Baseball on TV
In reading some of the responses to a thread I posted elsewhere at AN, I realized it's been too long since soliciting "state-of-the-state" opinions from this blog's readers on what they like and don't like about baseball on television.
As I have said previously on AN, we in the sports TV business do these games for you, the viewer, not each other. And we're always looking for ways to not only bring new fans to the game, but increase our viewing audience as well.
Having been a Major League Baseball television producer and director for over 30 years, I understand the need to connect with our audience.
Thus, I'd appreciate your thoughts about A's baseball TV coverage. Please keep in mind that I am just the producer/director of the TV36 broadcasts. Though I am a great fan of the game and am able to respond to "broad brush" comments and questions, I cannot respond to comments made about Comcast's coverage. What I will say is that the people who do their games are very talented colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect . Those of us who live in Northern California are very lucky to have such a high quality regional sports network as Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area available to us.
OK, so have at it. Let me know what you think. I value your opinion. In fact, in years past responses from this post have lead to changes in our telecast. I eagerly look forward to your input.
Mark Wolfson
Executive Producer/Director
Oakland A's Baseball
KICU/TV36
4 recs |
134
comments
Comments
In-game interviews
I know there’s no chance they’ll stop, and occasionally they’re even interesting, but I have one plea: SHOW THE GAME.
I’m an out-of-market Extra Innings customer, so I know this problem is utterly pervasive. The announcers will be yakking with some guest for an inning or two, and for some damn reason instead of showing the game with the conversation going on on audio, they feel the need to show the conversation, jumping back for a bare few seconds when a pitch is made (often barely catching the action before the pitch reaches home plate). It’s like a talk show; at times you can barely tell a game is going on at all, and it communicates to the audience that the game itself is a pretty low priority. That’s a bad message, it’s very disruptive to following the game, and it drives me nuts.
I should add that A’s broadcasts aren’t worse than others in this regard, and possibly they’re better, since the times I’ve gotten most aggravated tend to be on other teams’ feeds.
One thing that I hate comes whenever I get the Rangers feed when they host the A’s: roving fan interviews during game action. If you ever plan to implement this policy yourself, please let me know in advance so I can kill myself before having to see it.
by Faust on May 8, 2008 12:01 PM PDT 0 recs
I say they just end in-game interviews.
Most of the time they are awkward, and often the player or manager will be answering a question, and an exciting play will happen and the announcers will just cut them off.
Interviews are fine after the game, where I don’t have to hear them, but in-game they are just bad.
Juan Pierre: 44 Million Dollars, Juan Pierre's 3.2 WARP3: Priceless
by Travis Buck Nuckin on
May 8, 2008 2:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
On that thought
they could interview the people they’d normally do in-game interviews after the game instead, sort of a “stay tuned after the game when we interview so and so”.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 8, 2008 2:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't disagree
I was just conceding in advance that in-game interviews are here to stay.
TV people apparently operate on the assumption that baseball is profoundly boring and needs to be spiffed up with gobs of brain-dead chatter. They can’t see that if you’re deeply invested in the team, it’s really not boring at all. And if you aren’t invested, you’re off watching Seinfeld reruns.
by Faust on
May 8, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's a bit unfair...
One thing that seems to be lost on most of the people participating in this thread is that you are all a-typical fans. You are the most knowledgeable and devoted baseball and A’s fans around. But the success of any local sports franchise and telecast is attractive the more “casual” fan and viewer. And it has always been thought that the fans who aren’t into the numbers and strategy are, in fact, interested in learning more about the game’s personalities. That’s the reason for many of these interviews. Yes, you would prefer to have us stick strictly to the game and for the most part, we do that. But occasionally we like to expose those personalities.
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 5:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Personalities
I’d love to see Lew Wolff interviewed far less frequently. He says absolutely nothing and despite the insistence of his employees Fosse and the rest, he doesn’t strike me as being enormously excited about baseball. He’s a businessman in the middle of moving the team into another city and for some of us he’s as popular as the Sonics owner. Unless he’s got something to say about baseball for once I’d rather he stick the owners box waving.
by Steinbach on
May 9, 2008 5:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Lew Wolff
You may not like Mr. Wolff being interviewed, but make no mistake, he is an avid fan of his team and for my money a very good owner with a solid vision for the team.
by mwolfson on
May 10, 2008 9:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Why do you assume that casual
fans, of baseball, or any sport, are not interested in, and are not interested in learning about, the numbers and the strategy?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 10, 2008 6:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
casual fans
Because it’s a fact that the vast majority of “casual” baseball fans are not stat heads and show little interest in the more esoteric stats.
by mwolfson on
May 10, 2008 9:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well, yeah
obviously a casual will not know what EQA etc is. That does not mean that a casual fan is not interested in baseball. You don’t need to be interested in stats to be interested in baseball.
All the “atypical” fans were once casual fans too.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 10, 2008 10:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Every "atypical fan"
started out as a casual fan once.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 10, 2008 6:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm not 100% anti-interview
Unfortunately I seem to have clouded my point by being a bit too vehement, as well as making too facile a generalization about “TV People.” As far as I can tell you’re doing a solidly professional job in trying to provide a good product.
So let me state my point more carefully: I think interviews, done occasionally and in the right way, can be an asset to a broadcast. I missed the interview you mention with Greg Smith, but I did enjoy the interviews with Campaneris and especially with Vida Blue (don’t know if that was you or Comcast). But interviews are people talking; we don’t need to see so much of them. Show mostly the game action, cutting back briefly every now and then to keep the audience in touch with the speakers.
In other words, the interview should be background to the main event. Too often they seem to largely supplant the game itself, rather than complementing it.
by Faust on
May 10, 2008 9:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Interviews
Your point is well taken. I understand and accept your point of view. The reason many directors cut back and forth from action to the interview is the assumption that people graze in and out of the telecast . So the director wants to show the interviewee so the audience knows who it is that’s speaking. There’s two ways to generally accomplish that, either by showing the interviewee on camera or using a graphic that says “Voice of…”
Perhaps you’re right that once we establish the identity of the interviewee, we should spend less time cutting back and forth and depend more on the use of the graphic.
by mwolfson on
May 10, 2008 9:38 PM PDT
up
0 recs
TV people unfortunately don't just make that
assumption about baseball. Wait till the Olympics start this year and watch. They often want to talk about anything BUT what happened on the field of competition.
I still remember a telecast from the Winter Olympics several years ago, The TV person interviewing the winner of the event kept trying to get the winner to talk about his participation in an amateur band. To the point that the winner basically said “hello, I’ve just won gold in the Olympics here, that’s what I want to talk about.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 10, 2008 6:36 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Greg Smith
Guess you didn’t see the one we did last Saturday with Greg Smith. He was terrific. Some of the reasons broadcasters do these interview is that we are asked to do them by the club, or we think the guest might be of interest. Sadly, as I’m sure you know, you can’t please all the people all the time.
mw
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 9:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, but Greg Smith
is one of the most intelligent people in the game.
You could probably stick him on the McLaughlin Group or a philosophy roundtable show on cable access and he’d shine just as brightly.
The problem is that athletes aren’t usually very eloquent, and even if they’re well spoken, they usually have little to say.
We need more people like “Dirty Al” Gallagher, whom when asked about his game winning dinger replied, “Yeah, buddy, I smoked the shit out of the ball!” or Mark Fidrych or Bill Lee, or even Jack Morris, who would sometimes belittle the guy interviewing him and stomp off angry.
That kind of stuff is fun to watch.
The rest of the interviews are nothing but an excuse to get up and take a crap.
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on
May 9, 2008 10:53 AM PDT
up
0 recs
in-game interviews
Interesting that in-game interviews triggers that physical reaction. Perhaps the over the counter laxative industry needs to take note :).
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 5:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Oh no - not cash register interviews at the pharmacy!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on
May 9, 2008 6:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Greg Smith
And the reason you know Greg Smith is intelligent is because of his interviews. Right?
Seriously, you’re right. Most players aren’t all that comfortable with a mic and camera in their face. We TV reporters don’t always ask the most engaging questions. So I can see where you might not be all that enthused about your typical player interview.
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 7:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That may be key part of the problem/solution
Even though it was on CSN, that Vida Blue interview was great. He has a great personality and a great connection with Fosse and it really showed. The Smith interview was pretty good too. If a player isn’t comfortable with the camera/mic, go with someone else, because you’re really failing both the diehard as well as the casual fan if they aren’t. But Faust above eventually explained it better, the visual focus needs to remain on the game at all costs. If you choose step away from the game audio-wise, that’s fine, but keep the camera on the game. That doesn’t mean you can’t show parts of the interview/interviewee (especially since that helps the casual fan connect more), but do it between innings, between pitches, between other sorts of game breaks. As soon as pitcher is back on the mound and play is revving up, you need to be back on the game.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 10, 2008 5:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
interviews
Between innings? Nope, gotta run those commercials to pay the bills!
by mwolfson on
May 10, 2008 9:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree
I usually watch the game with the sound turned down, and the radio turned up. But I turned the sound up for that interview—and I was glad I did.
by OaklandSi on
May 10, 2008 9:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Please show A's games instead of Family Feud reruns when CSN isn't broadcasting :)
As far as the actual broacasts themselves, I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that I would like to see done differently on KICU carried games.
Really my only gripe about this season is the lack of games being showed, which I know is a function of CSN as well. That said, it’s mind boggling to me that a professional sports team doesn’t have 100% of their games televised.
by mikev on May 8, 2008 12:13 PM PDT 0 recs
Day Games
The A’s are one team that likes doing some weekday day games, which frankly aren’t that attractive to prospective sponsors. However that said, I suspect that in the not too distant future, all the A’s will be on television.
mw
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 9:46 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The A's organization "likes" doing weekday day games?
Is that really the case? If so, how common or unusual is that?
by OaklandSi on
May 10, 2008 9:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Well, the Yankees play about one per week on average
Too lazy to check every team’s schedule.
I figured it was typical for the league.
by phastphill on
May 10, 2008 9:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think part of it
is that on getaway days, the opposing team likes day games so they have more time to travel (which they in turn provide the same service back). Since generally Wednesday/Thursday games are the last game of a series, they wind up as day games, just like Sunday games.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 10, 2008 5:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
my only two cents
I have to admit, I listen more on the radio than I watch TV these days. But I will say that
- as someone who also works in broadcast media, I enjoy when you guys do the Director’s PL line on the SAP channel. Hopefully by the time the Digital TV conversion happens, this is still an option.
- Other than that, I’d say you guys do a great job getting shots and such. The only person I really miss is Greg Papa; he always had such great commentary from a historical A’s perspective, you knew he was an A’s fan but not a homer. I know this isn’t in your realm of power. He would say things like “that play was reminiscient of Dave Henderson’s catch against” whoever it was “in 1986” or something. Good stuff!
I also enjoy pre-game shows, post-game-shows, and would love a late night replay of games, particularly weekday-day games that never get shown anyway.
Bob Geren, on 8/2/07, on the success of Alan Embree as new interim closer: "What can I say,... he's been our Steady Tremendous Bullpen Man"
by popcornjames on May 8, 2008 12:27 PM PDT 0 recs
Sadly, being in Sacramento, I don't believe I've seen an Action 36 game this year ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 8, 2008 12:31 PM PDT 0 recs
31 will be doing some simulcasts starting in May.
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on
May 9, 2008 10:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
More broadcasts in Hi Def
So far all of the games I have seen on KICU have been standard def. Seems like that is something you can do to attract more viewers given that most of the other local teams games are broadcast in hi-def (at least by the local affiliate)
by Lafayette Scotsman on May 8, 2008 12:37 PM PDT 0 recs
Just saw your (MW) response in the other thread
So I can understand the position you are in and thus will join the “more please” camp so at least I get to see all of the games (fuzzy picture and all).
by Lafayette Scotsman on
May 8, 2008 1:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I know this is stating the obvious,
but the single biggest – and really only – complaint I have about KICU’s telecasts is that they don’t exist. I think Friday night’s telecast in Texas will be terrible, because there won’t be one even though the team shares the best record in the league and shares first place.
Other than that, I feel privileged to have the games on the air and any specific complaints I could make are just picky preferences. Just get more games on the air any which way you can and this camper will be quite happy.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on May 8, 2008 1:00 PM PDT 0 recs
Friday night
We aren’t doing tonight’s (Friday) game in Texas. That’s a Comcast game. We are doing Saturday and Sunday.
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 9:48 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The point Nico was trying to make
is that no one is broadcasting tonight’s game: KICU has their usual lineup (endless reruns of Frasier and That 70’s Show, while CSN has opted for hits like “Best Damn’s Top 50 Most Outrageous Moments!” and the “SaberCats Pre-Game.”
"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher
by andeux on
May 9, 2008 10:28 AM PDT
up
0 recs
is pre-empting the A's game one of the 50?
We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
May 9, 2008 11:08 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I echo the HD sentiment....
And I have a question for you. Can you possibly explain the “blackout” rules and who is responsible for them and the logic behind them?
Also, I enjoy player interviews…but the “canned” post game fare is rather trite these days. I would be very interested in biographical interviews with the players. You know, the human interest stuff. Where they came from, who influenced them in their youth, who they are most indebted too as far as their baseball career goes. I like hearing about the special high school coach, mentor….etc.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on May 8, 2008 1:14 PM PDT 0 recs
Blackout Rules
The blackout rules are pretty complicated, especially where MLB.TV is concerned, but basically they are established to protect the local rightsholders in each market. These rules are established by MLB.
mw
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 9:49 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I know the rules are complex...
they must be because it’s impossible to find a straight answer to an easy question. MLB claims the broadcasters are responsible for the rules. The broadcasters lay the blame on MLB. How does preventing people in the local area from watching your broadcast “protect” the local shareholders? Why would you deliberately block people from receiving your product? It makes no sense in this day and age. You do realize of course that the rules are rather easy to circumvent don’t you? I don’t live in the Bay area yet I watch games on KICU. It pisses me off that I have to jump through hoops to do it, but I do. So my question to you is, does it bother you as a producer/director that I’m receiving your product and watching your advertisers even though I’m not in the bay? Would it be possible for you to suggest to your bosses that they insist that KICU broadcasts be carried on MLB EI in the bay area market? Hell, I’m two hundred miles from the bay and I’ve solicited businesses who have aired commercials on KICU when I’m in the bay. Why? Because they aroused my interest while I was watching an A’s game. Blocking thousands of others from doing the same just seems silly from a business point of view.
Maybe I just don’t get it.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on
May 9, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually
Knowing that your audience is broader than just the bay increases opportunities for ad sales.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 9, 2008 2:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The blackout rules
I don’t want to get into a “he said, she said” argument regarding the blackout rules, but will say that we abide by the rules that MLB lays down for us. On a personal note, I don’t agree with many of MLB’s rules. Heck try to figure out when you can and can’t get A’s games when you’re out of town on MLB’s $120 MLB.tv package. It’s mind boggling and frankly not advertised in a way that makes things clear.
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 5:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I can't say that I blame you....
for not wanting to get into a “he said, she said” type of debate over the issue. I suspect that MLB is at fault for this mind numbing ignorant policy. I also suspect their reasoning is based on the prospect of wringing yet another dime out of someone. But since the TV stations are the “customer” in this instance, I wish they would use their leverage to force MLB into reaching as many of the consumers as possible.
At any rate, I do enjoy KICU’s coverage. I just wish there was more of it.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on
May 9, 2008 8:26 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree with you, it's not clear...
...and I believe intentionally so. I beloieve if they know that if they did state it clearly that alot of people would say “Phfft! Why would I want that?”.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 10, 2008 5:02 PM PDT
up
0 recs
36:B+
I have found the last few years that the 36 broadcasts have been much better, and simpler, than FSN/CSN, especially when the poor graphics were dropped (last year?). I think 36, if not going with the Brodie/good lookin’ women approach, should figure out a way to get the beat reporters involved more. Susan Slusser especially. A beat reporters roundtable would be excellent, say, weekly? Slusser on the SFGate podcast, and her rare, rain delay TV interviews, is superior. Am I the only person who has a bit of a crush on her as well?
The new “sideline” girl is a dramatic improvement over Kuiper and Amy Gutierrez. I can’t find her anywhere on the CSN website; I hope she’s not temporary?
We are so gifted as fans to have Ken Korach and Susan Slusser; everyone else, in contrast, from Buan, Shooty, Lurie, Mindi Bach (this year, anyway…she was solid last year) are so ordinary as to be embarassing. Mychael Urban, Vince Cotronio, and Ray Fosse have unique characteristics that give them a pass, although Fosse should not be interviewing; I don’t know how it’s possible that he is allowed to continue this feature…it can only be because he can Big League players. Fosse will be a legend someday around here, is enough of a homer to be endearing, but as a broadcaster he’s average; our own Phil Rizzuto. I sure hope Buan is not waiting around for a seat in the booth, and Kuiper moves to the Giants or Brewers. Awful.
It’s depressing that Tim Roye doesn’t have more of a role. He’s also excellent when he fills in.
I follow everyday, read Slusser and the Merc, and listen to the radio religiously as I think Korach is one of the best I’ve ever heard. Night games in our house involve muting Kuiper’s embarrassing play-by-play and tuning in to a static-y Ken Korach. I think most die hards do the same?
"You're born with two strikes against you, so don't take a third one on your own." -Connie Mack
by Filthyslurve on May 8, 2008 1:41 PM PDT 0 recs
Listen on Radio
Love Korach.
Can do without Slusser. Her articles seem to lack detail. Much prefer game recaps on AN, or the Tribune.
by oakAK on
May 8, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Agree about Korach
I’ve been listening to A’s broadcasts online for five or six years and really think Ken is one of the best announcers in the game (not that I have tons to compare him to.) I will say I do enjoy Marti Lurie’s pregame shows though… I think they’re kind of a nice bonus to the regular coverage.
by McMillinBr on
May 8, 2008 10:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Having XM
I know he is one of the best. There are plenty of guys who are embarrassing to listen to with their contrived crap and overt rooting.
Ken is a professional, the perfect guy to take over for Bill King, who was the perfect guy to take over for Lon Simmons :)
by jeffro on
May 9, 2008 10:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Ken Korach
I completely agree. Ken is a class act and an absolutely terrific play-by-play announcer.
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 5:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I totally agree
I’ve been listening to baseball on the radio for forty years, and Ken is one of the best descriptive play by play guys I’ve ever heard. “Great stuff”.
Some Ken-isms I love:
“Lights on but haven’t yet taken effect”
“FASTball OUTSIDE CORNER ring him up strike three called, Palmeiro can’t believe it”
“Fireworks to follow”
“FRISbee breaking ball” (recently heard again describing B. Ziegler)
“FlyBALL deep right FIELD… Guerrero’s gonna waTCH… GONE!”
and of course
”...and the A’s are gonna win the ball game!”
by Brian in 317 on
Jun 4, 2008 12:18 AM PDT
up
0 recs
HD
Comcast carries TV36 in HD (706). Does TV36 even offer HD programming? I was elated when I saw you had an HD channel and then discovered no A’s games are broadcast in HD. Watching non-HD programming is like reading without glasses – all fuzzy. Plus 36’s broadcast even seems lower def than CSN (FSN). What gives? some sort of bandwidth rules?
As for your actual content I have no issues, I am glad you still carry the games I suppose. I would like to see you join with the A’s as they transition to Fremont, boost your signal, go HD and rival the CSN/Giants programming.
Enjoy the game
by DCinWC on May 8, 2008 1:42 PM PDT 0 recs
Agreed with the signal quality and no HD
though, considering MW’s explanation over why they don’t do HD, I can totally understand. The only thing I can think of to that, is at point they’re going to have to make the investment to upgrade their stuff in general eventually, but all things considered, if now’s not the time, that’s okay. But the SD broadcast picture is generally subpar, not sure how much control you have with that, but that’s something you may want to look into in the meantime.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 8, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Signal Quality
For all of your who have submitted problems with the TV36 signal could I ask a favor. Please send me an email with your location. I will have station engineering check on every complaint.
Send to mwolfson@TVdir.com. Thanks much.
mw
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 9:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Signal strength/location is a major problem
I have lived in three different locations in Berkeley. At the first location, I think (this was about 15 years ago) I got some, though not good, reception of channel 36. At the other two it did not come in at all. These were all in fairly dense areas, with some multistory buildings and large trees nearby, so obviously I wouldn’t expect crystal clear signals, but all of the major stations that broadcast from Sutro Tower (the networks on VHF and 20 and 44 on UHF) got decent reception via rabbit ears.
KICU and KTEH (which broadcast from San Jose) are nothing but static – the transmitter is either too far away or is blocked by some unfortunate feature of bay area geography.
Most people have cable or satellite, and I do too now, but I still think the team is hurting themselves by not providing better coverage so close to the core of their fan base.
"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher
by andeux on
May 9, 2008 10:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I live near Lake Merritt
TV36 signal is not very clear, and I live in the top floor of the building.
by OaklandSi on
May 10, 2008 9:09 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think some people forget
Back when I was young, we had black and white TV no cable, no remote control. There were very few games on TV. The A’s bounced around the dial, channel 44, 5, back to 44, then 4, then cable sports channel, and some local on KICU. Keeping that in mind, I am happy to see so many games broadcast. Back in the early days of TV, my uncle would set up the cables for baseball games in the stadium. He said it would take several days to set them up and take them down. Things have improved since then. I have no complaints except it seems somtimes we don’t get replays of some great plays, but it’s not the end of the world. Keep up the good work.
Stomp,em, stomp the piss out of em.Then pound the budweiser after the game. Joe Schultz Seattle Piolts Mgr 1969
by billyball1981 on May 8, 2008 1:51 PM PDT 0 recs
Hear here
I am showing my age as well, but I second this. I live in the North Bay and I think I get plenty of A’s games. I miss the ones I can’t watch, but all in all I think it is a nice amount. Definitely an improvement on the bad ol’ days.
''Around the fifth inning of a night game, things get a little fuzzy. Double-vision sets in. Players begin turning orange.'' -Bruce Jenkins
by fridaynightfan on
May 8, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I would like to thank you
for generally staying focused on the on-the-field action and not spending three minutes cutting back and forth from the center field camera to the shots of the cute kids in the stands who are putting cotton candy in each other’s hair. I’ve tuned in to watch the game and I find the Giants’ telecasts on CSN unwatchable because they just spend too damned much time in the stands.
I think your graphics are greatly improved. The only nitpick I have is that on a recent Ch. 36 telecast I thought you were using the pop-up pitch count graphic too often (every 5th pitch?), to the point that it was distracting. That graphic probably doesn’t need to be used more than once per half-inning unless the inning becomes quite long.
by Soaker on May 8, 2008 2:34 PM PDT 0 recs
One other thing...
I like the pitch location box graphic that is used as a pop-up on some teams’ telecasts. FSN Northwest calls this “Joe’s Tracer” and uses it a fair amount on Mariners telecasts. It’s not as fancy as the “ESPN K-Zone”; it’s just a static depiction of the strike zone and a plot of the location of each pitch thrown in the at-bat, represented by a numbered dot. When Ch. 36 shows pitch location you do it with rapid-fire replays, which is too time-consuming to use more than a few times per game. If it could fit in the budget, a pitch-location graphic would be a nice addition.
by Soaker on
May 8, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'll have to disagree here
All of the pitch location graphics on telecasts are absurdly inaccurate and therefore a waste of time. If it’s an inside/outside question, the overhead shot basically answers it every time, whereas the tracer/K-Zone stuff is just crap and I think worse than nothing at all.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
May 8, 2008 3:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Pitch count
At least with the starters, it would be cool if the pitch count wasn’t a pop-up but was always there. When I’m watching a game, I typically end up bringing up my laptop too because I want to know how many pitches have been thrown by the starters…
by RickeySteals on
May 8, 2008 3:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Not that I disagree
but you also have to worry about it getting too cluttered which is probably why it pops up instead.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on
May 8, 2008 3:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
True enough...
...but there is a fair amount of wasted space in any broadcast’s graphics – I think there is room for more information density without sacrificing readability – it would just take a bit of design effort…
by RickeySteals on
May 8, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Pitch Count
This “feature” actually came from a previous AN reader suggestion who was very into pitch counts. In retrospect, I think you’re right, every five pitches is probably too often.
mw
by mwolfson on
May 9, 2008 9:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
as a non-cable, non-satellite person
I of course appreciate every single game that is televised on TV36. I used to enjoy Bodie’s pregame shows, and wouldn’t mind seeing something similar. But I guess my primary request (besides showing more games on TV 36) is to limit the in-game interviews—and when you have them please focus the cameras on the game.
thanks!
by OaklandSi on May 8, 2008 2:43 PM PDT 0 recs
Baseball savvy women
I would really like to see/hear more baseball smart women on tv/radio. Most of the current women on air seem to be scripted/doing “human interest” type spots. Susan Slusser and AN’s own BBG are intelligent, very baseball knowledgeable and would be a dynamic addition to any broadcast.
Keep the graphics clean and simple, don’t need too much going on. Keep the strong/interesting stats.
I can watch gameday on mlb if I want a screen FULL of statistics
Show the game! Show more games.
You do great camera shots and cuts. Don’t change a good thing there.
Faith and perspective...2008 Oakland A's.
by LongTimeFan on May 8, 2008 3:31 PM PDT 0 recs
Camera angles
When I was a kid in the 70s, I mostly watched the NBC games of the week and Monday Night Baseball. Back then, it seems to me that there was more variety in camera angles during the pitch. I seem to remember whole sequences shown from a high first or high home angle. You got to see more of the field as the pitcher was releasing the ball and could see pitch movement differently. I liked this effect, it gave me the feeling of being in the stands at the game. I know that most people like the all-centerfield-all-the-time angle, but maybe mix in a few more shots from some of the other cameras. Don’t wait until a replay to use ‘em.
I would also echo the sentiments of folks in the other thread that the new score stripe across the bottom is too obtrusive. When the in-game scoreboard pops up, it really crowds the screen. I am all for in game information, but you can’t cover up the action. Maybe you should just shrink the game screen?
Thanks for soliciting opinions here. I also second the “You need a raise” comment!
''Around the fifth inning of a night game, things get a little fuzzy. Double-vision sets in. Players begin turning orange.'' -Bruce Jenkins
by fridaynightfan on May 8, 2008 3:31 PM PDT 0 recs
I agree.
I’d like to see the catcher’s view more often
"I'm going to take a camera crew and march into Billy Beane's office and demand to know why instituting his newfangled cost-saving measures means that the run manufacturing plant had to get shut down." F


