PDA

View Full Version : Ken Burns' "The Tenth Inning"



Roy Tucker
09-28-2010, 12:13 PM
As a reminder, it airs tonight and tomorrow night. Set your DVRs.

http://www.pbs.org/baseball-the-tenth-inning/

camisadelgolf
09-28-2010, 12:20 PM
Thanks, Roy. I'm usually at karaoke on Wednesdays, but I may have to miss out this week.

cumberlandreds
09-28-2010, 12:20 PM
My DVR is already set. I stumbled on this while looking through my guide over the weekend.

BoydsOfSummer
09-28-2010, 01:57 PM
Just found it on the guide and came here to post it. Always somebody on the ball here. This time Roy T. wins the race.

Chip R
09-28-2010, 01:59 PM
Thanks, Roy.

RFS62
09-28-2010, 02:31 PM
Thanks for the heads up, Roy.

:beerme:

CarolinaRedleg
09-28-2010, 02:50 PM
Will definitely have to tune in. Love Ken Burns' work.

Reds Fanatic
09-28-2010, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the update. I forgot that was starting tonight.

vaticanplum
09-28-2010, 05:34 PM
I'm insanely excited about this, and only upset that I'm going to be distracted.

On the plus side, the Baseball series usually has me in tears within ten minutes of any given viewing, so I'll already be cued up to weep with either joy or frustration come 9:30 pm or so.

GAC
09-28-2010, 06:02 PM
Thanks Roy. Got the DVR set.

dougdirt
09-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Recording the version at 1am. Too many DVR conflicts before then. Hope it goes well, but given that I have read most of it revolves around the steroid use.... I expect it to be less than awesome.

westofyou
09-28-2010, 06:04 PM
I expect it to be less than awesome.

Yep, I'm predicting a Yawner + Steroid Rehash 101 + Red Sox overkill.

Ghosts of 1990
09-29-2010, 10:22 PM
anyone know if there is a replay of this coming? I missed it.

blumj
09-29-2010, 10:28 PM
Yep, I'm predicting a Yawner + Steroid Rehash 101 + Red Sox overkill.
Even I thought the Red Sox stuff went way too long.

Yeah, it's on again right now.

Reds Fanatic
09-29-2010, 10:31 PM
anyone know if there is a replay of this coming? I missed it.

The 2nd part of it that was on tonight is on again at 10:30 and 2 AM. I don't see a time they are replaying the first part though I am sure they will at some point.

Johnny Footstool
09-29-2010, 10:32 PM
I watched another show on MLB network this week that I really enjoyed: "Baseball's 50 Most Bizarre Moments." It included Reggie Sanders charging Pedro Martinez, Rob Dibble attacking Lou Pinella, and Paul O'Neill's drop kick (Top 10, that one).

mdccclxix
09-30-2010, 03:40 AM
Just finished the "bottom of the 10th" and was pretty unimpressed, although, I guess the notion that NY and BOS were all that baseball had to offer the last 20 years is not an unpopular one. Gah! I was mislead by Burns interview on MLB network last night, I thought there would be a lot more on the Latin and Asian infusion. The Bonds story was okay, I never saw him in any light other than a big cheating jerk.

LoganBuck
09-30-2010, 08:02 AM
Didn't care for it. Perhaps it was too soon. Several of these stories are still working through the process, and the final chapters have yet to be written. I did enjoy watching Arroyo drill Arod again.

blumj
09-30-2010, 08:33 AM
VORP? What the heck is VORP? How can you waste so much time on '03-'04 NYY-BOS, gloss over Moneyball and all the focus on statistical analysis, and not even make the connection? Seems like a massive whiff.

Chip R
09-30-2010, 08:38 AM
VORP? What the heck is VORP? How can you waste so much time on '03-'04 NYY-BOS, gloss over Moneyball and all the focus on statistical analysis, and not even make the connection? Seems like a massive whiff.

Because the show is for the masses and not just statheads.

Roy Tucker
09-30-2010, 09:01 AM
VORP? What the heck is VORP? How can you waste so much time on '03-'04 NYY-BOS, gloss over Moneyball and all the focus on statistical analysis, and not even make the connection? Seems like a massive whiff.

They showed a roomful of guys with laptops for 30 seconds. That was enough for me. I see that at work every day. I'd rather see baseball players playing baseball.

The nice thing about the previous "Baseball" series was the footage of the games. With "Tenth Inning", its all Fox coverage with Joe Buck in the background whom I got tired of a long time ago.

They did paint Bonds with more full brush strokes so you understand him better. But I still don't like him and his story being a centerpiece of this series made me switch channels.

15fan
09-30-2010, 09:04 AM
On the upside, I never get tired of seeing Mark Wohlers go with the slider on 2-2 to Jim Leyritz.

blumj
09-30-2010, 09:20 AM
Because the show is for the masses and not just statheads.

I know, but both things are already in it, they mention Bill James, they mention the Red Sox ownership change that led to them mounting this charge at the Yankee dynasty, it's such an obvious lead-in, and the steroids story is inserted in between the two as if they are completely unrelated.

Chip R
09-30-2010, 09:42 AM
I know, but both things are already in it, they mention Bill James, they mention the Red Sox ownership change that led to them mounting this charge at the Yankee dynasty, it's such an obvious lead-in, and the steroids story is inserted in between the two as if they are completely unrelated.

Yes but they only have so much time and they are appealing to the masses. I don't embrace the statistical revolution as much as others but I certainly see its value and I don't dismiss it. That said, I don't want to watch a half hour on this show about VORP and Zone Rating and PECOTA and EqA and all that stuff. People start talking about that and viewers are going to turn the channel. Perhaps they are thinking that if people want to see a show about statistical analysis, they can watch the Moneyball movie.

Now I didn't see the whole show but I did see the part where they mentioned VORP. I didn't see how much Bill James was involved but I would think they could have utilized him more for that kind of thing since he has a way of explaining that kind of stuff to the masses that is understandable.

SunDeck
09-30-2010, 11:14 AM
It's been a little more like a Frontline episode than your typical Ken Burns work. Maybe that's because he's dealing with a history that is mostly known by viewers and which leaves an extraordinarily bad taste in many mouths. Secondly, I am no where near as enamored with the game as I once was because of the steroids era, the millionaires v. millionaires conflicts and the general sense that those running baseball are interested more in extracting money from fans' pockets than they are with the game, a fact which has undoubtedly always been at least partially true, but which I feel is even more evident over the last decade. To hear those interviewed claim that the game is basically the same as it ever was leaves me cold.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2010, 11:50 AM
I enjoyed it. Not much new of course, but still enjoyable. Putting everything in sequence kind of helped put things in perspective too.

Didn't compare to the original "baseball" of course, but still...worth a watch IMO.

mdccclxix
09-30-2010, 12:49 PM
Omissions:

The Marlins, how the 2 time champs paved the way for small market teams.
Marlins, Rockies, Dbacks, and Rays as new franchises
Interleague play
The Rays success story
Phillies championship and end of ATL's run
Any mention of Pujols
Expos leaving Montreal
The Mariners historic teams

I expected more than a populist rehash of the ESPN history of baseball. Didn't like the bottom of the 10th at all (except the Ichiro part) and the top of the 10th was just OK.

Roy Tucker
09-30-2010, 12:58 PM
I thought a Junior vs. Bonds compare and contrast would have been better than an in-depth look at Bonds and 90 seconds on Junior.

What it did focus on was interesting. But it certainly wasn't comprehensive of the time period and there were big stories omitted. The 2003 and 2004 Yankees/Red Sox ALCS's were interesting, but Lord knows, it was covered like a blanket when it happened and has been rehashed innumerable times since then.

Chip R
09-30-2010, 01:26 PM
What it did focus on was interesting. But it certainly wasn't comprehensive of the time period and there were big stories omitted. The 2003 and 2004 Yankees/Red Sox ALCS's were interesting, but Lord knows, it was covered like a blanket when it happened and has been rehashed innumerable times since then.

So they should have glossed it over? Whether you are sick of the coverage or not, it happened and you can't just gloss over it.

Roy Tucker
09-30-2010, 01:28 PM
So they should have glossed it over? Whether you are sick of the coverage or not, it happened and you can't just gloss over it.

They sure glossed over a lot of other stuff.

I was just hoping for something fresh and new. Yankees and Red Sox aren't that.

mdccclxix
09-30-2010, 01:42 PM
It was an epic series in 04 for sure, but IMO they could have added another layer if the Marlins were given credit for a) beating the Cubs, who were mentioned b) then beating the Yanks in 03, then of course dismantling again. That team had a lot of stars that were homegrown, latin, etc, and that franchise's story could have really added more to the story of baseball in the last 20 years as a representative of teams like OAK, MIN, COL, and now CIN ;). They even acknowledged that fans of baseball primarily hate BOS and NYY because they are the haves, then they spend a huge portion of this last installment on them, just awful.

blumj
09-30-2010, 01:44 PM
So they should have glossed it over? Whether you are sick of the coverage or not, it happened and you can't just gloss over it.
It was too long. The Red Sox backstory of near misses was already in the original, and there was way too much of Mike Barnacle and Doris Kearns Goodwin rehashing that same stuff. And some of the time spent on the '03 ALCS could have gone to the Marlins, and the '04 World Series gave them a good opening to talk about Pujols that they didn't take.

Beyond that, since they're already into "extra innings", they could have made it longer to include more if they felt that was the best way.

D-Man
09-30-2010, 02:35 PM
Wow, tough crowd here.

The Yanks/Red Sox series' were a boon for baseball. TV ratings for those series' were through the roof, East Coast bias or no. Of course the story could have been told more concisely, but the rivalry included a multi-year battle between the best two teams of the decade--two teams that clearly hated each other--and the dramatic lifting of a "curse". Given the longevity and emotional depth of the buildup, I can see why this was one of the featured storylines.

The highlight for me was Joe Torre's personal recollection of the 1996 World Series (his first after 3,000+ professional games as player and manager). For those who weren't touched by that segment, well, I guess you're a bigger man than me.

I also liked Bob Costas' pithy summary of the Mitchell Report, which included two key points: (1) the report succeeded by putting Major League Baseball's stamp on a pervasive drug problem and a distinct era, but (2) failed in its specificity of the users (I would've called it an incomplete list, but Costas stated there was "randomness" to which players were included in the report).

Why were so few players interviewed for this segment of the documentary? Pedro and Ichiro are the only ones featured, by my recollection. I suppose that any player tied up in the steroid era wanted to avoid the camera.

I also would've liked a little more detail on the economic conditions of the game before and after the strike.

mdccclxix
09-30-2010, 03:25 PM
Wow, tough crowd here.

The Yanks/Red Sox series' were a boon for baseball. TV ratings for those series' were through the roof, East Coast bias or no. Of course the story could have been told more concisely, but the rivalry included a multi-year battle between the best two teams of the decade--two teams that clearly hated each other--and the dramatic lifting of a "curse". Given the longevity and emotional depth of the buildup, I can see why this was one of the featured storylines.

The highlight for me was Joe Torre's personal recollection of the 1996 World Series (his first after 3,000+ professional games as player and manager). For those who weren't touched by that segment, well, I guess you're a bigger man than me.

I also liked Bob Costas' pithy summary of the Mitchell Report, which included two key points: (1) the report succeeded by putting Major League Baseball's stamp on a pervasive drug problem and a distinct era, but (2) failed in its specificity of the users (I would've called it an incomplete list, but Costas stated there was "randomness" to which players were included in the report).

Why were so few players interviewed for this segment of the documentary? Pedro and Ichiro are the only ones featured, by my recollection. I suppose that any player tied up in the steroid era wanted to avoid the camera.

I also would've liked a little more detail on the economic conditions of the game before and after the strike.


I felt the same. They could have brought in some more players, and actually I was waiting for Dusty Baker to pop in there, as manager of Bonds and Sosa, SF and CHI, he was there for like half the movie's storyline but never interviewed or shown speaking.

In all, there WERE parts that I enjoyed, but the overall taste from the movie was a bad one for me, perhaps because "Baseball" is purported to be some 'definitive' piece, even though it's clearly not.

Oh and btw, was Kevin Millar on roids or what? Holy moly.

Chip R
09-30-2010, 10:28 PM
I watched the whole thing today and I will admit it was very Yankee heavy. However they have been an excellent team for the past 15 years so it's not unusual to see them featured so much.

I think there may have been a little too much on Bonds - especially in the Top of the Tenth. I think there should have been more Pujols and more Jr. But I guess they aren't controversial enough.

One thing I liked about the first series is, I believe, they went through every year and mentioned something about the teams that were in the Series. They really didn't do that this time around. I do think mentioning how the Marlins won the Series twice and proceeded to sell their players off would have been a good way to explain the struggle of the smaller revenue teams. Plus they beat the almighty Braves with the help of Eric Gregg's enormous strike zone - a nice ironic touch given that the Braves had that advantage for years. I think they spent too much time on off the field stuff but one off the field thing they should have brought up was the rise of the cable TV networks and how they helped teams like the Yankees increase their revenue exponentionally. I thought it was funny they mentioned the Bartman play but not the Jeffrey Maier one.

I think the choices they made they did well. People may have a better understanding why Bonds was such a jerk. I liked how they explained about the Dominican players and - more interestingly - the ones who didn't make it but still live here and play semi-pro ball in NYC. They did a nice job on 9/11. I was a little (pleasantly) surprised they didn't have A-Rod as one of their player-commentators although I suppose his steroid controversy may have put the kibosh on that. I think Jr. would have been a good player to do some of those commentaries. Of course he may not have wanted to comment on things like steroids.

Overall I thought it was fine. I'd give it a B-

MississippiRed
10-01-2010, 05:09 PM
I recorded and watched the first night (and have recorded the second night but not watched) but did not enjoy it as much as I thought I would. The 1994 strike made me angry all over again. I hate the steroid stuff - they mention Griffey with Bonds and McGwire and Sosa and that didn't make me happy. The Ripken part I liked.

I've decided that I enjoy these more when they are about players/times I don't remember so well or at all.

blumj
10-01-2010, 10:18 PM
Exhausted and haggard documentarian Ken Burns begged Major League Baseball to cease operations Tuesday, saying that any future games, trades, or league action would warrant further installments of the filmmaker's sprawling, now 23-hour-long documentary Baseball.


"I can't do this anymore," Burns said. "The more baseball is played, the more I have to document. But it's futile, the documentary will never end, because in order for it to end, baseball itself would have to end. I'm always playing catch-up ball. The Tenth Inning, The Eleventh Inning, The 2.945th Inning. Christ, how many more of these things will I have to make?"



http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-ken-burns-urges-baseball-to-stop,18181/

westofyou
10-01-2010, 10:56 PM
I watched the whole thing today and I will admit it was very Yankee heavy.

So would a look at the 20's, 30's and 50's/

Nature of the beast.

History knows no prejudice's, that franchise has 49 post season appearances, or 49% of their existence, they are a huge part of baseball history.

I'm saving it for post season, in the meantime I'll study other mundane crap.that interest me... I have copious notes on a 70's/80's piece that is blocked in my queue like a piece of steak in Hank Hill's colon,