Spirit of ’67: The Cardiac Kids, El Birdos, and the World Series That Captivated America by Thomas J. Whalen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Spirit of ’67: The Cardiac Kids, El Birdos, and the World Series That Captivated America by Thomas J. Whalen Paul Hensler Thomas J. Whalen. Spirit of ’67: The Cardiac Kids, El Birdos, and the World Series That Captivated America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little-field, 2017. 300 pp. Cloth, $35.00. For those old enough to have lived through—indeed, survived—the rush of events across the broad spectrum of United States history during the late 1960s, a look back at that heady era can afford a nostalgic stroll (from a safe distance of fifty years on) or an opening of old wounds perhaps best left in the past. In the escapist world of the national pastime, fans—especially Baby Boomers—should take a fair degree of delight in Thomas J. Whalen’s breezy account of the combatants in the 1967 World Series. In Spirit of ’67, he explores that year’s two premier teams, the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals, on a granular level. Such detail, however, serves to both inform and frustrate, depending on the reader’s level of knowledge of these two franchises. Appropriately, Whalen does well to set the tone of the age by opening the book with an overview of the political and cultural landscape in 1967 America, even though his labelling of this year as “an annus horribilis” overreaches in light of what transpired in 1968 (1). Nonetheless, the civil rights struggle, President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” program, and the burgeoning Vietnam War all forged ahead, accompanied by a psychedelically infused soundtrack as the generation gap and the war’s credibility gap began to exacerbate deepening divides across the country. As the author segues to the world of sports, baseball and the stiff competition it faced from the rise in popularity of professional football come into focus. Whalen postulates that one downside of baseball was that “games took longer to complete”—the average game time throughout the 1960s was just over two- and- one-half hours—yet indeed “fans grew restless and bored” because offensive output was on the wane as 1968’s “year of the pitcher” was about to descend on the national pastime (15). But to the delight of many fans, especially American League supporters, a reprieve from boredom was furnished courtesy of a thrilling four-team pennant race in the AL. [End Page 224] At this point, the storyline moves to a series of chapters that follow the history of the Cardinal and Red Sox franchises through the 1967 World Series, with a concluding essay on what became of some of the book’s central characters in the aftermath of the Fall Classic. This approach will appeal to those unfamiliar with the men who featured prominently to put Boston and St. Louis in the forefront, and the retelling of these stories is helpful to a degree. In a cultural sense, the narrative notes the racial integration problems inherent in the front office decisions that affected the roster of the Red Sox as well as other indignities suffered by several African American Cardinals. Desegregation and the fight against Jim Crow certainly were among the most inflammatory topics of the Sixties, and baseball was not immune to this societal transition. However, the diversion into so many other background details detracts from the premise of 1967 that the title of the book more than implies. For example, detours are taken to briefly explore Bill Veeck and the Eddie Gaedel episode, and nearly four pages are devoted to the early history of the Red Sox before finally introducing Tom Yawkey as the new team owner. In explaining how key players found their way to their respective clubs, some of the profiles are too lengthy, as in the case of veteran outfielder Roger Maris. Granted, the former Yankee was truly a valuable addition to the Cardinal lineup, yet his mini-biography commands eight full pages, which includes the well-worn controversy over his home-run record chase of 1961. Carl Yastrzemski, George Scott, Ken Harrelson, Lou Brock, Orlando Cepeda, Tim McCarver, and other notables are scattered throughout, and the tragic misfortune of Tony Conigliaro does receive the attention it is due. But...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.023 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".