Baseball: The 10th Inning

Garcia_VegaGarcia_Vega 2,428 Posts
edited September 2010 in Strut Central
Who watched this schlock last night? Totally glossed over the '94 lockout, I remember that shit like it was yesterday, such an awful summer. It also treats the steroids debate with total kid gloves. I know I shouldn't expect much from Ken Burns at this point, but man, I really wanted it to be good. I even let my kid stay up with me to watch it and had to supplement so much information from my own memories, I wonder how much she got out of it. I'll probably watch part 2 tonight, but expectations have been drastically lowered.

  Comments


  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    I watched it.....I felt they covered the '94 lockout well....lots of interviews about it and plenty of footage with "Fans On Strike" signs....especially liked how they covered how '94 killed baseball in Montreal.

    The one thing that I walked away with was that in my lifetime the threesome of Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz might have been the GOAT for a 3 man rotation.

    They were very kind to Barry Bonds too.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    On another baseball related note ....

    Film of the final game of the 1960 World Series between the Yanks and Pirates was recently discovered in the archives of the Bing Crosby estate. No other film of this game, which has been called the greatest of all-time, exists.

    They will run a special in the near future showing this game film which ended with the legendary Bill Mazaroski(sic) home run.

  • You can make a whole hour long documentary on the lockout, and they gave it about 10 minutes. I don't feel like they really presented and went into the details about why the lockout happened. And then they just went right onto Cal Ripkin's nuts.

    I also thought the Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavin trio was well done, actually that was one of the best parts. That trio was nasty.

  • jleejlee 1,539 Posts
    I was fine with the episode. Ever since "Jazz" I gave up on dude shedding new light or providing very unique commentary on the topics he documents, but by and large it was still a fun and interesting watch. I'll look to watch tonight's episode too.

    Cosign the part about the Brave's pitchers. I was always a fan of Maddux since back in his Cubs days. Dude just seemed like he knew exactly where he wanted each and every pitch to go.

    Also somehow I had missed (or forgot) the whole "sneaking into the umps office to steal Albert Bell's corked bat" back when that originally happened. That was kinda cool for them to talk about that.

  • jlee said:

    Also somehow I had missed (or forgot) the whole "sneaking into the umps office to steal Albert Bell's corked bat" back when that originally happened. That was kinda cool for them to talk about that.

    I remember when this was all going down Sport's Illustrated put up a photo of the bat's x-ray.

  • Rockadelic said:

    They were very kind to Barry Bonds too.

    uh no they really werent. They made it sound like this whole steroid thing was mcquire, sosa and bonds. Im sorry but for a documentarian of Burns' caliber to so blatantly miss the forest for the trees is inexcusable. The homerun era in baseball was based on a vast, unspoken agreement btwn the players, owners, fans and commissioner. Singling out Bonds, in light of the vast mountain of information that has come to light since he was hitting, is not really acceptable anymore. Burns bought into the Bonds hatery hype, and in turn played himself. Burns is a clown for this one.

    I like this review: http://www.salon.com/life/baseball/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/misc/2010/09/30/baseball_according_to_ken_burns

  • I just skimmed that review, but having watched, in part one Bonds is treated ok. Its in Part 2 that Burns really goes at Barry, and the breaking of the home run record. And then when they bring up Clemens and his trial, they say its only because they went so hard after Bonds, a black man, that now they needed a white dude to go after. I thought that shit was pretty gross. Also, granted I am biased as a Yankees fan, and while I admitt that 2004 was historic and amazing for the Red Sox, it didn't deserve the 25 minute fellatio they put together about it. He could've done the same for '08 Phillies, just as momentous, but they hardly got a mention. 10th Inning was total bullshit.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    I've only seen Part I and they treated Bonds very fairly.

    My impression after seeing Part I was that they were not going to harp on the steroid issue....apparently I was wrong.

    Looking forward to seeing Part II.

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    "25 minute fellatio", ha!

    That said, when I first landed on it, I thought it was a doc all about the 04 Sox and only after HALF AN HOUR did I realize, "oh wait, this is about baseball as a whole."

    Not that I'm mad at it.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Garcia_Vega said:
    I just skimmed that review, but having watched, in part one Bonds is treated ok. Its in Part 2 that Burns really goes at Barry, and the breaking of the home run record. And then when they bring up Clemens and his trial, they say its only because they went so hard after Bonds, a black man, that now they needed a white dude to go after. I thought that shit was pretty gross. Also, granted I am biased as a Yankees fan, and while I admitt that 2004 was historic and amazing for the Red Sox, it didn't deserve the 25 minute fellatio they put together about it. He could've done the same for '08 Phillies, just as momentous, but they hardly got a mention. 10th Inning was total bullshit.

    I would think the Red Sox > Yankees has way more weight than the Phillys win.

  • batmon said:
    Garcia_Vega said:
    I just skimmed that review, but having watched, in part one Bonds is treated ok. Its in Part 2 that Burns really goes at Barry, and the breaking of the home run record. And then when they bring up Clemens and his trial, they say its only because they went so hard after Bonds, a black man, that now they needed a white dude to go after. I thought that shit was pretty gross. Also, granted I am biased as a Yankees fan, and while I admitt that 2004 was historic and amazing for the Red Sox, it didn't deserve the 25 minute fellatio they put together about it. He could've done the same for '08 Phillies, just as momentous, but they hardly got a mention. 10th Inning was total bullshit.

    I would think the Red Sox > Yankees has way more weight than the Phillys win.

    No, I know, but the Phillies '08 run was pretty great. And it was only their second WS win, they're also the oldest club in MLB history. And I hate the Red Sox

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    Garcia_Vega said:
    You can make a whole hour long documentary on the lockout, and they gave it about 10 minutes. I don't feel like they really presented and went into the details about why the lockout happened. And then they just went right onto Cal Ripkin's nuts.

    Is that bad thing? Cal saved baseball. He deserves all the props and ball sniffin' that he gets.

  • Bon Vivant said:
    Garcia_Vega said:
    You can make a whole hour long documentary on the lockout, and they gave it about 10 minutes. I don't feel like they really presented and went into the details about why the lockout happened. And then they just went right onto Cal Ripkin's nuts.

    Is that bad thing? Cal saved baseball. He deserves all the props and ball sniffin' that he gets.

    Dude, no.

    The 1998 Home Run race saved baseball. Which, when it all fell down, makes the story that much more interesting from a documentary standpoint.

    Revisionist Cal Ripken dickriding needs to die a quick death.

    I ride as hard for Burns as anyone- CIVIL WAR LIKE WHAT! - but, the closer he gets to modern times, the less reliable narrator he becomes. The 9th Inning was the worst of, "Baseball," and this just piles on.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    I'll be ready for a 6 hour Ken Burns Washington Senators/Texas Ranger documentary if the Rangers manage to actually win more than one Playoff game this year.

  • HorseleechHorseleech 3,830 Posts
    batmon said:
    Garcia_Vega said:
    I just skimmed that review, but having watched, in part one Bonds is treated ok. Its in Part 2 that Burns really goes at Barry, and the breaking of the home run record. And then when they bring up Clemens and his trial, they say its only because they went so hard after Bonds, a black man, that now they needed a white dude to go after. I thought that shit was pretty gross. Also, granted I am biased as a Yankees fan, and while I admitt that 2004 was historic and amazing for the Red Sox, it didn't deserve the 25 minute fellatio they put together about it. He could've done the same for '08 Phillies, just as momentous, but they hardly got a mention. 10th Inning was total bullshit.

    I would think the Red Sox > Yankees has way more weight than the Phillys win.

    There's no denying that the Red Sox winning that series against the Yankees was huge, but it's been exaggerated nonetheless. The fact was that the Yankees pitching sucked (Leiber, Quantrill, Vasquez, Brown) and they were unlikely to win that series anyway. Losing in seven games to the Sox was the appropriate outcome to that series, it was just weird that it went in the order it did rather than back and forth wins.

  • holmesholmes 3,532 Posts
    Is this like an update KB has made on that BB doc from a few years back??

  • selperfugeselperfuge 1,165 Posts
    Horseleech said:
    the Yankees pitching sucked (Leiber, Quantrill, Vasquez, Brown) and they were unlikely to win that series anyway

    sounds like this year :talib:

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    selperfuge said:
    Horseleech said:
    the Yankees pitching sucked (Leiber, Quantrill, Vasquez, Brown) and they were unlikely to win that series anyway

    sounds like this year :talib:

    Joba = David Clyde

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Horseleech said:

    There's no denying that the Red Sox winning that series against the Yankees was huge, but it's been exaggerated nonetheless.

    u sound like a yankees fan.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    IIRC The Sox didnt dominate the Yanks. They had some magical game in 4 or 5 that sealed the deal. I dont recall the Sox being overly favored.

    Historically The Sox were supposed to choke. And they did it up. Down 3-0.

    Im a Yankee dude and that was a good ass punch in the face for arrogant/sense of entitlement Yankee fuckers (who werent around in the 80s when they sucked).

  • selperfugeselperfuge 1,165 Posts
    the '96 bandwagoneers? my god i hate them.

    i really think red sox fans sell their team short talking about a Yankees '04 ALCS collapse. i'd say it's one of the great comebacks, but they can dwell in whatever shadow they're used to.

    goes both ways, yin/yang: people running into the streets and wilding out after the '03 Aaron Boone HR off Wakefield. grown men playing stickball at 1am with broken chairlegs and balled up newspaper.


    i miss those two years!

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    gareth said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    Garcia_Vega said:
    You can make a whole hour long documentary on the lockout, and they gave it about 10 minutes. I don't feel like they really presented and went into the details about why the lockout happened. And then they just went right onto Cal Ripkin's nuts.

    Is that bad thing? Cal saved baseball. He deserves all the props and ball sniffin' that he gets.

    Dude, no.

    The 1998 Home Run race saved baseball. Which, when it all fell down, makes the story that much more interesting from a documentary standpoint.

    Revisionist Cal Ripken dickriding needs to die a quick death.

    I ride as hard for Burns as anyone- CIVIL WAR LIKE WHAT! - but, the closer he gets to modern times, the less reliable narrator he becomes. The 9th Inning was the worst of, "Baseball," and this just piles on.

    Not in the Baltimore-Washington area. Sorry. Cal was/is the man. No revision needed. No juice, just Iron.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Baseball was "dying" when Cal reached the record?

  • Maybe Cal saved baseball in Baltimore, and while his breaking of the record was no doubt momentus, no one person brought baseball back. Considering that after the strike we went straight into the heart of the steroid era, many people still have a bad taste in their mouth.

  • Bon Vivant said:
    gareth said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    Garcia_Vega said:
    You can make a whole hour long documentary on the lockout, and they gave it about 10 minutes. I don't feel like they really presented and went into the details about why the lockout happened. And then they just went right onto Cal Ripkin's nuts.

    Is that bad thing? Cal saved baseball. He deserves all the props and ball sniffin' that he gets.

    Dude, no.

    The 1998 Home Run race saved baseball. Which, when it all fell down, makes the story that much more interesting from a documentary standpoint.

    Revisionist Cal Ripken dickriding needs to die a quick death.

    I ride as hard for Burns as anyone- CIVIL WAR LIKE WHAT! - but, the closer he gets to modern times, the less reliable narrator he becomes. The 9th Inning was the worst of, "Baseball," and this just piles on.

    Not in the Baltimore-Washington area. Sorry. Cal was/is the man. No revision needed. No juice, just Iron.

    This is awesome- "cal saved baseball!" "no, he didn't." "yes, he did!... in Baltimore."
Sign In or Register to comment.