What do you think?
Rate this book
Clearing the Bases: The Greatest Baseball Debates of the Last Century
Who was better, Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays? Who was the best right-hander of the '60s, Bob Gibson or Juan Marichal? Who is the greatest starting pitcher of all time? At his peak, who was more valuable, Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams? If Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, and Roger Clemens had pitched at the same time against the same hitters, who would have won the most games? If Jackie Robinson had been white, would he be deserving of the Hall of Fame? Is Pete Rose overrated? Has Tim Raines been underrated? Who is the best hitter of the game today-- Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, Jr.? Is today's pitching really that bad? Why can't modern pitchers go nine innings? Which are more valuable-- good starters or good relievers? How important is the stolen base? What are the myths that still surround Babe Ruth? What was the most talented baseball team of the twentieth century? Which twentieth-century championship team has been most slighted by baseball historians? What has been the real impact of black and Latin talent on Major League Baseball? Is baseball more competitive now than it was one hundred years ago? Or fifty? Or twenty-five? Who was the greatest all-around player of the last century? Find the answers here.
Clearing the Bases is the first book to tackle these and many other of baseball's most intriguing questions, plus it offers hard, sensible answers-- answers based on exhaustive research and analysis. Sports journalist Allen Barra, whose weekly sports column, "By the Numbers," has earned him millions of readers in The Wall Street Journal and whose outspoken opinions on Salon.com are discussed regularly on National Public Radio, takes on baseball's toughest arguments. Using stats and methods he developed during his ongoing tenure at The Wall Street Journal , Barra takes you to the heart of baseball's ultimate question, Who's the Best?, in this, the ultimate baseball debate book. It is guaranteed to spark thousands of heated debates and to supply the fuel for thousands more. While including bits on Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams, among others, Barra even finds time to argue the case for great players from other sports such as Bart Starr in football and Wilt Chamberlain in basketball.
Regardless of what stand you take in these debates, you'll never think about baseball's greatest stars in the same way again.
Clearing the Bases is the first book to tackle these and many other of baseball's most intriguing questions, plus it offers hard, sensible answers-- answers based on exhaustive research and analysis. Sports journalist Allen Barra, whose weekly sports column, "By the Numbers," has earned him millions of readers in The Wall Street Journal and whose outspoken opinions on Salon.com are discussed regularly on National Public Radio, takes on baseball's toughest arguments. Using stats and methods he developed during his ongoing tenure at The Wall Street Journal , Barra takes you to the heart of baseball's ultimate question, Who's the Best?, in this, the ultimate baseball debate book. It is guaranteed to spark thousands of heated debates and to supply the fuel for thousands more. While including bits on Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams, among others, Barra even finds time to argue the case for great players from other sports such as Bart Starr in football and Wilt Chamberlain in basketball.
Regardless of what stand you take in these debates, you'll never think about baseball's greatest stars in the same way again.
- GenresBaseballSportsNonfiction
261 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 14, 2008
Baseball fans will love this, although you can get bogged down in the numbers.
June 19, 2026
My overall assessment is: Meh. This is a lively book that, by and large, lives up to its title. But it's somehow less interesting and thoughtful than it could be, should be. It's breezy and seems to lack depth, even though its entire point is to ask these timeless baseball questions with in-depth information that is often ignored by loudmouth pontificators.
Allen Barra's niche in the sports world has been that he's more knowledgeable than the average reader and takes them part-way down the path of true insiders, but without going so deep that his readers lose interest. He's the bridge between a true baseball historian or statistics guy and person who glances at the sports page or a feature column in the Wall St. Journal.
The problem with this approach is that it's not really filling a niche for anyone. For a person who really wants to chew over these matters, Barra doesn't bring enough to the table. For the person who's less interested, probably half of the names and debates are totally unfamiliar, and there isn't enough by Barra to bring them 'round to care.
There's nothing wrong with Barra's selection of topics. He takes the counter-argument on things like Babe Ruth obviously being the greatest ballplayer of all time (pre-Shohei!) by pointing out, as many others have, that Ruth didn't compete against Black players, nor those from Latin America. But he goes further by considering whether the game was already changing when Ruth hit his stride as a power hitter, or if Ruth himself forced the change to the game by showing the advantages of swinging for the fences. Barra doesn't make a convincing case that the game was evolving anyway.
He's got a chapter on whether Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio was a better hitter, noting that the park effects hurt DiMaggio far more than is typically understood. But then Barra blames DiMaggio for not adjusting his approach to hit better in Yankee Stadium than he did -- though (as Barra notes) he hit really well there anyway. At the same time, Barra observes that Williams was a better fielder than he's generally given credit for, though nobody would claim he was as good as Joltin' Joe. The point is that perceptions can be wrong in the sense that they were closer as hitters and fielders than most casual fans (and deep fans) realize.
He loves guys who were slightly underappreciated because their greatness came from stats other than batting average, homers and RBIs that dominated the discussion until Bill James and others publicized their discoveries in the 1980s and beyond. So Mike Schmidt repeatedly gets praised because he hit for power and also got a lot of walks, thus being on base far more often than guys who hit a lot of singles but didn't walk. Same thing with Yogi Berra, who not only player the hardest position on the field, but was a legitimately great hitter who struck out less than almost anyone in the game. Barra goes so far as to call Berra the greatest player of the 20th century, thanks to his central role on so many World Series champs.
Some of Barra's discussions resonate today because trends he was writing about in 2000 are even more evident today. At his time, the hue-and-cry was because pitchers rarely finished games and because 7 innings had become the general level of a good start. Well, now it's more like 5 or 6 innings, and the reasons Barra identifies are even more valid today. And sophisticated analysis has found other reasons, too.
So all of the above are compliments about the book. I just didn't love the style, especially the "I" word inserted a lot in places where it didn't need to be. I don't really care why Barra became interested in a particular player, team or era -- just give me the facts, sir. And I'm not sure why he tacked on a few football and basketball chapters at the end, which have even breezier analysis than the baseball ones. They feel like filler, like reprints of columns from magazines.
One more thing I didn't like is that Barra writes often about what someone "might have been thinking" or some other phrase. It could be about why a manager chose to use his pitchers in a certain way, or whatever. But most of this stuff is readily available through historical documentation. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of baseball articles and books that document all of this stuff. Given that Barra makes claims about reading endless books on these topics, he should be able to find a quote to back up his supposition. In other words, these don't have to be suppositions at all.
Allen Barra's niche in the sports world has been that he's more knowledgeable than the average reader and takes them part-way down the path of true insiders, but without going so deep that his readers lose interest. He's the bridge between a true baseball historian or statistics guy and person who glances at the sports page or a feature column in the Wall St. Journal.
The problem with this approach is that it's not really filling a niche for anyone. For a person who really wants to chew over these matters, Barra doesn't bring enough to the table. For the person who's less interested, probably half of the names and debates are totally unfamiliar, and there isn't enough by Barra to bring them 'round to care.
There's nothing wrong with Barra's selection of topics. He takes the counter-argument on things like Babe Ruth obviously being the greatest ballplayer of all time (pre-Shohei!) by pointing out, as many others have, that Ruth didn't compete against Black players, nor those from Latin America. But he goes further by considering whether the game was already changing when Ruth hit his stride as a power hitter, or if Ruth himself forced the change to the game by showing the advantages of swinging for the fences. Barra doesn't make a convincing case that the game was evolving anyway.
He's got a chapter on whether Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio was a better hitter, noting that the park effects hurt DiMaggio far more than is typically understood. But then Barra blames DiMaggio for not adjusting his approach to hit better in Yankee Stadium than he did -- though (as Barra notes) he hit really well there anyway. At the same time, Barra observes that Williams was a better fielder than he's generally given credit for, though nobody would claim he was as good as Joltin' Joe. The point is that perceptions can be wrong in the sense that they were closer as hitters and fielders than most casual fans (and deep fans) realize.
He loves guys who were slightly underappreciated because their greatness came from stats other than batting average, homers and RBIs that dominated the discussion until Bill James and others publicized their discoveries in the 1980s and beyond. So Mike Schmidt repeatedly gets praised because he hit for power and also got a lot of walks, thus being on base far more often than guys who hit a lot of singles but didn't walk. Same thing with Yogi Berra, who not only player the hardest position on the field, but was a legitimately great hitter who struck out less than almost anyone in the game. Barra goes so far as to call Berra the greatest player of the 20th century, thanks to his central role on so many World Series champs.
Some of Barra's discussions resonate today because trends he was writing about in 2000 are even more evident today. At his time, the hue-and-cry was because pitchers rarely finished games and because 7 innings had become the general level of a good start. Well, now it's more like 5 or 6 innings, and the reasons Barra identifies are even more valid today. And sophisticated analysis has found other reasons, too.
So all of the above are compliments about the book. I just didn't love the style, especially the "I" word inserted a lot in places where it didn't need to be. I don't really care why Barra became interested in a particular player, team or era -- just give me the facts, sir. And I'm not sure why he tacked on a few football and basketball chapters at the end, which have even breezier analysis than the baseball ones. They feel like filler, like reprints of columns from magazines.
One more thing I didn't like is that Barra writes often about what someone "might have been thinking" or some other phrase. It could be about why a manager chose to use his pitchers in a certain way, or whatever. But most of this stuff is readily available through historical documentation. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of baseball articles and books that document all of this stuff. Given that Barra makes claims about reading endless books on these topics, he should be able to find a quote to back up his supposition. In other words, these don't have to be suppositions at all.
February 20, 2025
An interesting premise - the writer offers essays diving into statistics to give an opinion on various sports debates (it says baseball, but there are also a few football and basketball essays, as well). Some of the debates are fairly well known, and some are not as mainstream. His use of stats makes it more intriguing than a simple "I saw him play well, therefore..." type argument. And he often takes on the "underdog" in the debate. His writing style flows well and is an easy read.
The only true knocks against this book are 1) it's dated and 2) editing.
It's dated in that the writer references "this year" or "this season" in some of his arguments. Unless you remember when the book came out or can use vague context clues to figure it out, it can be confusing.
Editing. This dude needed an editor. Or, at least, one who can edit. There are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. He will miss words, misspell words, not capitalize names, spell names wrong, and use confusing sentence structure. At times, it can really take one out of the reading zone. This is the biggest strike against it, and quite a doozy.
The only true knocks against this book are 1) it's dated and 2) editing.
It's dated in that the writer references "this year" or "this season" in some of his arguments. Unless you remember when the book came out or can use vague context clues to figure it out, it can be confusing.
Editing. This dude needed an editor. Or, at least, one who can edit. There are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. He will miss words, misspell words, not capitalize names, spell names wrong, and use confusing sentence structure. At times, it can really take one out of the reading zone. This is the biggest strike against it, and quite a doozy.
March 11, 2017
In recent years, books like this one (or "thinking books", as I like to call them) have seen an explosion in popularity. Instead of just biographies of old baseball stars or waxing nostalgic about "the good old days", these books throw all the past perceptions out the window and start fresh, crunching the numbers to make interesting observations about arguable topics.
"Clearing the Bases" is, by and large, a success in this category. Author Allen Barra tackles such notions (among others) as:
-Jackie Robinson: Greatest second baseman ever?
-Willie Mays vs. Mickey Mantle: By the Numbers
-Minnie Minoso--greatest Hispanic player ever?
-Clemens vs. Koufax vs. Grove
-The "myth" of Babe Ruth.
-Why pitchers can't "go 9" anymore.
Generally speaking, Barra brings up some interesting points and will get you thinking about certain topics/ideas that perhaps you had never considered before. Baseball myths/legends are hard to break down sometimes, so reading a book like this is sometimes a shock to the system, yet Barra explains himself reasonably well and stands by his convictions. Some you may agree with, some you won't, but they will get the cognitive wheels turning nonetheless.
However, I can't consider this book to truly be a must-read because of the author's defiance/arrogance throughout the text. Perhaps this is just Barra's sense of humor, but I found it very disrespectful for him to continually call certain people "idiots", "morons", and the like. It almost seemed (at times) that the book was written from the seed of anger, not passion.
Overall, though, this is an intriguing read that will engage the brain. I more highly recommend "Baseball Between The Numbers", but this one will suffice if you don't have enough time to get through hundreds of pages.
"Clearing the Bases" is, by and large, a success in this category. Author Allen Barra tackles such notions (among others) as:
-Jackie Robinson: Greatest second baseman ever?
-Willie Mays vs. Mickey Mantle: By the Numbers
-Minnie Minoso--greatest Hispanic player ever?
-Clemens vs. Koufax vs. Grove
-The "myth" of Babe Ruth.
-Why pitchers can't "go 9" anymore.
Generally speaking, Barra brings up some interesting points and will get you thinking about certain topics/ideas that perhaps you had never considered before. Baseball myths/legends are hard to break down sometimes, so reading a book like this is sometimes a shock to the system, yet Barra explains himself reasonably well and stands by his convictions. Some you may agree with, some you won't, but they will get the cognitive wheels turning nonetheless.
However, I can't consider this book to truly be a must-read because of the author's defiance/arrogance throughout the text. Perhaps this is just Barra's sense of humor, but I found it very disrespectful for him to continually call certain people "idiots", "morons", and the like. It almost seemed (at times) that the book was written from the seed of anger, not passion.
Overall, though, this is an intriguing read that will engage the brain. I more highly recommend "Baseball Between The Numbers", but this one will suffice if you don't have enough time to get through hundreds of pages.
October 25, 2018
Interesting read 15 years after publication to see if opinions have changed with hindsight (e.g., PED issues.) The author's promotion of SLOB as a measuring device makes more sense that the OPS that is everywhere today.
January 8, 2021
If you want to get dumber about baseball and just in general, read this book by this angry man in desperate need of a life.
January 5, 2014
I disagree about this, but I am a Boston fan. Anyways, here goes: There is a case to be made that Joe DiMaggio was a better player than Ted Williams. But I don't think Barra made it here. You could argue that DiMaggio's all-around play edged Williams's superior hitting when each was at the top of his game. But Barra focuses on intangible qualities of DiMaggio. Sorry, but I am not buying it. I would like to see him make a stronger case for it.
February 6, 2026
A collection of essays on a variety of baseball (plus some football and basketball) topics. Very enjoyable and some of the best baseball analytical writing out there. I agree with some of his conclusions and vehemently disagree with others, but he argues each point earnestly and gives legitimate reasons why he takes each stance. Highly recommend to any baseball savants.
July 12, 2013
A fine read to spark debate, but there seemed to be a typo per chapter. Perhaps the WSJ editors are better than the Thomas Dunne Books editors. It was interesting fodder, but there have been other books of similar ilk I enjoyed more.
March 30, 2010
Unorthodox opinions supported by the numbers. There were just too many numbers.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews