Well, my book - "
Evaluating Baseball's Managers, 1876-2008" - is now out. I've had a chance to read it and hear some feedback from others. Gratifying, it's been overwhelmingly positive stuff. Still, I noticed a few problems with it when I read it, and some others have been pointed out to me as well. Due to that, I'm going to list every error in the book I know about, right down to the ticky-tack ones that don't make any difference.
I should note, all errors - even ticky-tack ones bug me. I proofread each chapter seven times, and had them all looked over by four to six others. (Most of the names in my book's acknowledgments section are proofreaders). That said, this is unavoidable. The individual errors are avoidable (especially the more prominent ones), and the overall number of errors could've been lessened, but the sucker is around 190,000 words including appendixes and index. Thus I console myself with the thought nobody's perfect.
Anyhow, here are all the errors I've noticed so far (about two dozen and counting) -- from front to back of the book (oh, I should note, I'm typing all this from scratch - including the quotes. I'll likely have more errors here than in the book):
page vii: Well, that sure was stupid
You know how I said I proofread each chapter seven times? Well, the acknowledgments isn't a chapter, and it provided maybe the biggest howler of them all with this line:
If Phil [Birnbaum] explains the database in his own words in Appendix I . ..
Um . . . if? If? Did. He did provide an appendix explaining the Birnbaum Database. I wrote this before I received his explanation, and didn't fix my acknowledgments. Rats.
page 31: the continued that isn't a continue
On this page, a list of the managers best at coaching begins. The header says "continued." Well, no. The list is beginning, not being continud from a previous. Ticky-tack stuff, but still wrong.
page 55: Extra Syllable Theater presents . . .
One paragraph starts with the remark: "This above is nice, but this book is not entitled
Evaluating Baseball's Pitchers. Not sure why I said "entitled" when good old "titled" works so well.
page 63: damned if I know what that means
This page is the intro to Part II of the book: the commentary section on individual managers. I note that the discussion of each manager will begin with the same half-dozen points, such as win/loss record, teams managed, team characteristics, and rather mysteriously "Combinations of multiple inquiries."
Huh?
What the hell is that supposed to refer to? As a matter of fact, I have no idea. As best as I can figure, the team characteristics comments often contain info from separate sources, so maybe that's what I meant, but then it should've been part of the team characteristics note. This makes no sense.
page 91: Wanted: key qualifying remark
In Clark Griffith's section, I make the following claim: "In 1918, [Walter] Johnson completed all of his starts - something no pitcher had done in ten years."
True - provided we're only discussing pitchers who qualified for the ERA title. Damn shame that little tidbit got lost in the shuffle in that sentence. My hunch is that many readers will figure it out on their own, but it's botched a bit anyway.
page 93: 63 - 27 = 38?
Math folly on this page. I note that in Ned Hanlon's 16 full seasons as manager, his teams had a .527 first half winning record, and a .563 second half record, and then conclude that the overall difference is 38 points. Obviously, it's 36.
It's ticky-tack stuff, but still you normally expect good math in a sabermetric work, right?
page 151: word missing
Did I really go almost 60 pages without an error, or did I just not find the ones there from page 93 to 151? Probably the latter. At any rate, there's a word missing in the following sentence:
Failure marked [Burt] Shotton]s Philadelphia, and for a long time it looked like he would never be given another chance to manage.
I reckon "experience" would fit the bill there, as would several other words, but none are there right now.
page 162: Roger Craig only exists if I say he does
In discussing Walter Alston and the 1959 Dodgers, I make the following claim:
Leveraging starters helped Alston win the 1959 pennant. Don Drysdale, though not yet in his prime, was already the team's best pitcher, as he led the league in strikeouts.
Yeah, he did lead the league in Ks - but his ERA was 3.46, while Roger Craig had an incredibly low 2.06. Sure, Drysdale kills him in innings (270.7 to 152.7) but that's an amazing ERA Craig had.
What happened? I think I know. Looking at the ERA+s for
the 1959 Dodgers starting pitchers, here's what the numbers are if you ignore the first digit:
X29
X03
X04
X05
X06
Drysdale's the 29, at 129. The others are between 103 and 106 -- except Craig, at 205. I just lazily looked at the numbers and blew it. Simple as that.
I suppose the good news for me is that the error is tangential to a larger point I was making: that Alston shifted in how he used pitchers over his career (from leveraging, to four-man rotation, to some five-manning later on), but wow that's a dumb mistake. It's one of the bigger ones.
Page 167: Unneeded comma
This is really ticky-tack stuff. In the third full paragraph on the page, the second sentence begins: "Though, Durocher did not think Banks . . ."
The comma interrupts the flow of the sentence. I'm sure there are plenty of similar issues in the book, but this is one I caught.
Page 171: the numbers changed on me
Near the end of the Ralph Houk commentary, I make the following statement:
In nineteen years as a manager, Houk used pitchers on back-to-back days 307 times. In comparison, Nationals manager Manny Acta did it 226 times in 2007-08.
If you check, you WON'T find those numbers. Instead, you'll see the Nationals having over 300 such pitcher appearances in 2007-08. The Houk numbers in the book will also be lower.
Did I botch this one up? Not quite. I got the numbers right - but
Baseball-Reference changed them. I downloaded all team splits I could a few years ago, and my comments come from those numbers. Between then and now, however, B-ref changed them. My best guess is that they used to say how many different games featured a pitcher appearing on zero days rest, and now it focuses on the number of times a pitcher does that. Thus if more than one pitcher appear in the same game with zero days rest, the number shifts.
My hunch is that the change occurred when B-ref updated their site to look like the other Sports Reference sites. That's just a hunch, though.
page 178: the missing Wilfong
In my comments on Gene Mauch I note that based on some numbers I had, the two best teams at turning double plays were the 1979 Twins and 1985 Angels (both managed by Mauch). I then note the teams had "completely different middle infielders."
Not quite. They had different sets of starting infielders, but a reader brought to my attention that both teams had Rob Wilfong. He started at second for Minnesota and backed up Bobby Grich in California.
I don't know anything about him but presume he was great on the pivot.
page 191: overdoing Casey Stengel's influence
On my commentary on Casey Stengel, I noted if he thought a player was past his prime, he was willing to push the player out the door. This is hardly an original insight about Stengel, but Steve Goldman - who wrote a biography of Stengel - told me that some of my examples were off. Some of the guys the Yanks got rid off were guys Stengel personally wanted to keep, but was overruled. (Alas, I don't remember which guys Goldman said this applied to -- Tommy Byrne and Billy Martin are my best guesses.
The one doesn't bug me too much because my larger point still stands, but the goof should be noted.
page 198: production glitch
This is the most visible oddity in the book.
On this page in the Earl Weaver commentary, you see these two columns:
R/G RA/G
3.984 .15
4.413 .87
4.393 .89
4.613 .96
4.403 .68
4.873 .45
Here's what is should look like:
R/G RA/G
3.98 4.15
4.41 3.87
4.39 3.89
4.61 3.96
4.40 3.68
4.87 3.45
The numbers, if you're curious, are runs scored and allowed per game, by month (April to Sep/Oct) for every full season from 1973-82.
The good news is that right below this is a similar chart with the numbers adjusted for park and era, so it's cleaner - and without the production glitch. Thus even if you have trouble understanding this in the book, it'll become clear in a half-page.
Oh, and just so it doesn't sound like I'm throwing anyone under the bus by saying "production glitch" - I did review the entire book before it went to press. I just missed this one.
page 226: contact the grammar police
Here's a minor, but stupid, one: "Team owner Wayne Huzienga, upset that local taxpayers refused to grant him he a new stadium deal . . . "
Him he? Er, just him - thank you.
page 231: Al, Alvin - close enough
In a chart in the middle of the page, I refer to Alvin Dark as "Al Dark." Ah well.
page 232: I can call him Al, again
For the second straight page, I call Alvin Dark just "Al." Actually, at one point I called him that throughout the rough draft before realizing I had it wrong. Then I cleaned it up - but apparently missed these ones. Similarly, there might be a few Walt Alston comments instead of Walter Alston.
I've seen Jimmy Dykes referred to as both Jimmie and Jimmy by different sources. (No, I don't know which source referred him as what, and I'm too lazy to look it up just now). I went with Jimmy in the book. If that's wrong, that's a whole herd of mishaps needing fixing. According to the index, he appears about 30 times in the book.
Page 245, a fact being made out of date as I submitted the manuscript
In Chapter 9's intro essay, I note that "In the new millennium, only two baseball teams have hired ex-big leaguers as GMs: the White Sox with Kenny Williams, and the Orioles with both Mike Flanagan and Jim Beattie."
Yeah, well, the Phillies hired Ruben Amaro shortly before I wrote that. This doesn't bug me too much as the book's title says 1876-2008 and Amaro's rookie GM year was 2009. Besides, in the paragraph just before it I note that current hiring trends are notable, even if there are some occasional exceptions. (To be fair, I was talking of a different hiring trend - it's ncreasingly rare for former MLB managers to become GMs, but it's a related point).
page 271: forgot to use the right weasel words
In my Tony LaRussa commentary, I say:
LaRussa wants his plays to feel the same drive. If one lacks that passion, even if it is a star like Scott Rolen or J. D. Drew . . .
Some Cards fans have taken me to task for that one - with regard to Rolen at least. What I should've said was that "If LaRussa feels one lacks that passion, even if .. . "
I really don't know who was at fault in LaRussa's run-ins with Rolen (or other players for that matter). Hey - maybe Rolen was a lollygagger and LaRussa the big bad bully. That's the point, though: I don't know. As written, I'm taking sides, which isn't what I intended to do.
page 281: also could've been worded better
In the last paragraph of my Mike Scioscia commentary, I include the following sentence:
It [Scioscia's style of ball] is similar to Whitey Herzog's brand of baseball, without the stolen bases.
Hmmm . . . y'know, the Angels actually steal their share of bases. They run quite a bit, in fact. They don't steal nearly as much as Herzog's Runnin' Redbirds did, but saying "without the stolen bases" goes a bit beyond what I meant. There's a good point in there, but it comes out a bit garbled.
Concluding thoughts
Well, those are the errors I know about -- as of now. The good news for me is that none of these are huge. Even the bigger ones are garbled points (such as the Scioscia thing), errors on tangential points (like the disappearance of Roger Craig), or just stupidly funny (not fixing the acknowledgment to note Phil had in fact written an appendix).
I'm sure there are others, but it could've been a lot worse.
