If this is too much inside baseball, I apologize, but I am too devastated and outraged to write anything else at the moment. Major League Baseball, which can’t kill steroids, has killed the Red Book and the Green Book.
Baseball officials would say the books died of atrophy. No one was using them any more. But I used them, often on a daily basis. They sit on a shelf an arm’s length away from my desk. I can get them that quickly when I need information from them.
...Phyllis Merhige is senior vice president for club relations. “We asked the clubs, and they said we should do it online only,” she said. “Nobody wants them anymore. You’re the only person. I take that back. Marty Appel wanted one.”
...I don’t blame MLB for abolishing the books. I wish they hadn’t, but if they find that no one uses them, it’s just another unfortunate development of today’s coverage of baseball.
Younger writers, more attuned to the use of the Internet than their older colleagues, may not have a problem with the disappearance of the books. But in past years they didn’t have the Internet as an alternative reference site. They apparently just didn’t feel the need for any information the books provided.
That says more about them than it does about baseball’s decision.
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.
1. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The ShipOh, come on Murray. They've had the internet since Al Gore was a rookie.
???
That says more about them than it does about baseball’s decision.
I mean, am I being silly taking this on? I have my rites of spring, too- I read Baseball Prospectus, Sickels prospect book cover-to-cover. This year, I added The Hardball Times baseball preview. My rite of every day is, of course, Baseball-Reference.com.
But is the point seriously that younger writers aren't steeped in information?
As to Murray's point about the disappearance of the Red and Green books and how that relates to the two leagues, I'm pretty sure the difference in colors is a bit less vital to that process than interleague play.
And while I appreciate the unique history of the two leagues, if they wanted to ban the DH in the American League tomorrow, I'd be all about ending the distinction once and for all, since there's very little left in the league distinction at this point anyway.
This phrase drives me absolutely crazy. What the hell does it mean? It's a lazy way of making some kind of vague innuendo about, well, what exactly? If you have a problem with the decision, then just say it. Use of this phrase illuminates exactly nothing. It's a fart on a page (or screen).
Maybe my objection to this phrase says more about me than it does the phrase, but it just seems like vague, crappy writing to me. Boooooo!
I bet he could even take it down to Kinkos and have it spiral bound for under $20.
(Yes, cliched, but had to be said. How retarded is this column?)
From the article:
It seems like he could get the same stuff from the postseason book, the spring media guide, and last year's red and green books. Even if he really wants to avoid B-R at all costs, he's not really losing any information AFAICT.
There was that, and there were usually capsule bios of all the newcomers on the roster, and a fair amount of non-statistical info that was nice to have together in one place (not to mention the condom holder).
But like nearly all publications of this type, pretty much everything in there is now easily available to anyone with an internet connection. Just about the only statistical info that's still worthy of printed format are the minor league stats that were always found in the old Spalding, Reach, and Sporting News Guides, and are now found in the Baseball America version. AFAIK even today there is no internet database for most older minor league stats (and certainly not the many thousands of photos), which is why I'm glad that I hung onto all those old guides.
Well, you've got my vote.
Yes, it is a shame that books are going away, such as BPro, THT, Sickels, BA, BJ Gold Mine, and all the other baseball books that have stopped going to print.
That was my first thought as well. MLB doesn't publicize that info much, and the red and green books were the one place I knew I could find it.
My second thought was, what if the books were the source for Cot's? What then?
Not to mention the Macmillan. Can still find a quick fact faster grabbing my '96 edition of the Macmillan off the shelf than I can clicking thru bb-ref. And, no, I am not Murray Chass.
The may have been a minor source for Cot's, but it sounds like web surfing is the primary source. There was an article posted a while back about the guy who runs the site and his methods.
Am I the only one who mourns the passing of the distinctness of the AL and NL?
If he had said, "I find the Red & Green books easier to use than bb-ref," I would not have called him retarded. I like books, too, and I even own a bunch of Red & Green books myself. I still often print things out when I want to read them, rather than reading them on the screen.
It's the "What does this say about <strike>kids</strike>sportswriters today?" that I found retarded.
That said, I assumed for obvious reasons that they stopped publishing them sometime late in the last century or very early in the current one.
Get off my lawn seems about right.
(**) Which if memory serves was the primary source for Mitchell and Ness's modern remake of throwback unis.
OK, who won the 1999 AL batting championship? Took about 10 seconds on BB-ref to come up with Nomar. How's that '96 Big Mac doing?
Exactly.
Am I the only one who mourns the passing of the distinctness of the AL and NL?
Not at all. But my feeling is that the concept has been essentially eliminated anyway, why not get something useful out of a trade? I mourn the passing of Luis Castillo, too, but if the Mets could get a dependable right-handed bat for him...
EDIT: Might have been meant for the Maimed Van Buren thread.
I miss only one thing about it: the importance of winning a pennant. "The Giants win the LCS!" is not a particularly thrilling exclamation. And I think that in recent years the loser of the World Series has come to seem more and more like an also-ran and less like a champion in their own right. Interleague play is a major factor in that change; the expanded playoffs with Wild Card are a minor factor. YMMV. I actually like the three-round postseason; interleague play, meh.
I agree. Sometimes it's easier for me to find a phone number in the phonebook thaan I can online. But more importantly, I might be reading something about Hank Aaron and something about David Aardsma or Don Aase might catch my eye.
That's what you're here for...
With WestLaw or Lexis, you're much less likely to find something valuable by accident since it has no opportunity for open-ended browsing.
Sure, it's a sacrifice worth making 90% of the time, but every now and then...
Well, every now and then my sentences trail off, sucka'.
On a scale of 1 to Z, I give it a sigma.
This could be then next publicity stunt for baseball -- re-emphasizing the league differences. Do away with interleague play for a couple of years [my vote would for a permanent ed], go back to separate umpiring crews, league presidents, the whole nine yards.
After they milk it for all it's worth, they can reverse course again a few years after that.
That was the cool thing, I thought - tough to get a copy, and you had info the fans didn't.
But that's gone for good, mostly, which does not mean it's a bad thing.
But I wonder if that played into this screed at all....
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main