Revisionist History

I continue to pursue possibilities for an updated version of 501 Baseball Books, now almost ten years old. After all, there have been many great baseball books since then and I need something to keep me occupied and out of mischief.

And it got me to thinking: I have written a few pieces over the past few months about clearing out my library. Deciding what to keep and what to discard is a time-consuming job. Do I keep the older titles simply because they are old, even though their data is obviously outdated? This applies especially to things like Total Baseball, which combined the usual statistical info with feature articles. These mammoth volumes were pretty pricey and went the way of all flesh as fans found on-line sources that provided constantly-updated numbers.So do I keep them because of the

The same “rule” can be applied to any book that was released annually such as the The ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia (ESPN Pro Baseball Encyclopedia); is it worth holding onto them for the sake of the few paragraphs that have been added to account for the previous season? I recently received a query from a 30-something fellow asking whether it was worth reading Bill James’ stuff. There’s obviously a big difference between the James of The Baseball Abstract days and his more recent work. Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I prefer the old material which was considered edgy and ahead of its time back in the 1980s. They were amusing and didn’t taking themselves too seriously.

The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract hit the stores in 1985 and a revised version (The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract) came out 16 years later. This is one of the few things for which I would gladly pay for a brand-new edition, assuming it would follow the style of earlier publications.

There are other titles that could stand updating IMO. Herewith, a few random thoughts:

• First off, a reiteration of my pet peeve about titles that include the word “Complete.” As long as baseball and stats keep piling up and players keeping coming along, “Complete” would be incorrect (unless your talking about a defunct team like the Brooklyn Dodgers or the Federal League). Maybe most complete? Nah, that doesn’t sound right.
• Books about stadiums need re-doing every so often. Ballpark: Baseball in the American City, by Paul Goldberger remains a favorite since I find it fascinating what goes into every aspect of the process, especially the communities in which the facilities are built. Whenever you read about the old Dodgers, there’s always a sense of what Ebbets Field meant to the community, both immediate (Flatbush) and burough-wide.
• Certain reference books require periodic recasting. Examples of this include The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, most recently in its third edition, as the language of the game continues to grow. Similarly The Cultural Encyclopedia of Baseball, 2d ed., by Jonathan Fraser Light (first published in 2005, revised in 2017) isn’t something that needs constant redoing, but once in a decade — after enough new information can be accumulated — would be beneficial.
• I wouldn’t mind seeing more frequent editions of things like The Complete Year-By-Year N.Y. Mets Fan’s Almanac, even if it means re-buying every few years. First released in 1992 by Duncan Bock and John Jordan, this fun paperback includes a season-by-season breakdown of the team’s accomplishments (or lack thereof), including key player capsules and statistics, as well as a glance at what was happening of historical and cultural importance in the “outside” world. But then there’s that pesky “Complete” in the title…
• Then there are the books that rate the game’s greatest players. How many of those do we need? Some, clearly, are better than others, but does it really matter if Mickey Mantle comes in fourth or seventh place (just making that up)? I recently saw a Facebook conversation in which one reader complained about the lack of a table of contents for Joe Posnanski’s award-winning The Baseball 100. In my Bookshelf Conversation with the author we discussed that decision and came to the conclusion that it was a good idea to omit a TOC: no spoiler alerts that might negatively influence sales from those who werent curious enough to dive in and learn why Posnanski made his choices.

As an offshoot — and possibly contradictory to the notion of revising– are biographies and accounts of historical events that would seem to have run their course. Another book about Mickey Mantle or the Black Sox Scandal? Granted new technologies allow access to material that might heretofore have been unavailable, but how much of that is necessary to warrant an additional title?

Any thoughts on what you’d like to see redone? Let’s hear it.