My heart's aflame
My body's strained
But God, I like it

(But) it cuts back on the tendency, the kind of in-born instinct to describe things as fully as possible.

Is he saying that we're just "howling forever, oh oh?"

I have a more basic criticism of radio play by play. What annoys me is not the lack of subtlety (idiosyncrasy of batter's stance, or advancing shadows), but the lack of basic description of what is happening on the play. Too often I think the play by play guy is waiting to see if the ball is fielded cleanly and what happens on the play, before saying anything.

I actually love Pat Hughes on Cubs radio. He does a great job explaining what is going on before and during the play.

I've recently decided I like Rooney for the Cardinals, because he does describe the batter style, the runner, defensive alignment, has a weirdly obsessive need to describe the uniforms in detail etc. major drawback is that innings 3-5 is usually just a pitch for some random ass charity and describing the game takes a back seat to the marketing of a charity and letting the spokesperson talk. In most games there are about three innings that if you hear the description of the out being made and 1/3rd of the results of the pitch, it's an unusual day, forget getting a description of anything. Gameday sometimes gets me the results before the radio even though I can tell by the crowd noise that the radio is ahead.

major drawback is that innings 3-5 is usually just a pitch for some random ass charity and describing the game takes a back seat to the marketing of a charity and letting the spokesperson talk. In most games there are about three innings that if you hear the description of the out being made and 1/3rd of the results of the pitch, it's an unusual day, forget getting a description of anything.

The Red Sox and the Yanks have innings like that, too.

I greatly dislike Bob Costas and I think he's totally right about this.

I greatly dislike Bob Costas and I think he's totally right about this.

Ditto

Hipster hijack:

So I know I've heard a couple of TV on the Radio* songs here or there and liked them and kept telling myself I should pick up a CD sometime to see if I like it but never did.

So here's your opportunity to make some suggestions.

*There's some other band I always confuse with TV on the Radio and it's possible I'm confused at the moment.

I recently heard the Detroit radio guys against the Mets, and they were pretty damned good.

So here's your opportunity to make some suggestions.

Return to Cookie Mountain has "I Was a Lover," "Province," "Wolf Like Me," "Dirtywhirl," and "Tonight," which are all great. "Wolf Like Me" is one of my favorite songs ever. You should also listen to "Staring at the Sun" which is maybe my second-favorite TV on the Radio song.

Some people will tell you that Dear Science is actually better than Return to Cookie Mountain, but they are dirty, pretentious hipsters and should be ignored. Though it's not a bad album by any means.

Dear Science IS better than Return To Cookie Mountain. But "Province" and "Wolf Like Me" are so, so good, this may be a peak v. prime issue.

In any case, they're definitely a band worth checking out. We need more predominantly black acts in indie rock.

I would like to hear what Costas thinks about Sterling and Waldman.

"Baseball on radio is more TV on radio, Costas says"

I read that headline about five times before I read the story, and I've read it a couple of times since, and I still can't figure out what it's supposed to mean.

"Baseball on radio is more TV on radio, Costas says"

I think(and I'm probably wrong) is that he is saying that baseball on radio is becoming more like listening to a tv broadcaster. That the radio broadcasters have reduced the amount of descriptions that they are giving because they grew up watching baseball and never really developed the description talent.

TV announcers do not need to describe the situation, they are narrators, adding to what the tv is showing you. Radio broadcasters should be storytellers, describing the situation, but according to Costas they have become more like tv announcers and just narrating the game. "man on base, two outs, ball one outside..."type of announcing instead of describing in detail.

Costas is right.

I miss Bill King.

I think(and I'm probably wrong) is that he is saying that baseball on radio is becoming more like listening to a tv broadcaster. That the radio broadcasters have reduced the amount of descriptions that they are giving because they grew up watching baseball and never really developed the description talent.

TV announcers do not need to describe the situation, they are narrators, adding to what the tv is showing you. Radio broadcasters should be storytellers, describing the situation, but according to Costas they have become more like tv announcers and just narrating the game. "man on base, two outs, ball one outside..."type of announcing instead of describing in detail.

I think that's exactly what he's saying.

Dear Science IS better than Return To Cookie Mountain.

Go shave your mustache and buy a real tie, you greasy bohemian wannabe!

Pat hughes is great at painting a picture of the action so to speak, 99% of the time he is on top of everything happening, not afraid to make a mistake during a play but will make sure the listener knows what happened

TV announcers do not need to describe the situation, they are narrators, adding to what the tv is showing you. Radio broadcasters should be storytellers, describing the situation, but according to Costas they have become more like tv announcers and just narrating the game. "man on base, two outs, ball one outside..."type of announcing instead of describing in detail.

Of course these days probably half the people listening to the radio announcers are watching it on TV because they are just sick of the TV announcers.

Hughes is very good.

Jon Miller.

Also, video killed the radio star. You can look it up.

Lousy headline, good story.

I think(and I'm probably wrong) is that he is saying that baseball on radio is becoming more like listening to a tv broadcaster. That the radio broadcasters have reduced the amount of descriptions that they are giving because they grew up watching baseball and never really developed the description talent.

They could easily remedy this problem by purchasing a few games from Danrick Enterprises.

Pat Hughes is an excellent announcer, absolutely. It was more fun when Santo was still around, though. Santo's ineptness worked well with Hughes' excellence.

"Things were better back in the day", middle-aged person says.

"Things were better back in the day", middle-aged person says.

Costas' charge might be just old fogyism, though what he says does make some sense at least in theory. Comparing recordings of key radio broadcasters from different eras would be the best way to see if Costas is right or wrong.

Costas' charge might be just old fogyism, though what he says does make some sense at least in theory. Comparing recordings of key radio broadcasters from different eras would be the best way to see if Costas is right or wrong.

For $3.32 you can compare about 50 of them going back to the 1920's.

EDIT: Unfortunately, many of the used copies seem to be lacking the CD's. The book itself is a great read, but the recordings are what make it special.

Comparing recordings of key radio broadcasters from different eras would be the best way to see if Costas is right or wrong.

Except that the easiest recordings from the olden days to get a hold of would be broadcasts of classic games by legendary broadcasters. It would probably be hard to get a hold of some random broadcast of a Phillies-Pirates game from June 1951 broadcast from Pittsburgh, and you really need to listen to games like that in order to get a good read on what the "average" broadcaster was doing.

Costas probably has selective memory, in that he remembers certain key games that were very well-done, and doesn't remember the dreck that was out there. Where he has the kernel of a point is that radio generally doesn't draw the top talent any more.

For $3.32 you can compare about 50 of them going back to the 1920's.
EDIT: Unfortunately, many of the used copies seem to be lacking the CD's.

Well, Amazon has the one new copy available for $493.15. Love the extra 15 cents. I assume that represents the guarantee that the book is complete.

Where he has the kernel of a point is that radio generally doesn't draw the top talent any more.

This is probably true, though I think that's a function of new media. It's not that talented broadcasters aren't out there, it's that they're doing things other than broadcasting baseball on the radio.

When radio broadcasts of baseball games became important, there stopped being newspaper writers like Fullerton and Lardner. Now we've got Murray Chass and the CHB. It's not that there aren't talented writers, it's that there's not enough demand for talented writers to write baseball stories for newspapers. Now, in the 21st century, we can watch every single MLB game all season on a handheld device. As a result, I'd argue, demand for radio broadcasters has declined. Demand for radio broadcasts has, I would assume, also declined. Guys like Scully won't be replaced because there's not enough of an incentive to come up with a great young radio guy.

Also, I think the idea of the radio announcers "back in the day" being great is overblown. I love Herb Score - he was one of the nicest men I ever met in the baseball business, was a great pitcher before the arm injury, and chose to be a Clevelander and an Indian for life at a time when both the Indians and the city of Cleveland were punchlines. Words can't express the warm feelings I have for Herb Score. But he was an awful radio guy. Simply terrible. I'd flip on the radio as a kid and if I heard silence for 20 or 30 seconds, I'd know it was an Indians game.

It's easy to pick and choose guys like Red Barber or Ernie Harwell and reminisce about the great radio men of yesteryear. I think that distorts the way things really were in a lot of cities.

I really don't know whether Costas is correct or not. I have recordings of the 1936 World Series and the 1959 World Series. And in 1959 the announcers were two Hall of Famers, Mel Allen and Byrum Saam. And, sorry, they were not great broadcasts.

It seems that people like to pretend that back in the day every announcer was as descriptive and colorful as Ernie Harwell and Vin Scully. That's just not the case.

Words can't express the warm feelings I have for Herb Score. But he was an awful radio guy. Simply terrible. I'd flip on the radio as a kid and if I heard silence for 20 or 30 seconds, I'd know it was an Indians game.

and before him, we had Jimmy Dudley, who was worse

It's easy to pick and choose guys like Red Barber or Ernie Harwell and reminisce about the great radio men of yesteryear. I think that distorts the way things really were in a lot of cities.

Bingo--I'm older than Costas, and I can guarantee you there were plenty of horseshit announcers back in the day

The Braves radio team of Jim Powell and Don Sutton is infinitely better than whatever pair they have on tv, even if Chip Caray is not involved.

BASEBALL ON RADIO IS MORE TV ON RADIO, MR. PRESIDENT REAGAN

I can speak as someone who has done a ton of college football on the radio and several seasons of college baseball, and the descriptive stuff Costas is talking about is not featured as much these days simply because they have so much other stuff available and or required to be talked about. A typical inning of a MLB game on the radio has 5-6 promotional or commercial items to be thrown in, plus there is a whole lot more stats/data to be discussed these days. There isn't as much time for the stuff about the batting stance or the shadows anymore. One of the reasons a broadcaster on the radio discusses these type of things is purely to fill space. It is helpful to building a picture of the game, but honestly sometimes the radio guy is just searching for something to say while the action is slow. Radio people hate dead air, it's ingrained in them to never allow more than a second without the meters budging, so you throw in stuff like that. In a college broadcast that has so many fewer promos to squeeze in, you frequently get more of that type of stuff. Listen to a baseball broadcast from the 50s and you have half the stats and promotional stuff, so you are going to hear more of the descriptive stuff Costas mentioned.

Radio people hate dead air, it's ingrained in them to never allow more than a second without the meters budging, so you throw in stuff like that.

Traffic and weather, weather and traffic. Boomer and the Nudge here with Greg Fitzsimmons. He'll be at the Giggle Factory for two shows July 23. Ten minutes to the top of the hour. Boomer and the Nudge here with Greg Fitzsimmons.

I recently heard the Detroit radio guys against the Mets, and they were pretty damned good.

For which you should thank Ernie Harwell. They worked with him, and they paid attention to what he was doing.

I can speak as someone who has done a ton of college football on the radio and several seasons of college baseball, and the descriptive stuff Costas is talking about is not featured as much these days simply because they have so much other stuff available and or required to be talked about. A typical inning of a MLB game on the radio has 5-6 promotional or commercial items to be thrown in, plus there is a whole lot more stats/data to be discussed these days.

This....

--------------------------

Traffic and weather, weather and traffic. Boomer and the Nudge here with Greg Fitzsimmons. He'll be at the Giggle Factory for two shows July 23. Ten minutes to the top of the hour. Boomer and the Nudge here with Greg Fitzsimmons.

...and this. Commercial overload and reduced attention spans.

I greatly dislike Bob Costas and I think he's totally right about this.

My dislike is more general, but he is right here.

A friend in his mid 20s recently said "who is Vin Scully?" After I mentioned his name. I said, "the greatest broadcaster in history." Then my friend opined that he liked John Sterling and Suzy Waldman (who might as well be doing a TV broadcast, minimal information on top of nearly zero insight). I honestly don't think he is aware of what he is missing. Frankly, I barely know these facts myself, mid 30s.

They could easily remedy this problem by purchasing a few games from Danrick Enterprises.


From the Link:

Sure, CDs are in vogue but keep in mind that when a team archives their games, they're on good old tape. I have MLB teams' tapes sent to MLB Properties and they're on CASSETTES; not on CDs.

Really? Still to this day? They aren't stored digitally on HDD or optical drives? Seriously, I just can't believe this.

Plus why is it $10 dollars for a damn cassette that's going to become unplayable after a few years?

A friend in his mid 20s recently said "who is Vin Scully?" After I mentioned his name. I said, "the greatest broadcaster in history." Then my friend opined that he liked John Sterling and Suzy Waldman. I honestly don't think he is aware of what he is missing. Frankly, I barely know these facts myself, mid 30s.

The chances are that your friend values S&W for their conversational style and the fact that they've been there so long that they seem like part of the Yankees' "family"---which is exactly what their style is meant to project. He's likely not looking at broadcasts with the same critical eye as many people here (or Costas) would be. If your friend had been hearing Scully for the past X number of years he'd probably like him just as much or more as he now likes S&W.

plus there is a whole lot more stats/data to be discussed these days.

They're available, but the broadcasters don't have to discuss them. I kind of wish they wouldn't, most of the time.

The M's have gone to a TV-only team of Dave Sims and whoever, mostly Mike Blowers I think, while the radio team is Rick Rizzs and whoever they can dredge up for the week. They're calling it a tribute to Niehaus, with his old partners like Ken Wilson and Ken Levine (gak!) showing up more or less at random. There is definitely more of a descriptive vibe to the radio-only broadcasts, which isn't hard to appreciate, but there's still so much crap like "your Trane Heater and Air Conditioning Score is now 2-1" that it's sometimes difficult to remember which sport is being played.

...and this. Commercial overload and reduced attention spans.

Broadcasts now are like rain delays used to be.

Except that the easiest recordings from the olden days to get a hold of would be broadcasts of classic games by legendary broadcasters. It would probably be hard to get a hold of some random broadcast of a Phillies-Pirates game from June 1951 broadcast from Pittsburgh, and you really need to listen to games like that in order to get a good read on what the "average" broadcaster was doing.


It's not as hard as you think -- and that's the reason why I put up the Danrick Enterprises link. You'll have a hard time finding much regular season stuff from the 1930s, and it's not easy to find anything from 1940-1947, but there are quite a few random regular season games from the 1950s and on. Of course, the broadcast you describe isn't quite random -- at least not for Bob Prince fans.

Listen to a baseball broadcast from the 50s and you have half the stats and promotional stuff, so you are going to hear more of the descriptive stuff Costas mentioned.

Not necessarily. There were more promotional events going on than you think -- particularly in those nationally syndicated Brooklyn Dodger Saturday games from 1950 (of which a handful have been preserved). I would argue that broadcasters then were much more talented at working in advertisements and gimmicky events than they are now.

Plus why is it $10 dollars for a damn cassette that's going to become unplayable after a few years?

Yeah, it sure is a shame that there aren't people like me converting these things to MP3 as fast as possible. Danrick has a contract with MLB to sell games on cassette tape and nothing else. If you want games on CD, you'll have to find a Miley Collection distributor (there are quite a few out there), and you'll have to deal with the greatly reduced catalog -- plus the price rises to at least $20 per game.

My baseball radio MP3 folder is up to 720 games now, not counting the complete 2008 Chicago Cubs season and postseason in WMA format. I've still only managed to collect a small percentage of Danrick's games. I'd worry much more about Charlie dying and the business folding than cassette tapes suddenly becoming playable in a few years (which, honestly, isn't going to happen -- I'm in Shenyang, China now, and can easily find a good quality cassette player on the local market, alongside the DVD players, iPods and what not). Once Danrick is gone, nobody will offer this collection.

MLB tried to sell cassette copies of radio games for a little while, starting in about 2002 or so. There was absolutely no advertising, the selection was horrid, and the web store was very difficult to find. Seriously -- get these games while you still can, because they are going to disappear once this company is gone.