Keith Hernandez On Baseball, ‘Seinfeld’ And Being His Own ‘Worst Enemy’

The former first baseman played on championship teams with the Cardinals and Mets, and made a memorable appearance on Seinfeld. His memoir is I’m Keith Hernandez. Originally broadcast June 4, 2018.



DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Dave Davies, in for Terry Gross.

You might know our guest Keith Hernandez as a big-league ballplayer or as a memorable guest on two episodes of “Seinfeld.” And if you’re a New York Mets fan, you’ll know him as a color analyst for the team’s TV broadcasts. In 17 seasons in the big leagues, Hernandez was known for hitting wicked blind drives and for dazzling defensive plays at first base. He won Gold Glove Awards, a batting title, a Most Valuable Player Award and two World Series rings.

As a broadcaster these days, he’s built quite a social media following, at times posting videos of his aging Bengal cat Hadji. Hernandez has a memoir, now out in paperback, which focuses less on his glory days in the game than on times he struggled, especially when he was young and trying to adjust to big-league pressure, big-league pitchers and the stresses of playing every day. The book is called “I’m Keith Hernandez.” I spoke with him last year, when his memoir was published.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)

DAVIES: Well, Keith Hernandez, welcome to FRESH AIR. You know, I recently read in the new book about Tiger Woods that his dad put him in a highchair in his garage when he was, like, an infant and had him watch his dad taking golf swings. And then he had him swinging a golf club when he was a toddler. And I read in your book that your dad had a kind of a training rig setup in your garage for your brother and you. Tell us about that and what it meant to you.

KEITH HERNANDEZ: Well, our garage in Pacifica, Calif., didn’t have Sheetrock on the ceiling, and it was just all the two-by-fours and the cross bars and the beams. So – and we did have a rafter going across. It was a loft, kind of like – almost like an open attic. And Dad set up, on the middle of the garage – and we were – my brother and I were both left-hand hitters – so he set it up more on the right side of the garage if you were looking at the door so we could take a full swing – a rope tied around one of the two-by-fours and extended the rope down and then put two white cotton athletic socks with a tennis ball in it and then tied it to the rope.

And the rope, at full extension, would be a knee-high strike. We started doing this when we were, like, 6, 7 years old. I mean, it was my brother and I. And then if you wanted to get it up higher to a belt-high strike, you just throw the – you just threw the rope over the two-by-four. If you wanted a high pitch, keep throwing it over, maybe two, three, four times, and it was a high pitch. And the ball would swing like a pendulum. And it would – the arc of the ball going up after we stroked it would hit the underside of the loft, which was, like, one-by-fours. So I marked them – you know, single, out, double, fly ball – and I would swing for hours and play games with that.

And my dad, in the beginning, would watch us swing, make sure we were swinging properly. And eventually, he felt that we had it down pretty good. And you know, he didn’t have to watch. I remember him saying when I was older that he’d come home from work – he was a fireman in San Francisco for 30 years – and he’d hear that pounding of the tennis ball against the rafters. And you know, it would give him a headache sometimes. And – but it made him laugh because I was there taking – you know, I was probably 500 to a thousand swings a day. I just absolutely loved it.

DAVIES: Right. And you know, you and your brother weren’t just slapping at it because your dad knew something about the game. He would look at your mechanics. Tell us a bit about him. How did he know so much about baseball?

HERNANDEZ: Well, my dad was a minor league player, and he was originally drafted by the Brooklyn Dodgers before World War II. He got hit in the head his first year, and his eyes – no helmets those days – eyes progressively got worse. And he eventually played for Cleveland and Oklahoma City and then was traded to the Cardinals and played under Johnny Keane in Houston, where he met my mother. And they got married after the season. He was a very good hitter and a very fine fielding first baseman.

And his career was shortened. And so he put it all – after the war – he served four years in the service – in the Navy at Pearl Harbor in a ship repair unit, played on the U.S. Navy team, which played the U.S. Army team and Army Air Corps. Stan Musial, in ’45, played with my father. Ted Williams was playing on the teams – the Marine team. So there was all these ex – all these major leaguers playing in this league, were entertaining the troops, basically.

DAVIES: Yeah. So it’s clear you had talent. But it was all of that practice from somebody who knew what he was doing that no doubt honed your skills. You were drafted by the St. Louis Cardinals organization and were a prized prospect. A lot was expected of you. And it took years for you, as you write in the book, to really get your stride as a hitter. And partly that was, you know, adjusting mechanics and learning pitches. But a lot of it was emotional. How did your head get in the way?

HERNANDEZ: Well, I always – I describe my fragility – my emotional fragility. I mean, you’re – you come out of high school. You’re a star in your little area you grew up. I grew up with the baby boomers, and there was lots of kids to play ball with. And all of a sudden, my first spring training, there’s 700 kids in the camp, and there’s only eight teams. And I know I’m going to make the team. I got a signing bonus of 30,000, which was unheard of for a 42nd round pick.

But it just – the big adjustment is you play two games a week in summer league in – back in those days, in high school. And now you’re playing – I believe it was 128 games scheduled in the minor leagues, something like that. And you’re playing every day. And you’re not going to hit .500 like you did in high school. I hit .256 in A-ball. I hit .260 in Double-A the next year. And you know, it was tough. It was depressing.

And then you go in slumps, and it’s your first experience with slumps. And it’s all a learning process. And you’re a hotheaded, 18-year-old kid, and you don’t know how to handle it. You throw helmets. You throw bats. You kick dirt. And you know – and you’ve got coaches trying to tell you to calm down and you’ve got to learn to play this game on an even keel. And it’s all part of the process. That’s what the minor leagues are about. But it – you know, it takes a long time, and everybody’s different. It took me a lot longer.

DAVIES: I think you write at one point that one of your coaches thought you needed to be away from your dad a little bit. I mean, he was such…

HERNANDEZ: Yes.

DAVIES: …An important influence in your life. Was he – I don’t know, a challenge, a burden? Was it difficult with him, too?

HERNANDEZ: Well, when the Cardinals were scouting me, Dad negotiated my contract. They got a sense of the strength and the power of my father. Bob Kennedy – there was an A-ball team in Modesto in the California state league. There was three A-ball teams – Cedar Rapids, St. Pete in the Florida State League – and California state league. Bob Kennedy kept me out of the California state league, which he felt I wasn’t ready to play in because that was the top A-ball league. And he put me in the middling Florida State League, which was a tough league.

And he told me years later he wanted to kind of cut the apron strings from my father. So there you go – Bob Kennedy being a real influence on my career.

DAVIES: What – do you think you needed to cut the strings from your father a bit?

HERNANDEZ: Yes, no question. It was the right thing to do because Dad – my brother played in the California state league, and Dad came to all of his games just whenever he could. And that would have drove me crazy. Gary had a different relationship with my father than I did with him. And yes, it was the right thing to do to get me away from him and get me to stand up on my own two feet.

DAVIES: Was he hypercritical? You felt like you just couldn’t please him?

HERNANDEZ: Well, he coached us all through Little League, and he was just wonderful. And the parents and the kids were all benefited from his instruction. And he was really terrific with the kids. But once I got into high school, he was so petrified that a coach would ruin me. And it was – in other words, he lost control. And that’s when things started to get a little dicey between me and him.

He would always watch whenever he can. He was a fireman. He worked 24 hours, off 48. He had two days off, so he would be at every practice in high school, watching. And it was like, you know, “The Central Scrutinizer,” you know, from Frank Zappa’s “Joe’s Garage” album. I mean, it was just like forever watching. And I would feel – it was like a shroud over me. And I would come home on pins and needles. I didn’t know if I would, you know, get laid into or he would smile and praise me. It was kind of a tough situation.

DAVIES: And that continued into your major league career, too, right?

HERNANDEZ: Yes, it did.

DAVIES: Well, I’m sure he was a great guy. And he died in 1992. Right?

HERNANDEZ: He did, ironically, one year after my retirement. So it was too bad he couldn’t have lived longer.

DAVIES: We’re speaking with Keith Hernandez. His new memoir is called “I’m Keith Hernandez.” We’ll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF RUDY ROYSTON’S “BED BOBBIN'”)

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we’re speaking with Keith Hernandez. He spent 17 years in the big leagues, had World Series teams with the St. Louis Cardinals and New York Mets. He has a new memoir called “I’m Keith Hernandez.”

I want to talk about playing first base. First base is a natural place for collisions. Right? I mean, when there’s a ground ball, you’re there to catch a throw from the infielder. And hopefully, it’s on target. But it might be into the path of the runner, who may not see it…

HERNANDEZ: Yes.

DAVIES: …Because the runner is busting it down the line, not necessarily looking at the throw. When you could see that was going to happen – the ball was going to be into the path of the runner – did you have techniques for either warning the runner or just trying to avoid getting hurt or hurting the runner?

HERNANDEZ: Well, No. 1, the runner can’t run inside the baseline. He’s got to be on the chalk. So a throw into him or I got to stretch towards home plate, I feel pretty confident that I’m not going to get hit. It’s up to me to make sure that I stride in fair territory towards the ball – I stretch. Excuse me.

And the only time I was ever scared – when I was older, in my last year in Cleveland, Oakland Raider running back that played for Kansas City, All-American Bo Jackson, hit a ground ball to shortstop. And the throw was down the line into him. And I heard him running like – he was like a herd of buffalo.

DAVIES: (Laughter).

HERNANDEZ: I’m not exaggerating. I’d never had that experience before, and I played against some big guys.

He was running so fast, and he was such a big, strong guy that when I – I remember I cringed when I caught the ball just in hopes that he wouldn’t clip me on my left shoulder. And he missed me. Thank goodness. I made sure I stretched up the line, but that’s the only time ever in my career.

If the throw is too far up the line, you make a judgment. First base was a part of me, and that’s also an extension of knowing where the runner is. I have good peripheral vision. I have good sense of where the runner is. Can I come off the bag? Instead of stretching, can I just come off the bag and get the ball and make the tag instead of staying on the bag? I was able to do that. It was just all second nature to me.

The easy part of the game for me was fielding. If hitting could have been as easy as fielding, I would have hit .400.

DAVIES: (Laughter).

The other thing about playing first base, it’s the one place where there are a lot of – there’s time to converse with an opposing player. A player – a base runner gets on. And you know, I mean, the pitcher and catcher – I mean, the hitter and catcher are near each other, but they’re kind of busy. The catcher’s getting the signs.

When you’re with a runner at first, you’re often waiting for the pitcher to get ready. And you can see there’s chatter.

HERNANDEZ: Yes.

DAVIES: Is it friendly? Were there guys who’d try and use that to get in your head? Or would you try to get in other players’ heads?

HERNANDEZ: I was a chatterbox and for one reason. I would ask the hitters how they felt at the plate. And if a hitter would – it was just the beginning when the – in the old days, you would never talk to the opposing player during a game, before a game in BP. There was no – it was the enemy. And that was starting to change in my era. It started to change in the ’60s. And in the ’70s, it even got – it advanced further.

But I’d always ask, you know, if a guy came to the – first base, how do you feel at the plate? And if they start, well, you know, I don’t feel so good da-da-da-da-da (ph). Oh, man, I feel great. Well, I’m in a hot streak. You know, well, I would relay that information.

DAVIES: To your pitcher.

HERNANDEZ: Rick – yes. And – actually, to the pitching staff and – or the pitching coach. Rick Monday had a funny story. Rick Monday’s a very dear friend. He now does radio for the Dodgers. He goes, oh, we’re flying into St. Louis. Hernandez is on first base. We better all hit doubles…

(LAUGHTER)

HERNANDEZ: …So they wouldn’t have to talk to me (laughter).

DAVIES: You know, game has changed since you played. I mean, we now have – they count visits to the mound. There are challenges. There are instant replays. What do you think of the game today?

HERNANDEZ: Well, I really feel that they’re – the game is going through radical changes. I don’t – all the analytics, I’m kind of – when I finished this book, my – I wish it had been nine months later because I’m kind of getting a grasp of analytics. And I’m kind of – I’ll never 100% go with them, but I’ve talked to too many former players, teammates that are in front offices and say, hey, you can really be surprised what you can wean from analytics. It’s so precise, so in-depth. OK. Fine. I’m coming around on that.

But still, statistics are sterile. I miss the complete game – the pitcher going nine innings. And you know, I can’t blame the pitchers today. That’s what – how they’re brought up – you know, five innings and they’re gone, a hundred pitches, they’re gone. I can’t sink my teeth into it. I can’t wrap my arms around that. I think it lowers the bar. And it’s all about excellence, striving to be the best that you can be. I don’t want someone to come in and finish that game for me. I want to finish the game – or if it’s an inning and you’re in trouble and they take him out – which they do because it’s a pitch count – let him finish the inning.

So I don’t want to go on and on and on. But that’s the way the game is, and that’s the way it’s going to be. And I’ve come to – I’m at peace with it, so I’m not going to get all riled about it. And it’s just the way it is. And I do miss how the game was played before – you know, a couple decades before.

DAVIES: Well, I don’t mind you getting riled at all. What about the pace of play?

HERNANDEZ: Well, I think the big culprits are the pitchers. And I see so many 0-2 counts where they’ve got the hitter really backed up against the wall. I’m in trouble when I’m 0-2. And they don’t know how to pitch and put a – blow a pitcher – blow the hitter away. It goes, inevitably, to 3-2. That adds to pitch count. That adds a – now you’re not going to go seven innings. Now you’re going to go six, maybe five and two-thirds.

And here comes the bullpens. And a lot of the bullpens stink and – guys that come in and don’t throw strikes. I’ve talked to scouts. They look at the guy get the ball the furthest ’cause of home runs in and the pitcher that can throw the hardest. It’s no longer pitch to contact.

Warren Spahn wasn’t a hard thrower, the greatest left-hander of all time. Warren Spahn had a screwball – watching Warren Spahn pitch was like watching Rembrandt paint a masterpiece – on the corners, low, a little extra here, a little off there, screwball here, up-and-in fastball there. These hard throwers – they don’t have the command of their breaking ball. And Major League hitters can hit fastballs, and that makes for long counts and makes for long games. And now you got the analytics, and I’m up there going absolutely out of my mind.

DAVIES: I’m not enough of a baseball geek to really know what Hall of Fame numbers look like, but, I mean, you’ve won 11 straight Gold Gloves. You were a career .296 hitter with 162 home runs. You had a batting title, an MVP award, two World Series rings. Why aren’t you in the Hall of Fame?

HERNANDEZ: Well, my father – I was a really, really good athlete. And I used to be able to run pretty good – not fast, but above average. I stole 19 or – 19 bases in 1982. Home runs – made a lot. I played in St. Louis. It was 386 in the gaps. It was 335 down the lines.

DAVIES: Big park.

HERNANDEZ: It was a huge park.

DAVIES: Yeah.

HERNANDEZ: And it was sunken and underground one street level. And the only open-air part of the ballpark was from left-center to right-center, and it would blow in. And when it got hot in the summer, you had to hit line drives. And we called it Death Valley. And I was a line drive hitter anyway.

So the 162 home runs, whatever it is – you know, if I’d have played at Wrigley Field or if I’d have played at Veterans Stadium or Three Rivers Stadium, I probably would’ve hit over two home – 200 home runs, and that would’ve helped, which means more RBI. I drove in over a thousand runs. So I lost some time playing with some two-strikes and two lockouts, you know? Those are games that won across the board that I wasn’t able to play.

DAVIES: Does it bother you that you’re not in the…

HERNANDEZ: No, and I’ll tell you why. When it’s all said and done and I’m long gone, who’s going remember? And you know, I’m not going to worry about it. What bothers me the most, Dave, is my .300 lifetime batting average. I’m at .296.

And ironically, my childhood idol – born on the same birthday as him – Mickey Mantle, October 20 – when I got my first baseball card and I saw that, he was my idol. I always had a 7 on my back. That is Mickey’s pet peeve. I read in his biography that he lost, ’cause of injury – he stayed around too long – he lost his .300 lifetime batting average. And ironically, I’m in the same boat. I’m a .300 hitter. I’m not a .296 hitter.

DAVIES: Keith Hernandez, it’s been fun. Thanks so much for speaking with us.

HERNANDEZ: I can’t thank you enough for having me.

DAVIES: Keith Hernandez is now a broadcaster for New York Mets games. His book, now in paperback, is called “I’m Keith Hernandez.”

After a break, we’ll remember former pitcher Jim Bouton, whose book “Ball Four” is still regarded as a classic, and actor Rip Torn, best known as the gruff producer Artie on “The Larry Sanders Show.” Both died this week. Also, John Powers reviews the British television series “London Kills.” I’m Dave Davies, and this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, “TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALL GAME”)

DR JOHN: (Singing) Take me out to the ballgame. Take me out to the crowd. Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack. I don’t care if I never get back ’cause let’s root, root, root for the home team. And if they don’t win, it’s a shame ’cause it’s one, two, three strikes, you’re out, at the old ballgame.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Remembering Major League Pitcher Jim Bouton, Author Of ‘Ball Four’

Bouton, who died Wednesday, spoke to Fresh Air in 1986 about his 1970 tell-all memoir, in which he drew on his seven years with the New York Yankees to offer an insider’s guide to baseball.



DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Dave Davies, in for Terry Gross. Jim Bouton, the former big-league pitcher better known for his prose than his fastball, died Wednesday at his home in Massachusetts. He was 80.

In 1970, Bouton wrote the book “Ball Four,” a raunchy insider’s look at the game that drew heavily on Bouton’s seven seasons with the New York Yankees. He wrote about players getting drunk, peeping through keyholes at women and popping amphetamines like candy. The book enraged players and some sportswriters and drew a rebuke from commissioner Bowie Kuhn, but it was a bestseller.

After a respectable baseball career, Bouton wrote several other books, did some acting and sportscasting and was a George McGovern delegate to the 1972 Democratic convention. Bouton spoke with Terry in 1986 and began with a story from “Ball Four” about Mickey Mantle.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)

JIM BOUTON: I think the most controversial story in the book was I told about the time Mickey Mantle hit a home run with a hangover. And it wasn’t really even so much as a put-down of Mickey Mantle as it was a story of what a great athlete he was. I told about the time we were in Minnesota. And we’d been out the night before a game, having a few drinks – about 2 o’clock in the morning, I guess it was. I don’t want to say Mickey was drunk, but he spent about a half an hour trying to make a telephone call from a grandfather’s clock.

So he comes into the ballpark the following morning, and he’s hungover. And the manager says, you know, sleep it off. Most managers were players themselves. They understand you come to the ballpark once in a while with a hangover.

So Mick is sleeping in the trainer’s room. We’re playing the Minnesota Twins. We get – stick somebody else in the outfield. And so the game’s going on, and it gets tie score after nine innings. And in about the 12th inning, the manager says, I hate to do it, but I need a pinch hitter in the 13th. Go in and wake up the Mick.

So we go in the trainer’s room, you know, wake up Mickey Mantle, dress him in his uniform, steer him through the tunnel up into the dugout. Thirteenth inning comes around – he put a bat in Mickey’s hands and point him in the direction of home plate. The Mick staggers up to the plate. Fortunately, he’s a switch hitter – doesn’t matter what side he gets on – steps into the batter’s box.

To show you what a great athlete this guy was – and Mickey was the best ballplayer I ever saw – he takes one practice swing and hits the first pitch into the center field bleachers, a tremendous blast 450 feet away. We win the game. The crowd is going nuts, and the players are going crazy in the dugout. We’re laughing and pointing and screaming and slapping each other on the back. And suddenly, it occurs to us he still has to round those bases.

TERRY GROSS: (Laughter).

BOUTON: There’s a rule in baseball that you must touch the bases in order. Fortunately, he heads off in the right direction. The minute he hits first base, the entire dugout goes, make a left – goes around, touches second, touches third, comes across, misses home plate – we have to send him back for that – comes over to the dugout.

And, of course, the fans are giving him a standing ovation. And as he’s waving to the crowd, he looks at us in the dugout, and he says, those people don’t know how tough that really was. I went over to his locker afterwards, and I said, how did you do that? You couldn’t even see up there. He said, it was very simple. I hit the middle ball.

GROSS: (Laughter).

BOUTON: So if this destroys America’s illusions about baseball or Mickey Mantle, then I don’t know what you do with all the literature that’s come out since then where each player tries to top the next in terms of what he can tell or how far he can go.

GROSS: Pitching careers are subject to more problems than other careers are, I think, because your arm is so vulnerable. And your career depends on your arm, and it’s what you’re abusing all the time.

BOUTON: Sure. And pitching is not a natural motion. Throwing a ball as hard as you can 120 times every four days is not natural.

GROSS: Did you have to change your pitching style because of injuries you were getting?

BOUTON: Well, I had to change my pitching style when I wasn’t able to throw hard anymore. See, what happened was I threw very hard when I first came up. I was a overhand fastball pitcher. And then when I hurt my arm, I wasn’t able to throw hard for a while. And then when I did, it – the ball didn’t have that zip on it anymore. It didn’t have that snap. Even though the ball was traveling as fast, it wasn’t moving.

So it’s like taking a rubber band and stretching it too far, and then it never gets its elasticity back again. And that’s what happened to my arm. So I had to change from being a fastball pitcher to a knuckleball pitcher.

Fortunately, when I was a kid, I threw a knuckleball, which is not a pitch that requires very much strength. It’s a skill pitch. You push it off with your fingertips. The idea is to get the ball to go through the air without any rotation, and then it jumps around all by itself. And so I became a knuckleball pitcher to compensate for the fact that I couldn’t throw hard anymore.

GROSS: How hard are knuckleballs to hit?

BOUTON: They’re almost impossible to hit when you throw a good one. The difficulty is throwing a good one. When you don’t throw a good one, anybody can hit them. That’s the problem with a knuckleball. Nobody can hit a well-thrown knuckleball, and almost anybody can hit a poorly thrown knuckleball.

GROSS: Say it was a full count, and there were a couple of men on base. What would you throw? Would you throw a knuckleball, knowing that if you made one more – one wrong move, it might be a home run ’cause…

BOUTON: Yes.

GROSS: …It’s easier to hit?

BOUTON: I would throw a knuckleball. I would throw a knuckleball because my feeling is I would rather live and die with my best pitch than take a chance with something that wasn’t my best.

GROSS: Did you have any gestures that you had to do before you threw a pitch and, like, rub your hand on your side three times or (laughter)…

BOUTON: Nothing that was superstitious. Sure, I went through the same sort of little rituals before I threw the ball because it’s important to do that. And athletes need to do that and many performers need to do that because those are the little steps that are really part of the process.

Throwing a ball is not just throwing a ball. Part of it starts when you walk out to the mound – how you walk out to the mound, how you feel about yourself and the fans and the batter and the whole – I mean, all of that – the rosin bag in your hand, how the ball feels. And you want to start playing with that ball in your hand so you get that feeling, and you want to recreate the memory – the muscle memory that brings you back to the last time you were really throwing well. And that whole process starts long before you actually throw the ball.

GROSS: Why do pitchers like to chew when they’re on the mound?

BOUTON: Part of it is because of the nervousness and the tension. And it’s sort of – chewing relieves that. But the spitting part is different, OK? Spitting – and also all this crotch grabbing and spitting back and forth that you see in Major League Baseball – there’s a real reason for that. There’s a behavioral reason for that. And that is that what these are is macho displays, OK? It’s a man-to-man challenge out there, the pitcher versus the batter. And it’s very much like two cats squaring off where they both have to sort of urinate on the shrubbery, saying, OK, this is my yard. I own this space. And the other cat’s saying, yeah, but I own my space, and then they’re fighting.

You see, what the batter is is – he steps into the batter’s box and he spits all over the place. He’s saying he’s – that’s his turf. The pitcher is saying, oh, yeah? Well, (imitating spitting) this is my turf out here, and now we’ll see who’s the best. And so that’s why you have that. It’s that mano-a-mano challenge situation, you know? And that’s what they are. They’re animals marking their territory.

GROSS: Jim Bouton, I want to thank you very much.

BOUTON: Thank you. I’ve enjoyed it.

DAVIES: Jim Bouton spoke with Terry Gross in 1986. Bouton died Wednesday at the age of 80. Coming up, we’ll remember actor Rip Torn, best known for his role as Artie on “The Larry Sanders Show.” This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF WES MONTGOMERY’S “FOUR ON SIX”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

In ‘For The Good Of The Game,’ Bud Selig Tells Of The MLB Steroid Era

When I think of Bud Selig, I always think about one particular moment.

It’s the 11th inning of the 2002 All-Star Game. The event was held in Selig’s hometown Milwaukee, in the beautiful new ballpark he and his family spent a decade fighting to get built. But instead of reveling in what should have been one of the greatest moments of his life, the Major League Baseball commissioner was frustrated, angry and holding his hands out in an exasperated shrug.

Selig was talking to the umpires about the fact that both the American and National League rosters had run out of players — and he was coming to grips with the fact he would have to ruin the All-Star Game by declaring an unprecedented tie.

I was at that game with my dad. I remember the angry shrug, the tie-game decision and the cascade of boos and flying objects that immediately followed.

And I suppose I expected Selig’s new memoir to be the book form of that shrug: a man with the best of intentions and a pure love for baseball, overwhelmed by circumstances beyond his control, and being a little bit defensive and prickly about the whole situation. After all, for everything Selig changed in Major League Baseball — and it’s a lot! — the main thing people will most likely remember is that he presided over an era tainted by widespread steroid abuse.

So I was pleasantly surprised to find For The Good Of The Game to be charming, informative and even entertaining. It’s no Ball Four, the seminal behind-the-scenes, bridge-burning memoir written by former Yankee and Seattle Pilot Jim Bouton. But outside of those rare exceptions, Selig’s book is about the best memoir you can hope to read from a powerful professional sports insider. Much of that is due to the deep love and respect that Selig carries for the game of baseball.

The book’s charm also comes from the Forrest Gump-style encounters Selig kept collecting throughout his life. He recounts going to watch Jackie Robinson play at Wrigley Field with a childhood friend who grew up to become U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl; selling a car to future home run king Hank Aaron; babysitting a teenage Joe Torre, who went on to become a Hall of Fame manager; and trying to sell football legend Vince Lombardi on allowing baseball advertising on the scoreboard during Green Bay Packers games. Selig also writes about watching Brewers icon Robin Yount notch his 3,000th hit alongside his “friend,” then-Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush.

If you didn’t know that Selig and Bush were friends, don’t worry — Selig will remind you of that over and over. Between the “my friend George” lines and a jaw-dropping scene where the mild-mannered Selig recounts dropping several F-bombs on Vice President Al Gore during a White House meeting at the height of the 1994 baseball strike, it’s pretty easy to deduce who Selig voted for in 2000.

The confrontation came months into the stalemate that wiped out the 1994 World Series. President Bill Clinton had urged the owners and players to undergo arbitration with a mediator he appointed. Clinton eventually asked the mediator to recommend a compromise, but when the players union wouldn’t accept the findings, Clinton and Gore walked away from the process. Selig lost his cool when he heard Gore repeat what sounded to Selig like a union talking point.

“What did you f***ing say to me?” the polite Midwesterner yelled at the vice president. “This thing is worse because we agreed to this process and you backed out. Now what the f*** do you say?”

Cursing out the vice president is one of a handful of the type of revealing anecdotes and score-settling passages that typically sell memoirs. The book’s very first chapter details how pained Selig was to see the surly, steroid-enhanced Barry Bonds break Aaron’s career home run record. “I didn’t go to the clubhouse to congratulate him afterward,” Selig writes. “I just couldn’t bring myself to look him in the eyes and act happy about what he’d done. I don’t exactly have a poker face.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Pete Rose does not come off well in this book. Selig also criticizes several of the commissioners who came immediately before him, as well as the players association leaders he felt impeded Major League Baseball from addressing widespread steroid use (more on that in a moment).

Selig ticks through the innovations he pushed and how hard he had to work to persuade owners to agree to them: going from two to three divisions in each league, and adding a wild card. (The sole owner to oppose that move: Selig’s friend Bush.) Creating interleague play. Instituting video replay. Overseeing two rounds of expansion, and the move of one franchise.

The book certainly has many of the usual flaws of a famous person’s memoir: Several anecdotes and phrases resurface from chapter to chapter. The writing style isn’t consistent. A few sections feel like the places Selig decided to stuff in all the moments that an editor must have told him readers would expect to hear about — positive decisions like the leaguewide retirement of Jackie Robinson’s 42, and disastrous episodes like the time Selig threatened to “contract” the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos franchises.

So there you go. Now, let’s get to the steroids.

Between 1961 and 1995 just three players managed to hit 50 home runs in a single season. It happened 23 times from 1995 to 2007. Selig leads with the usual caveats and excuses. “Something was going on, for sure. But we didn’t know what it was. Nobody really did. Players were spending unprecedented amounts of time in the weight room,” he writes.

The players’ head sizes were also expanding, alongside their chests and biceps. Selig admits he was late to grasp the scope and depth of the steroid problem. His defense has two main themes: The first is that everyone else was late to it, too — which is true — and that many of the current steroid scolds had no problem with the sudden influx of 500-foot home runs in the mid-’90s.

Selig singles out Bob Costas — who wrote a blurb for the book — on this point:

“I like Bob. I always have, I always will. … But he was like so many of the reporters in that era. While the home run race was going on, he was enjoying it like a kid. Years later he’d insist he knew it was fueled by steroids all along.”

But the main thrust of Selig’s argument is that he wanted to test players for drugs but was repeatedly blocked from doing so by the players union. “We just can’t let you start testing, we can’t do that,” he quotes then-MLB Players Association head Donald Fehr as saying at one point during negotiations.

After years of investigative reporting, public congressional shaming and eventual pressure from the players themselves, the union finally agreed to testing and harsh penalties for positive results. The home run totals dropped, and players stopped looking like professional wrestlers. But the steroid scandal never completely went away, and among other things, Selig had to eventually suspend superstar Alex Rodriguez for an entire season for drug use.

The result of it all: The baseball history and records that Selig so clearly loves are now distorted and tainted by a generation of chemically enhanced performance. Selig has a right to be a bit defensive — those battles over drug testing played out in public — but I wish he had been a bit more reflective on what he, as the head of Major League Baseball, could have done to limit the problem, or fix it faster.

There’s one more scene from the 2002 All-Star Game that sticks in my mind. It’s from the Home Run Derby, the night before the game itself. Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly had just shamed Cubs star Sammy Sosa by confronting him in the locker room and asking him, then and there, to take a drug test. Sosa had angrily refused, and when he came to the plate, the Milwaukee fans all booed and jeered him as a steroid user and a cheat.

Then, Sosa began launching titanic home runs. As the balls he hit clanged off the upper deck, off the scoreboard, and even off the back wall of the entire domed stadium, the mood turned. The cheers grew louder and louder as the balls flew farther and farther. Everyone was thrilled and entertained by Sosa, and suddenly they didn’t quite care what he was or wasn’t injecting into his body.

Everyone — the players, the unions, the owners and, as that moment made clear, the fans — shares the blame for baseball’s steroid problem.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Equal Pay For Equal Play; The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Tackles Its Next Quest

U.S. Women’s National Team players celebrate with the FIFA Women’s World Cup Trophy following team’s victory Sunday.

Maja Hitij/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Maja Hitij/Getty Images

The celebration of the Women’s World Cup soccer championship shifts this week from France to New York City. On Wednesday, the U.S. Women’s National Team will be honored with a ticker tape parade and keys to the city, following its 2-0 win over the Netherlands in Sunday’s final in France.

But amid the celebration, the women now turn their focus back to a more serious matter. A gender discrimination lawsuit, filed before the tournament, demands pay equal to that of their male counterparts. And legions of U.S. Women’s National Team supporters say a fourth Women’s World Cup title makes the case even stronger.

Equal pay

In the stadium near Lyon, France, on Sunday, it didn’t take long for the pivot.

From joy to indignation.

As U.S. players hugged and celebrated their hard-earned victory over a tough Dutch team, chants of “equal pay” bubbled up from the stands. There was booing too — for members of FIFA, soccer’s international governing body, which reportedly will pay the U.S. women a $4 million bonus, compared with the $38 million paid to last year’s World Cup winner.

From fans to players, the message was clear.

“To have our ladies represent and show that our soccer program is superior, it should inspire the United States to pay these women what they deserve to be paid,” said Kenneth Lloyd, from Austin, Texas. He watched the game in France with his son and daughter.

Megan Rapinoe, the outspoken U.S. winger, won the Golden Ball award, given to the tournament’s MVP. But after the match, she assumed her other role as outspoken plaintiff in the class action suit filed in March against U.S. Soccer, the sport’s governing body in the United States. The suit was brought by U.S. players, but Rapinoe says everyone at this Women’s World Cup helped push the fight forward.

“All players, I’m saying every player at this World Cup, put on the most incredible show that you could ever ask for,” Rapinoe said. “We can’t do anything more to impress, to be better ambassadors, to take on more, to play better, to do anything. It’s time to move that conversation forward to the next step.”

A tricky resolution

The next step is mediation, as the members of the U.S. women’s team and their federation try to resolve issues of equal pay and better working conditions.

On the surface, resolution seems easy.

Pay the U.S. women what the U.S. men make. Look at the women’s success versus the men’s lack thereof, amplified on Sunday. The women won their fourth Women’s World Cup title, while the men lost in the final of a regional tournament. In 2017, the men failed to qualify for the World Cup for the first time since 1986.

And look at what the teams earn for their federation.

The Wall Street Journal reports that from 2016 to 2018, U.S. women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue, compared with $49.9 million for men’s games.

Still, sports law expert Michael McCann says resolving the issues is tricky.

“It’s a complex topic,” McCann says, adding, “It’s not as straightforward as I think it’s depicted.”

McCann directs the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire’s School of Law. He says there’s not a clear consensus on a lot of the issues involved in this dispute.

“The two systems [for paying women and men] are designed differently,” McCann says. And the systems were structured through separate collective bargaining agreements.

“The men’s system pays players when they play, through bonuses, whereas the system for women’s players has guaranteed pay and also pays for certain bonuses as well. But it’s structured differently.”

McCann says there’s debate about how revenue is attributed to the men’s team’s players and the women’s team’s players. There’s debate about sponsorships. Sponsorships are sometimes sold in bundled packages, so it’s difficult to say they go to one team or the other.

Also, the teams play different numbers of games, and that has an effect on revenue as well.

So with all these complexities and moving parts, is the popular perception that the U.S. women are grossly underpaid compared to the men accurate?

According to an article in The Washington Post, the women are paid less sometimes. The biggest pay discrepancy does appear to be in World Cup bonuses, mentioned earlier.

McCann says the lawsuit remains on the docket while mediation goes on, but the litigation is effectively suspended during talks. If mediation fails, he says, [the women] resume their litigation.

Part of a larger story

Emily Martin is watching what happens from her position at the National Women’s Law Center. She’s vice president for education and workplace justice at the NWLC, and she sees the women’s fight as part of a broader, reinvigorated women’s movement of the past couple of years.

“This should be seen as connected to the Time’s Up initiative,” Martin says, “where so many women in the entertainment industry and beyond stood up and said, ‘We aren’t going to sit around in the face of inequality anymore. We’re demanding our due.’ “

“I think it’s connected to the Me Too movement, where so many individuals shared their stories and said it’s time to really fundamentally change how we treat victims of sexual violence in this country.”

“And it’s connected to the Women’s March, where so many women literally took to the streets to say the status quo isn’t good enough and it’s time for a change.”

Even if the pay gap between the U.S. women and men might not be as glaring across-the-board as is often depicted, Martin thinks women everywhere in this country, whatever their jobs, should pay attention to the case. She says when you compare women and men who work full-time, year round, women are paid about 80 cents for every dollar paid to men.

“I do think it will inspire individual women to come forward and say, ‘Pay me what you owe me,’ ” Martin says. “I also think that when you see this kind of high-profile excellence fighting for equal pay, this is an important prompt for lawmakers … both on the state and federal level … to do the same.”

Martin says considering the U.S. Women’s National Team’s sustained excellence, pay equality may be aiming too low — and perhaps it’s time to ask for better pay.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)