Broadcasters make more errors than players do
Jeff Mills
past few years? I cannot count the number of inaccuracies and errors
I have seen and heard in the last decade of watching baseball
telecasts and listening to them on radio. They have books available
where it lists the correct pronunciation of players names and they
can't even do that right. One announcer in the last year actually
said the Cubs clinched the division in 1985 and the other announcer
did not challenge him. There was no correction later on in the
broadcast.
When it comes to broadcasters, they might as well be Chuck Knoblauch
up there in the booth with the errors they make. Because it is kind
of like watching a game with Chuck Knoblauch playing. You don't know
whether your team is going to win or not, but you know for sure there
will be at least one error.
It's not that hard to broadcast a game. ESPN and Fox's announcers
prove that. And I don't think it's asking too much for these guys to
check the facts and get it right. Now I realize this might be
difficult for them because God forbid they take the time to shut up
for five minutes, but I think people will be very satisfied knowing
that they're getting the facts. They may not like the announcers per
se, but at least they'll be giving them factual information. If Tim
McCarver can spend fifteen minutes doing Dr. Evil impersonations,
waxing eloquently on former Cardinal teammates' greatness or cracking
one bad pun after another, I think he can spend as much reading. But
then, these ARE jocks after all.
JayJay
"Jeff Mills" <beatlej...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5a18308c.03100...@posting.google.com...
snip
> It's not that hard to broadcast a game.
Let me first say I am no fan of the media, but we DO need to cut
broadcasters some slack. Sure, we see broadcasters on the job everyday and
I guess it looks easy but it's not at all easy to do it WELL. Okay, so
they got the 1984 date wrong. If were a baseball broadcaster, I'm not so
sure I'd be able to remember playoff teams by year for the past 20 years.
(Yes, it's been nearly 20 years since the '84 team; seems like yesterday to
us, but there's been a lotta baseball played in October since then.)
It takes a ton of homework to be able to discuss teams & players with any
degree of authenticity. I've got a wee bit of broadcast experience and it
ain't easy avoiding dead air and keeping intelligent chatter going without
sounding like you're reading from the media guide. After all, if ALL we
want is accurate stats, we can follow the game on mlb.com.
Oh, and broadcasters may make more errors than players do, but they also
generally make enormously less money and don't have the benefit of
repetition & practice for every situation that happens during the course of
a game.
Al Yellon
> "Jeff Mills" <beatlej...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5a18308c.03100...@posting.google.com...
> snip
>> It's not that hard to broadcast a game.
> snip
>
> Let me first say I am no fan of the media, but we DO need to cut
> broadcasters some slack. Sure, we see broadcasters on the job
> everyday and I guess it looks easy but it's not at all easy to do it
> WELL. Okay, so they got the 1984 date wrong. If were a baseball
> broadcaster, I'm not so sure I'd be able to remember playoff teams by
> year for the past 20 years. (Yes, it's been nearly 20 years since the
> '84 team; seems like yesterday to us, but there's been a lotta
> baseball played in October since then.)
Then why do we as fans remember this stuff and the broadcasters don't?
Perhaps national broadcasters can be excused, though they have producers and
stat sheets and other stuff that should help them, while we just remember
things.
But any broadcaster of any team, that's there 162 games a year, ought to
remember stuff that we the fans do.
Speaking of that, Ron Santo recently told of a 1969 game that he felt "broke
the back" of that team. He gave the details as: "leading 1-0, Willie
Stargell homered to tie the game and the Cubs lost in extra innings. It was
cold and windy."
Believe it or not, he was close. I was at that game (one of the first I ever
attended), and it did indeed break the Cubs' back. It was heartbreaking. The
Cubs did lead by one run, but it was 5-4, not 1-0, and Stargell hit a
two-out, *TWO-STRIKE* pitch into a monstrous wind onto Sheffield. I remember
the day as windy, though not cold.
The Cubs had the winning run on second and no one out in the tenth, but
couldn't score. The Pirates scored two in the 11th, partly due to a Don
Kessinger error.
The date was Sunday, September 7, 1969. Even after that loss the Cubs led by
2 1/2 games, but they were done. They went 8-14 the rest of the way while
the Mets went 20-5.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09070CHN1969.htm
--
"If you want it, come & get it, for crying out loud..." -- David Gray
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || itghtfr02 (at) sneakemail (dot) com
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>How many times have baseball announcers gotten statistics wrong in the
>past few years? I cannot count the number of inaccuracies and errors
>I have seen and heard in the last decade of watching baseball
>telecasts and listening to them on radio. They have books available
>where it lists the correct pronunciation of players names and they
>can't even do that right. One announcer in the last year actually
>said the Cubs clinched the division in 1985 and the other announcer
>did not challenge him. There was no correction later on in the
>broadcast.
Jeff,
Part of it is that it's a whole lot tougher than even a bad
broadcaster makes it look. Typically, you've got a producer/director
talking in one ear, as a statistician hand you a piece of paper
telling you that the current batter, Joe Schlabotnik, is 2 for 7 in
day games played on artifical turf in stadiums in the Central time
zone. All this is happening while, from up in the press box, you're
trying to determine if the pitch in the dirt was a slider or a curve,
and describe the play as the batter checks his swing, and they appeal
to the first base umpire. It's why guys like Red Barber used to use
an egg timer to remind them to mention the score.
>
>When it comes to broadcasters, they might as well be Chuck Knoblauch
>up there in the booth with the errors they make. Because it is kind
>of like watching a game with Chuck Knoblauch playing. You don't know
>whether your team is going to win or not, but you know for sure there
>will be at least one error.
>
>It's not that hard to broadcast a game. ESPN and Fox's announcers
>prove that. And I don't think it's asking too much for these guys to
>check the facts and get it right. Now I realize this might be
>difficult for them because God forbid they take the time to shut up
>for five minutes, but I think people will be very satisfied knowing
>that they're getting the facts.
Actually, that goes against one of the more common rules in
broadcasting--there are few things worse than Dead Air. It's also no
guarantee that the statistician didn't write down "1985", or that the
broadcaster knew it was 1984, and just made a slip that nobody caught
take care,
Scott
Cub fan from California since 1982
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>What I don't understand is why major network broadcast productions
>don't/won't include an LCD screen for the talking head(s) that
>displays any relevant information for them to refer to for the players
>involved.
>
>For instance, Sosa's at bat against Willis. Up on the LCD comes
>current and historical splits, including at the park, last 7 games,
>etc...
>
>The vast majority of this information can easily be driven off a db,
>and the system can also provide for ad hoc info delivered from the
>statistician.
>
>It sounds like, basically, producers are still using 1945 technology
>in the 21st century. Passing notes on paper - jeez.... That's
>pathetic.
Of course, they may have gone to something like that at the major
league/network level, but passing a note actually has some advantages:
You automatically know that you're being fed some
information--unless they do something with the screen to attract your
attention like flashing color, you have to check to see if there's
something there.
A lot of press boxes don't have that much real estate in front of
the broadcasters, so it might be a little tricky to fit another screen
in there.
A pen and paper are a lot less likely to break down :-)
take care,
Scott