Jun.27
electoral-vote.com
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Info/banners.html
Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Saturday Q&A

It's non-politics Saturday!

If you're still pondering the headline theme, we'll suggest you'vE GOT to concentrate.

Non-Politics Questions

M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: Donald Trump seems to want to celebrate the Fourth with yet more self-aggrandizement. That means that we're pretty much on our own to celebrate as usual with local fireworks (in areas where that's safe) and backyard barbecues. Many of us feel a need for something special this year. Suggestions?

(Z) answers: Perhaps this may seem macabre, but my advice is to pick a local cemetery and visit it. Military is fine, civilian might be better. Walk around, look at the graves, and reflect on the stories of the people there as best you can. For example, if you see a grave of someone born in 1901, and who died in 1983, think about what the country was like when they turned 18. And when they got married (if you can tell what year that was). And when they turned 40. And when they became a senior citizen. Think about the movies they might have watched, the TV programs they might have viewed, the books they might have read, the music they might have enjoyed. Think about the wars they saw (and maybe participated in), the presidents they lived under, the laws that were passed, the controversies they probably had an opinion on. Think about the clothing they probably wore, the foods they probably ate, the cars they might have driven.

Do that with half a dozen graves, or a dozen. If you can get some gender and, in particular, racial, diversity in there, all the better. Sometimes there are photos/engravings on graves, or if someone is named Lamont or Athena and was born in Louisiana in 1918, there's an excellent chance they were Black. Imagine what their life was like growing up, and then how it did, and did not change. The radical, almost unimaginable activism that they witnessed, and may have been a part of.

The version of the nation's past that Donald Trump is peddling is more a fantasy than a fact. The version of history that professional historians offer up is less problematic, but still represents a compromise, as one cannot do true justice to tens or hundreds of years and tens of millions of people in an hour of lecture or a few pages of writing. Reflecting on the lives of those who have gone before is a small corrective for that; a reminder of those who have gone before, and the ways in which their lives interacted with the broader forces of history. It's also a big part of the reason why we do the "Never Forget" series.

Oh, and if you think to bring a flower, or a small flag, or a stone for the graves you visit, all the better.


R.B. in Coon Rapids, MN, asks: You discussed the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history. What do you think are the greatest foreign policy successes? And hypothetically, what could current and future administrations learn from these successes?

(Z) answers: Here are the five greatest foreign policy successes, in my view, with #1 being the greatest success:

  1. PEPFAR (2003)
  2. The International Space Station (1988)
  3. The Emancipation Proclamation (1862-63)
  4. The founding of the United Nations (1945)
  5. The Marshall Plan (1946)

These are mostly from the last century, obviously, because since the World Wars, the world has been a different place. Rather than the imperial/survival-of-the-fittest ethos that reigned before and during the "Long Ninteenth Century," it is abundantly clear that cooperation and coordination are now the dominant paths to success and prosperity. That is the lesson here.

The first event that is more about the U.S. protecting its borders, rather than reaching across them, that would make my list would be the War of 1812, which would check in at #7. That war established definitively that the U.S. was a viable sovereign power, and caused the European imperial powers to keep their hands off. Again, though, that was a different era of American history, and the more recent stuff has been more impactful.

Last week, after I gave my top five blunders, I recounted the Top 10 blunders put together by the Council on Foreign Relations. They also did a list of Top 10 successes. Here is that list (and no, I did not look before I did mine, so I have no idea what they chose as I type this sentence):

  1. Handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
  2. Monroe Doctrine (1823)
  3. Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807)
  4. Creation of the Bretton Woods System (1944)
  5. Creation of NATO (1945)
  6. Lend-Lease Act (1941)
  7. Louisiana Purchase (1803)
  8. Treaty of Alliance With France (1778)
  9. Creation of the United Nations (1945)
  10. Marshall Plan (1946)

So, our top two are the same, and then... not so much. Items #3-#6 on their list are all the United States asserting itself, its sovereignty, and its territorial claims, and, as I said, I am more impressed by cooperative acts. So, it's not surprising our lists diverge once the CFR moves away from the two great cooperative endeavors of the post-World War II era.

I also fail to see how the prohibition on the importation of slaves is a foreign policy decision at all. That is a domestic policy. If you want to highlight how anti-slavery action beneficially affected the United States' relationship with the more englightened nations of Europe (viz., France and the U.K.), then what you want is the Emancipation Proclamation, from my list, which persuaded those nations not to recognize (and thus supply/arm) the Confederacy.


M.L. in Franklin, MA, asks: From your "Foreign Policy Blunders" lists, why did you include aiding the White Russians in the Russian Revolution, and why don't you consider the Native American-related-items on the Council of Foreign Relations list to be foreign affairs choices? The former most people might not be aware of, and the latter are typically referred to as sovereign nations.

(Z) answers: Aiding the White Russians pissed off the Red Russians, who ended up winning the war and running that nation for the next 70 or so years. Maybe the U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship would have been highly fraught even if that was not the case, but that certainly did not help. And there is some evidence that a lot more cooperative action (along the lines of the U.N.) might have been possible, if not for the lingering resentments from the 1910s.

And the fact is that Native Americans are now citizens of the U.S. Further, while the tribes benefit now from the legal notion that their are quasi-sovereign nations, that notion was originally created to justify military and legal action against them. And so, it's in the same ballpark as the three-fifths compromise. Most historians consider Indian policy to be domestic policy, for these reasons.


J.B. in Pinckney, MI, asks: If James Birney does not run for president on the Liberty Party banner in 1844, does Henry Clay win New York, and the presidency? If so, there is likely no war with Mexico, but gold is still found in California, so what happens next with regards to California? Does it join the U.S., stay in Mexico, or become independent? And how does that result impact the debates over slavery in the territories that led to the Civil War?

(Z) answers: Clay probably would have won the presidency, but for Birney. There is little chance that an anti-slavery voter was going to vote for the slave-owning Democrat, James K. Polk, and so if one New York Birney voter in three had cast their ballot for Clay, he would have been president.

Other than that, things likely would have reached the same endpoint, though by a moderately different route. Clay probably would not have triggered the Mexican War, but California was ready to rebel (as Texas had), and in fact did so in the last months of the Mexican War. Had the Mexican War not pushed the Californios over the edge, the discovery of gold surely would have.

Meanwhile, the U.S. was desperate to gain California (and had been subtly encouraging revolt for years), and it's hard to imagine that some pretext would not have been found to grab it if the people of California did NOT rebel. Clay did not want new slave states, but he did want new states for free, white labor, and he would have perceived California as such a state.

And the debates that plunged the U.S. into the Civil War were not over territories acquired from Mexico (except, of course, California). They were over territories carved out of the Louisiana Purchase, particularly Kansas. And the fate of other territories made from that land (Colorado, Nebraska, etc.) would have been a hot issue even without the Mexican Cession. So, the Civil War would still have come. Maybe one or two presidential cycles later, maybe not.


J.F. in Ft. Worth, TX, asks: As this is the last weekend of Gay Pride Month, I wanted to ask the resident historian about James Buchanan. It seems to be an accepted fact these days that Buchanan was gay, based mostly on his letters with William Rufus DeVane King, but is this just wishful thinking? Were these letters unusual or were they typical of the flowery, emotive language of educated men at the time? I never hear about these letters being compared to those of (reportedly) straight gentlemen.

(Z) answers: Men of that era often used flowery, emotive language in letters to other men. Not all of them, but many of them. This was consistent with the style taught at institutions of higher learning in that era, which blended the intense emotionalism of the Romantic movement with the verbosity of early Victorianism. When you read a man of that era who does NOT do this, such as Abraham Lincoln, it is usually because they did not have much formal education (as Lincoln did not). Lincoln did try his hand at this style, and wrote some pretty flowery poetry, but it did not come naturally to him and he did not use it in his correspondence.

I would not say that historians accept that Buchanan was gay, per se. I would say that the weight of the evidence is that he was gay, and that we're never going to know for sure. The flowery letters are not the most important point. Much more instructive, particularly to the people of their day, is the fact that Buchanan and King were both very eligible bachelors (i.e., they had money and power in a time when many marriages were more about economics than passion), and yet chose not to marry, and instead lived together for 15 years. Also, people who knew them and watched their interactions generally concluded there was something more there than just "two good, manly friends." Andrew Jackson knew both men well, for example, and was 100% persuaded they were gay.

I should note that it is entirely possible that the two men were what we would call homoromantic asexual. That is to say, they only felt romantic feelings toward other men, or they primarily felt romantic feelings toward other men, but they did not act on that sexually.


W.V. in Andover, MN, asks: The recent death of Gordon Wood put historians into the news this month. If we limit this to just American history and its various eras such as Colonial, Revolutionary, Civil War and Vietnam, or to American political or military history specialists, can you identify the leading historians of the past 60 or so years, and perhaps a favorite writer or two of American historical fiction or alternate American history?

(Z) answers: I will do much better at this in my areas of expertise, but here's a stab at it:

Quite a few of these people worked in more than one of the areas on this list; I put them where their most important work was done. And I put the political historians in the era of their most important work. Note also that I don't agree with all of these scholars, but that doesn't mean that they're not good historians.

I am not too much a reader of historical fiction/alternate history, but Gore Vidal and Harry Turtledove are probably the two most famous names in that area of literature. And I have often recommended the adjacent book The Collected What If? Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been.


A.N. in Tempe, AZ, asks: Tad Stoermer's book A Resistance History of the United States is now available. Is he respected among academic historians? Have you, or do you plan to read this (non-academic) book? I sure would love to see (Z) post a review of this book, as I expect a lot of the book covers much of (Z)'s primary expertise.

(Z) answers: I would say that academic historians, by and large, appreciate anyone who can get a broader audience interested in history. That said, Stoermer's book is by its nature somewhat polemical, and if he has to choose between: (1) absolute fealty to the historical record and (2) making his writing more interesting/shocking, he will choose #2. He is trying to be a successor to Howard Zinn, and as long as you keep that in mind, then you'll do OK reading the book.

If I happen to pick up a copy and read it, I'll post something. No promises, though.


R.K. in Cambridge, MN, asks: I am very interested in your detailed view of Civil War historian James McPherson. When I first picked up Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, I became a lifelong fan of his. But I'd like to hear from a Civil War historian colleague of his, and I promise not to be offended or put you on my enemies list.

(Z) answers: He is one of the finest Civil War historians of this generation, or of any generation. He's been doing important work since he was in grad school at Princeton 60+ years ago, when he wrote about a subject that nobody else considered important at the time: Black soldiers in the Civil War.

Battle Cry of Freedom, which took him 20 years to write, is a masterpiece as it so deftly weaves so many different threads into a cohesive, readable, and yet scholarly narrative. That said, it also speaks to how even the best historical works fall out of date. It was published in 1988, when people were just starting to think about Civil War memory and the pervasive impact of the Lost Cause on perceptions of the Civil War. If Battle Cry were published today, it would surely have at least a concluding chapter on the memory traditions, and on the struggle over the meaning of the war from 1865-present.

McPherson is a somewhat more restrained lecturer than you might expect; his spoken prose is not quite as entertaining as his written prose. (By contrast, of the folks on the Civil War list above, I've also seen Foner, Gallagher and McNeely speak in person, and they are all master showmen). McPherson is, however, a delightful conversationalist and lunch companion; I've dined in a group that included him and a few others at least three or four times.


M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, asks: I'm reading Grant by Ron Chernow. In the beginning of the Civil War, the Southern generals were more experienced than the Northern generals. Many people, including Ulysses S. Grant, attribute that to the early success of the Southern generals on the battlefield. After a while, the Northern generals gained more experience and, since the North had far more men and resources, it made sense for the North to usually fight aggressively and for the South to usually fight defensively.

I noticed the book referred to northern generals like William T. Sherman and Phillip Sheridan as great because they were so aggressive, and Southern general John Bell Hood as less than ideal because he was so aggressive.

Were generals Sherman and Sheridan just in the right place at the right time, where their natural fighting styles just happened to be the right strategy for the situation they were fighting in? General George B. McClellan was a Northern general and he was very cautious. Would he have been considered a great general if he fought for the South, where his natural defensive tendencies were the right strategy for that side? Would John Bell Hood be considered a great battlefield general if he fought for the north?

Would any of the famous Civil War battlefield generals have been considered great no matter which side they fought for? Most people don't have the ability to change gears. They are who they are. Did any of the famous Civil War generals have the ability to fight aggressively when that was the right strategy and fight defensively when that was the right strategy?

(Z) answers: There are certainly a great many generals who were really only gifted in one aspect of warfare. McClellan was a talented administrative general, and might have done well if he had been limited to an Eisenhower-like "supreme commander" role, as opposed to being asked to command troops in battle. On the other hand, he might not have done well. McClellan actually did have an Eisenhower-like "supreme commander" role during the Civil War (he was general-in-chief) and, like Doug MacArthur, he failed to accept that his job was to achieve the goals of the civilian leadership, not to decide for himself what the goals should be.

The key to being a successful general in the Civil War was adaptability, and I mean that in two ways. First, generalship hadn't become quite as specialized as it would be in the world wars (and subsequent conflicts), with some generals handling grand strategy, others overseeing logistics, others commanding troops, others dealing with diplomacy/civilian interface, etc. So, a Civil War general had to be reasonably competent in all of those things.

Second, most high-ranking generals were West Point-trained. And the West Point curriculum was based on Napoleonic warfare, which had been rendered largely obsolete by modern weaponry, which was accurate over a much longer distance. So, the generals of the Civil War had to re-educate themselves on the fly, and they had to figure out how to deal with both defensive and offensive war, as well as both "on the march" fighting and siege tactics. It's probably true that some of the Southern generals got up to speed more quickly, due to greater opportunity. That said, Grant was pretty much kicking everyone's a** by early 1862, so it's not like it took the best Northern generals all that long to catch up.

Grant ultimately excelled at every task laid out in the previous two paragraphs, and there is every reason to believe that he would have done well in more modern wars. Sherman, too, excepting that he was pretty lousy at dealing with civilians. Although those two men are best known for mounting offensive campaigns, since that is what was demanded of them for much of the war, and since that is where the drama is, they proved they could fight defensively at Shiloh. And their most important victories (Vicksburg and Petersburg for Grant; Atlanta and Savannah for Sherman) were sieges. Much of this also applies to George Henry Thomas, who is the most underrated general of the Civil War.

Sheridan might have been fine if placed into a different time period. The problem is that he was cavalry, and it's hard to do a 1-for-1 comparison. Put him in charge of a bunch of tanks in Operation Torch, and he's probably OK. Send him to secure a village in Afghanistan in 2004, and... who knows?

As to the notable Southern generals, they did indeed tend to be one-dimensional. And that one dimension was usually aggression (Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Bell Hood), except for the ones who were so concerned about their reputations that they sometimes disappeared at big moments (Richard Ewell, A.P. Hill).

The Southern general most likely to prosper in other eras is not Robert E. Lee, I would say. He never really showed he could mount a successful offensive campaign, and he was too prone to falling back on outmoded tactics, as he did with Pickett's Charge. No, the Southern general with the most transferable skills is James Longstreet, who was very strong in both tactics and strategy, and was very good with logistics, and knew a thing or two about politics, too.


S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, asks: Which films do you consider the most effective anti-war statements, and what makes them so powerful?

(Z) answers: The most effective anti-war film I have ever seen is Hearts and Minds, which not only captures the brutality of that war in a way that I wish I could forget, but also shows the vapid and propagandistic nature of America's "mission," and further captures how the war dehumanized all involved, including U.S. soldiers.

Another very effective Vietnam War documentary is The Fog of War, which is a long-form interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. They speak of the "banality of evil," and that film is a pretty good illustration of that concept.

Some of the Vietnam War fictional works are quite effective. I have written several times that I don't like Apocalypse Now, but I will agree that nobody's going to watch that and think the Vietnam War was a good thing. I don't much care for Deer Hunter either, which is a little over-the-top for my tastes, but it too leaves no ambiguity as to its message. I actually prefer Full Metal Jacket, which I think most successfully conveys how war is about regular people just trying to survive, while often being forced to do horrible things in service of that goal.

As to other wars, The Red Badge of Courage and All Quiet on the Western Front both convey the horrors faced by the common soldier, for the Civil War and World War I, respectively. Most World War II films that focus on soldiers have, as a main theme, "the soldiers were heroic, even if the war was not." So, someone could plausibly watch a film like Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers and come away with mixed ideas. This being the case, I would say the most effective anti-war films set during World War II are the Holocaust-centered ones. And maybe the most effective of those is Schindler's List. Steven Spielberg has a propensity for overdoing it, and thus producing work that's a little maudlin, but this subject is close to his heart, and I think he restrained himself a bit.

Of the modern war films I've seen, I didn't much care for Three Kings, but The Hurt Locker certainly sent the message that modern war is not glamorous.

And if we count the Cold War, and the insanity of the arms race, then add Dr. Strangelove and the documentary Atomic Cafe to the list.


D.S. in Havertown, PA, asks: By the time my teenage daughter graduates high school in a few years, she will be a E.U. citizen, so we have begun exploring options for her to attend college in Europe. From what I've read, the most highly-regarded undergraduate programs taught in English are in the Netherlands, such as the University College programs at the universities in Utrecht, Amsterdam, Leiden, etc. For a highly motivated student raised in the U.S. and interested in the social sciences, what are the pros and cons of attending college in the Netherlands (aside from financial considerations)? How difficult is it for an E.U. citizen from outside of the Netherlands to gain admission to the Dutch University College programs? Aside from excelling on one's college entrance exams and high school coursework, what can a student do to increase their likelihood of being offered admission?

(V) answers: Whether studying abroad is a good idea depends on the student. Some kids are adventurous and revel in new situations. Others drown in them. Most Americans have absolutely no clue what the rest of the world is like and how people view America and the world. It can be a real eye-opener. Being able to adapt easily is a real plus. The Netherlands is probably easier for most Americans than other countries because: (1) everyone under 40 speaks fluent English and, at least until Jan. 20, 2017, Dutch people had a very high regard for America and many people have visited it at least once. Some of that still lingers. These things are much less true in France, Germany, Spain or Italy.

My university (VU Amsterdam) and the University of Amsterdam jointly run Amsterdam University College (AUC), but I have not been involved in it, so what I know is just what I have heard from colleagues. I have been involved in masters admissions, but that is somewhat different.

Unlike in the U.S. you have to select your major on the application form. At AUC the choices are science, social sciences, or humanities, so social sciences is fine.

The colleges are trying to form communities of scholars and future leaders in their respective fields. They don't want subject-matter nerds. They are looking for kids who will add something to the community in some way. They are probably pretty open about exactly how. Having an after-school job working as a clerk in a local store is probably not worth much. Pro bono tutoring poor kids in reading probably is.

The standardized test scores in English and math are important because it is hard to compare grades across countries. Is a 12 in Germany as good as an 18 in France? It is not linear. In the Netherlands, you're not going to get a 10 in physics unless you have already published a paper in Nature or Physical Review.

The letters from teachers are important. A letter that says: "Susan took my course in [X[ and got top grades doesn't add much since they have the transcript." One that says: "Susan took my course and actively took part in class discussions and often challenged other students' views" is better.

The thing you have the most control over is the motivation letter and questions. Read as much as you can find about each program to learn out what they really care about and try to address those. If some program is focused on trying to make the world a better place, your daughter should get involved in some non-school activity that tries to make the world a better place and discuss it in detail. If "international" is their keyword, maybe spend summers taking language courses in some foreign country. By Round 2 in the admission procedure, all the applicants left in the pool will have good grades so you need to stand out in some way consistent with what they are looking for.

While no one will ever, ever admit this, being non-E.U. is probably a plus because tuition for E.U. students is about $6,000 and is close to $25,000 for non E.U. Given a choice between two students, E.U., and not E.U., with the same grades and background, they will be mightily tempted to take the one paying full freight.


F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What do you like about the FIFA World Cup games, and what don't you like? Do you already understand every soccer rule? If not, what is unclear? And now that the group stage is almost over, who are the 10 likeliest nations to win the FIFA World Cup 2026?

(Z) answers: The most exciting part of a gridiron football game, in general, is when the offensive team is within 20 yards of the end zone (a part of the field known as the "red zone"). The most exciting part of a baseball game is when the score is close, and there are runners in scoring position. The most exciting part of a basketball game is when the score is close, and there are a couple of minutes left in the fourth quarter.

Compared to these other sports, association football has more moments where one team or the other is on the precipice of a decisive score. That's very entertaining. (On the other hand, those moments tend to pay dividends less often than in the other sports.) The excitement of the crowds, and the fact that every pub and bar I pass by these days is jam-packed with people wearing football kits, is also cool.

I don't really get the offsides rule. I mean, I read the words online, but I don't get it in the way that I understand the infield fly rule in baseball, or pass interference in gridiron football. I also really don't get how they judge out-of-bounds. There are clearly moments where the player is outside the lines, and the ball is touching the lines—which would be out-of-bounds in any American sport—and yet they play on. There even seem to be times when the ball is outside the lines, too, and they play on. Maybe it has to be REALLY outside the lines? Or outside the lines for an extended period? Or maybe the referee can't see from that far away?

I also don't really understand what the coach does, other than decide on the lineup/substitutions. I know there's strategy, and that there are optimal formations, and that some coaches (e.g., the famous Sir Alex Ferguson) are particularly good. I just haven't grasped those nuances.

As an admitted non-expert, it looks to me that the teams that have a serious chance to win the whole thing are Mexico, Brazil, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, France and Argentina. The Cinderellas, who have at least some small chance, are the United States, Morocco, Belgium and Norway. That's 11, so you got a bonus answer. England has now dropped off my list, as you can see.


E.M.H. in Oslo, Norway, asks: In the spirit of the World Cup: Where in the U.S. is soccer most popular?

(Z) answers: A research firm called Estately tried to sort this out, and came up with this list of the 10 U.S. states where soccer is most popular:

  1. Washington
  2. Maryland
  3. D.C.
  4. New Jersey
  5. New York
  6. Massachusetts
  7. California
  8. Utah
  9. Virginia
  10. Texas

It would appear that it helps to be cosmopolitan and to have large urban areas (two things that usually go together). It also helps to have wealth and open spaces, for youth and adult soccer leagues. And note that while a lot of these states have a large Latino population, not all do. The cosmopolitan-ness of Washington, for example, comes mostly from Canadians and Asians.


B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, asks: My son is on a summer collegiate league team using wooden bats. I'm struck by the number of bats that have broken in the limited games I've seen. Now, the MLB and MiLB are supported in that if a batter breaks a bat, there is another one in the dugout to use. But we have to supply our own and now on bat #3 so far. My question is: What trends exist about how many broken bats have occurred in the major leagues and whether it's the workmanship or the decreasing wood quality? It would seem that the quest to drop an ounce may not be worth the expense of continued bat replacement. Any thoughts?

(Z) answers: Nobody tracks this data on an ongoing basis, but an obvious issue emerged in 2008, when bats were not only breaking at a prodigious rate, they were doing so in ways that sent dangerous, sharp pieces in the direction of unguarded players and fans. So, MLB commissioned a U.S. Forest Service lab to do a 3-month study.

The study found that 2,232 bats broke during the time under examination. That's about 2.5 bats per game. The lab said that the culprit, particularly on those occasions that produced dangerous shrapnel, was maple bats. That wood had just become popular, as it is lighter than the more traditional ash. The problem is that it also has more developed grains, and so the maple bats were more likely to shatter, and more likely to do so over (sharp) grain lines. The U.S. Forest Service lab made some recommendations, the most important of which was that MLB had to carefully inspect the maple being used, and to reject any timber where the grain was subject to breakage. The number of broken bats dropped by 50% the next season, and it's stayed around that level since.

So, perhaps your son and his teammates are using maple bats, and of a quality below that used by MLB? The other possibility is that they are less able to square up on the ball, and so are more likely to make contact with the weaker parts of the bat.


E.T.P. in San Diego, CA, asks: How are you liking the new challenge system for balls and strikes in Major League Baseball?

(Z) answers: It has been working as efficiently as one could possibly hope for. And while the "human error" of players should be a part of the game, I've never accepted that the "human error" of umpires should be. So, I like the challenge system.


M.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: You recently listed some of the greatest baseball players in history. Who are some of the players from the first century of the game who might have become Top 25 players, but their career was cut short by injuries or illnesses that could be treated today?

(Z) answers: Let us start with some caveats. First, the first professional baseball team was the Cincinnati Reds, who began play in 1876. So, I am limiting this to players who played most of all of their careers between 1876 and 1976.

Second, you specified "injuries or illnesses." So, players who were held back by virtue of their race, or by virtue of serving in World War II, or by having been kicked out of baseball for gambling, are not included. On the other hand, we do have to be somewhat speculative about what conditions might have been improved upon with modern medicine. We cannot be certain, of course.

Third, the Top 25 is a very rarified club. A player had to be pretty darn good to be a plausible candidate.

Fourth, this list is mostly going to be pitchers, since they are the ones who tend to burn brightly and then flame out. However, I am not going to include any pitchers who played before 1900. Because pitching was so different in the nineteenth century, pitchers whose careers began/happened in that era are invariably discounted for Top 25/50/100 lists, unless they are Cy Young.

And with that said, here are a half-dozen players who at least had a shot at Top 25 status, if they'd had access to modern medicine:

  1. Sandy Koufax: Let's start with the most famous player on this list. Koufax was good for three seasons, great for four seasons, and... that's the extent of his value. He may be the most admired player alive today, but he simply did not produce enough to be Top 25. Indeed, even if we limit ourselves to only pitchers, his 53.1 career WAR is just 90th all time. On the other hand, if there had been some treatment for the arthritic shoulder that ended his career at the age of 31, he might have doubled that career total, which would put him into the Top 10 pitchers, and thus maybe the Top 25 players.

  2. Addie Joss: He's the guy I first thought of when I read this question. He's the pre-World War II answer to Koufax, and is famous as the one guy for whom the Hall of Fame waived the "10-season minimum" rule (Joss only played 9 seasons). In Joss' case, the issue was not arthritis, it was meningitis, which was originally misdiagnosed, and was untreatable when he got it (1911). He died at the age of 30, with 45.4 WAR on his ledger.

  3. Nap Rucker: He pitched for 10 seasons, and during that time, he led the league in shutouts, complete games, and innings pitched. He also threw the first no-hitter in Dodgers' history. And then, at age 31, his arm failed him for reasons the doctors could not discern. Probably all those innings he was pitching on not enough rest. He finished with 48.3 WAR.

  4. Urban Shocker: His case is a little unusual. He actually benefited from an early injury, in that he broke his finger, and it healed in a way that allowed him to start throwing a devastating curveball. That said, he suffered from a weak heart that slowly sapped his strength, and eventually deprived him of his ability to pitch. He lingered on to age 37, finishing with 59 WAR. However, he was a shell of his former self for his last two seasons, and was at least somewhat hindered by his heart problems before that. He died from heart failure a little more than 3 months after his last game.

  5. Noodles Hahn: This is a bit of a deep dive, but Hahn put up a stellar 43.7 WAR between the ages of 20 and 25. That is most certainly a Top 25 start (better than Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson or Walter Johnson, among others). Then, he had arm pain for two seasons, and was largely useless. One day, at the age of 27, he picked up a heavy suitcase, injured his already ailing shoulder, the doctors couldn't do anything for him, and he never pitched again.

  6. Tony Conigliaro: The only hitter on the list. In the four seasons he played between ages 19-22, he averaged 25 HR and 3.5 WAR. The Red Sox thought they had another Ted Williams on their hands, although Conigliaro played right field rather than left. On August 18, 1967, he was hit in the face by a pitch, which knocked him unconscious and did all sorts of structural damage. The doctors could not fix his vision, the psychiatrists could not help him overcome his PTSD. Conigliaro did not play his age 23 season, which is when power hitters like him tend to begin to fully bloom. He played poorly in his age 24/25/26 seasons and was done, except for a brief comeback attempt at age 30.


B.B. in Pasadena, CA, asks: I have little to no interest in the weekly headline theme puzzle. Which is NOT to say that I want it gone, it is just that my mind doesn't work that way. I scroll past it. (I do computer programming for fun. Go figure.)

But I have come to rest on the final summary each week. This is not a rigorous analysis, just sheer week to week (weak?) memory... But it seems that you almost always get 60 correct answers approximately by the same time each week (late Friday, with a few exceptions?).

If I am correct in that assumption, my question is how come it seems to work out that way? Are there only 60 people playing and that's just how long it takes? Statistics is NOT my strong suit, but an inquiring mind is curious.

(Z) answers: Whenever we go live, which can sometimes be late on Fridays (as it was yesterday), we usually get a rush of responses in the first few hours, either from people who just like to read in the morning (the majority of readers), or from people who want to compete to make the first 60. If the theme is doable enough, then we'll usually get 60 correct answers sometime in those first few hours. If the theme is moderately difficult, we'll usually get 60 correct answers in the first 24 hours. If the theme is very difficult, then... anything's possible.

Even we can't really predict which themes will be difficult. Some we think are pretty easy are actually hard. Some we think are hard are actually pretty easy.


M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: I have a style question. When writing about the British Labour Party, should U.S. news media use U.S. or British spelling of "labor"? (Bye-bye Sir Keir, nice to know you.)

(Z) answers:The British spelling, since that is the formal name of the party, and any other spelling is incorrect. On the other hand, in the U.S., it is correct to write "The U.K.'s Labour Party was initially formed to represent the interests of labor."

The only exception here is when the name is in a foreign language. In those cases, the party generally makes known its preferred English translation, and that is what you use for English-language outlets. So, the French "La France insoumise" would be called "France Unbowed" on this site. Sometimes, the preferred English-language name uses British spelling, and so that is the correct thing to use. For example, the German "Deutsche Zentrumspartei" would be called the German Centre Party on this site.

And finally, if this is not already complicated enough, the English-language translation is used for the full party names, but for abbreviations it's the foreign-language abbreviation. So, "France Unbowed," on second reference, would be called "LFI."


P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: This may not seem like a serious question, but it really is. Have you guys considered writing a book? Profiles in Cowardice. I would envision it being complementary to the more famous Profiles in Courage by JFK. It could easily be a multi-volume best seller that properly dissects cowardly acts by Congress before Trump, some of the more spectacular turnarounds, from outright hostility to completely subservient. You get the idea. I think it could be a book that goes down in history.

(Z) answers: I have many book projects in mind; this would be a good one. That said, it would be a hard sell, as people tend to want to be inspired, not depressed. Doable, but trickier than what Kennedy (and ghostwriter Ted Sorenson) pulled off. I'll have to ponder it.


T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: Any chance you could sell Electoral-Vote.com t-shirts? So maybe us fellow EV-ers can recognize each other!

(Z) answers: This is another project that I have in mind, and that (V) and I have discussed. It is much more likely than any of the book projects to come to fruition in the short-term. Maybe even by the end of the summer. We will see.


M.B. in Glasgow, Scotland, asks: What is the weirdest (most absurd) question/comment you've received?

(Z) answers: I hate to disappoint you, but we get a lot of e-mails. While only a small percentage of them are absurd, a small percentage of a large number is still a lot. So, I can really only think of recent absurd e-mails.

I'll give you an example of something that happens a fair bit, where I am not sure it the correspondent did not understand what we wrote, or I am not understanding what the correspondent is intending to communicate.

To start, here is what I wrote this week that led to the comment:

On the other hand, it's also possible that because of the violence with Hamas, and now the violence with Hezbollah, the worm has turned, and skepticism of Israel has become the dominant (or, at least, an acceptable) position in the Democratic Party. If so, that would be good news for the blue team, which would prefer to be relieved of one of its most divisive wedge issues.

Here is the comment that a reader sent to us in response:

Z is for Zionist.

"Violence of Hamas and Hezbollah."

Collect your $7,000, shill.

Not entirely sure I was connecting the comment with the correct item, I responded:

I think you might want to re-read that item again.

The reader responded:

You're the Bill Maher of blogs.

Oh, well. They are banned now.

Anyhow, that's a somewhat common phenomenon, usually from people on the far-right or, as in this case, the far-left.


This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates