fshorr's blog

Earn your stripes in the high school and minor league ranks, then hopefully get your shot at the big time. Develop your own style by taking pieces from those you look up to and molding it into your own. There are more opportunities to get into the business now than ever before.

Sound familiar? That’s because those tidbits of wisdom from Dale Arnold and Glenn Ordway, while mentioned with respect to play-by-play, are universally applicable to people trying to break into sports media. Forgive the summary, but the above is the number one reason this week’s seminar was important — on the surface it seems like a niche lecture, applicable to only a handful of the people in this class, but in reality it’s not hard to apply to any situation.

As for the play-by-play advice itself, I was most interested in the debate on who broadcasters should be loyal to: the team, which in some cases are the broadcasters’ direct employers, or the listeners/viewers, who rely on them for information. I have no problem with those who chose the former. If homers feel they need to take that route in order to keep their jobs, that is their prerogative. They are free to do so. That said, they also then have to deal with their performance suffering. Hardly anyone, hometown fans included, likes a homer. (http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/956488/Hungry-homer.jpg)

The worst-case scenario is homerism to the point of embarrassment. If you ever catch yourself losing your mind at Roger Clemens announcing his return (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV3NhT0oXzY) or crying after Joe Torre’s final game (http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2007/10/suzyn-waldman-cries-on-air-following.html) or saying A-Rod playing the day MLB handed down a monster, PED-related suspension “is very nice” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsyFfnWLZsw&feature=youtu.be), you should seriously consider how you handle your job and your degree of professionalism.

But I digress.

The alternative — those who offer a good mix of analytical and fun, personable and informed — is far better. Yes, this sometimes means criticizing the team you cover, and yes, you risk angering the players/management/owners, but that is part of the role. If any of those parties take issue with what you say, talk about it. Civil discussion is more often than not a remedy. Ordway noted, in relation to how he and Johnny Most hashed things out at a bar one night, that being able to talk openly in any working relationship is key, and player-broadcaster/journalist is no exception. In the cases that it is not, I like your chances of getting a better job if you are indeed good at what you do.

The other topic that struck a tone with me — maybe because of the time of year — was that a broadcaster’s emotion level should be tailored to the audience. This weekend marked the beginning of the Buck-McCarver tandem calling Red Sox games until the end of the season. David Ortiz’ Game 2 grand slam, the signature moment of the team’s run this month, served as a perfect example of tailoring one’s emotion level. Here’s a conveniently edited version: http://wapc.mlb.com/bos/play/?content_id=31138947&topic_id=bos. Dave O’Brien’s call for WEEI starts at 1:38, and he seemingly enters a state of delirium with the rest of Fenway. His call was highly commended Monday. The Tigers’ version follows O’Brien’s, and the emotion there is situationally appropriate, too. Joe Buck’s call, however, opens the clip and sounds like he’s right down the middle. Is that how he — and other national broadcasters, for that matter — should cut it? Or should he have been more excited no matter which team tied it up, given the dramatic circumstances? Buck’s general ineptness may be a factor here.

And to answer the final question of the blog post: There are too many. A handful, TV or radio, from the Red Sox’ 2004 and 2007 postseason runs. In terms of Don Orsillo, probably the play-by-play man I’m most familiar with, his August 2008 call of “Are you kidding me?” on a Kevin Youkilis homer in a slugfest with Texas is memorable, as is his “Boston, this is for you” when Daniel Nava homered post-Marathon bombing (http://wap.mlb.com/play/?content_id=26431145&topic_id=44973348). Buck’s ’07 World Series call — “Game over, series over and the Red Sox are World Champs again” — sticks out as an example of letting the image do most of the talking.

Doing play-by-play is possibly the hardest job in sports media. People rely on you to help enhance their viewing experience while also being informative and accurate.

I’ve always thought it was funny that the play-by-play’s partner is called the color commentator, because to be successful as a play-by-play guy you have to be pretty colorful, unique and creative. There isn’t one play-by-play guy out there who just states the facts about what is happening. Each one knows the players and coaches, knows how the game works and its meaning, and has seen every play all year. With each play the play-by-play guy adds a bit of his color or creativity that really makes watching a game worth while.

There’s a flip side to announcing a game, in the sense that you aren’t grabbing the attention of the viewers as much as they would like. Some announcers are clearly biased to their team, like Jack Edwards for NESN and the Bruins, which is fine because he is a local guy and people love his excitement and passion for the team. But there are some announcers who do national games that are not only biased but annoying as well. I always think of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver as guys who if they’re calling a game, I probably have it on mute. Sure, they are extremely knowledgeable and can present the game to the audience well enough to cover national games, but I think they really lack the creativity needed. Announcers should be able to describe a game well enough that a blind viewer knows exactly what is going on, while also showing all the viewers something extra, like what little play actually means a lot.

While play-by-play guys are always talking about what is happening, sometimes they get a feel for how to best portray emotions which comes from knowing the players and the situations they are in. The best example recently is Michael Kay, for YES network and the Yankees, when Jeter and Pettite went out to the mound to pull Rivera for his last appearance in the MLB. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FArZxLj6DLk Kay only had to say four words “How’s this for drama” and was silent for 4 minutes. As a Red Sox fan who hates Rivera, this video was chilling with the way Kay handled it. Had he talked throughout it very well could have ruined the moment.

To be honest, I don’t think I had ever thought of play-by-play before the seminar. Of course I had heard it when I watched games and I knew when there was an announcer who annoyed me because they talked too much. But I had never thought of these announcers as individual people. I just listened expecting to get information that made the specific plays, players, or games seem significant in a broader way). When Nick wrote about the broadcaster’s responsibility to put plays in context it struck a chord with me. Because I’ve never thought about the “play-by-play” guy’s responsibilities, I had also not considered their duty to provide context in this way. I guess I kind of just expected it. It seemed like a natural part of watching these games. The first time I really thought about it was earlier tonight as I was watching the Tigers play the Red Sox. Sure, the announcer could have just said Verlander is an amazing pitcher, but instead, he brought context. He gave Verlander’s stats, but also his wining of awards in 2011 and information on his pitching style, etc. I think I’ll probably watch games differently now.
But they also have to balance this with following the feeling of the game and keeping quite when necessary. My least favorite part of announcers is when they talk too much. Sometimes I just want to watch the game unfold.
Like Rachel, I had also not thought about the importance of chemistry for the on-air broadcasters. I never thought about how they must need to learn to work together (who will speak and when), and how to play off of each other. Yet, when she mentioned it, this seemed obvious. Of course people always need to learn how to work with each other, and this seems even more important when the work you are doing will be broadcast to thousands or millions of people.
As our guests spoke during the seminar, I caught myself realizing how hard it must be to do play-by-play. Firstly, half the time I can’t control what comes out of my mouth (so I know this job is not for me!). When I thought about my ineptitude in this area, I wondered whether they had ever said anything on air that they regretted. And I started to think about all of the stuff they need to keep track of. They have to present information and facts and statistics, but in an interesting way. They can’t just recite facts, but have to, in some way, make it relevant.
I still have absolutely no interest in pursuing this as a job, but after the seminar and thinking about what it takes to do play-by-play I have a lot of respect for those who do it. And like I wrote earlier, I will probably not watch another game in the same way.

Athletes, whether it is at the high school level or the professional level, will always be sensitive to criticism. They read the articles and hear the banter, and when they see someone criticizing them for something that they deem unfair, it puts a strain on the relationship between the athlete and the media.

This is why it is Dale Arnold’s advice to criticize an athlete’s play, and not the athlete him/herself, is very important in all aspects of sports media. As a member of the media, it is one’s job to tell the story of the game the way it actually was. If a player plays well, he deserves praise. If a player plays poorly, he deserves to be criticized. That is the nature of this profession.

Being criticized is not easy though, so when you criticize someone on-air or in your article, you better be sure that you have the evidence to back it up. An athlete can handle being criticized for making a mistake on the field, as he or she probably knows the mistake before it is even written about. However, by singling a player out to say that he or she does not show enough effort or practice hard enough, that is where the lines become a bit hazier. Committing a turnover or being beaten one-on-one is something that is easily defined, as it is there on video most of the time. However, when a member of the media says that the player was beaten one-on-one because he or she didn’t spend enough time practicing, the criticism often crosses the line. How is that media member supposed to know how much effort the athlete was putting forth?

These types of personal attacks are becoming more and more prevalent in today’s media. With the habit of some outlets to lock on to certain athletes and criticize their every move, determining what is fair and what is unfair is becoming more and more unclear. Columnists have used their work to attack players’ personal lives and character because they are not in the locker room and do not have to maintain a relationship with the player. But for a play-by-play man or a beat reporter to do such a thing would be ill-advised, as it would severely harm the relationship between the media member and the player and it would be difficult to work with him or her afterward. As long as it is knowledgeable criticism about the play, it is fair game for a media member to use.

As for my favorite play-by-play moment, there is no better call than Al Michaels’s “Miracle on Ice” call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYscemhnf88). The way he steadily raises the excitement in his voice, ends it with his now-famous phrase and then lets the crowd do the rest is perfect. However, my favorite play-by-play announcer is Mike Emrick, and a personal favorite to listen to in terms of humor is Randy Moller from the Florida Panthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3b_7S-sGBo).

I like that Saba described play-by-play as having great power and with it great responsibility. I think, if anything, that was the most important takeaway from the discussion with Ordway and Arnold.

Play-by-play commentators face the same challenge sports journalism faces, the control of the sponsors and owners over the media. Arnold brought up an interesting discussion about how he had to fit in advertisements into his commentating. As a play-by-play guy you have to put in advertisements because advertisers pay big money to have their products publicized. Same goes with team image. If you’re being paid by the team or your company is being paid by the team, there is a certain expectation that you show the team in a positive light…even if there is garbage happening behind the scenes. You might limit what you want to report because of your own job security.

There is a balance you have to strike. Viewers can tell when you’re omitting newsworthy information. Having a trustworthy and accurate reputation is key in every field of media journalism. Sometimes being a accurate reporter may mean walking a line between earning respect from readers/viewers but then making your employers unhappy.

It is one of the gray areas of journalism where the answers are unclear and generally different for each situation. One thing remains true though, if you report truthfully and present information respectfully you WILL be trusted and your reputation will grow.

As many people have already mentioned, play-by-play truly looks like the hardest form of sports journalism. I think Eddie makes the strongest argument when he brings up the fact that fans always associate an iconic sports moment with the call that goes along with it. I personally think to lines like Al Michaels’ “Do you believe in miracles?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYscemhnf88) or Russ Hodges screaming “The Giants win the pennant!” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrI7dVj90zs) over and over again.

Both of these calls serve as the iconic endings to some of the most prolific sports stories in history. And, as Glenn Ordway made clear during Wednesday night’s seminar, they were the final sentence of a chapter or story that the broadcaster told over the course of a season or series, not just a single game.

I think this may have served as the most salient point during the seminar, and something that both broadcast and print journalists need to understand. Whether writing or broadcasting, a sports journalist cannot simply focus on a play as if it is separate from a greater story. A single play, even a single game, cannot be looked at as if it were its own thing. It could continue a trend, or start a new one. Some of the best calls come when a game breaks away from the norm.

This is the reason why Howie Rose’s call from the New York Mets first (and only) no-hitter is one of my favorites (http://youtu.be/Nz5FZI4NhBY?t=2m12s). I’m sure part of the reason why the call resonates with me is because I have listened to Rose call Mets games both on TV and radio since I was three years old. I think the more important reason, though, is the way that Rose sets up the call. Every Mets win that Rose has called ends with him saying, “Put it in the books.” As he makes the final call of the team’s first no-hitter, though, he goes a step beyond that as he says “Put it in the books, the history books!”

Rose, who called the game for WFAN, explains over the course of the final out and in the aftermath of the no-hitter the significance of this performance not just in terms of a single player’s effort, but also in terms of the team’s history. He also included points that would go on to haunt the rest of the Mets season as he brings up the backstory of Johan Santana having surgery and being on a specific pitch count.

This just goes on to prove Ordway’s point that the context to each play and each game is essential as it tells the developing story of a team’s season and overall history.

First off, I just want to mention what a thrill it was to listen to these two broadcasting greats tell stories about their careers. Listening to Dale Arnold and Glen Ordway for an hour and half is a rare treat, and you probably could have charged admission and made some money if you really wanted to.

As for what we heard from the guys, when you boil down the overall message, it isn’t all that different from what we have heard from nearly all of our guests. Work hard, be willing to put in long hours for little recognition, and be a decent person. What I enjoy is that the people that come in to talk with us have clearly heeded their own advice, and it’s evident by their success.

It was also interesting to hear some of the nuts and bolts of what it takes to be a great play-by-play person. The hours of studying that Ordway referenced is something that I think a lot of young broadcasters don’t appreciate. People think that it is enough to just watch the games, and be a fan, and that your general knowledge of the game will hold up for a 2-3 hour broadcast. The truth is that if you try that, you will sound as foolish as you feel. Fans don’t want to hear a broadcaster who is telling them things they already know, they want detail and they want to learn something. Without these hours of studying and reading you won’t be able to provide them with the experience they desire.

Arnold also spoke about getting to the point where you can anticipate what is going to happen as games develop, and this comes with studying as well. By watching game after game, and taking notes and being prepared, you will know when to have a certain statistic on hand or a particular story to relay. The way Ordway and Arnold made it sound, every little instance in a game is an opportunity for you to connect with your audience, and they only way you will be ready is by being overwhelmingly prepared.

As for my favorite moment, it’s pretty easy. I couldn’t help thinking of my play-by-play hero during last week’s seminar, and imagining how Dave Niehaus would have explained to a group of students how he prepared for a game. This call, from the ALDS in 1995, is the perfect illustration of how being prepared for a moment can help illuminate all of the aspects of the game. I am not sure I have ever heard an announcer build a play up better than Dave does with this call of Edgar Martinez’s double to beat the Yankees. And then when it comes to the play-by-play itself, he has it down to the footstep as Ken Griffey Jr. rounds third. I still get misty eyed listening to this. I hope you enjoy it as well.

Your browser does not support iframes.

I think this seminar was important for all of us to experience regardless of our interest in doing play by play, because it reemphasizes the fact that we have to prepare to do our absolute best, even if no one is paying attention. Even though I didn’t really much of an interest in doing play by play, I have always understood how important it was to the game. However Dale and Glen made points about being a commentator that I think most play by play commentators need to hear. They aren’t a big part of the game, they aren’t at all a part of the game. They are background noise and must understand people tune in to watch the game, not them.
This point made me really think about all of the emphasis on preparation that goes into it and how people may only notice you if you get things wrong. For instance, if you mess up a name, a play call, a term then viewers will notice you, if you do things correctly and let the game be the focus than you are doing your job correctly. Just as with any seminar we have had this year, hard work and preparation are the big takeaways. The hard work and preparation that goes into each medium of journalism goes a long way and I think that it is crucial that that point continues to come up time and time again in class.
Glenn and Dale also bring up the point of staying true to yourself, following your own path and being your own style always. That stuck with me because I can see that in play by play reporters that I watch in the sporting events I watch. CBS has the great Jim Nantz, who normally does their big sporting events. Whether its golf, football, or college basketball, I love hearing a game called by him BUT not because I enjoy him, because he does a good job while appreciating the sport that he is covering. He understands that even though he is Jim Nantz and many know of him, he is not why people watch his broadcast. I think that this point was made enough in our seminar to give everyone a reality check. No matter what medium we enter, I think that all of us as young, up and coming journalists need to keep in mind that we are covering something bigger than we will ever be, sports. Sports as a whole is the attraction to what we talk about and what we cover, not our own personal lives.
This effect can also go the opposite way when thinking about the world of play by play or color commentators. This is the with some of the people that work at ESPN, or even NBC where my absolute least favorite commentator works. Cris Collinsworth nearly makes me want to shut Sunday Night Football off each week by his idiotic commentary. He is simply awful and he ruins the experience of watching the game for me. This is something that I believe is important to understand the difference, the game is the show. NOT US.
This seminar also brought up the point of knowing when to not speak, knowing when enough is enough and knowing when the action on the field, court, ice is bigger than anything. Moments like this connect viewers on a level that no article, no commentary and no words can reproduce into with the same feeling. Knowing when that happens and when it is time to shut up as Dale often said, is something all journalists and media folks need to understand and know. It is a part of the job that comes with experience and knowledge. But I think we all need to learn it sooner rather than later and understand the material we are covering, as a play by play, color, or even in print, is ALWAYS bigger than those reporting it.

My favorite play call has to be Joe Buck when the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. Maybe the call wasn’t super amazing, especially since Joe Buck is a Cardinals fan, but just the intensity of the moment for a young fifteen- year-old watching was just too much for me to ever forget, and this is why it’s the first call that pops into my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTF1lb8fw6A

In contrast, here is one of the worst calls I’ve ever heard: Pat Summerall, game-winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri in Super Bowl 36. Absolutely no emotion at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSeM1h6ebUo

Play-play-play is obviously a huge part of bringing the experience to the fans watching on TV or listening on the radio. It’s their job to paint a picture, to explain why. With that in mind, let me go through the important points of the seminar and why it was crucial we had it.

– Get a taste from everybody and learn from the masters.
– Analyst role vs. play-by-play role- two very different jobs.
– Be objective on the air, but be careful about what you say.
– Use your resources.
– TV vs. radio- very different animals
– Be critical of the play, not the player.
– Emotion levels should be tailored to your audience
– Sometimes saying nothing is the best

Why were these important?

It’s important to learn from the right people, just to learn the basics. But after that, we need to make sure we don’t copy anyone or take other people’s schtick. Once you learn the skills, develop your own style. That’s how you become unique and stand out.

Knowing the two different roles, analyst and play-by-play, is obviously super important because they really have two very different roles and responsibilities. Play-by-play announcers need to describe everything, almost like telling a story. But the analyst doesn’t do that. Their job is to tell their audience why.

You have to try and be objective, but you also need to be careful because their is a fine line between saying negative things and then making sure it’s ok to say it. Balancing that line is very crucial in being a play-by-play announcer, so you can be a good one, and also so you don’t lose your job.

People may not know this, but there is a ton of studying that goes into being prepared as a play-by-play announcer. As Glenn Ordway put it, if you go into the game without any preparation, and just try and call it on the spot, you aren’t going to be as good. You need to memorize rosters, know stats, game situations, etc. All of this preparation helps ensure a smoother broadcast. Being prepared for every possible situation that could occur in the game is crucial.

Radio and TV are two totally different things, especially when it comes to calling games. For TV, you say less, or as Dale Arnold said, you shut up. Fans are watching the game. You don’t need to over say things. Say what’s important and use emotion when necessary. Radio requires you to paint a picture. The only reason they are listening is because they can’t be there in person and it’s your job to put them there. Both roles require you to tell a story, but radio also requires you to paint a picture like an artist. Radio would seem to be a little tougher than TV. But knowing the differences between the two is obviously important to know.

Players read and listen to everything you say, even though they say they don’t. Since you travel with the team as a play-by-play caller, and see the players constantly, it’s important to never be critical of a player. If they make a bad play, be critical of the play. But you cannot bad-mouth a player, no matter how bad the play is. Players and also coaches treat you like you’re part of the team and they don’t like to be criticized! Don’t make it personal.

It’s important to be emotional, but you also can’t overdue it. You need to gauge your emotion levels based on the audience you are broadcasting to. There is a difference between a homer, and taking it down a notch for all the other not-so-die hard fans that are tuning in.

Don’t over say things. Sometimes saying nothing is the best thing to do. Sometimes the crowd does your job for you. Silence, as Aaron mentions in his post, can create a mood that sends chills down the audience’s back.

I’ll end my post by relaying a piece of advice that Dale Arnold gave us at the seminar. If you really want to become a better play-by-play guy, go do play-by-play for someone who can’t see and has been blind their whole life. It’s something Arnold did when he was younger just starting out and he thinks it helped him tremendously. If you can paint a picture for a person who can’t see what you’re saying (like radio), but also has never seen what you’re describing before in their life, then after that calling games will feel like a piece of cake. I think this just further emphasizes the importance of putting the audience there at the game. The players are the main characters, but you are the narrator. Guide them through their journey, and cater to them. They need you!