MLB's The Baseball Network
 

It premiered Yesterday, January 1, 2009. DirecTV has a major stake in this new network, which is probably why it's in the basic package and not some higher level one. It's also the reason why MLB doesn't charge carriage fees to DirecTV for covering it. It's available on channel 213 HD for those who are interested.

Some cable companies are also carrying it, as this was part of the MLB Extra Innings deal that DirecTV struck with MLB and this new network, so check your local cable listings. I don't know in which package the MLB Network will be on cable, so consult your local company for more info.

The network's a fledgling right now, but based on what I've read on another forum I visit, it looks to be a great venture. For those who saw--or didn't see--Ken Burns's highly acclaimed series Baseball, The Baseball Network will show it beginning next Tuesday, January 6th, at 8:00 p.m. EST. The fact that it will be in HD ought to be nice.

Bob Costas will have a lot of presence on this network, which is fine with me. I'd take him over McCarver and Morgan any day. Let's just hope those latter two don't pop up much on this new network.

Ken Burns' BASEBALL was only highly acclaimed in filmmaking circles. In baseball circles, it was rather widely ridiculed. It was fascinating to watch some of the films that they unearthed and a few of the interviews were interesting, but it was way too narrow and self-indulgent to be considered a true filmed history of baseball. When you see it again, you'll get an idea of what I'm describing.

I'm going bananas over this network, however.

Some of the stuff they've already had has been magnificent. Larsen's perfect game was enchanting stuff.

You mean there is one more channel I can avoid? Thanks for the heads up. :D

Peace

You don't like baseball?

It has never really been a priority for him.

So? You're attempting to be nit-picky. I've seen the series and liked it very much. I'm looking forward to seeing it in HD.

No, I like baseball. I just am not one who watches 24 hour channels for a league. ESPN covers enough baseball; I do not see the need for another 24 Hour network. BTW, I am a little tired of always hearing about how players from 50 years ago were so much better than players of today. Just another reason to avoid the channel all together if you ask me and guys like Bob Costas gets on my nerves when it comes to baseball history.

Peace

No one says you have to watch such a channel all the time, JR. These channels are unique when compared to ESPN, a channel I like, because they cover certain aspects of the game in a manner ESPN can't or won't. That is one of the allures of such a channel.

Of course you did not say that. I am the one saying that. ;)

I am a basketball fan, but I do not want the NBA Network either.

"Want" or "watch"? The former seems rather harsh.

Want!!!
 

As far as I know, I do not get the MLB Network as of this moment. I will not be making a phone call to my cable company anytime soon complaining. They could get rid of the NBA and NHL Networks and I would not be the least bit upset.

I think your opinion is well known now.

And widely rejected as well. It's a minority position, though...surprise!:)

Of course it's a minority opinion -- Jeff is a minority.

For the record, I don't get (I assume -- I haven't checked my cable provider), nor will I complain about not getting, the MLB (or any other sport-specific) network.

I wonder how much difference HD will make. Some of the interviews Burns filmed might have been shot on film (not videotape), and those could be scaled to HD. But historical footage for virtually the entire history of baseball will not be in HD, and that must constitute the vast majority of images.

Good to see a Baseball Channel.

Now if I could only get Directv to split up Extra Innings. I don't need every ballgame on every night. Can't they just charge less so I can see all of one team's games?

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../smilielol.gif

Peace

Nit-picky? Hardly.

Burns is a filmmaker, not a baseball man of any kind. It shows throughout every minute of that bloated 18-hour sanctimonious offering. I'm glad you enjoyed it. As a baseball film archive exploration exercise, it was an accomplishment. As a factual documentary, it was a failure. When I watch a "documentary" I am interested in facts. If you have 18 hours to document something, it is likely that a reasonably complete historical picture can be painted. A great many more facts should be presented and a balanced view of the game as seen through the eyes of its participants was what was in order. Not the personal remembrances of Burns's high-brow friends.

Ken Burns has almost zero respect for true baseball followers. He dismissed us completely when all of the errors and butchery and glossing was originally addressed when this thing came out in the mid-90s. I am not a Civil War expert, so I don't know how inaccurate that was. I am a baseball expert. Ken Burns tried to pass off his self indulgence as a historical baseball documentary. It is not. Because he is not a baseball man.

If you have Dish Network you won't receive this channel. The negotiations went bad with Extra Innings for Dish and MLB Network was part of the deal.

OK, now we are way OT, but hey, its the off season. The History major in me is about to shine - but on an officiating board. Oh well, gotta gloat somewhere :)

In history circles, Ken Burns' "The Civil War" was acclaimed for its all encompassing look at many aspects of the war. At the time, it was considered the "final" history, something that never needed fixing because it was perfect.

Since its release, it has become clear that he paid attention too much to the common story of sectionalism (Industrial North vs. Agraian South) instead of the complexities and schisms in each region. Also, Burns has failed to discuss the ways in which African Americans pursued and won their own freedom, and instead focuses narrowly on the North's supposed position of morality and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

All in all, the transcripts revealed throughout the documentary are splendid, and it is a great piece if you want to learn mainly about how the Civil War played out in the political, military, and white society arenas.

I'm done. If you got this far, props. Sorry mods, couldn't let it pass.

Great stuff! Thanks for it.

BASEBALL was picked apart a lot earlier, because, frankly, baseball experts overwhelmed the guy with how many of us there are. He thought he could slip 18 hours of that by us and call it "a history." And the way he reacted to the torrent of criticism was a delight to see at the time and remains a delight to recall.

Well if you feel the documentary was not a good source of history, then someone should create a better depiction of the history of baseball. There are a million books of the Kennedy Assassination or the Vietnam War; all do not have the same point of view. You make it sound like there is only one point of view about the history of baseball. It has been said that the real truth of history comes from the person that writes it. ;)

Peace

I'm one of the people who felt that the grand old game should have its history written and recorded by baseball people. Burns is a fraud.

I'm not hard to please. An honest filmmaker making an honest effort would have yielded an acceptable work. And it would have probably been profitable--a Burns priority (before accuracy). I will never be among those who want to see it recorded by a guy who has author George Plimpton describe Bobby Thomson's Shot Heard 'Round The World rather than Bobby Thomson and Ralph Branca themselves. (They each told me shortly after that time that they weren't even contacted.) And there are dozens of events that we have to endure a bunch of other accomplished intellectuals who happen to know a baseball when they see it. Make a film about evolution and hear them wax about that---this is baseball! I don't care what Doris Kearns Goodwin has to say about baseball, I care what she has to say about American history. I care what baseball people have to say about baseball. And you make an 18-hour film about anything, and it should be complete. I'm still waiting for the history after the Dodgers and Giants moved West. There was some interesting stuff then, also.

Some enjoyable old films, though ... even if some of the films shown are of different events than they are claiming to be.

I remember enjoying Burns's Baseball when it came out until Keith Olbermann put in a lot of research detailing all the inaccuracies. Still some great footage, but it reminds me of most nostalgia - not exactly factually accurate.

We ripped it apart at the outset.

I even attended a Q & A with Burns after viewing a pre-release copy and reading part of the companion book. You know how non-baseball people are when you expose their total lack of knowledge or feel for the game? He was one of the worst, because he thought he knew the game and was intent on keeping up that front despite being exposed by a roomful of baseball experts. He did everything but cry and take his toys home.

Yes, tearing people down and spouting off at the mouth are two things Keith Olbermann is very adept at.:mad:

Are you saying that Burns is much different than people that believe a fat, out of shape player could not be surpassed by players of today that make millions and work out all the time, but only do so with drugs?

OK....whatever you say. :p

time warner has MLB, and NBA, no NHL or NFL...Time Warner was also a day away from no MTV, VH1, Nick, Comedy or Spike...I am sure my bill is going up because of MLB

I guess the truth hurts. :D

Peace

Babe Ruth won 18, 23 and 24 games as the game's best left-hander and third-best pitcher overall behind Walter Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander. His World Series record for consecutive scoreless innings once held by Christy Mathewson stood until 1961 when Whitey Ford broke it. He won an AL ERA title and still shares the AL single-season record for shutouts by a lefty. Then, at age 25, at the dawn of the lively ball era that he ushered in, he slugged 54 homers in 142 games. By the time he was 26, he was the game's all-time home run king with two 50-homer seasons, two 20-win seasons, four home run crowns and an ERA title under his belt.

Never has another man been a league-leading pitcher and league-leading slugger. Combined, he led the league in 78 pitching and batting categories. And until someone does come along and master pitching and slugging, the two most sought-after skills in the game, Babe Ruth will remain the greatest player who ever lived.

There has never been another man, because they will not let them, not because he was a much better athlete in the history of the game. Just look at Rick Ankiel of the St. Louis Cardinals. Now I would never compare the accomplishments of Ruth to Ankiel, but I am sure if given a chance there are many players that can hit and pitch, but they are often want people to focus on one or the other. And even if you can hit, people want certain kind of players for specific position.

And my ultimate point is there was an explosion of 500 Home Run hitters and let the "experts" tell it, that only happen because of drugs. Not that athletes in all sports lift more weights, train at an earlier age, played organized ball at earlier age, play more games long before they get to the pros and these "experts" want you to believe he could not be surpassed. Oh, I almost forgot, Babe Ruth did not play against Blacks or Latinos either, which some historians have shown that many of those players were better than the average player of that time. And even if they were not as good, we have no way of knowing for sure what many of those players would have done before 1947.

I honestly do not know what is so special about what the "experts" have to say other than Burns or some fantasy of what used to be.

Peace

my .02
 

I think you are correct to a great degree. He makes films........and in both I found them enjoyable if only for the photographs, and letters etc........content accuracy is, as it was back then,.......a subject of debate

Get over a lot of your preconceptions.

And your reasoning why there hasn't been such a scenario is flawed at best. There hasn't been another one, because there has not been anyone capable. If there was a 20-game winner hitting bombs all the time in batting practice, you had better bet that they would get him in the lineup.

And I never said that Babe Ruth was the greatest athlete in baseball history. I said he was the greatest PLAYER in baseball history. He was not always the overweight guy you brand him as being, there just aren't as many films around of the 1920s, when he was playing at 215 to 225. The pictures and films that you use to paint your impressions are from near the end of his career when he got as high as 255. One famous set of pictures of him blowing out all over is from a hitting exhibition from the early 40s when he was retired for six years.

Your last argument about not having to play against blacks or Latins is specious as hell and it is becoming tired. I want to ask you to name all of the black pitching stars from the Negro Leagues that would have been active during the 1920s and early 30s when Ruth was active. Satchel Paige was still young, by the way and would only have faced him for a few years of Babe's prime. Just how many would Babe have had to face, and how many would have been on his own team? You make a statement and you should back it up.

In the 90s, I had an extended talk with both a former Negro League star and a premier Negro League historian, and they both said that had the color line been broken in 1920, there would have been eight or ten black pitchers at the most sprinkled throughout both leagues. You make a specious statement like that, you should have given it thought. Other than Satchel, there would have possibly been two other All-Star caliber black pitchers playing during Ruth's era and possibly one or two of them would have wound up in the NL. And a few of the others would have been relievers. And one of the standout starters would have probably been a Yankee. So Ruth would have possibly faced a standout black pitcher maybe once or twice a month, or a dozen times a year.

And you tell me just what difference that would have made.

You just throw that out there to discredit the game's greatest star/player/pioneer like it's a valid argument. In reality, it carries virtually no weight. You've heard it said, so you repeat it and of course, it's oft-repeated bunk. How many All-Star caliber black pitchers took over the game when the color barrier finally was broken? If you ever bothered to look it up, you would see a dearth of them. Satchel was too old and had a sore arm by then. In the 50s, Don Newcombe was a major standout for a while. In the 60s there was Bob Gibson and Fergie Jenkins along with Earl Wilson and Mudcat Grant, who had a flash of brilliance. And it took until the '60s for a Latin pitcher to dominate in Juan Marichal (the greatest pitcher I have ever seen).

So how is it that you think Babe Ruth's accomplishments would have been in any way changed by facing a good black pitcher no more than twice a month? Discredit him all you want and make these arguments based on how you think it is or was. I'll stick to how it really is or really was.

I'm sorry you don't respect people who have studied the game tirelessly and it is also unfortunate that you have such a low standard for the accuracy of a work that calls itself a recording of history.

Stop being so damn sensitive. :rolleyes:

It is a sport; it is not solving world peace. There are billions of people all over the world (and millions in this country) that could give a darn who was the best player in MLB history.

The thing about history it is always told by the people that write the story. Those stories always have a point of view and a slant to them. And you have said nothing here that suggests that Burns is any different than your so-called "experts."

Peace

I don't think there's any doubt among people who have studied the game that Babe Ruth was and will likely remain the greatest player of all time.

Perhaps some would argue that Ted Williams and Ty Cobb were better hitters, but many people forget that Ruth was a lifetime .342 hitter and is #1 all-time in lifetime OPS (even with Barry Bonds and the seasons of the intentional walk thrown in to skew those numbers). Not only that, he was 94-46 as a pitcher and had a career 2.28 ERA.

I don't think opening up baseball to African-American and Latino players would've changed much of those numbers, if at all.

I'm being sensitive??

No, I'm being informative, and debunking loosely based assertions. If you choose not to be informed, that's fine. Perhaps others appreciate the need to record baseball's history responsibly out of respect for the game's founders.

I happen to agree about the place of baseball in the world order, but I also respect the game tremendously and love it to a high degree.

And you should back up your elementary statement about Ruth's not facing blacks and Latins. It was a bold statement that you have not
A) backed up with any reasonable contentions or assertions,
or
B) backed away from due to its being a specious, unsupportable statement.

You made the statement and ignored my challenge to it. It does matter.