Anyone have a link to Olbermann's error list? I looked a few months back and couldn't find it.

Burns has already pieced together narration from Ossie Davis, John Chancellor, Buck O’Neil,

Hey, anything that gets more info/stories/quotes from Buck O'Neil is fine by me.

I just hope Ken Burns gets Bill James to do on-air commentary this go-around.

And if Burns ever decides to overhaul the entire 18+ hour series, he needs to incorporate David Block's research on 19th-century -- and even 18th-century -- baseball (e.g. Baseball Before We Knew It) in the introductory chapter.

Hey, anything that gets more info/stories/quotes from Buck O'Neil is fine by me.

Thank YOU, steroids!

That's why I assumed this was a joke. It isn't?

I've read Burns quoted elsewhere that he's updating Baseball, but the last two paragraphs of the above story are false (Chancellor died about 10 years ago, BTW)...

Doris Kearns Goodwin's knowledge of baseball is a joke.

As Mike and the Mad Dog, of all people, pointed out, her book, "Wait Till Next Year: A Memoir," was filled with factual errors.

Considering that she is supposed to be a historian, that is inexcusable.

Aren't all those people dead?

Maybe after Burns does a documentary interview, he kills the guest, thus ensuring he has their last word on the subject at hand.

Doris Kearns Goodwin's knowledge of baseball is a joke.

As Mike and the Mad Dog, of all people, pointed out, her book, "Wait Till Next Year: A Memoir," was filled with factual errors.

Goodwin was in the documentary to give her memories of growing up as a Dodgers fan, then becoming a Red Sox fan (as so many Dodger fans did). She wasn't there to be John Thorn. If you're relating your experience as a fan, the specifics of the games are not that important.

Goodwin was in the documentary to give her memories of growing up as a Dodgers fan, then becoming a Red Sox fan (as so many Dodger fans did). She wasn't there to be John Thorn. If you're relating your experience as a fan, the specifics of the games are not that important.

When you're committing those memories to print, & presumably (no, I haven't RFTB) buttressing them with actual facts from actual records, you really should double-check certain impressions. Especially if you're a historian (though after taking American Historiography in grad school, complete with a 12 1/2-hour final [in my case ... one guy was there for 26 hours till the prof finally walked in & said "enough's enough], maybe I shouldn't be even remotely surprised.)

Am I the only one that is stoked that Burns is doing this? I couldn't care less about his take on steriods/Bonds/etc, and I'm very aware of all the factual errors/omissions/northeast bias of the original set. Nevertheless, I thought they did a great job recreating some of the best games of the past (Game 6 '75 WS, 51 playoff, Game 6 86 WS, Merkle Game, etc), building the drama by mixing in audio/video clips in with interviews. I'll be real eager to see them tackle the 01 WS, 03 Playoffs, 04 ALCS, I hope they go all the way back and revisit the 1991 WS (which they apparently didn't have room for in the first go-around) and the 1992 NLCS.

When the first version came out in 1994 (IIRC), I was 14 and already a big baseball fan with most of the prerequisite knowledge of baseball history. But I attribute the Burns documentary to my developing a passion for baseball history, which subsequently escalated my passion for the sport to the absurd proportions that characterize most, if not all, of us Primates.

If you're relating your experience as a fan, the specifics of the games are not that important.

Sounds like she has the makings of a Cubs fan.

Goodwin was in the documentary to give her memories of growing up as a Dodgers fan, then becoming a Red Sox fan (as so many Dodger fans did). She wasn't there to be John Thorn. If you're relating your experience as a fan, the specifics of the games are not that important.

I understand, but part of the reason she was probably chosen as being a worthy representative of Dodgers fans is her supposed reputation as a noted historian who wrote a book about her memories of being a Dodgers fan.

I think it's long past time that the curtain was lifted on her poor scholarship.

Am I the only one that is stoked that Burns is doing this

I had a million complaints about the series when it first aired (BTW, a college friend of mine was one of Keith Olbermann's assistants at ESPN in 1994, and from him I obtained a copy of Olbermann's list of errors), but yeah, I still enjoyed it. I was at the Philly SABR regional last month, and they played the 1910s "chapter" during the lengthy lunch break. Watching it again, I'd forgotten how funny the series was. Burns was on stronger ground with the comic moments than he was with the larger, baseball-as-a-metaphor-of-life/America/family themes.

If your first reaction to Ken Burns updating Baseball is Oh No!, I think that's a good sign you are nuts. Unless you are a sourpuss of Olbermannian proportions, or simply someone who hates good documentaries, there is nothing to complain about. Sure it's flawed, it has the occasional historical error (most of Olbermann's list of errors concern Burns trying to find scraps of film for certain players), way too much Mario Cuomo, and it has a sometimes wistful view of baseball (though Burns places his documentary squarely on the side of free agency, and debunks the myth of baseball being a pastoral game very early in the documentary), but it is such a large and monumental work that it simply doesn't matter. It's great anyway.

If he decides to record a 10th inning, he needs to do redo some things from the first 9 innings. I'd like to see an actual proper homage to Stan Musial. He could do a little bit on the Pacific Coast League. He needs to do a lot more on the 80s and 90s, which got somewhat left behind by the quest to keep it to 9 innings. I would like to see something about the 1986 Mets, the Bash Brothers, and the 1991 World Series.

Obviously he'll do something about McGwire/Sosa/Bonds, the rise of the Yankees, and the 2004 Red Sox. What else? New baseball parks, the rise of statistics, the 2005 White Sox, the decline of black players. He'll probably do those in one way or another.

That's why I assumed this was a joke. It isn't?

It's Bob Timmermann writing this. Of course it's deadpan. (If any of you ever have the chance to hear him do a presentation at SABR, do so.)

I understand, but part of the reason she was probably chosen as being a worthy representative of Dodgers fans is her supposed reputation as a noted historian who wrote a book about her memories of being a Dodgers fan.

She didn't write the book until after the documentary had aired. She was probably just a prominent historian baseball fan and one with an interesting background, seeing as she was a Brooklyn Dodgers fan who became a Red Sox fan. Same reason why George Will and Stephen Jay Gould were there.

I can't wait to find out how Jackie Robinson was behind both Sosa and McGwire's seasons in 1998. I mean, he *must* have been. It seemed like Burns treated the life of every player before 1947 as just some prologue to Jackie breaking the color barrier. Why not just make the life of every player afterward an epilogue, too? And we could dispense with the misleading series title, "Baseball" and go back to what must've been Burns's working title, "Sociology".

And Maro Cuomo's relevance to the series was also nearly zero. But then Burns was desperate to give Cuomo some cheap pub.

I think it's long past time that the curtain was lifted on her poor scholarship.

So...you're kinda late on that.

Just wanted to say how much I hated his jazz documentary.

And Maro Cuomo's relevance to the series was also nearly zero. But then Burns was desperate to give Cuomo some cheap pub.

I wonder what the over / under on the number of Giuliani clips will be when Burns gets around to the Torre era in the Bronx.

OK, Giuliani has been a Yankee fan all his life, so in the spirit of bipartisanship I wouldn't begrudge him equal time with Cuomo.

But if I see even one interview with this, I'm reaching for my revolver. The only question would be in which direction I'll be pointing it.

I can't wait to find out how Jackie Robinson was behind both Sosa and McGwire's seasons in 1998. I mean, he *must* have been. It seemed like Burns treated the life of every player before 1947 as just some prologue to Jackie breaking the color barrier.

Well, at least "The War" will no longer be fought by only two races on the American side, despite the earlier refusals :)

Some Latino groups were kinda PO'd that "Baseball" and "Jazz" virtually ignored Latinos, too, so the "The War" dust-up wasn't exactly new.

I just want to hear Brian Dennehy reading emotional excerpts from Curt Schilling's blog, while a lone piper plays "The Drummer Boy of Shiloh."

So...you're kinda late on that.

It's even worse than I thought!

But if I see even one interview with this, I'm reaching for my revolver. The only question would be in which direction I'll be pointing it.

Take all of us with you.

I'm reaching for my revolver. The only question would be in which direction I'll be pointing it.

Burma.

Am I the only one that is stoked that Burns is doing this?

Not at all. Frankly, I needed anything I could get in 1994 to get me through the baseball strike. I though Goodwin added quite a bit as a fan, and I think the point of someone like Cuomo was as much about showing just how far-reaching baseball was and is as much as anything.

I've rewatched them- I fully understand that in a documentary of the ENTIRE history of baseball, there will be some factual errors, and I can still enjoy it as cinema with plenty of worthwhile information. I won't use it as a primary source.

I fully understand that in a documentary of the ENTIRE history of New York and Boston baseball, there will be some factual errors,

Fixed. Anyone who gushes about Bob Gibson's performance in the 1968 World Series, and then forgets to mention that Mickey Lolich and the Tigers beat him, deserves scorn and ridicule.

Anyone who gushes about Bob Gibson's performance in the 1968 World Series, and then forgets to mention that Mickey Lolich and the Tigers beat him, deserves scorn and ridicule.

How does this quite have anything to do with New York and Boston baseball I'm not quite sure. Sure it's biased towards the Northeast, but baseball in general is biased towards the Northeast. Detroit baseball got its share of coverage, it just all happened to be in the first four innings and focused on Ty Cobb and Hank Greenberg. Though I admit I'm surprised that the 1968 World Series got a brushover, since Burns did grow up in Michigan and was a teenager at the time. On the other hand, Burns spent literally 30 seconds on the 1970s Red Sox-Yankee feud, so it's not like he pained to cover every waking second of Red Sox history.

Well, ESPN hadn't invented the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry yet, which, apparently wasn't a big deal. I read an article about this months ago!

How does this quite have anything to do with New York and Boston baseball I'm not quite sure.

It was sandwiched between lengthy bits on the 1967 Impossible Dream and the 1969 Miracle Mets. Burns allotted himself one sentence for 1968, and chose to go with a pitcher other than the one who won three games in the World Series.

Anyone have a link to Olbermann's error list? I looked a few months back and couldn't find it.

I imagine that list has to be smaller than the one for Countdown.