I didn't get a chance to read the book, but I'd say that no book could have the impact that Ball Four had for one simple reason--the media has changed.
Back then, the media protected the players' personal lives and kept scandals secret (and had to in order to get access). Now a days, the media is actively looking for the scandals. The odds of a book shocking us like Ball Four is unlikely b/c we would already know from ESPN or a newspaper or Sports Illustrated.
The best example of this, is of course, steriods. In the 1960s we probably wouldn't have heard about it until Canseco wrote his book (or maybe the grand jury testimony leak...but maybe it wouldn't have been leaked) but instead we get SI and ESPN telling us all about it. That's why Canseco's book, while still shocking in its details, isn't world shattering like Ball Four was. We already had the suspicions about steriod use, whereas back then it was a complete shock.

Baseball has certainly changed. The economics of the game has boosted player salaries, shifting personnel decisions. I think between the use of video technology and statistical analysis, Bouton wouldn't have faced the same answer over and over from the pitching coach.

And I think there could be a book even more shocking today: If a star came out as gay and detailed a season while in the closet. Just the rumors surrounding Piazaa the past few years shows how much anti-gay views persist in the game.

As far as whether baseball has changed since the book, some things have and some things have not. Obviously, major league salaries have skyrocketed since the first publication of "Ball Four", at the same time, prospects coming up in the farm leagues face a lot of the same uncertainty as far as making and staying up with the big club.

Even with the media changes (sensationalization and looking for scandals everywhere), professional baseball players (and other pro sports) enjoy, perhaps, more popularity than they did in the 70s. I think the popularity is due, in part, to media hype (the media is always trying to make every situation an "epic battle")and also to endorsement and marketing deals that the superstars are able to obtain. The catalyst for the changes in endorsement deals obviously was one Michael Jordan, and not Bouton's book, but certainly Bouton's breaking of the silence regarding contract negotiations spurred many changes.

I think one of the things that sets "Ball Four" apart from other baseball "autobiographies" was the daily journalling aspect of the book. Granted I have only read two baseball autobiographies (Kirby Puckett's and Sammy Sosa's - both were bought for my son) but the day-to-day happenings helped to keep it moving for me and increased the "tension". It was also an easy read, in that I could read one day's exploits in a few minutes. I think this unique perspective helped to keep this book almost as popular today as it was 30 years ago.

I forgot to answer the questions about shock value and whether my views of the game had changed.

My views of the game, and its players were changed when Kirby Puckett was arrested for sexual assault (long before I read the book). I was a HUGE Puckett fan and for a short while was very disillusioned by his arrest. It reminded me that we are ALL human, no matter how famous or talented.

As far as shock value goes, our media is always digging for something more sensationalized and more shocking on a daily basis. I have become numb to such things. About the only thing that has shocked me in the past ten years happened in September of 2001, and I am still shocked to this day by that.

Win Twins!

Baseball, I think, has changed the way many things in life have changed in that information about all aspects of lives of the people involved is much more readily available. We know about Santana's family. We know about Morneau's medical problems. We know that Balfour has a sore arm and the coaches are "barking" at him. We know that the coaches are trying to change Rivas' batting grip. That kind of information was unavailable back then.

In today's world of ever increasing outlets for news and information, it seems no piece of information is too trivial to report. I imagine that back then, besides helping cover up the foibles and flaws of the players there was a lot of prioritizing of what information they reported on. There just wasn't enough print space or airtime to cover it all between 3 major networks and one to two local papers.

As for the "immortal" aspect, I believe it's exactly what has been said before. It's "immortal" because it's a time capsule. A view of the goings on in particular place at one particular time. Further, it was one of the first looks into the daily life of a ballplayer. The first look behind previously closed doors.

As for my views of the game, no, no changes.

Clearly this topic just can't compete with naked batting practice.

Clearly, indeed.