All-Stars: All Star Baseball Book

The authors gathered the personal all-star teams of 280 big leaguers, chiefly Hall of Famers or members of one or more All-Star teams. Most of this was from direct interviewing. Views of players from the 1950s onward are represented more than those of earlier players, but the opinions of such old-timers as Ty Cobb, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Terry, and token umpire Jocko Conlan are presented. The authors point out that at least one player from every World Series from 1919 to 1983, unless there were no survivors, and from every All-Star Game before publication in 1986 is represented. Some players offered not hypothetical teams but some general opinions. These are published at the back of the book. The teams covered each position including both a right-handed and a left-handed starting pitcher, but no DH. Also requested were views on players deserving of Cooperstown (not elected at the time), toughest batter or pitcher, strongest team, and most underrated player. Finally, general comments were invited. There was a tendency among selectors to pick mostly or all players from their own league, but they often picked players from outside their league who were particularly good. Bias in favor of teammates sometimes is on display (the worst example: Mike Cuellar picked all Orioles), but there generally is good balance. This book is right on the mark because the game is played by players, not fans or writers. I would much rather hear the stars' choices of their all-star teams than those of any non-players, just as in Ken Burns' film "Baseball" I value the comments of people directly involved in the game more than those of the celebrities. Aside from horse sense, the opinions of the stars have more juice, or charisma, if you will. It is great to hear players mention their toughest batter or pitcher. Sometimes fans will think they know who it is, but the player will surprise you. Could the book have been more even-handed? Babe Ruth is not picked by as many as Willie Mays because fewer players polled played against Ruth, so the argument for perfect proportion comes up. Then again, why not canvass as many players as you can who are still alive? You get a better picture about which players were most highly regarded by peers of their era. Should people have been told to keep to their predominant leagues, if applicable, or not to, to make things consistent? But most players saw something of players in the other league, who could also be traded into their own. Still, would Frank Robinson's vote totals have been closer to Roberto Clemente's had he played in the same league for most of his career? There are always unanswered questions. All in all, this book is a great deal of fun for those who like baseball opinions and lists.