Baseball on Television - What's Good, What's Bad
Mark Wolfson
Dodgers and the Oakland A's, as well as having done network games
including the new Baseball Network.
I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
don't like about baseball game coverage on television. After all,
fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
around the Big Leagues do.
Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
seemed like a great place to finally get your input on
announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
improve our coverage.
Mark Wolfson
Executive Producer/Director
Oakland A's
Ira K Blum
Most people here disagree on who they like as broadcasters, to get some
opinions and analysis look for threads called "Best Broadcaster" or
"Worst Broadcaster". We all agree that most broadcasters change their
style when broadcasting nationally, and the change is rarely good. Some
here would like to continue the trend of including more meaningfull
statistics in the graphics, like Showing a players OBP and Slugging
average along with their batting average.
Personally, I like the CF shot of the pitcher and batter. It is by far
my favorite shot. In fact, I like it so much that I tend to buy outfield
seats when I go to baseball games because they are similar to that.
Other than that, keep up the good work and DON'T BROADCAST REPLACEMENT
GAMES. (sorry, had to say that)
> Mark Wolfson
> Executive Producer/Director
> Oakland A's
>
>
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
'Any fan of the game with any intelligence at all can define
most things that are and are not "in the best interest of baseball"'
Scott R. Susor
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Scott R. Susor
|> I've been a television sports producer and director for both the
|> Dodgers and the Oakland A's, as well as having done network games
|> including the new Baseball Network.
|>
|> I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
|> don't like about baseball game coverage on television. After all,
|> fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
|> portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
|> around the Big Leagues do.
I don't know about that, Mark. After being around here for about a year
and a half, I have concluded that many people who post here have yet to
see a professional baseball game. :-)
|> Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
|> seemed like a great place to finally get your input on
|> announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
|>
|> So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
|> thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
|> improve our coverage.
I'd kinda like to hear more meaningful statistics from the announcers as
each player comes to bat, or takes the mound. Things like his annual
salary, what kind of special bonuses his contract calls for, how many
years before he's eligible for arbitration, how many years before he's
eligible for free agency, how much his major league pension will be and
when can he start receiving it, how much of a percentage increase he got
in salary this year over last year, and maybe his personal views on
signing autographs for kids.
|> Mark Wolfson
|> Executive Producer/Director
|> Oakland A's
SRS
Robert James
(SNIP)
: Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
: announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
: So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
: thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
: improve our coverage.
The one thing that drive me crazy when watching a game on TV is the fact
that the director feel he has to show the runner crossing the plate in a
live shot, while we miss a live shot of the play going on at another base.
Please, show us the runner and the ball arriving at third base at the same
time. We'll believe you if you tell us a run scored or if you show that in
replay.
--
Bob James, Milwaukee, employed at
Medical College of Wisconsin
bo...@post.its.mcw.edu
Ted Frank
Ira K Blum <ib...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>Most people here disagree on who they like as broadcasters, to get some
>opinions and analysis look for threads called "Best Broadcaster" or
>"Worst Broadcaster". We all agree that most broadcasters change their
>style when broadcasting nationally, and the change is rarely good. Some
>here would like to continue the trend of including more meaningfull
>statistics in the graphics, like Showing a players OBP and Slugging
>average along with their batting average.
At the same time, kill the meaningless statistics. It's not informative
nor interesting to hear what a player hits with runners in scoring
position; if you're going to use situational statistics, why not
meaningful ones, like lefty-righty, or home-road?
--
ted frank "Hamburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast."
Gary Gus Huckabay
>I've been a television sports producer and director for both the
>Dodgers and the Oakland A's, as well as having done network games
>including the new Baseball Network.
Wow!
>Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
>seemed like a great place to finally get your input on
>announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
By and large, I think most MLB coverage is really superlative. It's entirely
possible that I've never missed an Oakland A's televised game since the
days of '72-'74, and I'm always really impressed with how professional and
watchable telecasts are.
I think one thing that would really add a lot to 'viewability' for me is
to have a camera dedicated to whole field shots. (i.e., on top of the
Diamond Vision at OAC.) When each batter comes to the plate, perhaps a
two or three second shot of how the defense is adjusting -- that way,
we can see outfielders shift, infielders maneuver, etc.
Also, it might also be interesting to occasionally spotlight a defender
on a split screen when someone's hitting, instead of switching cameras.
Usually, the fielder wouldn't end up getting the ball, but occasionally,
you'd have some really neat television. It'd be really neat for me to
have Devon White on the right hand side of the screen as Albert Belle
hits a line drive to the gap.
It might also be nice to occasionally see a batter exclusively from that
whole field camera I mentioned earlier, so you can watch the flow of the
play, rather than just the so-called action. Watching a single roll into
center is ok, but watch the defense respond might be a lot better.
On the whole, I'm very happy with most baseball telecasts, and if you've
worked on the A's casts, I'd like to thank you for a continuously excellent
job well done.
--
* Gary Huckabay * "There are at least 6 posters there now who each claim, *
* "The sores have * implicitly or explicitly, to represent some sort of *
* almost totally * silent majority." "How very Milhous." "Indeed." "Do *
* cleared up." * they have any support for this?" "Well, silence..." *
Paul Andresen
|>
|> I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
|> don't like about baseball game coverage on television. After all,
|> fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
|> portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
|> around the Big Leagues do.
First, Mark, I would urge you and your associates to all read Curt Smith's
book, _Voices Of The Game_. He's got a lot to say about what's right and
wrong about broadcasting. Although it doesn't apply specifically to you, he
makes an excellent point that the networks and baseball should have steady,
reliable coverage of games, throughout the season. Get rid of this hit and
miss nonsense of the last few years. That baseball has suffered a decline in
the ratings is mostly of its own doing.
As to game coverage, low-tech is better. When we get into this crazy business
with a dozen cameras in post season games, I think the directors get way
to enamoured with the technology and lose track of actually covering the game.
Take more wider angle shots to show more of what's going on on the field of
play overall. I get really tired of yet another close-up of sweat dripping
off the pitcher's nose when a shot of what's going on in the dugout, or how
the shortstop might be shading the next batter would be much more interesting.
And finally, thanks for asking. Our current baseball mess comes about largely
because of the utter contempt that the players and owners hold for the fans.
It's nice to see that *someone* cares what the fans think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseball is religion without the mischief...Tom Boswell
pa...@koufax.cv.hp.com Paul Andresen Hewlett-Packard (503)-715-3511
home: 3006 NW McKinley Corvallis, OR 97330 (503)-752-8424
A SABR member since 1979
Sean Sweda
Wait, even better. I'd like to know how much room under the cap
his team is, and why Billy Swift couldn't play for the Tigers because
they had to dump salary to get under Bud Selig's magic number.
Sean
--
Sean Sweda : ITD User Services Consultant
sw...@us.itd.umich.edu : UM Student Publications LAN Admin
http://www.umich.edu/~sweda :
PowerTalk email: : Motor City Marauders (105-57)
sean....@aoce2.itd.umich.edu : 1994 Internet Baseball League Champs
Sean Sweda
>So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
>thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
>improve our coverage.
I'm mostly curious as to why baseball is the only major sport where
the "color man" is most likely to be an ex-player. In most other
telecasts, the "color man" is an ex-manager/coach/etc. Is there a
reason for this in baseball, other than there aren't that many
ex-managers without a job? :-)
What I'd like to see more of:
1) show more of the field during the play, I'd like to see what kind
of a jump the fielders are getting, outfield shifts, etc.
2) update the scoring of other games more often in national broadcasts,
baseball provides plenty of natural breaks to provide this information
3) do regular speed replays occasionally w/o any announcer babble, sometimes
its great to *hear* the play as well as *see* it
George Grapman
: I've been a television sports producer and director for both the
CBS was the worst offender but I have never felt that between each
pitch the director should feel obligated to show 2 or 3 other
shots(opposing managers,celebrity in stans etc.) Sometime it appears to
be a rule that no camera sequence can last more than ten seconds.
Nelson Lu
Scott R. Susor <ssu...@imgen.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>in salary this year over last year, and maybe his personal views on
>signing autographs for kids.
Yeah, and don't forget the average amount that the "collectors" charge for
reselling his autographs...
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Steven Thornton
> So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
> thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
> improve our coverage.
Here's what I'd like to see:
1. Reduce the amount of closeups. The fancy camerawork has gotten to
good for it's own, uh, good. Save it for the replays. What drives me
nuts is not being able to see how the play is unfolding -- you get the
closeup of the swing, a quick shot of the ball flying away, a closeup
of the play at first, etc., but no broad view. Where's the infield
playing? How far did so-and-so actually have to run before the diving
stab? Did the other runner make third? This means you'll have to pull
back to show more of the field, but you have to to give an idea of
what's really happening. A lot of people think that the other seven
guys in the field are asleep unless the ball is hit to them, which
isn't true -- everybody has a job to do on every pitch. Also, have the
announcers talk about this more.
2. Hire a stathead. Not someone who's going to spout all that Elias
prattle about how so-and-so is doing in his three at-bats against
lefties wearing Nikes in cities beginning with the letter 'S', but
someone who understands and can intelligibly present OBP and SLG at the
bare minimum, and maybe even a little DA, RC, BR/A (especially the /A)
and EqA. Someone who's at least slightly familiar with the _real_ stat
work of the last fifteen years or so, not that Trivial Pursuit rubbish
that usually gets shown. You're giving statheads a bad name.
3. Announcers: there isn't a lot to say about them; there's good ones
and bad ones, but nobody will ever agree on who is which. I like a guy
who's genuinely excited, roots a little for the home team but isn't
afraid to rip them when they deserve it, or recognize greatness on the
visitors, with a broad historical and physical understanding of the
game, and who sounds like a guy you'd like to spend a lot of
afternoons with. The radio guys need to paint pictures; the TV guys
need to stay out of the way a lot. Both need to concentrate on describing
what's actually happening in terms of the mechanics of the play.
Basically the game itself is the whole show. Razzle-dazzle graphics
and "look at me" announcers are intrusive. The medium is NOT the message.
--
| Steve Thornton | ste...@eskimo.com | Seattle, Washington, USA |
| Send 'subscribe indiepop' to majo...@eskimo.com for la-la fun |
| TweeNet indiepop (and baseball): http://www.eskimo.com/~stevet/ |
Dr. Eric D. Roush
Personally, I've always been a fan of "Super Slo-Mo" coverage
of pitches. It always amazes me just how much movement a
major league pitcher can deliberately apply to the baseball.
One thing I'd really to see would be some "reaction time" shots,
where you could see just how long it takes a player to react to
the ball coming off the bat. Of course, this probably means
adding more cameras.
Other than that, I tend to agree with most of the other postings.
(Except for Susor's desire to see contract details. Blech.
Imagine watching the movie Batman and seeing the line
"Jack Nicholson made $20 million for this part." every time
the Joker came on-screen.)
--
Dr. Eric D. Roush "three yaks and a dog...sapsucker frog...
edr...@email.unc.edu ...Susan?"
coa...@aol.com
David Grabiner
> What I'd like to see more of:
> 1) show more of the field during the play, I'd like to see what kind
> of a jump the fielders are getting, outfield shifts, etc.
I'd like to see this also; it's one of the best parts of watching a game
at the park, where I can see how the fielders play everey hitter. If an
unfamiliar player is very slow, you can tell because the shortstop will
move back a few steps.
When the ball is sitting in the catcher's mitt, it should be possible to
give a full shot of the field, and point out a few relevant details.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Dan Reuter
> I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
> don't like about baseball game coverage on television.
€ What I like:
Instant replay, especially the SUPER SLO-MO (A good shot would have
been Luis Tiant chewing tobacco)
Shots from the center field camera (better look at balls and strikes)
Candid shots from the stands (breaks up the monotony of somebody
scratching or spitting)
Play-by-play announcers with golden voices (like Mel Allen)
Color announcers with a sense of humor (like Bob Uecker)
On the field coverage of the 7th inning stretch (mascots & Harry Carey
are great)
Beer commercials
Baby pictures of players
Trivia questions between innings
Cameras catching Jim Leyland smoking in the dugout
€ What I don't like:
Self-righteous, overbearing announcers
Over-analysis with 1 zillion statistics
Long, drawn out, one-sided games (you know my channel changer will be
clicking!)
Post game interviews by jock announcers who ask inane questions, like,
"How did you feel when you struck out Henry Homerun in the ninth with the
bases loaded?"
€ What is needed:
Announcers in the dugout, similar to the NFL Sideline Analyst
Microphones on players, managers and umpires
E-mail to the dugouts, so that fans could send the manager messages
during the game
Tommy Cavazos
First, I have to thank you for asking. Second, I have to send you my
condolences: I think baseball is the most difficult sport to broadcast.
I've been to live football, basketball, and baseball games and, of course,
I've watched them on TV. It's easier, I think, for the cameras to take in
all the action in football or basketball so I don't feel I'm missing as
much when I'm watching the telecast. But It's nearly impossible for TV to
take in all nine fielders and the batter & runners at the same time. Given
that restriction, I think broadcasters do the best they can with what
the've got. I'd still like to make a few suggestions:
1) The centerfield shot is nice for the pitcher-batter duel, but once
runners reach base its too restricting. Hit and run situations are
especially hard to watch. Usually, the pitcher is doing the best he can to
keep the runner honest, the shortstop and second baseman are adjusting
their defense, and the batter is just trying to get a piece of the ball and
pop it into the gap. Add a snap throw to first now and then by the catcher
and your director could lose his mind switching camera shots. A split
screen shot in these situations might be helpful. One view would be the
usual center field-to-home plate shot, the second could be a shot from the
first base foul line looking to second, or a shot from the upper deck on
the left field line looking to the right side of the infield. I would
agree most folks find split screen viewing distracting. You might want to
use it sparingly as in late game/tying runner situations.
2) Try to keep the viewers clued in on what's going on elsewhere on the
field. Who's on deck? Who's in the bullpen? Are the oufielder's deep,
shaded left or right? Usually, broadcasters do a good job of keeping up
with these things, but you can't let them slip.
3) Don't get TOO hung up on stats. They are only interesting for two
reasons: the can be a predictor on how a player does in a similar situation
and a player may have a record/streak on the line. That's it. I think
folks are more interested in what's happening now. If you get into too
much detail, their eyes just glaze over.
4) Don't show replays over and over again to check the umps call. The same
goes for questionable balls and strikes. Whether the tape proves him right
or wrong doesn't matter--the ump never reverses himself. Bad calls are a
part of the the game so just move on and let it go.
Enough for now,
Tommy Cavazos
gu...@mail.unm.edu
EECE Dept.
Univ. of New Mexico "Perceptions are
real"
Jack Heraty
Susor) writes:
>I'd kinda like to hear more meaningful statistics from the announcers
as
>each player comes to bat, or takes the mound. Things like his annual
>salary, what kind of special bonuses his contract calls for, how many
>years before he's eligible for arbitration, how many years before he's
>eligible for free agency, how much his major league pension will be and
>when can he start receiving it, how much of a percentage increase he
got
>in salary this year over last year, and maybe his personal views on
>signing autographs for kids.
>
I know this isn't in the spirit of the original post (sorry Mark), but
who cares about any of the above (except for the autograph part, where
I agree with you)? Fer gawd's sake, do you ask that type of question
when you go to a movie with Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford? The
best in any profession should be paid well. Were talking about less
than 800 people here out of all of the populations of the U.S., Canada,
the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, etc., etc., etc. Are
they taking money out of your pocket? If they are, watch the games on
TV and don't buy a ticket.
Jack Heraty
and why:
One of the problems in watching the game on TV is that the dimensions of
the ballpark are shrunk on the small screen. You don't get an idea of
how far a home run is actually hit. 400 feet is one hell of a blast,
but it is difficult to convey. A replay shot that I've only seen on
national broadcasts (probably because of extra cameras), and rarely at
that, is the wide shot from either the left or right field line, from
high up, following the flight of the ball from the crack of the bat
until it clears the fence. Never fails to impress me, because it not
only shows the flight of the ball but the height it reaches.
Just a thought.
Paul Andresen
|> Sometime it appears to
|> be a rule that no camera sequence can last more than ten seconds.
This is the well-known "MTV-NBA Effect". These days, nobody has an attention
span that long.
DYTA...@delphi.com
Quoting MarkWolfson<mwolfson from a message in rec.sport.baseball
> I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
> don't like about baseball game coverage on television. After all,
> fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
> portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
> around the Big Leagues do.
> Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
> seemed like a great place to finally get your input on
> announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
When I was in Korea on business, they did something that I thought was an
excellent idea. In the corner of the screen, they had a small graphic that
constantly showed the number of outs, balls and strikes, like a scoreboard
with "O", "B" and "S" followed by "lights". They also had a small diamond
showing which bases runners were on.
Since baseball strategy is so situational, the above makes sense to do.
Just think about how many times you check the scoreboard when you're at the
game. American TV displays the count for about 3 seconds, then nothing.
You're at the mercy of the announcer to tell you the count.
Dwayne Takeda, Garden Grove, CA
dyta...@delphi.com
He missed the tag!
David M. Tate
>I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
>don't like about baseball game coverage on television. After all,
>fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
>portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
>around the Big Leagues do.
>Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
>seemed like a great place to finally get your input on
>announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
>So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
>thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
>improve our coverage.
Thanks for asking.
A number of people have already posted some good things. I'd like to
start by reinforcing a couple of them.
1. Regularity. If you're not going to show games on a _regular_,
predictable basis, you might as well not bother. I gave up on
trying to figure out when there might actually be network coverage
of baseball in 1993; the answer seemed to be 'never'. If you
can't do 'The Game of the Week', every week, what's the point?
2. Full-season coverage. Real baseball fans know that games in April
count just as much as games in September. They're just as important.
Failure to televise the first half of the season sends the message
that baseball's regular season is no more meaningful than hockey's,
and that just isn't true. (Although the new playoff system is a step
in the wrong direction, but that's a different argument...)
3. Wide-angle coverage. What's the difference between European television
coverage of soccer and US coverage? In US coverage, you can see the ball,
two pairs of feet, and some individual blades of grass. In European TV,
you can not only see the men around the ball, you can also see what the
men *away* from the ball are doing, which suddenly makes soccer intricate
and beautiful, instead of dull as old bowling balls. The pitcher-batter
confrontation isn't the whole story, even before the swing, and it's none
of the story after the swing. If you can't see what kind of jump the
fielder got, and where he was playing when the ball was hit, you've
missed quite a bit. I know it's a tall order for real-time coverage,
but you could at least have a dedicated full-field cam for replays, to
show how the defensive play developed.
4. Statistics. Many of us (myself included) are professional mathematicians,
statisticians, engineers, physical scientists, or teachers. All of us
spend half our time throwing things at the TV when announcers insist on
treating meaningless statistics as if they were significant. I don't
expect miracles, but there's an easy litmus test: if the number isn't
based on at least 300 opportunities (plate appearances, or batters faced,
or ground ball opportunities, or whatever) then don't mention it.
Obviously, this doesn't include things like "It's May 3, and Cal Ripken
it hitting .392 so far". But the world would be a better place if we
never heard that Bill Pecota hits .324 with the bases loaded (12 for 37,
for example), or that Dante Bichette hits .474 against John Smiley (when
that's really just 9 for 19). There's a vast gulf between those little
factoids and the important stuff, such as the fact that Barry Bonds has
hit equally well against lefthanded and righthanded pitchers over his
career, while most lefthanded hitters do not.
ESPN raised a lot of our hopes when they started displaying OBP and SLG
along with batting averages. They don't really know what to do with
them yet, but it's a great start just to recognize that they're important.
5. The role of the announcer. Radio broadcasters have to paint a picture of
the scene, because you can't see it and they can. Television announcers
who try to do this simply get in the way. They need to *interpret* what
you are seeing. They also need to sometimes just shut up and let you
watch. One thing I always loved about Joe Garagiola was that he knew
exactly when to be entertaining, when to be informative, and when to be
silent. He *never* talked over a pitch, for example. The antithesis of
this seems to be Chris Berman, who conveys the impression (whether it's
true or not) that he thinks that he, personally, is more entertaining
than the game. There is no greater hubris in baseball.
6. Pre- and post-game. Who needs to hear athletes talk? I would never feel
the lack if TV dispensed with postgame interviews entirely. Use the time
to show highlights and scores from other games, or to preview next week's
matchup, or to do a story on some topical aspect of the game.
Thanks again for listening. You've picked a very difficult sport to cover
on TV, and we appreciate your interest and efforts.
David Tate
--
David M. Tate Decision-Science Applications, Inc.
dt...@dsava.com 1110 N. Glebe Road, Suite 400
Senior Operations Research Analyst Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 243-2500
Jason Lee
>
>When I was in Korea on business, they did something that I thought was an
>excellent idea. In the corner of the screen, they had a small graphic that
>constantly showed the number of outs, balls and strikes, like a scoreboard
>with "O", "B" and "S" followed by "lights". They also had a small diamond
>showing which bases runners were on.
I've seen Japanese broadcasts that showed the pitch velocity after every
pitch. That kind of thing would be nice to see, also.
JLee
--
| Jason Lee jp...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu |
| |
| "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. |
| Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law |
Jonathan Bernstein
: I've seen Japanese broadcasts that showed the pitch velocity after every
: pitch. That kind of thing would be nice to see, also.
I strongly disagree with this. Good baseball broadcasts are stuck with
numbers on the screen because that's the way we talk and think about
baseball. Therefore it's important to keep that sort of thing to a
minimum (which still should be a lot more numbers than are on the screen
in other sports). Pitch velocity really doesn't tell all that
interesting a story, and leaving it on the screen often or always would
imply that velocity is the main thing going on in pitching, which isn't true.
Velocity is an OK thing for the color guy to keep track of and tell us if
anything interesting is going on. Usually, however, it isn't.
OTOH, pitch counts, which we never heard until the last five years or so,
are very helpful. Still doesn't need to be on screen, most of the time.
JHB
Bob Gajarsky
>In article <3k4dm1$r...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
>Scott R. Susor <ssu...@imgen.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>>in salary this year over last year, and maybe his personal views on
>>signing autographs for kids.
>Yeah, and don't forget the average amount that the "collectors" charge for
>reselling his autographs...
or, as someone who has much more knowledge with the autograph
/ memorabilia field than 99% of this group, maybe more...
the reason is that the fans have become incredibly more irritating
for autographs. more demands of the players' time as well as reselling
which nelson mentioned. dealers frequently pay 5-10$ to get kids
to get a few autographs of the star players. kids hire themselves
out to dealers to get autographs of the tougher players. lou
piniella, for example, would only sign for women and children.
kid + kid's sister would "hire" themselves to get the "tough" piniella
's autograph - for a charge, of course.
- bob gaj
Mary Rose Campbell
: fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
: portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
: around the Big Leagues do.
Like
1.) A chance to see out of town games
2.) Multiple angles on plays
3.) (if present) Knowledgable broadcasters
4.) After following a team for several years, there's a certain
familiarity with the broadcasters which can be enjoyable
5.) (national broadcasts) A chance to see teams other than the
Phillies
Dislike
1.) Broadcasters who are unable to deal with 5 or 10 seconds of
silence
2.) (usually network) Extending the time between innings for extra
commercials.
3.) (I've only seen this on CBS) When someone comes into the booth
for an intervies (i.e. Ted Williams during the 92 ASG),
training the camera on a mid/long distance shot of the booth
while putting the game in a little square in the corner of
the screen.
4.) Broadcasters who repeatedly restate the obvious
5.) Asking famous people in the stands during post-season what they
think of the game so far instead of *showing* the game.
6.) (1994 complaint) I like seeing teams from other areas. "Baseball
Night in America" largely prevents people without cable
from seeing games played by non-local teams.
mrc
Gary Huckabay
Glenn Tanner <tan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>The only problem with this is that you always hear of guys with "90-plus
>mile an hour fastballs", and when there are Jugs guns in the broadcast,
>they only register in the mid-80's. It's gotten to where I absolutely
>do not believe any announcer talking about how hard a guy throws.
As well you shouldn't. An average major league fastball, according to
guns around the league, is 87 mph. That *includes* relievers, who
generally throw a little harder. It is *not* weighted by the number
of pitches.
Very few starting pitchers can regularly throw 90. A lot of guys can
hit 90 a few dozen times a year, but regular fastballs from starting
pitchers tend to hover around 85 or so.
Not to say 85 isn't fast. It is. But the extra MPH added on by the
announcers is pure hype. Source for data: Major League Scouting Bureau
reports.
A complete list of recent pitchers who have broken 95 on a gun outside of
Texas Stadium:
1. Nolan Ryan
2. Randy Johnson
3. Rob Dibble
4. Reggie Harris
5. Gene Harris
6. Todd Worrell (This can't be right -- did he EVER throw this hard?
there's something here from Biola College? That
claims 97 mph...)
7. Todd VanPoppel
8. Jose Canseco, but driving doesn't count.
>Also, pitch selection graphics would be nice. One of the best things
>about baseball for me is trying to call my game if I were the pitcher.
>What pitch do I throw here? Knowing if the guy relies on a change-up
>very often is great information for me.
Most announcers can't tell what pitch is being thrown from their vantage
point. It's a tough thing to tell for sure, anyway. A hard curve and
a lame forkball might look exactly the same.
--
* Gary Huckabay * "He's a phenomonal guitarist." "Sure, but the music he's *
* "Cut himself 8 * playing isn't really my thing. Kind of like listening to *
* times shaving * Segovia play Poison's greatest hits or something." "He's *
* this morning." * dead, you know." "Yes, but he could still play Poison." *
David Nieporent
wrote:
>In <D5F4y...@nbn.com>, Mark Wolfson <mwol...@nbn.com> wrote:
[Mark's request for comments about baseball broadcasting deleted.]
>1. Regularity. If you're not going to show games on a _regular_,
> predictable basis, you might as well not bother. I gave up on
> trying to figure out when there might actually be network coverage
> of baseball in 1993; the answer seemed to be 'never'. If you
> can't do 'The Game of the Week', every week, what's the point?
Yes. And nationality. What's the point of seeing network coverage of
only your local game? I see my local teams all the time. Note that this
does NOT mean that we should see NY and LA teams, only. I recognize
ratings pressure, but there must be a happy medium.
[Snip]
>3. Wide-angle coverage. What's the difference between European television
> coverage of soccer and US coverage? In US coverage, you can see the ball,
> two pairs of feet, and some individual blades of grass. In European TV,
> you can not only see the men around the ball, you can also see what the
> men *away* from the ball are doing, which suddenly makes soccer intricate
> and beautiful, instead of dull as old bowling balls. The pitcher-batter
> confrontation isn't the whole story, even before the swing, and it's none
> of the story after the swing. If you can't see what kind of jump the
> fielder got, and where he was playing when the ball was hit, you've
> missed quite a bit. I know it's a tall order for real-time coverage,
> but you could at least have a dedicated full-field cam for replays, to
> show how the defensive play developed.
A lot of people have said this, and I must concur. I don't think we need
to see the standard batter-pitcher matchup swing 8 times on instant
replay. Let's see runners and fielders also. After all, when you go to a
ballgame, you don't see that batter-pitcher confrontation from just
behind the pitcher. (Unless you happen to be sitting in the CF stands
with binoculars.) There are a lot of other things you get to see, which
make it more interesting.
>4. Statistics. Many of us (myself included) are professional mathematicians,
> statisticians, engineers, physical scientists, or teachers. All of us
> spend half our time throwing things at the TV when announcers insist on
> treating meaningless statistics as if they were significant. I don't
> expect miracles, but there's an easy litmus test: if the number isn't
> based on at least 300 opportunities (plate appearances, or batters faced,
> or ground ball opportunities, or whatever) then don't mention it.
> Obviously, this doesn't include things like "It's May 3, and Cal Ripken
> it hitting .392 so far". But the world would be a better place if we
> never heard that Bill Pecota hits .324 with the bases loaded (12 for 37,
> for example), or that Dante Bichette hits .474 against John Smiley (when
> that's really just 9 for 19). There's a vast gulf between those little
> factoids and the important stuff, such as the fact that Barry Bonds has
> hit equally well against lefthanded and righthanded pitchers over his
> career, while most lefthanded hitters do not.
I have to register a slight dissent here, though it may shock Mr.
Maynard. I agree with Dave that these silly situational stats aren't
especially meaningful, and I do NOT want to hear announcers do deep
analysis of the 9-for-19 stat mentioned above.
But I don't mind hearing the stats themselves. Like hitting streaks, or
other feats, it's trivia. You've got to fill up the time in a baseball
game, and on TV, there isn't that much play-by-play we need. Sure, on the
radio they have to describe the play, but on TV, we can *see* it
ourselves. So they need to say *something.*
It's meaningless, but fun, to hear that Mickey Tettleton has faced this
guy 20 times, and has walked 10 times and struck out 10 times, never
putting the ball into play. Or something like that.
> ESPN raised a lot of our hopes when they started displaying OBP and SLG
> along with batting averages. They don't really know what to do with
> them yet, but it's a great start just to recognize that they're important.
>5. The role of the announcer. Radio broadcasters have to paint a picture of
> the scene, because you can't see it and they can. Television announcers
> who try to do this simply get in the way. They need to *interpret* what
> you are seeing. They also need to sometimes just shut up and let you
> watch. One thing I always loved about Joe Garagiola was that he knew
> exactly when to be entertaining, when to be informative, and when to be
> silent. He *never* talked over a pitch, for example. The antithesis of
> this seems to be Chris Berman, who conveys the impression (whether it's
> true or not) that he thinks that he, personally, is more entertaining
> than the game. There is no greater hubris in baseball.
I personally think Joe Morgan's "None of these players could do this as
well as I could" is pretty annoying. It might even be true; he was a
great player. But do we really need to hear his disapproval in every
piece of analysis? It's good that he's willing to criticize mistakes
made by the players. But there's a big difference between being honest
and being obnoxious.
There's a wide range among analysts. The good announcer tells you that
the current pitcher seems to be tiring, and that his manager tends to take
out pitchers early, or that this pitcher generally pitches into the 7th
inning, but that he's been overworked lately.
The overanalyzing announcer, Tim McCarver for short, tells you about 800
different pitchers and managers and their tendencies. And then repeats
himself.
And Phil Rizzuto tells you about a dinner he went to last month, and what
his wife ate.
>6. Pre- and post-game. Who needs to hear athletes talk? I would never feel
> the lack if TV dispensed with postgame interviews entirely. Use the time
> to show highlights and scores from other games, or to preview next week's
> matchup, or to do a story on some topical aspect of the game.
I don't mind seeing the "excitement in the dugout/locker room" scene, or
hearing some particular decision explained. I DON'T need to hear "Oh, he
was pitching real well, but I'm just seeing the ball real good now, and I
just swung, and I got lucky."
>Thanks again for listening. You've picked a very difficult sport to cover
>on TV, and we appreciate your interest and efforts.
I agree. Baseball is one of the hardest sports to televise, because,
unlike football, you can see what's going on if you pay attention. There
is SO much going on in football that a viewer NEEDS interpretation. But
baseball requires balance. You've got to be interesting and informative
without being repetitious and redundant.
--
David M. Nieporent "OK, all that garbage I babbled yesterday is
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com wrong. Happy?"
Deer Creek/Plainsboro, NJ --- Scott Susor,
ORIOLES 1995!!!!!!!! on r.s.bb, 3/2/95.
DYTA...@delphi.com
Quoting jhb from a message in rec.sport.baseball
> OTOH, pitch counts, which we never heard until the last five years or
>so, are very helpful. Still doesn't need to be on screen, most of the
>time.
always be on the screen. When I go to a game, I am always checking the
scoreboard. It doesn't have to be large and obtrusive, just small and in
the corner of the screen, like when VH1 puts their logo over every video the
show.... IMHO.
Real Lean Machine
>1. Regularity. If you're not going to show games on a _regular_,
> predictable basis, you might as well not bother. I gave up on
> trying to figure out when there might actually be network coverage
> of baseball in 1993; the answer seemed to be 'never'. If you
> can't do 'The Game of the Week', every week, what's the point?
You should move to Canada. We don't have that problem with our networks.
And we have better baseball to watch too.
>2. Full-season coverage. Real baseball fans know that games in April
> count just as much as games in September. They're just as important.
Well actually real _stat_ fans know this. Sport fans understand that
games are a lot more meaningful once it's clear that your team is in
a pennant race. And it is seldom clear in April whether that is the
case. Baseball players understand this as well. That's why they walked
when they did.
> Failure to televise the first half of the season sends the message
> that baseball's regular season is no more meaningful than hockey's,
Are we trolling here? Above you say that for "real" baseball fans the
regular season games are equally as important in April as they are in
September. Presumably you mean that the meaningfulness, if I may, of
regular season games is independent of playoff participation. Why isn't
this the case in hockey? Why is the regular season in Baseball so much
more meaningful in hockey?
> and that just isn't true. (Although the new playoff system is a step
> in the wrong direction, but that's a different argument...)
If the new system produces more enjoyment for more fans why would it be
a step in the wrong direction? Does it somehow throw the stats out of
whack?
>3. Wide-angle coverage. What's the difference between European television
> coverage of soccer and US coverage? In US coverage, you can see the ball,
> two pairs of feet, and some individual blades of grass. In European TV,
> you can not only see the men around the ball, you can also see what the
> men *away* from the ball are doing, which suddenly makes soccer intricate
> and beautiful, instead of dull as old bowling balls. The pitcher-batter
You should start watching Canadian Football. Lots of wide angle stuff. Of
course it's probably because, just as in Europe, they simply can't afford
all of the cameras.
> confrontation isn't the whole story, even before the swing, and it's none
> of the story after the swing. If you can't see what kind of jump the
> fielder got, and where he was playing when the ball was hit, you've
> missed quite a bit. I know it's a tall order for real-time coverage,
> but you could at least have a dedicated full-field cam for replays, to
> show how the defensive play developed.
Why don't you start up a separate cable network for baseball? Do you think
lots of folks would watch? Instead of having ex-players in the booth you
could have Spira, Nieporent and Lustig calling the play by play while
Davenport, Nichols and Grabiner look after the stats. (Lots of stats)
Huckabay could do on the field color stuff while Mrs. Jones could keep
everyone's coffee cups full.
>4. Statistics. Many of us (myself included) are professional mathematicians,
> statisticians, engineers, physical scientists, or teachers. All of us
> spend half our time throwing things at the TV when announcers insist on
> treating meaningless statistics as if they were significant. I don't
> expect miracles, but there's an easy litmus test: if the number isn't
> based on at least 300 opportunities (plate appearances, or batters faced,
> or ground ball opportunities, or whatever) then don't mention it.
Or how about not mentioning it at all?
> Obviously, this doesn't include things like "It's May 3, and Cal Ripken
> it hitting .392 so far". But the world would be a better place if we
> never heard that Bill Pecota hits .324 with the bases loaded (12 for 37,
> for example), or that Dante Bichette hits .474 against John Smiley (when
> that's really just 9 for 19). There's a vast gulf between those little
> factoids and the important stuff, such as the fact that Barry Bonds has
> hit equally well against lefthanded and righthanded pitchers over his
> career, while most lefthanded hitters do not.
Or maybe they could mention things like how long Buddy Bell played in the
NL. Is that the kind of stat you'd like to see?
> ESPN raised a lot of our hopes when they started displaying OBP and SLG
> along with batting averages. They don't really know what to do with
> them yet, but it's a great start just to recognize that they're important.
Don't know what else they could do with them besides putting them on the
screen...do you think that they should start showing optimal batting
lineups and otherwise generally second guess the field managers like stat
fans do on r.s.bb? That would keep lots of folks awake, wouldn't it?
>5. The role of the announcer. Radio broadcasters have to paint a picture of
> the scene, because you can't see it and they can. Television announcers
> who try to do this simply get in the way. They need to *interpret* what
> you are seeing. They also need to sometimes just shut up and let you
> watch. One thing I always loved about Joe Garagiola was that he knew
> exactly when to be entertaining, when to be informative, and when to be
> silent. He *never* talked over a pitch, for example. The antithesis of
> this seems to be Chris Berman, who conveys the impression (whether it's
> true or not) that he thinks that he, personally, is more entertaining
> than the game. There is no greater hubris in baseball.
Joe Garagiola always struck me as an ass-kisser but to each his own. I
can't stand Vin Scully. I hope I never have to see him again. Maybe you
should offer Fergie Olver a job on the new station?
>6. Pre- and post-game. Who needs to hear athletes talk? I would never feel
> the lack if TV dispensed with postgame interviews entirely. Use the time
No one needs to hear them. No one needs to watch them either. But some
sport fans like to feel a bond with the players on a human level.
> to show highlights and scores from other games, or to preview next week's
> matchup, or to do a story on some topical aspect of the game.
Or you could just turn the tube off.
>Thanks again for listening. You've picked a very difficult sport to cover
>on TV, and we appreciate your interest and efforts.
David Tate neither understands nor represents the feelings of sport fans.
cordially, as always,
rm
James Daniel Powers
>>1. Regularity. If you're not going to show games on a _regular_,
>You should move to Canada. We don't have that problem with our networks.
>And we have better baseball to watch too.
Hmm, Roger's not addressing the topic here...maybe he will later on.
I agree with David and the others that regularity is the most important
thing that is needed in national broadcasts.
>>2. Full-season coverage. Real baseball fans know that games in April
>> count just as much as games in September. They're just as important.
>Well actually real _stat_ fans know this. Sport fans understand that
>games are a lot more meaningful once it's clear that your team is in
>a pennant race. And it is seldom clear in April whether that is the
>case. Baseball players understand this as well. That's why they walked
>when they did.
Of course, for those fans whose teams are not in a pennant race, the early
season games may in fact be more exciting, since it's still possible that
the team is going somewhere.
So, are you suggesting that sport fans don't care about games early in
the season? Some fans those are.
The long season, it seems to me, is a big part of the "essence" of baseball,
one of your favorite topics, Roger. The beginning, middle and end of
the season are all enjoyable, for different reasons, and for the first
half of the season to be ignored in national coverage is a travesty (IMHO).
>> Failure to televise the first half of the season sends the message
>> that baseball's regular season is no more meaningful than hockey's,
>Are we trolling here?
Strange question, coming from you. Especially as you still haven't
addressed the topic at hand.
>Above you say that for "real" baseball fans the
>regular season games are equally as important in April as they are in
>September. Presumably you mean that the meaningfulness, if I may, of
>regular season games is independent of playoff participation. Why isn't
>this the case in hockey? Why is the regular season in Baseball so much
>more meaningful in hockey?
Because practically every team makes the pllayoffs in hockey, and only
a few make it in baseball. And since, according to you, the only
thing that matters is winning the championship, the regular season is
obviously more important in baseball, because you have to play that much
better in the regular season to make the playoffs.
>> and that just isn't true. (Although the new playoff system is a step
>> in the wrong direction, but that's a different argument...)
>If the new system produces more enjoyment for more fans why would it be
>a step in the wrong direction? Does it somehow throw the stats out of
>whack?
That's a *really* big if there, Roger. Clearly, David (and I) do not agree
that the new system "produces more enjoyment for more fans" than the old one.
By the way, what was you point in this post, exactly? Was it "Everything
is exactly the way it should be, and nothing should ever be changed, because
this is the best of all possible worlds...", or was it "I just feel like
attacking people in rsbb, and don't really care if I address the topic
at hand." What do you think, Roger? What improvements would you make
in baseball broadcasting (I know, I know, "they're the ones who do it, so
they clearly know everything there is to know about it, and you people
couldn't possible have anything constructive to add, bleah, bleah, bleah")
>Why don't you start up a separate cable network for baseball? Do you think
>lots of folks would watch? Instead of having ex-players in the booth you
>could have Spira, Nieporent and Lustig calling the play by play while
>Davenport, Nichols and Grabiner look after the stats. (Lots of stats)
>Huckabay could do on the field color stuff while Mrs. Jones could keep
>everyone's coffee cups full.
What in the world does this have to do with David's comments about using
wide-angle views?
>>4. Statistics. Many of us (myself included) are professional mathematicians,
>Or how about not mentioning it at all?
Ah, finally something relevant. Roger suggests no statistics be used
during game broadcasts.
>Or maybe they could mention things like how long Buddy Bell played in the
>NL. Is that the kind of stat you'd like to see?
Ah, another personal attack. I expect no less of you, Roger. (And no more).
>>6. Pre- and post-game. Who needs to hear athletes talk? I would never feel
>> the lack if TV dispensed with postgame interviews entirely. Use the time
>No one needs to hear them. No one needs to watch them either. But some
>sport fans like to feel a bond with the players on a human level.
I don't mind the postgame interviews, even if they don't ever add anything
interesting. It just seems appropriate to have them.
>>Thanks again for listening. You've picked a very difficult sport to cover
>>on TV, and we appreciate your interest and efforts.
>David Tate neither understands nor represents the feelings of sport fans.
More constructive criticism from Cordial Boy.
And what exactly are the feelings of sports fans, Roger? We've sure
heard a lot about what they aren't. And who are these sports fans,
exactly?
Thanks for your commentary, Dave. I for one agree with most of your points,
and appreciate your comments.
-Jim
--
Jim Powers | Got mashed potato
MSME Department | Got mashed potato
UC Berkeley | Got mashed potato
jpo...@sapphirine.berkeley.edu | Ain't got no T-bone -Neil Young
Steven Thornton
> 3. Wide-angle coverage. What's the difference between European television
> coverage of soccer and US coverage? In US coverage, you can see the ball,
> two pairs of feet, and some individual blades of grass. In European TV,
> you can not only see the men around the ball, you can also see what the
> men *away* from the ball are doing, which suddenly makes soccer intricate
Excellent example. I found the same thing with soccer as with hockey
-- you'll never understand what's happening if you only try to watch
the ball/puck. Understanding the game is about knowing where the other
guys are, so when the perfect pass snakes off the edge of the screen,
now I'm already up out of my chair shouting "yes!" because I know that
whatsisname is going to be right there for it. Same goes for baseball.
For one example, TV coverage as it stands now gives the impression
that every outfielder after getting the ball just heaves it with all
his might in the general direction of the plate (hey, that's what I
do). Don't bother looking for the cutoff man, 'cause he's never on screen.
> ESPN raised a lot of our hopes when they started displaying OBP and SLG
> along with batting averages. They don't really know what to do with
> them yet, but it's a great start just to recognize that they're important.
Yup. One thing, though, is to emphasize context. Before I became a
stathead, things like OBP and SLG confused me, because I didn't have
any understanding of what the norms were. BA is easy -- the magic of
.300 is drilled into everyone's heads endlessly. But what about a SLG
of .550 -- how good is that? Or on OBP of .390? I think the telecasts
could educate a little without being obnoxious about it.
I feel the same way about some of the mediot stats -- they come up
with "Joe's converted 78% of his save opportunities the last three
years". Hmmm; sounds pretty good, I guess. But is it really higher
than normal? I dunno, and if I have to run grab my stat book, I'll
miss the next three at-bats.
Steven Thornton
> Jason Lee (jp...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu) wrote:
> : I've seen Japanese broadcasts that showed the pitch velocity after every
> : pitch. That kind of thing would be nice to see, also.
> I strongly disagree with this.
I'm with Jonathan. Velocity isn't interesting in and of itself. What
I'm much more interested in hearing is "he's lost 5 MPH on his
fastball since the fifth" because that tells you something important
about how he's doing that you can't see.
An occasional "Whoa! 98 MPH!" or "I can't believe he's getting 'em out
with that 70 MPH junk" is OK.
> OTOH, pitch counts, which we never heard until the last five years or so,
> are very helpful. Still doesn't need to be on screen, most of the time.
Not continually. But a beginning-of-inning chart comparing the two
starters would be nice. It's the kind of thing I keep when I score a
game; it would be nice to have it when I'm not.
Jonathan Bernstein
: Jonathan Bernstein (j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: > OTOH, pitch counts, which we never heard until the last five years or so,
: > are very helpful. Still doesn't need to be on screen, most of the time.
: Not continually. But a beginning-of-inning chart comparing the two
: starters would be nice. It's the kind of thing I keep when I score a
: game; it would be nice to have it when I'm not.
Speaking of which...
I wonder how many people score games at home (as in, "that's 6-4-3 if
you're scoring at home")? I usually score a few games a year, plus quite
a few post-season games. The one thing in this context that would be
helpful which no one has mentioned yet would be for the broadcast to make
sure you never miss a pitch, or if you do you make sure we find out what
it was. It's extremely frustrating when you are scoring a game to come
back from a commercial break with "Kelly ground out", without the details
added. (This is a much bigger problem for network games than for local
broadcasts, of course).
JHB
brick.ba...@his.com
bn.com to All <=-
Mw> From: Mark Wolfson <mwol...@nbn.com>
Mw> Subject: Baseball on Television - What's Good, What's Bad
Mw> Message-ID: <D5F4y...@nbn.com>
Mw> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 07:03:39 GMT
Mw> I've been a television sports producer and director for both the
Mw> Dodgers and the Oakland A's, as well as having done network games
Mw> including the new Baseball Network.
Mw> I've posted this message to get your input about what you like and
Mw> don't like about baseball game coverage on television. After all,
Mw> fans like those who subscribe to this newsgroup make up a good
Mw> portion of the audience for the games I and my colleagues
Mw> around the Big Leagues do.
Mw> Since we don't normally get a chance to hear your opinions, this
Mw> seemed like a great place to finally get your input on
Mw> announcers, graphics, replays, etc.
Mw> So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
Mw> thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
Mw> improve our coverage.
Mw> Mark Wolfson
Mw> Executive Producer/Director
Mw> Oakland A's
1.Get real players on the field instead of scabs.
2.Using national announcers in a game of local interest is a bad idea. Why
not use one local announcer from each of the two cities involved, or two locals
and a national announcer? I think most posters would like one game shown
nationally on Saturday afternoon instead of local games shown on Friday night.
What about if you used the same doubleheader system the NFL does? Show a game
of local interest at 1:00 on Saturday, then a game of national interest at 4:00.
3.Shorten the game by reducing commercials. Make up the revenue by permitting
signs behind home plate and an on-screen sponsor of an inning or of the ball-
strike-out-score-inning box. What World Cup soccer did last year was great for
this.
4.Make the little statistical graphics more meaningful. Don't say "Hitting
.278 in his last 18 AB". Make it relevant to the situation. If a hitter is at
bat with the bases loaded, then a bases loaded batting average or number of
grand slams and bases loaded opportunities would be useful. Always ask
yourself,"If I was home right now, what question might I ask or be curious
about, given the batter or the game situation?" Then provide that information.
Better to display a graphic of an advertiser rather than a meaningless
statistic.
Jonathan Bernstein
: 3.Shorten the game by reducing commercials. Make up the revenue by permitting
: signs behind home plate and an on-screen sponsor of an inning or of the ball-
: strike-out-score-inning box. What World Cup soccer did last year was great for
: this.
This isn't a bad idea, IMO. Of course, we're more likely to get the
worst of both -- long ad breaks between innings and during-play ads.
Still, I would love to see removal of the extra 30-second ad between
innnings inserted, oh, what was it, 5 or 8 years ago?
OTOH, there's no evidence that longer games have hurt the popularity of
major league baseball.
JHB
Mike Jones
Now this brings up an interesting idea: "how to score" spots. I think
it would add something if there were spots explaing how to score games
between (some) innings, kind of like the "Rules of the Game" spots we
see now in some sports. Who knows, maybe there could eventually even
be some on why OBP is important!
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Estimated number of Tupperware parties and demonstrations held each
day, worldwide: 32,000
- Harper's Index, September 1992
Glenn Tanner
>Yup. One thing, though, is to emphasize context. Before I became a
>stathead, things like OBP and SLG confused me, because I didn't have
>any understanding of what the norms were. BA is easy -- the magic of
>.300 is drilled into everyone's heads endlessly. But what about a SLG
>of .550 -- how good is that? Or on OBP of .390? I think the telecasts
>could educate a little without being obnoxious about it.
>I feel the same way about some of the mediot stats -- they come up
>with "Joe's converted 78% of his save opportunities the last three
>years". Hmmm; sounds pretty good, I guess. But is it really higher
>than normal? I dunno, and if I have to run grab my stat book, I'll
>miss the next three at-bats.
This by far the point I've seen made in this thread. Stats are useless
without context. CBS's coverage is terrible because they throw out
ridiculously obscure stats without context. I am not making this up --
I heard Sean McDonough say during a CBS telecast: "Jose Offerman has
driven in 33 runs with singles this year." To begin with, what's the
point of knowing that? Also, how many total RBI's does he have? How
many of his hits are singles? What's a normal number? Instead of
providing any context at all, McDonough and McCarver (or whoever) sat
there and marveled over it.
This is the reason a lot of people here hate the RBI statistic. It has
no context. It doesn't tell you how many opportunities the batter had
with men on base in front of him, it doesn't tell you how many outs he
expended to get X RBI's, etc.
GT
Craig K. Gowens
> This by far the point I've seen made in this thread. Stats are useless
> without context. CBS's coverage is terrible because they throw out
> ridiculously obscure stats without context. I am not making this up --
> I heard Sean McDonough say during a CBS telecast: "Jose Offerman has
> driven in 33 runs with singles this year." To begin with, what's the
> point of knowing that? Also, how many total RBI's does he have? How
> many of his hits are singles? What's a normal number? Instead of
> providing any context at all, McDonough and McCarver (or whoever) sat
> there and marveled over it.
>
> This is the reason a lot of people here hate the RBI statistic. It has
> no context. It doesn't tell you how many opportunities the batter had
> with men on base in front of him, it doesn't tell you how many outs he
> expended to get X RBI's, etc.
I totally agree with this point on RBI's. I once argued with someone on Progidy
at length over this topic in part. We were discussing whether Rafael Palmeiro was
a better overall first baseman than Frank Thomas in 1993. One topic discussed
in this was an RBI comparison. Thomas easily had more for several reasons.
Men on base was one. Thomas usually batted 3rd or 4th in the White Sox batting
order and the men ahead on him had better OBP's. Thomas's ratio of RBI to
men on base when he came to bat would be much lower than Palmeiro's who
always batted 3rd in the Ranger order that year. In fact, that should be that
stat that is kept, ratio of RBI to men on base when at bat. A batter isn't
necessarily measured by how many hits he has. Its by hits per atbats (batting
average). Players aren't judged by number of times on base. Its by on-base-
percentage. As an example, I could tell you that through 28 games that
U. of Texas 2B Wylie Campbell has scored 51 runs. Unless I also say that
Texas averages 8.86 runs per game and his run total represents 20.6% of all
runs scored by the team, that number is absolutely meaningless.
Craig K. Gowens
Hook'em Horns
Texas Baseball page:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/mohill/baseball/baseball.html
Dr. Eric D. Roush
Maniac) wrote:
> dta...@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes:
> >2. Full-season coverage. Real baseball fans know that games in April
> > count just as much as games in September. They're just as important.
>
> Well actually real _stat_ fans know this. Sport fans understand that
> games are a lot more meaningful once it's clear that your team is in
> a pennant race. And it is seldom clear in April whether that is the
> case. Baseball players understand this as well. That's why they walked
> when they did.
Time to clear up these particular misconceptions of the Raving Loony
Maniac.
1) In April, all baseball teams are still in the race. There's still
hope that this year, your favorite perennial losers have found the
key to success. In September, only a diehard fan can get excited
about a game between two cellar-dwelling teams. Therefore
real baseball fans know that games in April are just as
important, perhaps even more important, than games in September.
2) Baseball players went on strike in August because they had
received most of their salary for the season, while the television
contract of the owners pays out most of the rights fees in
late September/October, covering the playoffs/World Series.
There was talk of continuing to play until Sept. 15 (players'
last regular season paycheck), and then striking, on the grounds
that maximum pain would be inflicted upon the owners, as the owners
would have still been deprived of their post-season TV money.
Eventually, though, the players decided to strike in August,
in the wishful hope that the strike could be resolved soon
and the regular season continued without too much of a
disruption.
I leave the other misconceptions of the Raving Loony Maniac
to the capable hands of others; I'm putting myself on
a restricted-rlm diet; it should keep those fatty globules
of know-nothingness from triggering a stroke.
--
Dr. Eric D. Roush "It always starts with a test tube, but
edr...@email.unc.edu suddenly that's not enough. Before you
coa...@aol.com know it, you're lying with a beaker in one
poor but honest hand, a flask in the other, strung out and
homeowner since 3/9/95 begging for grant money." -- Tim Mitchell
David M. Tate
Gary Huckabay <ez02...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>A complete list of recent pitchers who have broken 95 on a gun outside of
>Texas Stadium:
[...]
>6. Todd Worrell (This can't be right -- did he EVER throw this hard?
> there's something here from Biola College? That
> claims 97 mph...)
Yes, he really did throw that hard in '87. Unfortunately, the harder he
threw, the straighter the pitch; anything over 92MPH or so showed less
movement than Jimmy Johnson's hair. Given that he had exactly one pitch,
and wasn't particularly wild, even I could probably have gotten around on
him, simply by starting my swing in the on-deck circle.
went...@dante.colorado.edu
I totally agree with this point on RBI's. I once argued with
someone on Progidy
at length over this topic in part. We were discussing whether
Rafael Palmeiro was
a better overall first baseman than Frank Thomas in 1993. One topic
discussed
in this was an RBI comparison. Thomas easily had more for several reasons.
Let me get this straight: you were arguing that Palmeiro was
better than Thomas in 1993? Blechh. And I don't even
look at RBIs or RBI opportunities to see that.
paul
Bob Kinne
>I've been a television sports producer and director for both the
>
What I enjoy - a broadcaster who is knowledgeable about
baseball, about the strategies used, the tendencies of the
managers and players, and the history of the game. Red Barber
is my example, Vin Scully of those broadcasting today. Barber
always let the game tell its own story, but added a large
amount of information with a generous sprinkling of anecdotes.
I also enjoy listening to someone who obviously enjoys and
appreciates the game and all its subtleties, who can
appreciate a well-turned double play or taking an extra base
as much as he enjoys a 400 foot home run or a strike-out.
One of my pet peeves is the feeling that every broadcaster
must have his own name for a home run. I am thoroughly sick
of 'dingers', of 'mile-high and out-of-here', and all their
ilk. Mel Allen started this, with his 'Ballantine Blasts' and
'White Owl Whallops.' It hasn't gotten any better in 50
years.
What I don't enjoy - a rabid homer, a broadcaster who pretends
to extensive knowledge but doesn't have it, a broadcaster who
openly shills for the local concessions, the local 'mascot',
the local owner. Charlie Jones, who is a great favorite of
Jerry McMorris, is the prime example of this category. Harry
Carey runs a good second. I am also somewhat repelled by the
increasing emphasis on obscure statistics. It's interesting
and useful to know what a player's average is, how he performs
against the current pitcher, how effective he is at moving
runners from 1st to third. I don't care that he has hit
safely in 17 of the last 19 games, or that he has hit 24% of
his home runs in the 8th inning. These databases are online,
if anyone cares let them use gopher or mosaic to learn these
trivialities. A final point - I hate broadcasters who believe
the sound of their voice is so wonderful that it should fill
all the air time. If you have nothing to say, shut up and let
us hear the sounds of the game and the crowd.
Sean Lahman
My opinion...
Mark Wolfson (mwol...@nbn.com) wrote:
> So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
> thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
> improve our coverage.
My thoughts:
1) MORE AUDIO. Why can't we hear the conversation that's taking
place on the mound between pitcher and coach? I realize the desire
to keep profanities off the air, but viewers still get very few of
the sounds of the game. If this can be technically accomplished
for the home video market, why not for the broadcast market?
2) Wider shots on plays. Most coverage that I've seen goes from a
shot of the batter to a shot of the shortstop to a shot of the
firstbaseman. Why not one wide shot that allows us to see the
whole play without this choppy style? Most other sports are
photographed so that much if not all of the playing field is visible
at one time.
3) More shots from CF camera. I prefer to watch the pitcher/batter
duel from behind the pitcher rather than from behind the plate.
This allows me to see the signs the catcher is giving if there
are no runners on base.
4) Split screens. With runners on base, use the split screen so that
we can follow the runner and the ball. This technique seems to have
been used more in the past than it is today.
5) More focus on the pitches. The difference between a fastball and
a breaking ball is strategically important. Pitch selection is not
frequently discussed and not well covered visually.
Sean Lahman
sla...@sescva.esc.edu
Reede Stockton
> Mark Wolfson (mwol...@nbn.com) wrote:
>
> > So if the spirit moves you, please take a moment to post your
> > thoughts about baseball on television. Perhaps it will help
> > improve our coverage.
>
> Here's what I'd like to see:
>
> 1. Reduce the amount of closeups. The fancy camerawork has gotten to
> good for it's own, uh, good. Save it for the replays. What drives me
> nuts is not being able to see how the play is unfolding -- you get the
> closeup of the swing, a quick shot of the ball flying away, a closeup
> of the play at first, etc., but no broad view. Where's the infield
> playing? How far did so-and-so actually have to run before the diving
> stab? Did the other runner make third? This means you'll have to pull
> back to show more of the field, but you have to to give an idea of
> what's really happening. A lot of people think that the other seven
> guys in the field are asleep unless the ball is hit to them, which
> isn't true -- everybody has a job to do on every pitch. Also, have the
> announcers talk about this more.
Maybe there's a compromise available here. TV has a real problem
presenting baseball in an interesting way. The field is huge and the
things which may influence the way a play develops are spread out all over
the field. Plus, I understand the need for close-ups to highlight the
drama. So why not use some of the technical gizmos to their best
advantage? Do a lot of split screen stuff. Perhaps even three views at
once. A pitcher/batter shot from center field, the
ugly-mug-I'm-concentrating-so-hard-I'm-gonna-get-a-hernia closeup, and a
wide shot which details the defensive alignment. You can mix and match
shots to try to combine drama with the info you need to really see what's
going on.
Reede
--
Reede Stockton "Players don't get paid to have tools;
Will Riley Software Works they get paid to play baseball."
re...@nbn.com -- Eddie Epstein
Ira K Blum
> Speaking of which...
>
> I wonder how many people score games at home (as in, "that's 6-4-3 if
> you're scoring at home")?
Which reminds me of one of thse nifty sarcastic Keith Olberman
statements, "That's 6-4-3 if your scoring at home, or even if you're by
yourself."
>
> JHB
>
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
'Any fan of the game with any intelligence at all can define
most things that are and are not "in the best interest of baseball"'
Scott R. Susor
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Dale J. Stephenson
>went...@dante.colorado.edu wrote:
[...]
>> Let me get this straight: you were arguing that Palmeiro was
>> better than Thomas in 1993? Blechh. And I don't even
>> look at RBIs or RBI opportunities to see that.
>Call me old fashion, but I also look at defense, not just offense. Frank
>Thomas was the second best offensive first baseman in '93 to John Olerud.
>Palmeiro was third. Defensively, Mattingly was tops followed by Palmeiro.
>Thomas was lacking greatly. He still is pretty rough on the edges of his
>defense. In 1994 though, his offense outweighed his lack of defense. His
>numbers offensively were just incredible.
In 1993:
Olerud 363/472/599 (67 BR/A) .633 DA (0 FR)
Thomas 317/433/607 (61 BR/A) .605 DA (-10 FR)
Palm. 295/372/554 (40 BR/A) .684 DA (13 FR)
Matt. 291/364/445 (17 BR/A) .654 DA (0 FR)
Playing time was substantially the same for Thomas, Palmiero, and
Olerud. The defensive difference is significant enough to rank them:
1) Olerud
2) Palmiero
3) Thomas
although it's very close.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full"
-- Ecclesiastes 1:7
Craig K. Gowens
Call me old fashion, but I also look at defense, not just offense. Frank
Thomas was the second best offensive first baseman in '93 to John Olerud.
Palmeiro was third. Defensively, Mattingly was tops followed by Palmeiro.
Thomas was lacking greatly. He still is pretty rough on the edges of his
defense. In 1994 though, his offense outweighed his lack of defense. His
numbers offensively were just incredible.
Craig K. Gowens
Craig K. Gowens
> "Craig K. Gowens" <ckgo...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> In 1993:
> Olerud 363/472/599 (67 BR/A) .633 DA (0 FR)
> Thomas 317/433/607 (61 BR/A) .605 DA (-10 FR)
> Palm. 295/372/554 (40 BR/A) .684 DA (13 FR)
> Matt. 291/364/445 (17 BR/A) .654 DA (0 FR)
>
> Playing time was substantially the same for Thomas, Palmiero, and
> Olerud. The defensive difference is significant enough to rank them:
Palmeiro though played the most of any of them. He was second only to Cal
Ripken, Jr in defensive inning played. For the 1B we're talking about:
1) Palmeiro 1395.0 DIP
2) Thomas 1300.2 DIP
3) Olerud 1205.1 DIP
4) Mattingly 1118.0 DIP
> 1) Olerud
> 2) Palmiero
> 3) Thomas
I can agree with this. My arguement with the other person only considered
Palmeiro and Thomas, though Olerud could easily be argued as the top at
first in '93.