Ask Doug Wilson, author of The Bird: The Life and Legacy of Mark Fidrych discussion

(I thought I would lob myself the first question) I grew up following baseball in the 1960s and 1970s. Over that period, I never saw a phenomenon like that created by Mark Fidrych when he was doing his thing in Detroit. He brought a fun atmosphere to the game that was desperately needed at the time. I thought it would be fun to revisit that period for those who remembered and it would be good to try to explain to the present generation of fans what the big deal was. The characteristics of Mark Fidrych that made him so popular in 1976 still resonate with fans today.

Any type of generation comparison in the book which IMO would be fascinating. Example...today a picture of Fidrych patting the mound would be tweeted all over the world instantly. In those days we had to wait for the late news or even the next day's newspaper to know about it

Leigh Montville had a great line about Mark in the Wallstreet Journal last week: "He went viral before the term was invented." Back then, it was just good old fashioned word of mouth and newspapers. Certainly today's media would explode with the sort of things he did. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be as good because of all the recent scandals--people would initially think he had some sort of angle or was just doing it for attention. The public has been burned too many times recently. Fans were more naive and openly accepted things back then.

may be some comparisons to Al Hrabowsky ?

I recall when Fidrych died a few yrs ago
under odd circumstances. He was notable
enough that folks in general did at least know of him
when it happened.

Hrabosky had a great act as the Mad Hungarian. He had the wicked Fu Manchu, would stand behind the mound psyching himself up, then slam the ball into his glove and storm up to the mound. It served him well, especially as a short-reliever, coming in with smoke coming out of his ears. It's my understanding that it was mostly an act--he is supposed to be a pretty nice guy. It's interesting that he and Mark appeared together in a movie (The Slugger's Wife) and a lot of old-timers days and charity events over the years.

The main difference with Fidrych and Hrabosky was that with Mark, he was just being himself on the field. He didn't really think it was a big deal until people started reacting to it--that's the way he had been his whole life. That may be one reason why Mark's popularity sky-rocketed. Fans appreciated his honesty and openness and the fact that he was having fun.

Doug wrote: "Leigh Montville had a great line about Mark in the Wallstreet Journal last week: "He went viral before the term was invented." Back then, it was just good old fashioned word of mouth and newspapers..."
But, as I recall, many of the players especially on opposing teams thought he was just showboating and hotdoging.I don't recall that he got much respect from the players.

You're right--initially. Before they got to know him, opposing players resented it. In his first start, Rico Carty was really bothered by his antics. I talked to a guy named Doug Howard who was the Indians first baseman in Mark's first start and he said that by the middle of the game they realized that he wasn't doing it to show them up and they started enjoying watching him. After a few games, after word got around, most players did seem to enjoy it and joined in--Graig Nettles said he talked to his bat, but the damn thing was made in Japan. One other thing is that the players on both teams enjoyed playing in front of the huge crowds--it gave the games an added atmosphere. They appreciated that fans were getting a big kick out of it, and it is always more fun to play in front of 50,000 vs. 12,000. He was very open and it was impossible to ignore him before games, and he talked to everyone on the other teams, so by the middle of the season, most players liked him--his personality and the fact that he was just having a good time made it difficult not to like him.

Doug wrote: "You're right--initially. Before they got to know him, opposing players resented it. In his first start, Rico Carty was really bothered by his antics. I talked to a guy named Doug Howard who was the..."
It seemed genuine to me but I can be naive at times.He was fun-just as damn shame he got hurt so young.

One of the surprising things I found when I was interviewing people was that virtually everyone, from people who knew him in high school, through baseball and afterwards, commented on how genuine he was. They all said, "What you saw on the field in the majors was just the way he was 24 hours a day." Also, players always said he was the best teammate they ever had--he was totally in it for the team. They enjoyed the crowds he brought and the attention he gave them when he pointed to them and shook his fist after a routine play. Surprisingly, minor leaguers who played with him while he was trying to get back to the majors said the same thing--he never changed.

I am one of those younger generation who is interested in the phenomenon that is Mark The Bird Fidrych. I never got to see him play as I was a mere tyke when Fidrych retired. I would imagine that he would be "made for ESPN" and the other national media...

Not knowing the sensation that is The Bird, are there any current players who are as well beloved by players and fans for his love of the game?

Do you think there will ever be anyone like The Bird again?

I can't think of anyone who is close. I hate to say it, but you really just had to be there--it is hard to imagine the level of affection that he generated with fans. Like I mentioned above, I don't think fans will ever give themselves over to a player like that because modern fans are much more wary and jaded. Also, the money changes everything. Mark was filling stadiums while happily making the minimum of $16,500 a year--that played a huge role in his appeal. Nowadays a good pitcher arrives in the majors already having stuck up the team for $10 million; fans expect him to be good or else. Lin-sanity gives you a little idea of what would happen, but imagine that with someone who was the real deal on the field for an entire season, and happened to connect and interact with fans everywhere,and regularly supplied funny lines to interviewers.

you got me thinking, (not always easy),
in 'Fear Strikes Out' Piersall says
many of his teammates hated his antics
which I think were just jumping jacks
and such. The fans loved it. he was
just being himself or at least his
otherself.

That's a great comment--I hadn't really thought about him. There's a great book out there by Danny Peary called "We Played the Game" which is an oral history of the years 1946-64. He interviewed a lot of players and they were very candid with him about teammates. Almost all of the guys who played with Piersall had negative things to say about him; most thought he was a distraction, many thought he was doing it for his own attention. From other things I have read, I think he may have had some type of personality disorder, but he was not a guy who had a lot of friends on his teams. I think maybe the biggest difference is that Fidrych's teammates really liked him. I quoted pitcher Frank MacCormack in the book saying, "I don't know of one person on the team who was jealous, who didn't enjoy it." Almost all the other players I interviewed said similar things. I think if they thought he was trying to call attention to himself they may have resented it. But he continually gave props to his teammates and tried to get them in on things.

Doug, I ordered your book today, and I am absolutely looking forward to reading it. I think Fidrych is an inspired choice for a baseball biography. Who are some baseball writers (or writers outside of the game) who inspired you as a writer yourself? Are there any baseball books in particular that you have found inspirational at all, or have informed your writing style or direction?

Mike,
First, let me say that I think you've got great taste in your choice of books to read.
As for baseball writers, I enjoy reading a lot of authors but, by far, the two who inspired me most are Leigh Montville and David Halberstam. They are so good, that they make it seem easy--I am still envious when I reread their books and I come across a truly great paragraph. I have Montville's The Big Bam and Ted Williams on my shelf and I literally use these as my textbooks. I read them before each of my books, not so much for fun now(although they are great fun, but to study how he attacks certain aspects of his subjects' lives, who he talks to for perspective at certain points and how he balances their deeds versus public perceptions. I also like how both of these guys make it seem as though you are having a relaxed chat with them as they spin anecdotes--very easy to read, succint, but not missing anything important.
I also did the same thing with the Aaron book that came out last year. I hadn't read any of Howard Bryant's previous books, but I thought that was very well written.