The Poscast with Bill James this week was done under less-than-ideal circumstances — in Augusta, with a less-than-stellar Internet connection — so I hope that the great stuff Bill is saying will make up for any sound quality gaps.
Two, I can tell you that it is my hope to have two regular co-hosts — regular the way Charo was a “regular” guest on The Love Boat. I’m hoping, for instance, that the next month will look like follows:
April 18: Special guest (and if I get who I’m trying to get, it will be INCREDIBLE*).
April 25: Poscast with Michael Schur.
May 2: Special guest (again, potentially incredible).
May 9: Poscast with Bill James
*At least for me.
I’m kind of hoping that each month will look something like that — incredible guest, Michael Schur, incredible guest, Bill James and so on.
This week’s Poscast I talk with Bill about college hoops, the meaning of bad starts, how well past performance predicts future and a bunch of other fun things. Bill also reiterates my own belief that we all think baseball is at its most perfect when you are 10 years old. Bill, as you might expect, puts it in better words.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Chass: WHO IS THIS FELLOW THAT KEEPS LEAVING ME MESSAGES ABOUT TAKING HIS POD-CLASS, MR. PRESIDENT
Well, guys, baseball was far from perfect when I was (almost) 10, as the Phillies managed to blow a 6.5-game lead with 12 to play. It's sort of a miracle that I ever even went back to watching them in 1965. :-)
Fortunately, it has been a little better since then.
I was 10 years old in 1968. Yeesh.
I turned 10 in 1981, though by the time I turned 10 the strike had ended and they were playing again. You weren't so fortunate.
When I was 10 my favorite team was the Mets, good to great pitching, good dee, bad offense, tea, as a whole couldn't rise above mediocrity- the TEAM taht really seemed to me to have its act together was THE BIG RED MACHINE, average pitching, average Dee, and offense that bludgeoned the opposition into submission,
so from the age 10 on as I heard everyone from my fellow Mets fans, to other teams fans, to the mediots drone on endlessly, "pitching and defense is what wins," I would say no, you are wrong. did I have studies that said I was right and they were wrong? No, I just intuitively KNEW they were wrong, why/ because of what I had perceived as the real difference between winning and losing clubs WHEN I WAS 10. It's not that baseball was "perfect" when I was 10, it's just that my view of what baseball WAS- was formed when I was 10...
If I'd been 10 when 1969 happened I'd likely think like everyone else that Pitching and Defense is what wins championships, end of story.
So when the Mets traded their best hitter for an un-needed 5th starter, I was besides myself, when they gave 150 starts to Doug ####### Flynn and every damn game the announcers said, "With his glove if he hits .250 it's a bonus," I wanted to scream.
Was baseball perfect when I was 10? 11?, 12? 13? 14? 15? no it was an exercise in masochism, that's what it was. It was near perfect when I was 20 or so :-)
I'm also a Jays fan, but I was born a year later. Between the strike and the Jays shocking collapse to irrelevance, being a Jays fan at that time was brutal. If you told me then that the Jays would never make the playoffs for (probably) the next twenty years, I would have been horrified.
Edit: now that I think about it, if I had to say when baseball was perfect for me, 1992-3 can't work because I was too young to really appreciate how awesome the Jays were, so the answer might actually be 2004. Ichiro broke the single season hits record, I used a starpass to go to tons of games with my sister, and Frank Menechino had his magical .301/.400/.504 season. The Jays were terrible (even Halladay only went 8-8), but they still were very memorable in a strange way.
Same.
My enduring hatred of Bud Selig has a damn good reason.
The Big Red Machine's defense was much better than average, and indeed was a big reason the Reds could win so big with such meh pitching. Up the middle they had Bench, Concepcion, Morgan and Geronimo, and I don't think anyone needs to apologize for that unit. In the corners the defense was less impressive, but Griffey was very good and Rose, Perez and Foster at least held their own. And while they had no big aces on their staff (Gullett had ace talent but missed two months a year), they trotted out a lot of solid, dependable pitchers to go with that fine defense and awesome offense.
I was 10 years old in 1974, not fully aware of baseball yet -- I started following closely in 1977. There were no wildcards and no interleague play, and long-term dominant teams could exist outside of the major media markets, so yes, baseball was perfect. :)
Agreed, their D was excellent. Both Foster and Griffey could have played CF on a team without Geronimo.
Vin Scully?
I was an Astros fan when I was 10, in 1980. Pitching, defense, and Jose Cruuuuuuuuz. 1980 was kind of an up-and-down year, for a ten-year-old Astros fan.
I stopped following baseball closely after 1986: I was still an Astros fan, and it was clear God hated me.
I didn't follow any team in particular again until ca. 2000, when an oldies station I liked started carrying the Oakland A's.
The style of game those A's teams played was not at all like those Astros teams.
But now that I think of it, the A's current roster features a bunch of guys who would've fit right in on the Astrodome-era Astros.
I'm not sure if that's perfect, but it sure was formative.
Oh, yeah, similar: late 70's-early 80's, the teams you could see on TV all the time were the Cubs (WGN) and the Braves (WTBS). I mainly remember both teams being pretty bad, though both had some bright spots. Dale Murphy seemed like a kind of folk hero in GA at the time.
I'm so sick of all these people like Tom Nawrocki and Benjamin Button with all their aging backwards and everything.
1968 was a bit different if it was the Cardinals you were following on the radio. I was 15 in 1968, but hadn't really started following closely on the radio until I was 13 or 14. I can still tell you quite a bit of information about Gibson's June-July hot streak without needing to look it up.
Well, it's always great to be a fan when your team is running away with the pennant, and Gibson was genuinely electric that year. But my lord the mode of the game itself was screwed up big time. I'd only been following the sport intently since 1965, and even I could tell that things had suddenly gotten far out of whack.
Bob Veale had a 2.06 ERA that year -- and went 13-14. That just ain't right.
And I was an Orel Hershiser away from having a perfect baseball year at age 10. But I could still tell you a fair bit about the 1988 regular season, having been just a bit too young to fully appreciate '86. Also my family was preoccupied during the '86 Series with my mother in the hospital delivering my youngest brother. It's true that the Mets have won a title during my brother's lifetime, by a margin of an hour or two.
WWII stunk on multiple levels but from my vantage point it was a CONSPIRACY.
D*mn Germans. D*mn Japanese.
This works on many levels. Tom must be in Australia next February 29th. I was ten the year of Bucky F Dent, but I get James's general point. There was a lot of biodiversity in baseball back then.
I was 10 for Mazeroski's HR, however, that's pretty close to perfect.
Well, when most of us were ten the only teams you could watch were the local teams. Perhaps if I could have seen the A's back when I was ten I'd think that era was great but instead I got a steady diet of Cubs and their love for GIDP and sac bunts and then ground outs to end the inning. People tend to fall in love with some sport when their favorite team or player is doing good.
.275 was entirely respectable
40 homeruns was a big deal
100 RBI was a legit accomplishment
4.00 ERA was not a point of pride
Actually last year was coming close to this.
We're moving back towards the 88-91 style of play now, which I appreciate. Enjoy it a lot more than the 1995-2002 bashing.
And when I think back to age 10 it's mostly about all the baseball I was playing, which was indeed pretty damn close to perfect.
Kuiper is my guess as well. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to suggest him. Considering it has to be someone who Poz would be thrilled by, but apparently most people wouldn't, I can't think of anyone but Kuiper to fit that description.
And baseball achieved perfection when I was 9, not 10. The next year was good too, through the end of the ALCS anyway. But no baseball season is ever going to equal 1989.
And while I miss some things about 70's baseball (Afros, complete games, three inning relief stints, Earl, Billy, Doc Medich, the fighting A's, .75 cent bleacher seats...BYOB/F into stadiums), there's a whole lot I don't miss a whit (Strikes, Disco demolition, cookie cutter stadiums, Astroturf, the Astrodome...).
Well they did bring back the Les Paul that season...
I was 10 when it was announced that the Washington Senators would become the Minnesota Twins.
I was 10 the year they announced they were leaving for Texas. My transferred allegiance to the Orioles was validated by the 4 20 game winners, and then crushed by the Pirates.
Baseball was perfect when we were ten because we were PLAYING baseball.
Now, if somebody had told me that 71-72 would be the last Cubs' consecutive winning seasons until 2003-4 I might have appreciated them more.
Still, 72 got off to a flying start. Due to the short-lived work stoppage, opening day was on a Saturday. It's the only opening day I've ever been to and, by accident, I got into the bleacher line. (I was entirely on my own, a spur of the moment thing, I wonder if my mom even knew -- a kid could afford to go to a ballgame on his weekly allowance in those days.) The bleachers were "scary" and not a place I was allowed to sit. It is quite possible this was the first time I'd ever sworn in public ("Go to Hell, Left Field, Go to Hell"). I remember Willie Montanez in the pre-game warmups tossing a ball into the stands (in a friendly gesture) and "us" throwing it back. This went on for a few minutes until Willie gave up. I always wondered if that's where it started (probably not).
Somehow I also got to go to game #2 with some friends of mine. The GREAT Burt Hooton threw a no-hitter -- the only no-hitter I've ever been to. Yes, he walked 7, struck out 7 and probably threw 150 pitches but damn, I was at a no-hitter!
Williams had a great year (and won the batting title), Rick Monday was the finest Cub CF of my lifetime, Santo had his last outstanding season, Jose Cardenal was funny, Fergie won 20 of course, Big Daddy made his debut and Carmen Fanzone entertained us with his trumpet.
The A's, who'd become my fave AL team, won the WS. Carlton had his ridiculous season. Carew, my favorite AL player, won the AL batting title. Cesar Cedeno, who I still marvel at, had his first great season.
So I'm just fine with 72.
The only black marks were Nixon's re-election and Bench STEALING the NL MVP from Williams.
My 10th birthday was the same day the strike started. I was too upset to do much more than throw a tennis ball at the back of our house while grumbling about all the home runs Matt Williams was going to lose. Not a great birthday overall.
Veale probably would not even have had a career if it weren't for the 63-68 strike zone. This is a guy who, from 64-68, walked 124, 119, 102, 119, and 94 guys WITH that strike zone. He couldn't throw strikes consistently to save his life. He was also the worst hitter I have ever seen in my life; he swung the bat as though he were chopping wood.
I was 10 at the end of 1965. The 1965-1966 seasons were easily the best seasons between 1960 and 1971 for baseball in Pittsburgh between 1960 and 1970. Clemente was in his prime, Stargell was just coming up, Mazeroski and Gene Alley formed the best double-play combo in the game (if not of all time, unfortunately Alley couldn't stay healthy).
In '66 the Bucs led the league for a long stretch until the Dodgers and Giants caught them in mid-September. The killer game for the Bucs was probably the September 21 affair in San Francisco (a game Treder probably remembers, too). The Pirates had taken the first three games of a four-game series and looked poised to sweep and move back to within a half-game of the Dodgers. Donn Clendenon gave the Bucs a 3-0 lead in the seventh was a 3-run shot off Juan Marichal, but Tommie Sisk and Pete Mikkelsen gave the lead back, the latter walking in the tying run in the 8th. Pittsburgh countered with two in the ninth off Marichal, but then in the bottom half Roy Face gave up a two-run shot to Tom Haller and then Marichal (in the game, and batting for himself!) won the game with a solo blow.
I really do think my view of the game was shaped to some extent by that Pirates' team, and the team that followed in the '70s.
-- MWE
'82, But the principle's the same.
However, I did catch a foul ball.
In my day, we didn't have these metal bats; we played with wooden bats held together with nails and super glue and if they got broke and a piece came off and hit us in the face and we got 34 stitches we liked it because that's the way the game was played not like you young whippersnappers with your Pong games and your metal bats and your interweb.
Which made his becoming a pitching coach hilarious to school-age me.
I turned 11 in late-summer of 1984, but I'll use that year anyway. Got my first BJBA and had my only decent season as a hitter / first appearances on the mound (thank you growth spurt).
Curiously, I have no memory of the Braves 3B from that year (we were mediocre).
Or maybe something about baseball.
- Todd Hundley,the 41 home run man who was obviously much better than Mike Piazza and his Pert Plus hair
- Lance Johnson, the fastest man in the world
- Bernard Gilkey
- uberprospect Alex Ochoa
- our oh-so-promising rotation.
...and then in 1997, we actually had a winner!
Griffey Senior yes
Foster? I REFUSE to even contemplate such an idea
(Is my view on Foster's dee biased by the fact that it was absolutely execrable when he came to the Mets? You betcha).
Griffey Sr. was FAST, much faster than his son (Junior was fast too when he first came up- not that anyone under 25 or so really believes that)- I think it was Bill James who once claimed that Sr. and Jr were, homeruns aside, basically the same player- the problem with that was twofold- 1: Junior's HR advantage over dad was pretty damn big- 2: HRs aside Sr and Jr were not equal- daddy was a little better across the board... except Senior may have even had more trouble staying healthy than Junior.
But I loved watching that year's World Series, and the following year, the Bird took wing in Tiger Stadium.
First year of little league I used a wood bat. That was it, though we continued to use them during pickup games (this was in the days before kids owned their own aluminum or its modern composite counterpart) bats.
I've never listened to a talk-based podcast. I figured that was the case with a lot of people.
Next year was even cooler, as the Redbirds became the first AAA team to draw a million fans (I was at the game where it happened, about 8 rows away from a Jim Adduci homer. Plus I got to watch my 4th cousin (Who I've never actually met in person) hit .360 for a few months before he was called up. Good times.
1987 and 1988 just demonstrated that things don't always go according to plan.
One of these days I'm going to catch a foul ball, and people are going to boo me because I won't give it to some snot nosed 8 year old kid in the area who already has three balls in his short lifespan.
I don't do podcast, if you have something important/interesting to say, then make a transcript. Podcasts your going to be wasting 10 minutes getting the information that could have been presented in about a 2 minute read.
A good podcast is basically like a radio program, and a good radio program isn't a straight information dump.
I caught two foul balls at UNC games, but they would send someone into the stands to make you give it back.
When I was a kid I wanted to be Willie Wilson when I grew up. When I was ten he hit .332 and led the league in triples. I still think that's the most fun kind of ballplayer -- a high average guy who hits a lot of triples and can run like hell in a huge outfield.
(Is my view on Foster's dee biased by the fact that it was absolutely execrable when he came to the Mets? You betcha).
Well, you might want to broaden that POV. Foster was a CF all through the minors, and played a lot of CF with the Reds until they committed to Geronimo as the regular. As late as 1978, Foster was filling in 11 games in CF.
As amazing as it may be to believe given the way his game went completely into the sh!tter upon his arrival in New York, as a young player Foster was a terrific all-around athlete.
Foster was considered to be a more than capable outfielder when he was in Cincinnati, he had pretty good range and a better than average arm, at least in left field. This is just speculation on my part but I wonder if all of those years on the rock hard turf at Riverfront Stadium (and the other artificial surfaces in the NL of that era) might not have taken a toll on Foster's back and legs, and resulted in decreased abilities by the time he reached New York.
Who knows what it was, but something sure took a toll. The difference between Foster in his mid-20s and Foster in his early 30s was dramatic. He slowed down far more than most do in that range of time.
I listen to the radio for only two reasons, baseball and music, if the dj talks for longer than 2 minutes the station is changed. There is no such thing as a good radio program in my world.
I was going to go to that day (my annual ballgame with my parents (who were uninterested in sports)). Alas, we went a week or two later instead.
I listen to a lot of podcasts at work. The AV club does a weekly review of some - for those interested in exploring the medium, that might be a good place to get an idea of what to check out.
Twelve works much better for me as well. I saw my first game live at Tiger Stadium in 1984. That fall, they thumped the Padres to win the World Series.
There are lots of good podcasts out there, but, yeah, if you don't like talking on the radio, you probably won't like podcasts either.
I get several from the BBC (news, In Our Time, documentary shorts, Science, and Nature), plus This American Life, Radiolab, Poetry magazine, and a couple of criminal-defense ones.
For just music, SF has the Old First Church chamber-music series, which just re-started its podcasts (95% music); the Bay Bridged (indie rock, 99% music); and the Exploratorium has been reissuing its "Speaking of Music" series from the 80's - in-depth interviews with people like Phillip Glass, Anthony Braxton, Pauline Oliveros, Meredith Monk, and Brian Eno (roughly 50/50 music / talk).
The highlight of the season was Sandy Koufax' performance in the World Series-first in observing Yom Kippur, then pitching a shutout game 7 on two days rest. He was my mom's favorite player, so he became my second favorite player, behind The Mick.
George Foster age 25-36 by OPS+
110, 139, 150, 165, 151, 155, 131, 150, 90, 95, 111, 121
if you squint you can see his age 35/36 marks of 111 & 121 as normal aging, but what he did at ages 33 & 34 were just killers
anyway, looking at his bbref page I noticed something I'd forgotten- he came up with the Giants
60s early 70s Giants signed/drafted/developed Foster, Gary Matthews, Dave Kingman, Ken Henderson, Jim Ray Hart, Bobby Bonds, Gary Maddox, Larry Herndon, Jack Clark, Ollie Brown, Manny Mota, Tom Haller, Dick Dietz, and they frittered most of it away
You don't f@cking say. Who f@cking knew?
Better known as "The Good Times" for the rest of the country.
This discussion has been had a million times here, but I think that this sort of baseball is less compelling. Walks, strikeouts, and pitching changes all slow the game down, and most everything that slows the game down (without balancing the slowdown by having something happen) is bad.
I've just about concluded that in Our Time is the best radio show currently broadcast in the English language. Even on the weeks when Melvyn and the guests don't mesh right and it's something of a clunker.
I've never used a wooden bat. I wonder what it feels like when you make contact (particularly if it's less or more forgiving when you make crappy contact). I think it's because wooden bats break and that would be more expensive.
This discussion has been had a million times here, but I think that this sort of baseball is less compelling. Walks, strikeouts, and pitching changes all slow the game down, and most everything that slows the game down (without balancing the slowdown by having something happen) is bad.
I don't think strikeouts slow the game down, except as part of a long AB, but a 12-pitch affair where the pitcher finally gets one past the hitter is very compelling baseball. Walks make the game longer but they generate baserunners, and baserunners are compelling.
Pitching changes really slow down the game, and the system isn't particularly efficient, but there are some things about pitching changes that make the game more compelling. Starters are more likely to throw at full bore with nearly every pitch, rather than pacing themselves, and we see great relief pitchers throw faster, nastier stuff than they'd be able to in a full game.
Wow, that's fascinating. I never used anything but a wooden bat until I was well into my 20s. The idea of not knowing what a wooden bat feels like is a mind-blower.
Perfect contact on a wooden bat is a feeling more blissful than any alumininum or composite bat could ever hope to deliver. But you're absolutely right that a wooden bat is far more unforgiving on imperfect contact, especially in on the handle. Getting fisted with a wooden bat can give you a sense of a swarm of bees stinging every part of both hands that doesn't go away for many, many long and agonizing seconds. Never had anything like that from an aluminum bat.
I was ten in 1980. The only thing worse than the Padres record was the Padres' general aesthetic.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main