don't criticize Cobb for this, though one would think he could have somehow handled it better. After all, Wagner was better than all of the Pirates of his time, and nobody taunted him or beat him up, even when he was a rookie. But Leerhsen says at least 12 times (I stopped counting) that Wagner (and Lajoie, and Elmer Flick, and other HOFers of the time) were grunts with a lunchpail, guys who would be in the mines without baseball, boring guys with no personality--I'm not making this up, or exaggerating. Leerhsen calls them these things.

Well, hell, I used to know a lot of people I thought were interesting, who did a lot of crazy things, who hurt a lot of good people, either emotionally, mentally or physically (or all of the above), but weren't they fun and exciting? But then I grew up, and I saw that stable and consistent behavior is a helluva lot more interesting than the crazy, destructive and self-destructive crap I saw the "exciting" people do. Those latter people flamed out, or exited from my life, stage left, (or both) and I replaced them with stable and consistent people with different things about them that were exciting and interesting.

Which ones would you rather work with for 20+ years? Exactly. Turns out, consistent and stable people make your job (and therefore your life) easier. Leerhsen gets caught up in his own cult of personality, like Cobb did in his, and it made them both pale in comparison.

So if you like the T206 era as I do, and you're interested in who Ty Cobb was, like I am, you should read this, and you'll find it interesting. It's informative, it sets the matter of Cobb straight, and it's a good read.

But like those guys who keep repeating the same thing, and it's believed because it's on the internet, or it's in print, or it's what you want to hear, or it's said by someone in some sort of power--Well, don't believe everything you read, you know? Ironic, because that's the point of this book, and Leerhsen proves his point in a way that he doesn't want to. But there it is.

Sox Win ALCS; Face Cards in World Series

A few thoughts after an exciting Game Six victory that opens the door to the 2013 World Series:

--I said in the last post that a commentator said the Tigers were a glorified softball team, and that I "sort of" knew what he meant.  Now I definitely know what he meant.  Great softball teams are usually big, slow sluggers who can't run or defend.  They throw hard and they hit hard, and that's usually enough for softball tournaments.

But that's not enough for baseball's postseason.  You have to be much more balanced.  You have to hit, but more important in a series is that you pitch, run and defend.  Though their starting pitching was perhaps the best ever in an ALCS, the relief pitching, the baserunning and the defending was terrible--perhaps the worst I've ever seen in an ALCS.  All of that reared its ugly head in Game 6:

* Austin Jackson, usually a very good baserunner, gets picked off first base by rookie Brandon Workman.  By a mile.

* Rather than get caught in a rundown so the (very fat and slow) runner from third can score, Victor Martinez--otherwise a very smart player--just stops in front of Dustin Pedroia.  Perhaps he wanted to block Pedroia's view and throw home, but Pedroia simply stepped around him, saw that Fielder had inexplicably stopped running home, and tagged Martinez out.  If V-Mart continues running, he at least makes it to second base, so there's one out and not two.  Or he gets caught in a rundown, which is what he should've done (and which he was taught in Little League to do), and so he's out but the run scores.  This is a common play, one he perhaps has done over a hundred times.

* Prince Fielder, one of the more seemingly-uncaring players I've ever heard and seen play in the ALCS (when told fans would get angry about his uncaring attitude, he said, "They don't play."), unforgivably stops halfway down the baseline and doesn't try to score on the aforementioned groundout.  Why?  If he's tagged out, again, there's just one out and runners are on first and second.  He shouldn't have tried to score at all, of course, with the ball never leaving the infield and his, shall we say, lack of speed.  Leaving third base is bad baserunning, but not continuing home to try to score is an unforgivable mistake that had his manager looking defeated and had Tim McCarver, who usually babbles incessantly about nothing, saying, "That's bad baserunning."  Fielder's unstylish bellyflop back to third base, which he missed by a few feet, will be a Defense Exhibit A of poor baserunning for years to come.  Adding insult to injury, he was signed last year to a 9-year / $215 million contract.  And he hasn't driven in a run in 18 consecutive postseason games.  No wonder why Detroit fans are booing him.  He would've already been driven out of Boston, a la Carl Crawford.

The Tiger defense was okay, since Iglesias is usually a magician in the field, and he loaded the bases, but he didn't give up the grand slam.  (And Pedroia booted an easy double-play ball earlier in the game.)  But the Detroit relief pitching was the worst in memory, or can you name another relief corp that gave up two grand slams in the same series?  The Tigers had the best starting pitching, and the worst relief pitching, in the same postseason series, at the same time.  Amazing.

--Speaking of $200 million and no playoffs, wave goodbye to the Dodgers.  I still don't get why they lost.  Puig, Adrian Gonzalez, or Clayton Kershaw are each able to win a postseason series, just by himself.  But they didn't, and Puig made more mistakes than even a rookie should make.

--The postseason brings out the worst in some players' personalities.  See: Alex Rodriguez.  Case Exhibit A was when he slapped the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's hand in the 2004 ALCS as the Yanks were blowing it.  Players learn in Little League that they can't do that.  And if they do it anyway, they don't have the nerve to look shocked, arms stretched out in surprise, while standing on second base.

--The two teams with the best record in each league are in the World Series for the first time since 1999.

--Stephen Drew doesn't get hits, but he does take them away.  He helped save Game Six with his great play in the seventh.  That's been heavily covered, but nobody remembers his athletic grab of John Lester's errant throw to second base to turn an important double play.  Lester has Roger Clemens's illness: Neither can throw the ball to any base with accuracy.

--Ortiz hit .091 in the ALCS.  Both hits were opposite extremes.  A little blooper over second base.  And a game-tying grand slam that woke up Boston in Game Two.

--Victorino hit .125, with just three hits.  But, like Ortiz, he made the big one count.

--Drew went 1 for 20, with 10 strikeouts.  But, again, the hits he didn't get aren't as important as the ones he took away.

--I'm okay with Drew at short and Bogaerts at third throughout the World Series.  Middlebrooks can sit.

--Middlebrooks and Mike Carp will be important pinch-hitters in the World Series while in St. Louis.  Though here's hoping the Sox don't need them.

--Good to see Uehara win the MVP of the series.  If for no other reason than to show that I don't just pluck these predictions out of thin air.

--I don't remember a single game in which two different players on the same team lost homeruns by about half a foot--combined.

--The Sox relief was perhaps the best I've ever seen in one series.  The whole bullpen deserved the MVP.  Tazawa, especially, manhandled the best hitter (only less so when injured) in the majors.

--I wouldn't want Fielder on my team, even with his homers and RBIs.  I just read that he's already over his offensive ineptitude--at the plate and on the basepaths--because he has two kids to raise, and he has to show them how to be men.  Like he doesn't have his wife and some hired help raise them during the season?

--Note to Prince: Not caring is not being a man.  Real men accept responsibility for their mistakes, internally if not externally.  (He doesn't have to say it to the press, but it doesn't sound like he's saying it to himself, either.)

--I wouldn't let Buchholz throw more than 85 pitches in the World Series, unless he has a huge lead, and / or he's just breezing along.

--Ditto for Lester, who, like Buchholz, start walking everyone when they're losing it.

--Peavy gets the chance to redeem himself.  He's the only one on the pitching staff who needs to.

--Like I said in the previous entry--Having come this far, let's go all the way.

ALCS Tied at 1

A few quick notes on this late night / early morning:

--I happened to have been lucky enough to watch the Patriots' comeback with 5 seconds left, and this Sox comeback, in the same night.  Ever since 2003, it's been great to be a Boston-area baseball and football fan.

--And I just caught the tail-end of both.  But what else was there to see?

--I know Bill James says there's no such thing as clutch, but I've been watching these two guys for a very long time now, and David Ortiz and Tom Brady sure look like clutch players to me.

--If there's no such thing as a clutch player, why would I want David Ortiz up at a crucial time, and not A-Rod, when the latter's numbers are clearly so much better overall?

--If there's no such thing as a clutch player, why is David Ortiz so respected as one by the other players--and why is A-Rod so not respected as one by the other players?  The players would know, right?

--Bill James has an open reservation to come to my house--or to take me out to dinner, preferably at a sports bar, so I can watch the games--and explain why he says that, statistically, there's no such thing as clutch.

--When your team has been held hitless for over 15 innings over two ALCS games, you should lose both.

--It is a testament to this team that they won one tonight, and actually could have, and perhaps should have, won it last night.

--I would agree that there's no such thing as momentum, but I saw the 2004 ALCS.  Then again, I also saw the 2008 ALCS, and was at Fenway for the eight-run comeback win, down by seven in the seventh, in Game 5.  If they come back from the brink and win that game, and they win game six, momentum stipulates that they'd also win game seven, right?  Nope.  So I'm undecided about whether momentum really exists.

--If it does, the Sox have it going to Detroit.  But you're only as good as your last game.

--Part of me thinks the Sox should be up 2-0.  The other half of me slaps around the first half, and says to be thankful that they're tied.  The Sox really should have won last night, and they really should have lost tonight, so I'll agree that the slate is as it should be.

--The Tigers bullpen doesn't impress me.  The only advantage the Tigers have is in starting pitching.  Which is huge, but if the Sox can hang in there and get into their bullpen, they have a good chance of winning one, and perhaps two, in Detroit.  They'll have to win at least one to bring it back to Boston.

--Cabrera's swing is coming around.  And most of the Sox's swings are not.  Even with the slam, Ortiz is hitting below a buck fifty.  And Ellsbury still doesn't have a hit.

--There've been four grand slams by Sox players in the playoffs, and I've seen them all.  Ortiz's tonight.  J.D. Drew's in the 2007 ALCS.  Johnny Damon's, of course, in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS.  And Troy O'Leary's in the 1999 ALDS, in Game 5, after Nomar was intentionally walked to get to him. 

--In his next at-bat in that same game, after another intentional walk to Nomar, O'Leary hit a three-run homer.  This was Mike Hargrove's famously mismanaged series, when even the announcers said he used his bullpen like he was panicking--up two games to zero.  He was fired after that ALDS.  This was the same game that Pedro came in with a busted back and pitched six hitless innings.  For those who care about such things.  Don't ask me how I remember such things--I just do.  But don't ask me anything about yesterday.

--I'm not surprised that the Sox have struck out over 30 times in the two games.  Isn't that what some of them have been doing all year?  Luckily they walk a lot, too, which is why Napoli can strike out a team-record 187 times this year, and still have an on-base percentage of around .350, which is decent.

--Left unnoticed is the job of the Sox bullpen these last two games.  And, for the most part, its defense.

--And Joe West's strike zone was amongst the most inconsistent I've ever seen, for both teams.  He's just happy this ALCS isn't between the Sox and Yanks.  (He infamously said two years ago that those teams make a mockery of the game because their games last so long.  How dare the hitters work the count and try to get on base?)

--Let's not get greedy if the Sox lose.  I know you expected them to be middle of the pack, if not in the basement, this year.  I know you did, because I did, too.

--Ortiz is hitting about .500 against Verlander for his career, and the Sox overall handle him pretty well, considering how dominating he is to everyone else.  Daniel Nava infamously had a great game against him.

--Go Sox.  They do better when I don't watch, so I'll continue not to, and just catch the last few innings.

Sox 2 Rays 0 2013 Division Series

A few things as we await the third game of the series.  Comments about a game refer to the second one unless specified otherwise:

--Let's not celebrate yet.  The third win is always the hardest, or so the players say.  Five teams have won the first two Division Series games and not the series.

--Each of the three double plays ended an inning, and none was more important than Tazawa's.  He's this bullpen's weakest link.  Out of the really important pitchers, anyway.

--Breslow continues to amaze, but I still hope Buchholz goes into the eighth inning next time.

--It is not as easy as Uehara makes it look.

--Speaking of which: Uehara threw 11 pitches.  All strikes.

--The most important stat of the night: Not Ortiz's two homers.  Not Pedroia's three RBIs.  It's Ellsbury's three hits and three runs scored.  He is the oil that lubricates this offense and keeps it running smoothly.  If he's not on base, and stealing bases, and creating errors, and taking the pitcher's mind off the other batters, then Pedroia doesn't drive in three because there's nobody to drive in.  As Ellsbury goes, so does the offense.

--Speaking of which: I've not been an Ellsbury fan the last couple of years, since he exploded on the scene in 2007, because of his many injuries and days on the DL, and his fragility and reluctance to play unless he's 100%.  (Which no ballplayer ever is.)  But I'm a fan this year.  The Sox need to resign him, though not at the expense of other players, of course.  He's beloved here, so I hope he doesn't take the money (the Yankees, the Dodgers and the Angels will all offer more during the offseason) and run.

--I have a very reliable source who says that Ellsbury is such a jerk that he will, in fact, take the money and run.  Of course, if someone offered me millions more than I'm making now, I might, as well.  Who wouldn't?

--But this very reliable source is firm on the fact that he is a very big jerk, and is known for being so.

--It was nice to hear the applause that Lackey got when he left the game.  Last year and a couple of weeks ago, all of those cheers were very loud boos.  Well, when his name was spoken, anyway, since of course he wasn't on the field when he cashed his checks totaling about $16,000,000.

--I'm closer to California than Stephen Drew was to second base when he turned the two late-inning double plays tonight.  But we'll take 'em.

--Next year, when the abomination of the instant replay starts, you won't see those proximity plays anymore.

--The Rays pitching and defense are tired.  Moore and Price usually manhandle and shackle the Sox.

--Breslow continues to impress during his interviews, which is not normally where players shine.  But this Ivy-League educated guy is yet to give a cheap or cliche answer to any question.  He must've missed Bull Durham.

--Rays' manager Joe Maddon said after the game that he looks forward to Game 5 at Fenway.  And he sounded like he meant it.  Gotta respect that.  (And let's hope he's of false hope.)

--A shout out to my friend Chris, who was at Fenway during Game Two of this 2013 Division Series.

--I've never seen the Sox run the bases as well as they have the past two games.  You expect Ellsbury to score from first on a double, but not on a hard-hit ball to left field at Fenway.  And Gomes scoring from second on an infield hit last night by Stephen Drew?  That's right out of Major League.  (Literally.  Remember Jake's bunt?)  Unbelievable.  The Sox I started watching in the mid- to late-80s were the exact opposite of this, barely-fit sluggers who clogged the basepaths and didn't hustle.  (For the most part.  Ellis Burks and a couple of second basemen were the exceptions.)

--I have to admit that I worried when Breslow came in, and was loudly critical of Farrell for bringing in Tazawa.  But what did I know?  (Except that Tazawa was brutally bad in September, and that double play perhaps saved the game right there.)

--I thought Breslow should've started the eighth, and bring in Uehara for a four- or five-out save, if necessary.  Breslow hadn't thrown many pitches at all, because of the double-play, and because the Rays swung early against him.  Tazawa worries me.  A lot.

--I thought starting Ross was a mistake, too.  But he hits a double, and scores a run, and there's only one base stolen against him.  So what do I know?

--Here's to hoping for a Game Three win for the Sox, and for a Series win by the A's over the Tigers.  Is that asking too much?