The Costa’s of Zzzzzzz.
About two hours before the game begins, Costas writes down the lineups on a giant white cardboard scorecard. In today’s iPad world, not many announcers still use the big scorecard, and not many scribble down little facts about each player. Costas does both. He writes down batting averages, home runs, interesting little details. The scorecard is something from the past. Costas does broadcast baseball with the old masters (Vin Scully and Jack Buck and Harry Caray and Ernie Harwell and others) firmly in his mind. Costas thinks there are things that have been lost in modern baseball broadcasting: subtlety; story telling; a genuine effort to allow the rhythm of the game to emerge without overpowering it with bustle and replay and sound.
That probably does not surprise you. People tend to think Costas’ sensibilities are of another time. He has been called a baseball traditionalist so often by now that he lacks the strength to argue about it.
“People will use me as a symbol of a kind of stuck-in-the-1950s fan who doesn’t want anything to change,” he says. “They will say, ‘You know, people like Bob Costas think …’ and often, the position I’m supposed to hold in these scenarios is something I strongly disagree with. Are there things that were better about baseball years ago? Certainly. Are there things that are better now? Unquestionably.”
...Costas does have interest in some of the advanced statistics that are available today—Keith is particularly interested in statistics like WAR and fielding-independent pitching and such—but he admits that it’s difficult to get them into broadcasts. They take time to explain, and explanations can interrupt the flow. One of the particular challenges of calling baseball on television is finding that balance between talking too much and talking too little. This isn’t as true in other sports like football and basketball and hockey, where the action itself carries the broadcaster through much of the game.
Repoz
Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:26 AM |
35 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
announcing
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4281358)I like that Costas does this. I'm a nervous public speaker. I don't think I'm bad at it but I'm very uncomfortable with it so when I do have to do it I go overboard on my preparation. I couldn't imagine doing a game broadcast without a lot of information at my fingertips. I think if I did it I would do something similar to Costas; have some basic statistical information plus at least one anecdote ready for every player.
(If this has been pointed out before repeatedly and I missed the discussions, apologies ahead of time)
Here's the issue with using 'modern stats' in broadcasts; I (and I think I speak for most stat nerds) don't WANT to hear guys talk about WAR, specifically. Of COURSE it's challenging to bring in an uber-stat that claims to combined a gajillion items into a measure. What we want is for announcers to simply adjust a few things such as
- more OBA, less AVG.
- if a player has a comparative plethora of RBI this year, or this month, mention if he's had many opportunities to drive in runs, instead of letting the listeners presume he's been some kind of clutch god.
- if a pitcher has allowed few hits & runs despite KOing very few, or vice versa, don't use purely the hit/run results to describe how great/lousy he has been; admit it when there have been at'em balls or bloopers/bleeders
- small sample size. 0-for-7 against a pitcher lifetime? If you must say it to describe facts, follow it with how little that tells us about the next at-bat.
- don't ever mention 'hitting streak' again. It's arbitrary, silly, and not helpful. Again, OBA > AVG, but even an "on-base streak" is not as descriptive as 'reached base 45% of the time last month'.
- if you mention fielding, be aware of what the recent better measurements tell us about the comparative range of the players.
That's all I want. Is it too much to ask?
I imagine Costas in front of a 10 foot tall scorecard, standing on one of those ladders on wheels you see in libraries and bookstores.
sometimes its mocking the stats a bit. sometimes he's mocking his inability to really understand how they are dervied. mostly he uses them as a foundation to discuss why a player may be less or more than folks think
this doesn't seem that hard but then bob is a grand master as a storyteller
- more OBA, less AVG.
- if a player has a comparative plethora of RBI this year, or this month, mention if he's had many opportunities to drive in runs, instead of letting the listeners presume he's been some kind of clutch god.
- if a pitcher has allowed few hits & runs despite KOing very few, or vice versa, don't use purely the hit/run results to describe how great/lousy he has been; admit it when there have been at'em balls or bloopers/bleeders
- small sample size. 0-for-7 against a pitcher lifetime? If you must say it to describe facts, follow it with how little that tells us about the next at-bat.
- don't ever mention 'hitting streak' again. It's arbitrary, silly, and not helpful. Again, OBA > AVG, but even an "on-base streak" is not as descriptive as 'reached base 45% of the time last month'.
- if you mention fielding, be aware of what the recent better measurements tell us about the comparative range of the players.
That's all I want. Is it too much to ask?
Not really, with two exceptions, and I think gradually you're going to see broadcasters come around to these points.
One exception would be hitting streaks, which have a resonance that transcends their statistical importance. You're never going to get announcers to ignore hitting streaks once they pass a certain point.
The other exception is that the strikeout's importance doesn't apply equally to every pitcher, and while you should certainly mention the luck factor when it applies, not every great pitching performance consists of a topheavy dose of strikeouts.
Like everyone, Costas has his pros (wordsmith, genuinely loves baseball) and cons (makes the broadcast about his personal opinions). It does bother me that 99% acclaim doesn't seem to be enough for him; it has to be unanimous. He has a billion Emmys and is generally treated like Leonardo da Vinci forced to live among a bunch of sports world troglodytes. But he nonetheless works this "to all my haters..." angle a lot.
I absolutely LOVE hitting streaks. If a guy has a 6 game hitting streak going, I want to know about it. It's not a matter of "meaning", just fun. I think the problem is not every piece of information needs to be contextualized, sometimes it's just information. John Smith is hitting .300, that's a fact, as long as the announcer doesn't carry on and say "and that means he's a superstar player" I don't mind it.
I think trying to give context to every number in the course of a game would be rather uninteresting. Some changes are probably needed (and I think you outline a few, particularly the pitcher vs. hitter data which just needs to go away and OBP vs. BA) but I don't think inundating us with numbers and context for those numbers would make for an enjoyable broadcast.
They all keep score. PBP guy, Color Guy, Stats Guy, Everyone in the truck. Everyone is fricking keeping score. Some have books. Some just use the handout score sheets from the press room. But everyone keeps score around a broadcast booth, including the announcers.
Most of the PBP guys and many of the color guys have a laptop or i pad too of course. They use both.
106 foot tall scorecard, standing on one of those ladders on wheels you see in libraries and bookstores.Hell, Costas needs a ladder to fill out a normal scorecard.
That's why Costas was so thrilled to do jockey interviews at the Kentucky Derby; finally, an athlete he can talk with eye to eye.
absolutely agree. I don't get the animosity towards hitting streak. Of course it doesn't mean the player is good/bad or even if they are particularly hot or not, but it still adds a level of tension to that one players particular plate appearance above and beyond the game.
The problem with this, is that at the end of the game, the fans who are watching the broadcast have reformed their opinion, and it's hilarious. Zito did not pitch a good game against the Cardinals, but he got good results, you can say that during the game and nobody seems to contradict it, but after the game is over, all the sudden you have now become a sore loser or a homer. (Cain and Vogelsong did have very good games though) Or the opposite, I've seen a 5 run, 10 hit game(grabbing numbers out of my ass for this) pitched by Jason Marquis, in which he pitched very well and didn't get the results, several nibblers, dinks or seeing eye hits. When you tell people "He pitched well" they look at the results and say "you're nuts", and again these people were the same people agreeing with you in the 6th inning when you first said that he looked good, just getting bad luck.
I'd be curious if half the members of SABR could fit through a bus door.
This would be the most awesome thing ever. I wish I had one in my house!
Well, apparently Bob only got as far as "Thank you..." and Gotti then turned and walked out of the restaurant, leaving Costas drenched in sweat but breathing a little easier.
It's one of life's little moments that is much funnier in retelling the story later than it was
at the time...
Are you pulling my dick, bro?
I'll take a good storyteller. The guy who's repeating something for the umptieth time, or telling some get off my lawn or ... not so much.
I like guys who are knowledgeable and who like the game. A good voice is a big plus.
Talking specifically of Costas, he has the highest range between his best and worst broadcasts. On balance I guess I'd probably rank him comfortably above average, but he definitely has days where I just can't listen.
This is a hell of a story. Has this gone around a lot previously? I had never heard it.
Granted, my knowledge of Bob Costas' biography is less than encyclopedic.
Hmm. I've seen Costas in person on several occasions. I'm 5'7" and I know I have a few inches on him.
This is a hell of a story. Has this gone around a lot previously? I had never heard it.
Granted, my knowledge of Bob Costas' biography is less than encyclopedic.
He's told that story in public a lot the last decade or so. Apparently Mr. Costas died suddenly without leaving any savings, so those six G's (in the early 1970s economy) went a long way.
My favorite story that Costas tells on himself was when, as a first year Spirits Of St Louis announcer, was way late for the game. Basically dead air with crowd noise and the PA man. He finally got there, finished the game and was certain he'd be fired. While he was brooding, Marvin Barnes came over and said it was OK, he was looking for a "little white dude" to drive him around in his Bentley.
Chuck Kobasew lays it off for Josh Green, the pride of Camrose, Alberta!
That's a variant of one of Ernie Harwell's favorite calls, though obviously without Harwell's folksy touch:
"There's a popup heading towards the seats on the first base side....Cash goes over and reaches for it....but it's into the stands, where it was caught by a man from Kalamazoo...."
Wouldn't be the first celebrity to have his height exaggerated. I'm reading Arnold's book right now, and he mentions Lou Ferigno being 6'5". I've met Lou, am 6'3", and Lou is not taller than me. Never met Arnold but I've heard he's not as tall as claimed either.
Terry Pluto's "Loose Balls" has lots of Costas/Spirits stories in it. IMO, there is at least one that's much better than the above. BTW, I was a twelve-year-old listening to those Spirits broadcasts, and Costas was (at that time in his early 20's) emotional, passionate, excitable -- fantastic. It was just a second-rate ABA franchise, but Costas made each broadcast an event.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main