Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by socraticgadfly
The Cooperstown Casebook: Who's in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Who Should Be In, and Who Should Pack Their Plaques by Jay Jaffe
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
3.5
Graded within its genre of sports discussion books, not against books as a whole, for its rating.
Solid overall for explaining how basic analytic tools, rather than, by and large, old counting stats, should be a key part of determining who to put in the Hall of Fame. I would add a few to what Jaffe has; specifically, on pitching, a 110 ERA+ or better and a 1.25 WHIP or lower. I'd also like to have seen more, already then, on what latest analytics could be used to better measure relievers.
Within who's already in the Hall, by position, Jaffe divides into "elite," "rank and file," and "bottom of the barrel" — these last generally having been selected by one or another of the various versions of a Veterans Committee.
I also have a few nits to pick.
1. David Ortiz is at best a borderline HOFer and definitely not a first-ballot HOFer.
2. Todd Helton may be "JAWS approved" in Jaffe's world, but in a broader mix of sabermetrics (and counting stats, as 1B have low injury rates), he's not approved.
3. Why is Jackie Robinson only in his "rank and file" rather than elite among 2B? Adjust for the late start on his career and he's probably at 90 WAR. Jaffe doesn't discuss this, though he will discuss short careers elsewhere.
4. Roger Clemens is not possibly the best pitcher of all time, even if one totally ignores his PEDing. Walter Johnson is, and Jaffe doesn't discuss Johnson enough in the paragraph or two he has about Johnson.
5. Greenies may have been prevalent long ago. They probably did offer some boost to some players. Did they offer the same boost as PEDs, especially PEDs when dispensed in a rigorous sports-science manner like BALCO did? No.
I think it may have been over this last issue that I've thrown an occasional elbow with Jaffe on Twitter.
Solid overall for explaining how basic analytic tools, rather than, by and large, old counting stats, should be a key part of determining who to put in the Hall of Fame. I would add a few to what Jaffe has; specifically, on pitching, a 110 ERA+ or better and a 1.25 WHIP or lower. I'd also like to have seen more, already then, on what latest analytics could be used to better measure relievers.
Within who's already in the Hall, by position, Jaffe divides into "elite," "rank and file," and "bottom of the barrel" — these last generally having been selected by one or another of the various versions of a Veterans Committee.
I also have a few nits to pick.
1. David Ortiz is at best a borderline HOFer and definitely not a first-ballot HOFer.
2. Todd Helton may be "JAWS approved" in Jaffe's world, but in a broader mix of sabermetrics (and counting stats, as 1B have low injury rates), he's not approved.
3. Why is Jackie Robinson only in his "rank and file" rather than elite among 2B? Adjust for the late start on his career and he's probably at 90 WAR. Jaffe doesn't discuss this, though he will discuss short careers elsewhere.
4. Roger Clemens is not possibly the best pitcher of all time, even if one totally ignores his PEDing. Walter Johnson is, and Jaffe doesn't discuss Johnson enough in the paragraph or two he has about Johnson.
5. Greenies may have been prevalent long ago. They probably did offer some boost to some players. Did they offer the same boost as PEDs, especially PEDs when dispensed in a rigorous sports-science manner like BALCO did? No.
I think it may have been over this last issue that I've thrown an occasional elbow with Jaffe on Twitter.