ken burns's the tenth inning

[xubrew]

is anyone else looking forward to this as much as i am??

ken burns is known for his marathon documentaries such as the civil war, the war (about wwii), and of course, baseball, which was in the neighborhood of 18 hours in nine parts...or "innings." still, they are very well done. i like them all, but baseball was probably my personal favorite. when mlb network ran the series this past year, he was interviewed during each episode and he also talked about the tenth inning that will be airing next week. he tries to make the case that baseball is the most popular sport. although it definitely was at one time, i don't think that it is now, nor is it personally my favorite sport. however, there is no denying that it clearly has the richest history. i'm glad that he's decided to make a tenth episode that covers the last 18 years or so.

should be interesting. he's got plenty to work with. the strike and the brief period of replacement players, cal ripken, the new home run records, how sterroids tainted it, bartman, the red sox finally winning, the whitesox finally winning, inter-league play, the end of old yankee stadium, and lots of other stuff as well. unlike the first eight-and-a-half episodes, everything covered in the tenth inning happened in my lifetime.

airs next tuesday and wednesday on pbs. i guess it's four hours in total.

[Jumpy]

I love Burns' documentaries, but I really think that I may end up bored with the tenth inning. The subject matter is too fresh and I fear I may be bored unless they rely heavily on inside information on the topics.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

Over/Under on how many times the Reds get mentioned?

1) Griffey Trade
2) Best Record going into the strike
3) Pete at the all-star game

O/U set at 4.5

[xubrew]

hmmm, some of the reviews i've read have said that it was boring.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/100922_ken_burns&sportCat=mlb

essentially, he didn't interview many of the players and instead relied heavily on commentary from other historians and colleagues. i agree that would be dissapointing. he also apparently harped on the yankees and red sox way too much.

the yankees and redsox may be the biggest rivalry in american sports. i don't think that it is, but it is easily the most over-hyped rivalry in american sports. for that reason, i really dislike both of them.

[X-band '01]

Most of the Baseball commentary had historians and colleagues to begin with - no surprise there. And as much as we don't want the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry forcefed to us, this was the peak of the rivalry. Period.

[xubrew]

Most of the Baseball commentary had historians and colleagues to begin with - no surprise there. And as much as we don't want the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry forcefed to us, this was the peak of the rivalry. Period.

yeah, but it makes sense to have commentary from historians and colleagues for much of the program when talking about a time period that spans from the 1840s on. for the last episode, and for the new tenth inning, he had the option of interviewing the players and people who were actually there. it's a little different than discussing the first world series back in 1903, or babe ruth, or something like that.

and he did interview former negro league players, and hank aaron, and micky mantle, and ted williams, and teammates of jackie robinson, and the like for the original baseball series. i don't know why he wouldn't do the same in regards to the current day players. i'm not saying there shouldn't be any commentary from historians and colleagues. i'm just saying there should be more to it than that.

[X-band '01]

I'll bump this thread as a reminder for tonight - the same night that could be the clincher for the Reds.