If you grew up reading the Globe sports page in the '80s and '90s, you knew who The Maniacal One was. He was many readers' introduction to advanced baseball statistics, and the Globe tapped him for contributions to its stellar Sunday Notes column, where he often received his own featured box.
Nick Cafardo wrote a nice column in memory of Chuck, who passed away on April 7. He includes some interesting ancedotes:
Nick Cafardo wrote a nice column in memory of Chuck, who passed away on April 7. He includes some interesting ancedotes:
He befriended Wade Boggs and kept track of his incredible numbers through his huge years in Boston.
He would often give Boggs all of the data. The big thing there was he kept up with foul-ball pop-ups, for which for many years there were none, a sign that Boggs rarely had a bad swing. He kept track of swings and misses, balls hit on the ground, line drives, averages on certain counts and conditions. They were numbers that are certainly in vogue now, but back then he was the guy who kept them.
“Chuck was Bill James before we became addicted to him,’’’ said Gammons. “He would mail me lined sheets of notebook paper telling me how many times Wade Boggs popped up, or who hit The Wall how many times.
I can’t tell you how many agents approached me about how they could get a hold of Waseleski. They all wanted his phone number. Before long, Waseleski started producing files for agents on their players for arbitration cases, for free agent presentations. Waseleski’s numbers became all the rage.
RIP, Chuck.Once cellphones came into being, he would call me in the press box if he saw something that just happened that he had a stat for. This was stuff you couldn’t get from the team that quickly, but Chuck knew the restraints deadline reporters were under and he wanted to make sure the most important number of the night was recorded in the game story.
There was no way to properly repay Chuck for all he did for all us — from Gammons to Shaughnessy to the late Larry Whiteside to Fainaru to me and Edes. We feel the same way. He was often our savior. He allowed us to build stories off his numbers or at least to add something interesting that only he had the knowledge and ability to come up with.
“He was obsessed with numbers,” recalled Fainaru, now an investigative reporter for ESPN. “I remember calling Chuck in real time to get something more esoteric about what was happening. I called him ‘Maniacal’ not only because of his diligence to the numbers but because it reflected how different he was. He helped shape what the sport has evolved into and it shows how influential he was.
“We take for granted a lot of stats that Chuck had back then, but then he was one of a handful of people doing it.”