MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387397897 · doi:10.1353/nin.2023.a903310

Loathed It: Ball Four

2023· article· en· W4387397897 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
William J. Ryczek

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHEROLeagueGuardianArt historyArtHistoryLawLiteraturePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Loathed It:Ball Four William J. Ryczek (bio) Blasphemers are valuable members of society. Nearly every major revolution in the history of the world has been started by someone who challenged widely accepted dogma. I don't claim to be Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, but I do think it's time everyone stopped genuflecting before Jim Bouton and Ball Four. Some people, including Commissioner Bowie Kuhn and veteran columnist Dick Young, didn't like the book from the moment the first excerpts appeared; Young famously referred to Bouton as a "social leper."1 That was to be expected, for Kuhn viewed himself as the guardian of baseball's morals, while Young was a brash young writer who'd become a crotchety old defender of the sporting establishment. But there were others who took great offense at Ball Four, many of whom wore spiked shoes and stirruped hose. If Bouton wasn't a social leper in major league locker rooms before he wrote his book, he certainly became one afterward. I interviewed more than fifty men who played for the Yankees during the 1960s, and while most had fond memories of their former teammates, two were almost universally disliked. One was pitcher Jim Coates, an abrasive hillbilly who threw at batters' heads with intent to maim. The other was Bouton. Some old Yankees had never liked him, and some were angry because of what he wrote about them. Most, however, were upset by what he wrote about their hero, Mickey Mantle. Mantle was idolized by many of his teammates who gloried in his company and even named their sons after him. "Mickey liked me," was a phrase I heard proudly from several players, and being liked by Mickey was one of the highlights of their lives. I don't share their anger in that regard. Bouton destroyed the previous image of Mantle, but that image was a false one, and there's nothing wrong with toppling a false idol. The Mantle Bouton portrayed in Ball Four is consistent with what I learned while researching a book on the Yankees. Mickey was a great teammate, popular in the clubhouse, possessor of a quick wit, and one [End Page 11] of the best baseball players of all time. He was also frequently surly and rude with the public, a world-class womanizer, and a mean drunk. While many Yankees hated Bouton for what he wrote about Mantle, Joe Pepitone was upset because Bouton talked about everyone else's sexual infidelities but didn't mention his own. No one knows more about the sexual activity of a major league baseball player than Joseph Anthony Pepitone, who hit on my biggest problem with Ball Four. It's okay to debunk a false image and replace it with the truth. It's not okay to debunk a false image and replace it with an equally false one. When discussing the credibility of Ball Four, let's start, as Pepitone suggests, with infidelity, a touchy subject in an "honest" memoir. Although Bouton later admitted he was unfaithful to his wife during his playing career,2 he portrayed himself in Ball Four as a faithful husband and regaled his readers with stories of others' infidelities. His friend Mike Marshall, who, according to his former wife, was a serial philanderer, called Bouton's ex–wife Bobbie after she and Bouton divorced. While attempting to seduce her, Marshall told her Bouton had been fooling around all along. To claim to have written an honest book, one that laid bare the most raw, personal weaknesses of others while painting a false picture of himself is disingenuous at best. Bouton might have excused the omission on the grounds that such a revelation would have been hurtful to his wife and damaging to his marriage, but the possibility of hurting others didn't concern him. Ball Four is a very opinionated work. Bouton portrays himself and his close friends, like Marshall and Steve Hovley, as intelligent, clever, and socially conscious. The reader learns that it wasn't easy being Jim Bouton since the unenlightened masses didn't understand him and management didn't appreciate him...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,257
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,231
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNineMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207