Since SI is running an excerpt in a few weeks, this could get a lot of play, and more than a few people are likely to be what they used to call "socially embarrassed." If you go to the link here there's another link to negative but balanced review in a website called FutureAngels.com.

Link to said article.

George Bush Sr. played for Yale and he never got to be an Angel either.

George Bush Sr. was never a true Yankee.

George Bush Sr. was never a true Yankee.

Indeed. His people were from Columbus. They came east after making a lot of money in steel.

The reviewer comparing doctor/patient confidentiality to the "what happens here, stays here" locker room attitude is a bit of a stretch, imo. Still, if what happens in the book is bad enough to ruin lives/reputations as the reviewer seems to hint, you do have to wonder why the author would use people's real names unless he hated all of them. That said, I doubt it's nearly as bad as the reviewer makes it out to be.

Still, if what happens in the book is bad enough to ruin lives/reputations as the reviewer seems to hint, you do have to wonder why the author would use people's real names unless he hated all of them.

He might not hate them all - he might just feel that players guilty of racial divides, mocking the handicapped, using steroids, etc don't deserve anonymity. And once he decided to write about it, he had to decide whether to fictionalize all of it, with the result either no publication or at least no real importance, or tell the full truth and embarrass people who richly deserve it, and possibly some people who don't so richly deserve it, but do to some extent.

The Angels reviewer seems to hold Tom Kotchman in high esteem, except he seemed to screw over Alex Dvorsky. His B-R minor page shows that Dvorsky was only able to last two seasons in the minors. Maybe he just couldn't handle low-A, but the 'advice' Kotchman gave him seemed to not help Dvorsky in the slighest, at least offensively.

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=4256

The reviewer comparing doctor/patient confidentiality to the "what happens here, stays here" locker room attitude is a bit of a stretch, imo.

Doctor/patient seems to have gone out the window, at least in my neck of the woods. Here, I had to be on opiate pain relievers after an accident, and a condition of receiving them was that my doctor would randomly drug test me, and if he thought it necessary to cover his ass would report it to the police. He was hardly the only m.d. around here doing that.

I don't get it. What was he randomly drug testing you for? He's prescribing opioids, so it's not that. What, you might pick up something else?

"Doc, I used to be straight edge, but ever since you started me on painkillers, I like to combine them with huge bowls of crack!"

George Bush Sr. is a Rangers and Red Sox fan. Mostly Rangers thanks to his son, but he usually shows up at Fenway a few times a year. They always interview him and he always knows whats going on with the Sox.

you do have to wonder why the author would use people's real names unless he hated all of them.

To make a quick buck.

Given the time constraints on medical students, interns, and residents, one of them writing a book may be one of the slowest quick bucks on record.

I'm not sure I agree with this "sanctity of the clubhouse" stuff. Why, exactly, should the cluhouse be sacred, any more than say the board room of Lehman Brothers? What's the difference between a tell-all book about minor league baseball and a tell-all book about being in a marine unit in Anbar province?

The reviewer at FutureAngels seems to be prejudiced himself, by casually assuming that of course white boys from the Deep South are the team racists and largely absolving everyone else. Now, he's read the book and I haven't, but I'm suspicious of such characterizations. The few minor league games I've been to recently definitely featured the Latin/white divide, but the Latin players frequently mocked the white players in Spanish, so I'm not sure why it's the white Deep South-born racists who cause the problem.

This sounds like an interesting book and I'll probably pick it up.

Joe Torre shouldn't have written this book.

I don't get it. What was he randomly drug testing you for?

Probably to make sure that he was actually taking the drugs himself, rather than turning around and selling them.

so I'm not sure why it's the white Deep South-born racists who cause the problem.

Assuming the worst about Deep South-born white boys is the only acceptable prejudice we have left Kyle. Don't try to take that away from us.

Assuming the worst about Deep South-born white boys is the only acceptable prejudice we have left Kyle. Don't try to take that away from us.

Observant Catholics and Fundamentalist Christians too. You can mock them on the front page of the NY Times.

Carlos Slim's Times?

So far, I haven't read anything in these reviews that really separate the guys in the book from typical 18-23 year old college males. Go to any frat house and freshmen dorm in this country, and the same stories will come out.

I think it is much less troublesome for a fellow player to write about his teammates misdeeds than a manager. This guy may have truly found his teammates behavior objectionable, and had no ability to change it. A manager bears at least some responsibility for his team's behavior, for stopping bad behavior, or getting rid of the players.

Also, I bet this guy needs the money a lot more than Torre.

Assuming the worst about Deep South-born white boys is the only acceptable prejudice we have left Kyle. Don't try to take that away from us.

Observant Catholics and Fundamentalist Christians too. You can mock them on the front page of the NY Times.

Yeah, nobody's ever, ever mocked black speech patterns, welfare mom stereotypes, or Latino, Asian or mideastern accents. That stuff's all in fun and it's never had any effect on anything.

Those things all stopped in the seventies, WCWAGA?. Now whites are on the bottom of the hierarchy. It's tragic.

Those things all stopped in the seventies, WCWAGA?. Now whites are on the bottom of the hierarchy. It's tragic.

I think we're on the same page about this, Crispix. At least I hope we are. (smile)

My only point is that "racism" is commonly associated with southern white pepole, who, while frequently racist (man, the stories i could tell!) are FAR from the only ones. Pretty much every ethnic group in America is full of racists, except of course effete upper-crust Yankees who read the New Yorker. They're totally absolved.

I'm still somewhat upset by the FutureAngels review. What if the manager went around telling the players "You don't wanna let a dumb Spic strike you out! Hit the g**d*** ball!" Why on earth should that behavior be protected by the "clubhouse code?" I can see why teammates who cheated and/or were racists wouldn't want to be written about, but I'm not sure why there is an expectation that their bad behavior should be shielded just because it occurs behind closed doors.

My only point is that "racism" is commonly associated with southern white pepole, who, while frequently racist (man, the stories i could tell!) are FAR from the only ones. Pretty much every ethnic group in America is full of racists, except of course effete upper-crust Yankees who read the New Yorker. They're totally absolved.

Well, I guess one good stereotype deserves another. But there's a hell of a lot more dismissive stereotyping undertaken by talk radio hosts and recent "real American" vice presidential candidates than there is in the New Yorker or the New York Times.

Well, I guess one good stereotype deserves another. But there's a hell of a lot more dismissive stereotyping undertaken by talk radio hosts and recent "real American" vice presidential candidates than there is in the New Yorker or the New York Times.

Fine. Among people who ordinarily condemn stereotyping (and I count myself among them), the Southern white is one of the last few free targets (though Snapper does have a point).

Well, I guess one good stereotype deserves another. But there's a hell of a lot more dismissive stereotyping undertaken by talk radio hosts and recent "real American" vice presidential candidates than there is in the New Yorker or the New York Times.

Fine. Among people who ordinarily condemn stereotyping (and I count myself among them), the Southern white is one of the last few free targets (though Snapper does have a point).

More than "latte sippers"? More than "effete Northeastern snobs"? More than "liberals"? More than "illegal immigrants"? What country do you live in? Try comparing those groups to Southern whites in terms of who's allowed to be negatively stereotyped in public and see what you get. What you're talking about is at most the province of a few comedians, using material that is likely to be written by southern whites themselves. Any public figure who engaged in truly negative stereotyping of southern whites would get his head handed to him.

What country do you live in?

Real America.

More than "latte sippers"? More than "effete Northeastern snobs"? More than "liberals"? More than "illegal immigrants"? What country do you live in? Try comparing those groups to Southern whites in terms of who's allowed to be negatively stereotyped in public and see what you get. What you're talking about is at most the province of a few comedians, using material that is likely to be written by southern whites themselves. Any public figure who engaged in truly negative stereotyping of southern whites would get his head handed to him.

I guess you missed the part where I said, "among people who ordinarily condemn stereotyping."

It is the liberals and latte sippers and effete Northeastern snobs (an I'm all of them, except a coffee drinker) who took exception to stereoptyping, who condemned it. It wasn't the Limbaughs and Coulters or their predecessors. I don't think their form of communication is acceptable among my peer group. But I do find my peer group will gleefully engage in stereotyping of Southern whites, but few other groups. I find that hypocritical (in the same way Limbaugh and Coulter are being hypocritical when they complain about the treatment of poor whitey).

And it's not just about what public figures can get away with saying, but the presentation in popular culture. My kids watch TV on Nickelodeon/Disney Channel, and I'm stunned at the negative stereotypes of southerners that have routinely been presented (when those producers would never attempt such similar caricatures of other groups). Similarly, I couldn't believe how wildly praised the Top Gear crew's trolling through Alabama was among people who would have been outraged if a similar maneuver was attempted in Harlem or Watts.

What country do you live in?

Real America.

Which is the classic stereotyping gambit of all time. Not that you're unaware of that.

-------------------------

I guess you missed the part where I said, "among people who ordinarily condemn stereotyping."

It is the liberals and latte sippers and effete Northeastern snobs (an I'm all of them, except a coffee drinker) who took exception to stereoptyping, who condemned it. It wasn't the Limbaughs and Coulters or their predecessors. I don't think their form of communication is acceptable among my peer group. But I do find my peer group will gleefully engage in stereotyping of Southern whites, but few other groups. I find that hypocritical (in the same way Limbaugh and Coulter are being hypocritical when they complain about the treatment of poor whitey).

I completely agree with you in terms of the hypocrisy involved, of which there's enough to go around on all sides. But in terms of numbers, look at how quickly Obama had to backtrack with his "guns and Bibles" comment, as opposed to the positive glee with which the Palins and the Limbaughs unapologetically stereotype "liberals" and (by implication) people they deem aren't "real Americans." No mea culpas from that crowd unless they get positively racial about it. Fortunately for the time being they're now a retreating minority, but they still dominate the conversation within one of our two major political parties.

And it's not just about what public figures can get away with saying, but the presentation in popular culture. My kids watch TV on Nickelodeon/Disney Channel, and I'm stunned at the negative stereotypes of southerners that have routinely been presented (when those producers would never attempt such similar caricatures of other groups). Similarly, I couldn't believe how wildly praised the Top Gear crew's trolling through Alabama was among people who would have been outraged if a similar maneuver was attempted in Harlem or Watts.

I dunno, when it comes to comic stereotypes, there's still a lot of it around directed against all groups, depending on where you happen to be looking. I don't watch Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel, but look at the Clyde stereotype in Doonesbury. Look at other comic strips like Candorville and the Boondocks, which is hilarious but also absurdly stereotypical. Look at ethnic comedians of every stripe who lampoon themselves, with little apparent sense of guilt among either them or their audiences. To all this I'd simply say: Relax.

And the joke in that Top Gear crew farce was pretty much all on the clueless Brits, not on the "rednecks" they were trying to bait. No American show would ever try that sort of stunt, and if they did, they wouldn't be given the same sort of "stupid foreigners" pass that---well, foreigners---are.

But more to the point, look at the negative scapegoating against "illegal immigrants" that's routine in so many political campaigns, and the well-documented (and often vigorously defended) racial profiling that's directed against blacks and Hispanics by various law enforcement agencies. That sort of thing may get more societal "condemnation" than the Top Gear crew, but that's because that sort of bigotry represents a far more serious threat to society than a bunch of self-caricaturing comedians. If Top Gear represented any real social force in this country, you'd have a dozen congressional committees looking into them.

I can see why teammates who cheated and/or were racists wouldn't want to be written about, but I'm not sure why there is an expectation that their bad behavior should be shielded just because it occurs behind closed doors.

Yes. It's always stupid to do things that are against the law in a situation where other people know who you are. That doesn't mean it's right for other people to be snitching on you. If this guy had a problem with steroid use, he should have said something to the guys doing it, not waited 6 years and wrote a book. Not very honorable, imo.

As for the racism, sure it's deplorable, but is it really racism to make some crude jokes? (Sarah Silverman would say definitely not.) Sometimes it is, but a lot of the time it's just kids being stupid before they realize what that kind of thing does to other people. How many of us don't regret things we did/said when we were teenagers (not necessarily racially insensitive things, but whatever)? It might still be newsworthy, I guess, but I feel a little uncomfortable with it. It wasn't really this guy's duty to some sort of moral arbiter, or if he felt it was his duty, he should have been more proactive and said things when he was actually on the team. I'll still read the book though.

Of course, if it's hardcore racism like guys belonging to the Aryan Nation or jumping Latino players ala Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket, that definitely should be aired. But if it was, again, why wait 6 years before objecting to it?

I guess what I'm saying is that portraying any 18 year old people as inveterate racists is a bit harsh, though we don't know if the author actually did that, we only have this reviewer's impression.

Probably to make sure that he was actually taking the drugs himself, rather than turning around and selling them.

Huh. Never thought about that. Now see, there's arbitrage potential here. Drug users buy clean pee, at least a small percentage. But they just give their pee away, because it's dirty. People like ark up there, but ones who are selling their drugs, they need dirty pee. Now we either buy the dirty pee and make the swap ourselves, trading pee for pee at a profit (yes, Dr. Garlappi, I know this isn't technically arbitrage as there is no guarantee of zero downside and positive upside), or we broker the deal. Put the sides together and take a percentage. Who's ready to get into the pee game?

What would you put on your business cards?

Doctor/patient seems to have gone out the window, at least in my neck of the woods. Here, I had to be on opiate pain relievers after an accident, and a condition of receiving them was that my doctor would randomly drug test me, and if he thought it necessary to cover his ass would report it to the police. He was hardly the only m.d. around here doing that.

I don't get it. What was he randomly drug testing you for? He's prescribing opioids, so it's not that. What, you might pick up something else?

"Doc, I used to be straight edge, but ever since you started me on painkillers, I like to combine them with huge bowls of crack!"

I don't get it. What was he randomly drug testing you for?

Probably to make sure that he was actually taking the drugs himself, rather than turning around and selling them.

I was being prescribed Hydrocodone, and the testing was for Oxycodone and Fentanyl. The stated reason was that it was to protect me and the doctor, which is obviously half-bullsh!t. I offered to write and sign a waiver that would indemnify the doctor against a suit in the event that I decided to take lots of unprescribed drugs on top of the Hydrocodone and give myself a heart attack, but that wasn't good enough. It wasn't for the Hydrocodone itself, so it wasn't to ensure I was taking it rather than selling. And it clearly wasn't for my benefit since I said I didn't want to be drug tested.

I'm sure it'll surprise anyone who reads my posts, but I have no legal history of illegal drug use, and I don't present like a druggie, so I assume this kind of testing evolved from the general hysteria surrounding drugs in the US.

edit: post 34 actually started making sense to me on second reading, Jeff. You have a brilliantly warped mind.

Sarah Silverman, the Sedaris kids, etc. All racists, but who gives a crap?

Their biggest crimes are being uncreative and boring.

Oo, an accent joke! Oo, saying Ching Chong to asian people, who would've thought of that one?

What would you put on your business cards?

Alou and Sons

edit: post 34 actually started making sense to me on second reading, Jeff. You have a brilliantly warped mind.

When you have no shame or ethics, a whole new world of opportunities opens up for you.

I completely agree with you in terms of the hypocrisy involved, of which there's enough to go around on all sides.

But the other side is worse than we are. Always.

I think the point was a simple one: unrepentent, proud Southern racists aren't hypocrites. Now, whether 'tis better to be a proud racist or a hypocritical one is a debate we could have.

What would you put on your business cards?

"Homer Simpson, Quarterback"

"Wile E Coyote, Genius." Though I'd also consider "Supergenius" so long as I hadn't recently been thwarted in my plans by a member of the Leporidae family.

The Angels reviewer seems to hold Tom Kotchman in high esteem, except he seemed to screw over Alex Dvorsky. His B-R minor page shows that Dvorsky was only able to last two seasons in the minors. Maybe he just couldn't handle low-A, but the 'advice' Kotchman gave him seemed to not help Dvorsky in the slighest, at least offensively.

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=4256

The Angels reviewer, based on on the URL, is Stephen C. Smith (which is why I haven't clicked on it, though maybe I'll break down and do it). He's a big shill for the organization. Regardless, Tom Kotchman is a huge part of the Angels' success this decade; several key young players and prospects were discovered, scouted, and signed by him (pretty much any Angel prospect drafted out of Florida), and he managed a number of them in short-season ball, as well. His booty includes Howie Kendrick and Scot Shields, guys who really came from off the radar.