Talk:Ball Four

Untitled

A redirect for now, but really deserves an article: possibly the most important book ever written about professional baseball, and it has been through multiple revised editions. Its publication history is much too complicated to be folded into the article on Bouton. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:57, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Slanted comments?

Has the discussion become a bit slanted in edits of September 9, 2008? Specifically, are edits by 72.146.62.234 and 74.163.52.153 very much POV? --DAW0001 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that this entire article be deleted. There is so little that is not opinion on it and I erased the only link, which was broken. it seems that some person who hates bouton wrote most of this. his book opened many doors to the cleaning up of baseball and he is actually more respected now than anything. but this doesn't really matter because the article should be factual and as it is written now is completely opinion. there is enough written about it in the Bouton article that simply providing as link to a page more about the book would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.184.151 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the previous statement that this article be delated. The book is arguably more notable than Bouton himself. If it needs to be fixed, (or completely redone,) do that rather than deleting the article. 75.63.234.37 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

March 25, 2010: Whatever text was there before, today it seems more than fair and accurate concerning the text of the book and the subsequent results. It doesn't make sense to add in all of the stories and anecdotes, but the reader of this article gets the flavor and the tenor of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.168.22 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Check

I nominated this article for a POV check because parts of it sound like they were written by an angry fan or player. For instance, the article ends with, "One thing seems certain though, and that is that Bouton will be remembered. Not for his talent, his ability, or his determination, but for taking advantage of his situation and cashing in on what he'd learned in confidence." Although it is understandable that many people are still angry with Bouton, there are also many, including Micky Mantle and others Bouton wrote about, who are not angry with Bouton. The mainstream sports media, such as the coverage ESPN gave to Ball Four in Sports Century, has taken a much more sympathetic view of Bouton than the view of whoever edited this article. Therefore a neutral article should reflect the fact that people remain divided on the appropriateness of the disclosures Bouton made in Ball Four and not summarily condemn him for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redkern (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no familiarity with this guy Bouton or his book, but the whole article reads like the bitter rantings of someone who just discovered that his puppy was killed in the writing of the book. I added 'citation needed' comments pretty much everywhere. If nobody is going to fix it, it should just be deleted - in it's current state, this article doesn't seem worth having. 115.130.33.78 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC) jac

I reverted that, as it was just plain awful-looking to have that tagged on virtually every sentence, and replaced it with a banner at the top of the page. I am familiar with the book, and will hopefully have some time soon to devote to this article, which does need some help. Thanks for bringing attention to it, though. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know how to do a banner. cheers! 59.101.153.45 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC) jac

When the Old Guard (Roger Kahn*) Dies--I bet the negative comments stop

That ESPN Documentary: Ball Four provides a clue as to who might be defacing this page: Roger Kahn* (*or some surrogate). Some of the exact same things Kahn says are repeated here--as if a mantra. Note: ESPN did not think "Boys of Summer" important enough to do a similar documentary --that "Ball Four" would deserve a separate wiki entry from Bouton's Bio would piss off few people-- but is evidenced in that Bouton's Bio is untouched by such slander. This is selective, and critical only of Bouton's writing, insinuating (as Kahn did in the aforementioned documentary) that Bouton may not have even written the book (so who's got the jealousy problem?). There is so much hatred and out right lies that have been inserted that the ISP numbers from that poster should be recorded for possible action.

Suggested Corrections:

1. 1) (this is not defacement) But while one can say that Ball Four was one of the most important sports books---the New York Public Library calls Ball Four one of the most important "books" PERIOD.

(Source: New York Public Library: Books of the Century, 1997)

1. 2)Strike "no-holds barred" as "To read Ball Four today is to notice its discretion." All the sex stories are anonymous, as are the names of players that used anti-Semetic and racial slurs.(Source: Mark Kriegel NY Daily News July 1998)
2. 3)Strike- "no attempt to protect the innocent or guilty" (See above Kriegel source.)
3. 4)Strike-"(of which Bouton had a special knowledge)" uhhhh what does that even mean? I would like to see that "special knowledge" documented if it is to be used.
4. 5)"Beaver Shooting" is not properly defined. What the definition should say: Beaver shooting ranges from simply spotting an attractive woman in public--to the aforementioned spying on rooftops etc.

Granted, there are sources for the above (ie; the glossary in Home Games, page 13--and Ball Four, page 40). But it fails to take into consideration the alternate (more general) definitions provided on page 80 in Home Games, as well as the explanation of "shooting stingers," in Ball Four, page 200, which clearly does not involve anything surreptitious. With "Beaver Shooting" being as important as the Monroe Doctrine (joke), this is important to get right.

1. 6)Mantle's drinking not revealed for "good reason"? What good reason? Isn't it more likely that if Mantle were to have confronted his drinking problem earlier--that he might be alive today? Good reason my ass.
2. 7)Pete Rose apologized to Bouton for saying, "Fuck You, Shakespeare." Recognized Ball Four played a role in freeing the players and getting him a bigger paycheck. (Can't find the source--though I am sure it exists--Home Games mentioned Johnny Bench (the other player famous for yelling, "Fuck you, Shakespeare," to Bouton) on page 81--not Rose. An indication that Bouton felt no lingerering ill will toward Rose is evidenced in a NYTimes Op-Ed by Bouton, "How Baseball Grew A Gambler," Oct. 26, 1999.
3. 8)Strike- "best" from best sportswriters of that era. Matter of opinion--not fact. Plus, if those so-called "best" sportswriters had been doing their job to begin with, Ball Four would not have created anywhere near the buzz that it did. Maybe inserting "worst" would be more fitting. What is interesting is that the defacer decided to use the adjective "best" in this instance. Might it indicate whom the author is /was friends with? After all, Dick Young had a nasty hand in Seaver leaving town. You're just not going to find that many people willing to carry the Dick Young torch onto Wiki.(No source--but that should be obvious)
4. 9)Strike-the whole section--"jealous of more prominent players." This is conjecture. And it is unsupported by the facts: ie; How many players in their career ever make the All Star team or pitch in three World Series?
5. 10)Strike-"Needed to settle scores." Conjecture--but not just simple conjecture--this would require the writer to have a doctorate in Psychology, Bouton as one's patient, and Bouton's signature to talk about it--if true. So we can be very sure that this is a LIE.
6. 11)Strike-"Forgotten career on the mound" (see #9 above). The biggest proof that Bouton's career has NOT been forgotten is that the person who wrote this certainly remembers (albeit selectively).
7. 12)Strike-"need to settle scores." (see #10)What could possibly be the source for this?
8. 13)Strike-the whole bit about Mantle as "Target."

It contradicts the previous (true) sentence. Plus, since Mantle is only mentioned on about 5 of 500 pages (Ball Four has an index--though each update has additional mentions--but the index proves the claim to be a LIE).

1. 14)Strike- that competing sentence about Mantle's (and others--like Ford, Pepitone, not mentioned by name as penning "tell-alls") memoirs as being somehow different and protective of other's privacy --unless a source can be provided. As many of the stories are the SAME--it would be interesting to see documented proof that Mantle, Ford, Pepitone, et al; obtained permission from their fellow players. I bet it is just another of a series of lies--as I have just documented.

___________________________

1. 15) But the most amazing thing of all is that coda, which is what prompted someone to mark this article for review. It is almost word-for-word what Roger Kahn said in the ESPN documentary.

When you watch the clip with Kahn--watch his eyes as he speaks about Ball Four. He is consumed with rage. It is plain to see, as his face turns red, the veins on his neck bulge, and his eyes just about pop out of his head. NOBODY IS DOING A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT ANYTHING HE WROTE. _____________________________ Now, even if the poster isn't Kahn--they sure are using his talking points. But how, unless he/she cared so much to get a transcript of Kahn's bit--could they come so close to his exact words? And if the defacer were simply quoting Kahn--from this ESPN interview--why no citation? Without citation--the only way the comments avoid plagiarism is if Kahn, himself, is the author. Something to think about for the POV reviewer: This is not a player or a fan that is angry here--this is an angry WRITER. I'd bet the house that it is Roger Kahn. To hedge my bet:-to place--I bet on someone from the Vintage Baseball Association. There was an article that I tried to use as a SOURCE here: "Dubunking the Vintage Base Ball Federation," by Scott Sullivan on Associated Content--but I was banned by wiki from using the link as it has been blacklisted--and probably rightfully so. There are vicious lies about Bouton and misreprentations of what Bouton's league is claiming to be--and I wanted to use it as an example of what is going on here. The main source of the feud (even reported in the New York Times)Bouton's VBBF aims to capture the spirit and rules of an era, and the VBBA claims to have accuracy down to exact years. They are mad because Bouton wants to create a professional league. And they are mad that Bouton's VBBF uses a hodgepodge of rules from that era. That's it. That's why they are so bitter and have created all these web pages--whether a 3rd baseman can wear a flyswatter mitt or should have to play barehanded--stuff like that. I kid you not. (Google: "Jim Bouton" "Vintage") And here's the irony: the spokespeople for the VBBA league (criticizing Bouton's VBBF for being in-authentic) never mention that the VBBA plays with a synthetic, plastic ball--and settles the discrepancy between rules (when a "1860's team plays an "1870's" team) by playing half a game by one set of rules, half the game by the other (and if extra innings--they alternate inning by inning until the game is decided) that's authenticity for you....

One thing to be sure of--Bouton certainly made some enemies (he was on Nixon's enemies list too). However, they all seem to do Bouton the favor of exposing themselves to be liars in public. And such is the case now.

209.244.187.207 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Above unsigned post was submitted and edited by me, Big Orange. I thought I had signed it--and stand by all comments--copies of ESPN's SPORTS CENTURY are available and required watching for person making POV decision. Big Orange (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RECENT OBSERVATION RE: Kahn

Roger Kahn* (*or some surrogate) had been using Wiki pages for self promotion/advertising purposes. Now, I'm not arguing that Kahn doesn't deserve mention, and am not against having a seperate entry for "The Boys of Summer," but Kahn has an wiki entry for just about everything he ever wrote--what's up with that?

What a crock of shit is that? Everything but Kahn's Bio entry--and "The Boys of Summer," should be deleted pronto. You at wiki--and we readers--are being used for one man's personal and financial gain. Not very POV at all.

MORE RECENT OBSERVATION: The links were pulled from the Kahn site (maybe I was too quick to criticize) since I last logged in/ noticed. Maybe someone else took care of it on that page. He even had a link to his own dead son's wiki bio--a person not notable for being anything other than Kahn's deceased offspring. That it was finally caught...great. But what took so long? And when is the mess that has become the wiki "Ball Four" entry going to be cleaned up? Is Lawrence Ritter's, "The Glory of Their Times," being similarly defaced since I last visited?§