PDA

View Full Version : The Former Mayor of NYC



thefeckcampaign
05-16-2009, 05:30 PM
For those of you who saw Ken Burn's Baseball you may have seen the segment where the former mayor of NYC Mario Cuomo speaks of his brief minor league career. Well I had no idea how brief it was, but never the less here are his stats. I thought you all might find it interesting. :)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=cuomo-001mar

EdTarbusz
05-16-2009, 06:32 PM
Cuomo was never the Mayor of New York City. He did serve as Governor orf New York.

I thought his inclusion in Baseball bordered on the ridiculous.

thefeckcampaign
05-16-2009, 06:35 PM
Oops...you're right. Governor, sorry.

Victory Faust
05-16-2009, 07:29 PM
Cuomo was never the Mayor of New York City. He did serve as Governor orf New York.

I thought his inclusion in Baseball bordered on the ridiculous.


I disagree. It didn't border on the ridiculous -- it was completely ridiculous. It was another example of Ken Burns's blatant political bias.

In his series, there was no mention of Jim Bunning -- a politician who actually starred in the big leagues.

Of course, the fact that Cuomo is a Democrat and Bunning is a Republican has no bearing whatsoever.

As someone pointed out in another thread, Burns spent more time on Cuomo's minor league career than he did on Stan Musial's career.

I wish someone would come along and do a REAL documentary about the history of baseball, without all the PBS/liberal bias.

thefeckcampaign
05-16-2009, 07:55 PM
I disagree. It didn't border on the ridiculous -- it was completely ridiculous. It was another example of Ken Burns's blatant political bias.

In his series, there was no mention of Jim Bunning -- a politician who actually starred in the big leagues.

Of course, the fact that Cuomo is a Democrat and Bunning is a Republican has no bearing whatsoever.

As someone pointed out in another thread, Burns spent more time on Cuomo's minor league career than he did on Stan Musial's career.

I wish someone would come along and do a REAL documentary about the history of baseball, without all the PBS/liberal bias.

I wasn't bringing this up to debate Burns' doc, especially his motive. I think anyone's assumption of Burns' political angle whether correct or not seems to take away from their point regardless. It just appears they have a political angle themselves and are frustrated it wasn't their angle that it was viewed from.

That said, I thought the doc was called BASEBALL, not MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. It is about all sorts of people playing the game. Obviously I found Cuomo's story interesting and something I may have never known if Burns had never told me. It also made me look up a local kid who I knew had strictly a minor league career as well as a friend's dad who had the same.

----

PS I was upset he didn't mention Mike Schmidt and my whole era was rushed through for that matter but what I am going to do? I am sure there are plenty of things I could find fault in the doc that was missed but if I noticed it missing, it simply means I know it exist and can look it up elsewhere.

EdTarbusz
05-16-2009, 08:00 PM
I wasn't bringing this up to debate Burns' doc, especially his motive. I think anyone's assumption of Burns' political angle whether correct or not seems to take away from their point regardless. It just appears they have a political angle themselves and are frustrated it wasn't their angle that it was viewed from.

.

I don't agree with this. I thought that Baseball was a lousy documentary, and my political leanings are very similar to Mario Cuomo's. I thought that talking heads like Mario Cuomo, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Daniel Okrent, Stephen Jay Gould, George Will and Buck O'Neil were equally lousy.

thefeckcampaign
05-16-2009, 08:15 PM
I don't agree with this. I thought that Baseball was a lousy documentary, and my political leanings are very similar to Mario Cuomo's. I thought that talking heads like Mario Cuomo, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Daniel Okrent, Stephen Jay Gould, George Will and Buck O'Neil were equally lousy.What do you want? More players? The only thing I can see missing off the top of my head interview wise were umpires & agents.

Victory Faust
05-16-2009, 08:26 PM
I wasn't bringing this up to debate Burns' doc, especially his motive. I think anyone's assumption of Burns' political angle whether correct or not seems to take away from their point regardless. It just appears they have a political angle themselves and are frustrated it wasn't their angle that it was viewed from.



No, I only have one angle: I'm a baseball history nut, and to spend more time on Mario Cuomo's brief minor league career than Stan Musial was absolutely ridiculous.

No political angle here whatsoever. I just think they could've cut out one or two of Doris Goodwin's mushy remembrances about the Brooklyn Dodgers/Red Sox, and included, say, the story of the 10-run inning by the Philadelphia A's in Game 4 of the '29 Series. Or the story of Jimmy Piersall. Or Ed Delahanty. Or Marty Bergen. Or any number of interesting stories.

EdTarbusz
05-16-2009, 08:36 PM
What do you want? .


I would have liked to seen people with better insight into the history of the sport, people like Charles Alexander, William Marshall and Dorothy Jane Mills.

SteveJRogers
05-16-2009, 08:54 PM
I disagree. It didn't border on the ridiculous -- it was completely ridiculous. It was another example of Ken Burns's blatant political bias.

In his series, there was no mention of Jim Bunning -- a politician who actually starred in the big leagues.

Of course, the fact that Cuomo is a Democrat and Bunning is a Republican has no bearing whatsoever.

As someone pointed out in another thread, Burns spent more time on Cuomo's minor league career than he did on Stan Musial's career.

I wish someone would come along and do a REAL documentary about the history of baseball, without all the PBS/liberal bias.

To be fair, Cuomo was very much in the public limelight for most of his political life. Granted he has been in the spotlight recently, but how many people outside of baseball fans and his state know that Bunning is a siting US Senator?

Yes Senators do generate national publicity, but generally its only when Presidential and VP aspirations are thrown around.

EdTarbusz
05-16-2009, 08:57 PM
To be fair, Cuomo was very much in the public limelight for most of his political life. Granted he has been in the spotlight recently, but how many people outside of baseball fans and his state know that Bunning is a siting US Senator?

Yes Senators do generate national publicity, but generally its only when Presidential and VP aspirations are thrown around.

At the time the documentary was being made (c. 1993) Bunnig had not yet been elected to the Senate, but he was a member of the House of Represenatives.

Victory Faust
05-17-2009, 08:00 AM
To be fair, Cuomo was very much in the public limelight for most of his political life. Granted he has been in the spotlight recently, but how many people outside of baseball fans and his state know that Bunning is a siting US Senator?

Yes Senators do generate national publicity, but generally its only when Presidential and VP aspirations are thrown around.


Okay, then why didn't they interview George Bush, who was Yale's first baseman?

My point is: A documentary about the history of baseball should not spent more time on ANY politician's minor league (or college) career than an all-time great like Stan Musial -- and any documentary that did so is hugely flawed.

Calif_Eagle
05-17-2009, 11:26 AM
For those of you who saw Ken Burn's Baseball you may have seen the segment where the former mayor of NYC Mario Cuomo speaks of his brief minor league career. Well I had no idea how brief it was, but never the less here are his stats. I thought you all might find it interesting. :)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=cuomo-001mar

Thanx for the link... I did find it interesting... he faced the Cordele club in his league that year, a *team* that hit exactly 1 HR all season! And *THE* HR was hit against Brunswick, so Cuomo probably saw it. Here's a link to that punchless GA-FL League club that I will share...

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070109&content_id=151006&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp

Honus Wagner Rules
05-17-2009, 11:55 AM
Okay, then why didn't they interview George Bush, who was Yale's first baseman?
That's a good point. And Bush actually met Babe Ruth so Burns could had a Babe Ruth angle.

sturg1dj
05-17-2009, 12:43 PM
I disagree. It didn't border on the ridiculous -- it was completely ridiculous. It was another example of Ken Burns's blatant political bias.

In his series, there was no mention of Jim Bunning -- a politician who actually starred in the big leagues.

Of course, the fact that Cuomo is a Democrat and Bunning is a Republican has no bearing whatsoever.

As someone pointed out in another thread, Burns spent more time on Cuomo's minor league career than he did on Stan Musial's career.

I wish someone would come along and do a REAL documentary about the history of baseball, without all the PBS/liberal bias.


there were so many things missing I doubt that the political party had much to do with it. I think it had much more to do with the New York bias in the whole thing. You would imagine if Burns did the whole thing with a Dem bias there would be more union stuff which would have including Bunning who was a major part of the players' union along with a long section on Marvin Miller.


I like the conspiracy theory over why it was the way that it was but the Dem bias does not explain the absence of Mike Schmidt the heavy emphasis of drug use in the 80's and all the other things that were missing. I mean he went in depth to talk about the effect the war had on the game, and the 60's and civil rights but left out Hank Greenberg coming back from serving to lead the Tigers to the series and the '68 Tigers winning the pennant and world series while the city is burning from race riots.

ol' aches and pains
05-17-2009, 01:11 PM
Jeez, the thing was about 16 hours long as it was, and most of it was a snooze. I agree we could have done without Cuomo, Goodwin, Will, and Daniel Okrent for that matter. But there's never going to be a comprehensive baseball documentary that touches on everybody's favoite player. I thought some of the old film clips were fascinating, there should have been more of that, and fewer talking heads.

Victory Faust
05-17-2009, 02:20 PM
Jeez, the thing was about 16 hours long as it was, and most of it was a snooze. I agree we could have done without Cuomo, Goodwin, Will, and Daniel Okrent for that matter. But there's never going to be a comprehensive baseball documentary that touches on everybody's favoite player. I thought some of the old film clips were fascinating, there should have been more of that, and fewer talking heads.


Norm Cash was my favorite player, but I'm not lamenting his exclusion.

However, when a player like Musial only warrants a parenthetical mention, we're talking about a hugely flawed documentary.

I agree: Less talking heads. Or, at least, I could've done with less talking heads waxing poetic with the mushy stuff. Sure, a little of that should've been in there -- baseball is, after all, a mushy sport.

But those talking heads could have discussed a lot more interesting stories that were omitted.

Victory Faust
05-17-2009, 02:28 PM
there were so many things missing I doubt that the political party had much to do with it. I think it had much more to do with the New York bias in the whole thing. You would imagine if Burns did the whole thing with a Dem bias there would be more union stuff which would have including Bunning who was a major part of the players' union along with a long section on Marvin Miller.


I like the conspiracy theory over why it was the way that it was but the Dem bias does not explain the absence of Mike Schmidt the heavy emphasis of drug use in the 80's and all the other things that were missing. I mean he went in depth to talk about the effect the war had on the game, and the 60's and civil rights but left out Hank Greenberg coming back from serving to lead the Tigers to the series and the '68 Tigers winning the pennant and world series while the city is burning from race riots.




As a fellow Tiger fan, I also was a bit perturbed that the '68 comeback got NO mention, while the '67 BoSox -- who LOST the World Series -- got several minutes of airtime.

I do think, however, that there was a political bias. Burns makes documentaries for PBS; he knows which side his bread is buttered on.

rkoch
05-17-2009, 04:22 PM
This surely will displease you,Victory, but Stan`s politics were always democrat party oriented.

metrotheme
05-17-2009, 04:40 PM
How was Buck O'Neil LOUSY in this documentary? He single-handedly turned many people onto the history of the Negro Leagues from his vivid recollections in this documentary.


I don't agree with this. I thought that Baseball was a lousy documentary, and my political leanings are very similar to Mario Cuomo's. I thought that talking heads like Mario Cuomo, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Daniel Okrent, Stephen Jay Gould, George Will and Buck O'Neil were equally lousy.

thefeckcampaign
05-17-2009, 05:48 PM
I am curious what baseball documentary do you guys like.


How was Buck O'Neil LOUSY in this documentary? He single-handedly turned many people onto the history of the Negro Leagues from his vivid recollections in this documentary.Agreed.


As a fellow Tiger fan, I also was a bit perturbed that the '68 comeback got NO mention, while the '67 BoSox -- who LOST the World Series -- got several minutes of airtime.
I believe the author is from New England, that is bound to happen.

sturg1dj
05-17-2009, 06:24 PM
Burns makes documentaries for PBS; he knows which side his bread is buttered on.

the public side?


I am just messing with you...haha


I really wish I had the access to the former athletes to make a superior documentary (and of course the talent to actually make one).

The only good thing about Ken Burns' Baseball is that it that it is about classic baseball. That alone will get to me watch it occasionally. But every time the omissions anger me.

What would be great would be a very well done history of every franchise in baseball.

Honus Wagner Rules
05-17-2009, 07:01 PM
As a fellow Tiger fan, I also was a bit perturbed that the '68 comeback got NO mention, while the '67 BoSox -- who LOST the World Series -- got several minutes of airtime.

I do think, however, that there was a political bias. Burns makes documentaries for PBS; he knows which side his bread is buttered on.

I don't think Burns makes his documentaries specifically for PBS. Burns documentaries are shown on PBS, however, I suspect Burns makes most of his money from the DVD and book sales. Most people don't buy the DVD and DVDs from PBS. I bought the companion Baseball book at Barnes and Noble.

One biggest complaiont is that Burns didn't talk to any real baseball historians. At last I don't remember hardly any. It's bee neyars since I've watched the Baseball documentary. Who was the clown that said that Cobb was a black mark on the game's history.

ol' aches and pains
05-17-2009, 07:08 PM
baseball is, after all, a mushy sport.

And Ken Burns is a mushy guy if I may say so (not that there's anything wrong with that).

EdTarbusz
05-17-2009, 07:43 PM
How was Buck O'Neil LOUSY in this documentary? He single-handedly turned many people onto the history of the Negro Leagues from his vivid recollections in this documentary.


Centering a documentary about baseball around an obscure Negro Leaguer was a bad decision, in my opinion.

EdTarbusz
05-17-2009, 07:45 PM
Who was the clown that said that Cobb was a black mark on the game's history.

That was Daniel Okrent.

This is about the point where I gave up on Baseball as a serious documetary. I think that Burns would have done better and followed his heart and did a doc on the Negro Leagues.

sturg1dj
05-17-2009, 08:09 PM
That was Daniel Okrent.

This is about the point where I gave up on Baseball as a serious documetary. I think that Burns would have done better and followed his heart and did a doc on the Negro Leagues.

agreed


now anyone who knows me knows that I believe that race is a major issue in sports but at the same time to single out Cobb is a joke. It would have been much more responsible to show the era as a bunch of intolerant beer drinking wild men. Cobb wasn't the worst, and there were many good people in the game at that time...but it was a wild time. People don't realize how many brawls happened where players fought umps or fans.

Victory Faust
05-17-2009, 10:06 PM
This surely will displease you,Victory, but Stan`s politics were always democrat party oriented.


I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I think both parties are screwed up. I view politics the way I do the WWE wrestling matches -- it makes for a good show if you're into that sort of entertainment, but at the end of the day it's just a show, with a predetermined outcome.

In other words, I don't care what Stan Musial's politics are. For Burns to give him only a brief mention, great as Stan was, is beyond ridiculous, especially when so much time was spent on people like Cuomo and Kearns-Goodwin. Burns even took the time to do a brief segment on Doris's father -- where he was born, etc.

To ignore Stan Musial for that kind of crap is unforgiveable, IMO. That's all I'm saying.

Honus Wagner Rules
05-17-2009, 11:25 PM
Centering a documentary about baseball around an obscure Negro Leaguer was a bad decision, in my opinion.

Huh? Buck O'Neil played with most of the legendary Negro Leaguers. He played with these men, he was friends with them, he knew them as men. That alone makes O'Neil a great part of the baseball history.

EdTarbusz
05-18-2009, 08:41 AM
Huh? Buck O'Neil played with most of the legendary Negro Leaguers. He played with these men, he was friends with them, he knew them as men. That alone makes O'Neil a great part of the baseball history.

Buck O'Neil was a part of a relatively small baseball niche (and an obscure one at that). He wiould have been fine in a doc about the Negro Leagues, but was a bad pick to center a doc about the overall history of baseball around. Baseball itself is a subject that is too big to be centered around one individual.

Brad Harris
05-18-2009, 09:57 AM
If I never see Doris Kearns Goodwin again in my life it'll be too soon.

EdTarbusz
05-18-2009, 10:09 AM
If I never see Doris Kearns Goodwin again in my life it'll be too soon.

If the subject was the Lincoln adminstration, FDR or LBJ, I would be interested in what Doris Kearns Goodwin has to say. Her romanticism of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Boston Red Sox did not interest me.

Honus Wagner Rules
05-18-2009, 10:57 AM
Buck O'Neil was a part of a relatively small baseball niche (and an obscure one at that). He wiould have been fine in a doc about the Negro Leagues, but was a bad pick to center a doc about the overall history of baseball around. Baseball itself is a subject that is too big to be centered around one individual.

I completely disagree. Within the structure of the Baseball documentary, O'Neil was a real good choice. One of the "innings" of the documentary was focused on the Negro Leagues (5th inning, "Shadow Ball"). This was an important chapter, not only because it brought to light the great forgotten ballplayers from those leagues, but it brought home the ugly truth that these great ballplayers were denied the opportunity to play against the best white ballplayers. It is NOT an obscure baseball niche.

EdTarbusz
05-18-2009, 11:02 AM
I completely disagree. Within the structure of the Baseball documentary, O'Neil was a real good choice. One of the "innings" of the documentary was focused on the Negro Leagues (5th inning, "Shadow Ball"). This was an important chapter, not only because it brought to light the great forgotten ballplayers from those leagues, but it brought home the ugly truth that these great ballplayers were denied the opportunity to play against the best white ballplayers. It is NOT an obscure baseball niche.

I didn't mean to say that Negro League Baseball was an obscure niche. I meant to say Buck O'Neil was obscure. I think using a career Minor Leraguer or a fan would have been the same as ud=sing O'Neil. I think using him was a poor choice for the whole documentary.

Honus Wagner Rules
05-18-2009, 11:08 AM
I didn't mean to say that Negro League Baseball was an obscure niche. I meant to say Buck O'Neil was obscure. I think using a career Minor Leraguer or a fan would have been the same as ud=sing O'Neil. I think using him was a poor choice for the whole documentary.

That doesn't make sense. :confused: How is using O'Neil, a man who played in the Negro Leagues, a man who played with and knew most of the great Negro Leaguers, not a good choice to speak on the Negro Leagues? If not O'Neil then who should have Burns used instead? :shrug:

EdTarbusz
05-18-2009, 11:16 AM
That doesn't make sense. :confused: How is using O'Neil, a man who played in the Negro Leagues, a man who played with and knew most of the great Negro Leaguers, not a good choice to speak on the Negro Leagues? If not O'Neil then who should have Burns used instead? :shrug:

O'Neil was fine for covering the Negro Leagues, but his participation should have ended there.

stuarthouse
05-18-2009, 03:36 PM
I wasn't bringing this up to debate Burns' doc, especially his motive. I think anyone's assumption of Burns' political angle whether correct or not seems to take away from their point regardless. It just appears they have a political angle themselves and are frustrated it wasn't their angle that it was viewed from.

That said, I thought the doc was called BASEBALL, not MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. It is about all sorts of people playing the game. Obviously I found Cuomo's story interesting and something I may have never known if Burns had never told me. It also made me look up a local kid who I knew had strictly a minor league career as well as a friend's dad who had the same.

----

PS I was upset he didn't mention Mike Schmidt and my whole era was rushed through for that matter but what I am going to do? I am sure there are plenty of things I could find fault in the doc that was missed but if I noticed it missing, it simply means I know it exist and can look it up elsewhere.
You are a wise man. A rarity around here.

Andy K
05-18-2009, 06:40 PM
I don't think Burns makes his documentaries specifically for PBS. Burns documentaries are shown on PBS, however, I suspect Burns makes most of his money from the DVD and book sales. Most people don't buy the DVD and DVDs from PBS. I bought the companion Baseball book at Barnes and Noble.

One biggest complaiont is that Burns didn't talk to any real baseball historians. At last I don't remember hardly any. It's bee neyars since I've watched the Baseball documentary. Who was the clown that said that Cobb was a black mark on the game's history.

Looking through his filmography, I can't find anything he's made that wasn't for PBS. And while I suspect you're correct that Burns' Florentine Films probably does get a cut on some of the profits, the majority of the money goes to WETA in Washington, DC, who co-produced Baseball, and PBS, who own the distribution rights. And no matter where you buy it- B&N, Best Buy or the PBS site- PBS, as the distributor, is getting a cut of that money.

And you're right, he didn't interview a lot of baseball historians, or at least anyone who's known strictly as such, but he did have Shirley Povich and Roger Angell on there, and those guys covered the game for a very long time.

-------------
I think the reason Burns' interviewees come across as NY/Boston-centric is because he works out of New England ( btw: Burns was born in Brooklyn and graduated from Ann Arbor Pioneer HS in '75, when his dad was teaching at U of M), and it's simply cheaper to drive to one of those cities and shoot a whole bunch of interviews over the course of a few days in each city. 10 hour documentaries are expensive to shoot, and VERY expensive to edit. Budget constraints allow for some travel, but you can't waste time in each location. It appears that Burns shot Povich, George Will and Tom Boswell in Washington DC- they were all living there during production- and I'd be willing to bet that all of those interviews were shot within days of each other. Maybe it crossed Burns' mind to interview Bunning, but who knows if there weren't scheduling conflicts (maybe Bunning was back home in KY when Burns was in DC) that disallowed an interview.

(Shorter version of the last paragraph: It's all logistics, fellas!)

Andy K
05-18-2009, 07:06 PM
O'Neil was fine for covering the Negro Leagues, but his participation should have ended there.

Ed, the guy left the Negro Leagues in '56, then became a scout (and was a coach at times, too) for the Cubs until '88...When, at 76 or 77 years old, he became a scout for the Royals!

There were a few people whose inclusion in the series was questionable- Steven Jay Gould and Shelby Foote spring to mind- but O'Neil was a spring of enlightenment in the series.

Look, I understand that you would have made your baseball documentary differently, and I would have, too, but for a ten-parter that was trying to capture the zeitgeist of the nation in its relationship to its past-time in its many eras, I think Burns did a damned good job.

EdTarbusz
05-18-2009, 08:23 PM
Look, I understand that you would have made your baseball documentary differently, and I would have, too, but for a ten-parter that was trying to capture the zeitgeist of the nation in its relationship to its past-time in its many eras, I think Burns did a damned good job.

We'll have to disagree. If your primary interest is raci8sm in baseball or baseball Nrew York or Boston then it was probably a good documentart. Those seemed to be Burns's main focus.

I don't think inclusion of Buck O'Neil was questionable. I think centering the entire 10 parts around him was questionable.

Captain Cold Nose
05-19-2009, 04:05 AM
You are a wise man. A rarity around here.

I'm not so sure about how rare that actually is, but I do see wisdom in what appears to be a rationalized viewpoint here. I admittedly am not a fan of the documentary for various and previously spelled-out reasons. The OTS did not take his issues to heart so much. In a lot of cases that goes a long way toward increasing one's enjoyment in something.

davewashere
05-19-2009, 06:35 AM
That's a good point. And Bush actually met Babe Ruth so Burns could had a Babe Ruth angle.

That would have made an interesting story in the documentary, but I imagine it would not be an easy task to get an interview with a former president with no further political ambitions.

sturg1dj
05-19-2009, 11:30 AM
That would have made an interesting story in the documentary, but I imagine it would not be an easy task to get an interview with a former president with no further political ambitions.

I don't know, I bet H.W. would be a sucker for talking about his old playing days.


and the other part where someone mentioned the reason it seemed centered on NY was because of logistics, I don't accept that. This was going to be a huge undertaking by a well known documentary film maker. He had the means to do interviews with other but I just think he thought that NY was the most important place in baseball. That may or may not be true, but it still needed much more focus on the other cities.


I prefer watching "Baseball's Golden Age" on FSN personally. More former players actually telling you how it is.

SHOELESSJOE3
05-19-2009, 03:15 PM
Yes there was something to be desired, wasn't perfect, we could find lots of inaccuracies.
Not that concerned about all the details, I really enjoyed all the footage, especially going way back. No where have I seen so much footage in one set of works.

SteveJRogers
05-20-2009, 10:50 AM
Huh? Buck O'Neil played with most of the legendary Negro Leaguers. He played with these men, he was friends with them, he knew them as men. That alone makes O'Neil a great part of the baseball history.

FWIW, Baseball did lead to the movement to get O'Neil into the BBHOF, something that many assumed WOULD happen during that mass induction of 2006, so when it didn't the Hall decided to create the O'Neil Award and posthumously name O'Neil the first recipent because many felt that it was a gross injustice that he WASN'T in the Hall.

He may be a part of history, but at the same time, wouldn't he be considered more of a...I really can't use a broadcaster like Uecker, Kiner and Garagiola as a comparision, but I think you know the point. Someone who was around for a very long time, great storyteller and talent evaluator.

sturg1dj
05-21-2009, 01:16 PM
Yes there was something to be desired, wasn't perfect, we could find lots of inaccuracies.
Not that concerned about all the details, I really enjoyed all the footage, especially going way back. No where have I seen so much footage in one set of works.

agree 110%

Iron Jaw
05-21-2009, 02:39 PM
To be fair, Cuomo was very much in the public limelight for most of his political life. Granted he has been in the spotlight recently, but how many people outside of baseball fans and his state know that Bunning is a siting US Senator?

Yes Senators do generate national publicity, but generally its only when Presidential and VP aspirations are thrown around.

Jim's been in congress since 1987 (House and Senate) and is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The only baseball HOFer who entered the U.S. Congress.

Another former ML pitcher I can think of who was a member of the Congress was Wilmer "Vinegar Bend" Mizell. He was a member of the U.S. House (NC) from 1969-75.