In the early days of radio and television, baseball announcers fell into their jobs. Mel Allen, “the Voice of the Yankees,” was a lawyer by trade; his partner, Red Barber, caught his break while working as a janitor at a college radio station. (A professor scheduled to read “Certain Aspects of Bovine Obstretics” never showed, so Barber picked up the microphone and read it himself.) Jimmy Dudley majored in chemistry, got drafted and, like Harry Kalas, began his broadcasting career calling intramural games in the South Pacific during WWII. Although all four of them belong to the Baseball Hall of Fame, they were amateurs.
The first great professional announcer, Vin Scully, studied broadcast journalism at Fordham. Following Scully’s success on both coasts, team owners and network executives decided that games were best called by people whose sober, understated delivery betrayed an intimate knowledge of the technical limitations of their equipment. No matter where in America you turned on your radio or television in the 1960s, you were listening to a college graduate whose vocal coach had taught him to speak the smooth, unaccented English of an imaginary Middle America.
With the exception of a few token athletes, like Joe Garagiola and Bob Uecker, by the early 1970s the voices that spoke for the game weren’t the voices of the game. Because the game on the field is so different from the one observed from the booth, I think it best that there be someone up there who, for example, understands in his bones that the depth of field required to keep both the pitcher and the batter (60 feet 6 inches away) in focus makes a 67 m.p.h. curveball look slow even though, were it a car, it would have exceeded the interstate speed limit in ninety-percent of the country.
I would hope that a wise former baseball player, with the richness of his playing experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion about a game situation than someone who hasn’t lived the life. But I’m not so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the game. Many are so capable. Gary Cohen could only play in Soviet Russia—when he picks up a bat, it swing hims—yet he is a tremendous announcer.
However, for someone who didn’t play the game to understand its nuances takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. Personal experiences influence the facts that announcers chooses to discuss. But this is not to say that only former players can understand the game. Sometimes they emphasize their own experience to the exclusion of others, as is the case with Tim McCarver, for whom baseball has not changed one iota since the day he retired in 1979, and Joe Morgan, whose greatness on the diamond is inversely proportional to his awfulness in the booth. For a former player to become a good announcer, he must extrapolate from his experiences into areas which with he is unfamiliar. Because what comes naturally to white, colleged-educated, broadcast journalism majors might not come easy to a poor kid from Oakland nicknamed “Mex.”
This is why the best Supreme Court broadcast team working today consists of Gary, Keith, and Ron.


25 comments
June 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Eric
As a fan of the Chicago national League Ball Club, I’m lucky enough to listen to Pat Hughes on the radio, who is a great play-by play announcer and who does a good job of managing Ron Santo. Santo is terrible in a way that’s pretty great, but it wouldn’t be great without someone who does such a good job of maintaining a gripping and detailed on-going narrative. The TV team isn’t nearly as good: the very vanilla Len kasper (who does do his homework) and the tiredly old-school Bob Brenley. In both teams, it’s a partnership between the smooth broadcast journalist and the “authentic” living beating heart of the game, but the radio team is much better on both ends.
I was conditioned to like baseball via the radio, so all TV announcers fail, for me, to talk enough about the game at hand. I know, I can see it, but i still want you to tell me about it.
June 5, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Urk
Eric is Urk, btw.
June 5, 2009 at 10:29 pm
SEK
Eric is Urk.
I now know what I will name my band one day.
I was conditioned to like baseball via the radio, so all TV announcers fail, for me, to talk enough about the game at hand. I know, I can see it, but i still want you to tell me about it.
I’m with you there. I grew up listening to baseball games while playing baseball (or practicing), so I don’t need to see the game to, you know, see the game.* It’s why I can rock out in text-based leagues full of famous folks who can do the, what you call it, math.
*Actually, I think there’s a Ramona and the apple effect in play there, inasmuch as once you see someone leg out a triple the first time, your imagination’s going to outstrip what you see . . . unless you’re watching Jose Reyes.
June 5, 2009 at 10:31 pm
SEK
(Also, this post is still 80 percent Sotomayor’s. I don’t want Urk and I talking baseball to detract from the fact that her logic, when applied to something less charged, is obvious beyond banal.)
June 5, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Urk
I don’t want to detract from that either, now that I know what’s going on. (ducks head sheepishly, promises to self to read before talking next week…)
June 5, 2009 at 11:08 pm
SEK
No worries. I wrote this on Monday, debated posting it every day since, and decided that, damn it, there’s no way to riff on how inoffensive her statement was without writing something that sounds like it’s about something else entirely . . . but I spent so long pulling it together I couldn’t not post it, so, like a sheepish politician, I threw it out there on Friday night.
June 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Robert Halford
Umm, what? The best broadcast team working today is clearly one man, Vin Scully, who, as you say, invented the baseball broadcasting game and who still calls almost every Dodgers game west of the Rockies. The ability of the man to just CALL THE GAME, combined with some decent anecdotes and his in depth research, is so clearly superior to any modern variant. It’s also clear that he spends about 2-3X time doing his homework as any other baseball broadcaster, despite the fact that he’s now in his 80s.
Plus, due to his genuinely incredible longevity, the man just has a depth of authority and experience to draw from at this point that is completely unmatched. I mean, the guy had been the team’s official broadcaster for 5 years when the Dodgers won the 1955 Series, and you can still hear him 2-3 times a week. And he does it all himself. His zero tolerance for faddish ESPN style sports controversies is also a huge plus — after the Manny Ramirez scandal this year, he opened his game broadcast by saying something like “The game of baseball can’t be stopped by any one man” and then just went on to call the game in his same classic style.
In fact, I just turned off a game he was calling (really amazing pitching by Jamie Moyer, blown save by Brad Lidge and some nice work by the Dodger’s bullpen).
June 5, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Robert Halford
Oh god, I didn’t get the joke until just now, even with prompting. But, who cares about the Supreme Court when we have Vin Scully?
(Also, do you mean to imply that Sotomayor could turn out like Joe Morgan? Because that would suck).
June 5, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Urk
I like the riff, and it’s true in its larger point even if the analogy breaks down simply because so many of the ex-players who broadcast get by with homeboy enthusiasm and fake-authentic crustiness. for most of them you could say, well “that should be up there” but I don’t know if he should be up there representing that. I have a great affection for Santo, but he’s a loose cannon factually. Brenly is obnoxiously anti-statistical and prone to opine about the importance of ‘grit” and “scrappiness” ad nauseum.
Anyway, if the two announcers are the rational and experiential voices in the application fo the law, does that make Vin Scully Batman?
June 6, 2009 at 12:04 am
Urk
aha! it wasn’t just me! And if i wasn’t so sleepy I’d try to build a connection between the whisper campaign about Judge Sotomayor’s “temperment” and the insulting, racialized discourse Re Carlos Zambrano (hothead! Immature!) that goes on in some quarters of cub fandom. And if I did this I’d also try to find a way to mention that Zambrono won his 100th game as a Cub tonight.
June 6, 2009 at 12:08 am
SEK
Robert, I live just south of LA, listen to a lot of Dodger games, and love Vin Scully. But he’s not the Vin Scully he once was. Put it differently: this post I wrote two years ago, about what he’d said the past two years . . . well, I could’ve written it again more recently, but didn’t, because it makes me sad. I say this in no uncertain terms: I love Vin Scully.
But listening to Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling argue about what’s going on in at bat, from the perspective of the hitter and the pitcher—factoring in history, count, stuff that night, confidence in certain pitches, which part of the plate is protected, &c.—is like attending Baseball 101. I played for sixteen years, but two or three times a week that crew points out something I should’ve, but somehow never noticed. (Hernandez’s real time account of why Johan Santana couldn’t fool the Pirates earlier this week was a thing of beauty. Sure, it was a slight mechanical problem that indicated slider instead of change up, but I never would’ve thought to at the non-throwing shoulder to see if he was loading his weight in order to get a few more m.p.h. on the slider. And yet, there it was, every time.)
June 6, 2009 at 12:10 am
Robert Halford
Hmm, not sure that I get the Batman analogy.
The Robert Halford rules for baseball announcers are: (1) Call the Game. (2) Call the Game. (3) Call the Game. (4) Comment on great plays by noting that they are great plays (5) Offer up some basic knowledge of the game that might not be obvious to a casual fan (e.g., why it doesn’t make sense to sacrifice bunt with a runner on second and one out); (6) If things get really dull, offer up some biographical info about a player or marginally relevant statistical information that we did not know already (7) Call the Game.
Do not offer opinions about whether a player has enough “toughness” to succeed. Do not offer opinions about sports scandals, of any kind. Do not offer opinions about the state of baseball. Do not ever mention steroids. Do not, if you are on a broadcast team, waste time making lame, fratty jokes. Do not, if you are Joe Morgan, do all of the above in the stupidest, most annoying, and most illogical possible manner.
June 6, 2009 at 12:16 am
Robert Halford
I haven’t really listened to Hernandez and Darling enough to know them well, so maybe you’re right — I was never a player, either, so that’s also a somewhat different perspective.
And you’re also right that Vin does have a few, and increasing, signs of age and minor senility — although this can be charming, as well, if you have the taste for it, such as the other night when he went on for a few minutes about how bewildered he was looking at Chris Anderson’s tatoos during the Lakers series. My general preference for game calling over analysis, though, combined with the general awfulness of the “analysis” is so very, very strong that I’m probably willing to throw even the good analysts under the bus.
June 6, 2009 at 12:30 am
SEK
My general preference for game calling over analysis, though, combined with the general awfulness of the “analysis” is so very, very strong that I’m probably willing to throw even the good analysts under the bus.
With Michael Kay style “analysis,” I’m on board with you. But Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling regularly sound like Bryan Singer (director) and Christopher McQuarrie (writer) arguing about who did what to whom in The Usual Suspects. If you don’t know that story: it was only when they were on the press junket doing interviews that they realized they had completely different notions of what happened. (I’m being vague to avoid spoilers.) Each assumed the other thought like they did, except they didn’t, but since they’re friends, they try to talk through it, and in the process educate each other and the audience about the dynamics of a particular situation. (Those “theys” distribute evenly over both Cannes and Keith and Ron. It’s late, and grammar fails me, so I’m resorting to math.)
All that said, solidarity in opposition to Joe Morgan. It’s sad that one of the smartest batters in baseball history not only doesn’t even realize how great he was, but advocates other hitters do as he stupidly says, instead of what he brilliantly did. Almost makes you wish they awarded degrees in Cog. Dis. . .
June 6, 2009 at 12:48 am
Robert Halford
Yeah, I guess it’s not impossible for broadcast “analysis” to be any good, but the actually-existing examples are so vanishingly rare on the ground that they suggest to me the better general rule is to ban analysis altogether. Maybe I’ll finally spring for the MLB DirectTV package and try to listen to Hernandez and Darling; the only times I’ve heard them are in snippets on occasional trips to NYC.
DVD commentaries may be a good analogy. When they’re good, they’re amazing, but 99.5% of the time they are just unspeakably awful.
June 6, 2009 at 4:12 am
kid bitzer
you see, for me this sentence gave away the game (so to speak), and did so several paragraphs too early.
“I would hope that a wise former baseball player, with the richness of his playing experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion about a game situation than someone who hasn’t lived the life.”
if you have been reading about the sotomayor sitcheeation, then this is unmistakably modeled on the line from her speech.
we could talk about substance, e.g. whether non-minority judges stand to cases involving minorities as non-player announcers stand to baseball games. but just at the level of style, i think you should make that the final punchline, not the start of the third para. after that, anyone who’s familiar with controversy will be reading with their guard up, and no longer open to persuasion.
June 6, 2009 at 5:59 am
dana
Ha! I almost parodied this earlier this week, taking up the challenge of “a white guy could NEVER say something like that!!!”
June 6, 2009 at 7:17 am
Spike
Jim Palmer is a great announcer. Wouldn’t want him on the court, though. He lacks empathy.
June 6, 2009 at 8:38 am
mars
If you like Keith, you should pick up his book, “Pure Baseball.” Best book about in-game strategy/activity I’ve ever read. (I’ve heard Darling’s recent book is a winner also.)
June 6, 2009 at 9:05 am
TF Smith
How about Vin Scully doing the play-by-play and Nina Totenberg doing the color commentary on Supreme Couty argument?
Souter to Kennedy to Ginsburg…
June 6, 2009 at 9:23 am
Mo MacArbie
I’m a big fan of Kruk and Kuip. Both former players, they do a good job on the analysis end and have taught me a great deal about the game. But they also have fun with the fans in a way that really brings out the specialness of baseball. During one game the cameras found a couple in the stands sharing a hot dog, and they riffed on that for a good half inning, singing the virtues of their affection as they both took smaller bites so as not to take the last. Little human touches like that would never be found in a football broadcast.
June 6, 2009 at 9:47 am
eric
This is great, SEK.
June 6, 2009 at 10:56 am
joel hanes
Harry Caray was apparently neither a former player nor a degreed journalist.
From this I deduce that the best Supreme Court nominee is an orphan raised by an aunt in Webster Grove Missouri.
June 6, 2009 at 5:36 pm
PorJ
Sports on the radio…. Perfect. I love baseball, and I would put in a bunch of lesser-known but terrific broadcasters – Bob Wolf, for instance. But don’t forget that a lot of fantastic ballplayers made rotten announcers, too. Here’s Walter Johnson the greatest pitcher who ever played the game, calling a late September, 1939, meaningless Cleveland Indians-Washington Senators game.
If you’re going to make the analogy to Sotomayor (which I would argue is a bit problematic. Think of it this way: the greatest ballplayers in history, who undoubtedly understood the game from experience as few others could have, were pretty terrible communicators as coaches/managers – think Pete Rose as a manager, or Ted Williams. There’s a reason Babe Ruth died heartbroken that Colonel Ruppert wouldn’t let him manage – and Frank Robinson, who is probably the most intelligent of the bunch, was also a pretty second-rate manager. This would argue an inverse – or problematic – relationship between lived experience and decision-making on the ballfield – which is a closer analogy than broadcasting. Broadcaster’s decisions don’t matter – but Manager’s do).
Little human touches like that would never be found in a football broadcast.
I beg to differ. If you are old enough to remember the Hank Stram – Jack Buck Monday Night Football pairing, you would remember some incredible stuff. Constantly – and amazingly – Stram would say something like: “You know what the Giants are going to do here? There’s going to be a play action pass, and they’ll find a way to force it to the running back over the middle.” Sure enough, Stram would have foreseen the precise call. Buck would always be saying something like: “Just as you called it, Hank!” And they had many side conversations as well – but football doesn’t lend itself to this.
Finally, and pardon the length on this, but I cannot let the magic of one P.F. Rizzuto go without notice. Anybody who who heard the man in his heyday can attest to his brilliance – Yankee fan or not. Just check out the comments on the amazon.com page (a sample):
June 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Game
I feel you eric!