Conference 7.286::sports_91

 I missed it last night because, ironically enough, I was at a ball
 game.    However, I did notice that HBO will be repeating this show
 throughout the month.   Definitely this weekend and then randomly
 scattered throughout July.
 
 I saw the reviews on it and I'm looking forward to it very much.
 
 Bob Hunt

    I missed it because I saw that 'Tango and Cash' was on at 8:00 and
    didn't look beyond that.  Pee me off!!!
    
    	--dan'l

Bob --

You will LOVE it.  Definitely grab a beer, put your feet up, make sure the
house is quiet, and just sit back and take it all in.

You know, one of the neat things is that the color movies made it all
come so ALIVE right there.  We've all seen Williams, DiMaggio, Ruth etc,
but mostly in b&w.  Seeing them in color is a unique experience.

The narration is great -- James Earl Jones, Jason Robards and Roy Scheider
do a lot of it...

I've GOT to tape it, without a doubt.

'Saw

 Just finished watching "When It Was A Game".    That's one of the
 unappreciated bonuses of owning a satellite dish.    HBO showed it at
 5:30pm EDT this afternoon so I caught the West coast feed at 8:30pm
 instead.
 
 Very nice piece.   Wonderful colors and lovely images.   The young
 DiMaggio and Williams, the aged Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, and Young, all
 the old parks and the old uniforms ... heaven.
 
 The business of baseball has never been better than it is today.  The
 game of baseball has had more than a few golden ages.   The time
 period this show illustrates was certainly golden.   Much more so
 than today in many ways.
 
 Crash Davis is right ... we should have a Constitutional amendment
 that bans astroturf and the designated hitter.
 
 One small warning to Bosox fans ...  If you truly reject the
 "Excellent Loss Theory" then skip this show.   It spends a nice
 little chunk of time exploring the glorious "almosts" of the 1940's
 Red Sox versus the triumphs of the hated Yankees.
 
 Bob Hunt

Bob --

You forgot to mention Cy Young.  It was a treat getting to see him too.

As to the excellent losses, I noticed that, but you have to admit that the
verbage the guy used in describing that was very good.  And the sox have
been doing it SO long (all my life and then some) that there is a certain
glory in it.  Almost like that Alamo, you know (big ;^))


It's on again on Saturday at 12:30pm EDT, and I'm gonna tape it for my
Dad to watch.....


'Saw

� You forgot to mention Cy Young.  It was a treat getting to see him too.
 
 It certainly is no big deal, 'Saw, but I *did* mention Cy Young.
 
� Very nice piece.   Wonderful colors and lovely images.   The young
� DiMaggio and Williams, the aged Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, and Young, all
� the old parks and the old uniforms ... heaven.
 
 Also, we saw the Waner brothers, Paul "Big Poison" and Lloyd "Little
 Poison".   Hank Greenberg, Pepper Martin, Tony "Push 'Em Up" Lazzeri,
 Carl Hubbell, Jimmie Foxx, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Dizzy
 Dean, Satchel Paige, and many many more.
 
 Also saw the young Willie Mays and a whip-thin youngster in Milwaukee
 named Hank Aaron.   And Ernie Banks in Wrigley.
 
 And I learned something new that astounded me ... for a very long
 time, the Phillies wore blue !!!    I never knew that !!!
 
 Bob Hunt 

DUH, let me wipe this egg off my face.

Right you are Bob, you did mention him.  I'm the kind of person who only
has one eye open before morning coffee, and since it was my left eye
this morning I missed it.


How many of those wonderful ball parks could you identify.  What I mean
is, what Parks were where and went with what teams?

Those were the days, with real grass, men in suits and ties, (the footage
of Bogart was GREAT) and those baggy wool uniforms.  (Well, we could
do away with the uniforms....)

Can't wait to see it again on Saturday....

'Saw

    The producer of 'When It Was A Game' was on Today this morning.  He
    said there is enough footage for a sequel and that they will start on
    it in the coming months.  It took them 16 months to produce this one.
    
    	--dan'l (who still hasn't seen it)

    The guy who did the PBS series on the Civil War (Ken Burns) is now
    working on one about Baseball.
    
    John
     

    Red Sox	Fenway Park		Cardinals	Sportman's Park
    Yankees	Yankee Stadium		Giants		Polo Grounds
    Browns	Sportman's park (?)	Dodgers		Ebbetts Field
    Senators	Griffith Stadium	Redlegs		Crosley Field
    Tigers	Briggs Stadium		Pirates		Forbes Field
    White Sox	Comiskey Park		Phillies	Shibe Park
    Athletics	Shibe Park (?)		Braves		Braves Field
    Indians	   ????			Cubs		Wrigley Field
    
    I know that the Indians played in a much smaller park for years and,
    even when Municipal Stadium was built, they only played there on
    weekends. I also believe that Shibe was renamed to Connie Mack.
    
    I think the Browns/Cardinals and Phillies/Athletics shared the same
    park.
    
    Bob - I haven't seen the show yet. I don't recall the Phillies having
    blue colors either. I do recall them being called the "Phitin' Phils".
    
    I remember the Cardinals having blue hats. Did the show cover the time
    when the Boston Braves officially changed their name to the Boston Bees
    in the late 30's?
    
    Rich
    

    Cleveland played in League Park for much of its early history. 
    Municipal Stadium (also known for a while as Lakefront Stadium, I
    believe) was built in the thirties.  It was first used as Rich said for
    weekend games and then after WW2, all Indians games were played there.
    
    A sad by-product of the tearing down of League Park is that a plaque in
    memory of Ray Chapman, killed during the 1920 pennant race by an errant
    pitch from Carl Mays, disappeared and has never been seen since.
    
    John

Gawd, I hope they put this show out in video stores - I don't get HBO.

Shibe and Connie Mack Stadium are (were) indeed the same place.  One thing I 
remember about Crosly Field was that they had a hill in the outfield instead of
a warning track.  Looked really funny to see the grass go all the way to the 
wall.

I also don't remeber the Phillies in blue.  I know the A's wore blue for many 
years while in Philly.  I'll hae to ask my dad (Philly born and raised).

=Bob=

    The last homeplate used at Forbes Field is encased in the floor of
    Forbes Quad, a U of Pitt building.  Left field wall still stands
    hundreds of feet away in a small park.  Considering the way it is
    angled from home plate, centerfield must have been HUGE!
    
    	--dan'l

    There was a very interesting article in yesterday's Hearld
    concerning "When It Was A Game". It's was kinda cynical, but raised
    some interesting points about how we tend to romaticize past era's when
    in fact the reality speaks of something different.
    
    Example :Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio are being potrayed as purists of
    a bygone era that were concerned more with the game rather than getting
    caught up in stats and selfish goals.
    
    Fact : DiMaggio and GM Dan Topping went through a bitter holdout war
    over JoeD's contract in his 2nd season. Topping managed to outlast Joe,
    and the fan's really layed into him when he got back ....
    
    Ted Williams was regarded by fans of the 40's as being selfish, stat
    oriented, and me first, team later.
    
    Sorta like Ricky Henderson ....
    
    Both men ahd incredible pride. It made them the players that they were,
    but they also would have been compensated accordingly. Each man knew
    his worth then, and fought to get it.
    
    [Aside : The author points out that neither man would have been the top
    mercinary of the past. Think of what "finanical genius and borderline
    psychotic" Ty Cobb would have accomplished in the free agent market
    today. 
    
    Forget player-manager. How about player-owner ? ]
    
    In any case the gist of the story is that the "nostalgics'" have an
    agenda, namely that today's game is some sort of corrupt aberration
    from the ole days ("When It was A Game" ? What does that imply ?).
    
    Puhlease ....
    
    Comments ?
    
    Dr D.A.

    re .13
    
    Yep. Forbes Field was 357 down the LF line, and something like 457 to
    dead center. Damn ! Kiner, Stargell, and Clemente must have been some
    baaaaad rascals to hit HR's out of Forbes with any consistency.
    
    Doc

    
    > The last homeplate used at Forbes Field is encased in the floor of
    > Forbes Quad, a U of Pitt building.  Left field wall still stands
    > hundreds of feet away in a small park.  Considering the way it is
    > angled from home plate, centerfield must have been HUGE!
    
    It certainly was, at least 450' straightaway, I believe.  The power 
    alleys made it worse.  If you look at the film of Maz' historic home 
    run, that ball wasn't far from dead left field and handily cleared 
    a 15-20 foot wall marked at 406 feet!  Most people remember the home
    run, but don't realize what a tremendous poke it was...
    
    For the most part, Doc's got it right.  These programs are feel-good
    productions made to let people wax nostalgic about the good ol' days, 
    the Golden Years, etc.  The fact is that the baseball might have been
    better (but I doubt it), the beer colder (but I doubt it), the players
    more handsome and humble (but I doubt it), and the tickets free (but I 
    doubt it), but compared to today the people who hold these memories 
    stayed away in droves.
    
    I hope to get to see the program because I'm very much interested in
    baseball's history and color films sound fantastic, but I don't doubt
    I'll have to stifle a chuckle at a cliche here or there...
    
    glenn
    

    Baseball fuels a lot of needs for nostalgia, especially with the
    salaries going out of sight, players charging for autographs and so
    forth.  Baseball lends itself to "feel-good" movies like Field of
    Dreams.  Going to a ball game is, for many people, a trip through a
    time machine because it's still very much the same game as it was 60-70
    years ago.  Major League Baseball shamelessly uses nostalgia and
    feel-goodness as a marketing tool.
    
    John

I don't know much about DiMaggio, but Williams reputation as being selfish
etc was largely due to the press he received.   From interviews I've heard
with people who knew him, and Ted himself, Williams was somewhat introspective
at times, and not at all the non-smiling bad ass the press made him out
to be.

The show is superb.  The narration, the baseball writings that are used,
and the color films show a different baseball era, when things weren't
high-tech like they are today.  No one said it was better, although a lot
of us think that, but is was a little more laid back.

There is ample statement in the show of how "rustic" things were, in terms
of train rides, exhibitions played in between regular games, the hot wool
uniforms etc etc etc...

The show captures the spirit of a time period when there were intense
baseball rivalries, more so than now.  The Dodgers, the Giants, and the
Yankess, all in New York.  The Yankees-Red Sox rivalry....

It's a very good show, I think.

'Saw

    There are many reasons why people get nostalgic about the "good old
    days" of baseball. 
    
    Think about it. Each park had it's very own character. The ivy in
    Wrigley, the jutting overhead in the Polo Grounds in LF, the rise in LF
    in Crosley Field, the short right field porch in Braves Field....
    
    Then, clubs travelled via train. Remember all the old movies and how
    everyone got on the romantic train for a trip. 
    
    There was barnstorming. Teams wove their way north after spring
    training stopping in small towns to take on the local pride.
    
    No TV - just radio. Lotta immagination. 
    
    Salaries worth something were reserved for the truly great players of
    the day. Today's minimum wage in MLB would cause some from the past to
    roll over.
    
    The NFL was not really big. The NBA was a twinkle in someone's eye. The
    NHL was only in 4 cities.
    
    But baseball was everywhere. The majors were in all the big towns east
    of the Mississippi. In the South and out west there were minor league
    teams in most cities sized 50,000 or more. Think of it. There were AAA,
    AA, A class teams but also B, C and D class teams. Six classes of minor
    league baseball.
    
    It was a national obsession. World Series results were almost as
    important to GI's in WWII as letters from wives. 
    
    I don't think it's wrong to glorify the old days. At the same time I
    don't think today's product should be belittled, either. The ball is
    still thrown. Men try to hit it and men try to ctach it. and men will
    continue to throw it and men will still run around a field in some form
    of knickers.
    
    So complex yet so sublime. A game to think about or lose your thoughts
    in. The greatest game in the world.
    
    Rich
     

Rich, you mentioned the ivy in Wrigley.  Check out this show and see the
wall BEFORE they planted the ivy!

    Can someone, anyone, tape the show for me?  I'd gladly pay postage.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Mark.

    
    "Shamelessly", John?  I wouldn't go that far.  I can't see that 
    there's a moral judgement to be made over the use of nostalgia, one 
    way or the other.
    
    I agree; I think baseball is the greatest game in the world.  I know
    it's far and away my favorite.  But from a historical perspective, I
    ask myself if baseball was so beautiful in all the ways we now see 
    it today, then why didn't more people go to the games *then* in a 
    heck of a lot of the cities that are being romanticized *now*?  That's 
    even accounting for population growth and the discretionary incomes of 
    the day...
    
    I do recognize some qualities of baseball today that are the same as
    those of the past but are no longer exclusive (and that's for the 
    worse): grass fields, outdoors, fairly simple surroundings.  None of 
    those qualities imply that older is better per se, though.  Baseball 
    in the new Comiskey Park is every bit as good as baseball in Wrigley 
    Field or Fenway Park, if not better (and I love Fenway).  The 
    difference is purely a nostalgic mental illusion, the same illusion 
    that those in the 50's held for the 30's, and those in 30's for the 
    10's, no doubt. 
    
    I love baseball for what it *is*, every bit as much and more than for 
    what it *was*...
    
    glenn
    

    OK, 'Saw, I haven't seen the show yet. How about the brick wall in
    Wrigley. Forbes had alot of ivy, didn't it?
    
    I've seen many pictures of Fenway, too, from the old days. The GEM
    razor blade sign taking up most of the Wall and right field before
    Yawkey installed the bull pens to abet left Ted Williams.
    
    Rich
    

Well, in the scenes from teh 1938 Cubs Yanks WS, there was NO ivy on 
the walls.  It was planted in 1939, I believe.
That film is also believed to be the earliest color film of a WS.

Fenway had all the adverstising on the left field wall...too much!


I think the thing that made the show was that it wasn't nostalgia as much as
it WAS a celebration of baseball, not the past, but of a great era
of baseball.  The show wouldn't have half the impact if baseball today
were significantly different....

'Saw

    Perhaps we ought to discuss why attendance at games back then weren't
    as high as they are today.
    
    My first cut at it is night games. Up unitl the late '40's early '50's,
    night games were not a way of life. How could people who worked for a
    living get to games except on weekends.?
    
    Then, when the lights came on at night in many parks, people used mass
    transit to get to the games. What happened to the poor guy who had to
    get up at 5:00 when a game got over at 12:00 and the subway/trolleys
    stopped running?
    
    I think the major reason attendance has soared is because we are a much
    more transportation concious society today. In addition, I think we
    demand our liesure time more than we used to. So, weekends are free for
    ballgames. Finally, many of us think nothing of taking in a night game
    and calling in sick the next day. Just 30 years ago, many MANY
    companies did not pay people for sick days.
    
    Rich
     

    FWIW,
    
    Lorin and Wally on this AM's show read an article that said
    if "The man of steel"- Lou Gehrig,  were playing today, by
    extrapolating his salary into today's dollars he'd make
    $7.8 million per year!
    
    Kev  

    Yeah, I saw that comment about Gehrig in yesterday's paper. They say
    Gehrig would be the highest paid player ever. Second? Walter Johnson.
    
    Rich
    

    
    By extrapolating his salary or his stats?  Must be the latter...
    
    glenn
    

    I heard it was from his stats, coupled with today's salaries for the
    same.  Like, his tremendous amount of RBI's over more than a few years,
    for one stat.
    
    Interesting.  Most people would think of Babe Ruth, as I did.
    
    Seems I remember the Phillies wearing blue.  Probably from baseball
    cards, as I know I never saw them play, and very little color was used
    in the old days for newsreels.  It was a more light than dark shade, if
    I recall correctly.
    
    I prefer the look of the old uniforms.  Today's style give the illusion
    of speed and grace, which is fine.  But the older style, baggy pants
    which bloused at the ankle, seemed to give the impression of more
    hustle.  They must have been pretty darn hot, though, and pretty
    weighty to wear on a hot and humid summer day.
    
    Interesting article on NL vs. AL in this week's SI.  Which league is
    superior, and why?  It deals with the length of games, playing surfaces
    and parks, active players who are HOF candidates, etc.  Fun to read.
    
    lEe
    

Also in SI, the article on Fergie Jenkins.  What a powerful insight into
the man.... 

'Saw

    Speaking of SI, great article about the trackmeet in Stockholm and
    how the "rabbits" failed but the real competitors really fought
    it out.
    
    Almost made me think that true, noble mano-a-mano races may someday
    happen again.
    
    Kev
    

    John Hendry:  many CONGRATS for inventing a new word, and using
    it as a noun:  feel-goodness!  (See .21)
    
    NAZZ

    Going back to a prior note, about night games and private
    transportation making a big difference in attendance at ball games....
    
    I don't buy it.  In 1971, at Wrigley, with the Cubs mired in their
    perenially poor position, all day games -- every home game was sold out
    or close to it.  (Or it felt that way to me, ushering in the stands.) 
    Very few folks get to Wrigley with private transport, you take the 'L'
    -- even those of us working the games.  The CTA puts on special trains
    for the games.
    
    Business men show up in their suits and ties, headed for the box seats
    and usually with a sales rep at their elbow.  The Chicago Board of
    Trade and several large financial markets have been known to have over
    half their brokers not on the floor on game day afternoons.  Other seats 
    are handed out as awards for employees who've done a good job of some sort. 
    College and high school kids show up in packs out in the bleachers. 
    Some folks have come in from Iowa, or Indiana, or Nebraska (no, I'm not
    kidding) for their vacation, and they've scheduled their vacation
    around the game.  Some companies have a day at the game instead of  a
    company picnic, and they put everybody in a bus and come.  June, July,
    and August were an absolutely wonderful amalgam of folks out to relax,
    kick back, and enjoy a day in the sunshine.  And it started on the
    train platform at 9:00 in the morning and didn't end until you
    straggled home sometime close to supper.
    
    Lower attendance may have more to do with ticket costs as an average
    number of hours worked.  Or availability of leisure time (vacations
    weren't as readily available in the 20's and 30's either).  Or size of
    the parks.  And I may be all wrong.
    
    But baseball in the summer sun on a week day is a treat not to be
    missed if it can be found.
    
    A&W
    

    	The S.I. article on the NL/AL debate could've been ghostwritten
    by T and Schneid.
    
    				/Don

    
    I thought the AL guy was taking a beating!
    
    glenn