Play-by-Play Minutiae

 

Waite Hoyt (right) as a pitcher with the Yankees and some guy on the left

The biggest thing I want to see in the Play-by-Play group that Shawn Sailer, Mike Hirn, and I are moderators for is conversation.

I don't care about what game you have to promote. Honestly, why would you promote it in the group? Do you want feedback? There's a subset of the group that gets all tangled when anyone is criticized.

So I don't get the self-promotion. Literally, no one (except for the original poster) cares.

What I do like seeing are things like the nominees for the Ford Frick Award (OK, that was posted by me and gained very little traction). I like seeing discussions of equipment and streaming platforms and preferred broadcast styles and job openings.

I like topics. Things that actually pertain to the production of a game broadcast.

It's supposed to be a forum.

To that end, I occasionally see things of interest but the comments are...well, not often my style, I guess. More than once I've just wanted to say, "You guys are funny," and leave it at that.

One question of interest recently was about criticism at the high school level. The person asking the question was quickly drawn and quartered for even suggesting that criticism should ever occur.

What my peers fail to recognize while sitting on their high horses is any context of the question. Yes, I say, there can be criticism, but how it's delivered matters.

My job -- first and foremost -- is to report. It's telling you what I see.

If I see a team go for it on fourth and 15 from their own 10-yard line in the first quarter, am I just supposed to say nothing?

Or do I phrase it like this: "An interesting decision for sure. Let's see what happens"?

After said play fails, it's easy to add, "That was questionable, for sure. I'm curious what (insert coach here) saw that made him try that."

That's a simple but effective way of reporting and even adding an edge of criticism of it.

But that's talking about a coach. When it comes to a player things have to be a lot more delicate.

If there's a turnover, it's simple: "You have to protect the ball there," or "A costly turnover."

In that spot, you haven't hammered the player by name.

Simply reporting the facts can be criticism (or praise) enough.

But my colleagues are falling all over each other to impress themselves with their answers.

Remember how I often say to stop trying to be the smartest person in the room?

I know there's a desire for rainbows and unicorns all the time. Yes, everyone does indeed get a medal. I also very much understand that these aren't professionals. Still, I know my audience and the teams that I cover respect my approach. I basically use the approach no matter where I'm working.

I report and I'm honest. The end.

Not everything in the group has to be a teaching moment from the pulpit. As I often say to Shawn and Mike privately, I don't have the bandwidth to go into that snake pit with them so I just read the comments.

From there, I mostly laugh.

For me, most coaches and athletes (and even families) know that I have their backs and I'm there to report the story accurately. If there's ever a line it quickly gets discussed but I can tell you that there have been very few of those conversations ever.

I could literally count those conversations on one hand and it's never a harsh one.

Still, I'm glad to see these kinds of topics are coming up in the group.

As for my Hall of Fame/Frick Award post, the replies dealt with those who aren't already honored with the award. My question, immediately, becomes "Who would you take out?" We'd all love to see our guy get honored, but the award is given once a year and there are many worthy names.

Let's face it: nobody is being removed. So time marches on and not everyone can receive the award. This years' nominees are all deceased and worked over 50 years ago. Many people wouldn't know the names anyway (Pat Flanagan, Jack Graney, Waite Hoyt, France Laux, Rosey Rowswell, Hal Totten, Ty Tyson, and Bert Wilson). They're all worthy, to be honest. I've mentioned Rowswell before as he was the original sort of "circus clown" of play-by-play.

Graney was the first player to successfully transition to the booth. 

Hoyt is already in the Hall as a pitcher with Babe Ruth and the Yankees. His stories about Ruth during ran delays in the Cincinnati radio booth make him in a legend in Ohio.

Most, if not all of these nominees, have middle-American ties, with Tyson a legend in Detroit, Laux in St Louis, and Wilson and Flanagan in Chicago.

Anyway, that's enough from me for tonight.

I'm babbling, so I'll shut down and watch baseball.