Baseball DIY

I just finished reading The Boys of Summer for the first time - and I have no idea why it has taken me so long to read this book. It's about the Brooklyn Dodgers back when they were the team that broke America's heart - and also the team that changed America. Robinson is there, along with Erskine, Reece, Hodges, Campanella - a crew of great players who took foreeevveerr to win the Series. They were classics on so many levels, and Kahn's job was to write about them during those moments when the whole country knew them by name. Twenty years later he decided to go see them again, individually, and find out what kind of men thay had become. It is heartbreaking to read some of it, particularly about Hodges and Campanella, but fascinating as well. It's weird, but I think this is the perfect baseball book and nonbaseball book, as it is great for fans of the game to see what it was like after the playing stopped, but it is also mostly about being a man, about being a certain kind of man who lived in a certain time - it's about being a good man I guess and that really has nothing at all to do with baseball. That's why I think that nonbaseball fans would love the book as well, because you don't have to have loved the Dodgers to love this book, heck - you don't even have to know them by name.

And it just shows even more why Gil Hodges has been screwed by the Hall of Fame!

Roger Kahn is a fantastic writer, a very honest one. I'm surprised that he was willing to reveal so much about his own relationship with his father in the book, although it goes towards the secondary theme of fathers and sons that runs through several of the sections (Jackie Robinson's loss is so bitter in this respect.) If Kahn had not been so honest, I don't think the book would have worked and now I want to read more of his stuff and see what else he had to share.

If by some chance you haven't read Boys, be aware that in some ways it is two separate books - how Kahn came to cover the Dodgers and what he learned there and then what happened when he visited the players 20 years later. As a complete book I thought it was great, but some readers seem to have been surprised by the two different parts. You have to hang in there with it though, you won't be disappointed.

Standings
1. Pittsburgh (91-49)...Most runs (793)
2. New York (84-55)
3. Chicago (82-56)...Best ERA (2.77)
4. Cincinnati (74-65)
5. Brooklyn (70-66)
6. Boston (58-80)
7. Philadelphia (49-86)...Worst ERA (3.96)
8. St. Louis (43-94)...Fewest runs (505)

Leaders
Hits: Ginger Beaumont-Pitt (209)
2B: Harry Steinfeldt-Cin/Sam Mertes-NY/Fred Clarke-Pitt (32)
3B: Honus Wagner-Pitt (19)
HR: Jimmy Sheckard-Brook (9)
OPS: Fred Clarke-Pitt (946)
SB: Jimmy Sheckard-Brook/Frank Chance-Chi (67)
Pitcher wins: Joe McGinnity-NY (31)
Pitcher strikeouts: Christy Mathewson-NY (267)
Pitcher ERA: Sam Leever-Pitt (2.06)

Big sticks
Pitt: Fred Clarke-OF (946, 32, 15, 5); Honus Wagner-SS (931, 30, 19, 5)
NY: Roger Bresnahan-OF (936, 30, 8, 4); Sam Mertes-OF (.437 slug, 32, 14, 7)
Chi: Frank Chance-1B (.440, 24, 10, 2); Johnny Kling-C (.428, 29, 13, 3)
Cin: Mike Donlin-OF (936, 25, 18, 7); Harry Steinfeldt-3B (.481, 32, 12, 6)
Brook: Jimmy Sheckard-OF (899, 29, 9, 9)
Bos: Pat Moran-C (.406, 25, 5, 7)
Phi: Bill Keister-OF (.445, 27, 7, 3)
StL: Nope.

Live arms
Pitt: Sam Leever (7, 90/60, 2.06)
NY: Christy Mathewson (3, 267/100, 2.26)
Chi: Jack Weimer (3, 128/104, 2.30)
Cin: Noodles Hahn (5, 127/47, 2.52)
Brook: Oscar Jones (4, 95/77, 2.94)
Bos: Vic Willis (2, 125/88, 2.98)
Phi: Nope.
StL: Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown (1, 83/59, 2.60)

Notes

• Team runs up to 4.78/gm
• 1.4 SB/gm, all-time high
• McGraw's first year with Giants
• Boston defeated Pittsburgh in 1st modern World Series, 5-3

It just occurred to me. You know how MLB could ensure that it would get a .400 hitter in the next year or two? They should have the batters run clockwise, not counterclockwise. Think about it: the last few guys to approach or surpass .400 have all been left-handed hitters: Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn, George Brett. Those two or three fewer steps to first base have to mean something. So give that advantage to right-handed hitters, of whom there are more, and the probability of getting a .400 hitter is greatly increased.

And think of the havoc it would wreak with infielders. First base (formerly third base) would get more action than third base, but would you want a first baseman (as we think of one now) there or at what would then be third base. They're first basemen for a reason: they can't throw very well. Or maybe a lot of those plays that are close at third now would be reduced to "3-unassisted."

Now I'm wondering if this would hurt or help hitters more. Oh well...All of the other sports are tinkering with their rules. Why not baseball?

Like I said, it's a bad idea.