When the book first came out it was the first time you actually got a view of pro baseball. People were outraged and hated Bouton. I thought it was great and really cemented in my head that this was the game I wanted to play.
There was a really really terrible TV show that starred Bouton as . . .Bouton. He was terrible imitating himself.
There were two sequels. I scooped them both up. They had moments but nothing like the "Childe Harold" wonderment of the original.

And I think your spring training pictures have been incredible! Yow! I am so jealous.

I read it about a year ago, and it's surprising how much vitrol was heaved at Bouton for what is really a tame book. Much tamer than any excerpt of Jose Canseco's writing. Certainly nowhere near what ESPN put in the locker room of its "Playmakers" series.

Also, listening to the radio late Monday/early Tuesday, I learned March 8 is Jim Bouton's birthday. Is the book club's start on that day a coincidence or a well-crafted move?

I read Ball Four when I was about 13 and loved it. It was such a great look at the behind-the-scenes happenings in a big league ballclub. It seems tame now but it came out 35 years ago when we didn't know so many personal details about professional athletes.

A book similar to Bouton's that gets forgotten was The Long Season by Jim Brosnan, who actually wrote his book 10 years previous to Bouton. There was an interesting article on ESPN.com by Alan Schwarz about Brosnan's book being the first.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/schwarz_alan/1489415.html

I haven't quite finished the book (I'm on August 19), but I love it so far. It does such a good job of showing the players as actual people, which is something you don't always get. I don't think the book would be recieved negatively if it came out today, but I guess for the times, it wasn't normal. I can still see why the Yankees wouldn't want him at Oldtimer's Day with all the Yankees bashing that he throws in (and I love!). All in all, very solid book.

One thing I noticed was all the secret money talk. the first thing Jane does when we get our gameday at the dome is look to see how much each player is making. The book was a lot tamer than I was expecting. Maybe because of movies like bull durham or major league. For it's time though, it must have been startling.

I got this for Christmas and so had an unfair advantage relative to Batgirl's audience. I can see why Bouton was hated within baseball; they were trying (as always) to clean up their image. Attendance in the wide strike zone era had declined along with scoring. Bouton had the misfortune to have his book published during the middle of the disastrous Yankee teams of the mid-60's to mid-70's. Whatever one may say about the Yankees' dominance of the game, the presence -- or absence -- of their (frequently ill-mannered and gluttonous) fans are a bellwether for the game as a whole. (Of course, the Dodgers, whose fans aren't nearly so annoying :-), have a similar effect on overall attendance, and were undergoing a slump at about the same time.)

Bouton's book now reads like a blog, and a not especially well-written one at that; he matter-of-factly records what happens to him in the course of his playing for a hapless Seattle Pilots team that was about to be piloted to and renamed in Milwaukee. This wouldn't have been especially interesting except that major league baseball had its etiquette in those days, and he violated it from home plate to the centerfield fence by popping up and speaking the plain truth. Did players of his era, pitchers especially, take speed to keep on top of the hitters? Well, yes, and the indignation that posted foreshadowed the hypocrisy and unthinking condemnation of Barry Bonds and a whole host of others besides. Were they interested in girls? Oh, yes. Did they engage in hotel voyeurism? Yes, again. Did some of them drink, a lot? Certainly.

Well, all right. Show me as many itinerant Baptist preachers, and I will show you at least as many adulterers and users-of-illegal-substances. They have a saying in Saudi Arabia when going into the West: God does not see what one does there. The rest of the world is their Las Vegas. So with ballplayers and ballparks. The dirt, really, is that the marketing geniuses at some point decided the only people capable of enjoying a baseball game are teetotalers and old maids, and that this should provide an iron straitjacket to the mores of the players. But so long as they keep their seductions off the diamond, we need not know nor care about the private lives of ballplayers, save that it directly affects performance. The game is played between the lines, not outside it.

I find myself wondering who the Jim Boutons and Steve Hovleys are out there today: that is to say, the literate, thoughtful guys with a relatively liberal mindset. There must be a few in every era.

I really enjoyed reading the book also. I was not shocked at all by any of the content (players taking drugs/drinking a lot, chasing women, etc.) However, in the context of the early 70s, I can see that the establishment did not wish for this information to be public knowledge.

I enjoyed Jim's discussion about contract negotiations, and how his book was a catalyst for changes in how baseball contracts are negotiated. Up until free agency, owners really had a huge advantage in negotiating with players, and the unwritten and unspoken "don't tell the other players" rule gave the owners an unfair edge.

One question I had, was about "Charley". Bouton makes a reference to being fined if caught eating with "Charley" uncovered; Yogi Berra and Elston Howard were notorious for dragging "Charley" all over the cold cuts...is "Charley" a euphemism for , well, member?

Win Twins!

The thing I enjoyed most about the book was Bouton's total honesty about what was happening on and off the field--which included what he himself was thinking and saying. There were several incidents where he showed himself being a jerk, and honestly discussed how the other players responded to him. I was fascinated by the game where he pitched poorly, got taken out, and then wanted to keep pitching in the bullpen but no one would catch him so he throw a fit. I liked that he let us see both sides of him, and was completely willing to examine his own motivations. His trials trying to find catchers willing to catch his knuckleball were always interesting to me. That must be hard for any knuckleballer--Jim seemed very understanding about that most of the time.

It would be disconcerting to have someone in the clubhouse with a notebook obviously writing down anything that happens. I can see how that would make some people nervous and set him apart from other players. As I was reading, I wondered how Jacque and Torii--The Board--would respond to such a player in the Twins clubhouse.

It's not surprising to me that the book caused bad feelings, though I was surprised by the intensity of the bad feelings. This was the first time the fans had been exposed to such things as greenies, "beaver-shooting," and contract negotiations, all things that management wanted to keep under wraps. But even so, the ferocity of the response seems to me to be out of proportion.

As for "Charley," I also wondered about that and came to the same conclusion as talldrinkowater, but it sure doesn't make for a pretty mental image!

Forgot to add: Happy Birthday, Jim!

I didn't get very far in the book, but I thought it was fairly enjoyable as far as sports autobiographies go. The voice is good, reminiscent of Ring Lardner and Mark Harris heroes, and some of the stories are pretty funny. All that being said, I began to lose interest as it meandered this way that. It is, after all, a series of narrated and transcribed anecdotes, so it lacks narrative coherence.

Yes, TallDrink it is referring to that "member" - not something you want on your cold cuts and therefore the reason they "fined" you if you left it uncovered.

I loved the book - gave a nice look inside baseball at the time. I really enjoyed the nicknames (of players and of events,etc) and the honesty about his feelings. I thought he expressed well the almost helpless feeling players had about there day to day status and the fears they had about their futures. I think it would be brutal knowing that one small injury or a couple of bad days on the field could end your career. Like Jim says "One small hurt and it's all gone. Like a tiddly-wink champion with a hangnail."

I came away really like Jim, despite his flaws. The flawed people I don't care for are those that deny the existance or or hide their flaws. Bouton did none of that.

It seems to me that the media might have had a lot to do with the outrage about the book as well. Up to that point, they had been the secretkeepers for all the foibles of MLB players, and who doesn't like being on the inside of something as cool as professional baseball? When the book came out, all the secrets were out in the open, and it made everyone who had been complicit in ignoring the reality look like they had been covering up. Additionally, it was probably a lot harder to make the stories fit the facts after Ball Four.

For an interesting look at this same phenomenon, may I suggest Richard Cramer's biography of DiMaggio. It delves pretty deeply into the media's coverup of a man who could play baseball like few others, but was a real Charleyhead in the rest of his life.

As for Ball Four, it's an interesting look at day to day life in MLB, but when Bouton compared himself to Shakespeare when asked about Canseco's book, I laughed out loud. He's literate, but doesn't write particularly well. A good first choice for the BGBC.

I had a hard time getting into Ball Four because it is just so dated. For example, since I wasn't even born in the late 1960s, I don't really know what an average person's salary was then. But I did finish the book and I came away really admiring Jim Bouton -- I'm not sure he and I would be good buddies, but I admire that he knew who he was and could accept it, but also that he was willing to try to change himself (trying not to be so "weird", trying to fit in with the guys, etc.) to see if it worked and if it would make him happier. Also, I admire his entrepreneurial spirit.

Lots has changed in 30 years -- not just for ballplayers, but all "celebrities", from actors and athletes to senators and presidents. Their entire lives are now aired for our viewing pleasure. This would have been unthinkable 50 years ago, but now we know the most intimate details of anybody famous -- what they eat for lunch, where they go on vacation, who they're sleeping with. We the Public now expect to have access to this information.

I thought it was a pretty good book. It was certainly a quick read. I found myself liking Bouton, at the same time realizing that had I been on a team with him, I wouldn't have liked him much.

Let me clarify before a horde of angry Scandinavians descend on Chicago looking for blood. In no way did I mean to imply that Batgirl or any of the Batlings are literate but don't write particularly well. My boss came by, and I needed to finish up in a hurry and stopped thinking before I posted that. I meant that I enjoyed the book, despite Bouton's writing style, and I am enjoying the discussion. Apologies if that last post read poorly.

Geez, cubsfan36, I didn't realize your implication when I first read it, but now that you've brought it to light, that WAS extremely rude! ;);)

But seriously, you make a good point about the media and that Ball Four made them look like they were covering up the juicy stuff.

Two things (even though I haven't read the book, so feel free to get on my case for posting):

1) "Charleyhead" is my new favorite word; and

2) Let the record reflect that it was cubsfan36 who recommended "Richard Cramer's biography of DiMaggio." I had nothing to do with it.

Fingerpointingly yours,
YankeeFan

The best review of Jim Bouton's 'Ball Four' is probably Jim Baker's writings in Bill James' 'Historical Babseball Abstract'. Baker writes:

"I wonder if baseball historians a hundred years from now will appreciate the research possibilities of Jim Bouton's 'Ball Four'?................. Why is it a good research tool? First, because it was written in a unique context. Second, Bouton was the ideal person to do a diary because he was (a) a nonconformist, hence outside of what was happening, (b) a relief pitcher, hence sitting and watching most of the time, and (c) a very funny man, but also honest and insightful. Historians who dust off this book a hundred years from now will get an account of:
- The only season of a team called the Seattle Pilots. Wouldn't you love to read a first-person account of the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers?
- The nature of a mid-twentieth-century expansion team. The instability of the rosters, the human side of the constant changes in personnel.
- Personal recollections of a man who was a member of the latter end of the great Yankee dynasty, 1921-64, and was on the scene during the breakup of that dynasty. Accounts of what it was like to play with Mantle, Maris, Ford and Berra."

To IMsubversive's bullet list, I will add:

- A snapshot of life in the U.S. in the late 1960s. Sure, it's a ballplayer's life, which is a little surreal, but some of the stuff -- the ideological tension over the war, for example -- is pretty relevant to any tale of those times.

The reason the book made such a splash, in my opinion, is the Yankee connection.

Here was a former Yankee star, who blew out his arm, taking shots at the sacred Bronx Bombers. It's the late 60s, and another "institution" is under attack. It interesting to note that later editions of the book use a photo of Bouton in a Yankee uniform to sell it to a new generation of readers who can't get enough of all things Yankee.

I love the book.

Jim's buddy Fritz Peterson made more headlines in the famous "wife-swapping" incident of the early 1970s, which is another story in itself.

Dearest Batlings,

I went back on forth on Bouton while I was reading it. I thought I would certainly enjoy having him for dinner, but there were a couple of times when he revealed confidences of what seemed to be decent people where I thought, Dude, that was out of line. I was reminded very much of our Dougie Defense, in his loquacity, his humor, his bitterness, and his very need to expel everything he thinks verbally. Which then made me want Dougie to write a book.

Sincerely,
Batgirl

Good comparison Batgirl...he does, now that you mention it, remind me of our Dougie (yes, he's still OUR Dougie). That would be a great read if Doug put together a memoir - especially one detailing last season!

>>>>>It seems to me that the media might have had a lot to do with the outrage about the book as well. Up to that point, they had been the secretkeepers for all the foibles of MLB players, and who doesn't like being on the inside of something as cool as professional baseball? When the book came out, all the secrets were out in the open, and it made everyone who had been complicit in ignoring the reality look like they had been covering up.

I've read this book at least ten times over the years, but apparently not lately - I enjoyed this current reading just about as much as I did the others.

I was surprised to discover, however, that for the first time I found myself disliking Bouton. He struck me as more vain, selfish, and hypocritical than he ever had before.

(After considerable hesitation, I disclose that I was a live witness to that Pilot season, and that Bouton was my favorite Pilot - he was very friendly to the fans, he indeed juggled in the bullpen, and he just seemed to have more fun than the rest of the boys. His trade to Houston was almost as devastating as the loss of the team itself.)

Here's what bugged me about Bouton - he sold his knuckleball to the coaches on the grounds that he could pitch every day with it, yet he was forever complaining about not getting any starts. He leaves the impression that he hardly pitched at all, but he got into more than 70 games. He was second on the Pilots in appearances and sixth in innings pitched (in about six weeks short of a full season), but he had the highest ERA in the bullpen - what's he complaining about?

Bouton's also good at running down ballplayers as mindless jerks but he seems happiest when he's being a mindless jerk with them. So - which way do you want it, Bulldog?

Hard to tell how honest Bouton is on speed consumption, as well - while he fingers several players by name as greenieheads, he's pretty coy about his own use. In the June 10 entry, ex-Twin Mincher says that "most of the guys" on the Pilots used speed. I wonder whether Bouton's rough start vs. Minn on July 19 was aggravated by the adverse effects of a skinful of amphetamine on the delicate touch required to control the knuckleball.

Anyway, I still enjoyed the book. I'm not sure why Bouton annoyed me so much this time around - maybe because it's so hard to imagine Bouton as a constructive influence on a team like our current Twins.

Did "Ball Four" change my impression of boyhood hero Bouton when it came out? Loved him all the more. Damn near memorized the book. You know, 1969 was a strange year - it stood as sort of a breather between the watershed horrors of 1968 and the perhaps even nastier events of Cambodia, Kent State, and Watergate that lay just ahead. It was a time thick with disillusion, and the people were ready for a little candor. The timing of Bouton's book was approximately perfect.

Ah, sh----ck. Let's go pound some Bud.

I definately thought it was a fun book. A little difficult to read because of the writing style. As many have mentioned already there isn't a lot of new exciting information in the book for those of us reading it for the first time.

I thought Bouton was an intelligent person who,because of that, was definately an outsider in major league baseball. He almost came off as more of a hippy then a jock and just happened to be able to pitch a baseball. He came off as a person I'd love to sit down and just bs with.

I defineatly agree the media is what made the book so controversial. I read Bouton's follow up book that he wrote about the whole ordeal he went through. It defineately seemed like the baseball writers were mad that he was the one that brought it all out into the open rather then them. I think many adults were mad as it showed their heros not as gods but as flawed human beings. We idolize athletes all to often when they really are no different then us. In fact many of them break more of societies rules as shown in this book which, but their god like status allows them to live the way they do.

For those of us who have not read the subsequent books, could someone describe a bit of the reaction to BALL FOUR and what Bouton went through?

Since cubsfan and RonDavis made two of the points I exactly wanted to make on the media curtain and the "Moneyball" analogy, here are two more:

* For as tame as some of the revelations seem now, there is the "clubhouse code," akin to today's pithy slogan for Las Vegas: What happens there stays there. Canseco is taking flak on that point.

* The part I enjoyed the most was the sense of worry that came out: about whether a player would make the majors or get sent down; about a pitcher would have his "stuff"; the dread before a game, and even so how baseball moves affect the player's family.

Because I have tapioca pudding for brains, I forgot to order the book until the very last minute, so my copy came last night. Obviously, I'm not that far into the book.

My first impressions from what I've read is that Bouton's cocky confidence (in the salary negotiations) reminds me of J.D. Durbin. (I know there are fans of J.D. out there, but J.D. srikes me as a little too confident.)

I think the problem people had when Ball Four was published was that sometimes some people don't want to know the truth. Ignorance can be bliss; sometimes it doesn't hurt to believe your hero was better than he really was. It can inspire you to be better. (That being said, sometimes ignorance is not a bliss and we should know. I don't know which way Ball Four will go yet.)

But that's a preliminary opinion, mostly based on what I've read from reviews, etc., than actually reading the book, so I am not committing to anything here.

Just Beth

The Commish beat me to it: I think the reason the players hated it so much was the violation of the still-enforced rule that what happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse. Players and coaches today fine each other for violating the rule.

The most fascinating parts for me were the business side -- and trying to imagine today's players going in to ask for $50 for Gaterade.

Outside the main story: The version I checked out from the library had a multitude of epilogues, and I thought his analysis of his days as a TV sports reporter was pretty darn insightful.

While I enjoyed reading the book, I'm not sure whether I would put it on my list of favorite books. I liked that he revealed his frustrations and challenges along with his triumphs. I found that I really did feel for the guy. And there were some really funny moments.

But I didn't like him as a person. And I can't say why not. Probably because he seemed to be very selfish. For example, he played several tricks on his teammates, but when the tables were turned, he was angry.

I wouldn't want to go have a beer with him; he would dominate the conversation too much.

Yours,
k-bro

I loved the writing and hearing Bouton's perspective. Even though

I can understand why baseball players would hate the book, though. Reading it would make me feel like I was secretly recorded and then the tape was edited with Bouton's voiceover. The man was quite opionated. Does anyone know, did Joe Schultz - who Bouton stressed that he liked while trashing him as a manager - ever get another baseball job?

Click on my name or paste the URL below for an interesting radio interview about baseball writers with Murray Chass of the New York Times. It doesn't deal with Bouton/Moneyball/etc., but provides interesting fodder for how some baseball writers do their work bu focusing on the A-Rod/RedSox dust-up at the start of spring training that was little more than media-manufactured mayhem.

Book clubs are supposed to have tangents, right?

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_030405_preseason.html

I think I'd like the guy -- more than I'd like most baseball players, anyway. But now that some of you guys mention it, it is a little disturbing that he reveals some things that he seems to have flat-out promised never to tell anyone ("until now"). And if I were a player who'd had some beans spilled in that fashion, I'd be pretty ticked off too.

(I'm up to September now; my Multnomah County Library copy has the multiple epilogues as well, up through 2000, but I'm not there yet.)

I enjoyed Ball Four quite a bit. It belongs near the top of the list of the few baseball books I've read. The day-to-day journal style takes some getting used to for some I suppose, but I found it made it go faster for me. I didn't have to devote a lot of attention to trying to remember key plot points or how characters were developing. When I read it again some time I'll be more thorough and try to pick those things up, but for a casual read you can still get quite a bit out of it.

I liked Jim Bouton as portrayed in the book for the most part, even though I agree that he comes off a bit self-centered at times. However I would argue that's not an uncommon trait amongst pitchers.

In light of that, I think there's a certain amount of arrogance that can be helpful for a pitcher. Take Kyle Lohse (Please! *rimshot*) for example. He's been touted as having "great stuff" for years. Schilling wondered to the press last year how someone with such great pitches can do so poorly, and I would say it's because he lost the cockiness that let him go out and trust his curve and fastball. That's not saying that all pitchers who have the "me-first" mentality are good (or that it's necessary), but it helps for some. To bring this back to my original point, Bouton was self-centered because that's what made him competitive to begin with.

I did find that his efforts to fit in with his teammates to be more self-serving in the interest of writing his book rather than genuine interest in being "one of the guys". Given that, and the "what you see here, stays here" rule, I understand why MLB was upset about it. For years sports books were written to portray the stars as paragons of virtue. Nobody wanted to think of the heroic Mickey Mantle leading a bunch of players to the roof of a hotel for some peeping-tom action. I think Bowie Kuhn was concerned MLBs image was ruined and thought that people wouldn't want to see a game played by ordinary people, perhaps not fully realizing how great a game baseball is and that it would take something much bigger than a tell-all book to bring it down.

Another possible reason why MLB was upset with this book is because Bouton addressed the issue of racism in baseball. Not that it had never been addressed before, but it was actually written about in his book. When he was mentioning Tommy Davis he mentioned how no one ever took him out to dinner, but that maybe someday someone would. But when he went to Houston it was completely different. I like how Bouton mentioned about kids with confederate flags and he said "Why the hell couldn't they let that stuff die with their grandfather?" Simple, yet so true.
I really liked this book, but I am still forming an opinion of Bouton. Would I have a beer with him? Yeah, it would be fun for a night. (If I weren't only 20...) But I see the self-centered part of him come through in the book. He speaks of the things the other players did, but he doesn't often mention if he took part in these activities. He never mentions if he had marital infidelities.
As a few side notes:
1. Have they found a new name for "beaver-shooting"? It really is an awful phrase...unless us ladies can go "rooster hunting"
2. My favorite phrase is from May 26th, "puked up a panty girdle". Beautiful.
3. Second favorite phrase: "Hey, bussy, there's a dog pissing on your rear wheel"

I could go on...I took good notes!

I loved the book, and re-reading it, I was surprised at how little has changed with the off-field attitudes of the players. For all of the discussion about how money has changed the game, players are still taking amphetanmines (and more), still sleeping around on their wives and still sngry towards anyone who mention what goes on outside the clubhouse. To compare Canseco to Bouton is laughable but ForMorneau brings up a good point--Bouton is a reporter--he never discusses whether he partakes in the same things. I still like it, though.

Obviously, Bouton broke the "what happens here, stays here" rule of the clubhouse, but honestly, how many other players actually read the book? Or read ANY book, for that matter?

To me, what's most interesting -- and might have been the root cause of all the hoopla -- is how the book highlights the player/management relationship. When "Ball Four" was written, there was no free agency, no arbitration, nothing -- you got paid what management wanted to pay you. Forever. Either that, or you didn't play professional baseball. I think Bouton was one of the first to show the ridiculous nature of this when he discussed his contract "negotiations" with the Yankees. MLB front offices couldn't have been too happy to see that information in print, and they probably manipulated a lot of the negative press/player reactions we hear so much about.

I don't know if it's by accident or by design, but many of the seemingly unrelated stories/ incidents in the book can be seen as metaphors for the player-management conflict. So, in addition to content, I respect Mr. Bouton's form too. And generally I wasn't bothered by any specific disregard of his confidences -- the whole book is basically a disregard for baseball's confidences, particularly management's. The specific ones he notes just highlight the whole, in my opinion.

Here's something unexpected (to me, at least): if you visit http://jimbouton.com/, an audio file plays of Bouton being announced at a stadium, and it's pronounced "baw-ten" or "bouw-ten" -- here all along I was imagining "boo-to(n)," like the French for "button."

To those of you that think Bouton is too self-centered, and would make a poor teammate: "Ball Four" probably contributed significantly to the player's soon-to-be-won independence from the owners. Bouton might dish on you, but he'll fight for your rights too.

I'd also like to reiterate what Adam wrote:

"I find myself wondering who the Jim Boutons and Steve Hovleys are out there today: that is to say, the literate, thoughtful guys with a relatively liberal mindset. There must be a few in every era."

True -- where are the liberals in baseball? Or in sports? Or... anywhere? It seems like pro athletes have forgotten where they came from -- when even star players had to beg for modest pay in a too-short career, and then struggle without post-retirement benefits (pension, insurance, etc). All of this was made possible by the UNION and the progressive liberal ideology, representing the workers, not the owners. Now the players have become the owners, in a sense. Curt Schilling and company can't wait to vote Republican because they're just itching for that upper-class tax cut.

Sorry to get political, but I think it bears mentioning that ballplayers, and society in general, have really forgotten what it used to be like for us -- and more importantly, what is currently IS like for millions of people around the world. As such, that will probably be our global downfall.

Whew. In any case, good book. I like Bouton. I'll have to check out his other books -- any recommendations?

I also imagined it pronounced "boo-ton" or perhaps more like "boo-tawn." I guess I've never heard his name spoken before -- funny Joe Morgan doesn't talk about his old teammate during broadcasts!

cubsfan36 and YankeeFan

I also have a new favorite word in "Charleyhead".

The point was made that the media had as much to lose when this book was published, since they were part of the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" environment. The press could have really been lambasted over the book being published, since they were party to protecting MLBs image.

As far as Jim Bouton's arrogance goes, it takes a certain amount of arrogance to be a professional ball player (no matter what sport). I think the arrogance is mostly a defense mechanism, which protects players from being emotionally hurt (see Barry Bond's latest press conferences for examples - He is arrogant and on the offensive because he is vulnerable). I am not sure I could ever be close friends with Bouton, but I think he would be a riot to have at a party!

Win Twins!

Hey, y'all...long-time listener, first-time caller here.

I read -Ball Four- last summer...I try to read one new baseball book on my baseball trip every year. I'm glad I chose this one last year.

I agree with something a few of you have said--this is a document about American stresses of 1969. To me, one of the more memorable scenes is May 2nd, when Bouton and Gary Bell listen to speeches at Berkeley. He states that anyone who can be "concerned about getting Oakland Athletics out" when there are such problems "about Vietnam, poor people, black people" is "crazy." I wonder how many ballplayers, then and now, get that.

But what I remember almost as much is Bouton's portrayal of Sal Maglie as an incompetent idiot. He makes it look like the job of a pitching coach is to obstinately stick to a philosophy that isn't grounded in fact, then retroactively tell the pitcher what mistakes he made whether or not they fit that philosophy.

I'm wondering how many current pitchers would agree with that philosophy.

Thanks for the Jim Brosnan info. That'll be this year's book.

--TRP

>>Bouton might dish on you, but he'll fight for your rights too.

I disagree. Bouton was fighting for himself. The fact that it would also help others is a side benefit and a way to rationalize what he was doing.

If you want to read another book by him read "I'm Glad You Didn't Take it Seriously"...i think that's the name. It's his follow up book talking about people's reaction to ball four. First he talks about his new job as a sports anchor, then moves on to what he went through after Ball Four was released. Like meeting with the commisioner who wanted him to deny everything he wrote. He also talks about how he didn't feel he revealed anything specific about anybody that could cause them problems in life. Such as he never said who cheated on their wives or make a list of those who took greenies. He came off as feeling really sorry for anyone he may have made problems for. He pointed out how the wives of baseball players actually really liked the book and they all read it. In some cases it made the marriages better as they talked about more stuff. He seemed suprised at how secretive players were to their wives about what went on when on the road. It was a good book that had his reaction on all the controversy fresh as it happened.

mmmarkiep: "Bouton was fighting for himself. The fact that it would also help others is a side benefit and a way to rationalize what he was doing."

I think Bouton would have made an outstanding player representative -- he seemed to articulate the struggle that ALL ballplayers had with management at the time.

When I said Bouton would dish on you, but fight for you too, I expected to be called out for comparing two different things. I'll admit, Bouton's specific "dishing" of player confidences in the book is a little discourteous, and it shouldn't matter that he would fight for those same guys as player rep.