Baseball 2016: touching base with seven new books

Here’s an around-the-horn look at a lineup of diverse releases:

3. ‘Baseball’s No-Hit Wonders: More Than a Century of Pitching’s Greatest Feats,’ by Dirk Lammers

Who better to tell the story of Major League Baseball’s 294 no-hitters than Dirk Lammers, who once blogged regularly about the New York Mets’ quest to notch the franchise’s first no-hitter, which came in 2012. He now has a website (NoNoHitters.com) devoted to all such pitching feats. In “Baseball’s No-Hit Wonders,” Lammers takes a topic that might seem narrowly focused and opens it up with all sorts of interesting angles. He looks at the greats and non-greats who have hurled no-hitters and digs up all sorts of fascinating “Did You Know?” sidebars, such information such as the fact that there were no strikeouts in three no-hitters and that the record for the fewest at-bats in a complete, nine-inning no-hitter is just 23.

Here’s an excerpt from Baseball’s No-Hit Wonders:

“[Tom] Seaver had thrown eight innings of perfect baseball against the Chicago Cubs on July 9, 1969, when Randy Hundley unsuccessfully tried to spoil Seaver’s perfecto with a ninth-inning leadoff bunt. Seaver fielded the ball in front of the mound and threw to first to shrink his to-do list to two outs. Rookie utility infielder Jim Qualls then stepped to the plate and drove a clean single to left-center field for the Mets’ 1,217th non-no-hit game. Seaver placed his hands on his hips as the ball touched the outfield grass, and Shea’s 59,000 faithful rose to give ‘Tom Terrific’ a standing ovation in appreciation for making it that far.

“As Seaver sealed his one-hit shutout on Don Kessinger’s fly-out, the somewhat deflated pitcher returned his hands to his hips and his eyes to the left-center-field spot where Quall’s ball had touched green. Catcher Jerry Grote trotted out and interrupted the somber moment by patting Seaver on the back and shaking his hand. The mound then erupted in a celebration of a key division win in a tightening pennant race that would lead to the club’s first world championship.”

3 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.