Baseball Toaster The Griddle
A place where a man can slow down to a walk and live his life full measure, but he has to keep his watch on Pacific Time.
Frozen Toast
Google Search
The Griddle

02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  10  07 
06  05  04  03 
Suggestions, comments, ring the catcher's interference alarm?

Email me at

The stuff I keep track of
Random Game Callbacks

Select a date:

Personal favorites that I wrote
Book Review: 'I Live for This!' by Bill Plaschke with Tommy Lasorda
2007-11-25 23:21
by Bob Timmermann

For a man who is supposedly beloved by not just fans of the Los Angeles Dodgers, but by people EVERYWHERE, Tommy Lasorda is not the most popular person. Lasorda decided to give Los Angeles Times sportswriter Bill Plaschke the chance to document in his life in I Live for This. And after a fairly promising start with a look back at the early parts of Lasorda’s life and his baseball career, the book devolves into one long complaint by Lasorda and Plaschke about how the post-Lasorda Dodgers lost their way because the organization did not heed the words of a man who apparently will do just about anything to stay in the public eye.

Plaschke’s writing style for this book is far better than his columns. There are fleshed out paragraphs. There are good transitions between Lasorda’s frequently told tales and flashbacks to his earlier parts of his life. The tales of a combative Lasorda in his early days of pro ball are interesting as well as learning that Lasorda’s biggest influence as a manager was Ralph Houk, who managed Lasorda when he pitched for the Denver Bears. Houk impressed upon Lasorda that the best motivational tool for any manager was praise and a pat on the back and not verbal abuse. Lasorda insists that the only player he ever criticized publicly was Fernando Valenzuela at a grievance hearing in 1991, when he told an arbitrator that Valenzuela’s career was done. Lasorda claimed he did this out of loyalty to the Dodgers organization and he didn’t really mean it. Nevertheless, Valenzuela parted ways with the Dodgers for nearly a decade after it.



In the book, we learn that many of Lasorda’s players from his minor league days are still close to him, especially Bobby Valentine and Bill Buckner. But we also learn that the Dodgers of today just don’t want to spend time listening to Lasorda spin his yarns over and over again. Plaschke seems to think this is a failing of modern players, although from the book you get the impression that Lasorda is not the sort of person you want to get seated next to on an airplane that’s stuck on a taxiway for six hours because of bad weather. Lasorda’s stories can go on indefinitely. And some of them have kernels of truth, but many seem embroiderd out of whole cloth.

Plaschke doesn’t press Lasorda too much on his three most prominent managerial failures: the 1980 tiebreaker playoff loss to Houston, the loss to the Giants on the last day of the 1982 season that gave the Braves the division, and the decision to have Tom Niedenfuer pitch to Jack Clark in the ninth inning of Game 6 of the 1985 NLCS. Lasorda just says he made a bad decision and moves on. Interestingly, Lasorda thinks that he should have given Valenzuela the start in the 1980 playoff and both he and Plaschke (and the editors of the book) failed to note that Valenzuela had pitched the day before (for two innings) and he was unlikely to last long in the game on zero days rest.

Lasorda’s two World Series wins, 1981 and 1988, are given big play by Plaschke and both of them, predictably, give a lot of credit to Lasorda for motivating the Dodgers to win. In Plaschke’s view, the Dodgers beat the Mets and A’s in 1988 by the sheer power of Lasorda’s personality.

After Lasorda stepped down as manager in 1996 after suffering a heart attack (Lasorda claims he quit solely because his wife insisted he do so), the book starts to jump off the rails. The 1997 Dodgers, led by Bill Russell, whom Lasorda had a falling out with, lost the NL West to the Giants because they lacked heart.

Once Rupert Murdoch and Fox buy the team, Lasorda’s role with the team was marginalized, although he did get to serve as a GM for a half-season in 1998. Lasorda’s trade of Paul Konerko to the Reds for Jeff Shaw is not considered a black mark against Lasorda in Plaschke’s viewpoint.

Bob Daly and Kevin Malone eventually shunt Lasorda off even more and the Dodgers keep losing. This is mainly because Lasorda’s views aren’t heard, according to Lasorda and Plaschke. Plaschke recounts the time during the 2001 Winter Meetings when then Reds GM Jim Bowden refused to meet with Dodgers GM Dan Evans until Lasorda was in the room as something that was necessary for the Dodgers to right themselves. Others might view it as the young BS artist (Bowden) wanting praise from the master BS artist (Lasorda).

Plaschke depicts the 2000 Olympics as one of Lasorda’s shining moments as he rode a hastily prepared team of minor leaguers to a surprising gold medal win over Cuba. But in the book, Lasorda comes across as a prototypical “Ugly American” who tries to intimidate the opposing teams by encouraging rough play and continually baiting the umpires. In the gold medal game, Lasorda refused to let his pitching coach, Phil Regan, tell him what starter Ben Sheets’s pitch count was. Lasorda was going to leave him out there until the game was over. (I couldn't find the pitch count, but Sheets threw a four-hit shutout and got a lot of ground ball outs, so it likely wasn't too high. According to Repoz at BTF, Sheets threw 103 pitches.)

The book ends with Frank McCourt, then just a prospective buyer of the Dodgers, calling Lasorda early in 2004 asking for his help in running the team. And all is well in the Dodgers world again because Lasorda has returned to give the Dodgers stability.

And since then, the Dodgers have won two divisional titles. They are also on their third manager, their second general manager, and have chewed up and spit out front office employees at a pace that would make George Steinbrenner blanch.

And yet through it all, Lasorda remains a Dodger. He claims to value loyalty more than any other quality and he claims that’s why he’s been paid by the Dodgers for most of his adult life. Lasorda says he is loyal to the Dodgers above just about everything else. But is Lasorda loyal to the Dodgers or is he just a guy who knows how to survive? Is he “baseball’s last true believer” as the subtitle of the book implies or is he the ultimate politician? Plaschke doesn’t answer this question. He’s too busy admiring the façade that is Tommy Lasorda to find out.

2007-11-25 23:45:44
1.   bhsportsguy
First, thanks, now I don't need to read the book.

Second, as you and I discussed at the game the other night, one of the big mysteries to me is just who decided that Tommy Lasorda is a beloved baseball figure.

2007-11-25 23:57:09
2.   68elcamino427
When one of my sons was playing JC ball, Tommy was at a game. Very nice guy and very approachable. However, the yarns never stopped. Plaschke and Lasorda, what a combo.
2007-11-26 00:14:04
3.   trainwreck
2007-11-26 00:16:39
4.   Strike4
I've always gotten a lot of enjoyment out of Tommy, and I don't think beloved is too strong a word. His stories are usually entertaining, and often he has been motivational to me. Even my dubious daughter enjoyed Tommy's pep talk at a high school scholar's week at Pepperdine last summer. There are worse things than accepting responsibility for the major gaffes of his managing years. I give him some credit for signing and nurturing Mike Piazza. I give him credit for carrying on positively after his son's tragic death too. Does the book cover any family stuff at all?

What does the subtitle mean, "baseball's last true believer"? Believer of what?

2007-11-26 00:23:21
5.   Bob Timmermann
The death of Lasorda's son is mentioned briefly by Lasorda in the acknowledgments.
2007-11-26 01:12:17
6.   Eric Enders
"Lasorda thinks that he should have given Valenzuela the start in the 1980 playoff and both he and Plaschke (and the editors of the book) failed to note that Valenzuela had pitched the day before (for two innings) and he was unlikely to last long in the game on zero days rest."

I've gotta call BS on this. Jon has advanced this viewpoint before, too, and yet for all the respect I have for you guys, I just can't see how it makes any sense. Are managers not allowed to plan more than 24 hours in advance? The game in which Valenzuela pitched the day before was already decided by the time he entered the game. Does it not stand to reason that the reason Lasorda pitched Fernando in this meaningless situation was because he'd already decided against starting him the next day? And that if he had been inclined to start Fernando in the tiebreaker game, that he simply could have used another pitcher for the mop-up duty in game 162?

2007-11-26 05:05:04
7.   joejoejoe
Was Bob Welch hurt at the end of the '80 season? The last game he pitched was #156.

6 As for Fernando, I'd say Lasorda may have considered starting Valenzuela just as you consider all of your options when filling out a lineup -- it's your job to consider rare contingencies as a manager that may give you an advantage. Also arguing against Lasorda's account is the zero career starts for Fernando to that point in 10 career appearances, the 2 IP in game #162, AND the 2IP in game #160. Valenuela pitched not once but twice after Dave Goltz got the start in game #159. It sure doesn't look like Fernando Valenzuela got THAT much consideration for the start.

I don't doubt in hindsight Lasorda thinks "Damn, I wish I had started Valenzuela" but not only did Lasorda NOT pitch Valenzuela, his first choice out of the pen in the 4th inning was Rick Sutcliffe. That doesn't exactly confirm Lasorda was close to picking Valenzuela to start. I'm not sure many manangers would have gone with a 19 year old kid with zero career starts to pitch a 1 game playoff in real time so it's nothing against Lasorda to go the way he went with the solid Dave Goltz. Goltz had just throw 4 starts of 7+ IP without allowing more than 3 runs in a game so he wasn't a bad choice.

It's fun to argue but it really doesn't matter as much as you would think. The Dodgers could have pitched Sandy Koufax and still lost -- they only scored 1 run in the game.

2007-11-26 05:21:29
8.   joejoejoe
7 Just to clarify I think Lasorda considered starting Valenzuela like Joe Torre considered putting Derek Jeter at DH in New York. I'm sure Torre considered it almost every day with respect to rest, health, the needs of the team. He then quickly discarded the idea. Jeter played 1820 regular season games for Torre and was DH 7 times.
2007-11-26 07:25:28
9.   Mark T.R. Donohue
6 I wish my team had existed long enough that I could still be angry about stuff they failed to do in the year I was born.
2007-11-26 08:41:47
10.   Repoz
"(I couldn't find the pitch count, but Sheets threw a four-hit shutout and got a lot of ground ball outs, so it likely wasn't too high.)"

Pitch count was 103.

2007-11-26 08:42:45
11.   Bob Timmermann
You put that comment in about the same time that I put the info into the body of the post.
2007-11-26 08:51:56
12.   Bob Timmermann
Welch pulled a groin muscle in his last start of the season. He would have been unavailable for the playoffs.
2007-11-26 09:35:11
13.   KG16
I've always liked Tommy. He was a pretty decent manager, for the era in which he was a manager. He is full of BS? Probably, but most people are, it's just the degree to which others will call them on it and they are willing to admit it themselves. He's been less than good since he left his job as manager. He was Jordanesque as a GM. He'd be good in the "baseball ambassador" role, but he keeps trying to impose his will on roster moves and I don't think that's so much a good idea, the game's changed a lot since he was in charge.
2007-11-26 09:48:08
14.   wireroom
I read the book as well and although Tommy Lasorda is the "Ugly American" in a lot of ways, he also is unique which I give him credit for. A guy like Jeff Kent or Luis Gonzales would never had been given the room to act a fool when it came to playing time. Lasorda would have played the best team he had and they would have had to live with that. The part in the book where he allows Garvey and Sutton to battle it out and settle it between themselves illustrates that for me. The rest of the team saw it as two jerks settling it man to man instead of in the papers.
2007-11-26 12:56:34
15.   scareduck
This isn't a biography, it's a hagiography, a form for which Plaschke is uniquely suited. The exclusion of the Shaw/Konerko trade (and his role in the Martinez/DeShields trade) is unsurprising. There's an interesting biography of Tommy Lasorda waiting to be written, but we may have to wait until after he's dead for it to get published.
2007-11-26 13:03:05
16.   Bob Timmermann
The Shaw/Konerko trade is mentioned. It's just not analyzed.
2007-11-26 15:13:26
18.   scareduck
BTW, great review, Bob.
2007-11-26 19:35:05
19.   bobsbrother
It's interesting that it's "by Bill Plaschke with Tommy Lasorda." Usually those things read the other way around.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.