The Tenth Inning

[93Devil]

Watched part of the home half of the tenth, and I think the Red Sox stuff was pretty well done. I am not crazy about anything Boston without Bird, so I drifted through it. Pedro was great, though.

When I saw the Bonds dirigible on the screen I fast forwarded. I really do not want to watch anything on the steroids era - ever.

By far my favorite part, though, was Ichiro. By far.

The not losing the glove story was very good as well.

http://www.pbs.org/baseball-the-tenth-inning/ - watching some of the outtakes on here, I think I need to rewatch this.

 

[mcgovern72]

Four hours of moralizing.

 

[Boom_70]

Ken Burns makes me feel weepy.

 

[steveu]

Strike? Been there, done that, prefer to forget that time in history. Same with roids. However, I do applaud KB for making the effort to include so much more in the 10th inning. Didn't get a chance to DVR it, but will try to catch it if it is repeated anywhere.

 

[Starman]

The charm of the original series (for me anyway), like the Brooklyn Bridge and Civil War series, was that it brought events in the history of baseball, usually covered only in dusty books or faded pictures, onto the screen in something like live-action.

But as the series progressed more and more toward the present day, of course there was increased overlap with film footage and TV game broadcasts most fans had already seen.

This became especially glaring in the new chapters. Most -- in fact all -- of this stuff has already been covered quite extensively by the cable networks (especially HBO's great documentaries).

Do we really need more regurgitation of the grit and courage of the ****ing Yankees and ****ing Red Sox?

We get about an hour of treacly claptrap about how the gritty gutty Red Sox broke their 80-year streak, bringing joy to their long-suffering fans, and the White Sox doing the exact same thing a year later is dismissed in 15 seconds.

ESPN and FOX Sports suck off the Yankees and Red Sox 364 days and 20 hours of every year. I don't need to buy a DVD to fill in the other four hours.

 

[Boom_70]

The charm of the original series (for me anyway), like the Brooklyn Bridge and Civil War series, was that it brought events in the history of baseball, usually covered only in dusty books or faded pictures, onto the screen in something like live-action.

But as the series progressed more and more toward the present day, of course there was increased overlap with film footage and TV game broadcasts most fans had already seen.

This became especially glaring in the new chapters. Most -- in fact all -- of this stuff has already been covered quite extensively by the cable networks (especially HBO's great documentaries).

Do we really need more regurgitation of the grit and courage of the ****ing Yankees and ****ing Red Sox?

We get about an hour of treacly claptrap about how the gritty gutty Red Sox broke their 80-year streak, bringing joy to their long-suffering fans, and the White Sox doing the exact same thing a year later is dismissed in 15 seconds.

ESPN and FOX Sports suck off the Yankees and Red Sox 364 days and 20 hours of every year. I don't need to buy a DVD to fill in the other four hours.

You have to remember that Ken Burns is a Red Sox fan.

 

[Starman]

You have to remember that Ken Burns is a Red Sox fan.

I never would have guessed.

 

[Boom_70]

Burns needs to find a new female face of baseball instead of Doris Kearns Goodwin. After her plagiarism scandal hard to take her seriously.

 

[slappy4428]

Burns needs to find a new female face of baseball instead of Doris Kearns Goodwin. After her plagiarism scandal had to take her seriously.

IJAG would, but there are too many judicial restrainment orders against her...
Maybe Alyssa Milano?

 

[Boom_70]

Burns needs to find a new female face of baseball instead of Doris Kearns Goodwin. After her plagiarism scandal had to take her seriously.

IJAG would, but there are too many judicial restrainment orders against her...
Maybe Alyssa Milano?

Debbie Clemens

 

[Bruce_Shoebottom]

Do we really need more regurgitation of the grit and courage of the ****ing Yankees and ****ing Red Sox?

We get about an hour of treacly claptrap about how the gritty gutty Red Sox broke their 80-year streak, bringing joy to their long-suffering fans, and the White Sox doing the exact same thing a year later is dismissed in 15 seconds.

ESPN and FOX Sports suck off the Yankees and Red Sox 364 days and 20 hours of every year. I don't need to buy a DVD to fill in the other four hours.

Boo-hoo. What type of ratings did that Astros-White Sox World Series do, again? When either of those teams produce baseball as epic as the Yanks and Sox did in 2003-04, they'll merit an hour in a documentary. Until then we'll just listen to small market teams' crybaby fans whine.

 

[Stoney]

The charm of the original series (for me anyway), like the Brooklyn Bridge and Civil War series, was that it brought events in the history of baseball, usually covered only in dusty books or faded pictures, onto the screen in something like live-action.

But as the series progressed more and more toward the present day, of course there was increased overlap with film footage and TV game broadcasts most fans had already seen.

This became especially glaring in the new chapters. Most -- in fact all -- of this stuff has already been covered quite extensively by the cable networks (especially HBO's great documentaries).

Do we really need more regurgitation of the grit and courage of the ****ing Yankees and ****ing Red Sox?

We get about an hour of treacly claptrap about how the gritty gutty Red Sox broke their 80-year streak, bringing joy to their long-suffering fans, and the White Sox doing the exact same thing a year later is dismissed in 15 seconds.

ESPN and FOX Sports suck off the Yankees and Red Sox 364 days and 20 hours of every year. I don't need to buy a DVD to fill in the other four hours.

I heartily endorse this post.

I'm so ****ing sick of the MLB=Yankees, Red Sox and 28 supporting characters narrative. That thing ignored Toronto's two rings, the Marlins in 97, the White Sox in 05, the Cardinals in 06, the Phillies in 08, it only addressed the Angels winning in 02 as it related to Bonds' disappointment, yet it went into excruciatingly melodramatic longwinded detail on all that involved the Yankees/Sox. Apparently Ken thinks those were the only series that historically matter.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

1. Ken Burns is the WORST kind of bigdome Red Sox poseur-fan. His speech at the memorial service was one of the most painful experiences imaginable. Earl Wilson won the hearts of the sellout crowd by coming to the microphone next and admitting he'd dozed off.
2. I don't need to see a documentary on baseball from 1990-2008. I was THERE. I saw most of the memorable events, counting television, and covered many of 'em. I gave this show a shot, but wandered off to other parts of the cable universe.

 

[Starman]

Do we really need more regurgitation of the grit and courage of the ****ing Yankees and ****ing Red Sox?

We get about an hour of treacly claptrap about how the gritty gutty Red Sox broke their 80-year streak, bringing joy to their long-suffering fans, and the White Sox doing the exact same thing a year later is dismissed in 15 seconds.

ESPN and FOX Sports suck off the Yankees and Red Sox 364 days and 20 hours of every year. I don't need to buy a DVD to fill in the other four hours.

Boo-hoo. What type of ratings did that Astros-White Sox World Series do, again? When either of those teams produce baseball as epic as the Yanks and Sox did in 2003-04, they'll merit an hour in a documentary. Until then we'll just listen to small market teams' crybaby fans whine.

Chicago is not a small market. (Incidentally I am not particuarly a White Sox fan.)

And the world does not revolve around the respective rectums of the Yankees and Red Sox.

The games played by the Yankees and Red Sox mainly become 'epic' because of the nonstop power-fellatio applied by ****ing ESPN and MOTHER ****ING FOX.

 

[93Devil]

Roberts' steal was pretty damn epic, though.

 

[Boomer7]

Burns needs to find a new female face of baseball instead of Doris Kearns Goodwin. After her plagiarism scandal had to take her seriously.

Between her and Mike Barnicle, one might presume that all Red Sox fans are plagiarists. We're not. Thank you for your time.

 

[93Devil]

Burns needs to find a new female face of baseball instead of Doris Kearns Goodwin. After her plagiarism scandal had to take her seriously.

Between her and Mike Barnicle, one might presume that all Red Sox fans are plagiarists. We're not. Thank you for your time.

Didn't someone already type that? :)

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Strike? Been there, done that, prefer to forget that time in history. Same with roids. However, I do applaud KB for making the effort to include so much more in the 10th inning. Didn't get a chance to DVR it, but will try to catch it if it is repeated anywhere.

Those are undeniably important points in baseball history. I'll watch docs on those way before I'll sit for "epic!!!!!" recaps of yet another 162-game season in which there are great hitters, great pitchers, a bunch of interesting rookies, and a couple of pennant races. Then a team from a somewhat-sizable market wins the World Series. Yay. That stuff happens every single year, which is why it's so mind-numbing to read baseball coverage. But the strike and the 'roids? Interesting and out of the ordinary.

2. I don't need to see a documentary on baseball from 1990-2008. I was THERE. I saw most of the memorable events, counting television, and covered many of 'em.

Good for you. Your experience isn't exactly that of the average viewer target for a doc like this.

 

[BB Bobcat]

I missed the whole thing and forgot to even DVR it. Anyone know if it will be showing up on iTunes anytime soon? would make for airplane entertainment on my iphone.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I think my experience, except for the covering events part, WAS that of the average fan. The fans know all this stuff. It's not like Greg Maddux was a secret, or that Barry Bonds didn't attract a great deal of controversial publicity in his heyday. There's nothing wrong with recent history as a genre. But the historian had better bring some new information to the table.