15 years later, Jeff Pearlman, John Rocker still mixing it up over SI story

Jeff Pearlman did a piece for Bleacher Report recalling the 15-year anniversary of his famous Sports Illustrated story on John Rocker.

You remember, the story where the Atlanta reliever showed he was off his rocker, so to speak.

He writes:

We are eternally attached.

John Loy Rocker will always be a part of my life. And, I suspect, vice versa.

Later Pearlman writes:

Truth be told, upon returning to New York I struggled mightily with what, exactly, I should do with the interview. The words were all right there, on multiple tape recordings that covered our full time together. He was a bigoted, xenophobic caveman, and I felt no need to protect a person with such beliefs.

Rocker has maintained, on multiple occasions, that the quotes were pieced together and/or taken out of context. This is 100-percent untrue. When Rocker first made the case, I said I would play the tape for him. He never responded.

And yet…he was also young. And dumb. And naive.

Maybe he’d been showing off for a reporter. Maybe this was his way of playing the role of John Rocker, WWE superstar. Maybe I should have cut him a break. Hell, there was a story already written—John Rocker: Misunderstood Baseball Star.

Pearlman writes about the considerable fallout and the effect it had on him. He even is feels guilt about what happened to Rocker because of the story.

This is where the guilt kicks in.

When, on June 27, 2003, Rocker was released by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, multiple reasons were cited for his demise.

Lost control.

Declining fastball.

Arm troubles.

Sports Illustrated article.

Even though I told myself—repeatedly—that his downfall had nothing to do with my piece, well, I knew it was a lie. Before the Dec. 27, 1999 issue of Sports Illustrated, Rocker was one of baseball’s elite relief pitchers. After the Dec. 27, 1999 issue of Sports Illustrated, Rocker was Doug Sisk. This wasn’t the reason I’d become a journalist—to ruin people’s dreams.

All in all, it is an honest account. Probably much better than Rocker deserved.

Pearlman’s story, though, didn’t go unnoticed by Rocker. He fired back via Twitter yesterday.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I trust this will be the last time we hear from John Rocker–at least until the 30th anniversary of the story.

 

Posted in MLB

Nantz on Masters without Tiger: Tournament is about more than one player

My latest Chicago Tribune column is about CBS’ first Masters without Tiger Woods in 20 years.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed at @Sherman_Report.

It seems CBS and ESPN are going to air the tournament anyway.

Here is an excerpt from the column in which Jim Nantz finally had enough of the talk about Tiger.

*********

CBS analyst Nick Faldo predicts this will be the most “wide open” Masters in years, with as many as 30 players having a chance to win. One of them could be a relatively new face such as Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reed from a highly touted class of first-time players at Augusta.

“I think we have something special in this rookie class,” said Jim Nantz, who will call his 29th Masters. “Once the tournament gets started, we’ll have a quick transition from the headlines of Tiger not being here to these young players and the impact they will have on golf.”

Nantz bristled at the barrage of questions about Woods late during a teleconference last week. He noted with some surprise nobody had asked about defending champion Adam Scott or Rory McIlroy, the two favorites to win.

“If Rory wins, I will be the least shocked guy in the world,” Nantz said.

Nantz’s larger point is that there still will be a golf tournament this week even without Woods, and that the Masters always seems to deliver memorable finishes.

“I don’t think the golf fan cares about the ratings,” Nantz said. “I’ve never had anybody say, ‘Tell me about the ratings when Jack Nicklaus won in 1986.’ I never had anyone say, ‘Phil’s victory was great in 2004, but too bad about the rating.’ It was on Easter Sunday that year (which generally means a smaller rating).

“Yeah, we’re going to miss Tiger, but this tournament never has been about one player. It’s going to be thrilling, and I can’t wait to see what the next script is to be written.”

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully, one day this won’t be news: First active D-1 basketball player announces he is gay

I’m not trying to diminish what Derrick Gordon did today in coming out about his sexuality. It took a lot of courage for the UMass player to announce that he is gay on ESPN’s SportsCenter and SB Nation’s Outsports this morning.

My hope, though, is at some point an athlete coming out won’t be a story that lights up Twitter and requires extensive interviews.

Here is Kate Fagan’s story and interview at ESPN.com.

Here is an interview Gordon did with SB Nation’s Outsports.

Gordon talked about how he was inspired by Jason Collins and Michael Sam. Hopefully, other gay athletes will be inspired by him and won’t feel as if they need to hide any secrets.

If that happens, an athlete’s sexuality becomes a non-story. All that should matter is whether he or she can play.

 

 

Phelps’ contract not renewed by ESPN; Is network looking to get younger?

Digger Phelps announced Monday that last night was his finale at ESPN and in TV.

It likely wasn’t his choice. According to sources, Phelps’ contract wasn’t renewed by ESPN.

Phelps, 72, tried to put a positive spin on the situation.

“I spent 20 years at Notre Dame as a coach and now 20 years here at ESPN doing a great job with all you people. And now it’s time for me to move forward, and this will be my last time on TV,” Phelps said.

Phelps added: “It’s been a great run. Twenty years is always my target for everything, and it’s time to move forward.”

However, when I talked to Phelps in November for a column in the Chicago Tribune, he didn’t sound as if he wanted to move forward from ESPN. From the column:

Phelps, though, has no intention of stopping. Even though he doesn’t like that college basketball has turned into a 3-point shooting contest, he still loves getting to dissect the big moments at the end of the games.

After all these years, Phelps still is a showman at heart. He pulls out a green highlighter and holds it up against the green tie he is wearing. Somewhere along the way, the matching highlighter-tie combination “became my M.O.,” much like the green carnation he wore as coach of the Irish.

“Everywhere I go, people say, ‘Where’s your highlighter?'” Phelps said.

Phelps appears to be having too much fun to think about retiring. His work at ESPN takes him to college campuses throughout the country. That’s where he truly is in his element.

“I’ve lived at Notre Dame for 42 years,” Phelps said. “I still go to the dorms and speak just like I did 40 years ago. People say, ‘Why are you still living (in South Bend)?’ Well, I’m not a Florida guy. I’m not a Palm Springs guy. I’m a campus guy.”

Listen, 20 years is an eternity in TV. Phelps did well to last that long at ESPN.

In this business, new executives come in and want to leave their mark. Changes get made all the time, and Phelps’ number might have come up.

However, given what happened to Brent Musburger, who at 74 got moved over from the being the main voice of college football on ESPN to a lower profile role as lead play-by-play man for the new SEC Network, and now with Phelps, it does beg the question of whether the network is looking to get younger?

I have been told not to read anything into the moves involving Musburger and Phelps. It is “timing” as much as anything else.

For my piece on USA Today on 70-year-old announcers still going strong, John Wildhack, ESPN’s executive vice-president for programming and production, said of the age issue:

“We always want to improve and get better,” Wildhack said. “It’s never been a case of, ‘We’ve got to bring in so-and-so to get younger.’ We’re looking to have a mixture of great veterans and young people who have the potential to grow.”

As I said, people in this business, young and old, get shifted and/or moved out all the time. Still, the “timing” is interesting.

As for the old Notre Dame coach, congratulations on a fine run at ESPN. He was a valuable asset to the network’s college basketball coverage.

And don’t be so sure you have seen the last on Phelps on TV. Once a showman, always a showman.

 

 

Rutgers AD is an idiot: Wants Newark Star-Ledger to go out of business

Rutgers technically doesn’t join the Big Ten for another three months. Still, I would expect Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany might have a conversation with Julie Hermann over her latest comments about the Newark Star-Ledger.

Delany has a keen PR sense. He knows it isn’t good PR to wish for the death of a major local paper, as the Rutgers athletic director did with the Star-Ledger.

Writes Steve Politi:

Clearly, it wasn’t for Julie Hermann. She must have been tickled, because this is the same woman who stood up in front of a class of journalism students a few weeks ago and said it would be “great” if the newspaper died.

No, really. Great. That was her word. The Rutgers athletics director, in a wide-ranging discussion with the class, was talking about her own rocky introduction with the media in New Jersey when … well, here is the exchange:

“If they’re not writing headlines that are getting our attention, they’re not selling ads – and they die,” Hermann told the Media Ethics and Law class. “And the Ledger almost died in June, right?”

“They might die again next month,” a student said.

“That would be great,” she replied. “I’m going to do all I can to not give them a headline to keep them alive.”

Later, Politi gives the requisite statement from the school:

In a statement from Rutgers, Hermann did not apologize or explain her attack on the newspaper, instead stating that she was sharing her experiences “in an informal way and out of the glare of the media spotlight.” Because who would have imagined that journalism students would have recording devices?

“Her comments were in response to a broad array of student questions on a number of different subjects and were reflective of her own personal experiences,” the statement read. “She had no knowledge of the impending reorganization of the Star-Ledger and drastic changes that the newspaper would announce several weeks later, in April.”

Later, he writes:

She has declared war on the largest news gathering organization that covers her athletic department. What could possibly be gained by that? This was another excerpt from her classroom discussion:

“Keeping in mind that salacious sells, keeping in mind that we are a lot of people’s favorite topic, keeping in mind that there are people – I’ve got one guy over at the Ledger and he has one mission, that’s to get any AD at Rutgers fired. That’s his hobby. How soon can I get the new AD fired?”

If that “guy over at the Ledger” is yours truly, then I should make two points: 1. My hobby is gardening. 2. I hope the Rutgers AD gets out of her own way long enough to turn Rutgers into a thriving Big Ten power, because that is much, much better for business.

Does a UConn-Kentucky final do it for you? Two sides to semifinal ratings

I admit as an Illinois alum, there is some jealousy involved here. I mean, even in off years, UConn and Kentucky still go to the NCAA final.  C’mon.

Their regular-season records seem more in line with the NIT. Yet one of them is going to win another title tonight. The rich get richer, right? It doesn’t seem fair.

It will be interesting to see if the country embraces a No. 7 vs. No. 8 seed final. The big-name appeal of the programs likely will help aid CBS’ rating tonight. If you are going to have two low-seeded teams, better to be UConn-Kentucky than let’s say,  Kansas State-San Diego State.

However, CBS can’t play up the Cinderella factor tonight, not with the history of these programs. And the star power also is lacking. There won’t be a consensus No. 1 or 2 pick on the floor.

I don’t think CBS is expecting to do a big number tonight, especially based on the semifinal ratings.

There are two sides to that story. CBS and Turner Sports proudly boasted that Saturday’s Kentucky-Wisconsin game was the most-viewed non-football event in cable history with 16.7 viewers.

However, Sports Media Watch has the other side of the story.

Despite the record, Kentucky/Wisconsin ranks as the lowest rated (tie) Final Four game in the late window in five years and the least-viewed in four.

Obviously, being on TBS, TNT, and truTV instead of CBS was contributing factor; fewer TV homes on cable.

However, I also think there also was a lack of appeal for this Final Four. It wasn’t a sexy bunch, even with UConn and Kentucky.

I’ll watch tonight, but I won’t be happy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes to home team calls: Networks should do more Teamcasts

Yes, there was the inevitable confusion, as CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus predicted.

Viewers were bewildered by pro-(UConn, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Florida) calls on Saturday, depending on where their remotes took them. Adding to the problem was that this was Turner Sports’ first coverage of the Final Four semis.

You could hear people’s brains grinding: What Turner channel? TNT? TBS? Doubt that anyone went to truTV.

If they turned to TNT, a Teamcast outlet, they probably wondered what happened to Jim Nantz and objectivity.

Fortunately, Charles Barkley was on hand to clear things up as only he can.

“You people are all idiots,” Barkley said.

Thanks, Charles.

My view: More Teamcasts, please.

Perhaps due to being a serial channel flipper, but I enjoyed having more options Saturday than the conventional national call. It was refreshing to hear different perspectives and see different presentations.

When Florida went down in the second half, I turned over to the Gator Teamcast to see how their announcers were handling the situation. I liked being able to listen to old pal Wayne Larrivee, one of the true pros in the business, being all-in with Wisconsin.

Richard Sandomir of the New York Times wrote on Rex Chapman being a Teamcast analyst for Kentucky:

“I don’t want to sound like a complete homer,” Chapman said late in the game as he criticized a foul call. Very quickly, he reversed himself. “I guess I do want to sound like a complete homer,” he said, glee in his voice.

I would listen to Chapman tonight if I could. Alas, CBS isn’t using the Teamcast concept for the title game. However, it probably will next year.

The bottom line: Innovation is good. Thinking out of the box is good.

It’s 2014, and TV executives know they can’t give viewers the same old thing. They have the platforms and resources to give viewers something different.

Whether it is Teamcast or ESPN’s Megacast for the BCS title game, or something else, the days of one game-one network, at least for the big games, are likely done.

If it results in some confusion early on, and if Barkley calls you an idiot, well, you’re in good company there.

Richard Clarkson: Legendary photographer working his 60th Big Dance

Cory Collins of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana has a journalism story definitely worth noting. He talks to Richard Clarkson, who is shooting his 60th Final Four.

Collins writes:

A 19-year-old Richard Clarkson drifted toward the rafters of Hec Edmundson Pavilion at the University of Washington, camera in hand. It was 1952. It was the start of a phenomenon. It was the first Final Four as we know it. And like all the greats in this tournament’s history, he took a shot.

The court was lit directly from above, a rectangle framed by more space than bodies. Sixty-two years later, he counts them. Six photographers. That’s it. He’d join them as one of seven.

And:

In the six decades since, things have changed. But there does exist a through-line, a theme: Clarkson captured moments that would define a sport.

There’s the image that defined crushing defeat –a portrait of Adolph Rupp’s Kentucky Wildcats after losing to an all-black starting five from Texas Western in 1966.

“Kentucky was the odds-on favorite at the start of the season to win the championship,” Clarkson explains. “And there they are, defeated. To me, that was the obvious picture. The funny thing about that is, there were other photographers there, and I’ve not seen any one else that photographed them. They were all busy shooting Texas Western, the winners. To me, the other one is the better storytelling.”

Then there’s the picture that put in perspective an unbelievable body: Wilt Chamberlain sitting in a folding chair, his knees reaching for the sky as he ties his shoes.

“He had a very high waist. His legs were unusually long,” the photographer says.

After trying pictures of him dunking, standing tall, Clarkson dragged that chair beneath his lights. Chamberlain had to tie his shoe. Clarkson snapped the shot, his first to appear in a start-up called Sports Illustrated.

And…

So who is Rich Clarkson?

“Rich is a damn good photographer,” Mackson says. “He is a damn good artist…He was an auto-focus onto himself.”

But he is also a great adapter, a man willing to take a risk.

“Rich was open to try new things,” says Mackson. “He knew to get the picture you needed, because then you were safe, then he’d go off and take the risk, and he’d get something that was just unique or outstanding.”

That willingness also applied to new technologies that might have perturbed other industry veterans. Clarkson was never a man set in his ways, just a man who always wanted to capture the best image.

“He was an early adapter, an early adopter,” Mackson explains. “He wouldn’t necessarily invent the technology, but he was early to recognize its value. And he wasn’t afraid to try it.”

Clarkson talks about the early years, when “you would go to a sports event and everyone did the same thing,” a time when “not too many people were trying to be innovative, and they would stand or sit where someone told them to.” Clarkson was not one of these people. He moved when others sat.

But above all, perhaps, Clarkson is an educator, a man who’s left his mark.

Jeff Jacobsen, a photographer for the Kansas athletic department, worked with Clarkson at the Topeka Capital Journal from 1969 to 1979. He’s seen that education firsthand.

“I believe that Rich was a groundbreaking sports and news photographer,” Jacobsen says. “And I think his photography is often overlooked. Because another part of his legacy is how many photographers he helped to nourish, to help grow.

“He’s not always the easiest person to work for because he demands so much of you,” he adds. “But because of his demands, you’ll become a much better photographer and a much better person.”

Book excerpt: Did Babe Ruth waffle about Called Shot? Slugger wasn’t as definitive as family

Note: Taking off for a few days over spring break. Will return next Monday just in time for that “tradition unlike any other,” The Masters.

While I’m out, I hope you will take a look at an excerpt from my book, Babe Ruth’s Called Shot: The Myth and Mystery Behind Baseball’s Greatest Home Run. I examine at all the angles of that famous clout, including what Ruth said. His comments added to the intrigue.

*********

“Well, the good Lord and good luck must have been with me because I did exactly what I said I was going to do.”

—Babe Ruth

Nearly a century has passed since a young kid named George Ruth played his first professional game for the Baltimore Orioles, but the woman on the other end of the line is referring to him as “Daddy.” The notion is almost mind-­boggling. It doesn’t seem possible that Ruth’s daughter could still be alive in 2013, but thanks to longevity Julia Ruth Stevens, 96 years young on the day we spoke, is sharing memories of her father one more time.

I tell her what a thrill it is to be speaking to her.

“It’s a thrill to me that I’m still here,” she said, not missing a beat. “It’s a thrill to me every time I wake up in the morning.”

Charlie Root’s family thought the Called Shot a myth, but Ruth’s family has no such disbelief. While Ruth’s own comments about what happened that day ranged all over the map, there’s no doubt about it in the eyes of his daughter, grandchildren, and great-­grandchildren. He definitely called his shot.

After he married his second wife, Claire, in 1929, Ruth formally adopted Claire’s daughter, Julia, who has spent a good portion of her life talking about “Daddy” and his many deeds on the baseball field. Ruth and Julia had a warm, close relationship, and you still can hear the affection in her voice for a man who died in 1948.

“People always say, ‘It’s such an honor to meet you,’” Julia said. “I know they’re saying that because I’m Babe Ruth’s daughter and that’s the closest they’ll ever get to Daddy. I just enjoy meeting people, and a lot of them have stories about Daddy. I love to hear them.”

Not many people are still alive who can recall witnessing her father hit home runs.

“It was always a thrill,” she said. “I didn’t go to all of the games, but I went to a lot with my mother. I wanted him to hit a home run every time. Everyone would start cheering when he came up. If he hit a home run, it was beautiful to see. He’d trot around the bases. Then when he got to home plate, he’d lift his cap to the crowd.

“I used to say, ‘Hit the apple in the eye, you’ll see how high it will fly.’”

Julia wasn’t in Wrigley Field to see her father hit his massive homer during the fifth inning of Game Three. But she has seen footage and read countless stories about that memorable day. More importantly, she heard direct testimony from key witnesses at the game, including her mother and Cardinal Francis Spellman, the longtime archbishop of New York.

“Daddy certainly did point,” Julia said. “He always seemed to rise to the occasion. He just wanted to beat the Cubs. If he had missed, he’d have been very, very disappointed, I can tell you. Cardinal Spellman just happened to be at the game. He said there’s no question that he pointed. I’ll take his word and my mother’s.”

Ruth’s grandchildren and great-­grandchildren second Julia’s opinion. Brent Stevens, Julia’s grandson, celebrates his great-­grandfather’s life with BabeRuthCentral.com, and Stevens doesn’t waver when it comes to the Called Shot.

“The family’s perspective is that he pointed to the outfield before that momentous pitch,” said Stevens. “Whether he pointed to the exact location, as suggested by some of the media, is more questionable. However, he definitely indicated that he was going to hit a home run prior to that shot in Game Three of the ’32 World Series.”

Linda Ruth Tosetti also staunchly preserves her grandfather’s legend. Her mother, Dorothy, was Ruth’s natural daughter from a relationship he had with a woman whom he never married. Tosetti calls herself a “blood granddaughter” and proudly boasts of her resemblance to her forebear. Tosetti has her own website through which she savors the family connection, TheTrueBabeRuth.com.

Tosetti first heard of the Called Shot when as an eighth-­grader she accompanied her mother on a trip to the Baseball Hall of Fame. “This player came up to us,” she said. “I can’t remember his name, but he was very loud about it. He said, ‘Dorothy, don’t let anyone say he didn’t point. I was there, and I saw it. He pointed.’ Later, I asked my mother, ‘What’s the Called Shot?’”

Tosetti soon learned more about the legend. Like her relatives, she maintains that it is true. “Yeah, I think he was bold enough to point,” she said. “My grandfather was very confident in what he could do. Could he have done it? Most definitely.”

But what about the man himself? What did Ruth have to say about the homer?

Surprisingly Ruth wasn’t always as emphatic as his family about whether he pointed that day at Wrigley Field. Tom Meany, a sportswriter who knew Ruth well, noted Ruth’s inconsistencies when telling the story. In his 1947 biography on Ruth, Meany writes that “Ruth had changed his version several times . . . and had grown confused, uncertain whether he had picked out a spot in the bleachers to park the ball, or was merely pointing to the outfield, or was signaling that he still had one swing to go.”

If ever an episode deserved immediate reaction and commentary from the participants—from Ruth and Root to the jeering Cubs in the dugout—it was the Called Shot. However, it didn’t work that way back in 1932. Sportswriters wrote what they saw on the field. Sports journalism didn’t include working the locker room for quotes from the players and managers. As a result, dispatches went off to newspapers throughout the country following Game Three that featured flowery prose—but nary a quote about the showdown in the fifth inning.

Meany came closest to getting some sort of immediate reaction from Ruth. Writing for the New York World-­Telegram, he told of visiting Ruth’s apartment after the team returned to New York City on October 3. Meany asked him about the Called Shot:

Babe’s interviewer interrupted to point out the hole in which Babe put himself Saturday when he pointed out the spot he intended hitting his home run and asked the Great Man if he realized how ridiculous he would have appeared if he had struck out?

“I never thought of it,” said the Great Man. He simply had made up his mind to hit a home run and he did. You just can’t get around a guy like that.

Ruth’s family insists that he was just being modest. Julia said she never recalled her father talking to her about the Called Shot. “It’s not something he would do,” Julia said. “He was very modest. He felt he was lucky to be in the position he was in. He always tried his best and wanted to be good for all the kids.”

Tosetti offered a similar version: “He wasn’t one to boast about himself. That’s why his teammates loved him. Even though he was Babe Ruth, he never pushed that.”

But one quote in particular buoys the naysayers in this debate. It comes from an interview that Ruth did with Hal Totten early in the 1933 season. Totten, a Chicago broadcast pioneer who had been at the game, asked Ruth that next year if he had pointed to center field. Ruth replied:

Hell no. It isn’t a fact. Only a damned fool would have done a thing like that. You know there was a lot of pretty rough ribbing going on both benches during the World Series. When I swung and missed that first one, those Cubs really gave me a blast. So I grinned at them and held out one finger and told ’em it only takes one to do it.

Then there was that second strike, and they let me have it again. So I held up that finger again, and I said I still had one left. Now kid, you know damn well I wasn’t pointing anywhere. If I had done that, Root would have stuck the ball in my ear. I never knew anybody who could tell you ahead of time where he was going to hit a baseball. When I get to be that kind of fool, they’ll put me in the booby hatch.

Well, there we have it—solid proof. Babe Ruth said he didn’t do it. If he had pointed, Root would have beaned him. The Cubs pitcher is off the hook and doesn’t have to endure an afterlife of questions about being the sap who gave up the famous homer.

It should have been that way, but it wasn’t. If Ruth had made those comments today, the Internet would have exploded with the admission. End of story. But back then, Ruth’s comments to Totten likely reached a limited section of people in Chicago. As a result, his revelation had a short shelf life.

Whatever the reason, Ruth’s admission to Totten didn’t become his definitive take on the subject. Far from it, in fact. The story of the Called Shot continued to circulate, and at some point Ruth jumped on the train. The theories are obvious: Why deny something you really did, or, if the public wants to believe in a grandiose gesture, why not let them?

“I think it got to the point where he was asked about it so many times,” Tosetti said. “When they said, ‘Hey, Babe, did you really point?’ I could see him laughing it off and saying, ‘Yeah, sure.’”

In 1948, shortly before the Bambino’s death, E. P. Dutton published The Babe Ruth Story, cowritten with Bob Considine. It’s hard to say how much Ruth was able to participate in the writing of the autobiography. According to Tosetti, the advancing stages of cancer made it difficult for him to talk in his final months. He might have nodded to indicate if he approved of how something was worded—if even that much.

Still, a line appears under his signature on the book’s cover that reads, “My only authorized story.” The book also features this dedication: “This book, the only authentic story of my life, is sincerely dedicated to the kids of America.” The story is told in the first person, and the stories align with his career.

Ruth doesn’t address the Called Shot until chapter 17. Tellingly, while his famous home run is all anyone talks about from that World Series, he opens by giving credit to Lou Gehrig for the sweep. Ruth might have been the only person who noticed. He wrote, “Lou was the solid man of the 1932 Series.”

Ruth and Considine get their facts wrong when they finally get into the Called Shot itself. His account has Ruth coming up in the fourth inning—but he came up in the fifth. It puts Earle Combs on base—but nobody was on. And of course, as in many retellings of the story, Ruth had the count at 0–2 instead of 2–2.

Ruth starts his account by recalling the abuse he was receiving from the Cubs dugout:

My ears had been blistered so much before in my baseball career that I thought they had lost all feeling. But the blast that was turned on me by Cubs players and some of the fans penetrated and cut deep. Some of the fans started throwing vegetables and fruit at me.

I stepped back out of the box, then stepped in. And while Root was getting ready to throw his first pitch, I pointed to the bleachers which rose out of deep centerfield.

Before the umpire could call it a strike, I raised my right hand, stuck out one finger and yelled “Strike one.”

The razzing stepped up a notch. Root got set and threw again—another hard one through the middle. And once again, I stepped back and held up my right hand and bawled, “Strike two!” It was.

You should have heard those fans then. As for the Cubs players, they came out on to the steps of their dugout and really let me have it. I guess the smart thing for Charlie to have done on his third pitch would have been to waste one.

But he didn’t, and for that I’ve sometimes thanked God. While he was making up his mind to pitch to me, I stepped back again and pointed my finger at those bleachers, which only caused the mob to howl that much more at me.

Root threw me a fastball. If I had let it go, it would have been called a strike. But this was it. I swung from the ground with everything that I had and as I hit the ball every muscle in my system, every sense I had, told me that I had never hit a better one, that as long as I lived nothing would ever feel as good as this.

I didn’t have to look. But I did. That ball just went on and on and on and hit far up in the centerfield bleacher in exactly the spot I had pointed to.

To me, it was the funniest, proudest moment that I had in baseball. I jogged down toward first base, rounded it, looked back at the Cub bench and suddenly got convulsed with laughter.

You should have seen those Cubs. As Combs would say later: “There they were—all out on the top step and yelling their brains out—and then you connected and they watched it and then fell back as if they were being machine-­gunned.”

That home run—the most famous one I ever hit—did us some good. It was worth two runs, and we won that ball game, 7 to 5.

Actually, it was worth only one run, making the score 5–4. It’s surprising that Ruth and his co-writer didn’t have the facts right in his own book. Then again, Ruth could barely remember anyone’s name.

Perhaps Ruth’s most interesting and famous comment on the Called Shot came during a conversation with Ford Frick, his ghostwriter who eventually became baseball’s commissioner. Several years after the game, Frick tried to get a clear answer out of Ruth. “Did you really point to the bleachers?” he asked.

Doubtless tired of answering yet another inquiry or maybe not wanting to lie to his friend, Ruth replied, “It’s in the papers, isn’t it? Why don’t you read the papers? It’s all right there in the papers.”

*******

Reprinted with permission from Babe Ruth’s Called Shot: The Myth and Mystery of Baseball’s Greatest Home Run, by Ed Sherman. Published by Lyons Press (c) 2014.