“Down goes Frazier!, down goes Frazier!, down goes Frazier! down goes Frazier!”…”Do you believe in miracles?”….”I can’t believe what i just saw!”..
Everyone has their own favorite…that one call that capped off a championship, won a world series, brought home a title….But usually that’s just the final seconds of a game and it’s the job of the play by play person to keep us interested the whole time, not just the climax of three hours spent…At a recent sports journalism seminar at Boston University veteran broadcasters Ken Cail and Jon Meterparel offered insights on, among other things, what they try to accomplish in the booth…”I try to be as entertaining as possible”, said Cail, the play by play man for the Manchester Monarchs of the American Hockey League and the Lowell Spinners, who play in the New York-Penn League… Meterparel handles play by play for the Boston College Eagle football and basketball teams, having done Major League Soccer as well as The Charlotte Knights Triple A for two years. ..””You have to let the game breathe, let the game come to you. You get a rush doing it.”
USA Today recently took a poll of it’s readers asking who your favorite NFL play by play announcer was…Not surprisingly the results corresponded with the teams rankings by its own networks…Fans seemed to vote for those who were impartial, called the game straight down the middle, which got me to wondering if, on a local level, you had to root for the team you’re covering…Said Cail, “You can’t help but root for them, you try to be objective, you don’t have to be a homer”…Meteraparel agreed stating, “it comes naturally”…
And as for signature calls or rehearsed endings, both agreed they’ve thought about it but decided to let the moment shape what comes out…Some of our greatest memories have come from unexpected moments on the playing field…We love to remember where we were when we saw and heard that “shot heard round the world.”…Chances are you remember who called the game as well…
Edit this page.
20 Comments
Tristan Hobbes posted on November 1, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I was glad to learn that I wasn’t the only one that had such an immense yearning to be a play-by-play person at a young age. I remember doing PA for my brothers baseball games and then muting my sports video games and doing the play-by-play while I played them. It was awesome! Clearly this is what I want to do for a career. The “rush” you get each game is real and it is amazing.
The listeners are relying on you to inform them about the game that is being played. It’s important to inform them but it is also to important to “let the game breath” as John said on Thursday. All of these approaches, such as letting the game tell the story and not trying to add too much, are all important to being a quality PxP person.
I think, however, one of the more important things you need is a connection between you and your listeners. Look at Vin Scully. Scully’s voice and his broadcasts have made many people Dodgers fans and they enjoy him so much in LA that when transistor radios first came out, fans brought them to the game so they could listen in. Still today fans will bring in radios so they can listen to Scully’s call of the game.
Another point that was clear before but now is even clearer is the fact that it could be a long road to a prominent position. Most professional PxP broadcasters have been there for years and show no signs of letting go of their position. That’s why it is even more critical for aspiring broadcasters to get experience in college and never lose the drive to do what you want to do. The process may be grueling but only the ones that really want it will come out at the end.
I have had the opportunity to broadcast a broad range of athletics during my college years and the one thing I couldn’t agree more with was the answers to which sports are toughest to call. I was the PxP guy this summer for a Cape Cod League team and having enough information for a nine inning game is not easy. You do find that you repeat yourself numerous times but I think the game lends itself to being able to connect with the listeners on a more personal note.
As for the other sports, I totally agreed with what John and Ken had to say. Football, hockey and basketball almost call themselves. There are certain plays that will happen over and over again throughout the course of the game and once you have those nuances down it becomes real simple.
Finally, what I always like to think about is that the call of the historic moment will always be remembered. Professor Shorr posted all of these clips and every time an historic play is shown, its the call that you hear right along with it. We will be a part of history.
Tristan Hobbes posted on November 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm
And I forgot to mention prepared calls for championships and other memorable moments…just let it happen baby! But I also think you should let the moment speak for itself by just letting the fans at home hear the crowd and the excitement.
And finally, SCOOOOORRRRRRREEEEEE!!!!
Lia posted on November 3, 2010 at 12:37 pm
This week’s seminar taught me that doing radio play-by-play for sports is truly an art. I agree with Ken, Jon and Tristan in that you have to let the game tell the story itself. But it is because of this reason that play by play is really an art form. You have to know just how much balance your listeners want, you have to know just how much information and stats to spew out while also knowing just how much to say about the game. It is a very delicate balance, which I think Ken and Jon would agree with. This aspect of play by play also makes it fairly difficult to prepare for. You’re calling a baseball game, so how do you fill those 3-4 hours. The obvious answer is stats and numbers, but those can only get you so far. I think it was Jon that said that you have to have little things you do every 20 minutes or so, like score updates, etc. That way, you can discuss other games briefly in between calling your own game, that stems into a discussion of standings usually, then you’re off and running analyzing future match-ups, divisional games, and so on. I think this is a good way to be balanced with play by play and stats, but also a good way to be entertaining while calling the game to keep those listeners tuned in. Tristan said play by play announcers should have relationships with their listeners – I think that this is a valuable way to do so. Give them relevant information but also make the connections that are related to what you’re talking about.
But I do see a problem in play by play that is relevant in many fields of journalism currently. Ken said that he is employed by the Los Angeles Kings for his work with the Manchester Monarchs. He admitted that he is rarely negative and does not usually criticize the players or the organization since, after all, they are just one step removed from amateur status. But if the L.A. Kings employ Ken, then I’m assuming that they also would hire the play by play announcers for the pro team. And every once in a while, sports teams must be criticized. It doesn’t have to be all the time and it doesn’t have to be in an overtly negative way, but people close to the sport who are familiar with it and watch and call it almost every day can see problems and should be able to discuss them. So what does this do to objectivity? Are the play by play people hired to ONLY call the game? Does the criticism belong on a talk radio show only? Jon said that it comes naturally to just talk about the game and not to criticize, but does it really? I know that you don’t have to be a homer, but I find it hard to believe that there is never a time that these play by play guys have something to critique about the team.
I suppose that the answer to my own question lies in the fact that you remember these guys for the positive things that they call and not the negative things. Their voices are what we remember right along just as much if not more than pictures and visuals that we see of championships and big wins. These big calls are especially what make play by play such an amazing art form.
Jake Safane posted on November 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm
In my opinion, a play-by-play announcer is usually more of a distraction than an aid for fans. Cheesy catchphrases and obvious bias deters from the game, and when the announcer can’t even get the calls right, what’s the point?
For example, Michael Kay often calls Yankees by their first names, which is completely unprofessional. And shouting “an A-BOMB, from A-ROD” is annoying and borderline offensive. Not to mention boring when screamed game after game.
In Boston, Gil Santos consistently calls the wrong player’s name or can’t determine where the ball is because he doesn’t use a spotter. I interned for Patriots broadcasts at Sports Hub and we watched the game on tv while listening to the radio. Santos was so incompetent that even with an eight second tv delay, we would often help him out with the calls calling into the booth to correct his mistakes on who got injured or even who made the catch.
Even a knowledgable announcer often gets in the way of the game, spitting out stats while the game is in play or just constantly running their mouths. Last year during a 49ers-bears Thursday game on NFL network, there was a technical error where the announcers couldn’t be heard until the 2nd quarter. The first quarter still had the on-field noise, and without all the play by play chatter, the game was more relaxed and easier to focus on each play. Sometimes for basketball games I’ll mute the tv and play jazz to allow myself to have my own perspective of the game.
Best case scenario, a play by play announcer should let the game breathe, call the game accurately, and sprinkle in a fun fact or two. But when announcers get too friendly, giddy, and over the top, it takes away from the game.
Jake Safane posted on November 3, 2010 at 4:45 pm
To correct myself, it’s John Sterling who says an “a bomb from a rod”. I guess I’m no better at accuracy than Gil Santos.
Molly posted on November 3, 2010 at 9:03 pm
I can remember watching the highlights from the NCAA Division I Men’s Ice Hockey National Championship game weeks after BU won and brought home the trophy, and can still hear the announcer’s voice, “Scccoorrreeesss.. Cohen’s shot goes in! And Boston University is your Division 1 Champion!” While I had the opportunity to be at the game, I didn’t get to hear the play-by-play until weeks after. I’ll admit I still get the chills when I see the highlights from overtime, and that voice only contributes to that feeling.
Last week, Jon Meterparel talked about the rush he receives when he calls games for Boston College. He described the feeling as “almost being in the huddle.” That’s the job of the play-by-play person. It is their task to put you on the field, court or ice and make you feel as though you’re a part of the team that’s playing. Jon explained how he tries to translate that feeling for his listeners, and help them to understand and sympathize with what the players are feeling. I think that whomever was calling the national championship game in 2009 did a pretty good job of capturing what the feelings and emotions of BU fans and the team that brought home the trophy.
I think Lia brings up a great point. Does the fact a college, university or professional team signs their paychecks effect their ability to share their opinion and thoughts? I think it definitely plays a role. John also said calling a college game is much different than professional sports, considering that college athletes are amateurs. While you can be critical of their performance at times, you have to remember the fact that they are not getting paid to play when you decide to be harsh on their play.
While play-by-play might be one of the most difficult areas to break into in the sports communication field, I think both Jon and Ken were encouraging in telling us to start in smaller markets, get some experience and build resume tapes. Just remember what both Ken and John suggested: let the game tell the story.
Francis posted on November 3, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Like Tristan, I’ve always wanted to do play-by-play since I was a young child. I thought it would be cool because they pay you to go to all the games and tell people what’s going on. I thought it was the easiest job in the world.
However, I found out that it is not the case at all. I’ve done play-by-play for a few softball games here at BU and it is a challenge because as Tristan said, you need to be well informed and the game is not as fast-paced as football, basketball or hockey. However, I noticed that the game does call itself. I didn’t know what to expect going in. I was thinking of how I was going to call certain situations and plays. I also had all these great statistics and facts but as the game went on, I found myself just saying what came naturally.
I also think that whether you do play-by-play for radio or television is very different as John said last week. On radio, you have to create a picture in the listener’s head while also giving key information such as the score, time left. inning, etc. With the graphics on television these days, you almost don’t have to say anything. Watching the Red Sox, you have the score, inning, number of out, what bases the runners are on, what the count on the batter is, and the pitcher’s pitch count. Not to mention that every time a player comes up to bat they have his batting average, home runs, RBI and OBP plus whatever he did previously in the game. I think that makes it easier as you don’t have to relay as much information but also harder because you may have to find more things to talk about.
I am also not a fan of rehearsing your calls. I think it definitely comes across as rehearsed and a heat of the moment call, as seen above, just makes the moment that much better. And you can always get a color guy like Cedric Maxwell to interrupt your rehearsed call like Sean Grande did when the Celtics won in 2008.
Matt Goisman posted on November 3, 2010 at 10:40 pm
The contrast between tv and radio play-by-play might best be illustrated by Joe Buck (Fox) vs. Joe Castiglione (WEEI) at the 2004 World Series:
TV: “Back to Foulke. Red Sox fans have longed to hear it! The Red Sox are the world champs!”
Radio: “Swing and a ground ball, stabbed by Foulke. He has it. He underhands to first, and the Boston Red Sox are the world champions! For the first time in 86 years, the Red Sox have won baseball’s world championship! Can YOU believe it?”‘
18 words vs 42 words to tell the same story. And in their own way, they each work. Without the backing visuals, radio has to be more descriptive to keep the audience captivated. If you can’t figure out what’s going on just from the PxP guy, you’ll turn it off. This is what always happens to me when I listen to Patriots games on the radio. With television, as Jon Meterparel pointed out at the seminar, the best commentating is usually the simplest.
There seems to be fine line in tv play-by-play between talking enough and talking too much. Some teams seem to talk constantly (ESPN baseball, in my opinion), whereas others find that right balance of speech and silence to allow the game to happen (I usually think the NESN baseball guys hit it pretty well, but they can also get tangential). It might be hardest in baseball, because there’s so much more time between plays.
Tristan pointed out the importance of connection between listener and commentator, which sometimes lends itself to natural homerism. If you don’t care about a team or at least a specific play, how can you convey its importance to your audience? If your audience thinks you’re completely disinterested, they won’t listen to you. The other connection it seems you need is the industry connection. Seems like a career in play-by-play is a long, long road, because people just do it forever.
I share in Jake’s pain when it comes to catchphrase commentating, especially when it’s cheesy, as in John Sterling’s case. When Joe Castiglione said “can you believe it” after the 04 World Series, it felt like the perfect way to characterize the disbelief Red Sox fans felt after finally winning it all. But when he repeated the slogan in 07, it felt unoriginal, like he hadn’t bothered to differentiate this experience from the last.
Adam Silvers posted on November 4, 2010 at 10:20 am
“Same formation, three receivers right, Burress left. Manning calling signals, takes the snap, looks left, lobs left and Burress is wide open, TOUCHDOWN GIANTS, in the left corner of the end zone. With 35 seconds to go the Giants regain the lead…Manning to Burress.”
I’ll probably never forget this call for as long as I live, the day the NY Giants knocked off the undefeated Patriots in one of the greatest Super Bowls ever. Much like my classmates, the call from this game like others, gives me chills to this very day. And it’s not just that pass to Burress in the corner of the end zone that I remember.
It’s the empty bottles of Blue-Moon and boxes of chicken wing bones that littered my friends tiny dormroom. It was the non-HD tv we were watching the game on. It was the experience of being there and feeling like I was on the side-line with Coughlin when he got the gatorade bath.
If you ask me who called Superbowl forty-two I probably couldn’t tell you, but that’s just the point. A good play-by-play person can be directly ingrained in our most fond sports memory but he shouldn’t be thinking about that as he’s calling the game. Like Ken and Jon both said at last week’s seminar, it’s your job as a play-by-play person to call the game and give fans listening/watching the best insight possible. With that said, it can’t be understated that it is the play-by-play persons job to call the game, not become the game or overshadow the game.
A good play-by-play announcer should react when necessary but really let the game develop and shape itself on its own…I truly believe the greatest “calls” in the history of sport in this country, have not been rehearsed or pre-written. The call is spontaneous and full of human emotion, and I believe the most historic calls of all-time have become famous well after the event actually took place. Broadcasters can plan how they will call game 7, or how they will congratulate a player that reaches the 500 home run club or that 20,000 point mark, but in my opinion the best calls are the ones that are spontaneous and full of the broadcasters actual emotion at the time. Chances are it will mirror that of the fans.
Katie posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:04 pm
As Jake mentioned above, sometimes a play-by-play announcer only gets in the way of the game, over-talking, making bad calls, or using cheesy catch-phrases. But I think that when a play-by-play person knows how to do his or her job correctly, it can make a game worth watching.
I tend to watch soccer way more than any other sport, and the fact that the players are pretty easily identifiable because they don’t wear helmets and gear other than shin guards should make the announcers job easy. But from a far angle, it can be hard for the audience to tell players apart, even by their numbers. Sometimes all I want to hear from an announcer is who passes the ball to whom. Games usually involve a lot of quick, successive passes, so only the last name is necessary in that kind of situation. It gets redundant and annoying, really, to hear any other kind of analysis. As Jon and a couple other people said, announcers really do have to let the game breathe and, in a way, call itself; it’s not good play-by-play announcing to try to fill every second of empty air.
I was glad to hear from Ken and Jon, though, that they feel they have an obligation to entertain their audience. If the announcers are boring or the audience just doesn’t enjoy listening to them, the audience is either going to go elsewhere for game coverage or will turn if off altogether. I do enjoy some good banter or jokes between announcers (if there is more than one covering a game) because it lets me know they’re enjoying the game just as much as I am.
As we talked about a little in class, does it matter if the announcer is a fan of the team? Jon is on BC’s payroll, and the New England Revolution play-by-play announcers are on Robert Kraft’s payroll, but they still come off as unbiased. Sometimes I think it can be a good thing to be a fan of the team, to have some of the excitement come more naturally than if you were covering a rival or a losing team. But a good game and a good announcer will evoke that excitement anyway. As Adam said above, some of the greatest sports moments have come when announcers weren’t prepared for them–it was all emotion.
My favorite moment EVER was during the World Cup over the summer, when the U.S. was tied at 0 with Algeria until stoppage time at the end of the second half. England had already won over Slovenia, and we were done unless we scored a goal. After a frustrating game of missed and denied chances, Landon Donovan finally scored, and the announcers were perfect. I believe it was Ian Darke, an Englishman, calling the game, and he just shouts, “CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?? GO, GO, USA!! YOU COULD NOT WRITE A SCRIPT LIKE THIS!!” If only all games could have announcers this enthusiastic and entertaining..
Emily posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I still think Tristan is the only one with an immense passion for play by play media. I personally get the worst ADD if I listen to play by play sports analysts without the visual component. However, I usually love when sports announcers are able to add to the game that I am watching. The interesting bits of information, the special analysis of the plays and the opinions of what is happening on and off the field is crucial to the game.
As far as sports go, I think the NFL is the sport that benefits the most from play by play announcers. While going to a game is great for the atmosphere and watching crazy fans, it is not the same to hear play by plays from the weird guy sitting next to you. I would rather sit at home and watch a football game over going to the stadium to watch in person.
This does not hold up for other sports. I would rather watch a basketball game live than on TV, because the game doesn’t lend itself to sports commentary as well as football.
It has been projected that sports play by play jobs are on the decline. According to BLS, play by play jobs are not looking favorable. In a projection made in 2010, there is a 6 percent reduction from 2008 to 2018. This figure represents a much slower-than-average rate compared to other sports occupations.
Does this mean that people are not interested in listening to the banter and color analysis from the people up in the booths? Probably not. And while many think that the “GOAAL” and “Boom Shaka Laka” type calls are a cliche and annoying, I think that it is imperative in order to brand oneself as a play by play commentator.
Chris Aliano posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Sports play-by-play is not solely something one makes a career out of. It’s a responsibility–and when done right, it’s an art that so few have been able to master over the decades of sports broadcasting.
To start off, it’s not for everyone. An exceptional play-by-play man not only is knowledgeable and passionate, but he/she exudes confidence. One must be personable, but not to the extent that he/she is the focus of the broadcast. Rather, the masterful broadcaster has viewers knowing that he/she is on the same level as the rest of them, and is merely just guiding them along as the play unfolds before us.
I did a bit of driving this past weekend, and threw it over to the BC football game to get a taste of Jon’s broadcast. Despite him saying during the seminar that becoming a “homer” for the team you broadcast for is part of the process, I wouldn’t have guessed that based on what I heard. He was objective, entertaining–but not too much–and he had the game playing out in my head, painting the picture and describing the scene as accurately as it might have been on any television. That, I believe, is the most important aspect of any radio play-by-play broadcaster’s job–more so than TV for obvious reasons. Even in a more fast paced sport such as hockey, a broadcaster is only as good as the scene he portrays for listeners who aren’t there. Nothing is worse than tuning into a hockey game and having no clue of what’s happening; who has the puck, what’s the score, what end of the ice are they on? While more fast paced sports could make the broadcast itself easier to call (i.e., they “broadcast themselves”), that doesn’t mean that the play-by-play person shouldn’t take a second to describe every little detail (jersey colors, which team is going left-to-right and vice versa, crowd descriptions).
Jon mentioned that you have to “let the game breathe” when broadcasting, but I think depending on the sport, situation and sometimes who’s on the call, you’re allowed to up the entertainment factor. When a broadcaster raises his voice on close plays, yells in anguish as a puck hits the crossbar, that gets me screaming as well. I think another part of a broadcaster’s responsibility is to transcend and channel that raw emotion via the airwaves or the television screen. In my opinion, one of the best aspects of the play-by-play position is becoming a constant in the eyes of a team’s fans–every game, you’ll be there, you’ll be that voice behind the play, guiding them along and helping them see the game as you do. For example, despite the fact that the Mets are terrible, I still enjoy tuning into WFAN and hearing Howie Rose’s calls time and time again, or turning on the TV and seeing the dynamic trio that is Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez Ron Darling call games together. Not only are they tremendous at what they do, but they make the presentations enjoyable to watch despite what actually may be happening on the field.
It’s no secret that play-by-play is a pipe dream for most of us–it’ll be tougher to land a permanent, prominent PxP role than it’ll be to land a TV sports anchor gig. Aside from the hours and hours of familiarizing oneself with a team, every player, tons of stats and the sport itself, there’s the fact that there is hardly any turnover for play-by-play jobs in the professional and semi-professional ranks. It’s a job that anyone would die for and no one would quit, and that makes sense. So until that opportunity comes, we’ll just have to keep plugging and looking in places where we wouldn’t have thought to have looked–whether that be lower-minor league hockey or PA-ing the local high school football games. If Ken’s career is any indication, you’ve got to start somewhere.
Ben posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:59 pm
As Matt and Jake said, I can’t stand the fake/over-the-top enthusiasm that has become a theme for so many play-by-play announcers. It comes across as so fake that its almost an insult to people listening. It also completely ruins the pace and tone of a game. If you announce every home run like it just won the world series, how are you supposed to announce an actual world series winning homerun? We talked a little about catch phrases a little bit. Too me this often falls into the same group. Sometimes they are subtle enough where they won’t detract from the play. But often times they sound so forced that its just distracting. Never mind that someone on my team just hit a 3 run home run, did you hear how dumb that call sounded?
Too me, the most exciting calls to listen too are hockey calls. In hockey, more than other sports the pbp announcer has to carry and convey the energy of the game. I believe the most exciting moments in sports is overtime playoff hockey. In part that’s because hockey announcers recognize the game could end at any moment and they can convey that excitement. A few people have mentioned legendary calls. One of my favorites is Gary Thorne’s call of Ray Bourque lifting the cup: “And after 22 years… Raymond Bourque!”
What people often underestimate with play-by-play, particularly local guys who stick with one team their whole career, is that very often they come to personify the team. As a Phillies fan I grew up listening to the legendary Harry Kalas. When he died a little over a year ago, I literally cried. He had almost become a member of the family. I had come to associate his voice with the Phillies. Since then, in spite of the team’s success, Phillies baseball hasn’t been the same.
Jack Flagler posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I think the most important asset a play-by-play broadcaster can have, as Tristan touched on, is a sense of familiarity and trust with his or her audience.
As someone watching or listening to a game, I understand that. I love Tommy Heinsohn even though he berates the refs if they don’t give the Celtics every call and occasionally forgets players’ names. It doesn’t matter. When you hear Tommy’s voice it’s like you’re watching the game with a friend because he’s such a recognizable personality.
Like Jake, I can’t stand John Sterling, but for some New York fans the same rule probably holds – he’s been doing it for so long in the same style that any sort of change just wouldn’t seem right.
While the importance of familiarity is great for me as a fan, it’s definitely a disadvantage for me as someone hoping to break into this business. I grew up listening to the Red Sox games on the radio because I didn’t have NESN in my house.
The guys calling the game every night were Joe Castiglione and Jerry Trupiano, and while I didn’t necessarily think they were terrific (or terrible) announcers, that point almost didn’t even matter. Those were the voices I expected to hear every game and anything else just would have seemed slightly off.
Trupiano was since fired from WEEI and replaced by Dave O’Brien, but Castiglione has been doing the Sox games for almost my entire lifetime and doesn’t appear to be ready to quit anytime soon. The same goes for countless longtime baseball announcers: Vin Scully, Marty Brennaman and the late Jack Buck come to mind. There just isn’t that much turnover.
That’s why I was encouraged to hear Ken and Jon say that there are in fact positions in various leagues that young aspiring play-by-play announcers can break into. Like any other aspect of the sports media business, you have to start small, but just hearing that those positions are out there is reason for us to be optimistic.
On an unrelated note, I wanted to follow up Katie’s point on the World Cup by saying that the announcers in South Africa, especially Ian Darke, did a terrific job game in and game out (and that’s not just because hearing Darke call a shot an “absolute firecracker” is still funny no matter how many hundreds of times you listen to it).
Katie mentioned remembering the iconic US moment of the tournament when the US beat Algeria, but it was actually one of the American team’s lowest moments that I remember being especially impressed with Darke and his partner John Harkes
When the US scored what would have been the go-ahead goal against Slovenia only to have it called back on a phantom penalty, Darke and Harkes didn’t write it off as a “questionable” call – they looked at a couple replays and deservedly called it “horrible.” Darke even mentioned that he DID see a foul on the play – a Slovenia player bear-hugging US midfielder Michael Bradley for what should have been a penalty.
I think too often announcers couch their comments about decisions by players, coaches or referees to avoid going out on a limb. There are a few exceptions – Jeff Van Gundy comes to mind – but in general I wish more announcers would say what they really mean. Sure occasionally your opinion will be wrong, but you’re in the booth to give your opinion. Don’t hold back!
Seth posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I want to start with Jake’s comments because I think that there’s a strong parallel between the public’s perception of play-by-play broadcasters and women in sports. Just as Shalize and Jade think that women in sports who aren’t there for the right reasons hurt all women in the field as a whole; I feel that poor play-by-play guys can make fans become cynics of play-by-play broadcasters as a whole. Since I began broadcasting games two years I’ve become more critical when listening to broadcasts and have turned games off solely because of the play-by-play guy. Being a play-by-play person requires a lot more than just knowing the names of the players, the rules of the sport and what is going on in front of you.
Two of the things that I think all play-by-play broadcasters need to be successful are: great knowledge of the game and the ability to create a feeling of intimacy/connection. While it is slightly easier in my opinion for broadcasters who only cover the home team to create that feeling, ala the late Harry Kalas and Harry Caray two of my favorites, anyone can draw the audience in. Brent Musburger of ABC Sports is one of my favorites because his vast knowledge of the teams is obvious. Despite not seeing the teams in front of him each week, Musburger provides new anecdotes and information that fans of the team may not even know. His demeanor and commentary make me feel a part of the game and his vast vocabulary also makes the game more interesting. While using more sophisticated or unusual words can possibly alienate audiences, Musburger is able to walk the line and avoid using the same cliche over and over again. It doesn’t matter at what level you are broadcasting, giving relevant anecdotes from the teams and descriptions of everything going on off the TV screen (if you’re lucky enough to have visuals), can easily win viewers over.
I completely agree with Tristan on not preparing calls for possible big moments. The biggest thing to be cognizant of with those calls is to not over do it. We’d like to think that the events unfolding in front of us are the most important moment in sports history sometimes letting the crowd speak for you can be equally effective. I stumbled across ESPN’s Top 10 outrageous sports calls and was surprised by the list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuoKqr2dwRo&feature=related
The first three calls are some of the most famous calls/plays in sports history. While the broadcasters are certainly enthusiastic, all of them in my opinion toe the line without going overboard. The rest of the list is a comical jumble of important moments where the pair of broadcasters were a little too excited. In each of those moments I can’t help but think at some point as a listener I would become a bit bemused or even annoyed. Let the moment breathe and don’t over do it.
As Ken Cail said, ““You can’t help but root for them, you try to be objective, you don’t have to be a homer.” I think that with less and less outlets able to afford broadcasts that it is natural for broadcasters to be rooting for their team. As a broadcaster for a college, team or city you have a natural affiliation with the team even if you are not from the area. More importantly from my limited experience, the organizations in charge of broadcasters want any negative analysis of the team to be watered down and curbed as much as possible. BU Athletics does not pay WTBU Sports to broadcast any of our games but still give feedback on our broadcasts. The most common complaint is too much criticism and cynicism and we have to work to tone that down and we have to take that into account because we have a working relationship with them. What happens when the people paying the checks give the same criticism and include a threat with it? Play-by-play jobs aren’t easy to come by, I think most people in that situation would rather keep their jobs.
Laura posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:54 pm
For the most part, it seems that TV play-by-play announcers nowadays are there more because of who they are (Jack Buck’s son or a former Reds second baseman perhaps), rather than their actually ability to provide a clear and informative broadcast. I am one of those people who mutes the TV when I watch sports games. The main reasons I refuse to listen are a) they are stating the obvious b) they are wrong c) they are bias.
Both Ken and Jon placed baseball as the hardest sport to call because of all the time you have to fill. I think it’s because of that time, It is sometimes painful to listen to television broadcasts of baseball games. Announcers feel that they need to fill all the time with usually irrelevant stories.
I have a problem with broadcasters who show up only a couple of hours before the game, are handed a pre-made media packet, and call that preparation. To me, a good announcer tells me something I don’t already know because of the access they have as a member of the media. I’ll listen to anecdotes from batting practice or some of the bullpen or dugout antics, because as a fan I don’t have access to those places before a game. I showed up at 10am for 7pm games for the Rox, and the best broadcasts were after talking to the players during BP. It filled the empty air time with relevant information that fans may not know, rather than discussing what I ate for lunch during a pitching change.
I agree with Tristan that announcers need to build a relationship with their audience. That relationship is what keeps listeners coming back, especially on the radio when your words are all fans have to know what’s happening. One of my good friends is a huge Cubs fan and listens to every game on MLB’s radio app, which has home and away radio feeds. Even though the Cubs themselves may not be interesting to listen to, I found myself listening to Pat Hughes and Ron Santo just to hear what ridiculous thing they’d say next. Instead of saying Starlin Castro was stealing second, Ron said he had “thievery on his mind.” They somehow made a Cubs/Pirates game somewhat entertaining to listen to because they weren’t mundane about describing the game that I already know so well.
Although Ron and Pat keep things interesting to say the least. another point I noticed was how openly frustrated Ron would get with his former team. I definitely the hardest part is to not get to emotionally involved because it can easily come off as unprofessional and homer-esque. At the same time though, it is that passion that makes fans keeps fans tuned in. Every single one of those calls in that link above spew emotion and excitement, they give you the chills because those announcers were able to put your passion for the game into words. If you don’t care about the team you are broadcasting, then why should a fan who loves that team with all their heart care to listen to your opinion on the game.
Also, as for John Sterling: You may hate to hear THHHHHHEEE YANKEEESSSS WINNN! But it’s his intensity that makes it memorable. And I don’t think him singing, “the grandy-man can” takes away from the game at all. But then again I have the call of the 1996 World Series on my ipod, so I may be bias…
Joel Senick posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm
When I was in high school, I too thought that I wanted to become a play-by-play broadcaster. Things have changed since then, but I still see where people like Tristan coming from when they talk about their infatuation with the job. It’s not only exciting, but also allows you to be creative and put on a “show” of some sorts.
Like Jake said, sometimes play-by-play guys take away from the experience of the game. Like Francis pointed out, with all the graphics and overlays, you technically don’t need someone telling you what’s going on in a TV broadcast. However, there is defiantly still a place for the play-by-play man in sports, and I would argue that even a bad broadcaster is better then no broadcaster. A few years ago in Canada, the main network that covered the Canadian Football League went on strike, meaning that there were no broadcasters, but the games still went on. Instead, they had the arena PA announcers add little bits here and there beyond their usual “Pass to Milt Stegall down to the 45 yard line.” Needless to say, it was terrible and it made me appreciate the men in the booth that much more.
In regards to local broadcasters, I think it’s necessary to be more excited when the local team is playing well or scoring compared to the opponent. I do think it makes you a homer, but it’s necessary as most of the people that watch are from the area and cheering for the local team. That being said, I think it’s the worst thing in the world to have to watch or listen to your team on the opposing teams TV or radio feed (eg. Chicago White Sox announcers).
I think a good TV broadcaster is one that you don’t even notice, almost like a good defensive back. They do their job without calling too much attention to themselves. They add to the excitement (Gus Johnson) when it’s natural to do so, and they are calm and cool when necessary. One thing that kills me during a broadcast is when play-by-play guys start to offer their opinion on situations going on in the play, therefore causing me to think about their point or statement. To me, let the color guy do his job and analyze, and stick to just calling the game. This is one reason why I cannot stand Joe Buck. Every now and then he inserts his own opinion on what’s happening (eg. Randy Moss “mooning” Green Bay crowd) and I, and I think most people, really could care less.
Jillian posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I am a fan that appreciates a good play-by-play announcer. Sports are supposed to evoke passion and emotions in people, and a good pxp person enhances that experience. Like Molly said, a pxp person’s job is to make you feel like your a part of the game. Which is why it’s also important, like Tristan mentioned, to feel some sort of connection with your pxp announcer. Just like with any other form of journalism, consumers need to know that they can trust the source giving them information. I think that is part of why pxp announcers stay in their same field for so long. They build that relationship through the years with a team, and gain so much more credibility, that fans end up really relying on them.
Take my favorite pxp announcer for example – Rick Jeanneret of the Buffalo Sabres. He has been with that organization for almost 40 years now, but I never get tired of hearing him. I actually find it somewhat disappointing to listen to Sabres games in other markets when Jeanneret is not on the air. I grew up with that voice, and have learned to trust and expect certain things from him.
(Here’s a little sample of Jeanneret for those of you that aren’t familiar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfbyrKnKc0 )
In terms of what to expect from a pxp announcer, I think it definitely varies from sport to sport, as both Ken and John agreed with. Hockey is so fast paced that you expect a pxp announcer to be speaking quickly which automatically brings an exciting energy to the calls. Baseball is much more relaxed and slow paced, so you may expect a more laid back analyst that gives stats and friendly anecdotes about the players.
The biggest piece of advice or information that I took away from this seminar though, is the point that no matter what, you have to let your play-by-play come naturally. John made the comment that you don’t want to over prepare or try to give the listeners/viewers too much information, just “let the game tell the story.” If you plan too much in advance, you can sound scripted and cheesy, which is the exact opposite of what sports should be. Also, you don’t have to be a “homer” to be a good pxp announcer, but you do have to have a love for the sport itself. An especially good pxp person will appreciate the talents of the game from any angle.
Angus Dunk posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I was enthusiastic not only to get two play-by-play announcers in class, but one that does hockey as well. Listening to Kenny Albert do play-by-play for the New York Rangers on the radio provided me with my career aspiration to become a sports broadcaster. There are others too such as Doc Emrick (TV play by play for the NJ Devils) and Sam Rosen (TV play-by-play for the NY Rangers). Probably my favorite call of all-time was that of Howie Rose, who is currently the play-by-play TV announcer for the New York Islanders, who announced the New York Rangers beating the New Jersey Devils in the 1994 Eastern Conference Finals:
“Matteau swoops into the intercept, Matteau behind the net, swings it in front. He scores! Matteau! Matteau! Matteau! Stephane Matteau! and the Rangers have one more mountain to climb, baby, and it’s Mount Vancouver! The Rangers are headed to the finals!”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a broadcaster who got more excited off of one call even though it wasn’t a championship game. This all really hones in on Ken’s point about being able “to be as entertaining as possible” while simultaneously reporting the facts. This is something I’ve had to pick up again and again by shadowing and observing other broadcasters. Working at WTBU sports, I’ve had the luxury of being able to call games with Tristan Hobbes, who gets the most excited and upbeat of anyone on staff about any team he has the opportunity to cover whether that be ice hockey or something more toned down like golf. Personally, I don’t have the loudest or most enthusiastic voice, but I try to make up for it by adding a little “spice” to my broadcasts through comedy and witty remarks where I can.
Overall, play-by-play is a profession that I would love to strive too, but definitely has its drawbacks. There can always be a problem with announcing for a team (especially a losing one), of how do you keep the material interesting and new each game without repeating yourself. As Bernie Corbett of BU all access states that he loves doing each Terriers ice hockey game because “he has to keep it fresh.” But how easy is that to do, especially if a team falls into one pattern (winning, losing, or tying consecutively) and the same information keeps spitting itself out at you? One really has to prioritize and prepare well in advance whether an opponent is high or low profile. Ken made the point, “Don’t just show up for a game without preparing and never without some knowledge.”
Another reason I’m thrown off by doing play-by-play as a profession is because you can’t always say what you want to as John noted. For college sports, John said, “If you’re a play-by-play guy in college sports, you can’t criticize the team.” Say what? Maybe at WTBU, we’ve made a few mistakes from time to time including this one. Whether I’m the play-by-play or color commentator, I want to be able to say the team is doing terrible when they’re playing terrible. Isn’t the media supposed to relay the truth? I don’t want to have to say, “Oh, there just having a tough time out there today and facing a formidable opponent.” Why would I do that when I want to say, “And the Terriers just got stomped by the Providence College Friars 5-0 due to poor defensive play, especially from athlete 1 and athlete 2…” This isn’t a huge dilemma if you make a personal connection with the team you cover, but at a certain point you have to stop covering up for the squad and do your duty to the public. I’m not saying be a Mike Millbury, but be honest at least.
Play-by-play definitely has a lot of appeal to me and I would love to earn a position announcing for a hockey club. On the other hand, the play-by-play profession I think only continues to get more competitive with the number of men and women vying for open spots. Hockey is a good one to be an entrepreneur in because of the number of openings there are for people, especially straight out of college. However, with other sports this may not be the case based on the current status of the sports media industry.
I also find that play-by-play can get bland at times, you do a narrative game in and game out for a minimum of two to three hours and don’t always get to put your own words in. There’s a lot of stress involved with it compared to some other broadcasting roles. You simply have to know the team inside and out. For that reason, I have a strong interest to do color commentary, maybe even more so than play-by-play. This is a crucial role that often gets overshadowed because the play-by-play announcer speaks a majority of the time and makes the calls on the spot. However, the color commentator feeds conversation, points out errors to the play-by-play announcer, and more importantly, analyzes the sport. The sports media audience isn’t stupid or boring to say the least. It wants extra information and analysis from the color commentator that the play-by-play guy or gal can’t give. The color commentator has a harder job in a way with analyzing the game and plays as opposed to just reporting what happens. At the end of the day, I feel the color commentator can champion the play-by-play person if he or she is knowledgeable enough of the sport and team he or she covers. In many respects, one can come off as the more intelligent one by rising above the “Mother Goose” storytelling roll.
Overall, I think a play-by-play announcer has a huge role as a liver entertainer and plays a crucial role in the sports world, but nonetheless a color commentator can be equally entertaining with the right personality and topics of discussion.
Brad Kasnet posted on November 4, 2010 at 10:04 pm
I always listen to play-by-play in a game. I think a good broadcaster, like any sports journalist, should help a fan enjoy the game. Make sure the viewers or listeners know what’s going on, tell them something they don’t know and make them want to stay tuned.
I think it’s important for play-by-play broadcasters to be cognizant of the difference between calling for TV and radio. I think a lot of TV broadcasters began in radio and sometimes call a TV game the same way they used to call a radio game.
On the radio, you need a little more description of what’s actually happening because you’re obviously the fan’s only eyes, but you need to remember that the fan’s can’t see what’s going on. It drives me crazy when a radio broadcaster calls players numbers. Those don’t matter to the listener!
On TV, though, especially now as someone else mentioned with all the on-screen graphics, the broadcaster can really sit back and let the game breathe. I used to be in the Joe Buck hating camp, but he’s honestly really grown on me and Jon Meterperel made a comment that was right on. Buck calls the games for TV. He’s not afraid to tell a story at times or let the action speak for itself at times.
Local broadcasters have a little more leeway to let their personalities show because they are with a team for an entire season. NFL broadcast crews switch up every week, but a baseball crew that calls 162 games can develop a rapport and running jokes to keep the fans entertained.
In calling baseball play-by-play on the radio this summer, I always found one of the most difficult things was to effectively use the notes I had prepared in a broadcast. There is plenty of dead time, but on radio, you still need to be ready for every pitch and be careful not to get bogged down in numbers.
On another tangent, in England, they have a subchannel for some Premiership soccer games in which the commentary is done by one fan from each team. It’s a different experience, but a fun one. Play-by-play is a vital part of any sports broadcast, but I think there’s still a lot of room to experiment and have fun.