I guess I read that as them being talking heads who comment throughout the show, not talking the entire time. If he does narrate half of the thing with Simmons that would suck.
Of all the things going on at that exact moment I can't even believe that people noticed or cared about that.
I get the Clark, Fallon, and Simmons hate, but why so down on Leary? I thought he did all right on the 04 WS film.
I admit he's not quite as Obnoxious as Fallon or Clarke. He has better pipes than Simmons (who doesn't?). But he's still overexposed.
I thought this episode was terrific! I'm a big sap so I started tearing up about 1/2 way through and pretty much didn't stop until it was over, the filmmakers did a great job with this.
Right (and it was a great book, because it was made of very good columns from when he was a very good writer) - so why should we rehash that?
Not at all - I hate a lot of things (shitty logic, cancer in children, Jay Cutler's face), but I read Simmons every week and enjoy it most of the time. That doesn't mean he "deserves" to narrate this documentary any more than, say, Stephen King. Who also wrote a book.
That might have been my favorite of the "30 for 30" episodes I've seen so far. Great story, and it was put together really well too. I missed the very beginning, and was shocked to find out Fox was only 22 at the time, because he seemed wise beyond his years.
I'm with you almost all the way, but some actual expert talking heads are really helpful in a doc like this. For instance, you need to get across how much the Sox were favored based on their incredible play since early August and how startling it was for them to go down 0-3; you want to be able to get across the fact that Jon Lieber pitched the game of his life in game 2 -- a real fluke. You could do all this with contemporary clips but it would be much easier to have, say, Joe Posnanski or Tom Verducci explain it all (mostly as voice-overs accompanying clips after very brief establishing talking-head shots).
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, IIRC the Yankees were slight favs in the series and were also slight favs in games one. The Sox were slight favs (-120 IRRC) in game two and legit favs (-180 IIRC) in game three.
Really? Huh. In one of the documentaries that came out in that offseason, it was mentioned that the Sox were slight favorites for the series overall.
You know Joe, you might be right about that. There are about 100,000 beers in my brain between 2004 and now. It certainly was slight though, no matter who was favored. I can't seem to find those lines.......if some google master can find those it would be great.
Sox were slight faves for gamblers who of course would be influenced by the respective team mythologies. Big faves by expert analysts, IIRC, and the better the analyst, the more they liked the Sox.
I dug around looking for the odds for that series but couldn't find them listed. Bummer.
I know of 3 guys who were on vacation in Vegas after the sox's went down 0-3, on a lark they each put 100 bucks on the sox to win at 100-1. When I learned of the bet after game 5 I thought they were crazy.
Funny, Game 7 of the ALCS was my first high def experience as well (Stars in Hingham)
I couldn't tell you if it was high def or not, but sitting at the Riv in NYC watching that game was just surreal. I still have the scrap paper on my wall from that night; tracking DLowe's pitch count, how many outs were left and how I was feeling after every half inning. The scene as the game wound down was us - a cluster of Sox fans in a NY bar, Sox fans standing outside that could not get in - with us chanting "LET THEM IN" (fire codes be dammned!), a police ring around them and a crowd of curious/envious/pissed off/violent NY'ers on the outside of it all. Then of course the ride back to Jersey City on the PATH, with a car full of MFY fans coming back from the game in the quietest scene you can ever imagine. Resisted the urge to be a complete dickhead but there was no wiping the smirk off my face remembering back 12 months to the state I was in then vs now.
Hunt - you were at the Riv? I was there meeting two friends but I got there "late" (which that night meant about 5pm for an 8pm game), and it took me a solid hour to beg&plead my way in. About the 6th inning I ran out during a commercial break for a bottle of champagne at a liquor store down the street, brought it back, had one of the guys in the kitchen put it in the freezer, and then I look up and notice (A) Pedro was pitching, (B) the MFY had two more runs, and everyone around me started to yell obscenities and say I'd jinxed shit.
Yeah, got there at 4 and the bar was full so we sat upstairs in one of the few seats left. Just an amazing night in that place that between the booze and euphoria only hazy moments come through, but I've got some pictures from it that remind me. After that last out it was like one big, fully clothed, orgy; hugging, cheering and high fiving everyone around. Getting ushered out the back because the staff was worried about a riot out front was one thing I'll always remember and I was worried enough that I removed my Sox cap until clearing the general area.
I couldn't agree more with you.
Agreed. Short bursts were the way they could be made tolerable.
I actually made this point and while watching this.
I think one of the previews said they made a conscious decision to only show the Red Sox perspective.
I'd actually like to have heard from some Yankees. But between it being only an hour vs. 2 hours, and the distinct possibility that the Yankees you'd want to hear perspective from weren't willing to appear. Basically some combination of Sheffield, ARod, Gordon, and Rivera. Maybe Jeter, but Jeter's a pretty bland interview IMO...we'd have gotten cliches and that's it.
