100 Years of the New York Yankees (1 Viewer)

[Richard Sharpe]

Here's a title to polarize opinion! Watching the YES Network last night, I noticed a plug for a 2 disc set of their six part documentary, due Sept 16.

Can't find details of any special features, although buy.com have posted the artwork here.

Richard

 

[GlennH]

I'd buy it, if it focuses at least 20 minutes on the greatest World Series of them all, 1960.

But somehow, I don't think it will.



(A long-suffering Pirates fan)

 

[Mike Frezon]

Can't let this pass......

(A long-suffering Pirates fan)

I just don't think long-suffering and Pirate fan go together, Glenn. Just my opinion.

Mike Frezon
(long suffering Red Sox fan)

P.S. Damn Yankees!

P.P.S. In a lame attempt to keep this on-topic, I will admit that I've seen some of the YES network's documentary programming and find most of it to be well done. But you are right, I doubt there would be little, if ANY, mention of 1960.

 

[GlennH]

True Mike, Red Sox fans have suffered longer for sure. But I like your chances in the near term better than the Pirates. Unless you really believe in that curse.

As far as baseball-themed documentaries on DVD, I'd say I like them, but the reality is that I've still never sat down and watched all of the Ken Burns Baseball 10-disc set I bought awhile ago. Just never have the time/too many other things to watch.

 

[Daniel Kikin]

There's also the New York Yankees 100th Anniversary Collection of 6 World Series DVDs at shop.mlb.com. It's a box set with 1977, 78, 96, 98, 99, and 2000 World Series videos. It's expensive, especially after taxes and shipping, and the content is the same as the VHS tapes, but the set is must for any Yankees and DVD fan.

 

[Ralph Summa]

Jeez Richard. [HEAVY SARCASM] Thanks a million![/HEAVY SARCASM]

Why don't you also post a link to the "Curse of the Bambino" HBO special!

Nothing like keep a Sox fan down!

All kidding aside, it's tough for me to shy away from anything baseball. Even if it's about the Yankees that I despise so much. You also gave me a great gift idea for my brother.

Ralph

 

[Richard Sharpe]

it's tough for me to shy away from anything baseball

I hear ya, Ralph!

I'm holding out big hopes for this set, after seeing the quality of some of the 'Yankeeography' programming on YES. It'll sit alongside Ken Burns and When It Was A Game Triple Play!

I must confess that I'm also looking forward to 'Bambino' -although for more honourable reasons than you may think. HBO usually do a pretty fine job of this sort of thing (61* was fantastic) and I imagine they'll treat the subject with respect whilst bringing out some of the self-effacing humour of Red Sox fans. As an Englishman (1966 and all that) I know the other side of sport only too well!

Richard

 

[Eric Paddon]

If HBO is making a Babe Ruth movie, let us hope they do a better job then two of the three previous Ruth bio-pics. The John Goodman one stunk to high heaven, as did the infamous William Bendix one. The 1991 Stephen Lang TV-movie though was decent (with John Anderson reprising his "Eight Men Out" role as Judge Landis) and I'd like to see that get a DVD release (we could have done without Pete Rose's cameo as Ty Cobb though)

 

[John Alderson]

Nothing like a discussion about the Yankees to bring the Red Sox fans out of the woodwork

This is the year! I can feel it! If the Patriots can win a Super Bowl, the Sox can sure as hell win a World Series.


"They screwed my grandfather,
they screwed my father,
and now they're screwing ME."
-Anonymous Red Sox Fan


Still, I might have to check out this DVD some time, just to deepen my angst. I am a sucker for baseball history anyway.

 

[Eric Paddon]

Yankee fans will always have the last laugh no matter what Boston does this season. 26 championships in the last 80 years is infinitely preferable to 1, even if Boston by a miracle were able to win this year.

What I would like to see just once is a documentary surrounding the sale of Ruth to the Yankees that gets the story right for a change. There has been far too much disinformation put out from Boston over the years telling a false story of how this came about and only in Glenn Stout's must-read "Red Sox Century" did the truth finally resurface.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Together on my shelf are:

Baseball: Ken Burns
The Life & Times of Hank Greenburg
Boston Red Sox: 100 Years of Baseball History 1901-2001

Along with all the obligatory baseball movies, of course.

As far as baseball-themed documentaries on DVD, I'd say I like them, but the reality is that I've still never sat down and watched all of the Ken Burns Baseball 10-disc set I bought awhile ago. Just never have the time/too many other things to watch.

That's what the off-season is for, Glenn! Too much baseball to watch from April to October. When November hits, crank up John Chancellor and co.!

 

[Galen_V]

HBO is making a Babe Ruth movie

It's actually a documentary about the curse. I only know this because someone I know was interviewed for the special.

 

[Eric Paddon]

Ah yes, I recall reading about that documentary. From the description of a narrow group of Red Sox fans saying expletives about the Yankees it struck me as just another excuse for the narcissistic Red Sox fan (which I hope is not indicative of all of them in general) to rehash all the old cliches about why they've been losers since 1918 and to avoid addressing the real reasons: They don't perform well in the clutch when they get to the big games, and when they don't get to the big games it's only because they've had consistently incompetent ownership from Tom Yawkey onward.

Only a Red Sox fan with a strange sense of perspective can call Bucky Dent's homer a "cheap homer" when it was typical of every home run that ever sailed over their beloved Green Monster, and then make Bill Lee a hero even though he choked big time in Boston's best chance since 1918 to win a Game 7 by throwing an eephus pitch to Tony Perez, yet never giving poor Bill Buckner a moment's peace for 1986.

Until we get a documentary that finally lets Harry Frazee off the hook (his selling of Ruth was not condemned at the time because Ruth had worn out his welcome in Boston for his selfish conduct in the 1919 season when he refused to pitch, nor did he sell him to bankroll Broadway plays that were years away from being produced. He needed the money to help strengthen his ability to keep the Red Sox in Boston during a power struggle with Major League Baseball's chief executive Ban Johnson), I'm not tuning in to this one.

 

[Ralph Summa]

Yankee fans will always have the last laugh no matter what Boston does this season. 26 championships in the last 80 years is infinitely preferable to 1,

I beg to differ. I don't particularly care what happened before I became a fan as a six year-old in '75. My pain has been inflicted by the Yankees in the last 28 years. In this world of "What have you done for me lately" one Red Sox championship will be immeasurable in both camps. Yankee championships are expected and anything less than a championship is considered failure in their camp. I think Torre and Cashman are solely responsible for putting together (with Steinbrenner's money of course) and babysitting the great Yankee teams of the last 10 years, yet their heads are constantly on the chopping block. If the Sox pulled it out, it would be too much to take. The Boss' axe would undoubtedly fall.

When the D-Backs beat the Yankees in the Series a few years back, sadly as a Sox fan, it was the happiest moment I have ever had at the end of a World Series game. If someday it's the Sox winning that deciding game, I will say "Buckner who?" and "Bucky who?" and "Curse of who?"


P.S. I started a thread in the TV HD Programming forum on the Curse of the Bambino HBO special. It premiers tomorrow night, September 16 at 10:00 pm.

Ralph

 

[Eric Paddon]

"My pain has been inflicted by the Yankees in the last 28 years."

This in a nutshell is why I have little respect for the Boston fan of the kind profiled in this documentary. Instead of focusing on what's wrong with your own team, there's this silly obsession over how unfair it is for a team that knows how to put things together and come out on top. Boston's failure to win is exclusively Boston's problem, not because of anything the Yankees have done.

"Yankee championships are expected and anything less than a championship is considered failure in their camp. I think Torre and Cashman are solely responsible for putting together (with Steinbrenner's money of course) and babysitting the great Yankee teams of the last 10 years, yet their heads are constantly on the chopping block."

Nonsense! Torre is now in his eighth year as manager, and has in that time outlasted *four* Boston managers. Seems to me that the chopping block has been in the team which has had reason for its managers to be on the chopping block. And Steinbrenner also deserves credit for some of the personnel moves that contributed to the championships as well. One thing about George is that he's done a lot more as an owner for his team then *any* Boston owner has ever done for the Red Sox, especially Tom Yawkey who is by far the most undeserving member of baseball's Hall of Fame.

"If the Sox pulled it out, it would be too much to take. The Boss' axe would undoubtedly fall."

Not with Torre or Cashman. With the coaching staff maybe, but that's not atypical of the Yankees.

"When the D-Backs beat the Yankees in the Series a few years back, sadly as a Sox fan, it was the happiest moment I have ever had at the end of a World Series game."

At least we Yankee fans don't hide behind excuses for whenever we fail, which is not what I can say of Boston fans alas with their failures.

"If someday it's the Sox winning that deciding game, I will say "Buckner who?" and "Bucky who?" and "Curse of who?""

The self-pity mentality of the Boston fanbase and their general refusal to look closely at their own institutional history is why those names get mentioned in the first place. If they win, they will simply become the equivalent of the Philadelphia Phillies. A team that has one championship to show in almost a century, and whose history will always pale before those teams that have enjoyed more success (Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, A's) and deservedly so for making it happen on the playing field.

As a fan of the New York Rangers in hockey, who had to suffer a 1940 "curse" for 54 years before winning the Cup, I can already speak from experience that even winning that one Cup does not and will not change the long-term picture of team history in general. Ranger fans have never presumed to think that winning once somehow means their one Cup is more meaningful then all the multiples won by the Canadiens in terms of franchise history evaluation. The legacy of mismanagement remains there, and the Cup only is one shining moment of glory along the way. So would it also be true of Boston winning one championship and nothing else.

At any rate though, given the present trend, Boston's chances of winning 11 games in postseason to win a championship strike me as very unlikely given their bullpen and the lack of starting pitching depth.

 

[GlennH]

The Yankees have a great history to be sure, and I respect what they have accomplished. Still, at least in recent years their accomplishments are diminished and tarnished in my mind by the completely farcical economic situation of MLB. Could you ever imagine creating a league from scratch and getting a bunch of owners to agree to allow one of the teams to have triple the money to work with?

The Yankees have such a huge economic advantage, both in terms of payroll and $$ they can put into the entire organization to sign and develop. If a big-dollar player doesn't pan out, no big deal, just sign another or trade for one that some other team can't afford to keep. Money is no object. They certainly would not dominate if MLB had an NFL-type system with a salary cap, just as the Jets or Giants don't in the NFL. Overall, the game would be much healthier, as fans everywhere could have hope. Don't even talk to me about the joke revenue sharing plan that currently exists.

Now, I realize money isn't everything, as witnessed by the abysmal failures of other high-dollar teams like the Orioles or Mets. So you have to credit the Yankees for doing something positive with the huge advantage they have. Still, one would think that they should have won even more than they have.

I blame the rest of the smaller-market owners, including the Bucs' own Kevin McClatchy who sat on the "blue ribbon" panel that did nothing, for allowing this system to persist. They gave in too easily last time around when they should have forced fundamental changes instead of going along with the big-market owners. I would gladly let MLB shut down for a year if it meant a radical change to an NFL-like system thereafter.

So while the Yankees are impressive, I am much more impressed by the small market teams (A's, Twins, etc.) who rise above these problems to do well and even win division championships, even though they can never hope to sustain it for long as they have to trade away or lose their young players to free agency.

 

[Ralph Summa]

Eric, a couple trips to Starbucks today?

The legacy of mismanagement remains there, and the Cup only is one shining moment of glory along the way. So would it also be true of Boston winning one championship and nothing else.

On behalf of Sox fans everywhere, thanks for accepting the office of our chief spokesperson.

I hope that this special is going to be about personal experiences. I hope it will be about how people felt when Pesky held the ball, and when Bucky Dent's home run reached the net and how they felt when the ball went through Buckner's legs etc. Of course they'll start out with "No No Nannette" and the Bambino trade, but hopefully it will be more than just about performance (or lack thereof) and a century of mismanagement from owner to manager. The Red Sox are more than that and we believe it wholeheartedly, which is why the official Red Sox magazine is called "Die Hard"


Ralph

 

[Eric Paddon]

"Still, at least in recent years their accomplishments are diminished and tarnished in my mind by the completely farcical economic situation of MLB."

Glenn, that is with all due respect, rubbish. I never hear this argument used to run-down the even more farcical situation in the NBA when there has been *no* competitive balance whatsoever in the last decade with first the Michael Jordan Bulls dynasty and then the LA Lakers dynasty. The Yankees won their championships fair and square because of their talent, not their bankroll, which in three of the four years they won championships was not even the highest one in major league baseball. And there is far more competition in baseball for teams to have legit shots at winning championships then you will ever find in the NBA.

"So while the Yankees are impressive, I am much more impressed by the small market teams (A's, Twins, etc.) who rise above these problems to do well and even win division championships, even though they can never hope to sustain it for long as they have to trade away or lose their young players to free agency."

Is Atlanta a "big market" city? No. Was Cleveland "big market" when they dominated the AL Central for a seven years stretch? No. This to me gets back to how the Yankees are IMO unfairly singled out for their success and are somehow supposed to feel guilty for that, when in fact the problem with these loser teams in "small markets" are hindered more by cheapskate ownership then anything else.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"You're Right, as Sox fans we think every move made by Yawkee, Sullivan and Duquette was logical. We believe that it is the curse that keeps them from winning the World Series."

I hate to say this, but the Red Sox are the only team I keep seeing the "what if" game indulged in for too often to justify their failures and tie it to fate, whether it's Game 3 of the 75 WS or Aparicio tripping over the bag in the last game of 72, or Dent's homer (Bucky Dent is apparently in the eyes of many Red Sox fans the only person to ever hit a "cheap homer" over the Green Monster), or Buckner being in for defense etc. The simple fact is that they got outplayed in those big game situations and no amount of trying to change the subject with that tiresome "Yankees s---" is ever going to change that.

"That's my point. Torre and Cashman are probably the best current Manager/GM team in pro sports, and have been for nearly a decade, yet they get more crap about their on the job performance than anyone."

Again, that's nonsense. Sure, the Boss has been a bit more vocal of late but comparatively speaking what's gone on in the ranks of Yankee management the last decade has been quiet compared to the turmoil of the Mets, the Dodgers and yes, even Boston since I remember what a farce things
became with Duquette, Kerrigan etc. a couple years ago.

"Ever read the New York Post?"

I don't get the point. Yankee fans accept what happened in Game 7 of 2001 by acknowledging that Mariano didn't have his best that day and that enabled the better team to win.

"That's one of the silliest statements I have ever heard."

How so? The bottom line for any franchise is it's ability to produce a winning team and sustain excellence from one generation to the next. Boston has done a reasonably good job of being competitive consistently since 1986 but they have also been done in by bad management decisions that hurt their chances to succeed and at least punctuate each generation with a championship or two like the Dodgers, A's, Cardinals have been able to do over the last few decades.

"The number of championships does not determine your place in sports history."

It seems that only in baseball as part of the effort to run down the success of the Yankees does this philosophy seem to gain any traction. Try applying that to any other professional sport, and you see a different picture where results count as the bottom line, as they should. The Cubs have produced great players too over their many decades of being laughable losers like Ernie Banks etc. but that doesn't change the fact that their history too is one of incompetent franchise management and not a success from the long-term perspective of what the bottom line is and should be.

"Tell me the A's and Cardinals franchises are revered more highly than the Red Sox."

Well I can say with certainty that Connie Mack and the Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane A's of Philadelphia are arguably the greatest individual team of all time, the equals of the 27 Yankees and sustained excellence into multiple championships, and then there's the A's dynasty of Oakland that gave several HOFers in Reggie, Catfish and Rollie and the late 80s A's that were among the best and always seemed to have Boston's number in the LCS. As for the Cardinals, there's Stan the Man, Dizzy Dean, Lou Brock, Bob Gibson etc. and interestingly enough all of these gents with the A's and Cardinals can lay claim to having won one or more championships since 1918, which to me ultimately indicates franchises with a better history to celebrate. I would also add the Dodgers to that mix of teams second only to the Yankees in terms of a successfully run franchise sustaining excellence from one generation to the next.


"If the Red Sox win a World Series, I doubt that I will say "DAMN! If Buckner fielded that ground ball this would be their second World Series win!" No, I will say "F-ing A" Finally!....They'll probably finish 20 out next year !"

No, I wouldn't presume you to say that. If it happens, enjoy it, but also learn to enjoy it in perspective, which is all I would argue and which is all that I have ever done (I never assume that a great ride lasts forever for any team, not even my Yankees, which in that respect I will admit makes me different from the Boss). If I so much as hear a single Red Sox fan use the occasion of their victory parade to engage in that tacky chant "Yankees s---" as their chief mantra then I will find myself vindicated as to my opinion of the Red Sox fan in general.

 

[GlennH]

Is Atlanta a "big market" city? No. Was Cleveland "big market" when they dominated the AL Central for a seven years stretch? No. This to me gets back to how the Yankees are IMO unfairly singled out for their success and are somehow supposed to feel guilty for that, when in fact the problem with these loser teams in "small markets" are hindered more by cheapskate ownership then anything else.

Let's take these one at a time.

1. Yes, Atlanta has been and is a "big market" in MLB because they can and have spent a lot more money than the majority of MLB teams can. It's not all about population and market size, although Atlanta isn't exactly a small town. Thank the SuperStation and Ted's millions. Just like in NY, the biggest disparity is the local TV money. It's absolutely ridiculous that this revenue isn't shared equitably. The small market teams should refuse to allow games from their parks to be broadcast back to NY or whereever without an equal share of that money. Atlanta had the tremendous good fortune to acquire and be able to maintain and afford to keep top talent, especially their pitching over the years with Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, etc.

2. Cleveland. They were very shrewd and had the good fortune to bring along and sign to long-term deals a bunch of very good young talent simulaneously at just the right time when opening their new park. Jacobs Field and a young talented team, along with a good-sized population area to draw from made for a long string of sellouts and gave them the financial means to maintain a high level for a number of years. But that door has closed in recent times. Now they don't sell out. They may get good again but I would be surprised if they ever again have such a string of success.

3. Nobody said the Yankees are supposed to feel guilty. They're playing by the rules as they exist and any other team would probably do the same. But that doesn't make the system fair or right. It would be better for the sport as a whole if one or just a few teams didn't have such financial advantages. The NFL is eating MLB's lunch and their success is not just because more people like football better than baseball -- it's also largely because NFL fans (except maybe in Cincinnati ) feel that their team has just as good a chance as the others if they get good management and players. All teams have cap issues to manage and thus players get cut and move around, but you don't end up with the Steelers constantly having to let their better players go to be signed by the Jets. And the league flourishes. The NFL is also different in that there is no minor league organization. Everybody has the same crack at the NCAA talent pool in a fair way. In baseball more money means a deeper minor league system from which to draw and better scouting. Some small market teams have avoided choosing the best players available in the baseball draft because they're wary of being able to sign them and what they'll have to pay for unproven talent. Mostly, more money means you can buy your way out of mistakes and never miss a beat.

4. Cheapskate small-market owners. I'll agree they do exist. But you're dreaming if you think that's the problem "more than anything else." Where do you propose these owners get the money to pay what the Yankees can without the revenue streams? Even the most creative and committed small-market owners/GMs cannot hope to be able to truly compete consistently. They hope to develop some young talent and win with them before they reach arbitration/free agency and the team has to be broken up and start a rebuilding phase.

So keep living in your Yankee paradise and enjoy their success Eric. I'd probably do the same if I were a New Yorker or bandwagon fan from somewhere else. But those of us in the real world know the truth and cannot give your team the love you think they deserve, because the deck is stacked.

When our teams do finally break through and succeed it is all the sweeter. We cherish our few championships and the memories just as much you enjoy your many. Those of us who haven't given up on the sport entirely, that is.

(I guess we've strayed pretty far from Software, haven't we?)