I have read every book written about Stan Musial. I felt when I read this one the author was only interested in finding all the dirt he could find on this most wonderful person. I grew up watching this man play baseball. But most of all, I grew up watching a top rated human being. I really don't care about his personal life since I have met him many times and I don't have to have a book to tell the kind of person Stan Musial was or is. If you want to read dirt, than read Ball Four. That will keep you busy. If you want to read about a true baseball hero, I would suggest you read one of the other books about Stan Musial. They are what you could call real baseball books, ones by people know or knew the game.

This is a wonderful book on probably the most underrated player in baseball history. I was astounded by some of the numbers Musial put up year in and year out- I knew he was good, but this book really did a good job of presenting his accompishments and his persona in an objective way.
This book would have been a 5-star except that the author was unable to collaborate with Musial (for some reason, Musial declined to meet with the author) which left me aspiring for something from Stan the Man himself.
However, even without Musial's cooperation, this book stands on its own. It does Musial justice in that it portrays him as one of the nicest and most genuine players in the history of the game. I do not think it tried to dig up dirt on Stan at all (as one previous reviewer stated); in fact, I don't think it could have been more complementary of Stan!
Though this book isn't one of the best baseball books I have ever read, I certainly think that it is a noteworthy accomplishment of a man who did not and maybe has still yet to receive his due. He is without question one of the top five greatest players in the history of the game, something which he is not always recognized for. I think baseball fans would enjoy this book on Stan Musial.

Giglio, a professional historian, spent many years researching his subject and produced, in my view, the first serious examination of Musial's life.

Given Musial's well-desrved reputation as a perfect gentleman and role model, many biographical accounts of his life slip into hagiography, but Giglio carefully avoids this trap. He cuts through much of the Musial mythology, and assesses the facts (laboriously compiled from archival research and interviews with many of Musial's contemporaries) in order to present Musial as a real human being.

You wont find much dirt in this book--Musial really was a good guy for the most part. About the only blemish Giglio uncovered from Musial's personal life was that he impregnated his wife 6 months before they were married--a mere peccadillo by contemporary standards, especially considering that Stan and Lil Musial have remained happily married for over 60 years.

Musial's only serious character flaw, according to Giglio, was an unwillingness to take provocative and controversial positions publicly on important issues of his time. For example, although Musial personally detested racism and bigotry, he never publicly condemned racist teammates like Enos Slaughter. According to at least one second-hand account, Musial and Slaughter once came to blows over the matter in private, but Giglio couldn't substantiate this, and publicly Musial has always denied that he and Slaughter, who died just a few weeks ago (12 August 2002), fought over the issue.

The only criticism I have of Giglio's book is his embarrassingly amateurish statistical analysis. In comparing Musial to the other greats of his era (Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle), Giglio uses a simplistic ranking methodology incorporating some common statistics like batting average, home runs and RBIs among others, but he ignores walks and on-base percentage completely, and he doesn't even attempt to account for fielding statistics or ballpark affects. Anyone familiar with serious scientific analysis of baseball (e.g. the work of Pete Palmer, Bill James or the gang at Baseball Prospectus) will laugh out loud at obvious lack of sophistication in Giglio's analysis. Mercifully, Giglio's statistical analysis only takes up a few pages.

Overall though, I give Giglio high marks for producing an excellent biography of Musial. I feel I know Musial much better than I did before, and ultimately that's the best test of any biography.

While it was shorter than most, that did not prevent the Kennedy presidency from being eventful, even without including the tragic end. The closest the world ever came to thermonuclear war was during the Cuban missile crisis, which is still a model for the management of a crisis between great powers. And the greatest public failure of a CIA sponsored action was the disastrous invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.
While necessarily short, the description of the Cuban missile crisis was still amazing to read, as the hawkish position of the U. S. military commanders was clearly a harbinger of the same policy of ratcheting up the force that failed so badly in Vietnam. Some, although not all, of the commanders were for massive force, thinking that it would so intimidate the Cubans that it would be all over quickly. This event is one of the strongest arguments in favor of political control over the military and Kennedy showed himself to be strong-willed in doing all he could to find a political solution that allowed the Soviets a face-saving way to retreat.
Given all that has happened since then, it is amazing to be reminded that in the early years of the Kennedy administration the country in Southeast Asia that was considered most likely to fall under communist control was Laos. Here again, Kennedy showed himself willing to do whatever it took to find a political settlement. He was most reluctant to commit American combat forces in Southeast Asia, considering it dangerous and fraught will all kinds of unknown consequences.
This backdrop brings up the natural question as to whether Kennedy would have followed the path in Vietnam that Lyndon Johnson did. Giglio avoids spending a great deal of time on that continuous point of contention. However, he does bring up several very important points.

1) The disaster at the Bay of Pigs made him very skeptical of CIA and military "rosy scenarios."
2) His dealing with hawkish elements during the Cuban missile crisis made him skeptical of military statements about the effect of overwhelming military power. It also showed that he was willing to restrict the military in its' desire to blow things up.
3) Kennedy would most certainly have been re-elected in 1964 and as a President who would not face another election, he could have made unpopular, but correct decisions.
4) Kennedy and Khrushchev were beginning the process that was later known as détente, and that could have led to more of a political settlement in Vietnam along the model that was a modest success in Laos.

Together, these elements make one believe that Kennedy would not have made the same mistakes that Johnson did in Vietnam.
Kennedy's record on civil rights is far more mixed and it is clear that brother Bobby, who was also Attorney General, did a great deal to push John towards more involvement. Once more, John Kennedy was politically cautious in trying to avoid alienating southern Democrats. And yet, he did press the issue, showing that he did understand how important it was. Giglio rightly takes Kennedy to task on this battle that needed to be fought.
Finally, the descriptions of Kennedy's health problems and sexual exploits remind us of an earlier day when the press did have some standards in pressing into a public official's private life. Kennedy was a very sick man who took drugs to cope, and there is some reason to believe that he would have been an invalid by the time he completed his second term. The much celebrated sexual escapades of Bill Clinton are trivial in comparison, as Kennedy seemingly would sleep with any woman willing to do so. As ironic as it sounds so many years later, most people felt that the greatest danger to his person was a consequence of his sexual adventures, where he often had sex with women where the only screening done was the verification that they were female.
The Kennedy presidency was successful in many ways, most notably in foreign affairs, as he managed to reach political accords that were reasonable and certainly better than all possible alternatives. He was a strange combination of strong will and weak flesh, both in the literal and figurative sense. Giglio captures all of this, describing a man and an era named after him that was the precursor of the turbulence of the late sixties, where the world seemed to be tearing itself apart.

This book is neither an uncritical appraisal of Kennedy nor a damning account. Rather, the author has managed to give a critical but not biased view of Kennedy's presidency. Naturally, this involves disproving a couple of myths about "Camelot". I had to read this book for a university course about Kenndey's presidency and can recommend it to anyone interested in a fair account.