BATTER UP!

[Fading Fast]

Pretty much -- the conventional wisdom of the time was that the daytime radio audience in general was overwhelmingly female. This is borne out by many of the sponsors who backed early baseball broadcasts -- most of them were household products traditionally marketed to women, like soap or packaged foods, or "neutral" products that were marketed to both sexes, like cigarettes and gasoline. It wasn't until after the war, and the increasing popularity of night games, that "masculine" beer and cigar sponsors became dominant factors in baseball broadcasting.

Some of the early broadcasters were aware of their popularity with women, and played it up. There's a surviving White Sox broadcast from 1937 where Hal Totten's pre-game guests are several women chosen from the stands, who talk knowledgeably and at length about the great Sox teams of the 1900s and 1910s. Baseball had never really paid much attention to women as fans until radio reinforced just how many there actually were.

Any idea of the fan breakdown today? The advertising is clearly male oriented, but is the fan base as male dominated as the advertising would have you believe?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Pretty much all the avid baseball fans I know -- and I mean serious, hard-core fans who watch every game, listen to Felger and Mazz on the radio, have Sox paraphernalia on their cars, dress their dogs up in little Sox jackets, etc. -- are middle-aged or older women. I don't know if that's a New England thing or what, but it's been true for the last couple of generations around here. The men seem to be more interested in football these days.

 

[Harp]

I would actually love to attend games in a suit and hat, smoking a cigar.

If the Cubs meet Cleveland in the World Series this season I may opt suit and homburg with a lit Cohiba Esplendido.

 

[Fading Fast]

I was watching the National's game yesterday - I don't pay up for any sports packages, so I watch what's on - and the announcers were doing an outstanding job explaining some really nuanced (or, inside baseball - teehee) things about the game. For example, they would explain why the pitcher started with an inside curve to a specific batter and then why he followed up with a fastball based on the specific batter's skills and history.

This went on regularly as they explained, for some batters, the logic behind seemingly every pitch. I don't remember getting this kind of detail from announcers as a kid. Sure, they'd talk about pitching "him inside," etc., when I was growing up, but the info yesterday (and in general now) seems much more specific and technical. Am I just more tuned into this or have the details and specifics announcers share gotten deeper?

 

[Ghostsoldier]

Cards of 1909

Cubs of 1929

Rob

 

[LizzieMaine]

I was watching the National's game yesterday - I don't pay up for any sports packages, so I watch what's on - and the announcers were doing an outstanding job explaining some really nuanced (or, inside baseball - teehee) things about the game. For example, they would explain why the pitcher started with an inside curve to a specific batter and then why he followed up with a fastball based on the specific batter's skills and history.

This went on regularly as they explained, for some batters, the logic behind seemingly every pitch. I don't remember getting this kind of detail from announcers as a kid. Sure, they'd talk about pitching "him inside," etc., when I was growing up, but the info yesterday (and in general now) seems much more specific and technical. Am I just more tuned into this or have the details and specifics announcers share gotten deeper?

That's really a trend of the last thirty years or so, coupled to the rise of Sabermetric statistical analysis. There were certainly statistically-oriented broadcasters in the pre-Sabermetric era -- Branch Rickey was a big believer in a statistically-oriented approach to the game, and hired a math geek named Allen Roth to be the official team statistician for the Dodgers in 1947, using what was for the time a very advanced and sophisticated set of plotting sheets to record every possible detail of every game. Rickey used Roth's analyses to determine player acquisition strategies -- basically adopting a "Moneyball" system decades before anybody ever heard of Bill James or Billy Beane.

Walter F. O'Malley didn't like Roth, or his ideas, and figured the best way to use him was to stick him in the broadcasting booth alongside Vin Scully -- especially since, by doing so, he could charge off half the cost of Roth's salary to the Dodger radio-TV sponsors. Scully and Roth got along fine, and Scully made frequent use of Roth's on-the-spot statistical analyses from the moment he took over as the team's top broadcaster. He didn't do it as much as it's done today, but he did it far more often than any of the other broadcasters of his time, most of whom went along with Dizzy Dean's famous disdain for cluttering up his broadcast with a lot of "statics."

After O'Malley fired Roth for engaging in an extra-curricular peccadillo, the statistician went to work for NBC, and basically served as Tony Kubek's support system, giving Kubek all the stats he needed to become an excellent broadcast analyst.

 

[Fading Fast]

That's really a trend of the last thirty years or so, coupled to the rise of Sabermetric statistical analysis. There were certainly statistically-oriented broadcasters in the pre-Sabermetric era -- Branch Rickey was a big believer in a statistically-oriented approach to the game, and hired a math geek named Allen Roth to be the official team statistician for the Dodgers in 1947, using what was for the time a very advanced and sophisticated set of plotting sheets to record every possible detail of every game. Rickey used Roth's analyses to determine player acquisition strategies -- basically adopting a "Moneyball" system decades before anybody ever heard of Bill James or Billy Beane.

Walter F. O'Malley didn't like Roth, or his ideas, and figured the best way to use him was to stick him in the broadcasting booth alongside Vin Scully -- especially since, by doing so, he could charge off half the cost of Roth's salary to the Dodger radio-TV sponsors. Scully and Roth got along fine, and Scully made frequent use of Roth's on-the-spot statistical analyses from the moment he took over as the team's top broadcaster. He didn't do it as much as it's done today, but he did it far more often than any of the other broadcasters of his time, most of whom went along with Dizzy Dean's famous disdain for cluttering up his broadcast with a lot of "statics."

After O'Malley fired Roth for engaging in an extra-curricular peccadillo, the statistician went to work for NBC, and basically served as Tony Kubek's support system, giving Kubek all the stats he needed to become an excellent broadcast analyst.

With the graphic of where exactly the pitch crossed the plate, the numerous percentage statistics on how often the pitcher throws what and how often this hitter hits that pitch - all backed up by more statistics about how often the batter gets a hit with a runner on second and how effective the pitcher is when his velocity drops to... further backed up by more statistics about how they've been trending in the last month - I felt like I was at a coach's pre-game briefing.

But to be fair, and I (embarrassingly) didn't pay attention to who were announcing the game, they did it seamlessly and kept my interest without - for the most part - overwhelming me. To be honest, for two teams I have no particular interest in, I got very engaged; although, it felt a bit more like a chess match than a Saturday afternoon ballgame.

 

[HudsonHawk]

With the graphic of where exactly the pitch crossed the plate, the numerous percentage statistics on how often the pitcher throws what and how often this hitter hits that pitch - all backed up by more statistics about how often the batter gets a hit with a runner on second and how effective the pitcher is when his velocity drops to... further backed up by more statistics about how they've been trending in the last month - I felt like I was at a coach's pre-game briefing.

But to be fair, and I (embarrassingly) didn't pay attention to who were announcing the game, they did it seamlessly and kept my interest without - for the most part - overwhelming me. To be honest, for two teams I have no particular interest in, I got very engaged; although, it felt a bit more like a chess match than a Saturday afternoon ballgame.

This has definitely been the trend in recent years, but at times I think they overdo it. As a catcher, I was always tuned into all of this, and can still remember pitch sequences to guys 30 years ago. But as a fan watching a game, I'd honestly like a little less jibber jabber. They spend minutes discussing the exit velocity and launch angle of a home run, when I'd really just prefer "well he hit the snot out of that one" and move on. If fans like the minute dissection, and it helps keep their interest and grow their understanding and appreciation for the game, then great, do what you have to do. But so often I feel like they're just filling silence because they think they're supposed to. Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm just an old curmudgeon too.

 

[ChazfromCali]

I was watching the National's game yesterday - I don't pay up for any sports packages, so I watch what's on - and the announcers were doing an outstanding job explaining some really nuanced (or, inside baseball - teehee) things about the game. For example, they would explain why the pitcher started with an inside curve to a specific batter and then why he followed up with a fastball based on the specific batter's skills and history.

This went on regularly as they explained, for some batters, the logic behind seemingly every pitch. I don't remember getting this kind of detail from announcers as a kid. Sure, they'd talk about pitching "him inside," etc., when I was growing up, but the info yesterday (and in general now) seems much more specific and technical. Am I just more tuned into this or have the details and specifics announcers share gotten deeper?

There's a lot more of this type of announcing these days, in fact I think it's become expected and in a way the "standard". In my opinion it's gone way too far. I remember in the 70's and 80's Vin Scully going off onto his statistical monologues and was always grateful for it to be over. But compared to announcers these days he was the epitome of brevity.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

Yeah...just shut up, and let me enjoy the game.

Rob

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't mind statistics when they're important and relevant, but stats for the sake of babbling about stats make for a very tedious broadcast. I started following baseball just at the point where ex-player "color men" were becoming popular, and the Red Sox had, first, Mel Parnell and then Johnny Pesky in that role -- and neither one of them were stat bugs. Their role was to explain what was happening thru a player's eyes and that, I thought, was interesting even though neither one of them was a particularly smooth broadcaster.

That has always been the Red Sox style down to the present day -- we had Ken Harrelson as an analyst on TV in the late '70s, before he turned into the yipping clown he became in Chicago, and he was actually very good at giving a players-eye examination of strategy. Bob Montgomery, the former backup catcher who didn't wear a helmet at bat, came after him, and while he was stiff as a plank at first, he later matured into a decent analyst. And after Monty came Jerry Remy, who, despite multiple bouts with lung cancer, is still active -- and he became an excellent analyst when he wasn't having fits of giggles over stupid stuff going on in the booth. His backup, Dennis Eckersley, is even better.

None of these guys were briefcase-toting statheads, nor have any of our play-by-play broadcasters gone in for this type of thing until the current occupant of that chair, Dave O'Brien, who tends to go all statty when he can't think of anything else interesting to say. As someone raised on the eloquence of Ned Martin, who had the most extensive vocabulary of any broadcaster ever to call a game, I find O'Brien very, very, tedious.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This has definitely been the trend in recent years, but at times I think they overdo it. As a catcher, I was always tuned into all of this, and can still remember pitch sequences to guys 30 years ago. But as a fan watching a game, I'd honestly like a little less jibber jabber. They spend minutes discussing the exit velocity and launch angle of a home run, when I'd really just prefer "well he hit the snot out of that one" and move on. If fans like the minute dissection, and it helps keep their interest and grow their understanding and appreciation for the game, then great, do what you have to do. But so often I feel like they're just filling silence because they think they're supposed to. Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm just an old curmudgeon too.

Red Barber calls Roger Maris's 61st home run for WPIX-TV. "That's $5000 for somebody!"

 

[Fading Fast]

Red Barber calls Roger Maris's 61st home run for WPIX-TV. "That's $5000 for somebody!"

Fun clip. As you have noted, not just the amount of statistics, but the sheer number of words announcers use today have to be double or even more than double what they used back then. I wonder if someone hasn't already done a word count comparison of a the number of words announcers used per game in '61 versus today - now, that would be a cool "stat" to see.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've never done that, but sometime I might. In the meantime, here's a great example of a pre-sabermetric-era network baseball broadcast -- Curt Gowdy and Tony Kubek call the 1971 All Star Game from Tiger Stadium. This is one of the most impressive All Star games ever played simply from the number of futuer Hall of Famers in the lineups. It's also loaded with homers, none more impressive than Reggie Jackson's pinch-hit shot off the electrical transformer on the right field roof. A really fun, exciting broadcast.

Plus, Lindsey Nelson does grandstand interviews wearing a sport coat that looks like a particularly aggressive test pattern. The 70s at full thrust.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's a real treat -- the complete NBC radio broadcast of the 1934 All Star Game from the Polo Grounds. This is the oldest surviving recording of a complete baseball broadcast, and is pretty much state of the art for 1934. Graham McNamee, the premier special-events announcer of his day, introduces the broadcast with "local color" descriptions of the scene. Tom Manning, who broadcast Indians games over WTAM in Cleveland does the play by play, with between-innings summaries handled by staff announcer Ford Bond of NBC, who handled the nightly baseball summaries over WEAF in New York.

Twenty-eight Hall of Famers appear in this game, and this is the only surviving recording in which Babe Ruth participates as an active player. This is also the famous game in which Carl Hubbell of the Giants astounds the baseball world by consecutively striking out Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons, and Cronin over two innings -- five of the most impressive hitters in the American League lineup. There weren't any screwball pitchers then active in the AL, and they never knew what hit them.

You'll also note there are no commercials in this broadcast. NBC broadcast the game as a matter of "public service," and refused to allow it to be commercially sponsored. It'll take you over three hours to listen to this game, but it'll be time well spent.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ Been listening to it for a bit and McNamee clearly has talent, but he stumbles over more words / has transitions issue more than announcers do today.

It's surreal to hear Gehrig and Ruth being discussed as active star players not icons.

Haven't heard Ford Bond yet, but what a name that is - right out of a starring role in a '60s TV private investigator or spy show.

 

[LizzieMaine]

McNamee's real talent was always his enthusiasm more than his accuracy -- although he's usually remembered more as a sportscaster today than anything else, he was actually a general-assignment announcer who handled everything from sports to Presidential inaugurations to acting as Ed Wynn's straight man. He'd done World Series play by play during the twenties, but as the art progressed, fans started to expect more accuracy and less "color," so by the early '30s he was used mostly as a stage-setter for sports.

He did excel, though, as a boxing announcer -- his final blow-by-blow, the Baer-Carnera fight of 1934, is still one of the most thrilling fight broadcasts ever aired.

Bond was also a general assignment broadcaster who appeared on hundreds of different programs over his career, and also did football and boxing for NBC as well as baseball.

Manning is very typical of the first generation of play-by-play broadcasters. He had been the field announcer at League Park in Cleveland -- the guy who went around bellowing the starting lineups into a megaphone before the game -- before going into radio, and began doing Indians games in 1928. Like most of his early colleagues he cultivated an "edge of the seat with excitement" style that became passe with the arrival of the dispassionate Red Barber style of broadcasting in the mid-thirties. But he was still doing Indians games on TV as late as the mid-1950s.

 

[belfastboy]

I was watching the National's game yesterday - I don't pay up for any sports packages, so I watch what's on - and the announcers were doing an outstanding job explaining some really nuanced (or, inside baseball - teehee) things about the game. For example, they would explain why the pitcher started with an inside curve to a specific batter and then why he followed up with a fastball based on the specific batter's skills and history.

This went on regularly as they explained, for some batters, the logic behind seemingly every pitch. I don't remember getting this kind of detail from announcers as a kid. Sure, they'd talk about pitching "him inside," etc., when I was growing up, but the info yesterday (and in general now) seems much more specific and technical. Am I just more tuned into this or have the details and specifics announcers share gotten deeper?

Here on the west coast i

 

[belfastboy]

Damn tablet....here on the west coast the announcers just babble on stating and restating the obvious. Even those ex players as colour men don't really add much insight. Too bad as it would add so much if they were willing to get into nuance. But it is as if they focus on a low common denominator and most fans are better than that.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

Rob