PDA

View Full Version : Ken Burns gives 2005 White Sox FOURTEEN SECONDS


Fenway
09-23-2010, 08:04 AM
Last night I attended a screening held by WGBH of Ken Burns' Baseball:Tenth Inning at a Boston area theater. During the intermission I posted on FB the following status -

is enjoying a screening of Ken Burns' Baseball: 10th Inning - Cubbbie fans won't like, White Sox fans will, NYY fans will vomit and Red Sox fans have another DVD to buy :)

Now I had seen a rough cut a few months ago and the 2005 White Sox were given several minutes and it focused on Game 3 of the ALDS at Fenway and the bottom of the 6th and he saw that inning as the catalyst to the World Series win.

In the final cut that has been removed and the 2005 White Sox are reduced to FOURTEEN SECONDS

2003-4 Red Sox = 34 minutes and the 2003 Cubs get a few minutes.

14 seconds

Burns has a Q and A afterwards and I let him have it with both barrels.

His response to me was as follows

PBS told me four hours over 2 nights and in the end I decided the Montreal Expos story was more important to the history of the game than the White Sox. Not to diminish what they did but it was not a compelling story compared to the 2003 Cubs or 03-04 NYY-Boston war.

That is what the man said.

Jim Caple is furious about it as well.

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

DumpJerry
09-23-2010, 08:06 AM
Hangar?

SI1020
09-23-2010, 08:12 AM
I seriously dislike Ken Burns and would love to tell it to him to his face.

Carolina Kenny
09-23-2010, 08:34 AM
Jim Capel makes many good points. It sounds like the same old tired crap.

His previous baseball series was hurt by his desire to be ultra relevant about "big" issues and the desire to placate the east coast establishment. I am sure this one is more of the same. I own the DVD set. Certainly, it has some cool old footage, but it should have had much, much,more. Seemingly, Burn's objective was to not to entertainment but to make some kind of big statement.

Burn's Civil War documentary was amazing. His 9 innings documentary left me wanting. Stay away from baseball, Burns. Go do some other subject ( how about the War of 1812).

Perhaps one day, someone will do it right.

skobabe8
09-23-2010, 08:38 AM
Good job Caple.

cws05champ
09-23-2010, 08:43 AM
I will just never understand why one of the greatest post-season runs in major league history just gets glossed over all the time, like it never happened. The mystique of the long suffering Cubs fans has only come into being in the last 20-25 years, and their failures get more time than the Sox successes. :scratch:

asindc
09-23-2010, 08:45 AM
I generally like Ken Burns' work, but that kind of editing is inexcusable. I expect that kind of analysis from casual non-Sox fans, but for somone doing a documentary about the game there is no excuse for it. And some non-Sox fans who lurk might wonder why I chose the quote I did for my signature.

Hitmen77
09-23-2010, 08:50 AM
I really didn't care for Burns's original Baseball documentary so this just further cements my intention to not watch a second of his Tenth Inning show.

It's obvious that the sport he so poetically(:rolleyes:) loves is only about a few popular franchises like the Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs. So, to Ken Burns and PBS, I give a big:

:whocares

Red Barchetta
09-23-2010, 09:10 AM
I will just never understand why one of the greatest post-season runs in major league history just gets glossed over all the time, like it never happened. The mystique of the long suffering Cubs fans has only come into being in the last 20-25 years, and their failures get more time than the Sox successes. :scratch:


...because once the Red Sox and Yankees were eliminated in the playoffs in 2005, the baseball season was effectively over for Ken Burns and the rest of the east coast media lords. :rolleyes: Chicago vs. Houston (yawn).

nccwsfan
09-23-2010, 09:11 AM
Not really surprising, and Jim Caple did make some good points. 14 seconds for a 4 hour documentary is a joke.....

Procol Harum
09-23-2010, 09:13 AM
Typical Northeastern myopia. The '03-'04 Boston-New York rivalry was a good one, but no way does it merit over half an hour to 14 seconds on the Sox--and I'm betting the total White Sox time in the 4 hours doesn't amount to much more than that.

In terms of cultural content, what was Burns' big trope? In everything else he's ever done all things break down into issues of black and white--is this edition's all-Hispanic or about international players?

Kilroy
09-23-2010, 09:34 AM
Hangar?

Ok, that's just damn funny!!! :lol:

Fenway
09-23-2010, 09:46 AM
OK I will try to look at this objectively.

Burns lives in New Hampshire and it is no secret that he is a Red Sox fan. Like many northern New Englanders Montreal was a second club to follow and go to games.

What happened to Montreal needed to be documented. Granted the Expos would always be #2 to Club de Hockey Canadien but the Expos fanbase was solid considering the many handicaps the franchise faced.

1 Stade Olympique was a disaster only rivaled by Seattle's Kingdome. The roof never worked, the seats were uncomfortable and the stadium was in the worst possible section of town for the anglophone population of Montreal Island.

2 While French radio was on clear channel CKAC, English radio was on a weaker (especially at night) station. The main English station chose the Habs.

3 Charles Brofman needed to sell as his son was blowing the family business Seagrams by going Holllywood and Brofman in effect sold the team to the Expos version of Brooks Boyer and local investors who loved baseball but hated each other.

Yes the Expos story needs to be told.

Now I have to look at the teams he also looked at - 2002 Anaheim didn't win, San Fancisco lost and their fanbase knows pain.

2003 Flubs - One really has to watch the top of the 8th of NLCS Game 6 in real time to comprehend that epic failure. Bartman just tied the. ribbon nicely.

Meanwhile you have the 2003 ALCS, Pedro throwing Zimmer, Zimmer bawling like a baby afterwards and then Grady Little IGNORING computer printouts that Pedro after 100 pitches was toast.

2004 you have NYY jumping to a 3-0 lead and won game 3 19-8 at Fenway - then Dave Roberts steals second in the bottom of the 9th in Game 4 and you know the rest.

Burns was on the right track when he focused on the top of the 6th in the 05 ALDS. If Boston wins that game who knows what could have happened. There would have been a four day rain delay and Boston did have a history of coming back.

Still 34 minutes of Bos-NYY was just way too much - heck non baseball fans in Bhutan know the story of Schilling's bloody sock.

I told Burns what I thought - I can't do anymore than that.

SOXSINCE'70
09-23-2010, 09:50 AM
He can take his SAWX and shove them up his carmine behind.:angry:

Chez
09-23-2010, 09:58 AM
Stuff like this used to bother me. I wrote a letter to the author of the Roger Clemens biography (which, incidentally, is otherwise excellent) objecting to his one word description of the 2005 World Series -- "forgettable." But you know what? Just because it's not (in our minds) adequately chronicled in Ken Burns' documentary, doesn't mean that the 2005 World Series didn't happen. We have the t-shirts, caps and DVDs to prove it. I like Ken Burns's work and I'm sure that I will enjoy this latest addition to his baseball series. And while seething and feeling slighted is part of most Sox fans psyches, in the end it's just wasted energy.

TheOldRoman
09-23-2010, 10:01 AM
I generally like Ken Burns' work, but that kind of editing is inexcusable. I expect that kind of analysis from casual non-Sox fans, but for somone doing a documentary about the game their is no excuse for it. And some non-Sox fans who lurk might wonder why I chose the quote I did for my signature.Exactly. Why was it the Sox or the Expos? Why couldn't he shave, I don't know, 2 minutes off of the Yankees-Red Sox crap? Do you REALLY need to show Dan Shaunnessy and Dennis Leary for the 8th time each?

I was excited to see this, but needless to say, I won't bother watching it now.

Craig Grebeck
09-23-2010, 10:05 AM
Yeah, I just can't get myself worked up one way or the other about this. I think I really loved the way Burns portrayed the game in its earliest years, but watching a documentary about a bunch of games I grew up watching...eh, not much appeal. Without 2005: no chance I watch.

cards press box
09-23-2010, 10:18 AM
I will just never understand why one of the greatest post-season runs in major league history just gets glossed over all the time, like it never happened.

The posters here know the stats: (1) the 2005 White Sox broke the 1955 Dodgers' record for consecutive games to start a season where they had a lead, (2) the 2005 White Sox are one of five teams to go wire-to-wire with the lead ('27 Yanks, '55 Dodgers, '84 Tigers and '90 Reds are the others), (3) the 2005 White Sox are one of four teams to go wire-to-wire and lead their league in wins ('27 Yanks, '55 Dodgers and '84 Tigers are the others), (4) the 2005 White Sox are one of two teams to go wire-to-wire, lead the league in wins and sweep the World Series ('27 Yanks are the other), (5) the 2005 White Sox went 11-1 in the post-season, a feat matched only by the '98 Yanks and (6) the 2005 White Sox finished the year with a 16-1 kick, second only to the '70 Orioles who went 17-1 to finish that year.

Only 14 whole seconds for that, huh? What a complete joke.

FielderJones
09-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Just this morning before I left for work, I added this to the DVR schedule. Looks like it's coming off when I get home. **** Ken Burns.

Hitmen77
09-23-2010, 10:50 AM
...because once the Red Sox and Yankees were eliminated in the playoffs in 2005, the baseball season was effectively over for Ken Burns and the rest of the east coast media lords. :rolleyes: Chicago vs. Houston (yawn).

Bingo! This must be true because that's what ESPN's national broadcast announcer told me at the conclusion of the Boston ALDS series: ".....and the Red Sox dreams of repeating have ended. Congratulations Red Sox for a great season and also congratulations Chicago White Sox for winning this series" (sorry, that's a paraphrase because I can't find the exact quote)


Burns was on the right track when he focused on the top of the 6th in the 05 ALDS. If Boston wins that game who knows what could have happened. There would have been a four day rain delay and Boston did have a history of coming back.


Why? Because it involved the Red Sox? That may have been the pivotal moment of 2005 for Boston fans. But if MLB is really a 30 team, nation-wide league, then to me, a more crucial moment in 2005 post season was the AJ dropped 3rd strike play. But of course that's not worth covering because it involved the non-entities Chi (AL) and LAA (and it's pretty sad when even Chicago vs. LA is not good enough for the baseball keepers of the flame because it's not the right "Chicago" and "LA"). If that play involved a team with the words Boston, New York, or Cubs in their name, it would be written in stone as the pinnacle of baseball lore. That, once again, is the "tail wagging the dog" attitude some people have about baseball: Things are memorable because they happen to a select few teams and it is not necessarily that these teams happen to be the ones that are always involved in memorable plays.

I'm also at a loss to understand why a charter member of the AL with a 105 year history winning the World Series for the first time in 88 years just can't be squeezed in ("we can't cover every team that ever wins!":rolleyes:). Again, tail wagging the dog. It's not important because the Ken Burns and Bob Costases of the world deem it so.

Hitmen77
09-23-2010, 11:02 AM
Yeah, I just can't get myself worked up one way or the other about this. I think I really loved the way Burns portrayed the game in its earliest years, but watching a documentary about a bunch of games I grew up watching...eh, not much appeal. Without 2005: no chance I watch.

Just this morning before I left for work, I added this to the DVR schedule. Looks like it's coming off when I get home. **** Ken Burns.

That's the biggest flaw with what this is apparently going to cover. To me, the point of watching a documentary is give me new information and/or insight (and the masses) about a certain topic (whether the topic be baseball, science, history, or whatever).

At this point, the whole Boston and New York Yankees thing has been played to death. Media sources everywhere have been tooting the horn about these teams and everything that happens to them for the last 15 years.

What's the point of Ken Burns telling me about stuff that everyone has heard about 10 times already? It sounds like the only thing most of this show is going to accomplish is to further stroke the egos of NY and Bos fans.

gaelhound
09-23-2010, 11:11 AM
...because once the Red Sox and Yankees were eliminated in the playoffs in 2005, the baseball season was effectively over for Ken Burns and the rest of the east coast media lords. :rolleyes: Chicago vs. Houston (yawn).

You got that exactly right, you could feel the shift where I live. I am close enough to the city to know whats going on to a degree, and far enough away to see that the lens panned away from the Sox in 2005.

Huisj
09-23-2010, 11:48 AM
Bingo! This must be true because that's what ESPN's national broadcast announcer told me at the conclusion of the Boston ALDS series: ".....and the Red Sox dreams of repeating have ended. Congratulations Red Sox for a great season and also congratulations Chicago White Sox for winning this series" (sorry, that's a paraphrase because I can't find the exact quote)



Why? Because it involved the Red Sox? That may have been the pivotal moment of 2005 for Boston fans. But if MLB is really a 30 team, nation-wide league, then to me, a more crucial moment in 2005 post season was the AJ dropped 3rd strike play. But of course that's not worth covering because it involved the non-entities Chi (AL) and LAA (and it's pretty sad when even Chicago vs. LA is not good enough for the baseball keepers of the flame because it's not the right "Chicago" and "LA"). If that play involved a team with the words Boston, New York, or Cubs in their name, it would be written in stone as the pinnacle of baseball lore. That, once again, is the "tail wagging the dog" attitude some people have about baseball: Things are memorable because they happen to a select few teams and it is not necessarily that these teams happen to be the ones that are always involved in memorable plays.

I'm also at a loss to understand why a charter member of the AL with a 105 year history winning the World Series for the first time in 88 years just can't be squeezed in ("we can't cover every team that ever wins!":rolleyes:). Again, tail wagging the dog. It's not important because the Ken Burns and Bob Costases of the world deem it so.

If the White Sox were covered like an east coast team, I'm sure there would have been mention of the huge walk-off homer by Crede against Cleveland when the Indians were right on our backs. And there'd probably have been a nice story line in there about the Sox-Dodgers series in the summer that was a rematch of the '59 world series, complete with the turn-back-the-clock uniforms and Pierzynski's walkoff game winner. That season was so incredible in so many ways from start to finish. It's a shame nobody by Sox fans realizes it, but then again, maybe that just makes it all the more special for us.

TheOldRoman
09-23-2010, 12:23 PM
Why? Because it involved the Red Sox? That may have been the pivotal moment of 2005 for Boston fans. But if MLB is really a 30 team, nation-wide league, then to me, a more crucial moment in 2005 post season was the AJ dropped 3rd strike play. But of course that's not worth covering because it involved the non-entities Chi (AL) and LAA (and it's pretty sad when even Chicago vs. LA is not good enough for the baseball keepers of the flame because it's not the right "Chicago" and "LA"). If that play involved a team with the words Boston, New York, or Cubs in their name, it would be written in stone as the pinnacle of baseball lore. That, once again, is the "tail wagging the dog" attitude some people have about baseball: Things are memorable because they happen to a select few teams and it is not necessarily that these teams happen to be the ones that are always involved in memorable plays.I agree with Fenway, and I have thought about that many times. That inning was so pivitol in the season. When the bases were loaded with no outs, I think pretty much all Sox fans thought "hopefully we can get out of this giving up one run, maybe 2." That was Boston's chance to take the lead and blow the game open. If the Sox lose that game, they would have to face Curt Schilling in game 4 and David Wells again in game 5 (whom they didn't hit well other than the Iguchi homer). Keep in mind this was only a year after Boston was able to come back down 3 games to 0 (and two years after they beat the A's after going down 2-0). I honestly think if the Red Sox won that game they might have taken the next two also. They would have had all the momentum on their side and no nervousness at all. That is why the El Duque moment is so important to me. That inning was arguably the most important inning in White Sox history.

PaleHoser
09-23-2010, 12:25 PM
I like Ken Burns work. I own "The Civil War" and "The War".

But I never bought "Baseball" because with a few exceptions, a viewer from another planet who watched this "documentary" would come to the following conclusions:

1. Baseball was not played south of New York after 1920.
2. That the Giants and Dodgers left New York and Brooklyn in 1958, never to be heard from again.

It sounds like the "10th Inning" is more of the same. I'd much rather watch "When It Was a Game" or "Baseball's Golden Age".

Irishsox1
09-23-2010, 12:31 PM
What I was hoping for from Ken Burn's 11th Inning, was a deeper background of steroids in baseball, post 1994. How the game and stats changed as the '90's went along, the total fraud of the HR chase of 1998, the surprising career turnaround of players like Clemens and the escalating attendances and salaries. Meanwhile hitting in on the WS of 1997, 2001, 2003 Cubs flop, 2004, 2005 series.

That's what was interesting since 1995. I have yet to see it, but it seems like such and easy topic to grasp.

TDog
09-23-2010, 12:42 PM
Ken Burns has come under heavy criticism in the past for excluding and/glossing over the achievements of Hispanics in his American documentaries. Ozzie Guillen, of course, is from Venezuela and was the first Latin American manager to win a World Series.

PBS had Burns make additions to the World War II documentary (tacked on at the end of each episode) to address protests of exclusion. One would think PBS would be sensitive to the historic importance of the 2005 White Sox.

But I don't know if the Go-Go White Sox were even mentioned, except perhaps in passing, in the 1950s episode of Baseball.

Carolina Kenny
09-23-2010, 01:39 PM
Ken Burns should be tied up in a chair and forced to watch the last 10 White Sox games, complete with Hawks play by play.

That will fix him good.

C-Dawg
09-23-2010, 02:02 PM
Stuff like this used to bother me. I wrote a letter to the author of the Roger Clemens biography (which, incidentally, is otherwise excellent) objecting to his one word description of the 2005 World Series -- "forgettable."

LOL Yeah maybe he meant his performance was forgettable. I think he phoned in those two innings from his ranch.

Bingo! This must be true because that's what ESPN's national broadcast announcer told me at the conclusion of the Boston ALDS series: ".....and the Red Sox dreams of repeating have ended. Congratulations Red Sox for a great season and also congratulations Chicago White Sox for winning this series" (sorry, that's a paraphrase because I can't find the exact quote)

Chris Berman was almost in tears!

jdm2662
09-23-2010, 02:03 PM
I agree with Fenway, and I have thought about that many times. That inning was so pivitol in the season. When the bases were loaded with no outs, I think pretty much all Sox fans thought "hopefully we can get out of this giving up one run, maybe 2." That was Boston's chance to take the lead and blow the game open. If the Sox lose that game, they would have to face Curt Schilling in game 4 and David Wells again in game 5 (whom they didn't hit well other than the Iguchi homer). Keep in mind this was only a year after Boston was able to come back down 3 games to 0 (and two years after they beat the A's after going down 2-0). I honestly think if the Red Sox won that game they might have taken the next two also. They would have had all the momentum on their side and no nervousness at all. That is why the El Duque moment is so important to me. That inning was arguably the most important inning in White Sox history.

The issue is that if it didn't involve Boston, it probably wouldn't had gotten the air play or signficance. That's where the beef is being brought. Of course, it was a huge moment because as we know, the Boston area got pounded with rain shortly after the game ended. As already mentioned, the AJ infamous dropped third strike call was just as if not more significant. The Sox had already dropped game one, and could very well had dropped game two. After that play, the Sox didn't lose again and rolled to the World Series.

The 2005 White Sox were an amazing team and had an amazing run. They deserve their place in history. I'm not saying they were as good as the 84 Tigers or 98 Yankees, but they were still pretty damn good. They deserve their place in history, just like every other World Series champion. To only give them 14 seconds in a documentary is suposed to be about baseball is quite shameful. If any other east coast blowhard or anyone else doesn't want to mention this, oh well. I simply won't watch it.

jdm2662
09-23-2010, 02:04 PM
LOL Yeah maybe he meant his performance was forgettable. I think he phoned in those two innings from his ranch.

I would think in Clemens case, it was forgettable. He pitched what, one inning, before leaving because he got injured? His team got swept, too.

downstairs
09-23-2010, 02:18 PM
The 2005 White Sox were an amazing team and had an amazing run. They deserve their place in history. I'm not saying they were as good as the 84 Tigers or 98 Yankees, but they were still pretty damn good. They deserve their place in history, just like every other World Series champion. To only give them 14 seconds in a documentary is suposed to be about baseball is quite shameful. If any other east coast blowhard or anyone else doesn't want to mention this, oh well. I simply won't watch it.

And its not even an issue of the team being great, or their statistical place compared to other champs. Its the story- and that's what a documentarian should be after.

The '04 Red Sox story is one of the more compelling stories since 1994. But so is the '05 White Sox, and what it meant to their fans.

He totally missed a huge angle... everyone loves the Cubs and their "plight" of 90+ years without a championship... and the team a few miles south, with 80+ years of the same "plight" brings home the championship to Chicago first.

And to say the south side of Chicago isn't ripe for all sorts of great stories is completely ignorant. Just as the culture of Boston figures into their 2004 story, the south side of Chicago culture is just as good of a story. If you bother to look into it.

downstairs
09-23-2010, 02:23 PM
And, this whole "northeastern bias" thing is even stranger to me because this thing is on PBS- which doesn't have a northeastern bias. At least nowhere near ESPN or whatever. I'm sure if he did this for ESPN, he'd be pushed to include more '04 Red Sox and less '05 White Sox.

I watch a lot of PBS documentaries, and it seems to me they're very liberal (no, not political) about allowing artists to dig into all sorts of different angles.

Hitmen77
09-23-2010, 02:31 PM
Ken Burns should be tied up in a chair and forced to watch the last 10 White Sox games, complete with Hawk's play by play.

That will fix him good.

Ouch! How about we make it more painful and make sure it's a game with Joe West as home plate umpire.

mark2olson
09-23-2010, 02:33 PM
What's the point of Ken Burns telling me about stuff that everyone has heard about 10 times already? It sounds like the only thing most of this show is going to accomplish is to further stroke the egos of NY and Bos fans.

Moreover, he's telling us this tired, old stuff through tired, old writers such as Thomas Boswell, George Will, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. They will, I will lay odds, offer absolutely no insight into baseball and will, as you point out, repeat what's been said 10 times already (In Kearns-Goodwin's case, it will have been said by somebody else already).

WhiteSox5187
09-23-2010, 03:03 PM
I like Ken Burns work. I own "The Civil War" and "The War".

But I never bought "Baseball" because with a few exceptions, a viewer from another planet who watched this "documentary" would come to the following conclusions:

1. Baseball was not played south of New York after 1920.
2. That the Giants and Dodgers left New York and Brooklyn in 1958, never to be heard from again.

It sounds like the "10th Inning" is more of the same. I'd much rather watch "When It Was a Game" or "Baseball's Golden Age".

I couldn't disagree with you more on point one, he gave a lot of time to the Gashouse Gang with the Cardinals and also highlighted the Negro Leagues more than any other documentary I have seen.

And its not even an issue of the team being great, or their statistical place compared to other champs. Its the story- and that's what a documentarian should be after.

The '04 Red Sox story is one of the more compelling stories since 1994. But so is the '05 White Sox, and what it meant to their fans.

He totally missed a huge angle... everyone loves the Cubs and their "plight" of 90+ years without a championship... and the team a few miles south, with 80+ years of the same "plight" brings home the championship to Chicago first.

And to say the south side of Chicago isn't ripe for all sorts of great stories is completely ignorant. Just as the culture of Boston figures into their 2004 story, the south side of Chicago culture is just as good of a story. If you bother to look into it.

I kind of suspected that the '05 White Sox would get over looked because, well, we are the White Sox and as fantastic as our playoff run was (it was nothing short of dominant) it didn't have a whole lot of drama. If the World Series had gone seven that year, then people would look back and go "Wow! What a fantastic series! Pods hits a walkoff, Blum hits a HR in the 13th!" and naturally if it went seven there would be some heroics on the side of the Astros as well. But as exciting as those four games were, there were only four and that wasn't enough time to build the drama necessary for a good story in the view of a film maker, especially one with NO connection to the south side. But I agree with you 100% that he completely blew his chance on a fantastic angle that nobody seems to cover. The southside has a connection to the Sox that was similar to what Brooklyn had with the Dodgers. The White Sox aren't a city team, they are a NEIGHBORHOOD team and the last real neighborhood team left in baseball. That was angle that would have been very interesting to explore, but he blew his chance.

Also, for what it's worth not having the players talk is silly. I can understand if he asked a bunch of players and they passed or whatever, but Jesus, as Caple pointed out these guys are still alive and should be talking! One of the best parts of the first documentary was listening to Ted Williams talk about hitting and his own career. We don't have that chance now.

ewokpelts
09-23-2010, 03:04 PM
OK I will try to look at this objectively.

Burns lives in New Hampshire and it is no secret that he is a Red Sox fan. Like many northern New Englanders Montreal was a second club to follow and go to games.

What happened to Montreal needed to be documented. Granted the Expos would always be #2 to Club de Hockey Canadien but the Expos fanbase was solid considering the many handicaps the franchise faced.

1 Stade Olympique was a disaster only rivaled by Seattle's Kingdome. The roof never worked, the seats were uncomfortable and the stadium was in the worst possible section of town for the anglophone population of Montreal Island.

2 While French radio was on clear channel CKAC, English radio was on a weaker (especially at night) station. The main English station chose the Habs.

3 Charles Brofman needed to sell as his son was blowing the family business Seagrams by going Holllywood and Brofman in effect sold the team to the Expos version of Brooks Boyer and local investors who loved baseball but hated each other.

Yes the Expos story needs to be told.

Now I have to look at the teams he also looked at - 2002 Anaheim didn't win, San Fancisco lost and their fanbase knows pain.

2003 Flubs - One really has to watch the top of the 8th of NLCS Game 6 in real time to comprehend that epic failure. Bartman just tied the. ribbon nicely.

Meanwhile you have the 2003 ALCS, Pedro throwing Zimmer, Zimmer bawling like a baby afterwards and then Grady Little IGNORING computer printouts that Pedro after 100 pitches was toast.

2004 you have NYY jumping to a 3-0 lead and won game 3 19-8 at Fenway - then Dave Roberts steals second in the bottom of the 9th in Game 4 and you know the rest.

Burns was on the right track when he focused on the top of the 6th in the 05 ALDS. If Boston wins that game who knows what could have happened. There would have been a four day rain delay and Boston did have a history of coming back.

Still 34 minutes of Bos-NYY was just way too much - heck non baseball fans in Bhutan know the story of Schilling's bloody sock.

I told Burns what I thought - I can't do anymore than that.mlb network made a WHOLE show about the 94 expos. didnt burns see that?

October26
09-23-2010, 03:18 PM
Fenway, thanks for the information; thus saving me from wasting precious time watching what sounds like Ken Burns latest "piece of garbage" documentary.

Moses_Scurry
09-23-2010, 03:23 PM
When the maker of a high profile documentary is a Sawx fan, I would not expect anything different. Where are the White Sox fan film-makers? I have to believe there are a few. You write (or direct) what you know to be successful. Until there is a successful writer/director who is also a White Sox fan, 2005 won't get the big features. It's as simple as that.

asindc
09-23-2010, 03:25 PM
It's as if he included the 2005 World Series only because he knew if had not, he would have been blasted for excluding it.

downstairs
09-23-2010, 03:28 PM
I kind of suspected that the '05 White Sox would get over looked because, well, we are the White Sox and as fantastic as our playoff run was (it was nothing short of dominant) it didn't have a whole lot of drama. If the World Series had gone seven that year, then people would look back and go "Wow! What a fantastic series! Pods hits a walkoff, Blum hits a HR in the 13th!" and naturally if it went seven there would be some heroics on the side of the Astros as well. But as exciting as those four games were, there were only four and that wasn't enough time to build the drama necessary for a good story in the view of a film maker, especially one with NO connection to the south side. But I agree with you 100% that he completely blew his chance on a fantastic angle that nobody seems to cover. The southside has a connection to the Sox that was similar to what Brooklyn had with the Dodgers. The White Sox aren't a city team, they are a NEIGHBORHOOD team and the last real neighborhood team left in baseball. That was angle that would have been very interesting to explore, but he blew his chance.

Also, for what it's worth not having the players talk is silly. I can understand if he asked a bunch of players and they passed or whatever, but Jesus, as Caple pointed out these guys are still alive and should be talking! One of the best parts of the first documentary was listening to Ted Williams talk about hitting and his own career. We don't have that chance now.

Well, its a documentarian's job to research that which he has no connection to. Especially Burns, who strives to be exhaustive in detail.

I have zero connection to Buffalo, NY. Don't even know anyone from there. If I were doing a 4-hour documentary about the Super Bowl, you better believe I'd be spending weeks in Buffalo researching what 4 straight SB losses meant to people.

I know we agree, just expanding my point...

Side point: I love Ken Burns giving an excuse that PBS insisted it be X hours and he had to cut stuff. Dude- you're Ken Burns and the documentary is FOUR FREAKING HOURS! Ken Burns doesn't cut ANYTHING and he knows it.

WhiteSox5187
09-23-2010, 03:33 PM
Well, its a documentarian's job to research that which he has no connection to. Especially Burns, who strives to be exhaustive in detail.

I have zero connection to Buffalo, NY. Don't even know anyone from there. If I were doing a 4-hour documentary about the Super Bowl, you better believe I'd be spending weeks in Buffalo researching what 4 straight SB losses meant to people.

I know we agree, just expanding my point...

Side point: I love Ken Burns giving an excuse that PBS insisted it be X hours and he had to cut stuff. Dude- you're Ken Burns and the documentary is FOUR FREAKING HOURS! Ken Burns doesn't cut ANYTHING and he knows it.

Well, my other point would be that if you're looking at documenting baseball you're probably going to go with the most dramatic parts and as much as it pains me to admit, I do not think the White Sox playoff run in '05 was quite as dramatic as the Yankees in 2001, the Red Sox run in '04 or as the Cubs collapse in '03. So I understand those two series getting a lot of attention, but the White Sox should still get more than 14 god damned seconds. My God, take some away from the '02 World Series then!

When I become a successful filmmaker you damn well better believe the White Sox will get their due!

A. Cavatica
09-23-2010, 06:24 PM
The posters here know the stats: (1) the 2005 White Sox broke the 1955 Dodgers' record for consecutive games to start a season where they had a lead, (2) the 2005 White Sox are one of five teams to go wire-to-wire with the lead ('27 Yanks, '55 Dodgers, '84 Tigers and '90 Reds are the others), (3) the 2005 White Sox are one of four teams to go wire-to-wire and lead their league in wins ('27 Yanks, '55 Dodgers and '84 Tigers are the others), (4) the 2005 White Sox are one of two teams to go wire-to-wire, lead the league in wins and sweep the World Series ('27 Yanks are the other), (5) the 2005 White Sox went 11-1 in the post-season, a feat matched only by the '98 Yanks and (6) the 2005 White Sox finished the year with a 16-1 kick, second only to the '70 Orioles who went 17-1 to finish that year.

Only 14 whole seconds for that, huh? What a complete joke.

Didn't we also break the record for the longest WS drought ever broken?

TommyJohn
09-23-2010, 08:28 PM
I posted this back in June. It is worth posting again, if only I predicted it pretty much to a tee. Not that I am bragging. Predicting what would be in this doc was as hard as predicting a sunrise.

Ken Burns' sequel to Baseball will be on September 28 and 29. Oh, boy. I can't wait. Not. Let's see-we'll get this.


2004 Boston Red Sox win World Series!!!
Stephen King, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Dennis Leary, Ben Affleck, Dan Shaughnessy, and all long-suffering Boston fans will chip in and reveal their innermost thoughts about the Sawx winning it all, and how time stood still, and how they cried thinking of Gramps, Granny, Uncle Chowder, Aunt Clammy and all those dearly-departed loved ones who had their hearts permanently shattered by Johnny Pesky, Bob Gibson, the Big Red Machine, Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, etc., etc., etc. George Will will chip in his thoughts and drone about how watching the 2004 Red Sox win it all made him hope against hope that their NL blood brothers the Cubs would be next, and how he is still waiting.

And here is what we will see about the 2005 White Sox ending a longer drought:



























































































Not that I am bitter or anything.

Count me as not interested in seeing one second of it. Squeaky Kenny can take his beloved, juiced up Red Sox and shove them.

TommyJohn
09-23-2010, 08:40 PM
I posted this in my blog last year, I'll repost it here, if only because I want more people to see it. here is my idea: A dream documentary called "Baseball in Chicago" which would be a counterpoint to that Burns idiot and his endless yammering about the sufferings of Boston. So, here it is. If I had the money or were a documentary filmmaker myself, I would form Vafa KB Productions and get to work on this documentary:

"MLB Network is proud to present....Ken Burns' 'Baseball!" Thus sayeth the voiceover announcer on the network. Ah, yes. The definitive documentary of our National Pastime...if you are from New York or Boston and want to see the doc pay an inordinate amount of attention to Boston blowing Game 6 or Doris Kearns Goodwin wax rhapsodic about how she chose Boston to root for after the Dodgers left Brooklyn because she couldn't root for the Yankees, or some such nonsense.

The documentary itself planted a seed of desire inside of me. I have lots of seeds of desire inside me, none have ever borne fruit. I am like Antonio Salieri in that regard-infused with a passionate desire, but given no talent to go with it. I have several ideas for stories and movies, but cannot develop them beyond just an idea. Bad luck, I guess. Mediocrities of the world, I absolve you.

Back on track. The Burns doc planted a desire in me that is no more than a fantasy-but one that I'd give anything to develop into fruition-a documentary entitled "Baseball in Chicago." And I mean exactly what the title says-baseball. White Sox, Cubs, Negro Leagues, amateur teams such as the Logan Squares, you name it, it would be in there.

Why all of Chicago baseball? Because I wouldn't want to confine myself to just the White Sox. Such a doc may not sell. (Sneering media ass says-The Home Shopping Network would draw higher ratings. *sneer*). Besides, I would want a documentary as breathtaking and epic in scope as the Burns doc about the beloved Yankees and Red Sox. Chicago history is rich and overflowing with baseball, it is as steeped into our culture and identity as anything else about the city. We identify ourselves by who we root for-North Side-Cubs, South Side-White Sox. It is almost a religion to most people. Chicago baseball history is as epic as anything in sports and I feel it is worthy of its own documentary.

So why include the Cubs? Simple. It would sell better to include ALL Chicago baseball. And recruiting people to be in it would be easier-famous Cub fans would lend their talents to it for next-to-nothing, another selling point. Why we'd have William Peterson and Joe Mantegna and Gary Sinise for starters. On the South Side we lack national appeal, but local guys like Roeper and Kass would be asked, and a special invite would go out to President Obama. Whether he could do it or not is another matter.

Second reason to include the Cubs is doubles storylines and possibilities for the documentary. I am groping now but you get the idea. It would be a look at the history of the game as played here in Chi.

It would start basically by exploring how the game reached here, probably before or during the Civil War. It would talk about the first professional team-the Chicago White Stockings, and how they were formed to play against Cincinnati. Then the first league formation in 1871. The origins of the National League in 1876.

Obviously, I don't have all that stuff outlined. Here are some topics that would be portrayed:

*19th century Cub teams and their impact on the National League.

*Cap Anson and exploring his role in erecting baseball's racial barrier. Is he the main bad guy in that, or does he simply bear the brunt of history?

*World Tours by the Cubs in 1888 and the White Sox in 1914 and 1924 and their efforts to globalize baseball for countries who just didn't get it.

*The "Chicago Pirates" of the Players' League of 1890 led by player-manager Charles Comiskey-the first challenge by the players to the Reserve Clause.

*Albert G. Spaulding and Charles Comiskey-baseball would not exist in the form it does today if not for the significant contributions of these men.

*Rube Foster and the formation of black baseball. Foster was the founding father of the modern Negro National League. For many years, Chicago was the capital of black baseball. 19 of the first 20 East-West All-Star Games were played in Comiskey Park.

*The Black Sox Scandal-no doc on baseball would be complete without it! It would explore the reason behind it, ask questions about gambling and throwing games in general, and issue a direct challenge to the cartoonish notion that the players were oppressed by a greedy owner. Motivations would be explored. Myths about bonuses exploded. Charles Comiskey would be reassessed as a complicated man of the times, not the moustache-twirling villian portrayed now. I wouldn't let him entirely off the hook-he did treat players badly. He would also be mentioned as a charter member of the Baseball Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game-Burns & Co. failed to mention this at all in their "Boston-New York Uber Alles" Epic.

Other significant events in Chicago baseball history, or just plain fun ones-the 1906 World Series, the annual "City Series." The Cubs of 1906-10 and their dominance of the NL. The Hitless Wonder White Sox. 1908, when both teams were in tight pennant races down to the last game of the season.

TommyJohn
09-23-2010, 08:46 PM
Continued:

*The "Black Cubs?" Was the 1918 World Series fixed? Unearthed evidence that seems to point this fact would be explored.


*The Federal League challenge of 1914-15 and Chicago's forgotten pennant winner-the Chicago Whales of 1915.

*Charles Weeghman and his forgotten impact on the game. It was he who built Wrigley Field and moved the Cubs there after the FL went out of business. Shrewd businessman or Accidental Genius?

*The Cubs and White Sox throughout the decades and how their fortunes ebbed and flowed-the Cubs as contenders from 1927-45, the White Sox down from 1921-50, then up from 1951-67. How attendance would fluctuate with the each team's fortunes.

*The advent of black players on the scene. In 1947, Jackie Robinson played his first game in Chicago. That same year, Larry Doby broke the AL color barrier in Comiskey Park. In 1948, 51,000+ crammed their way into Comiskey Park to see Satchel Paige. It remains one of the largest crowds to see a baseball game in Chicago, ever.

*The coming of black players to Chicago-Minnie Minoso for the Sox, Ernie Banks for the Cubs. Did they face the same virulent, hateful opposition that peers such as Robinson and Doby faced?

*The Cubs resurgence and White Sox downward spiral in the late 1960s. The vast wasteland of Chicago baseball in the 1970s, complete with Harry and Jimmy, Bill Veeck and Disco Demolition.

*The resurgence of both teams in the 1980s-titles on both sides of town and a renewal of deep-seated fan hostilities.

*Sammy Sosa-The Rise and Fall. From 1998 International Icon to 2003 Corker and suspected steroid cheat. Fade into oblivion, to the point he is barely talked about now. Why?

*A Tale of Two Seasons-the 2003 Cubs and how they crushed their fans with their spectacular playoff choke. The 2005 White Sox and how they led the league every day of the season until the final out of the World Series. I would not be shy and hide my bias-I would proclaim the run of the 2005 White Sox as one of the greatest seasons ever in Chicago baseball history, despite the relentless negativity and hopes for a choke.

I could go on and on. A couple of things you WOULDN'T see in my doc:

*Endless, self-pitying yammering about how God and the forces of Nature want the Cubs to suffer.

*Waxing nostalgic about the mediocrities who filled the uniforms.

*The "Curse" of the Billy Goat. My doc is to be realistic. No room for media-created bull****.

*Blabbering about how the 88 year drought was "punishment" for 1919. Again, no room for bull****.

*Ragging on Bartman. The history and the aftermath of the play would be portrayed, as it should, because it is an event so deeply embedded in the baseball history of the city. But anyone who blames Bartman, calls him names, implies he does unspeakable things to little children, and generally acts like a complete and utter dick when talking about him would not be found anywhere on any frame or strip of celluloid produced by me.

*Bob Costas

*Jay Mariotti, Harry Teinowitz, Lester Munson and other purveyors of the "I am proud to be a complete and utter Son of a Bitch" attitude.

*People I would invite to participate-the Whole Galaxy of Cubbie Fan Stars!-Too numerous to mention here, but I would want them for interviews and voiceover contributions.

*White Sox fans such as Mayor Daley, Richard Roeper, John Kass, President Obama. The White Sox being the team of choice of literary legends such as James T. Farrell and Nelson Algren would be mentioned.

*One tragedy is that several people who could contribute much to a doc like this-Buck O'Neill, Double Duty Radcliffe, Mike Royko, Studs Terkel, Charles Comiskey II to name but a few-are gone forever. What they could lend to a project like this would be invaluable.

*I would also ask people such as Les Grobstein, Rick Telander, Jim Langford and others for their support and participation. However, Gene Wocjiwhatsisname...NO.

*Maybe a few Hollywood celebs would want to participate out of a love for baseball. I would try to find out.

So, that is what I have in mind. And that is merely scratching the surface. I would want it to be as long and as epic as the Burns thing. And why not? Plenty of material to draw from.

Of course, if that is all too much, Vafa KB Productions can simply do a doc on the 2005 White Sox. I wish I had gone to the bars during the playoffs and put some stuff on tape. I wish I had, damn it. I want to do this, but right now it is nothing more than a far-flung fantasy. Right now the only thing I can do is say "Vafa, KB."

Bingo! I just hit on a title: "14 seconds: The Story of the 2005 Chicago White Sox."

cards press box
09-23-2010, 10:27 PM
Ken Burns has come under heavy criticism in the past for excluding and/glossing over the achievements of Hispanics in his American documentaries. Ozzie Guillen, of course, is from Venezuela and was the first Latin American manager to win a World Series.

PBS had Burns make additions to the World War II documentary (tacked on at the end of each episode) to address protests of exclusion. One would think PBS would be sensitive to the historic importance of the 2005 White Sox.

But I don't know if the Go-Go White Sox were even mentioned, except perhaps in passing, in the 1950s episode of Baseball.

This is a great post. I had forgotten about it but it's an important fact: Ozzie Guillen was the first foreign born manager to win the World Series. Any documentary that overlooks that not-so-little fact is, as I said before, a complete joke.

asindc
09-23-2010, 11:10 PM
Continued:

*The "Black Cubs?" Was the 1918 World Series fixed? Unearthed evidence that seems to point this fact would be explored.


*The Federal League challenge of 1914-15 and Chicago's forgotten pennant winner-the Chicago Whales of 1915.

*Charles Weeghman and his forgotten impact on the game. It was he who built Wrigley Field and moved the Cubs there after the FL went out of business. Shrewd businessman or Accidental Genius?

*The Cubs and White Sox throughout the decades and how their fortunes ebbed and flowed-the Cubs as contenders from 1927-45, the White Sox down from 1921-50, then up from 1951-67. How attendance would fluctuate with the each team's fortunes.

*The advent of black players on the scene. In 1947, Jackie Robinson played his first game in Chicago. That same year, Larry Doby broke the AL color barrier in Comiskey Park. In 1948, 51,000+ crammed their way into Comiskey Park to see Satchel Paige. It remains one of the largest crowds to see a baseball game in Chicago, ever.

*The coming of black players to Chicago-Minnie Minoso for the Sox, Ernie Banks for the Cubs. Did they face the same virulent, hateful opposition that peers such as Robinson and Doby faced?

*The Cubs resurgence and White Sox downward spiral in the late 1960s. The vast wasteland of Chicago baseball in the 1970s, complete with Harry and Jimmy, Bill Veeck and Disco Demolition.

*The resurgence of both teams in the 1980s-titles on both sides of town and a renewal of deep-seated fan hostilities.

*Sammy Sosa-The Rise and Fall. From 1998 International Icon to 2003 Corker and suspected steroid cheat. Fade into oblivion, to the point he is barely talked about now. Why?

*A Tale of Two Seasons-the 2003 Cubs and how they crushed their fans with their spectacular playoff choke. The 2005 White Sox and how they led the league every day of the season until the final out of the World Series. I would not be shy and hide my bias-I would proclaim the run of the 2005 White Sox as one of the greatest seasons ever in Chicago baseball history, despite the relentless negativity and hopes for a choke.

I could go on and on. A couple of things you WOULDN'T see in my doc:

*Endless, self-pitying yammering about how God and the forces of Nature want the Cubs to suffer.

*Waxing nostalgic about the mediocrities who filled the uniforms.

*The "Curse" of the Billy Goat. My doc is to be realistic. No room for media-created bull****.

*Blabbering about how the 88 year drought was "punishment" for 1919. Again, no room for bull****.

*Ragging on Bartman. The history and the aftermath of the play would be portrayed, as it should, because it is an event so deeply embedded in the baseball history of the city. But anyone who blames Bartman, calls him names, implies he does unspeakable things to little children, and generally acts like a complete and utter dick when talking about him would not be found anywhere on any frame or strip of celluloid produced by me.

*Bob Costas

*Jay Mariotti, Harry Teinowitz, Lester Munson and other purveyors of the "I am proud to be a complete and utter Son of a Bitch" attitude.

*People I would invite to participate-the Whole Galaxy of Cubbie Fan Stars!-Too numerous to mention here, but I would want them for interviews and voiceover contributions.

*White Sox fans such as Mayor Daley, Richard Roeper, John Kass, President Obama. The White Sox being the team of choice of literary legends such as James T. Farrell and Nelson Algren would be mentioned.

*One tragedy is that several people who could contribute much to a doc like this-Buck O'Neill, Double Duty Radcliffe, Mike Royko, Studs Terkel, Charles Comiskey II to name but a few-are gone forever. What they could lend to a project like this would be invaluable.

*I would also ask people such as Les Grobstein, Rick Telander, Jim Langford and others for their support and participation. However, Gene Wocjiwhatsisname...NO.

*Maybe a few Hollywood celebs would want to participate out of a love for baseball. I would try to find out.

So, that is what I have in mind. And that is merely scratching the surface. I would want it to be as long and as epic as the Burns thing. And why not? Plenty of material to draw from.

Of course, if that is all too much, Vafa KB Productions can simply do a doc on the 2005 White Sox. I wish I had gone to the bars during the playoffs and put some stuff on tape. I wish I had, damn it. I want to do this, but right now it is nothing more than a far-flung fantasy. Right now the only thing I can do is say "Vafa, KB."

Bingo! I just hit on a title: "14 seconds: The Story of the 2005 Chicago White Sox."

Love it. I would support such a doc, seriously, if only to see that title hit the airwaves.:smile:

twinsuck
09-23-2010, 11:28 PM
Typical.

MarkZ35
09-24-2010, 12:54 AM
You think it's bad now, God help us all if the Cubs ever win the world series.

thomas35forever
09-24-2010, 12:56 AM
Thanks. Now I know to do something else with my time.

fram40
09-24-2010, 01:15 PM
I am surprised the White Sox were even mentioned - let alone getting 14 seconds.

SephClone89
09-24-2010, 02:13 PM
I knew the inclusion of the Sox in this would be limited to something along the lines of...(following the lengthy segment on the '04 Red Sox):

"And the following year, in 2005, another American League team broke another lengthy championship drought."

Nellie_Fox
09-24-2010, 02:16 PM
I knew the inclusion of the Sox in this would be limited to something along the lines of...(following the lengthy segment on the '04 Red Sox):

"And the following year, in 2005, another American League team broke another lengthy championship drought."Except I would expect it to say:

"And the following year, in 2005, another American League team broke another lengthy, but far less important and noteworty, championship drought."

Ranger
09-24-2010, 03:17 PM
Why? Because it involved the Red Sox? That may have been the pivotal moment of 2005 for Boston fans. But if MLB is really a 30 team, nation-wide league, then to me, a more crucial moment in 2005 post season was the AJ dropped 3rd strike play. But of course that's not worth covering because it involved the non-entities Chi (AL) and LAA (and it's pretty sad when even Chicago vs. LA is not good enough for the baseball keepers of the flame because it's not the right "Chicago" and "LA"). If that play involved a team with the words Boston, New York, or Cubs in their name, it would be written in stone as the pinnacle of baseball lore. That, once again, is the "tail wagging the dog" attitude some people have about baseball: Things are memorable because they happen to a select few teams and it is not necessarily that these teams happen to be the ones that are always involved in memorable plays.

I'm also at a loss to understand why a charter member of the AL with a 105 year history winning the World Series for the first time in 88 years just can't be squeezed in ("we can't cover every team that ever wins!":rolleyes:). Again, tail wagging the dog. It's not important because the Ken Burns and Bob Costases of the world deem it so.

I don't know, I've always thought the El Duque inning was the most important inning of that entire postseason. Like someone highlighted earlier, if they lose that game, the prospect of losing Game 4 looked good (wasn't Schilling supposed to go Game 4?). And if Boston ties the series, bad things may have happened.

downstairs
09-24-2010, 03:25 PM
TommyJohn:

Have you considered contacting local PBS stations? Chicago has two, right?

Obviously no guaruntee at all, and it would probably take a lot of arm twisting... but they're generally receptive to these sorts of ideas.

cards press box
09-24-2010, 03:50 PM
I don't know, I've always thought the El Duque inning was the most important inning of that entire postseason. Like someone highlighted earlier, if they lose that game, the prospect of losing Game 4 looked good (wasn't Schilling supposed to go Game 4?). And if Boston ties the series, bad things may have happened.

I agree that El Duque's performance in the sixth inning of Game 3 of the 2005 ALDS against the Red Sox was vital to the White Sox' fortunes that year. But, you know, El Duque and his amazing efforts to reach America on a raft from Cuba are significant for another reason: he is part of the amazing and inspiring story of Latino ballplayers coming to the United States to play professional baseball.

The story of foreign ballplayers coming to America and their gradual rising through the ranks into management is a very important story. And Ken Burns' latest documentary on the game flat out missed it.

Consider Ozzie Guillen's story. He came to play ball in America at 16 knowing little to no English. He did well in the minors, made it to the majors, became AL Rookie of the Year in 1985 and eventually became the first foreign born manager to win the World Series. I am not trying to make this thread political in any way but I do think it is socially and culturally significant that Kenny Williams, the GM who hired Ozzie, is African-American and, to my knowledge, was the sole African-American general manager in baseball in 2005. The Ozzie/KW story does, in many ways, connect directly to the story of Jackie Robinson breaking the color line. The success that KW and Ozzie has in running a ballclub is exactly the kind of progress that Mr. Robinson wanted to see happen. But somehow Mr. Burns missed the whole thing.

The story but apparently not important because KW and Ozzie did not run the Red Sox but rather the White Sox. If they did run the Red Sox, it hard to imagine Burns ignoring this larger story.

Burns, it turns out, has gone down this path before giving little to no acknowledgement to the efforts of Latinos in various enterprises, as this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/arts/television/05pbs.html?ref=arts) shows. And this one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002389.html). And this one (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2007/05/11/2007-05-11_hey_ken_burns_why_shun_latinos.html), too. Mr. Gonzalez' op-ed piece from the New York Daily News states that Burns' 1994 documentary on baseball devotes an entire six minutes (out of 18 hours) to Latino ballplayers and 4 of those minutes were about Roberto Clemente. Although Burns discussed the dominant pitchers of the 1960's, he made no mention of San Francisco Giant great Juan Marichal. Ironically, Marichal and the other members of MLB's all-time Latino team were present in Houston on October 26, 2005 when the White Sox swept Houston to win the World Series and Ozzie Guillen became the first foreign born manager to win the World Series. I guess Burns didn't notice that, either.

WhiteSox5187
09-24-2010, 05:03 PM
I don't know, I've always thought the El Duque inning was the most important inning of that entire postseason. Like someone highlighted earlier, if they lose that game, the prospect of losing Game 4 looked good (wasn't Schilling supposed to go Game 4?). And if Boston ties the series, bad things may have happened.

For me, that inning with El Duque was when I knew we were going to win it all. There were a lot of great thrilling moments in '05 but that sixth inning was to me the signal that we were the team of destiny.

Mohoney
09-24-2010, 09:06 PM
For me, that inning with El Duque was when I knew we were going to win it all. There were a lot of great thrilling moments in '05 but that sixth inning was to me the signal that we were the team of destiny.

I can't see how any inning in that postseason even comes close to the Pods walkoff in the bottom of the 9th in Game 2.

GoSox2K3
09-24-2010, 09:37 PM
I can't see how any inning in that postseason even comes close to the Pods walkoff in the bottom of the 9th in Game 2.

I don't see how you could possibly think so since the Red Sox weren't involved. Where's the drama????!!!!

WhiteSox5187
09-25-2010, 12:01 AM
I can't see how any inning in that postseason even comes close to the Pods walkoff in the bottom of the 9th in Game 2.

That was the most thrilling moment, certainly, but the El Duque moment was when it was like "Oh my God, we're going to win this thing!" dawned on me.

Foulke You
09-25-2010, 03:17 PM
Well, my other point would be that if you're looking at documenting baseball you're probably going to go with the most dramatic parts and as much as it pains me to admit, I do not think the White Sox playoff run in '05 was quite as dramatic as the Yankees in 2001, the Red Sox run in '04 or as the Cubs collapse in '03. So I understand those two series getting a lot of attention, but the White Sox should still get more than 14 god damned seconds. My God, take some away from the '02 World Series then!

When I become a successful filmmaker you damn well better believe the White Sox will get their due!
I've heard the argument about the 2005 World Series being a dud as far as drama but that World Series featured 4 very close ball games and three of them were decided late. The 2004 World Series between Boston and St. Louis was a dud by comparison. The Red Sox dominated that entire series. The real drama happened in the ALCS for them. There was plenty for Burns to cover from a national perspective that would have been interesting to non-White Sox fans:

-Four Straight Complete Games in the ALCS (this will never happen again)
-El Duque "Hocus Pocus"
-AJ controversial Doug Eddings call
-Konerko Grand Slam/Pods Walkoff
-Longest World Series Game Ever (Game 3) capped off by Blum's PH go ahead HR
-Cuban Connection (Both ex-Yankee pitchers finding success elsewhere)

and on and on...Burns just dropped the ball.

Sam Spade
09-25-2010, 03:21 PM
I've heard the argument about the 2005 World Series being a dud as far as drama but that World Series featured 4 very close ball games and three of them were decided late. The 2004 World Series between Boston and St. Louis was a dud by comparison. The Red Sox dominated that entire series. The real drama happened in the ALCS for them. There was plenty for Burns to cover from a national perspective that would have been interesting to non-White Sox fans:

-Four Straight Complete Games in the ALCS (this will never happen again)
-El Duque "Hocus Pocus"
-AJ controversial Doug Eddings call
-Konerko Grand Slam/Pods Walkoff
-Longest World Series Game Ever (Game 3) capped off by Blum's walkoff
-Cuban Connection (Both ex-Yankee pitchers finding success elsewhere)

and on and on...Burns just dropped the ball.
It was in houston. Buehrle got the save. Couldn't help nitpicking. Sorry.

WhiteSox5187
09-25-2010, 03:34 PM
I've heard the argument about the 2005 World Series being a dud as far as drama but that World Series featured 4 very close ball games and three of them were decided late. The 2004 World Series between Boston and St. Louis was a dud by comparison. The Red Sox dominated that entire series. The real drama happened in the ALCS for them. There was plenty for Burns to cover from a national perspective that would have been interesting to non-White Sox fans:

-Four Straight Complete Games in the ALCS (this will never happen again)
-El Duque "Hocus Pocus"
-AJ controversial Doug Eddings call
-Konerko Grand Slam/Pods Walkoff
-Longest World Series Game Ever (Game 3) capped off by Blum's walkoff
-Cuban Connection (Both ex-Yankee pitchers finding success elsewhere)

and on and on...Burns just dropped the ball.

As a Sox fan, I agree with you. But when I think of this in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that those things tell quite the same story as the Red Sox did in '04. The Red Sox obviously have a broader national appeal for a variety of reasons, but none of the things the White Sox did were quite as dramatic as the Red Sox ALCS and partially it is because really the White Sox just dominated in every aspect of the game in 2005, after the AJ controversy in game two of the ALCS, there was just no looking back for the White Sox.

Hitmen77
09-25-2010, 05:08 PM
I don't know, I've always thought the El Duque inning was the most important inning of that entire postseason. Like someone highlighted earlier, if they lose that game, the prospect of losing Game 4 looked good (wasn't Schilling supposed to go Game 4?). And if Boston ties the series, bad things may have happened.

As far as this documentary goes, though, it's really about the Red Sox being involved in the El Duque inning...and that's what's at issue. I'd be willing to bet if that inning was between the Sox and the Angels Burns and his apologists would be saying that it wasn't worth covering. The Sox swept anyway, where's the drama?

As a Sox fan, I agree with you. But when I think of this in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that those things tell quite the same story as the Red Sox did in '04. The Red Sox obviously have a broader national appeal for a variety of reasons, but none of the things the White Sox did were quite as dramatic as the Red Sox ALCS and partially it is because really the White Sox just dominated in every aspect of the game in 2005, after the AJ controversy in game two of the ALCS, there was just no looking back for the White Sox.

Games 2 and 3 of the World Series were certainly dramatic. Game 2 needed a grand slam to come from behind and then an extra inning walk off to win the game. Game 3 was deadlocked for 14 innings before the dramatic HR to break the tie.

By the way, the Red Sox swept the World Series in 2004. Where's the drama?

Soxfest
09-25-2010, 10:59 PM
Way to tell Burns for all Sox fans!

cub killer
09-25-2010, 11:28 PM
We have no choice now but to contact the nation's #1 Sox fan, and get him to commission a 7-part documentary on our Sox. Our tax dollars would be put to good use. (I'm not being political.)

TornLabrum
09-25-2010, 11:29 PM
As far as this documentary goes, though, it's really about the Red Sox being involved in the El Duque inning...and that's what's at issue. I'd be willing to bet if that inning was between the Sox and the Angels Burns and his apologists would be saying that it wasn't worth covering. The Sox swept anyway, where's the drama?



Games 2 and 3 of the World Series were certainly dramatic. Game 2 needed a grand slam to come from behind and then an extra inning walk off to win the game. Game 3 was deadlocked for 14 innings before the dramatic HR to break the tie.

By the way, the Red Sox swept the World Series in 2004. Where's the drama?

Thanks for bringing this up. I got about 3 hours sleep, maybe less, after that 14 inning game before I had to get up at 4:30 a.m. and drive to work.

Woofer
09-27-2010, 09:03 PM
Thanks for bringing this up. I got about 3 hours sleep, maybe less, after that 14 inning game before I had to get up at 4:30 a.m. and drive to work.

I don't know if I ever really got to sleep that night at all. I was way too excited to sleep.

Fenway
09-30-2010, 08:04 AM
So did anybody wind up watching it?

One thing hit me when I saw it - Buck and McCarver have been doing games now for 14 years (1996)

NBC did the Series in 1997 but otherwise it has been Fox.

ewokpelts
09-30-2010, 09:02 AM
btw, ken burns was quoted as saying that if the cubs win the WS, he'll produce the 11th inning.

PKalltheway
09-30-2010, 09:57 AM
So did anybody wind up watching it?

One thing hit me when I saw it - Buck and McCarver have been doing games now for 14 years (1996)

NBC did the Series in 1997 but otherwise it has been Fox.

I remember NBC doing the 1999 World Series as well.

It's hard to believe that they have been doing games that long. I'm only 22, and outside of '99, all I basically know is that the World Series has always been on Fox.

Hitmen77
09-30-2010, 10:42 AM
So did anybody wind up watching it?


Nope.

I have busy evenings and I have much better things to do than watch yet another Red Sox-Yankees lovefest. Seriously, why should most fans outside of Bos and NY care to see the same tired old hype re-hashed again.

We get it, the only teams that matter are NY teams, Bos, Cubs, and maybe a few others. Good for Burns for thinking that. Meanwhile, I've got better things to do. It's not a matter of "boycotting" this show... I just really am not interested in watching it. I have a life that involves things other than watching the latest Red Sox documentary.

btw, ken burns was quoted as saying that if the cubs win the WS, he'll produce the 11th inning.
:puking:

But, but......you must be wrong! He can't be committing to that for sure. What if the Cubs win the WS by sweeping or winning each postseason series 4 games to 1? What if each game was a boring 5-1 win? WHERE'S THE DRAMA??!! Burns and others only document events that are dramatic. If the Cubs don't.....what, huh.....oh, wait a minute....oh, I see, that lame-ass :bs:excuse is applied only if it involves the White Sox or any other "non-entity" team.:rolleyes:

But, I guess we can't blame him for wanting to cover Chicago's first World Series win in over a century. :whatever:

asindc
09-30-2010, 10:51 AM
So did anybody wind up watching it?

One thing hit me when I saw it - Buck and McCarver have been doing games now for 14 years (1996)

NBC did the Series in 1997 but otherwise it has been Fox.

I might have if had offered a balanced view of the sport.

Gavin
09-30-2010, 10:53 AM
I liked and enjoyed the top of the 10th. The bottom of the 10th started off OK with Bonds/9-11/2001/etc and even the whole Bartman thing was tolerable, but once it strayed into the amazing rivalry that is NYY<-->BOS(omg Boston tessie sweet carolineomg) I left my already-asleep girlfriend on the couch and went and played FIFA 11.

MrT27
09-30-2010, 10:55 AM
I agree there should be more about the Sox 05' run in it. But i feel real bad for the Blue Jas. Unless I missed it I don't even remember then talking about their 93' World Series and Joe Carters home run at all. In my opinion way too much time has been devoted to the steroid scandal and not enough on the actual games.

kobo
09-30-2010, 11:28 AM
I watched most of it and thought it was a waste of time. The first part glossed over a lot of things but made sure to spend over 20 minutes talking about Joe Torre and the 96 Yankees. Same thing in the bottom of the 10th; he spent over 30 minutes discussing the 03-04 seasons (and by that I mean Yankees-Red Sox and a couple mins on the 03 Cubs) then moved onto the steroid issue and Mitchell Report and then in one minute showed, did not mention, the winners of the 05, 06, 07, and 08 World Series and then started talking about 09 and the 09 Yankees. Pathetic.

3rdGenSouthSider
09-30-2010, 11:33 AM
Moreover, he's telling us this tired, old stuff through tired, old writers such as Thomas Boswell, George Will, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. They will, I will lay odds, offer absolutely no insight into baseball and will, as you point out, repeat what's been said 10 times already (In Kearns-Goodwin's case, it will have been said by somebody else already).

I imagine in my mind that as he was preparing the 10th Inning, Ken Burns used the following method to parse the interviews: "Can I get to you via Amtrak's Acela? I can? You're in."

And Caple is right on...where are the interviews with players?

I want my 4 hours back.

Foulke You
09-30-2010, 02:18 PM
It was in houston. Buehrle got the save. Couldn't help nitpicking. Sorry.
Doh! I knew that...not sure where my brain was when I typed it. Fixed it!:cool:

Foulke You
09-30-2010, 02:26 PM
As a Sox fan, I agree with you. But when I think of this in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that those things tell quite the same story as the Red Sox did in '04. The Red Sox obviously have a broader national appeal for a variety of reasons, but none of the things the White Sox did were quite as dramatic as the Red Sox ALCS and partially it is because really the White Sox just dominated in every aspect of the game in 2005, after the AJ controversy in game two of the ALCS, there was just no looking back for the White Sox.
Look, I understand that the Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs have higher national appeal. I get that. I didn't expect Ken Burns to devote 35 minutes to the 2005 White Sox. However, 14 seconds??! 88 year World Series drought for Chicago. 14 seconds?! At least give the team 5 minutes! If the Yankees and Red Sox had 4 straight complete games in an ALCS, Burns would have devoted 5 minutes to just that part alone yet he couldn't find the time in his documentary to give 5 minutes to a team that brought Chicago it's first World Series since 1917. It's his documentary, he can do what he wants with it, but I chose to stay away because of its narrow view of the game.

downstairs
09-30-2010, 03:36 PM
I was watching with my girlfriend, who's not the biggest baseball fan at all. But we love any and all documentaries, so she watched.

After watching both episodes, she asked when the third one is on.

I said "that's it". So she said "So its just a documentary about the Yankees, Red Sox, and Barry Bonds?"

I totally understand these stories dominated the scene, and diserve the majority of time. But the documentary was FOUR HOURS! FOUR FULL HOURS, NO COMMERCIALS!

The stuff that was missed was astounding.

WhiteSox5187
09-30-2010, 04:00 PM
I was watching with my girlfriend, who's not the biggest baseball fan at all. But we love any and all documentaries, so she watched.

After watching both episodes, she asked when the third one is on.

I said "that's it". So she said "So its just a documentary about the Yankees, Red Sox, and Barry Bonds?"

I totally understand these stories dominated the scene, and diserve the majority of time. But the documentary was FOUR HOURS! FOUR FULL HOURS, NO COMMERCIALS!

The stuff that was missed was astounding.

I thought he did a lousy job all around. The first documentary I thought was great, this was awful.

comiskey2000
09-30-2010, 04:37 PM
While I love Ken Burns, it was unnecessary to show every play from the 2003 and 2004 ALCS. The Bonds stuff makes sense, but the Red Sox coverage was just confusing. I became bored during the second two hours. The 90's full "BASEBALL" version had the same issues. There is baseball outside of the northeast...

downstairs
09-30-2010, 05:35 PM
While I love Ken Burns, it was unnecessary to show every play from the 2003 and 2004 ALCS. The Bonds stuff makes sense, but the Red Sox coverage was just confusing. I became bored during the second two hours. The 90's full "BASEBALL" version had the same issues. There is baseball outside of the northeast...

Considering he had 4 hours to play with, I would not have minded maybe 45-60 minutes dedicated to these important stories:

1. 1996 Yanks first WS championship in decades, Joe Torre

2. 2004 ALCS with a short intro showing the 2003 walk-off Red Sox loss in the ALCS

3. The Yankees dominating in general 1996-2000, the unable to win a championship for quite a few years.

9/11/2001 and afterwards should not have been Yankee-centric. It affected all of baseball, and should have been shown as such. I never made much of a connection between them being in the World Series a month later (plus they lost).

WhiteSox5187
09-30-2010, 05:59 PM
Considering he had 4 hours to play with, I would not have minded maybe 45-60 minutes dedicated to these important stories:

1. 1996 Yanks first WS championship in decades, Joe Torre

2. 2004 ALCS with a short intro showing the 2003 walk-off Red Sox loss in the ALCS

3. The Yankees dominating in general 1996-2000, the unable to win a championship for quite a few years.

9/11/2001 and afterwards should not have been Yankee-centric. It affected all of baseball, and should have been shown as such. I never made much of a connection between them being in the World Series a month later (plus they lost).

I actually wouldn't have minded if the focus of 2001 was on the Yankees, yea the Mariners were great but 9/11 is the focus of that season and what the Yankees did in that post season was nothing short of fantastic. That might have been the best World Series in my lifetime in terms of play on the field and drama.

Cambridge
10-05-2010, 07:19 AM
Baseball Prospectus did lengthy interviews with Ken Burns [last week] and co-producer Lynn Novick [today]. The latter addresses, among other things, criticism of the film and includes:

DL: The White Sox winning their first World Series title since 1917 got very little screen time. Also notable is the fact that Ozzie Guillen became the first Hispanic manager to lead his team to a championship.

LN: I agree it was historic, and if it had been a more exciting World Series, in terms of the actual games and how they were played, that would have perhaps made it possible. But it really had more to do with the narrative structure of the episode and how the story was unfolding. It was going to be very difficult to do the Red Sox and then do another story that would be somewhat similar.

In the midst of Barry Bonds and the steroid stories we were trying to wrap up, dramatically speaking, in terms of the Aristotelian poetics of the structure of the episode, it was difficult to find a way to really open that up and make it into a scene. Iím sure that it deserved to be in there, so we apologize to White Sox fans. It was a great story, and we hope to someday tell it. I think that Ozzie Guillen is a fascinating and really important person in this era as well.

Burns: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12088

Novick: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12158

CHISOXFAN13
10-05-2010, 07:36 AM
Baseball Prospectus did lengthy interviews with Ken Burns [last week] and co-producer Lynn Novick [today]. The latter addresses, among other things, criticism of the film and includes:

DL: The White Sox winning their first World Series title since 1917 got very little screen time. Also notable is the fact that Ozzie Guillen became the first Hispanic manager to lead his team to a championship.

LN: I agree it was historic, and if it had been a more exciting World Series, in terms of the actual games and how they were played, that would have perhaps made it possible. But it really had more to do with the narrative structure of the episode and how the story was unfolding. It was going to be very difficult to do the Red Sox and then do another story that would be somewhat similar.

In the midst of Barry Bonds and the steroid stories we were trying to wrap up, dramatically speaking, in terms of the Aristotelian poetics of the structure of the episode, it was difficult to find a way to really open that up and make it into a scene. Iím sure that it deserved to be in there, so we apologize to White Sox fans. It was a great story, and we hope to someday tell it. I think that Ozzie Guillen is a fascinating and really important person in this era as well.

Burns: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12088

Novick: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12158

A walkoff homer by a light hitting outfielder; a go-ahead home run by the 25th man on the roster in the longest game in World Series history and a 1-0 gem in game four.

Yeah, that wasn't exciting.

tebman
10-05-2010, 08:42 AM
LN:
In the midst of Barry Bonds and the steroid stories we were trying to wrap up, dramatically speaking, in terms of the Aristotelian poetics of the structure of the episode, it was difficult to find a way to really open that up and make it into a scene.

:rolleyes:

Give me a break. "Aristotelian poetics?" More like Boston producers engaging in "Brahmin importunity."

Chez
10-05-2010, 09:24 AM
Does anyone know if PBS (WTTW in Chicago) plans to rebroadcast the two episodes? I screwed up and only recorded the first of the two episodes.

Oblong
10-05-2010, 09:30 AM
Every WS is exciting to the fans involved, even the losing ones. But if you don't happen to be a Northeast Intellectual then it doesn't matter to Ken Burns.

Give me Richard Roeper over Doris Kearns Goodwin any day.

Also noticed how they didn't talk about all the unnecessary and unfair crap that Steve Bartman got. Not just from fans but from the likes of Lester Munson. (I do think he mentioned the governor of IL)

stacksedwards
10-05-2010, 12:25 PM
From those interviews it does not sound like either Burns or the producer watched the 2005 World Series. To say those games were not dramatic is just false. I would have felt better if they both admitted they really don't know too much about the White Sox and just enjoy talking about the Red Sox and Yankees.

Fenway
10-05-2010, 12:26 PM
Baseball Prospectus did lengthy interviews with Ken Burns [last week] and co-producer Lynn Novick [today]. The latter addresses, among other things, criticism of the film and includes:

DL: The White Sox winning their first World Series title since 1917 got very little screen time. Also notable is the fact that Ozzie Guillen became the first Hispanic manager to lead his team to a championship.

LN: I agree it was historic, and if it had been a more exciting World Series, in terms of the actual games and how they were played, that would have perhaps made it possible. But it really had more to do with the narrative structure of the episode and how the story was unfolding. It was going to be very difficult to do the Red Sox and then do another story that would be somewhat similar.

In the midst of Barry Bonds and the steroid stories we were trying to wrap up, dramatically speaking, in terms of the Aristotelian poetics of the structure of the episode, it was difficult to find a way to really open that up and make it into a scene. Iím sure that it deserved to be in there, so we apologize to White Sox fans. It was a great story, and we hope to someday tell it. I think that Ozzie Guillen is a fascinating and really important person in this era as well.

Burns: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12088

Novick: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12158

Dave we can talk about this over coffee but they really screwed up as there was a perfect tie in to both stories - the 2005 ALDS - run with the 6th inning of Game 3 at Fenway which was the changing of the guard and then simply say - 2 weeks later the White Sox were champions.

Boston's saga was over the top but then again since it involved a complete collapse by NYY it just was like a Hollywood script.

asindc
10-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Dave we can talk about this over coffee but they really screwed up as there was a perfect tie in to both stories - the 2005 ALDS - run with the 6th inning of Game 3 at Fenway which was the changing of the guard and then simply say - 2 weeks later the White Sox were champions.

Boston's saga was over the top but then again since it involved a complete collapse by NYY it just was like a Hollywood script.

Better yet, they could have tied in the Sox winning in 2005 with Boston winning in 2004 after the Cubs failed dramatically in 2003 if you want to make it about curses/bad luck/billy goats/thrown series/No No Nanette, if their lack of knowledge/interest about the 2005 World Series was an issue. You could also add St. Louis winning in 2006 to the mix from a Cubs fan's misery perspective. As I said before, inexcusable.

WizardsofOzzie
10-05-2010, 01:36 PM
LN: I agree it was historic, and if it had been a more exciting World Series, in terms of the actual games and how they were played, that would have perhaps made it possible.

I'll never understand this. I know I'm a White Sox fan so obviously it was exciting for me, but looking back I don't know how so many people can say it was a boring world series.

Game 1: Sox pouncing on one of the greatest pitchers of his era early, and the uncertainty of not knowing if the Sox could hold a 2 run lead with their pen who hadn't pitched a game in the last 5 games.....And that's the most boring of the 4

Game 2: In a game that had 5 lead changes, and included a Paul Konerko grand slam to take the lead in the 7th inning only to have the Astros tie it up in the 9th, leaving Scott Podsednik, who hadn't hit a HR the entire regular season, to hit a walkoff HR to win it in the bottom of the 9th.

Game 3: Drama before the game even started about the roof being open or closed. The Sox blew a 1 run lead in the bottom of the 9th, followed by the longest World Series game in MLB history which was eventually decided by a HR off the bat of a no name player in the 14th inning. The Astros proceed to put the winning run at the plate in the bottom half of the inning before starting pitcher Mark Buehrle comes in to record the save, becoming the first pitcher since 1958 to start a game in the World Series and record a save in the following game

Game 4: Absolute pitchers duel with Garcia and Backe matching each other inning for inning with the Sox scoring the lone run of the game in the 8th inning. Bottom of the 9th Uribe makes an amazing catch going into the crowd for the 2nd out, and then snags a ball going up the middle that many people thought was gonna find it's way through and send the game into extras, for the final out.


Yeah, nothing exciting happened in any of those games at all. :rolleyes:

downstairs
10-05-2010, 01:39 PM
Baseball Prospectus did lengthy interviews with Ken Burns [last week] and co-producer Lynn Novick [today]. The latter addresses, among other things, criticism of the film and includes:

DL: The White Sox winning their first World Series title since 1917 got very little screen time. Also notable is the fact that Ozzie Guillen became the first Hispanic manager to lead his team to a championship.

LN: I agree it was historic, and if it had been a more exciting World Series, in terms of the actual games and how they were played, that would have perhaps made it possible. But it really had more to do with the narrative structure of the episode and how the story was unfolding. It was going to be very difficult to do the Red Sox and then do another story that would be somewhat similar.

In the midst of Barry Bonds and the steroid stories we were trying to wrap up, dramatically speaking, in terms of the Aristotelian poetics of the structure of the episode, it was difficult to find a way to really open that up and make it into a scene. Iím sure that it deserved to be in there, so we apologize to White Sox fans. It was a great story, and we hope to someday tell it. I think that Ozzie Guillen is a fascinating and really important person in this era as well.

Burns: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12088

Novick: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12158

Look, candy coat it with hyperbole all you want, there's no excuse for a FOUR HOUR documentary covering all of 16 years to miss as much as they did.

The series is called "Baseball." That's it. He's claiming to cover the whole sport, not just one or two angles.

I've seen most of the ESPN 30 for 30 documentaries. Sometimes a filmmaker will take two subjects and intertwine them. I have no problem with that sort of film focusing only on those two.

WhiteSox5187
10-05-2010, 03:17 PM
I'll never understand this. I know I'm a White Sox fan so obviously it was exciting for me, but looking back I don't know how so many people can say it was a boring world series.

Game 1: Sox pouncing on one of the greatest pitchers of his era early, and the uncertainty of not knowing if the Sox could hold a 2 run lead with their pen who hadn't pitched a game in the last 5 games.....And that's the most boring of the 4

Game 2: In a game that had 5 lead changes, and included a Paul Konerko grand slam to take the lead in the 7th inning only to have the Astros tie it up in the 9th, leaving Scott Podsednik, who hadn't hit a HR the entire regular season, to hit a walkoff HR to win it in the bottom of the 9th.

Game 3: Drama before the game even started about the roof being open or closed. The Sox blew a 1 run lead in the bottom of the 9th, followed by the longest World Series game in MLB history which was eventually decided by a HR off the bat of a no name player in the 14th inning. The Astros proceed to put the winning run at the plate in the bottom half of the inning before starting pitcher Mark Buehrle comes in to record the save, becoming the first pitcher since 1958 to start a game in the World Series and record a save in the following game

Game 4: Absolute pitchers duel with Garcia and Backe matching each other inning for inning with the Sox scoring the lone run of the game in the 8th inning. Bottom of the 9th Uribe makes an amazing catch going into the crowd for the 2nd out, and then snags a ball going up the middle that many people thought was gonna find it's way through and send the game into extras, for the final out.


Yeah, nothing exciting happened in any of those games at all. :rolleyes:

The ONLY way an argument can be made that the '05 series wasn't exciting was the fact that it was a sweep. Those four games could have as easily have been an Astros sweep, but sweeps typically get glossed over.

Foulke You
10-05-2010, 03:28 PM
The ONLY way an argument can be made that the '05 series wasn't exciting was the fact that it was a sweep. Those four games could have as easily have been an Astros sweep, but sweeps typically get glossed over.
Agreed. Also, the Red Sox/Cards series in 2004 was an example of a boring sweep other than the outcome of Boston ending their WS drought. It was anti-climactic after their amazing ALCS comeback. The Cards never were really in that World Series.

FielderJones
10-05-2010, 04:13 PM
Agreed. Also, the Red Sox/Cards series in 2004 was an example of a boring sweep other than the outcome of Boston ending their WS drought. It was anti-climactic after their amazing ALCS comeback. The Cards never were really in that World Series.

It looks like the Cards had Game 1 tied up in the top of the 8th (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2004/B10230BOS2004.htm). But I agree that after that (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2004/YPS_2004.htm), the Cards were never in it.

I agree with stacksedwards, just say you don't know much about flyover country and admit your bias towards the Red Sox.

PaleHoser
10-05-2010, 04:45 PM
The ONLY way an argument can be made that the '05 series wasn't exciting was the fact that it was a sweep. Those four games could have as easily have been an Astros sweep, but sweeps typically get glossed over.

Agreed. The Sox swept the series with a run differential of +6, and the Astros failed to score in the final 15 innings of the series. If they come up with a clutch hit once or twice the series could have just as easily gone seven games.

TDog
10-05-2010, 04:45 PM
From those interviews it does not sound like either Burns or the producer watched the 2005 World Series.
...

No one did. Don't you have any Cubs-fan friends that remind you of that.

(Teal implied.)

Glossing over the World Series is one thing. But not giving Ozzie Guillen his due goes to the heart of the biggest criticism Ken Burns gets for his documentaries.

I was talking to a high-ranking (non-Hispanic) person at PBS and asked him on the eve of the World War II documentary is the Hispanic protests of Ken Burns' work was overreaction. That set him on a diatribe about how Ken Burns doesn't acknowledge Hispanics unless he is forced to acknowledge Hispanics.

C-Dawg
10-05-2010, 05:20 PM
No one did. Don't you have any Cubs-fan friends that remind you of that.



I had the exact same conversation this past weekend with a Cub fan. I mentioned I was hoping for a Reds / Rays World Series, and he accused me of doing so "just so someone would finally get worse ratings than the Sox". I reminded him that ratings have decreased each year since 2000 (except for the fantabulous 2004 series) so it doesn't take an expert to realize that 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 all had worse ratings than the Sox did in 2005.

Actually I expected better from this particular fan, since he's smart and not one of the bandwagon fans that all jumped aboard in 2003. But he's clearly seething from the success of the Sox; always calling it the "fake World Series" or other cheap shots. Bitter I guess.

Oblong
10-05-2010, 06:09 PM
I have no reason to pay any special attention to the 2005 WS because I'm not a Sox or Astro fan but I vividly remember the walk off HR and the close final game. What really stands out for me from the 2005 Playoffs was the AJ play agains the Angels (which I still cannot comprehend how people can rip him yet I see otherwise smart people do it), and Lidge giving up that mammoth shot to PUjols when they were about the clinch. ( I remember seeing Barbara and George Bush behind the plate and it was distracting me).

But I don't really remember much from the other WS this decade other than 2006, for obvious reasons. All I can think of is 2002 when Dusty Baker's kid almost got killed at home plate, but JT Snow grabbed him at the last second and the 2001 WS, because of 9/11.

TommyJohn
10-05-2010, 08:50 PM
Every WS is exciting to the fans involved, even the losing ones. But if you don't happen to be a Northeast Intellectual then it doesn't matter to Ken Burns.

Give me Richard Roeper over Doris Kearns Goodwin any day.

Also noticed how they didn't talk about all the unnecessary and unfair crap that Steve Bartman got. Not just from fans but from the likes of Lester Munson. (I do think he mentioned the governor of IL)Do not get me started on that son of a bitch.

Hitmen77
10-05-2010, 10:05 PM
Baseball Prospectus did lengthy interviews with Ken Burns [last week] and co-producer Lynn Novick [today]. The latter addresses, among other things, criticism of the film and includes:

DL: The White Sox winning their first World Series title since 1917 got very little screen time. Also notable is the fact that Ozzie Guillen became the first Hispanic manager to lead his team to a championship.

LN: I agree it was historic, and if it had been a more exciting World Series, in terms of the actual games and how they were played, that would have perhaps made it possible. But it really had more to do with the narrative structure of the episode and how the story was unfolding. It was going to be very difficult to do the Red Sox and then do another story that would be somewhat similar.

In the midst of Barry Bonds and the steroid stories we were trying to wrap up, dramatically speaking, in terms of the Aristotelian poetics of the structure of the episode, it was difficult to find a way to really open that up and make it into a scene. I’m sure that it deserved to be in there, so we apologize to White Sox fans. It was a great story, and we hope to someday tell it. I think that Ozzie Guillen is a fascinating and really important person in this era as well.

Burns: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12088

Novick: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12158

Wow, that is such BS by this guy. :bs::bs:

Why don't they just cut the crap and admit that they think a World Series.....or any MLB event for that matter.... is only "exciting" if Boston or New York are in it. Tail wagging the dog. Face it, there is only a "narrative" to be told if it involves teams they care about.

What about other narratives over the last 15 years? MLB is not only about Bos and NY playing in post season games, you know. What about the Tigers' rags to riches story? They went from 119 losses to an AL pennant in 3 years. Wow! How did they get there? How did down-and-out Detroit embrace them?

What about Cleveland ending a 41 year pennant drought and going from constant AL doormats into an AL powerhouse that churned out an impressive list of stars? Thome, Ramirez, Belle, Colon, Vizquel, and so forth.

How about the meteoric rise of the 1990s expansion teams? All 4 of them have won a pennant. Arizona won the WS in their 3rd year of existence. Florida has won 2 championships. How did these teams do it? Is it alright when NY buys a championship, but not when Arizona does it?

Does Atlanta's incredible run of dominance? Their starting rotation was one for the ages? Are they even relevant in a "Baseball" world that doesn't stretch that far beyond the top markets?

This is excitement to me. Not just the two richest teams winning year after year after year because they have the money to do so.

Did the "Tenth Inning" cover the advent of highly popular "retro" parks across the league? Places like Pittsburgh and San Francisco now are the home of "instant classic", new baseball "cathedrals". Artificial turf and multpurpose ballparks are almost extinct.

No doubt these don't fit within Burns' narrow view of baseball.

Oblong
10-05-2010, 10:55 PM
Do not get me started on that son of a bitch.

Over Bartman or just in general?

Not being from Chicago I only know him from that Sportswriters on TV thing they showed here with the Chicago guys and his stuff that SI would publish, back when I read SI.

I have to say I was embarassed to be a human being over how he was treated in the aftermath. And the guy was probably a bigger Cub fan than 90% of the fans at that game. I can't imagine the heartache.

I do have a funny story about the 2005 WS. My Tiger season ticket partner also has Lions season tickets. He took me to the Lions game, against Chicago I believe, on the same night as game 2 of that series. Now remember, this is 2005, Tigers have 12 straight losing seasons, 2 years from 119 losses, before Leyland, Verlander, etc. We're still in the "God, I hope they can just get to .500 mode".

We're walking past an emtpy Comerica Park on the way to Ford Field and I say "Chuck, next year on this date we'll be sitting up there in our seats at the WS." Sure enough, next year to the day, we're sitting up in our seats at the World Series. Damn Cardinals.

ghostface36
10-06-2010, 12:08 AM
ken burns is a ****** it sounds like he didn't even watch the 2005 series?
besides he should have covered the entire 2005 white sox season thats one of the best teams in recent memory id say the best of the 00's

KenBerryGrab
10-06-2010, 11:05 AM
Glossing over the World Series is one thing. But not giving Ozzie Guillen his due goes to the heart of the biggest criticism Ken Burns gets for his documentaries.

I was talking to a high-ranking (non-Hispanic) person at PBS and asked him on the eve of the World War II documentary is the Hispanic protests of Ken Burns' work was overreaction. That set him on a diatribe about how Ken Burns doesn't acknowledge Hispanics unless he is forced to acknowledge Hispanics.

He actually had some good stuff on the rise of the Hispanic players. Ozzie winning as the first Hispanic manager would have been a nice cap to that.

TDog
10-06-2010, 01:16 PM
He actually had some good stuff on the rise of the Hispanic players. Ozzie winning as the first Hispanic manager would have been a nice cap to that.

MLB honored the contributions of Latin players before Game 4 of the 2005 World Series. If you were a filmmaker interested in documenting the rise of Hispanic players, rather than someone filling a racial quota in answer to the inevitable protests, that would have jumped out at you.

I didn't see the documentary, but I saw an interview with Burns in which he said the rise of Hispanics in baseball reflects a changing America, or something like that, other immigrant groups having made their mark on baseball sooner. He completely missed the point. There is strong Hispanic-American talent, but Roberto Clemente didn't come to the states and pick up baseball. Ozzie Guillen didn't take up baseball after coming to America. Neither did Alexei Ramirez or the two Cuban pitchers who helped the White Sox win the World Series in 2005. Baseball is bigger with kids in the Caribean than it is with kids on the U.S., certainly as a participatory sport.

The rise of Hispanic talent isn't just a footnote to the era.

KenBerryGrab
10-06-2010, 01:35 PM
I wasn't arguing with you.

TommyJohn
10-06-2010, 08:48 PM
Over Bartman or just in general?





Over Bartman. I just think he was supremely nasty. Mariotti's sick obsession was pretty bad, but Lessie saying he literally wanted to kill the guy is just too much. And then there was Telander, who called Bartman a "creature." I thought of them when I read the part in Lip's article about the Cub fans in the media. It was embarrassing the way they treated that guy, from the media on down to the fans. And these same ****heads have the nerve to rub Ligue in our faces to this day.