HBO 2007 Documentary on Brooklyn Dodgers, "The Ghosts Of Flatbush"

[Bobcat]

....anyone watch it...?

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I think I saw it and I liked it. Honestly though I do like watching anything with baseball and the Dodgers of the 40's and 50's were interesting but i'm getting kinda sick of always hearing about the Dodgers. I think at this point I would rather watch something on the NewYork Giants. I never understood why they dont get any hollywood type of movie's or documentary's. They were in NewYork just like the Dodgers, they played in a famous stadium. The Giants had famous managers probaly more famous than any Brooklyn manager. I think the Giants had way better players throughout the years (Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Carl Hubbell for pitchers and hitters like Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Mel Ott and Willie Mays. Plus they won like 5 World Series and like 9 NL pennants.

NewYork is strange though with baseball. When the Met's were good the city became a Met's town so since the Brooklyn Dodgers were the last good team before both teams left i'm assuming NewYork became a Dodger town and thats probaly why the Dodgers are loved more in NY.

Exception to diehard NY fans.

[Joe Barrie]

I think I saw it and I liked it. Honestly though I do like watching anything with baseball and the Dodgers of the 40's and 50's were interesting but i'm getting kinda sick of always hearing about the Dodgers. I think at this point I would rather watch something on the NewYork Giants. I never understood why they dont get any hollywood type of movie's or documentary's. They were in NewYork just like the Dodgers, they played in a famous stadium. The Giants had famous managers probaly more famous than any Brooklyn manager. I think the Giants had way better players throughout the years (Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Carl Hubbell for pitchers and hitters like Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Mel Ott and Willie Mays. Plus they won like 5 World Series and like 9 NL pennants.

NewYork is strange though with baseball. When the Met's were good the city became a Met's town so since the Brooklyn Dodgers were the last good team before both teams left i'm assuming NewYork became a Dodger town and thats probaly why the Dodgers are loved more in NY.

Exception to diehard NY fans.

I agree that the nostalgia about the Dodgers is somewhat overblown. I think that part of the reason is that my generation, and those slightly older, witnessed a period when the Dodgers developed lots of publicity, broadcasting their games when the Giants and Yankees were reluctant to do so. At the same time, the Giants didn't win a pennant from 1937 to 1951.

The Dodgers' win in 1941 was exciting, and was their first pennant since 1920, but they were more competitive than were the Giants in the year or so before and after that pennant.. After the war they almost won in 1946, 1950 and 1951 and did win the pennant in 1947, '49, '52, '53, '55 and '56. The Giants had only l951 and 1954 in that period of time.

It's true that the Dodgers beat the Yankees in 1955, whereas the Giants last did that in 1922. So, the Dodgers were consistently strong from just before WW 2 till they left; not so the Giants. I thought their fans were similar, and that lots of the talk about the idealized Dodgers is exaggerated. Look at photos of Erskine's 1956 no-hitter against the Giants at Ebbets Field and count all the empty seats to see what I am getting at. By the way, I was a Giant fan.

[CandlestickBum]

I agree that the nostalgia about the Dodgers is somewhat overblown.

Nostalgia, it ain't what it used to be.

[milladrive]

I've had the entire "Ghosts Of Flatbush" on DVD for a couple of years. (Gotta love torrents.) I've watched it more than once and have made gifts of it to other baseball fans. I think it's by far, hands down, the best documentary on the Dodgers 1947-1957. Nothing comes close, imo.

[milladrive]

...which reminds me, if anyone wants a pristine copy at no charge, PM me.

[MATHA531]

I think I saw it and I liked it. Honestly though I do like watching anything with baseball and the Dodgers of the 40's and 50's were interesting but i'm getting kinda sick of always hearing about the Dodgers. I think at this point I would rather watch something on the NewYork Giants. I never understood why they dont get any hollywood type of movie's or documentary's. They were in NewYork just like the Dodgers, they played in a famous stadium. The Giants had famous managers probaly more famous than any Brooklyn manager. I think the Giants had way better players throughout the years (Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Carl Hubbell for pitchers and hitters like Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Mel Ott and Willie Mays. Plus they won like 5 World Series and like 9 NL pennants.

NewYork is strange though with baseball. When the Met's were good the city became a Met's town so since the Brooklyn Dodgers were the last good team before both teams left i'm assuming NewYork became a Dodger town and thats probaly why the Dodgers are loved more in NY.

Exception to diehard NY fans.

There are a variety of answers to this. Mostly because the Giants were really last dominant in the 1930's and very few people who were true fans of that era are still alive (just like the base of fans who really understood the Dodgers is dwindling by the year and thus the many lies being told about the theft of the Brooklyn franchise in the name of greed by a pos named Walter O'Malley are left unchallenged although it has been done constantly on this board.

By the 1950's, for the most part the Giants had lost their fan base. They were barely drawing 600,000 a season for hme games. Now again if one doesn't understand one would look at Brooklyn attendance and claim the same thing, as you sort of alluded to in your post. The fact is Dodger attendance, even during what everybody knew was their lame duck seaon in 1957 exceeded 1,000,000 despite the fact every home game was on free television and everybody knew what was happening although the greedy Mr. O'Malley tried to claim nothing was set in stone. We now know that when the Dodgers went to Japan in 1956 and O'Malley was shown what the city of Los Angeles intended to do to rape its taxpayers, he gave his verbal word that no matter what was said publically, the Dodgers were coing to Los Angeles.

There are other factors too that contributed to this. Of course you know the history of major league baseball that in the half century from 1903 to 1953, there were no changes in the baseball map. You had five two team cities in baseball (St. Louis, Boston, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia) and three one team cities (Cleveland, Detroit, Washington in the American League and Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Brooklyn in the NL and before you try to tell me Brooklyn was synonymous with New York, when Brooklyn joined the NL in 1890, it was a separate city) and the first four franchise shifts (Boston Braves, St. Louis Brown, Philadelphia Athletics and New York Giants were the transfrs of teams that had lost their fan bases and were losing money. The theft of the Brooklyn franchise was the first time that a city was totally deprived of major league baseball and at the time the Dodgers, despite O'Malley's claim to the contrary which are now accepted by so many, were the biggest money makers in baseball thanks to their lucrative radio/television and marketing money.

Of course as time has gone on, the O'Malley lies have become accepted dogma. Namely that poor Walter O'Malley was on the brink of ruination by poor attendance, that he had a wonderful plan to save baseball with construction of a new ball park in Brooklyn and mean old Robert Moses didn't allow this to come to fruition. The fact is O'Malley's plan would have cost NYC taxpayers a pretty penny and was no different than so many of the ways various owners have blackmailed cities to give them hand outs. Whether the Dodgers, making more money than anybody else were in need of this help is something you can do your own research on.

Unfortunately, as I've said before, it's a losing battle. I am part of the very last generation of people who have a cognitive knowledge of just what the Dodgers meant to their fans back then and what really happened. Chances are within the next decade or two, all of our voices will be silenced and then the true facts of what was done to the fans of the team in the name of pure unadulterated greed will be lost. Until then, when people who don't get it start with these lies (and the HBO special at the end pushes the idea trying to justify the theft of the Brooklyn franchise) I will continue to try, although it is a losing battle, to explain what really happened.

[milladrive]

There are a variety of answers to this. Mostly because the Giants were really last dominant in the 1930's and very few people who were true fans of that era are still alive (just like the base of fans who really understood the Dodgers is dwindling by the year and thus the many lies being told about the theft of the Brooklyn franchise in the name of greed by a pos named Walter O'Malley are left unchallenged although it has been done constantly on this board.

By the 1950's, for the most part the Giants had lost their fan base. They were barely drawing 600,000 a season for hme games. Now again if one doesn't understand one would look at Brooklyn attendance and claim the same thing, as you sort of alluded to in your post. The fact is Dodger attendance, even during what everybody knew was their lame duck seaon in 1957 exceeded 1,000,000 despite the fact every home game was on free television and everybody knew what was happening although the greedy Mr. O'Malley tried to claim nothing was set in stone. We now know that when the Dodgers went to Japan in 1956 and O'Malley was shown what the city of Los Angeles intended to do to rape its taxpayers, he gave his verbal word that no matter what was said publically, the Dodgers were coing to Los Angeles.

There are other factors too that contributed to this. Of course you know the history of major league baseball that in the half century from 1903 to 1953, there were no changes in the baseball map. You had five two team cities in baseball (St. Louis, Boston, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia) and three one team cities (Cleveland, Detroit, Washington in the American League and Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Brooklyn in the NL and before you try to tell me Brooklyn was synonymous with New York, when Brooklyn joined the NL in 1890, it was a separate city) and the first four franchise shifts (Boston Braves, St. Louis Brown, Philadelphia Athletics and New York Giants were the transfrs of teams that had lost their fan bases and were losing money. The theft of the Brooklyn franchise was the first time that a city was totally deprived of major league baseball and at the time the Dodgers, despite O'Malley's claim to the contrary which are now accepted by so many, were the biggest money makers in baseball thanks to their lucrative radio/television and marketing money.

Of course as time has gone on, the O'Malley lies have become accepted dogma. Namely that poor Walter O'Malley was on the brink of ruination by poor attendance, that he had a wonderful plan to save baseball with construction of a new ball park in Brooklyn and mean old Robert Moses didn't allow this to come to fruition. The fact is O'Malley's plan would have cost NYC taxpayers a pretty penny and was no different than so many of the ways various owners have blackmailed cities to give them hand outs. Whether the Dodgers, making more money than anybody else were in need of this help is something you can do your own research on.

Unfortunately, as I've said before, it's a losing battle. I am part of the very last generation of people who have a cognitive knowledge of just what the Dodgers meant to their fans back then and what really happened. Chances are within the next decade or two, all of our voices will be silenced and then the true facts of what was done to the fans of the team in the name of pure unadulterated greed will be lost. Until then, when people who don't get it start with these lies (and the HBO special at the end pushes the idea trying to justify the theft of the Brooklyn franchise) I will continue to try, although it is a losing battle, to explain what really happened.

Despite a few accuracies, I would dispute that post on various points, but considering most the views and opinions offered, it appears as if it would be like trying to convert someone to a different religion (i.e., a huge waste of time). All I'll say at this point is that a large portion of the post, if not a majority of it, is postering, biased, and patently incorrect. Perhaps I'll elaborate on it later. Perhaps not.

Incidentally, the offer of a free copy of "Ghosts Of Flatbush" is, and always will be, open to anyone who PMs me with a request.

[EdTarbusz]

Unfortunately, as I've said before, it's a losing battle. .

It's a losing battle because saying that the Dodgers left Brooklyn simply because of O'Malley's greed is both simplistic and basically incorrect.

[MATHA531]

Despite a few accuracies, I would dispute that post on various points, but considering most the views and opinions offered, it appears as if it would be like trying to convert someone to a different religion (i.e., a huge waste of time). All I'll say at this point is that a large portion of the post, if not a majority of it, is postering, biased, and patently incorrect. Perhaps I'll elaborate on it later. Perhaps not.

Incidentally, the offer of a free copy of "Ghosts Of Flatbush" is, and always will be, open to anyone who PMs me with a request.

What are you going to dispute? That the Dodgers were not the biggest money maker in baseball during this period? That Dodger attendance was not over 1,000,000 which was the acceptable okay point at that time? That every Dodger game was not on free television? That to condfemn the private property O'Malley wanted to condemn in violation of NY's eminent domain laws would not have cost the taxpayers of NYC $10,000,000 in 1957? Do a google search on Walter O'Malley and Robert Moses and read Moses' response written in August 1957 and tell me where you disagree.

You want to tell me that handing over the land at Chavez Ravine was not a bad deal for the people who were living there? You want to tell me that the re-location of the Brooklyn franchise was the first time a city, and remember Brooklyn was a city in its own rights when it entered the National League and to this day a separate county of New York State, did not have its only team snatched from it?

The problem is, of course, there is hardly left around to refute the lies pushed by the O'Malley family in the book Fortever Blue to try to get him voted into the Hall of Fame.

I'll be glad to debate you on what I said that was incorrect. The theft of the Brooklyn franchise, at the time, other than in LA, was seen by many many fans, not just in Brooklyn as a betrayal of a fan base who had supported the team and made O'Malley quite a rich man for a rather lengthy period of time. So bring on he arguments where I'm wrong. I will be very happy to be enlightened.

[MATHA531]

Draw your own conclusions:

http://tinyurl.com/7j6y68r

[EdTarbusz]

What are you going to dispute? That the Dodgers were not the biggest money maker in baseball during this period? .

That's irrelevant. By 1956 O'Malley wasn't looking at the last 10 years. He was looking at what the next 10 years would bring and I don't think he saw his aging team and antiquated ballpark competing with the Braves. The Dodgers were involved in their last pennat race in 1956 and were drawing poorly (especially considering the size of their fan base) until the very end of the season.

[MATHA531]

The Dodgers were not drawing poorly. Their attendance was third in the National League. In 1957, the Dodgers made more money than the Yankees. I suggest you read the article I gave a ;oml tp kist abpve/ If there had been a real Copmmissioner of baseball, not a closet Yankee fan which Ford C. Frick most assuredly was, he would have sopped the move for the good of baseball.

The problem is you are not from Brooklyn and don't understand how illogical and illegal the Atlantic/Flatbush project was. Nowhere near a highway and of course it's easy just to shrug your shoulders at the eminent domain laws of New York State and the federal government to use Title I funding for a privately owned baseball Stadium. There was no danger of the Dodgers falling down financially, the radio/tv contractsd by themselves assured that. And WOR was not going to foresake them. That was their programming. Between the television rights, the pre and post, the radio broadcasts, the pre and post on radio, they were making a pretty penny. And Ebbets Field was no older than Fenway Park and Wrigley Field, ball parks still in use today.

The problem, Ed, is you are looking at a situation from afar and making judgments based on biased reporting, not the actual facts. You don't have to believe me. All you have to do is read the link I gave to understand just ho greedy Mr. O'Malley was (BTW when the Braves, Orioles, Athletics and Giants moved, none of them were handed land and perpetual righhts to oil (or gold) to build their own privately owned ball parks. Only O'Malley thought it was his perogative to have this land handed to him.

The franchise was very healtrhy at the time and the biggest money maker in baseball. Only it wasn't enough for Mr. O'Malley.

[EdTarbusz]

The problem, Ed, is you are looking at a situation from afar and making judgments based on biased reporting, not the actual facts. You don't have to believe me. All you have to do is read the link I gave to understand just ho greedy Mr. O'Malley was (BTW when the Braves, Orioles, Athletics and Giants moved, none of them were handed land and perpetual righhts to oil (or gold) to build their own privately owned ball parks. Only O'Malley thought it was his perogative to have this land handed to him.

The franchise was very healtrhy at the time and the biggest money maker in baseball. Only it wasn't enough for Mr. O'Malley.

You're right that I'm looking at the situation from afar, but I don't think I'm looking at biased reporting. I think the anti-O'Malley stuff out there is the biased reporting. Virtually everything I;ve read about Ebbets Field is that it was antiquated and poorly maintained. It was described as being out-dated when Larry MacPhail was running the team. He was already consideriing the possiblity of moving the Dodgers out of there in 1940. I don't know if the Atlantic/Flatbush project was, but I doubt that without a parking garage to go along with it that O'Malley was probably more interested in fans arriving by train than by car (which was probably another negative about it as far as Robert Moses was concerned).

I think two factors caused the Dodgers to leave: O'Malley didn't think the Dodgers would be able to keep up with the Braves and that O'Malley was disatisfied with Ebbets Field. I think the City of New York probably could have done more to ensure the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn but that it wasn't important enough.

I think it is easy to shrug your shoulders at eminent domain and Title I laws in New York during that period because Robert Moses had little trouble getting around them when he supported a project. If he were a supporter of the Dodgers building a new ballpark in Brookly that it would have gotten done.

[Steven Gallanter]

You're right that I'm looking at the situation from afar, but I don't think I'm looking at biased reporting. I think the anti-O'Malley stuff out there is the biased reporting. Virtually everything I;ve read about Ebbets Field is that it was antiquated and poorly maintained. It was described as being out-dated when Larry MacPhail was running the team. He was already consideriing the possiblity of moving the Dodgers out of there in 1940. I don't know if the Atlantic/Flatbush project was, but I doubt that without a parking garage to go along with it that O'Malley was probably more interested in fans arriving by train than by car (which was probably another negative about it as far as Robert Moses was concerned).

I think two factors caused the Dodgers to leave: O'Malley didn't think the Dodgers would be able to keep up with the Braves and that O'Malley was disatisfied with Ebbets Field. I think the City of New York probably could have done more to ensure the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn but that it wasn't important enough.

I think it is easy to shrug your shoulders at eminent domain and Title I laws in New York during that period because Robert Moses had little trouble getting around them when he supported a project. If he were a supporter of the Dodgers building a new ballpark in Brookly that it would have gotten done.

It is politically incorrect to cite "white flight" but that is a major factor in the departure of the Dodgers. My father, who was not a baseball fan, was born in Crown Heights in 1927. He went to college, got drafted, returned and finished school, married, got a professional job and moved to Long Island. He never looked back.

The generation born in the 20's had passed the age where live attendance at Dodger games was a regular event. TV had become common and was draining fans while the cable TV goldmine would have to wait until the 80'.s. The word 'gentrification' was 30 years in the distance. Pete Hamill's A DRINKING LIFE details the many sociological changes brewing in the Brooklyn of the 50's.

Oh yeah, the Dodgers used to be the Superbas. They moved to Brooklyn's Washington Park in 1899. Ebbets Field was built by greed and abandoned by greed.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com