I taped this on VHS when it originally aired in 1994. Have yet to bother rewatching.

It’ll still be a New York City lovefest...Oh, and it stops in the early 90’s.

If he did a new episode, it'd be pretty Yankee-centric.

My opinion of this movie seems to go against the grain of the majority here...I think it may have something to do with my age.
I was about 8 when it came out and our family taped it off of PBS and I routinely watch it almost every year.

The more I learn about baseball history it's become clear that Burns leaves a lot of stuff out and seems to be obssessed with one or two themes, but it was my first introduction to baseball's past. Before seeing it I knew Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig, but really just as "super-human baseball player Ted Williams", I had no idea what he looked like or what his personality was...and I had never even heard of Honus Wagner.

I guess I just have a soft spot for the series because it was such a wonderful way to be introduced to baseball history, I'd definately show it to my kids (edit: once I have some).

And yes, new episode please.

i watched up until about 1930, but the new york suckfest wore me down, and i didn't bother watching the rest of the series.

I've never watched it, due almost entirely to the negative press it gets here, but some relative or other gives me a copy every year.

I finally saw this a few years ago and was surprised how much I liked it. When it first came out I caught two brief snippets, both of which left me underwhelmed (he referred to the 1950s as the game's golden age - blech - and then noted at the end how the rise of modern salaries made it harder for people to relate to the players - double bleach.

Watching it overall, I thought it was pretty impressive. It doesn't cover everything, but he had about 18 hours to cover 120 years of MLB (plus its years of origins). He had two choices, either pick some themes and develop them or try to go an inch-deep mile-wide and say so little about so many things that you're saying virtually nothing about everything.

In general, I thought he did a good job with his themes. In particular, his work on the Negro Leagues should be noted. Prior to Ken Burns, the history of the Negro Leagues had been documented and developed, but it generally stood off in the box on the margins, separate from teh rest of the story of major league baseball. Ken Burns incorporated it into the main storyline of the entire sport, making it a central theme to the game's history.

He also made sure to cover the labor wars in baseball history. By including labor and race, Burns managed to make it more than just a history of the game but also deal with some of its socioeconomic ramifications. It wasn't perfect or academic in its treatment, but I don't really expect academic excellence in a popular documentary series, which is what Burns does. I appreciate the fact he included these items for a broad, general audience.

He also did a good job telling the baseball stories he had available. Because he left stuff out, he had time to really dig into the moments he covered. And he had some nice nuggets an unexpected moments along the way. He interview Babe Ruth's sister! My God - I didn't even know he had a sister, let alone that she lived to the 1990s, but sure enough, there she is recounting how her dad used to beat him up. You get fun things like Shelby Foote's story of meeting Babe Ruth. Little items like how Dazzy Vance would take advantage of laundry day on Monday in Brooklyn to make it impossible to read his pitches (one of my items of things to write about for THT is a tracer on Ken Burns's Dazzy Vance story).

Problems: the Brooklyn Dodger tripe. We don't need the story of building Ebbetts Field, especially if it means you don't have time to cover the Miracle Braves. Just tell Doris Kearns GOodwin to go plagerize another book. Referring to the 1930s Dodgers as one of the worst baseball teams of all-time is wildly off the mark. Talk to the Phillie fans if you want to see bad baseball. Burns was willing to not let the truth get in the way of a good story (something that also affected his treatment of Pete Alexander in the 1926 World Series).

There were plenty of maudlin moments about MLB as America that . .. . well, I have no use for that stuff personally.

The last episode was the worst. That was a result of the structure; after spending two hours on each of the first seven decades; Burns jammed 25 years into the last episode. Up thread people complain about the absence of Schmidt or not enough time on the Weaver Orioles - well, that's largely. (Actually, I thought Burns did a good job with Weaver personally - he was one of the only managers spotlighted at all. He got a better treatment than Joe McCarthy or Bill McKechnie, to name two other highly talented and successful managers).

I don't agree with everything in it, but Ken Burns is a heckuva storyteller, and he generally (if not always) he had good sense about which stories to tell.

And yes, new episode please.

That would just give Keith Olbermann more to kvetch about.

It's a very good documentary. The only real flaw I have with it is that Burns really overdoes social history and commentary at times. I felt The War really overdid it in that regard.

Too much George Will and not enough Bill Lee.

And the part at the end where Buck O'Neill waxes poetic about Bo Jackson I think was Burns' attempt at being prophetic - but now is just a sad reminder of what could have been.

Of course you guys hate it. You already know all of the historical snippets. That's much the same way I feel about The Civil War, although I love the film.

It's a film for people who don't know anything about Baseball (just like TCW is for people who don't know about the Civil War). It draws you in, makes you interested, and leads you to learn more. It's an excellent film, but a flawed one.

It would be interesting for me to watch it again. I really enjoyed it....but many of my opinons about MLB have changed since I viewed it....in particular I would be interested to see how Burns framed the racial integration of MLB ( Jackie ). I am now amongst those who question if the integration of MLB was good for African American baseball. It killed the Negro Leagues ( largely black owned, operated, supported and managed ) to the benefit of white owned MLB. Or have I been brainwashed by William Rhoden?

Burns was willing to not let the truth get in the way of a good story

I agree with your observation but to remain incongruent to that theme Burns fails to mention two truths which add drama to existing stories:

1) 1908 the controversy over the Merkle game results in Harry Pulliam committing suicide in 1909. Although Merkle is covered in detail the effect it had on the NL President is never mentioned, and;

2) The failure to mention Moe Berg and his extra curricular activites when touring Japan with Babe Ruth would have been a keen footnote to tie into baseball's importance to American history. It was Berg's activities (because of baseball) which assisted Jim Doolittle's bombing of Tokyo in 1942.

Either of those two stories could have been mentioned in passing to add to the drama of the film. But we needed some more quotes from Ivy Leaguers about what the game means to them.

I would love to see what Ross Greenberg could do with the same amount of time and the same topic. HBO Sports documentaries are the standard in that genre in my opinion.

My feelings about KB's "Baseball" are pretty similar to my feelings about KB's "Jazz": For what is supposed to be an expansive documentary about a complex subject with a long and colorful history, the end result is often sloppy, biased, criminally omissive, and too dependent on the analysis of crusty, hard-headed pundits. What makes it even more frustrating is that both films are peppered with great moments that almost redeem the whole thing, but always fall short. I feel like, especially with "Jazz", he takes these subjects he doesn't know anything about and finds four or five "experts" and builds his film on their teachings, then presents it as gospel. He sems to care more about making a compelling movie than an informative, edifying documentary.

1) 1908 the controversy over the Merkle game results in Harry Pulliam committing suicide in 1909.

I was aware of both events, but didn't realize the connection until I reread Pulliam's bio in a SABR book recently. As for Burns's documentary, I've seen parts of it, but I don't believe that I ever watched the whole thing.

You've been brainwashed. Buck O'Neil said that the integration of the majors was the death knell for 'our baseball' (the Negro Leagues), then quickly added, but who cares?

It's a terrific series. It's got some flaws - the last episode suffered badly for trying to cram 25 years of baseball into two hours - and it's got some biases, though I think they're overblown. I don't really understand most of the criticisms about it. You're saying Earl Weaver didn't get enough time? He got his own chapter, complete with insights from Tom Boswell. Burns says the golden age of baseball was the 50s, but he also doesn't shy away from mentioning that nobody was going to the park at that time. At the end of the film he has a whole bunch of people come on and say baseball is as great as its ever been, stop worrying about free agency, etc etc.

Burns also has an excellent eye for detail. When you watch something produced by MLB, they inevitably lean on five or six clips of Ruth. Burns found dozens of action clips of Ruth. He has clips of Hank Greenberg taking batting practice, and Lefty Grove pitching. He has footage of Carl Hubbell throwing his screwball, and audio of the radio call from the 1933 All-Star Game when Hubbell struck out Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx and Cronin. It's always worth watching the opening montage of his innings, because there's historically relevant clips mixed in there, which I like to think is a nod to the more hardcore baseball history buff. The interviews with Marvin Miller, Buck O'Neil, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and the assorted mix of older Negro Leaguers are absolutely outstanding. Even Doris Kearns Goodwin and Billy Crystal weren't bad, since they hadn't lapsed into being Professional Dodgers Torchkeeper/Professional Mickey Mantle Idolator. The only needless one was Mario Cuomo, who had an interesting story that didn't particularly need to be retold (a lot of people would probably be happier had his airtime been taken up to show Stan Musial's career..).

I'd love to see Ken Burns re-do the 80s and chronicle the 90s and the 00s. Then he could do the Philly World Series, Mike Schmidt, and the 1991 World Series, which he mentioned but likely didn't include because he had a hard enough time writing the final inning for this World Series to butt in during the writing process. He'd probably have an interesting take on the strike, and on Cal Ripken, the McGwire/Sosa home run chase, the Yankee dynasty, Barry Bonds, and the Red Sox winning the World Series (twice!). One might argue after the War, which personally I couldn't get into, he might need to get his fastball back by doing something he knows.

KB's "Jazz"

Or as my Dad called it, "The Louis Armstrong and some other horn players we don't have time to mention documentary."

I, for one, would not like to see Ken Burns do the last ten years in two hours. It would be one hour and 58 minutes on the Red Sox beating the Yankees and then two minutes on the rest of the decade. No thanks.

My complaints with Ken Burns are the same as most of the rest of the non-Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers or Cardinals fans. Hey, you know what Ken? They play baseball outside of the east and west coasts and city of St. Louis.

For my personal #####, I didn't realize that the Tigers consisted of Ty Cobb and a bunch of props for Bob Gibson's 17 strikeout game in 1968. You know Ken, Bob Gibson LOST THAT WORLD SERIES.

/Tigers homer rant

For my personal #####, I didn't realize that the Tigers consisted of Ty Cobb and a bunch of props for Bob Gibson's 17 strikeout game in 1968.

Apparently you didn't realize they included Hank Greenberg either.

The more I learn about baseball history it's become clear that Burns leaves a lot of stuff out

Well of course he did, they didn't want the documentary to be a thousand hours long.

Problems: the Brooklyn Dodger tripe. We don't need the story of building Ebbetts Field, especially if it means you don't have time to cover the Miracle Braves.

I'm pretty amazed how the Milwaukee Braves get such short thrift in documentaries about the "Golden Age" of baseball. Those were some great teams, with some great crowds, and identifiable Hall of Fame players and stars of the game. They didn't play in New York in front of Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giulani and Doris Kearns Godwin, but they were just as fascinating as the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees.

The 60s Tigers and Cards also get short thrift I think.

The last episode was the worst.

Agreed. It smacked too much of "things aren't as good as they were in the old days." Blech.

Apparently you didn't realize they included Hank Greenberg either.

Apparently that wasn't enough either.

Milwaukee was very important because it was the location of the first franchise move, which begat St. Louis to Baltimore, which begat Philly to KC, which begat Giants/Dodgers to the West Coast, which begat expansion etc. It was considered groundbreaking to the owners who realized that there were greater returns to be made on operations. O'Malley quickly realized the potential and complained of not being able to compete financially with the Braves.

Milwaukee was also important because immediately the fortunes of the team on the field turned with that move as well. Granted the Braves would have improved in Boston but part of that team's success in the 50's was due to its new location and being in a one team town.

And I don't mean to leave the impression that I didn't absolutely love Ken Burns' "Baseball". I did. Just some mild criticisms in an otherwise terrific series.

I didn't know of Moe Berg, baseball player/spy. Great story. I only knew of Moe Berg, 80's Edmonton pop/rocker.

Does anyone know what cable systems will actually get the MLB Network?

Does anyone know what cable systems will actually get the MLB Network?

Probably all of them, except yours. (smile)

Let me guess-- Billy Crystal talked about Mickey Mantle?

At one of the last Philly SABR regionals they played snippets of the documentary on the huge monitor during lunch. I forgot how genuinely FUNNY much of it was. It was marketed as a poignant, somber, earnest series. PBS should have been confident enough to emphasize the humorous moments in Burns' history.

Pete, you are an adult now, you should know about Moe Berg the spy. It is Hard to Laugh when people don't know their baseball history.

I'd love to see Ken Burns re-do the 80s and chronicle the 90s and the 00s (...) He'd probably have an interesting take on the strike, and on Cal Ripken, the McGwire/Sosa home run chase, the Yankee dynasty, Barry Bonds, and the Red Sox winning the World Series (twice!).

And the Phillies winning the World Series (twice!)

#28. I get the first reference, not the second. I do know Gretzky Rocks and there is another in my head ( I'm gonna guess the title is She's So Young - it's in the chorus - from an old 80s or 90s mixed tape! ). I poured drinks in the Ottawa Congress one evening when Moe led TPOH through a concert. Good show.

Here is the video to the second reference Pete

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVQ_er14oIA&feature=PlayList&p=45EDBBCF6FB5BC83&playnext=1&index=3

Milwaukee was very important because it was the location of the first franchise move

Technically, I believe that New York and St. Louis were the beneficiaries of the first moved teams (at least in the 20th century; I'm too lazy to look up if any of the original NL teams moved around in the early years).

@#31. FER SURE I know that song! Thanks, wow, nice flashback.

It's a <strike>film</strike> TV channel for people who don't know anything about Baseball

Just in case you move on to MLBtv, Lar.

Regarding Milwaukee:

I meant to say the first franchise move in 50 years (since Baltimore to NYC) which made it important.

Technically, I believe that New York and St. Louis were the beneficiaries of the first moved teams (at least in the 20th century; I'm too lazy to look up if any of the original NL teams moved around in the early years).

The Hartford Dark Blues moved to Brooklyn in 1877. Brooklyn has nothing to complain about. They were the first carpetbaggers!! You hear that, Howard Megdal?? (Technically, IIRC, the New York Mutuals were either banished or merely disbanded and this created a void in the NY area market, but why let that get in the way of a rant.)

Ah, GGC, the only man to keep a torch lit for both the Hartford Dark Blues and the Hartford Whalers.

Mahnken -

Of course you guys hate it. You already know all of the historical snippets. That's much the same way I feel about The Civil War, although I love the film.

This is precisely correct. I adored the Ken Burns Civil War documentary when I saw it as an 11 or 12 year old on PBS. Then I read Shelby Foote's magisterial 3-volume series on the War, MacPherson's Battle Cry Of Freedom, and some of Bruce Catton's work, and realized how much had truly been left out. (In particular, Burns fell into the very same trap that Shelby Foote explicitly set out to correct with his works: shunting the western theater of the war off as a sideshow to the Lee vs. the Army of the Potomac antics in VA, MD and PA.) But that doesn't affect my respect for what Burns accomplished: singlehandedly reviving mass American interest in the most important event in our nation's history with style, wit, and a storyteller's grace. And who can ever forget those letters from Union and Confederate soldiers that he shared with us?

Here is a link to some channel listings, courtesy of Biz of Baseball.

didn't know of Moe Berg, baseball player/spy.

there's a bio of him, 'the catcher was a spy' that doesn't paint an altogether pretty portrait. after his baseball career, he did indeed spy for the country and did good service, but in his later years he was a drifter with no fixed address who basically mooched off his friends and connections.

My feelings about KB's "Baseball" are pretty similar to my feelings about KB's "Jazz": For what is supposed to be an expansive documentary about a complex subject with a long and colorful history, the end result is often sloppy, biased, criminally omissive, and too dependent on the analysis of crusty, hard-headed pundits. What makes it even more frustrating is that both films are peppered with great moments that almost redeem the whole thing, but always fall short. I feel like, especially with "Jazz", he takes these subjects he doesn't know anything about and finds four or five "experts" and builds his film on their teachings, then presents it as gospel. He sems to care more about making a compelling movie than an informative, edifying documentary.

I agree with this. The other annoying thing, to me, were the pointless little bits of political correctness that Burns crammed into it. We get 15 minutes of Mario Cuomo for no other reason than that there was a chance that Mario Cuomo might run for president that year. We get 2 seconds each, just still pictures quickly posted on the screen, of all sorts of baseball greats (for some reason, Lefty Grove and Johnny Mize stick in my head as guys who got this minimalist treatment by Burns) so that we can mention some girl who was playing in some minor league in Montana in 1908. And, to some degree, Burns treats all of baseball history before 1947 as just a prelude to the life of Jackie Robinson. It was just a bit much.

After seeing what Burns did to MLB I don't trust that he'll get anything else right at anything more than a superficial level.

Did Moe Berg know Robin Sparkles?

Man, am I glad I read this thread. I didn't know that the general consensus about the documentary was that it was about NEW YORK (and Boston) and the assorted dwarf cities. I thought I was the only one who was disgusted by that. Glad to know that it isn't just my bias talking to me. My own personal theory is that, like any documentor who is wandering into territory he doesn't know from long experience, he got his intellectual pockets picked by Big Names. In this case, the Big Names were people with large non-baseball reputations, like Mario Cuomo and Stephen Jay Gould. These were largely middle-aged New Yorkers, and they got him to tell the story that THEY wanted to see - the one they remembered from their childhoods, or worse, from nostalgia from their childhoods. 1941, for example, is not worth a whole bonus hour of its own, especially since there is a perfectly good book that covers the territory in detail.

Oh, yeah. I'm from St. Louis and have been a baseball fan since 1954, and I assure you that people from here don't feel especially privileged by the series. Just as one example, summing up the entire career of Stan Musial as "he was consistent" is 1) real short shrifting (though certainly not as bad as ignoring Mike Schmidt), and 2) false. Stan had one of the most famous of all hitting shape changes, starting in 1948 and continuing through his career. But if you're from New York, and your main interests are politics or biology, and you didn't get into baseball until the 1950s, you're going to make that mistake. The Musial you saw is all post-48. I probably made mistakes of that kind about Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford until I actually studied a little baseball history. But I didn't produce documentaries on subjects about which I knew nothing, either.

What amazed me most was that Burns, supposedly a seasoned historian, seems completely unaware of this. You'd think he could have looked back at his work, while in progress, and say, "Hey. Over half of my interview subjects are from New York. That can't be right. That's going to give me a bias." But he apparently never had that basic historian's thought, which has made me ignore all his other documentaries. If he can't see his own biases when they're that large, I'm not trusting him with jazz or the Civil War, any more than with baseball.

BTW, I think this is a lousy way to introduce a novice to baseball history. Too much is New York and too much is wrong. They can get the NY bias on ESPNY (Every Sports Personality in New York) and wrong history from their local broadcasters. They don't need to think that a "professional historian" verifies that stuff. - Brock Hanke

Burns, supposedly a seasoned historian

Actually, at least in some interviews promoting his jazz doc, he expressly denied being an historian and stressed that he's a filmmaker. Of course this was in part a convenient way for him to downplay his mistakes and choices and the fact that he knew next to nothing about jazz before doing the film (again by his own admission though he later mildly retracted it).

If you can find old rec.music.bluenote and jazzcorner.com archives, I wrote about a book's worth of critical material on the Burns doc (highly repetitive but volume, volume, volume) and although I ended up wrong about a few things (e.g. Dizzy got quite a bit of time in Episode 7 it turned out), I still think I just about pegged it after seeing a preview of just one episode: here

I don't think I'll ever forgive him for the "junkie roll call".

Nice review Walt. I didn't like Jazz either, mostly because I'm not a big jazz fan. However, it was clearly obvious to me that Burns was wildly overextending himself, both in taking on a subject he knew nothing about - judging by that haircut, I'm pretty sure Burns is a Beatles/rock guy - and in trying to tie jazz to the American narrative.

That said, I had one small quibble.

That works just fine when you're talking about Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth, but I challenge you to tell me how the Gashouse Gang symbolized America.

Really? I'd think it's obvious and it's one of the better examples of Burns managing to relate baseball to the country, though I don't think he was particularly obsessed by it (it's just mentioned off the cuff). Dirty, poorly paid, hardscrabble team wins ballgames during the Great Depression? You see no reason why Americans would like a team of that image during that time?

My own personal theory is that, like any documentor who is wandering into territory he doesn't know from long experience, he got his intellectual pockets picked by Big Names. In this case, the Big Names were people with large non-baseball reputations, like Mario Cuomo and Stephen Jay Gould. These were largely middle-aged New Yorkers, and they got him to tell the story that THEY wanted to see - the one they remembered from their childhoods, or worse, from nostalgia from their childhoods. 1941, for example, is not worth a whole bonus hour of its own, especially since there is a perfectly good book that covers the territory in detail.

What? Telling people to go off and read a book about a subject in the middle of a film would be terrible film making. Burns isn't doing this for the hardcore of the hardcore, he's doing it for people who watch PBS. He did a good job with 1941 as well, since utilizing the guy who wrote the book is a pretty good way to deal with the subject knowledgeably. I'd say it's one of the better parts of the documentary.

I agree Cuomo had no real part in it, though he didn't actually talk very much about being a baseball fan, but Gould spent most of his time talking about being a fan, and he did so well. You need someone there to talk about being an NY baseball fan in the 50s, which needed to be NY-biased.

But if you're from New York, and your main interests are politics or biology, and you didn't get into baseball until the 1950s, you're going to make that mistake...But I didn't produce documentaries on subjects about which I knew nothing, either.

Obviously the treatment of Musial was a mistake, but come on. Cuomo was a pro ballplayer and Gould was well known as a baseball fan long before the documentary. Burns very clearly does not know 'nothing' about baseball. Just because your standards (and interests in baseball) may differ doesn't make what Burns did forgettable. Without this documentary only the hardcore Negro League fans would know who Buck O'Neil is. It's got Red Barber not talking about his azelea plants, and it's got extensive interviews of Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle, two legends no longer with us, as well as Marvin Miller. It did a good job in poking holes in the founding myth of baseball, it did a FANTASTIC job on the Negro Leagues, it did a good job on women's baseball, and in the end I don't care that it's biased towards Burns's hometown Brooklyn Dodgers and his adopted Red Sox, it's an eminently worthy work in the pantheon of media created about the national game. It's 18 hours and if you took out every boring Cuomo soundbite, every boring Donald Hall poem, every boring Doris Kearns Goodwin reminiscence that overplays the Dodgers and their importance to America, it's still got a good 17 hours of fun. I live abroad and my baseball books sit at home, and Baseball on my portable hard drive is like carrying a giant history book of the game that I can boot up at a moment's convenience. Sure it's flawed - and Bill James's Historical Abstract gave the Mike Schmidt treatment to Jeff Bagwell and also has a ton of errors. Doesn't mean it's not a worthy book.

I think you can describe the prosecution and the defense in about one sentence each:

Prosecution: There's too much of what we already knew about, and not enough about what we didn't.

Defense: Granted, but if Burns hadn't produced the series, then we'd have nothing, because nobody's going to give Bill James a MacArthur genius grant to produce an 18 hour documentary for us hardcore buffs.

I wasn't all that thrilled with it the first time around, for the basic reasons that the "prosecution" states, but I'm going to give it a second chance, and try to time my breaks for whenever George Will or Doris Kearns Goodwin start their ramblings.

And if they start quoting Jacques Barzun, I'm outta there. If you really want to "understand America," you should look to professional wrestling, not baseball.

One small point that I haven't seen mentioned. The accompanying 485 pp. book is very good, and widely available on Amazon or abebooks in "like new" condition for as little as a dollar. The photos alone make it worth getting, and you don't have to listen to George F. Will's voice in the background.

Either of those two stories could have been mentioned in passing to add to the drama of the film. But we needed some more quotes from Ivy Leaguers about what the game means to them.

To be honest with you, I could do without the "what [fill in the blanks] means to me" in any documentary or on the news. Waste of time, IMO.

Anecdotes are always cool, though.

It's a very good documentary. The only real flaw I have with it is that Burns really overdoes social history and commentary at times. I felt The War really overdid it in that regard.

I'm positive that he could find places to add social history and commentary if he made a documentary of toe-nail fungus.

Watch it for the countless amateur videos shot by big leaguers a half-century ago, many at spring training. Some of it is awesome.
My favorite footage is Ty Cobb at the Los Angeles Angels' inaugural game in 1961 (!, he died a few months later), and Cy Young at some Old-Timer's Game (must have been early 1950s).

And yes, take a bathroom break just about any time any talking head but Buck comes on.
For me, Goodwin was the most insufferable.

Along with any updated installment on baseball from 1994-2008, I wouldn't mind seeing a revised opening chapter, given what we're still finding out about pre-1845 ball ("protoball"). The upcoming MLB documentary "Base Ball Discovered" appears to accomplish this.

We get 15 minutes of Mario Cuomo for no other reason than that there was a chance that Mario Cuomo might run for president that year.

Cuomo might have run for President in 1994?

I don't think Cuomo was a bad choice at all. He was a former minor leaguer, a huge fan, was a Famous and Important Person at the time, and is known for being articulate.

The problem is that having Cuomo and Goodwin and Crystal and I'm probably forgetting a few others is heavily redundant. They're all familiar with the same city in the same period, which has already been rehashed to death.

I don't think Cuomo was a bad choice at all.

Cuomo's speech about Schilling's bloody feet, was pretty touching.

Cuomo might have run for President in 1994?

Yes, but not in the US.

I'm so pleased that MLB has had years to come up with a Day 1 launch schedule for their channel... and it consists of 2 repeating shows.

Oh, and it doesn't start until 6pm, halfway through the Rose Bowl. You have a day where baseball-starved people across the country are off work/at home, and you blow 3/4ths of it.

Wait, why am I surprised?

Oh, and it doesn't start until 6pm, halfway through the Rose Bowl. You have a day where baseball-starved people across the country are off work/at home, and you blow 3/4ths of it.

Wait, why am I surprised?

Me too; I was talking to my wife, and couldn't figure out why, on a vacation day, they wouldn't start until the end of the day.

Oh, and it doesn't start until 6pm, halfway through the Rose Bowl. You have a day where baseball-starved people across the country are off work/at home, and you blow 3/4ths of it.

It'a holiday so they probably didn't want to pay overtime. More seriously, college football has always ruled on New Years Day. Maybe it's a bit diluted with the bowl games spread out more, but there isn't going to be that much of an audience for out-of-season baseball content of any kind. Outside of BTF types, there just isn't that much interest. Does the NFL Network get any ratings in March? MLB gets some publicity for starting off the year, but I don't think they'll do much new until spring training.

I Can we use this thread as the "Perfect Game Chatter"?

I just found out that the MLB network is included in my cable already. They are currently showing hilarious stills with "inspiring" music, and the Rose Bowl can suck it.

Although I did live in the shadow of USC on 23rd between Hoover and Fig a number of years ago, so they are my "home" team.

I don't think Cuomo was a bad choice at all. He was a former minor leaguer, a huge fan,
was a Famous and Important Person at the time, and is known for being articulate.

Plus, when Mario feigns sincerity, trying to convince us that his very favorite thing in all
of baseball is "the sacrafice" it marks one of the finest examples of unintentional humor in all of
documentary filmmaking. Good enough for a spit-take.

I just found out that the MLB network is included in my cable already. They are currently showing hilarious stills with "inspiring" music, and the Rose Bowl can suck it.

Yeah, I hadn't watched it until now because my channel guide says that it is "off air."

They showed a still of Lincecum a minute ago, and I'm already excited.

Cuomo still has one of the best off-the-cuff lines I can remember from a politician. He was running for governor against a Republican businessman named Lew Lehrman. Lehrman announced that he understood the problems of Italian-Americans much better than Cuomo did. Somebody asked Cuomo what he thought of that remark, and Cuomo said "Non ci credo."

The accompanying 485 pp. book is very good, and widely available on Amazon or abebooks in "like new" condition for as little as a dollar. The photos alone make it worth getting, and you don't have to listen to George F. Will's voice in the background.

I thought about mentioning that but excellent call, Andy. I haven't read the book in a while, but I remember it filling some of the gaps people here complain about, and it also has a pretty funny essay on statistics by Bill James.

I remember Lew Lehrman and that election. There was talk ALL OVER Utica that Cuomo was connected but given what Utica had been through in the 70's at 80's at that point, anyone with an Italian name was seen as so.

Cuomo might have run for President in 1994?

My mistake. I thought my 14 year old memories were 16 year old ones. Burns was helping out Cuomo at the expense of the documentary, but helping him to run for governor of NY. (He lost anyway)

But the real problem is the guy didn't bring much to the thing. He talked about his favorite subject of all, Mario Cuomo which was great if you wanted to know about Mario Cuomo or if you were Mario Cuomo. Not so great if you wished those 15 minutes had focused on some of the many players omitted or given short shrift.