Connect with us
blank

BSM Writers

Baseball Broadcasts Do Not Need Rules Analysts

Are baseball rules and disputed calls as open to interpretation as in football?

Avatar photo

Published

on

blank

Major League Baseball’s Spring Training exhibition schedule has begun in Florida and Arizona. And besides the anticipation and excitement for fans eager to see their favorite teams’ new additions or the nearing end of Winter, there is a bit more interest in how those games are being played.

New rules! Even network and cable news morning shows are looking at the new rules we’ll see during MLB games this season, including larger bases, a limit on pickoff throws, prohibiting defensive shifts, and perhaps most curiously, a pitch clock.

Understandably, the pitch clock is attracting the most interest as Spring Training games are played and major-league pitchers acclimate themselves to suddenly having some urgency imposed on when to throw to a batter. Traditional fans balk at the idea of a clock intruding on the one sport that previously wasn’t controlled by time. Others are intrigued by the possibility of shorter baseball games, or at least the perception that the game is moving faster.

Explaining the pitch clock to fans — especially when it results in a ball, strike, or out call — will largely fall on baseball broadcasters. Play-by-play and analysis regarding the clock would appear to be straightforward. Either the pitcher threw within the 15- or 20-second time limit or he didn’t. But there might be some room for interpretation and speculation from umpires and commentators as to when the pitcher began his delivery to start the clock.

For those not yet unfamiliar with how the clock will work, pitchers have to begin their delivery to the catcher within 15 seconds when the bases are empty. When runners are on base, pitchers will have 20 seconds to throw. If a pitch isn’t made before the clock expires, a ball will be called.

The pitch clock could also affect batters. Hitters must be in the batter’s box and ready to receive a pitch with eight seconds remaining on the clock. If a batter isn’t ready by then, a strike will be issued.

This past weekend’s MLB action provided two examples of batters needing to watch the clock as well as pitchers. San Diego Padres star Manny Machado became the first player to commit a pitch clock violation (albeit in an exhibition game) in Friday’s game versus the Seattle Mariners when he wasn’t ready — or “alert” to the pitcher — until six seconds remained on the timer. Strike one.

And Sunday’s Red Sox-Braves game ended when Atlanta’s Cal Conley wasn’t in the box when the clock hit eight seconds. That was strike three for Conley, ending the inning with the bases loaded and two outs. (Since it was a Grapefruit League game, the two teams didn’t play extra innings and finished with a 6-6 tie.)

These new baseball rules have some veteran broadcasters like San Francisco Giants play-by-play announcer Duane Kuiper asking for some help in the booth. More specifically, Kuiper would like the Giants broadcast crew to include a retired umpire, as he said to KNBR’s Murph & Mac last week.

“I want a retired umpire in our booth so I can say to him after an umpire makes a call, one of these new rules calls, where I can say to him, ‘Hey! What the hell is going on down there?'” said Kuiper. “And then they would explain everything so I don’t have to. That’s what I want.”

Kuiper’s request is understandable. He and his fellow baseball broadcasters already have enough to deal with in calling the action as it happens, and now they have three to four new instances that might need to be explained to the audience. It will feel unfamiliar and uncomfortable because these rules haven’t been implemented before.

Over time, and likely through the course of the 2023 MLB season, familiarity will develop. But until then, what if someone who was fully versed or well-studied in these new rules helped out? Wouldn’t that reduce any uncertainty during a broadcast, when fans seek definitive answers and explanations?

Yet is that what baseball broadcasts really need? Some might benefit more than others. But do we want rules analysts adding, frankly, very little to a TV or radio broadcast other than what’s already apparent (at least on screen) and frequent agreement with their working colleagues? Have rules experts truly enhanced NFL telecasts or simply added another voice that doesn’t bring very much clarity to a disputed or questionable call?

That’s not to say that Mike Pereira, Dean Blandino, Gene Steratore, Terry McAulay, and Jeff Triplette are useless. There are situations — ruling on a catch, for instance — where they do explain what officials are looking at and their thought process in making a call. But are baseball rules and disputed calls as open to interpretation as in football?

The idea behind the pitch clock is to keep the game moving at a faster pace. Ideally, the game won’t slow down — or stop — to give rules analysts an opportunity to interpret the same images viewers are seeing. Yes, baseball is a slower game, but MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, executives, and team owners are trying to make it feel less slow.

Presumably, there’s very little open to interpretation in a pitch clock call. There will be some differences of opinion on when a pitcher — particularly those with quirky stop-and-start motions and tendencies — has actually begun his delivery. But pitch clock violations are not among the calls that can be reviewed by instant replay, so what are we talking about here? The pitcher either threw the ball within 15 or 20 seconds or he didn’t.

The same largely goes for these other new rules. Is a rules analyst necessary to explain that a pitcher already made two pickoff attempts or “disengagement” from the pitching rubber? A play-by-play broadcaster or game analyst should be able to judge from a replay if an infielder violated the shift rules. (Two defenders must be on either side of second base before a pitch is thrown.) And though the bases will be bigger, determining if a runner is out or safe should be the same as it was previously.

One instance in which a rules analyst might be useful is the renewed enforcement of the balk rule. According to ESPN’s Jeff Passan, umpires have been instructed to call more balks on pitchers who may rock, bounce, or swing before beginning their pitching motion. But that only applies when runners are on base. In 2022, MLB umpires called 122 balks, the fewest for a season in nearly 50 years. But even if there’s a significant increase, would that justify adding a rules analyst to a broadcast?

In the spirit of being open-minded, maybe the idea of a rules analyst shouldn’t be ruled out. What if more calls do need analysis, interpretation, and explanation with these new rules (and possibly more to come in the future)?

But we don’t know that yet. Let’s see if a retired umpire or another kind of expert is necessary before such an addition. (Maybe it’s a good idea during the postseason when there are fewer games and calls are more highly scrutinized. Fox considered adding an umpire analyst after the 2019 season.) Baseball and its fans will already be coping with enough change as it is. Don’t add to the noise.

BSM Writers

Is There Still a Place for Baseball Talk on National Sports Shows?

“Its struggle has been the same since the beginning of television. There is too much baseball for any regular season baseball game or story to have national significance.”

Demetri Ravanos

Published

on

blank

Last week at the BSM Summit, I hosted a panel focused on air checks. I wish I could say we covered the topic thoroughly, but we got derailed a lot, and you know what? That is okay. It felt like real air checks that I have been on both sides of in my career. 

Rob Parker of The Odd Couple on FOX Sports Radio was the talent. He heard thoughts on his show from his boss, Scott Shapiro, and from his former boss, legendary WFAN programmer Mark Chernoff. 

Baseball was the topic that caused one of our derailments on the panel. If you know Rob, you know he is passionate about Major League Baseball. He cited download numbers that show The Odd Couple’s time-shifted audience responds to baseball talk. To him, that proves there is not just room for it on nationally syndicated shows, but that there is a sizable audience that wants it.

Chernoff disagrees. He says baseball is a regional sport. Sure, there are regions that love it and local sports talk stations will dedicate full hours to discussing their home team’s games and roster. National shows need to cast a wide net though, and baseball doesn’t do that.

Personally, I agree with Chernoff. I told Parker on stage that “I hear baseball talk and I am f***ing gone.” The reason for that, I think, is exactly what Chernoff said. I grew up in Alabama (no baseball team). I live in North Carolina (no baseball team). Where baseball is big, it is huge, but it isn’t big in most of the country. 

Now, I will add this. I used to LOVE baseball. It is the sport I played in high school. The Yankees’ logo was on the groom’s cake at my wedding. Then I had kids.

Forget 162 games. Even five games didn’t fit into my lifestyle. Maybe somewhere deep down, I still have feelings for the sport, but they are buried by years of neglect and active shunning.

Its struggle has been the same since the beginning of television. There is too much baseball for any regular season baseball game or story to have national significance. 

Me, and millions of sports talk listeners like me, look at baseball like a toddler looks at broccoli. You probably aren’t lying when you tell us how much you love it, but damn it! WE WANT CHICKEN FINGERS!

A new Major League Baseball season starts Thursday and I thought this topic was worth exploring. I asked three nationally syndicated hosts to weigh in. When is baseball right for their show and how do they use those conversations? Here is what they had to say.

FREDDIE COLEMAN (Freddie & Fitzsimmons on ESPN Radio) – “MLB can still be talked nationally IF there’s that one player like Aaron Judge or Shohei Ohtani can attract the casual fan.  MLB has definitely become more local because of the absence of that SUPER player and/or villainous team.  I wonder if the pace of play will help bring in the younger fans that they need, but the sport NEEDS that defining star that is must-see TV.”

JONAS KNOX (2 Pros & a Cup of Joe on FOX Sports Radio) – “While football is king for me in sports radio, I look at baseball like most other sports. I’m not opposed to talking about it, as long as I have an angle or opinion that I am confident I can deliver in an entertaining manner. A couple of times of any given year, there are stories in baseball that are big picture topics that are obvious national discussions. 

“I think it’s my job to never close the door on any topic/discussion (except politics because I don’t know anything about it).

“But also, if I’m going to discuss a localized story in baseball or any other sport for that matter – I better have an entertaining/informed angle on it. Otherwise, I’ve let down the listener and that is unacceptable. If they give you their time, you better not waste it.”

MAGGIE GRAY (Maggie & Perloff on CBS Sports Radio) – “While I was on WFAN there was almost no amount of minutia that was too small when it came to the Mets and Yankees. On Maggie and Perloff, our baseball topics have to be more centered around issues that can be universal. For example, ’Is Shohei Ohtani the face of the sport? Is Ohtani pitching and hitting more impressive than two sport athletes like Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders? Do you consider Aaron Judge the single-season homerun king or Barry Bonds?’ Any baseball fan or sports fan can have an opinion about those topics, so we find they get great engagement from our audience.”

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

Who Can Sports Fans Trust Once Twitter Ditches Legacy Verified Blue Checks?

The potential for Twitter chaos after April 1 is looming.

Avatar photo

Published

on

blank

As of April 1, Twitter will finally make a dreaded change that many will view as an April Fools’ prank. Unfortunately, it won’t be a joke to any user who cares about legitimacy and truth.

Last week, Twitter officially announced that verified blue checkmarks will be removed from accounts that have not signed up for a Twitter Blue subscription. Previously, accounts whose identity had been verified were allowed to keep their blue checks when Twitter Blue was implemented.

But shortly after Elon Musk purchased Twitter and became the social media company’s CEO, he stated his intention to use verification as a revenue source. Users would have to pay $8 per month (or $84 annually) for a Twitter Blue subscription and blue checkmark verification. Paying for blue checks immediately set off red flags among users who learned to depend on verified accounts for accredited identities and trusted information.

The entire concept of verification and blue checks was simple and effective. Users and accounts bearing the blue checkmark were legitimate. These people and organizations were who they said they were.

As an example, ESPN’s Adam Schefter has faced criticism for how he framed domestic violence and sexual misconduct involving star NFL players, and deservedly so. But fans and media know Schefter’s tweets are really coming from him because his account is verified.

Furthermore, Twitter took the additional step of clarifying that accounts such as Schefter’s were verified before Twitter Blue was implemented. He didn’t pay eight dollars for that blue checkmark.

blank

The need for verification is never more vital than when fake accounts are created to deceive users. Such accounts will put “Adam Schefter” as their Twitter name, even if their handle is something like “@TuaNeedsHelp.” Or worse, some fake accounts will create a handle with letters that look similar. So “@AdarnSchefter” with an “rn” in place of the “m,” fools some people, especially at a quick glance when people are trying to push news out as fast as possible.

Plenty of baseball fans have been duped over the years by fake accounts using a zero instead of an “o” or a capital “I” instead of a lowercase “l” to resemble Fox Sports and The Athletic reporter Ken Rosenthal. That trick didn’t get me. But when I covered Major League Baseball for Bleacher Report 10 years ago, I did fall for a fake Jim Salisbury account that reported the Philadelphia Phillies traded Hunter Pence to the San Francisco Giants. Capital “I,” not lowercase “l” in “Salisbury.” Pence was, in fact, traded to the Giants two days later, but that didn’t make my goof any less embarrassing. I should’ve looked for the blue checkmark!

But after April 1, that signifier won’t matter. Legacy blue checkmarks will be removed from accounts that haven’t paid for Twitter Blue. Some accounts that were previously verified might purchase a subscription to maintain that blue check. But those that were deemed legitimate prior to Musk taking over Twitter likely won’t. (There are also rumors that Twitter is considering a feature that would allow Twitter Blue subscribers to hide their blue check and avoid revealing that purchase.)

That could be even more true for media organizations, which are being told to pay $1000 per month for verification. Do you think ESPN, the New York Times, or the Washington Post will pay $12,000 for a blue check?

We’ve already seen the problems that paying for verification can cause. Shortly after Twitter Blue launched, accounts pretending to be legacy verified users could be created. A fake Adam Schefter account tweeted that the Las Vegas Raiders had fired head coach Josh McDaniels. Users who saw the “Adam Schefter” Twitter name went with the news without looking more closely at the “@AdamSchefterNOT” handle. But there was a blue checkmark next to the name this time!

The same thing occurred with a fake LeBron James account tweeting that the NBA superstar had requested a trade from the Los Angeles Lakers. There was a “@KINGJamez” handle, but a “LeBron James” Twitter name with a blue check next to it.

Whether it’s because fans and media have become more discerning or Twitter has done good work cracking down on such fake accounts, there haven’t been many outrageous examples of deliberate deception since last November. But the potential for Twitter chaos after April 1 is looming.

If that seems like an overstatement, it’s a very real possibility that there will be an erosion of trust among Twitter users. Media and fans may have to take a breath before quickly tweeting and retweeting news from accounts that may or may not be credible. False news and phony statements could spread quickly and go viral across social media.

Even worse, Musk has announced that only verified Twitter Blue accounts will be seen in your “For You” timeline as of April 15. (He can’t claim it’s an April Fools’ Day joke on that date.)

Obviously, that carries far more serious real-world implications beyond sports. Forget about a fake Shams Charania account tweeting that Luka Dončić wants to be traded to the Lakers. It’s not difficult to imagine a fake Joe Biden account declaring war on Russia and some people believing it’s true because of the blue checkmark.

We may be nearing the end of Twitter being a reliable news-gathering tool. If the accounts tweeting out news can’t be trusted, where’s the value? Reporters and newsmakers may end up going to other social media platforms to break stories and carry the viability of verification.

When Fox Sports’ website infamously pivoted to video in 2017, Ken Rosenthal posted his MLB reporting on Facebook prior to joining The Athletic. Hello, Instagram. Will someone take their following and reputation to a fledgling platform like Mastodon, Post, Spoutible, or BlueSky, even if it means a lesser outlet?

If and when that happens, Twitter could still be a community but not nearly as much fun. Not when it becomes a matter of trust that breaks up the party.

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

There’s a Lesson For Us All in Florida Atlantic’s Elite 8 Broadcast Struggle

“It is a ton of faith our industry has been forced to place in a single mode of delivery.”

Avatar photo

Published

on

blank

Ken LaVicka and Kevin Harlan probably don’t have a ton in common. Both of them were announcing an Elite Eight game over the weekend, that is one thing tying them together, but their experiences were wildly different. Harlan is on CBS with a production crew numbering in the dozens making certain all goes smoothly. LaVicka, the voice of the Florida Atlantic Owls, is a production crew himself, making certain those listening in South Florida heard the Owls punch their Final Four ticket. At least, that was LaVicka’s plan.

The Florida Atlantic Owls are going to the Men’s Final Four. Even while typing that sentence, it still seems odd to say. Do you know how many college basketball teams are thinking “how can Florida Atlantic make the Final Four and we can’t?” These are the types of stories that make the NCAA Tournament what it is. There is, literally, no barrier stopping any team from this tournament going on the run of their life and making it all the way.

Everyone listening in South Florida almost missed the moment it all became real for the Owls. With :18.6 to go in Florida Atlantic’s Elite Eight game against Kansas State, the Madison Square Garden Ethernet service to the front row of media seating went completely dark. 

It was on that row that Ken LaVicka was painting the picture back to South Florida. Well, he was until the internet died on him.

Nobody does a single show away from their home studio anymore without trying to avoid the nightmare of Ethernet failure. Gone are the days of phone lines and ISDN connections, all the audio and video is now sent back to the studio over the technological miracle that is the internet. It is a ton of faith our industry has been forced to place in a single mode of delivery.

Take that anxiety and multiply it by 1,000 when that Ethernet line is connected to a Comrex unit for the most important moment of your career. LaVicka had the great fortune of a Kansas State timeout to try something, anything, to save the day. In his quick thinking, he spun around and grabbed an ethernet cable from row two which, as it turns out, still had internet access flowing through it’s cables. That cable, though, was the equivalent of an iPhone charging cord; never as long as you need it to be.

One of LaVicka’s co-workers from ESPN West Palm held the Comrex unit close enough to the second row for the cable to make a connection and the day was saved. LaVicka was able to call the last :15 of the Florida Atlantic win and, presumably, get in all the necessary sponsorship mentions.

It was an exciting end to the FAU v. Kansas State game, a great defensive stop by the Owls to seal the victory. LaVicka told the NCAA’s Andy Katz he tried to channel his inner Jim Nantz to relay that excitement. The NCAA Tournament excitement started early this year. In the very first TV window 13 Seed Furman upset 4 Seed Virginia with a late three pointer by JP Pegues, who had been 0-for-15 from beyond the arc leading up to that shot. It is the type of play the NCAA Tournament is built upon.

It was called in the manner Kevin Harlan’s career was built upon. Harlan, alongside Stan Van Gundy and Dan Bonner, called the Virginia turnover leading to the made Furman basket with his trademark excitement before laying out for the crowd reaction. After a few seconds of crowd excitement he asked his analysts, and the world, “Did we just see what I think we saw? Wow!” Vintage Kevin Harlan.

One reason we are so aware of what Harlan said, and that he signaled his analysts to lay out for the crowd reaction, was a CBS Sports tweet with video of Harlan, Van Gundy and Bonner in a split screen over the play. It gave us a rare look at a pro in the middle of his craft. We got to see that Harlan reacts just like he sounds. The video has more than six million views and has been retweeted more than 6,000 times, a lot of people seem to like it.

Kevin Harlan is not in that group. Harlan appeared on Richard Deitsch’s Sports Media podcast after the video went public and said he was embarrassed by it. Harlan added he “begged” CBS not send the tweet out but to no avail. Harlan told Deitsch “I don’t know that I’m glad that they caught our expression, but I’m glad the game was on the air. I think I join a chorus of other announcers who do not like the camera.”

There’s a valuable announcer lesson from Harlan there; the audience is almost always there for the game, not you. Harlan went on to describe the broadcast booth to Deitsch as somewhat of a sacred place. He would prefer to let his words accompany the video of the action to tell the story. Kevin Harlan is as good as they come at his craft, if he thinks that way, there’s probably great value in that line of thought.

We can learn from LaVicka, as well. You work in this business long enough and you come to accept technical difficulties are as much a part of it as anything. They always seem to strike at the worst times, it is just in their nature. Those who can find a way to deal with them without everything melting down are those who can give their audience what they showed up for. Those who lose their mind and spend time complaining about them during the production simply give the audience information they don’t really care about.

The Final Four is an unlikely collection of teams; Miami, San Diego State, Connecticut and Florida Atlantic. You all had that in your brackets, right? Yep, the Florida Atlantic Owls are going to the Final Four and Ken LaVicka will be there for it. Now, if the internet will just hold out.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

blank

Barrett Media Writers

Copyright © 2023 Barrett Media.