stoutfellow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
stoutfellow) wrote2004-09-02 11:03 am
stoutfellow) wrote2004-09-02 11:03 am
Blah
I woke up this morning with a sore throat, so I won't be going in to work today. (I'm not going to try to talk to a roomful of people for 80 minutes at a stretch, and then do it again - not on a sore throat.)
I'm currently reading Moneyball, a lightweight book on the use of statistics by baseball people today (focusing on Oakland GM Billy Beane), and rereading Asimov's The Gods Themselves. I'm struck by how pedestrian Asimov's prose tends to be; thinking about it, I can recall very little quotable dialogue, and not much more memorable narrative. He does seem to do endings well; I'm thinking of the last bits of "Nightfall", Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation in particular. (Most of my Asimov books are fairly early in his career; The Gods Themselves is the most recent, I think, and it's thirty or thirty-five years old. Perhaps he improved, but I doubt it.) His nonfiction is actually better written, I think; at least, I have very fond memories of reading his essay collections way back when.
I'm currently reading Moneyball, a lightweight book on the use of statistics by baseball people today (focusing on Oakland GM Billy Beane), and rereading Asimov's The Gods Themselves. I'm struck by how pedestrian Asimov's prose tends to be; thinking about it, I can recall very little quotable dialogue, and not much more memorable narrative. He does seem to do endings well; I'm thinking of the last bits of "Nightfall", Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation in particular. (Most of my Asimov books are fairly early in his career; The Gods Themselves is the most recent, I think, and it's thirty or thirty-five years old. Perhaps he improved, but I doubt it.) His nonfiction is actually better written, I think; at least, I have very fond memories of reading his essay collections way back when.
no subject
no subject
I loved Asimov when I was on a jag of his works, but it was over 30 years ago. Maybe I'd have a very different perspective on his writing as an adult.
Feel better, chum!
Baseball statistics
If you can find an old one, circa 1991, you'll might read James eviserating journalist/historian David Halberstam, known for his chronicles of VietNam. Halberstam also wrote a baseball book, _Summer of '49_. The problem is, Halberstam took the traditional journalistic approach: interview a few people, and compile the anecdotes.
James, in contrast, went back to the original score sheets, news paper articles, and weather reports of the day. Claims, for instance, that a coach "didn't like rookies" -- a main thesis of the Halberstam book -- are demolished by the actual USE of rookies, in particular rookie pitchers, at a rate comparable to or greater than any coach of the period.
It's the kind of thing that makes one suspicious of any such journalism/history.
James demonstrates conclusively that Halberstam was full of shit.
Lying, if you choose to be unkind about it.
Douglas Brinkley should have read Bill James to learn the importance of source documents...
Re: Baseball statistics
On another note: I do not like arguing about politics. You know this. You are also aware of the points on which you and I disagree. If I make another post on matters political, feel free to engage me; likewise, if I reply to one of your political posts. However, if you again attempt to turn a nonpolitical comment into a political discussion, I'm afraid you will push me in the direction of disliking you. I would regret that very greatly.