another rich ballplayer of middling intellect

This is me banging my head on the wall

SNORE

Teixeira gives middlebrow a bad name.
And Klapisch isn't much better. Does he really think that "sabermetrics" doesn't think that clutch performances exist?

And, from a quick look at baseballreference.com, here's Jeter's career numbers"

.317/.388/.459 Terrific table setting work.

Here's Jeter's career work with runners in scoring position:

.308/.403/.429 Pretty much the same, a little less power.

Here's Jeter's career work in "Late and Close" situations (No, not those in which he asked "what are your hopes? What are your dreams?")
.295/.390/.423
Considering this last subset is more likely to be against a closer or starter pitching well that night it's no shame that his numbers should be a bit down from his overall career numbers. But it doesn't seem to indicate that he's a simmering volcano of clutch. More like he's an excellent hitter who pretty much comes through at the same level of performance all the time.

Why the #### is Klapisch talking about clutch performances in an article about the merits of UZR?

I'm not jumping to any conclusions about Teixeira's intellect from this brief exchange. Also, it's probably a lot more fun and interesting for an athlete to believe in notions of clutch. I know that when I was young and played sports, I replayed the games as stories. Yeah, these guys are adults, but what's the harm for them in believing in childish ideas.

He was a monster when it counted.

Thus inflicting TEH FEAR in his opponents.

“Certain players can say to themselves, ‘It’s time to step it up,’ “ Teixeira said, although he knows UZR doesn’t quite get that. Maybe someday.

Such a trainwreck.

Why the #### is Klapisch talking about clutch performances in an article about the merits of UZR?

Because it prompts another soundbite from Teix, of course.

Honestly, what does this article add to the discussion? What point is trying to be made that hasn't already been made a thousand times during this offseason?

Getting away from the whole idea of "clutch," I'm not sure what UZR "wanted" from Teixeira in 2009. I saw almost every Yankee game and saw nothing amiss in his defensive game. Good range to his right, check. An ability to handle low throws from Jeter and A-Rod, check. He fielded bunts just fine, check. I've yet to hear from a single Yankee fan, or New York broadcaster or media member, who complained about Teixeira's fielding. In fact, I heard nothing but praise from all quarters last year.

Then again, maybe we're all idiots.

This is the new "he's in the best shape of his life".

Klapisch-type sportswriter who doesn't understand the fielding metrics he is citing: "Hey (insert player name), sabermetrics says your fielding stinks, what do you think of that?"

Baseball player who probably understands the fielding metrics less than Klapisch, if that's even possible: "Get your heads out of the spreadsheets, etc..."

I also don't understand why we're expected to be surprised/outraged at Teixeira's remarks. All players are going to say the same thing, as I think it should be. Whether he's capable of it or not, I want my guy to say \"#### those stats, I'm better than that." It's certainly refreshing to hear players who are candid about the state of Baseball but professional athletes who are self-aware about the limitations of their athletic talents are almost non-existent, at least while they're still playing. I expect nothing less from a professional like Teixeira.

Teixeira's expression at the plate makes it seem like he's puzzled by lots of things.

I also don't understand why we're expected to be surprised/outraged at Teixeira's remarks. All players are going to say the same thing, as I think it should be. Whether he's capable of it or not, I want my guy to say "#### those stats, I'm better than that."

Agreed; and it has nothing to do with the specific stat being cited, be it a relatively new sabermetric rating or one of the old-fashioned Triple Crown stats. There have been countless players through the years who have been quoted as saying "I know I'm a better hitter than my batting average shows." And, of course, such reactions are not limited to athletes. Methods of evaluation change; people's reactions to said evaluations do not.

DB

Sort of like the post-Judgment Day world in “Terminator,” where humans have been deposed in a machine-controlled society.

I just read I, Robot. It had some clever moments and was probably miles ahead of its time, but some of the writing is just so awful. I had also recently read Foundation and found that book's fame totally puzzling. Is there something I'm missing?

No, Azimov's just not much of a stylist.

Asimov described his writing style as "unadorned", which puts off a lot of people. But his picture should be next to any definition of the term "prolific writer".

Asimov described his writing style as "unadorned", which puts off a lot of people.

Nope, that's not it. I don't mind unadorned writing. And unadorned writing is better than purple prose.

I, Robot, for one thing, features the most clumsy use of exposition that I've ever encountered. A number of the stories feature two recurring characters who operate as a two-man team field testing robots in space. But one of the two rarely knows where they are or why they are doing it. In order to facilitate exposition, he is frequently clueless and essentially useless. He's just there so he can say things like, "Why would we do that?"

I, Robot, for one thing, features the most clumsy use of exposition that I've ever encountered.

This is, of course, the biggest problem with a lot of different genre-writing, especially science fiction and historical fiction. Writers in these genres get so wrapped up in making their world so easy to understand and navigate and you're left with tedious sections.

I would not call Asimov's prose purple. Functional maybe.

Fish asks, "I just read I, Robot. It had some clever moments and was probably miles ahead of its time, but some of the writing is just so awful. I had also recently read Foundation and found that book's fame totally puzzling. Is there something I'm missing?"

I, Robot was very far ahead of its time technically, and right on the time button sociologically. People at the time were worried about machines taking over their lives and reducing them to assembly line workers whose managers were all machines. Metropolis is the movie version of the concept. I, Robot made the fear personal (which is what it is really famous for, and which represented a step up in writing ability in SF at the time), and also pointed out the impossibility of making a fully-human-thinking robot that would never make any mistakes. Asimov's Laws of Robotics are still standard fare for SF writers precisely because they point out the logical impossibilities.

Foundation was a sensation because it came along right at the time that sociology was starting to make real use of numerical analysis and statistics. The basic idea - that a group like the Sheldon Foundation could, by clever polling and media manipulation, control the mass of humanity over long time periods - was starting to look real possible and really really bad. It's kept up its fame because a lot of the horror possibilities have either come true or at leave have come more true. Look at the statistical projections of elections. They have gotten really, really scarily good. Also, The Mule (main villain in Foundation) was its own scare because it was an analogy for Hitler and his ilk. These would be people who could, by dint of pure charisma, get the mass of humanity to do self-defeating things in spite of the sociologists knowing full well what was going to happen. This is, of course, current politics.

As a writer, Asimov came along right when SF started to take writing seriously. If you want to see REALLY bad SF writing backing a great concept, try Doc Smith's Lensman series. If you want to see the REALLY REALLY bad writing that dominated early SF, try Doc Smith's earlier work, like The Skylark of Space series. Good writing in SF came along in the late 30s or early 40s, with people like Theodore Sturgeon, L. Sprague de Camp, and Fritz Leiber. It took a while for good writing to become the standard in the field. - Brock Hanke

#16 First of all the field was much smaller. And the concepts were interesting. To me the writing was good enough to put up with until I encountered better writers and just dropped him.

The oldest SF to make my re-reader list was "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (and it hasn't got great writing either) while my historical fiction re-readers goes back to the Hornblower series and Costain's "Ride With Me" (Yes I've read and enjoyed older works, just never felt any interest in re-reading them)

#22 Agree with the comment about good writing. I recall Harlan Ellison's comment to the effect that it was time to stop settling for good writing for the genre. That the standard should be good writing, period.

I would not call Asimov's prose purple. Functional maybe.

No, I didn't say that Asimov's prose was purple. It isn't.

I really loved Dune when I was about 15. Then I didn't read much Sci-Fi for 10+ years. Now I have been creeping back to the field, starting with the supposed classics, and have been disappointed with the quality of the writing. My neighbor has had exactly the same experience. I think we might tackle Stranger in a Strange Land together next.

Klapisch puzzled by deadlines, lack of creativity.

What if someone were to explain to Teixeira that -3.6 runs means that he made about 5 fewer plays than the average 1B last year ... would he say "no way that's possible" or would he say "could be"?

And UZR also says he played 1B in 2009 about the same as he always has -- the good numbers in 2008 are the outlier. They had him as 8.2 runs below average from 2005-7 and is just 4.9 above for his career. UZR might be wrong but you can't really claim it's inconsistent.

If you ask Teixeira if he was a better player in 2009 than 2008, he'd likely say yes, pointing to more HR, a 2nd place MVP, probably a clutch hit or two and, of course, winning the WS. But there's not a dime's worth of difference between his level of play those two seasons.

And, of course, heaven forbid if Klapisch should happen to look at the actual data to see if Tex and Cano really did stop a lot of balls through the right side compared to other combos. You don't need to believe in UZR to do that, only the sainted Stats, Inc.

I'm not sure what UZR "wanted" from Teixeira in 2009

Nothing really. It essentially said he was average (in terms of range and throwing, I think it still doesn't include receiving throws) just as it has for 4 of the last 5 seasons or the last 5 seasons overall. As noted above, -3.6 runs is about 5 fewer plays than average over 156 games played -- 1 "missed" play per month. Do you really think you could tell the difference?

Asimov had a lot of good ideas but his characters were never remotely believable to me. Heinlein is similar in that manner imo.

Fish says, "I think we might tackle Stranger in a Strange Land together next."

Eeek. You're in for a disappointment. As a non-genre writer, Heinlein doesn't stand up. He makes the SF go smoothly, and he had good ideas (waldos being the famous one), but it's potboilers all the way, and then there's the philosophy. Heinlein was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, which is not a compliment (at least from me). In addition, he had physical problems off and on, much worse later, and he used his fiction to fantasize. I spent a couple of years in a group (which still exists) that called itself The Church of All Worlds, from the book. I still remember how heartbreaking it was to argue down Tim Zell, the founder of the group, until he had to admit that the old man Jubal Harshaw, and not Michael Valentine Smith, is meant to be the hero of Stranger because he's a stand-in for Heinlein himself. If you want to try Heinlein, I suggest one of the children's books, other than the propaganda ones, like Starship Trooper. Star Beast, for example, is a very very good children's book. Heinlein, in general, is a first rate children's book writer and a first rate SF thinker, but not a first rate SF writer.

If you really want to try to find out whether you like better-written SF, I suggest Theodore Sturgeon first. For one thing, he has the credentials. In 1969 (if I remember the year right), the Hugo committee (which votes the Hugo awards for best SF every year) decided to vote not just on the best stories of the year, but for the best SF story of all time (up to 1969). Sturgeon's More Than Human won. A very few years ago, after Sturgeon died, an editor got the rights to everything he ever wrote in SF and put together a series of hardbacks. You can still find them on Amazon, for decent prices (except for volume 8 for some reason). Pick one up. It's going to have more material for the money than what you'll find in bookstores for the price, and, well, he's got the creds. If you don't think Sturgeon can write, you probably just don't like SF any more. If you think he can write, but you don't like the style, try L. Sprague de Camp. He writes humor and history SF, and he's got a clean crisp style that is nothing like Sturgeon's. You ought to like at least one of the two, or Ursula K. Le Guin as a third choice.

I skipped Ray Bradbury because he's been taught as a literature author, rather than a SF writer, for decades. The people I've mentioned will stand up to grad school analysis just as well as Bradbury. - Brock (And if you want to actually, you know, read about Tex and UZR, look at Walt Davis' coment above. My SF button just got punched, or I would never have posted up this much OT.)

Asimov's stories are more thought experiment-in-the-form-of-a-story than attempts at great or even believable writing (at least I hope they are, though I like him a lot). The scenarios are believable, but not necessarily the characters, because if they acted in believable ways, it would be too hard to figure out what was going on. But the Robot novels are more naturalistic/believable in that sense than either the robot stories or the Foundation series.

[Severe disclaimer: (a) I haven't read any of the stuff for years, and (b) since I study operas and stuff and have to stay kind of sane, I'm not exactly a stickler for naturalistic characterization . . .]

As noted above, -3.6 runs is about 5 fewer plays than average over 156 games played -- 1 "missed" play per month.

So, I looked at the UZR numbers, and I noticed that Teixeira's expected outs in 2009 were down on 2008. And I wondered if there is an opportunity effect in UZR that would have an impact on the UZR number. In other words, if you have fewer expected outs, can you consequently add less value even if you make all the expected outs? Does the reduction in opportunities also explain some of Teixeira's loss of UZR runs?

Frankly, I still prefer a straighforward RZR percentage over UZR. I find it more intuitive.

I think it still doesn't include receiving throws

Is this true? If so, it would seem UZR is worthless for 1B.

Is this true? If so, it would seem UZR is worthless for 1B.

Pretty much, yeah. I don't think it has foul pop-ups either.

I would tend to believe eyes/scouting over UZR for 1B.

If you're looking for SF done by someone who can actually write, I can't recommend Roger Zelazny strongly enough, particularly his short story collections. I'd start with The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth or Unicorn Variations, since I believe both contain award winning stories.

If you must start with a novel, I'd recommend Lord of Light.

I've yet to hear from a single Yankee fan, or New York broadcaster or media member, who complained about Teixeira's fielding.

Perhaps the Giambi experience dulled the collective senses of those observing the Yankees, but in 2009 Teixeira seemed as good as anyone in the league to me. On the larger point, UZR isn't likely to win greater support until it becomes more transparent. Would folks have much confidence in determinations of hit & errors by official scorers if those decisions weren't available until the end of the season? Until UZR's zone assignments are readily reviewable in real-time (or close to it), neither critics nor proponents can be very confident of their positions.

I recall Harlan Ellison's comment to the effect that it was time to stop settling for good writing for the genre. That the standard should be good writing, period.

I originally read this as it being time to stop settling for good writing -- that the standard should be good ideas. Ellison's thought is much more banal. As is his writing.

You can dismiss Asimov as being an idea man, but they're fantastic ideas.

If you really want to try to find out whether you like better-written SF, I suggest Theodore Sturgeon first. For one thing, he has the credentials. In 1969 (if I remember the year right), the Hugo committee (which votes the Hugo awards for best SF every year) decided to vote not just on the best stories of the year, but for the best SF story of all time (up to 1969). Sturgeon's More Than Human won.

As far as I can tell, there has been only one Hugo Award where works published across a large span of years competed against each other. That was in 1966 when The Foundation Trilogy won for Best Series.

More Than Human was nominated for a Retro Hugo in 2004 for 1954. Retro Hugos can be awarded 50 years or more after they would eligible, and if no Hugos were awarded that year. More Than Human lost to Farenheit 451.

The committee that determines special additional awards consists of the host committee for that year's Worldcon. The Hugo voters are both the attending and supporting members of that year's Worldcon. A supporting member pays a lower membership fee and can vote.

I'm not arguing the greatness of More Than Human. Just nit-picking your details.

Following up on the fantastic ideas concept, I remember how much it made my brain buzz just to read the back cover of Foundation at age 10. Scientist plots future of Galactic Empire with Math! (Paul Krugman attributes his career in economics to the same buzz.)

It might be fun to make a list of the top Brain Buzz Books of all time. I'll start:

1) Foundation -- Scientist plots future of Galactic Empire with math!
2) Ender's Game -- I don't have a good tag, but I remember getting the same buzz.
3) The Boys from Brazil -- They cloned Hitler!

Perhaps the Giambi experience dulled the collective senses of those observing the Yankees, but in 2009 Teixeira seemed as good as anyone in the league to me.

Concur. But, I'm not sure how much of our impressions are shaped by receiving throws/making throws/foul pop-ups which UZR doesn't capture.

UZR could be correct that he has basically average range on grounders/LDs, but Teixeira could still be a fantastic 1B, based on the other factors.

My current favorite brain buzz is from Hyperion by Dan Simmons. There's a teleport technology were wealthy people literally have rooms of their home on different planets. So every room can have windows with spectacular views.

If so, it would seem UZR is worthless for 1B

That makes as much sense as, "Linear weights doesn't include baserunning or ground into double plays so it's worthless."

It's a potential source of error to be sure, but in general the plays not made wouldn't count against the first baseman but rather the other infielders.

I know a number of people have looked into the whole issue of receiving throws and have found the effect to be generally minor. As with many other things it's probably only true at the major league level. The guys who really can't catch tend to get weeded out (and yes I'm aware of Stuart, Throneberry etc. Hence the tend to)

When I looked at the issue I looked at error rates on teams that changed 1B while keeping the other infielders. Didn't find anything interesting but that's not a surprise. This particular method would only find large effects.

Perhaps the Giambi experience dulled the collective senses of those observing the Yankees, but in 2009 Teixeira seemed as good as anyone in the league to me. On the larger point, UZR isn't likely to win greater support until it becomes more transparent. Would folks have much confidence in determinations of hit & errors by official scorers if those decisions weren't available until the end of the season? Until UZR's zone assignments are readily reviewable in real-time (or close to it), neither critics nor proponents can be very confident of their positions.

Concur. But, I'm not sure how much of our impressions are shaped by receiving throws/making throws/foul pop-ups which UZR doesn't capture.

UZR could be correct that he has basically average range on grounders/LDs, but Teixeira could still be a fantastic 1B, based on the other factors.

This, and that.

#39 There's also the whole issue of confirmation bias.

I know a number of people have looked into the whole issue of receiving throws and have found the effect to be generally minor.

I thought it was in the range of +/- 5 runs? Which, if true, is not minor in the context of UZR.

Edit: found this piece by MGL http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/first-basemen-scoops/

Looks like it's +/- 2-3 runs.

I don't like Foundation much past the first few stories. The idea is most of what makes it good, so once you've gotten the idea, it's kind of boring. The 4th and 5th books that follow the trilogy are some of the worst novels I've ever read. Same thing with I, Robot, though I only really remember the first two stories. The Elijah Bailey novels (at least the 2nd and 3rd ones) are his best sci-fi stories.

I've never read L. Sprague de Camp, but he sounds interesting. What's a good place to start?

Mark Teixeira did not injure the 2009 Yankee defense, nor, through inaction, allowed the 2009 Yankee defense to come to harm.

You can dismiss Asimov as being an idea man, but they're fantastic ideas.

I agree with this totally. I don't read all genres the same and for me SF needs to get me thinking about the world described more than the characters described. There are exceptions but for the most part that is what I expect from SF.

Asimov's Laws of Robotics are still standard fare for SF writers precisely because they point out the logical impossibilities.

I also felt that the Foundation trilogy was the template for a lot of the space based SF through out the 60's and 70's. No one copied it in its entirety but seemed to focus on one of his ideas and expand on it.

That makes as much sense as, "Linear weights doesn't include baserunning or ground into double plays so it's worthless."

I think receiving throws is a relatively larger part of a 1B's overall defense than is baserunning or GIDP for a hitter's offense. Now whether the variation among 1Bs is big enough to matter, I don't know.

It's the same reason I don't like FIP for evaluating past performance -- you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or some other trite saying).

It's a potential source of error to be sure, but in general the plays not made wouldn't count against the first baseman but rather the other infielders.

Yes, but what about plays made that shouldn't have been?

I really loved Dune when I was about 15. Then I didn't read much Sci-Fi for 10+ years. Now I have been creeping back to the field, starting with the supposed classics, and have been disappointed with the quality of the writing. My neighbor has had exactly the same experience. I think we might tackle Stranger in a Strange Land together next.

I'd suggest going for some more recent classics, like Hyperion or possibly the works of Iain M Banks

Asimov's Laws of Robotics are still standard fare for SF writers precisely because they point out the logical impossibilities.

I loved in Alastair Reynold's Century Rain, a robot was described as being "Non-Asimon compliant".

Yes, but what about plays made that shouldn't have been?

They'll still show up as a play made by the other infielder.

Primey for #46.

#36 Banal? "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" made a heck of an impression on me when I first read it. And there's nothing banal about "The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World"

I LOVED Asimov when I was a kid. I read a huge chunk of his work between the ages of 12 and 15. (I won't say "all," because there probably aren't many people on the planet who have read everything he ever wrote.)

On a whim, I reread the foundation series a couple years ago, and was shocked by the poor quality of the writing. I guess I didn't really notice it when I was a kid, but the prose is really juvenile at times. But I agree with the comment that his ideas are good. The basic problem with Foundation (aside from the writing), is that there isn't enough to sustain a multivolume series. One book, or even a long short story, would haven been enough.

Asimov's Laws of Robotics are still standard fare for SF writers precisely because they point out the logical impossibilities.

I loved in Alastair Reynold's Century Rain, a robot was described as being "Non-Asimon compliant".

Cory Doctorow had a short story (novella?) called I Robot which deals with the absurdity of only one type of robot and only one company creating it that is interesting.

Dune was mentioned above and is my favorite science fiction book.

Don't read Asimov's novels from when he came back to fiction in the 80s, you'll be disappointed.

Heinlein has people who love his juveniles (pre Stranger in a Strange Land) and people who love is more modern books (post Stranger in a Strange Land) and the two shall never mix. I'm in the former camp (but I love The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress).

For some good recent science fiction, check out Alastair Reynolds, Charles Stross (but I don't like his Bob Howard books), Neil Gaiman, John Scalzi and of course Neal Stephenson. For older science fiction, you can't go wrong with Philip K Dick.

And a plug for my blog where I review science fiction books (and movies and TV shows).

Complaining that Asimov's characters are wooden is kind of like complaining that Mark Teixeira isn't much of a base-stealer. Sure, but that's not his game; as people have said, he was an idea guy. "Nightfall" remains for me a very memorable story because it explores so well the interconnections between science, faith, and the environment. It still makes interesting reading, if not great prose or character-study.

Count me as one who loves both Heinlein's juveniles and his more mature works.
Heinlein does characters like nobody else, and he also draws a future that is messy, complicated and far more believable than most...
His juveniles depend on simple traditional plots that work well with his characters. His mature novels range from very little plot to absolutely none. What they have is a mature jaded wisdom that is hard to resist.

Asimov is all plot, and his characters have just enough life to carry the plot.

And if were recommending books for someone coming back to scifi I would start with Ender's Game and the Scalzi Books.

And if were recommending books for someone coming back to scifi I would start with Ender's Game and the Scalzi Books

If the person was geekish, I'd start with Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

I've mostly read Heinlein's newer stuff, and while I'm reading them I think they're pulpy, silly, preachy and author gratification. And yet, when I'm done, I've really enjoyed them. I've reread most of them a few times, and I still can't figure out how this works.

Except for Number of the Beast, that was just terrible.

Ender's Game is fantastic, and I love both the books that follow Ender in space and Bean on Earth.

mex,

re: Heinlein, it took me a while to realize that what brings you back is the feeling that you are hanging with an eccentric uncle or grandfather, the stories are ridiculous but love hanging with the character.

Of his late novels the best is Friday, focuses on a single well drawn character and relatively simple story line...

Complaining that Asimov's characters are wooden is kind of like complaining that Mark Teixeira is wooden.

fixed

Ender's Game is fantastic, and I love both the books that follow Ender in space and Bean on Earth.

I hate the Bean books. Two sentences of action followed by 3 pages of Bean analyzing it so that us lesser being can think the way Bean does.

And if were recommending books for someone coming back to scifi I would start with Ender's Game and the Scalzi Books.

I might be the only person on the internet that thinks that John Scalzi is overrated crap. And he's a self-aggrandizing dick on his blog, also.

So, I looked at the UZR numbers, and I noticed that Teixeira's expected outs in 2009 were down on 2008. And I wondered if there is an opportunity effect in UZR that would have an impact on the UZR number.

In the original version of UZR, there was a measureable opportunity effect (although it was smaller than other comparable systems at the time). MGL addressed the issues in the revisions he's made since then, but I would not be at all surprised if there weren't still an opportunity effect. It's very hard to control for opportunity, especially since your defensive positioning depends to a large extent on where the balls are hit against your team and not on where they are hit against an average team.

-- MWE

I might be the only person on the internet that thinks that John Scalzi is overrated crap. And he's a self-aggrandizing dick on his blog, also.

His books are quick, fun reads. They're decent, but I do have a hard time seeing why he was nominated for any awards. His books simply aren't that good. If you want a recent book that is amazing (light years better than Scalzi), read Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl.

I'd much rather read Arthur Clarke than Asimov.

The Windup Girl is really good. Highly recommended. River of Gods was very good, but it kind of falls apart at the end IMO. Ditto most of Neal Stephenson's work. Jonathan Lethem's early scifi work is really good. Some of Joe Haldeman's work is very good. Some of it is terrible. Ditto Stephen Baxter.

He's not prolific, but one of the very best writers out there IMO is Ted Chiang.

Jonathan Lethem's early scifi work is really good

All of Jonathan Lethem's book are very good. It's just that the last 4 (or 5) aren't science fiction.

I think that Vernor Vinge has written two of the best ever SF novels, A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky, but wouldn't recommend him to someon who hasn't read much SF.

re: Heinlein, it took me a while to realize that what brings you back is the feeling that you are hanging with an eccentric uncle or grandfather, the stories are ridiculous but love hanging with the character.

Yep, an eccentric uncle into incest (e.g. Maureen with father and son from To Sail Beyond the Sunset) pedophilia (e.g. Ludmilla in Moon is a Harsh Mistress) spanking (e.g. Star in Glory Road) and toss in a little racism (Farnham's Freehold) or zenophobia (Sixth Column).

That being said, I like a lot of his stuff like the stories in Green Hills of Earth, and The Man Who Sold the Moon.

For more current stuff, I've been reading John Varley lately and enjoyed the first of the Red Thunder books, but wish he had stopped before writing the two sequels.

If you want an SF writer who can write, go for Samuel L. Delany.

If you want an SF writer who understands plot, generally stay the hell away from Samuel L. Delany.

I almost never give up on a book without finishing.

Stranger in a Strange Land is the exception to that rule. I found it impossibly bad, poorly written, terribly "plotted," smug and self-satisfied in all the ways that it irritated me, and philosophically bankrupt.

I love Asimov, despite the fact that he was never a great writer in a technical sense. It's almost refreshing. One book that hasn't been referenced here is The Gods Themselves which includes one embarrassingly bad section, but also contains perhaps the single best representation of a truly Alien existence I've ever read. He really conveys a different way of being, of thinking, of existing. Great stuff.

All of Jonathan Lethem's book are very good. It's just that the last 4 (or 5) aren't science fiction.

I wasn't commenting on his non-scifi work...just clarifying for those who might not be familiar with his early stuff.

If you want an SF writer who understands plot, generally stay the hell away from Samuel L. Delany.

I'm a Delany fan. Nova is pretty accessible.

I am forced to retract the item about Sturgeon winning a specialized "Best Sf Novel of All Time" Hugo award in 1969. I've "known" this forever - long before there was an internet to check things out with - but it appears to be an urban legend. I can't find any reference to it, including on the Hugo official site. Sorry for propagating it.

Comment #45 (JJ1986) asks where to start with L. Sprague de Camp. You can try almost anything - De Camp is a very consistent writer - although I'd recommend not starting with his Conan novels, because he doesn't write anything like Robert E. Howard. You can even try his collaborations. Those with his wife Catherine are more history-based, as the couple was interested in archaeology. The "Incomplete Enchanter (Harold Shea)" series with Fletcher Pratt are wonderful light fantasies. Wikipedia's Science Fiction section in their article on de Camp is a good list of the best stories. Hell. Try "Wheels of If" and "Gun for Dinosaur." They're probably the best.

In general, the authors listed in these comments are all at least pretty good, and most of them are real good. It would be hard to go wrong compiling a reading list from just this thread, which was supposed to be about Mark Texeira. - Brock

Last few sci fi books I read were Poul Anderson, which were pretty good. Tau Zero, I think. Before that was "Cities in Flight".

I LOVED Asimov when I was a kid. I read a huge chunk of his work between the ages of 12 and 15. (I won't say "all," because there probably aren't many people on the planet who have read everything he ever wrote.)

Me too. I am not much of a Science Fiction fan, but I really liked Asimov when I was young.

On a whim, I reread the foundation series a couple years ago, and was shocked by the poor quality of the writing. I guess I didn't really notice it when I was a kid, but the prose is really juvenile at times.

It has been years since I read anything he wrote, but this is probably true. One thing to keep in mind is that much of Asimov's most famous stuff (many of the Foundation and Robot stories) were written when he was very young (college undergraduate/just out of school).

I also recall reading him say that he got the idea for Foundation while studying the kinetic theory of gases. Basically, the idea was applying the principles of statistical mechanics to large groups of people. This and the laws of robotics were pretty clever ideas.

I think Asimov was probably a better non-fiction writer than he was as a fiction writer. He did a very nice job of explaining science to a general audience; he seemed particularly good at writing science for young kids. I had some of his books targeted at explaining scientific topics to children when I was little, and I liked them a lot.

If the person was geekish, I'd start with Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

+1

Snow Crash is a hell of a lot of mostly smart fun. A more accessible, less ethereal Neuromancer.

I'm enjoying Diamond Age thus far, too.

I might be the only person on the internet that thinks that John Scalzi is overrated crap. And he's a self-aggrandizing dick on his blog, also.

I'm coming around to the first opinion, and I definitely agree on the second.

It's hard to give up on a guy when you liked his debut novel. It's like deciding that your favorite prospect will never hit well enough to stay in the lineup.

James Blish, 'Cities in Flight' was fantastic - I had missed out on it in my teenage years, and tore through the 4 books last year. Great balance of philosophy, science, fantasy, and a bit of action too.

I finally got around to reading Ender's Game and it was pretty good though I'm hesitant to read the rest of the series since the rest seem to be nothing like the first book. I currently reading some Phillip K. Dick short stories and find them pretty good unfortunately the prices they are charging for new ones are pretty darn expensive. I'll have to get Andy to name some used book stores in the DC area again. I found one in old town but I've already picked through its limited selection of Sci-fi.

I think Asimov was probably a better non-fiction writer than he was as a fiction writer. He did a very nice job of explaining science to a general audience; he seemed particularly good at writing science for young kids. I had some of his books targeted at explaining scientific topics to children when I was little, and I liked them a lot.

His books explicating Shakespeare and the Bible not only do the job better than anyone else I've seen, they're also highly entertaining reads on their own.

Read the rest of the (original) Ender's series. They're not like the 1st book but they're good. I can't vouch for the re-imaginings.

If you like science in your science fiction, no one is better than Hal Clement. "Mission of Gravity" is a classic.