Ben Shapiro on 61* and Baseball’s Place in American Life

Well, folks, here at Daily Wire, we have a show.

It's called The Film Room with David Cohn.

It's a pretty awesome show, actually.

You can check it out over at Daily Wire on the regular.

But here on the feed, we're releasing an episode that I just did with David talking about favorite sports movies of all time.

We do Field of Dreams and my personal favorite, 61, which, if you've never seen a great movie, here's what that episode sounds like.

Field of Dreams is a shockingly left-leaning film in terms of its politics.

There's a scene in which Kevin Costner's wife gets up at a school board meeting meeting and starts yelling at everybody that they're basically Nazis and this is what the Nazis would do.

But what the film does unconsciously is something pretty conservative, which is it says that like the values of the past are in many ways better than the values of the present.

Welcome to the film room where we discuss the movies we love.

I am David Cohn and I am joined today by a legendary man.

You may know him as a hit podcaster.

You may know him as a die-hard baseball fan.

You may know him as a best-selling author with a new book coming out, Lions and Scavengers.

I am fortunate enough to know him as a mentor, as a colleague, as a friend.

Technically, yes, he is my boss, but mostly a friend.

And that is Mr.

Ben Shapiro.

Thank you for joining me and welcome into the film room.

Hey, thank you so much for having me.

It's very cool.

Yes.

Well, look, it's September.

World Series right around the corner.

We all know you're a diehard baseball fan.

Can you just talk a little bit about your love for the game and how that started?

I mean, I think think that all diehard baseball fans start with their dad.

I mean, pretty much all great baseball movies, as we'll talk about, are about parenting and relationships more than they are about the sport itself.

My dad was a die-hard White Sox fan.

His dad was a die-hard White Sox fan.

And so I inherited that growing up in L.A.

So I've literally never been to a baseball game where I've rooted for the home team.

I've never lived in a city where the home team was my team.

So I grew up in L.A.

rooting for the Celtics in basketball because my parents, I picked all my dad's allegiances.

The Celtics in basketball because he'd been in college in Boston and the Blackhawks in hockey and then of course the White Sox in baseball which is a horrible story and filled with travail and pain we had one good year legitimately like one good year in the last hundred or so and my dad and I actually wrote a book about it where we went like game by game did the entire season 162 game season describing almost play by play what happened in every single game of that season you know played little league ball my dad was the coach it's this is the thing i think that is the key to baseball and it's what I think baseball has missed in terms of its marketing, which I've talked about with you before.

Baseball keeps trying to compete with the other sports.

Look how exciting we are.

Look how much action.

You're never going to be able to compete with basketball or football or even hockey on the basis of look how much action there is because baseball is a game of pauses and moments.

Where baseball has an advantage is its embeddedness in American culture and the American psyche.

And again, in the nostalgia of dads and their sons playing catch, which is, you know, half my childhood is like going to the park and my dad putting on the catcher's mitt and me hurling baseballs at him.

So, yeah, I mean, the love for baseball runs extremely deep.

I'm trying to get my kids into it.

It's a hard push.

It's a challenge.

It's definitely a challenge for sure, especially in Florida.

I mean, we live near where the Florida Marlins plays, so good luck to me.

I mean, if we're the Florida Marlins fans, that makes two of us.

And you're right about baseball in a way that golf has been able to maintain that tradition, but then also kind of turn the corner into a new age.

And yeah, the father-son bond in baseball, man, it's so special.

And I love the book that you and your father wrote.

We keep it on our set.

So when it comes to baseball films, this is the film room.

We want to discuss movies that you love.

What are your favorite baseball films?

So there are films that have baseball in them, but where baseball isn't actually what the movie is about.

And then there is my favorite baseball film.

My favorite baseball film is 61, which a lot of people haven't seen.

It was an HBO movie made by Billy Crystal, who does a really good job with the direction.

It stars Barry Pepper as Roger Maris and Thomas Jane as Mickey Mantle.

I love this movie so much that I know all the behind the scenes.

I know the fact that Thomas Jane's actually right-handed.

So when they actually had him batting left-handed, they had him wear his number backward, and then they mirrored the films that it looks like he's batting lefty.

He didn't know how to play play baseball, so they taught him mantle swing, so his swing actually looks a lot like mantle swing.

Crystal, because he loves the Yankees and is such a huge Yankees fan, he was a stickler for details, so he had to go in and colorize the seats because the seats were a different color in Yankees Stadium during that year.

And he made sure that the baseball that's being played looks like actual baseball being played, which is one of my bugaboos.

Sometimes you watch a baseball movie,

you're watching a league of their own, and Gina Davis is supposed to be hitting a home run, and it's clearly a pop-up.

Like, anybody who's watching baseball knows that she just popped up the ball to the second baseman.

And you don't get that in 61.

When somebody hits the ball, it looks like they're actually lacing the baseball.

I heard Billy Crystal even took photos of where the Yankees players were standing when Maris was hitting these home runs and placed them in the exact order.

And, like,

that's fantastic.

Like, that's attention to detail.

And I had forgotten until my most recent viewing of this film that it wasn't a theatrical release, that it was made like you're talking about, specifically for HBO.

Yep.

And it was pretty successful on HBO.

But it's, you know, I don't, I never think that it got the sort of credit it deserved as a really, really good film.

It's a terrific film, and it really is about the season, 1961, in which Maris hits 61 home runs in his competition with Mantle, who, of course, is a much bigger star, much more beloved by New York Yankees fans.

People in New York were really pissed at Maris for breaking Babe Ruth's record.

They thought it was Mantle's job to basically do that.

That was a wild part of the movie, man.

Yes.

He's getting booed in the middle of this.

Yeah, exactly.

You're nothing.

You've got nothing.

You're never going to be nothing.

How great is the scene when Roger Maris gets the squeeze bunt and the the Yankees win that game and the media comes up to him?

Hey, why aren't you trying to hit home runs?

Come on, Roger.

They don't pay you to bunt.

You got fans in the stands booing.

You got the media trying to portray this guy as like someone who's just, you know, unworthy of breaking Bay Bruce record.

Like, that's got to be tough in New York to go through that.

Oh, yeah.

And between the conflict that you have with Maris, where Maris is a very private person, but now he's being thrust into the public stage and people are angry at him because he's not better in public.

And Mantle, who's great with the media, but also is destroying himself.

I mean, that's a big part of the story: is is that Mantle,

there's a very famous thing that he said much later in his life where he said, if I had known that I was going to live this long,

I never would have treated my body this way, which is right.

Because there's an irony to that, right?

You do get the tragic aspect of Mantle, the kind of tragic romance of Mickey Mantle in the movie also, which is a great piece of the movie.

They tell the Joe DiMaggio story about how he blew out his knee.

That was weird.

That was so good.

Because that would have been, because DiMaggio's last year would have been Mantle's first year, blew out that knee, and the Yankees won the World Series then, too, right?

Yes, they won.

But what was supposed to happen is Mantle was supposed to be playing center, and DiMaggio insisted on playing center field because he had always played center field.

And Mantle was much faster.

He was the fastest player in the league.

His time down to first base was something insane.

It was like 4.1 seconds from home to first or something.

3.1 seconds to first base.

And he was supposed to be playing center.

And DiMaggio said, no, no, no, I'm the Yankee Clipper.

I play center field.

And so they instead stack Mantle, I believe, in left.

And Mantle ends up turning off because DiMaggio calls him off of a a ball that's really his.

He steps in the drain pipe and blows out his knee.

And he's really kind of never the same in terms of his knee.

He never has the speed that he was going to have in the first place.

He could have stolen 60 bases a year back in those days.

And he's still unbelievably fast.

But there is that tragic aspect to Mantle that doesn't exist for a lot of the other ball players that makes him uniquely charismatic and interesting.

It is a terrific film.

It's very moving.

Now there's even sort of more resonance to it because the very end of the film shows Maguire breaking Maris's record.

Now, of of course, we know that Maguire was high on the Jews.

And so really, should the real record holder still be Roger Maris?

I want to get into that with you.

I want to get into that.

First, I want to know, does Maris catch Babe if he doesn't have Mantle pushing him or batting behind him?

So I'm not going to worry about Mantle pushing him because

Ruth also had a lineup that was insane.

He had Lou Garrett batting behind him.

Right.

I mean, that lineup in the 20s for the Yankees is just psychotic.

I mean, that's a psychotic lineup.

And so it's really not about that.

And Ruth was just so much better than everybody else, except for maybe Garrick, that it actually is kind of like Maris and Mantle.

But the extra games are the thing, right?

Ruth only has a season that's 154 games, and Maris has a season that's 162 games.

Now, in 61, they make the villain of the film essentially Ford Frick, who is the commissioner of baseball at the time and who decides that they're going to put an asterisk by the 61 because Maris is playing more games.

Any record broken in more than 154 games will be held as a distinct and separate record.

And the the idea is that because Ford Frick was Babe Ruth's ghostwriter for many years, that that's why he did that.

But the truth is that there's actually a very solid case that if you get an extra season, you know, eight games, how many more home runs would Ruth have hit?

Because I believe in the last part of the season in which he hit 60, he had like four of them in the last three games.

So if you give him another eight games, maybe he hits another seven home runs.

So I don't actually think that that's unfair by Ford Frick, although it's sort of played that way.

But that would be the big advantage the Maris had over.

So in 1998, I was 10 years old.

So I'm falling in love with Major League Baseball right as Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa are on this home run record-pushing year.

And what a lot of people forget about that is King Griffey Jr.

was in on that race for most of the year.

And I loved King Griffey Jr., who now we look back.

you know, seemingly wasn't on steroids or wasn't using NPDs, but Maguire and Sosa pulled away towards the end of the year.

That's when I'm falling in love with baseball.

And obviously, this was a big part of the film 61.

So, you know, in addition to your views on the the asterisk for Maris, how do you view Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire and then Barry Bonds, who went on to even break Mark McGuire's record?

Yeah, I mean, again, I think all of those are illegitimate.

I mean, I just think that if you were on the Juice, which was adding distance to the distance that you could hit a baseball, then Maguire was a great home run hitter earlier on his career, but he's hitting 49, 50 home runs.

And, you know, if he had not Jews, then maybe he has a shot at it.

Certainly not Bonds, right?

I'm not sure that Bonds, before he's on the Juice, ever hits more than about 45 home runs a year.

And suddenly he's jumping up into the 70s.

And he's also wearing armor.

I mean,

the other advantage he had is that he was crowding the plate because he's got a gigantic piece of armor on his arm when he's batting, which, of course, you do that in 1961.

You get brushed back, you hit in the head.

A lot of things happen to you playing baseball then that wouldn't have happened when Bonds was batting.

Yeah,

I remember that too.

And it was so exciting to watch.

He'd get up six o'clock in the morning, watch the Sports Center, see if somebody had hit a home run.

You'd run out to the street, pick up the newspaper, and there'd be a picture of Maguire and a picture of Stosa, and you'd see the running counter showing

where they were.

And then when all that fell apart, then I think for a ton of people, it actually destroyed an enormous amount of the romance of baseball when all of that fell apart.

Because the traditional thinking is that Major League Baseball, that that saved baseball in many ways for a lot of people and the excitement of that era, you think it actually had a bigger background.

Well, I mean, it did create new excitement around it, but then when it fell off,

the other side of the high was a very, very horrible low.

And I'm not sure that baseball has ever fully recovered from that because pretty much every great player of the year was implicated, ranging from Roger Clemens to Barry Bonds.

And because of that, all of your childhood favorites, when you think back on the games that you really enjoyed watching, you're thinking to yourself, okay, but I know that Juan Gonzalez was juicing.

I know that Rafael Camero was probably juicing.

And so it really wrecks your mind.

We have to have proof.

I mean, when you're talking about striking them from the record books, which you're in favor of, right?

And Hall of Fame.

Right.

Are you yes or no?

I think that there's a case where you should have like a steroid wing of the Hall of Fame just so you can use the entire era.

You need proof of steroid use, though.

To ban them from those important issues there.

I mean, I think obviously you need some level of proof.

I'm not sure that you need, you know,

the level of proof that would uphold in criminal court.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, Shuleless Joe Jackson was acquitted in criminal court, and that didn't stop him from being banned from baseball.

So,

yeah, I do think that any real baseball fan, if, as I say, the kind of bloodstream of baseball is nostalgia, I think one of the reasons that this destroyed baseball is, again, I grew up in this era and you grew up in this era, era.

And so my feelings about baseball are not the same as they would have been if these guys had not been juicing.

I'd be thinking with romance back to the 98 season.

And instead, I think back and I think, ah, that's just terrible, what they were doing that whole time.

And I'm not sure.

And then we went straight from the steroid era into the Moneyball era, which, you know, again,

I'm very much in favor of data in baseball.

I think that it's an amazing thing.

But that meant that for solidly 15 years, every single at-bat was either a walk, a strikeout, or a home run.

And that kills the game.

I mean, the game of baseball is driven by

the hit and run.

The game of baseball is driven by the triple.

The most exciting play in baseball is not the home run.

The most exciting play in baseball is the triple because there's a chance that he might get thrown out at third.

He's taking the extra base.

Should he take the extra base, the decision-making that has to take place.

And so I think that one of the things that happened to baseball when they got away from the most exciting parts of baseball is that the crowds started to drop off.

And maybe it's just I got older and don't have enough time to watch.

Maybe it's the map.

I think part of it is also just the lack of newspapers.

I think baseball was very much driven by the fact that you'd run out to the curb and read the box scores.

I used to know the lineup of every single ball team.

I mean, I'd be able to name you

the starting nine for pretty much every team in the league when I was a teenager.

And then newspapers dropped off.

And now if you want to see a box score, it's because you're checking out your team's game.

Sure.

I'm, you know, again, I was a huge White Sox fan.

I'm still a White Sox fan, but I couldn't name you who's, I mean, to be fair, the White Sox are horrifyingly bad.

But aside from Louis Robert,

I couldn't name you.

Probably five players on the team.

Before we move off of 61, Roger Maris, to this day, not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

You got a guy, back-to-back MVPs, broke Babe's home run record, three-time World Series champ, I believe appeared in seven World Series, not in the Baseball Hall of Fame because they say his entire career was unworthy and it was just a few really good years.

Where do you stand on not just Maris in the Hall of Fame, but

the idea of do a few really good years qualify you or do you need to have sort of the longevity and the holistic career?

I mean, I do think you need to have the holistic career.

I think the problem is that the Hall of Fame has now become the Hall of Very Good.

There are a bunch of guys who, when we were growing up, were like, yeah, that guy's the best player on his team, but is he like the top five player in the league?

Sure.

Not sure he's the top five player in the league.

And now he's in the Hall of Fame.

You're thinking, well, was he that?

I don't remember him being that good.

I remember him being like pretty good, but was he he like an all-time great player?

And so I think that's, that's part of what baseball has done also in an attempt to sort of expand the interest of the sport.

They've watered down many of the things that I think this is about expansion teams, too.

I think that one of the things baseball should do right quick is actually contract.

I think there are too many teams.

I think a lot of those teams can't get.

you know, can't draw flies, and they should really seriously think about contracting some of the teams that are already out there.

Free online services like Facebook and Google actually charge you by using your personal data.

They track your behavior.

They sell that information to advertisers.

When something is free, you're not the customer.

You are in fact the product being sold.

Your digital self is traded to unknown entities who may want to sell you products, influence your political views, or even manipulate your vote.

To reclaim your privacy and protect yourself online, you should use Express VPN.

Without a VPN, your internet provider can legally track and sell your browsing data in the United States.

Meanwhile, data brokers collect your information across websites and apps, creating detailed profiles of you through your IP address.

ExpressVPN solves this by routing all your activity through encrypted servers, preventing your ISP from seeing or selling your data while also hiding your IP address so brokers can't actually track you.

I use ExpressVPN all the time.

I've been on the road a lot.

I'll be on the road a lot more in the future for the book tour.

And what does that mean?

Well, that means ExpressVPN will be vital so people don't, you know, take my data.

It's incredibly simple to use, just one tap for protection.

It works on all your devices with a single subscription covering up to eight devices.

No wonder CNET and the Verge rate it as the number one VPN worldwide.

Find out how you can get four months free by scanning the QR code on screen, clicking the link in the description box below, or heading on over to expressvpn.com slash BenYT.

Okay, so you began this by uh drawing a distinction between baseball movies that are about baseball but baseball movies that are kind of not about baseball i mean look michael knowles came on here and he talked about on the waterfront as his favorite sports film so you can really

that's the most knowledge thing i've ever heard i mean i love on the waterfall

but that's that's been ridiculous

anyway uh we love michael knowles uh what is this distinction and where does that take you for like other baseball movies that you like, but may not be kind of about baseball like 61?

Right.

So a great example of a terrific film that really is not about baseball except sort of in the spirit of baseball is Field of Dreams.

Field of Dreams is built around the nostalgia of baseball, but it's not like there's a lot of ball in Field of Dreams.

You see a couple of stray plays, but it's not as though there's like an intense game and is someone going to win?

Is somebody going to lose?

It's much more about the drama of the people who are in it.

And it really is just about the relationship between Ray Kinsella and his dad, right?

That's really what the entire film is about.

It's a wonderful film.

James Earl Jones is terrific in it.

The last scene is just killer.

It's one of those movies where if you don't have the last scene, you're like, this is a pretty good movie.

And then you get the last scene and it's just devastating.

And James Horner's score is terrific.

It's a really good score.

And so that last scene kind of makes the film.

It is a shockingly left-leaning film in terms of its politics.

There's a scene in which Kevin Costner's wife, she gets up at a school board meeting and she's ranting and raving about how Terrence Mann, who's supposed to be the stand-in for J.D.

Salinger, his book has been banned because it's supposedly pornographic.

And she gets up and she starts yelling at everybody that they're basically Nazis and this is what the Nazis would do.

At least he is not a book burner, you Nazi cow.

And it's like, oh my God, we're now doing Florida Don't Say Gay Stuff, right?

Like, this is what we're doing now.

But what the film does unconsciously is something pretty conservative, which is it says that like the values of the past are in many ways better than the values of the present.

The great hero of the film is played by Burt Lancaster, who's playing Moonlight Graham.

Hollywood legend.

Right.

And Burt Lancaster is great in this movie.

And that whole sequence where he has the ability to go back and play as a young man again, or he could, you know, be the anonymous doctor who helped random children.

And here he is, you know, saving this little girl and giving up his possibility of playing ball forever in order to do that because it's more important.

That's like an amazingly conservative message.

It's a message that you find in great literature.

There's a book by George Elliott called Middlemarch, where it's all about this woman who really wants to be prominent and famous and make a difference in the world.

And her conclusion is that it's better to be a good person than to be a great person, essentially.

And that's the message there in Moonlight Graham's story, which is just terrific.

Although I will say, every time I would watch it, I'd be angry that this little girl was choking on the hot dog.

Like no one thinks to give her the Heimlich.

Like no one.

Come on, man.

This has been about to lose his entire future playing ball with all the guys that he wanted to play ball with growing up.

Here's where I'm at on Field of Dreams every time I find myself watching it.

You have a guy here who hears a voice.

If you build it, he will come.

And they don't say what it is or who he is.

And he deduces, well, I need to cut down my cornfield and build a baseball field.

And then shoeless Joe Jackson will come hang out with me.

And his wife, you know, goes along with this without any thought whatsoever to the solvency of the farm beforehand.

And that's all well and good.

That's cool.

And then he hears another voice.

And then that leads him on this Odysian journey where he like goes and picks up this beatnik writer.

And to your point, you got a school board meeting scene where the wife is calling people Nazis and fascists for, you know, caring what books go in the kids' schools, much like the problems we're dealing with today.

And I find myself thinking, wow, this isn't even a sports film.

This is a horror film.

And all because the guy's dad got older.

If I want to see a great father and son baseball scene, why am I not watching the natural for the 300th time?

And the natural is great, although you know the original ending of the natural.

Oh, I do.

Andrew Clavin and I have talked about this in the film room before with Bernard Malamou's book.

Yes.

But since you brought it up, please give me your take on the distinction between the book where he gets out and the movie where he hits well i mean malamode is his other books are very much about the tragedy of life and that doesn't sell in in hollywood so it's obviously much more you know but that is selling as a that that aside sales aside how should should the movie end because i've heard people argue that no it's a it's an analogy for king arthur and wonderboy is excalibur and when the bat breaks roy hobbs can't hit any more home runs that's the complete opposite message like the movie barry levinson's movie delivers the message the natural should deliver not just because americans like the guy to hit the home home run at the end.

Like, I love all sorts of stuff.

I like Game of Thrones.

Like, you know what you're getting into when you watch Game of Thrones.

I like Braveheart, Newsflash, William Wallace dies at the end.

Americans can get on board with anything, but do you personally think the natural is better the way Malamud ends it or the way that the film ends?

No, I think I think the film ending is better.

And that's because, again, I'm a fan of the idea that virtue is rewarded, right?

And he as a character is supposed to be a virtuous character.

He's not supposed to be corrupt, right?

He turns down the bribery and the bet and all that kind of stuff.

And so because of that, he really should win.

That's what you want as a member of the audience.

Now, would it be more accurate if he struck out?

I mean, maybe, but again, the choice between tragedy and triumph is really a choice of worldview.

Do you think that most of the time people get what they deserve, or do you think that God kind of smacks you no matter what you do?

And that's a difference of vision.

I'm sure that Clavin liked the original Malamud.

No, no, really?

He's saying exactly what we're saying.

Oh, interesting.

Okay.

I wouldn't call that.

He said specifically a false imposition on the all-American sport, I I believe, is what he said.

That's good.

That's a good take.

Well, to me, the home run is not about baseball.

The home run is analogous to him finally picking the right woman, his childhood sweetheart, and taking up his mantle as a father now, which you have the last scene, father and son.

And to me, that's why when I'm watching Field of Dreams, I'm like, well, I could just be watching The Natural, which is not only my favorite baseball movie or sports movie, but it's my favorite film of all time.

Yeah, I mean, I will say that I do think that the father-son catch at the end of Field of Dreams is better.

And the reason I think it's better is because I'm a rarity.

I have like an amazing relationship with my dad.

My dad and I are best friends.

We're like super close.

So like what's happening at the end of the natural, where he's playing catch with his very young son, is like our childhood.

But I think for a lot of people who had a bad relationship with their dad, the idea of being given that final opportunity to sort of come together again is incredibly moving, right?

The character arc there for the son is really fascinating, right?

He gives the, he's giving his dad a chance to repent, essentially.

And the twist, which is that if you build it, he will come isn't about Shulas Joe, it's about his dad, is it's a great twist.

I mean, again, the ending of that movie is like, that's like a top 20 ending to a film because it really flips the entire

enterprise on its head.

Like, because who cares if you bring, okay, so he brings Shulus Joe back, that's nice.

But bringing his dad back so he can play catch with them, that's like a whole different thing.

Because what wouldn't you do if, God forbid, your parents are gone?

Fair enough.

What wouldn't you do to bring your dad back?

Would you plow down a cornfield for a game of catch with your dad?

Yeah, absolutely.

You'd plow down a cornfield

for a game of catch with your dad.

Fair enough on that point.

I don't want to get into this too much, but since you brought up a distinction between movies that focus on baseball and not, and we're talking about movies that have James Earl Jones in them, is the Sandlot, which we're talking about next week with Reagan Conrad, is the Sandlot of baseball.

It is a baseball movie.

Right?

It is.

That's clearly the baseball movie.

And James Earl Jones is even better in that movie.

I mean, you want to talk about, if you made a list of greatest performances.

sub three minutes in a film, his performance and the Sandlot is...

He's great in that.

Sandlot's great.

Sandlot's wonderful.

It's really enjoyable.

My kids love that movie.

It's a great catch.

That's a conservative film.

It is.

It's a very conservative film.

It is also, again, nostalgia-based.

Like, baseball movies have to be nostalgia-based.

And baseball needs to be nostalgia-based.

It's why the Field of Dreams game sold out.

That was the most talked about baseball game, regular season baseball game for the sport in, I don't know, my entire lifetime, probably.

And it was based on the nostalgia of the players walking out and the continuity with history and all of that.

And so whenever you see baseball trying to market itself as like the new fresh sport, extreme sports,

can you stop this?

I mean, it also just reminds me of when it all backfired on baseball because they were doing the superhero cartoon versions with all the gigantic gigantic muscles of Maguire and Sosa in that 98 season.

So Shoeless Joe Jackson and that White Sox team, you're a big White Sox fan.

What happened there?

Did Shoeless Joe Jackson cheat?

Did he throw the World's Day?

By the available data, he did.

By the available data, he definitely threw the games he was in.

So his overall average, which they cite in Field of Dreams, is like 358 for the series or something.

But in the games where...

he was being paid to throw the game, his average was much, much, much lower.

So basically, he was stacking all his hits in the games where he wasn't paid to throw the game.

I mean, Eight Men Out is a great movie about this, right?

It's a good, fairly accurate take on what exactly was happening.

But yeah, Charles Kamiski remains the great villain of White Sox history.

Two things I really have been wanting to get into you ever since we found out you were coming on the film room.

Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, shoeless Joe Jackson, the greats of the game.

How good would they be in 2025?

Well, Ruth was so much better than everybody else that I think he still would have been great.

And I think Cobb was such a mean son of a bitch when he was playing and highly competitive that I think he would have been terrific as well.

I think anybody who's sort of a second-tier player probably wouldn't even make the majors now.

There's a great documentary all about who threw the fastest pitch ever, where they compare all these various players across time, who threw the fastest pitch ever.

And Walter Johnson, it turns out, they were able to like reconstruct from film and from reports.

He was throwing at what would be measured now at about 93.

Walter Johnson, the big train.

And then Bob Feller was throwing about 98.

So he was blowing everybody away at 98.

And Nolan Ryan famously threw a pitch before a game where it was clocked at like 102 miles an hour.

But the problem is that we actually clock pitches differently now than we do then.

Then they were clocking the pitches that came across the plate, which is lower speed.

Now we clock a pitch, I think, a foot after it comes out of the pitcher's hand.

So if you actually use that math on Nolan Ryan, Nolan Ryan, I believe, has the fastest recorded pitch, like 109 miles an hour or something.

But if the best pitcher of your era was throwing 93 and you can't find a middle reliever today who's not throwing 95, then it makes it difficult to argue that the skill level, at least for pitchers, is much higher.

Now, the reason I think Cobb would be fine with that is because Cobb was a contact hitter, right?

So Cobb is more like Wade Boggs or Ty or Tony Gwynn.

And

again, his strikeout rate was basically non-existent.

So talk about somebody who'd put the ball in play, Ty Cobb.

Ruth, again, was so far and away better than everybody else that he would also be still a great, great player.

Like MVP caliber for Babe Ruth too?

I think so.

I mean, he was also just the best athlete in the game, right?

He's the best pitcher and the best hitter.

I think he's like Gotani.

And so, like, just far and away the best.

So even if you assume that he wouldn't perform like that, does he still hit 35, 40 home runs in today's game?

Probably.

Also, the ball is juiced.

Like, the ball now is so much more tightly wound than it was then.

He was swinging a bat that was unbelievably heavy.

I believe that he swung a 50-ounce bat, something insane like that.

And that's because the pitches were slower.

So imagine the pitches are faster and he's swinging a bat that's not nearly as heavy.

I think that is a fair question.

I think you don't even need to ask about like today's game.

I think you could say post-integration is Ruth as good as he was then, right?

I mean, the Negro leagues, the best player in the Negro leagues were as good or better than some of the best players in the majors.

And so if he had played an integrated league, is Ruth racking up those kind of numbers?

If I asked you your top five best hitters in Major League Baseball history, what would that list look like?

Okay, so if we're ranking them, I take Williams number one, probably.

For average,

for power, he missed a bunch of years in the middle of his career.

He won the war, right?

Yeah, he was flying in Korea.

So Williams number one, one, then Ruth number two.

Very strong argument for Cobb, but Cobb was not a power hitter.

There's famously a story about Ty Cobb that there was one game where somebody asked him, like, why don't you hit for power?

And this is in the Deadball era.

And he said, because I'm hitting for average.

And I'm like, really?

He's like, yes, watch.

And tonight I'm just going to hit for power.

And he went out and hit three home runs.

So you still have to put Cobb up there just for the lifetime average.

You're probably going to put Mays up there.

And then if you're talking about like modern era, Trout is Trout's got to be up there.

I think I don't know if Trout's top five all-time, but Trout is certainly top 10 all-time.

Trout's amazing.

A rough list for me, like five to one, would be something like Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Babe Bruth, Barry Bonds, and Tony Gwynn.

I think.

I think Tony Gwynn has to be on there.

Now, if you would want me to remove Barry Bonds for the PEB, so that's why I'm removing Bonds.

Then maybe Ichiro goes on there.

I can't put Ichiro up there.

You can't put Ichiro?

Nah.

Yeah.

Ichiro, I mean, it's a lot of drag bones for heads.

How about Pete Rose?

No,

he's not an all-time great hunter.

I mean, Rose is an all-time longevity guy, but he's not an all-time great hunter.

Yeah.

One question I've been asking everyone in the film room is, what's the most awkward scene you've ever watched from any film ever with your parents growing up?

This one's actually on my mom.

So

back in the day, we all went to Blockbuster, right?

And we used to go to Blockbuster at least once a week.

Every Friday night.

Yeah, exactly.

And my mom...

is looking around and she comes up with Adam Sandler's The Water Boy.

And I'm like, mom, I don't think you're going to like this.

She's like, no, no, no, I think I've heard it's funny.

I've heard it's really good.

I heard from people it's like really nice and it's a good movie.

We get, I think, four scenes in.

That snake looks delicious.

What part do you think I'm about to eat?

If I had to call it anything,

I would say it's his knee.

And she turns to me and she's like, what is this?

Why is this happening?

I was like, I don't know.

I didn't rent it.

Is that my fault?

Like,

I didn't pick this movie.

This is my choice.

Hey, come on.

I mean, the most awkward times I've ever had at the movies are are not with my parents.

There was one time where I had to review Broke Back Mountain.

That was super awkward.

There was a friend I had who was a girl, not a girlfriend.

And I remember saying to her, Listen, I have to go watch this to review it for a show that I was doing, but I'm not going to that movie as a single man by myself.

So I need you to come with me just because, like, otherwise I can't go to this film.

And yeah, that was a very awkward movie-going experience.

I remember that when I was like a mid-teenager, the Enemies of the Gate, there is a fairly for the time graphic sex scene.

And I remember I was was with a girl and I'm, you know, we're Orthodox.

And I had asked this girl to go to a movie or something, maybe 16 years old, 15 years old.

And we're watching this.

I'm like, oh, no.

So that was very awkward.

But yeah,

the Water Boy still lives on in household lore.

That makes me laugh because my father, who...

really couldn't stand Adam Sandler, loved 90s SNL, really, except for Adam Sandler, didn't like Happy Gilmore, no Billy Madison.

We bring the Water Boy home.

My dad's laughing hysterically.

Oh, really?

He's like, okay.

This is the first Adam Sandler film I really like.

That's hilarious.

Different experiences there.

Mel Gibson just came out with the trailer for the resurrection of the Christ.

So the sequel to The Passion of the Christ sounds like a two-part movie.

What do you expect from him?

I mean, it'd be amazing.

Mel Gibson's an unbelievably talented director.

I'll watch anything that guy does.

He really is unbelievably talented, just has an innate feel for plot, for camera, for movement.

He's terrific.

I mean, Apocalypto, which is a movie that should be a big nothing, is an amazing film.

I'm so glad you like Apocalypto.

Apocalypto is great.

I mean, if you were making a list of like top five like non-English language films, and I'm so glad that's not in English, you know, like it would make it, it would make it easier on the viewer, but the job's not to make it easy.

That movie's supposed to be in the language it's in.

Yeah.

Mel Gibson is a tremendously talented individual, for sure.

And I heard that they were having, I'm glad they're putting out the trailer.

I heard they're having some funding troubles on that movie, so I'm really glad to learn that they're making it.

He's going to make just bank on that film.

Please tell me everything about your new book.

Okay, thank you.

So Lions and Scavengers.

The basic premise of the book was formed while I was traveling around over the course of the last couple of years, particularly before the election, when it felt like the scavengers were winning.

By the scavengers, I mean people who just want to tear down the civilization.

There's a coalition of people who, in the book, I variously label the leeches, the lechers, and the barbarians.

These three groups of people.

And you see them marching in the streets together.

The leeches would be people who believe that they have the unique ability to take away that which other people have earned, that the system is is unfair, therefore property rights don't obtain, and that they should tear down the system so that they can get what they want.

And those people who you may call communists, but those people who are sort of inclined in that direction have now sided with the barbarians, meaning people who are basically from outside the gates, people who hate America, who believe that the third world has been oppressed by the United States, and who believe that the systems of the West are inherently bad.

And you link those with the lectures, people who believe that traditional systems of morality are themselves bad and need to be torn down, church, basic biblical tradition.

And you see those people all marching together.

And this becomes crystal clear when you think of, say, a Hamas march in London, where you have a bunch of people who are marching on behalf of the idea that terrorism is fine, that the great oppressor in the Middle East is the West.

And then you'll look over to the side and there's queers for Palestine.

And you're thinking to yourself, why are these people marching together?

This doesn't make any sense.

Until you realize that it's a coalition of people who share the same common cause, which is to tear down all of the institutions of the West.

And so the book is about how they succeed, how they tactically do what they do, who they are, and juxtaposed with the values of tradition, the values of purpose, the values of duty, which are the values of the lion, the people who actually build civilizations.

And there you're talking about people who are the warriors, who defend a civilization, soldiers and policemen, and the weavers, the people who build the social fabric, build the social capital.

Many of those people, disproportionately, those people are women and who are having kids and raising families and building community ties.

But of course, women are in all of these categories.

And then you have the innovators, right?

You have the hunters, the people who are going out and making the world better through innovation, by taking risk and receiving the reward of that risk, right?

You need that group of people.

So the book is about these two groups that are facing each other down.

Also, the system of the lions.

What is the sort of governmental system that allows all of these very ambitious and dutiful and powerful people to live in existence with each other without destroying themselves?

And then what is the system of the scavengers?

What exactly are they attempting to do?

Why are they trying to tear that down?

And so, you know, the book is very personal.

I've traveled a lot over the course of the last several years, much more than I have, I think, probably the rest of my life combined, perhaps.

And everywhere from the southern border to Kensington in Philadelphia, which is one of the most drug-ridden places in America, to Jerusalem during the October War, to, you know, it's just in Ukraine.

Like it really takes me sort of all over the place looking at this juxtaposition and considering why it feels as though we are in the middle of a cataclysmic battle.

I will say it ends on an optimistic note because it ends around the the time I stopped writing the book, around the time that President Trump was elected.

It was right after the inauguration, I think, we went to print.

So, you know, in a good mood.

I think that the lions are now winning, but whether that lasts or not is, you know, really up to us because the fundamental message of the book is that it's not just that there are lions and there are scavengers and they're two different types of people on a fundamental level.

The idea is a very basic one, which is that there's a lion and a scavenger in all of us.

The lion is the person who gets up in the morning and seeks to do his duty and recognizes that the world is essentially an intelligible place where you're supposed to do the right thing.

And the scavenger is the person inside who says, all problems in my life are somebody else's fault.

And I need to tear down all the systems in order to prove that everything around me is causing me to fail.

And that's a battle that all of us have to fight.

Sounds like the origins for this book are fairly organic because it began with you journaling.

Yes.

So I started writing this book basically as a series of essays.

I think the first essay that I wrote was when I was in London and I was debating at Oxford and Cambridge.

It was right after the Hamas attack in October.

I was in in Oxford, Cambridge in November debating all of this.

And there were tens of thousands of people in the street rallying for Hamas.

When I did that debate at Oxford, it was legitimately one of the most fraught rooms I've ever been in.

Security was very concerned.

There was a kind of seething hatred in the room.

If you go back and watch that debate, you can see it happening in real time.

It's pretty astonishing.

And I walked out of there thinking, like, this is...

This is an existential civilizational battle that we're in the middle of.

And it's not taking place on shores far from our own.

It's taking place like like day to day in our politics and in our lives.

Well, thank you for writing it.

We're all very excited to read it.

Ben Shapiro.

Thank you so much for joining me in the film room.

I hope this is the first of many appearances.

Yeah, it was fun.

Look, there's no shortage of films that we could discuss.

This makes me miss going to physical media stores.

Exactly, right?

I need to bring in my blockbuster card and just keep it on the table.

Thank you all so much for joining us.

Please leave a comment here.

Let us know what do you think about 61?

Do you like Field of Dreams?

Who are your top five hitters of all time?

Please tell us what you think about Ben's new book, and we'll catch you on the next episode of the film room.

Well folks, hope you're enjoying your Labor Day holiday and celebrating with family and friends.

And we'll see you here tomorrow.

What is your favorite sports movie and why?

Would have to be Rudy.

Certainly the one I've seen the most.

The Big Lebowski.

Is that a sports film?

Since there's an element of bullying.

Probably the blind side.

2025.

You do have those crazy parents.

You're saying that last second, you wouldn't pull off.

You're going for the win.

100%.

It has to be that season.

I mean, if this had been a Protestant kid wanting to play football for Purdue, would you care as much?

Well, then we would have burned it.

Okay, just Tim.