Grizzled old-man baseball stories

Somehow I got myself on some list of people who might review sports books. I don’t know how that happened, since I’ve never reviewed a book, but it’s wonderful. Now people send me books all the time, for free.

Anyway, I’ve been meaning for a while to hold up my end of the bargain, since I usually do read the books and I often very much enjoy them.

One such book is Leo Durocher’s autobiography, Nice Guys Finish Last, written with Ed Linn and recently re-released by University of Chicago Press.

I’m about to liberally excerpt from this book and I have no idea if that’s legal, so here’s my attempt at making good with the ol’ University of Chicago Press: Buy this book.

Seriously, it’s awesome. I’m only halfway through, but it’s the best baseball book I’ve read in a long time. It’s an amazing collection of grizzled old-man baseball stories, including tales of Babe Ruth, Dizzy Dean and Jackie Robinson, plus long-forgotten but inarguably hilarious drunks like Van Lingle Mungo and Boots Poffenberger. Those are both real people. Baseball players in the 1930s had far more ridiculous names than they do now.

Take that, Milton Bradley. Come back when you’re Boots Poffenberger.

It’s also fascinating to read the book now and consider what such an old-timey baseball guy would say about the issues we wrestle with today. He says, for instance:

When you’re playing for money, winning is the only thing that matters. Show me a good loser in professional sports, and I’ll show you an idiot. Show me a sportsman, and I’ll show you a player I’m looking to trade to Oakland.

Later, he adds, “Win any way you can as long as you can get away with it.”

So I wonder where he’d stand on the whole steroids thing.

He also demonstrates a sharp take on several of the issues I frequently grapple with here. He says, pretty explicitly, that talent is the only thing that separates a guy labeled a fun-loving buffoon that loosens up the clubhouse and a guy labeled a drunk.

But the book’s best parts, easily, are when Durocher details aspects of the games themselves. The guy managed for parts of 26 seasons, so I guess that makes sense; he probably knows his way around a game. And he sort of wraps his life story around baseball lessons, which I guess also makes sense, since his life story is sort of a giant series of baseball lessons.

It’s well-written, too. I don’t know if that credit should go to Durocher or Linn, but it makes for an enjoyable read.

Anyway, here’s an excerpt I transcribed, from his chapter about second-guessing himself while managing the Dodgers in Game 4 of the 1941 World Series. His best relief pitcher, Hugh Casey, had recently endured a series of bizarre meltdowns — some his fault, some otherwise — but threw four innings of shutout ball after taking the mound in the top of the fifth.

With the Dodgers leading 4-3, Casey retired the first two batters in the ninth, but the third, Tommy Henrich, reached base when catcher Mickey Owen dropped the third strike. Next, Joe DiMaggio singled, bringing up lefty-hitting Charlie Keller, and prompting Durocher to consider pulling Casey:

Given everything that had been happening, the situation screamed for me to replace Casey with French. I did nothing. I froze. Casey slowed himself down, made two good pitches, and once again we were only one strike away. And now I had a thought of going out to remind him to brush Keller back with the next pitch. Maybe even the next two pitches. Not because I thought he needed to be reminded but only, again, to slow him down. Just as quickly as I thought about it I dismissed it. With Casey seeming to have settled down so nicely, I told myself, what was to be gained by going out and getting everybody jumpy? Defensive, timid thinking, it will kill you every time. Instead of going out, I did what I normally did. I whistled sharply to get his attention and drew my hand across my chest.

Hugh wound up and threw the ball right down the middle, the kind of pitch that Keller saw about once a year. His eyes opened wide as watermelons, his bat came jumping forward and the ball ended up high against the right-field wall. Suddenly, we were a run behind. Right there was where we lost the ball game.

I don’t know whether Casey had grown mentally weary from the long, pressure-packed season or whether there was a latent instability in him that had been brought to the fore. Or whether he simply made a couple of very bad pitches at a very bad time. Except for that one stretch, he always seemed at least as stable as the average player, and I know that he had all the guts in the world.

The only thing I can tell you about Hugh Casey is that a dozen years later he committed suicide. Stuck a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

I love that even as Casey’s manager, Durocher couldn’t venture a guess as to whether it was some psychological meltdown or just a bad pitch.

The note about Casey’s suicide took the wind out of me, so I included it here. But looking at Casey’s baseball-reference page, I notice that he missed the 1943-1945 seasons. I’m no detective, but I’m going to guess what he was doing then provoked a whole lot more psychological trauma than anything that happened to him on the baseball field.

And I should point out that, while Durocher wonders if he should have brought in lefty Larry French in the spot, he didn’t actually have French to bring in. French pitched a third of an inning in the fourth. The memory is a funny thing.

Regardless, it’s an awesome book. Read it.

Albert Pujols turns 30

Today is Albert Pujols’ 30th birthday.

Before his 30th birthday, Albert Pujols hit 366 Major League home runs. In his twenties, he posted a .334 batting average with a .427 on-base percentage and a .628 slugging. His 1.055 OPS is fourth all-time, behind Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig.

Albert Pujols’ Wikipedia page, as I’ve written before, reads like a list of Chuck Norris facts. In his first college game, Albert Pujols hit a grand slam and turned an unassisted triple play.

So happy birthday, Mr. El Hombre. I’m told 30 is a particularly rough one — I’ll find out myself in a year and six days — and I recommend taking it out on opposing pitchers. For now, enjoy a birthday meal of some shrimp tacos or pork chops and revel in your own awesomeness.

Performance-enhancing nihilism

I wrote everything I wanted to write about performance-enhancing drugs in July. Not many people read it then and I don’t imagine many will read it now.

But I wanted to get down a few thoughts about Mark McGwire and the summer of 1998 while the topic is fresh in everybody’s mind, and since that window is closing fast, here’s that:

I was 17 that summer and going into my senior year of high school. I had my own car for the first time. I taught music lessons to little kids for gas money, went to as many Mets games as I could, and spent a whole lot of nights sitting around with my buddies talking about Mark McGwire and watching the highlights of his home runs on SportsCenter.

For whatever reason, it seemed like everyone knew he was going to break the record from Opening Day. So there was an epic quality to every blast, a sense of grandeur. Some of that probably had to do with his sheer massiveness, of course, and all the flashbulbs popping and all that.

And it seemed like everyone knew he was on steroids, too. Just throwing that out there. At least me and my friends did, and I don’t know why some bunch of Long Island teenage goons would be privy to any inside information. We joked about it. Giant baseball players took steroids. We didn’t think it was a good thing or a bad thing, I guess, just a thing. But it certainly didn’t make all those home runs any less awesome.

And it doesn’t now, either. Not to me, at least.

Maybe no one else realized or something. Or maybe everyone did, and maybe some of the outpouring of sportswriter sanctimony these last few days has to do with a lingering sense of professional embarrassment over not have done more to stop it or expose it at the time.

I don’t know. And I don’t really care. If I’m not going to take any moral high ground against the baseball players who used the drugs, then I shouldn’t take it against anybody.

The truth is, that era — the so-called steroid era — was the time I came to understand and appreciate baseball in the thorough and passionate way I still do today, and that’s all wrapped up in home runs and McGwire and those conversations from the summer of 1998.

And I guess I just don’t like being told that my heroes are somehow less heroic than someone else’s heroes who came before. History’s box scores are littered with liars, cheaters, racists, addicts and drunks. The juicers of the last couple of decades merely add more bulk to the moral gray area the rest of us already occupied.

I never hoped McGwire was any sort of bastion of integrity. Heck, I can’t remember any of those conversations that summer having anything to do with his character. I guess I never even really wanted to know the terrifying truth, to paraphrase the Simpsons. I just wanted to see Mark McGwire smash some dingers.

And that he did. Many, many times that summer. Now some people are going to tell me they somehow don’t count, or his legacy is finally officially soiled, or his Hall of Fame chances are shot, and I’m stunned only by how little I care.

I don’t care. I don’t care, I don’t care, I don’t care. I vehemently don’t care. I thought maybe I did, but screw it. I have my memory, and I can still remember so many of those 70 home runs. And they were triumphant and awesome and spectacular and heroic. And also, some might say, impure. Whatever. I don’t care.

Interview: Elizabeth Wrigley-Field

Continuing a very Second City-themed day of TedQuarters content, I present the type of hard-hitting exclusive interview readers should probably not come to expect of this site.

I was recently included on an e-mail chain that also included someone with the curious name “Elizabeth Wrigley-Field.” I contacted Ms. Wrigley-Field and found she was not only willing to discuss her surname, but quite happy to, and so we did. And this is that:

TedQuarters: Did your parents realize how awesome it was that they were named Wrigley and Field when they met, and consider that their offspring might be named Wrigley-Field? I mean, am I right in assuming that’s how you came to be named Elizabeth Wrigley-Field?

Elizabeth Wrigley-Field: As it happens, my parents — who were also a bit slow on the uptake and didn’t notice the combination of their names until well into their courtship when a friend pointed it out — gave my prenatal self absolutely no credit for a future sense of humor.

They thought I’d be teased too much, and named me Elizabeth Field. I started going by Wrigley-Field when I was seven — partly for the joke, and partly because even at that age, it seemed strange to me that you get your dad’s name but not your mom’s.

We didn’t get around to legally changing it until I was in college, but I’ve been Elizabeth Wrigley-Field in how I introduce myself for the vast majority of my life by now.

TQ: Are you a Cubs fan? And if so, would you be one if your last name weren’t Wrigley-Field?

EWF: Well, I’m certainly a bigger fan of the Cubs than I am of any other team. Which is to say, I don’t follow them, but I root for them. How could I not?

Almost everyone finds their team through an accident of birth. Usually it’s just where they live; mine is just a little more obvious.

Really, though, I think of myself more as a fan of the stadium.

TQ: Have you been to the stadium?

EWF: No… which is so sad. Especially because my boyfriend lives in Chicago (and I’m in Madison, which is pretty close), so I’m there ALL THE TIME. I have no excuse.

When I was young I wrote to them. I guess I was kind of hoping for free tickets or something — at least my name on the scoreboard! But they were just going to interview me for their fan magazine (which a very nice guy at the Baseball Hall of Fame had arranged), and I never really got it together to get out there.

Then I started reading all about this kid, Wrigley Alexander Fields, who got to throw out the first pitch and everything. And at first I was like, “Who is this pipsqueak? His name isn’t even authentic! The stadium is not WRIGLEY FIELDS!” But then I reflected on how he has to go through life with the first name Wrigley, and I decided he deserves all the joy he can find.

TQ: Wait, I’m sorry. So you’ve really never been to Wrigley Field, even though your last name is Wrigley-Field and you’re only a couple hours away? What’re you waiting for? I mean, I’m not trying to make you feel bad about yourself, but for chrissakes, your last name is Wrigley-Field! I mean, frankly I think the place is a wee bit overrated, just because the crowd has been mostly shirtless and brotastic the times I’ve been there, but still.

EWF: I know… I know. I think it’s one of those things where it’s so built up in my mind that the experience can’t possibly live up to the hype. Plus, I’m lazy.

I did go to my first ever Cubs game at Shea Stadium some years back. (Perpetual Post editor Howard Megdal took me, and was kind enough to be happy for me that, miraculously, the Cubs pulled it together.) I ran around the stadium finding everyone I could wearing Cubs paraphernalia and introduced myself. I showed them my school ID so they knew I wasn’t making it up. I had a great time.

TQ: I don’t think it would ever happen, but if the Cubs took on a corporate sponsor, would you consider changing your name legally again? Like would you become Elizabeth Pepsi presents Wrigley-Field?

EWF: No, and I will be VERY MAD should that day come.

TQ: Moving on. I understand I’m not the first baseball writer to interview you about your name. How did you come into contact with Murray Chass?

EWF: I think it was after I wrote a letter to the New York Times. This was back before the 2000 election and the Times had run a profile piece on George W. Bush that mentioned that when he started dating Laura, he brought over not only his own, but all his friends’ laundry for her to do. I wrote them a letter about how lame this was, mostly so I could use the title “George W. Bush’s Dirty Laundry.” But they ditched the title and ran the letter.

Murray Chass saw that in his paper and got in touch with me. Then because of his story, Seth Swirsky heard of me and got in touch with me for one of his Baseball Letters books (I believe, in fact, that my letter is in the same book as W.’s… which is just weird). This was all while I was still in high school, and I had so much fun with it.

The Big Unique

You might have heard that Randy Johnson retired last night, giving me as good a reason as any to link up this guy. This might be the craziest thing that’s ever happened:

That moment has honestly been the subject of as many late-night debates amongst me and my friends as any in history.

One of my buddies is absolutely convinced it should serve as proof of the existence of some higher power because, as he points out:

A) How many times have you ever seen a bird fly between a pitcher and a batter during a pitch before, and so what could be the chances that the one time it does, the bird (briefly) occupies the exact same space as a baseball moving 100 miles per hour?

And B) What are the chances that if, should any pitcher hit a bird with his fastball, it’s going to be Randy Johnson, the guy with the reputation for throwing about as hard as anybody in baseball who just so happens to LOOK EXACTLY LIKE A SCARECROW, a device created to discourage birds from entering an area?

It’s as if Randy Johnson wanted to up his scarecrowing game to a whole new level and wanted to make an example of that one bird to make sure that no other bird ever dares come anywhere near a pitcher’s mound again. Because that one bird, ahh… it didn’t work out so well for that one bird.

Anyway, I’m not trying to hate on Johnson with the scarecrow stuff because I really did love watching the guy pitch, which is odd as I usually prefer smaller, puppetmaster type pitchers like Pedro, Santana and Maddux.

But how Johnson looked was a big part of what made him such a sight to behold, plus I always got the feeling it fueled his fastballs at least a little bit.

I’ve got no evidence, of course, but looking at that pockmarked face and that awkward body, I couldn’t help but assume every one of those heaters came with a little bit of extra mustard from so many lonely middle-school lunches.

And so I read stories like Jeff Pearlman’s, asserting that Johnson was a jerk who deserves to be treated as such, and I actually just feel bad for the guy. And I read anecdotes like this totally unconfirmed one in the Amazin’ Avenue comments section and I really hope they’re true, and that Johnson’s just some misunderstood metalhead with a heart of gold who’d help you out when you’re sick and is interested in photography, because that’d all jive a lot better with the sad former seventh-grader Randy Johnson I’ve created in my head. Although I guess that guy could grow up to bully reporters, too.

Anyway, his baseball legacy is as follows: one of the greatest pitchers of his generation, one of the greatest lefthanders ever, that really tall dude, anecdotal evidence that tall pitchers mature late, the guy who’ll be labeled “the last 300 game winner” until the next “last 300 game winner,” World Series hero to Diamondbacks fans, postseason goat to Yankees fans, and, of course, that guy who totally destroyed that bird that time.

Decade in preview

I had a great idea for a Decade in Review list. It was going to be: “The Decade’s 10 Dumbest Decade In Review Lists.”

I was going to put the list itself sixth or seventh, because I’m meta like that. But I ran out of steam about two deep, because I got really bored scouring the Internet for dumb decade-in-review lists, plus I don’t really begrudge people the right to wax nostalgic at the times when it is deemed socially appropriate.

I’m not immune either, of course. I did write this just the other day, after all. I just usually spend more time, for better or worse, speculating about the future than remembering the past.

And I’ve got to be honest, I thought things would be a lot cooler by now.

Seriously: This is 2010? The future sucks.

I distinctly remember reading in Ms. McKenna’s third-grade class, when it turned 1990, that by 2010 we’d have a colony on the Moon. No joke. I read that in some sort of science magazine they handed out to elementary school kids. Oh, and Back to the Future II sure made it seem like hovercars would be pretty well established by 2015.

Where are all the hovercars? Why am I still grounded in my dented 1999 sedan like some sort of chump or sucker? Answer me that.

Heck, the Jetsons were supposedly set in 2062, according to the Wikipedia. Are we 52 years away from living in that world?

Get on it, science.

I mean, look: I don’t want to sound like an ingrate. I have a phone that gives me access to every bit of information I could possibly conceive, plus thousands of songs, and it streams video of live baseball games. I suppose that’s OK.

But we still can’t even get to Mars! Mars! Not even outside our own damn solar system! Are you kidding me? As the great comedian Jake Johannsen has pointed out, we transmit signals to far reaches of the galaxy in hopes of making contact with intelligent life, and what are we going to say if they answer? “We can meet you on the Moon”?

So I expect big things out of the next 10 years. Big, big things. Awesome things. I don’t mean like, “oh, we’ve really made the Internet better and more universally accessible, and now we have Hybrid cars that could save the Earth, and we’ve made tremendous strides toward curing various diseases” things, I mean like, “robot dinosaurs we can fly.”

Here’s hoping for that. Enjoy whatever festivities you get up to or don’t get up to tonight, and good luck in the coming decade. Thanks for reading and Happy New Year.

Hypothetical question

Reading, via MetsBlog, Jon Heyman’s report that Carlos Zambrano is “eminently available” got me thinking, and not just about how it directly contradicts earlier reports.

For Zambrano to be traded, he’d have to waive his no-trade clause, and I wonder, if I was in his situation, if I’d want to.

On one hand, signing a contract with a club with a no-trade clause guarantees the right to play out the contract with that club. So it’s not like it should make him a bad guy to exercise that right. On the other, I can’t imagine it’d be that great a feeling to stick around an organization when you know it doesn’t want you.

I don’t know Zambrano, but judging by some of the things he’s said and done, it’s safe to say he’s, ahh, unique. He hates Gatorade dispensers, for one thing. And he’s vowed to retire after his current contract is up so he could spend more Mother’s Days with his family, which is nice.

The whole concept of “trading,” as has been well-documented, is weird. It’s not something that happens in most occupations. Of course, most occupations don’t come with five-year, $91.5 million contracts, so there’s a trade-off there.

But I’m pretty sure I’d be a little taken aback if one day some SNY bigwig came over to my little nook of the office and was just like, “hey Ted, bad news, man. We’re trading you to NESN for Eric Ortiz. Now pack up your stuff and uproot your family.”

And if that same bigwig said, “of course, you have the option of staying here, but, you know, we’d really like to get rid of you and we’d much rather have Ortiz, but if it’s so important to you that you stay in your home in the city you love, well, I guess that’s OK,” I honestly don’t know what I’d do.

Zambrano apparently owns a home in the Chicago area. He has had a bit of a rocky relationship with Cubbie fans, but he’s never played for any other team.

So would you stay at your job, knowing that your bosses and possibly your co-workers didn’t want you around anymore, provided that your only other option was moving to a whole other city somewhere in a different part of the country?

Hall of Fame robble robble robble

Apparently Hall of Fame ballots are due soon, so Hall of Fame voters are posting their ballots on Twitter and Hall of Fame voter naysayers are all up in arms over who the Hall of Fame voters voted for.

As area wiseass @samtpage put it: “@famoussportswriter your hall of fame ballot is wrong!”

Here’s my thing about the Hall of Fame: There’s a big group of guys who obviously deserve to be in, the Babe Ruths and Tom Seavers. There’s a bigger group of guys who obviously don’t deserve to be in, the Roger Cedenos and Andy Stankiewiczes. Then there’s another group of guys who might deserve to be in, and for every one you can pick out a better player who isn’t in or a worse player who is, and that’s where the debate lies.

I always kind of liked it that Jim Rice wasn’t a Hall of Famer because he always struck me as a perfect benchmark for offensive production not meriting Hall of Fame entry. If you’re a significantly better hitter than Jim Rice, you make the Hall of Fame. If you’re not, you don’t.

But I failed to consider the fear, of course.

Anyway, the most important thing is that it’s not really important at all, and the Hall of Fame is just a fun thing to talk about and a nice place to visit and not at all a good justification for any heated rhetoric. Normally it’s a debate I find fun and interesting, but this year, for whatever reason, it has grown tiresome. I suspect Twitter is partly responsible. It seems like Twitter makes everyone angry, or at least exposes everyone’s anger. Or maybe 140 characters just force everyone to seem rude.

Whatever it is, I’m finding it difficult to care too much about the Hall of Fame balloting. I’m more concerned with the general direction of the Hall, anyway. The way I see it, there’s about a 50/50 chance that in five years, the Hall of Fame is completely meaningless.

If Barry Bonds and his ilk are shunned from the Hall for a crime they were clearly allowed to commit, the Hall of Fame will be rendered a silly, whitewashed pageant. It will have no more value than the Gold Glove, something that might look nice on a plaque but will mean nothing to anyone who knows anything about baseball.

Start the movement

Rob Neyer passes along a list from Thomas Boswell proposing ways to speed up baseball games. One of them caught my eye:

Sorry about “God Bless America” at the seventh-inning stretch, but it needs to go. It was a fine idea after 9/11. But it has served its purpose. And it wastes two minutes.

I don’t know how much time it really wastes, especially since they don’t play it at every game, but I didn’t think it was that fine an idea after 9/11.

I’m not out to ever make this blog about politics, so forgive me if I tread a little close to the line here.

I get why parks started playing the song when they did. It was an emotional time, and one when everyone felt the need to do something — anything — to somehow pay homage to the horrifying things that had happened.

But the song itself always seemed like a strange choice. One of the big selling points on the ol’ U.S. of A. is freedom of religion, and “God Bless America,” coming on the heels of attacks closely tied to religious fundamentalism, felt like a reactive and potentially alienating choice.

Plus it’s just not that good of a song. “America the Beautiful” is like 100 times better, especially if it’s being performed by Ray Charles on video.

Also, I’m not sure there’s a more patriotic song than “Take Me Out to the Ballgame.”

And today, for better or worse, the playing of “God Bless America” at baseball games only serves to remind us of an awful thing that happened eight years ago, and to create situations like this one. If the pursuit of brevity forces its league-wide elimination, then so be it.