Read the debate intro and read Sport’s Geek’s argument that someone with no playing experience makes a better in-game analyst.
This is sure to be an interesting and unique debate, and it is appropriate that Sports Geek and I debate it. We both have backgrounds in various types of media, both on-air broadcast and print. Plus, we are both fascinated with sports media. Heck, we read the same TV media columns, including our favorite written by USA Today columnist Michael Hiestand.
Bleacher Fan asks us what qualification makes for a better in-game sports analyst. And to me, a better analyst is someone who has played the game. A better analyst is someone who can break down the X’s and O’s and the nuances of the game he is analyzing. In his intro, Bleacher Fan asks Sports Geek to argue that the better analyst possesses “an ability to communicate in a manner that makes the sport compelling to watch.” The onus should fall on the play-by-play commentator to do that.
Let’s use a couple of examples. I will hopefully prove that this is an excellent way to get the point across and it is something that only someone who has played the game can talk about.
Don Sutton, a Hall of Fame pitcher who won 324 games, is currently a commentator for the Atlanta Braves radio network and very underrated as an analyst. He was and still is a student of the game. What he does better than most is go inside the head of a pitcher. When a situation comes up in a game he will often talk about what is in the head of a pitcher from a psychological perspective. He’ll break down scouting reports of not only pitchers, but also hitters. He often breaks down what a pitcher does – or should do – on his non-throwing days. It really does vary from pitcher to pitcher. He can talk about this and have instant credibility because of his background as a Hall of Fame pitcher. He is someone listeners trust. His words mean more than someone like Steve Phillips when he says something to about a pitcher. I respect Phillips and his front office background. He did, after all, build a team that made it to the World Series (2000 New York Mets). But, what does he know about pitching? If Sutton was not in the broadcast booth, he could be in the dugout as a pitching coach. Having met the guy in person, he is a heckuva nice guy… and even comes across that way on air.
Another analyst and former player I like is Troy Aikman. When Aikman was first hired by FOX in 2001, I thought it was a match made in hell. Aikman never came across to me as someone who could break down a game the way an analyst should. Folks, I was wrong. He has quickly shot up the FOX chain of command and is now the analyst on the lead crew with Joe Buck on FOX. Aikman’s dry wit and smooth persona go along with his deep knowledge of the game. He is able to see things in the coverage of defenses that Tony Kornheiser can’t see (to be fair, that was not Tony’s role on Monday Night Football). Perhaps Aikman keeps his eye on linebacker or a safety from the booth – much the same way he did on the field – and is able to express how Peyton Manning was able to hit Dallas Clark over the middle. These are little things that make a broadcast more effective… these are little things that Kornheiser might study film and be able to say that, but he is not a Hall of Fame quarterback. He is not Troy Aikman. Whose opinion do you value more when discussing football? It is nothing against Kornhesier. I absolutely love him on Pardon the Interruption. But again, he is not Troy Aikman and would probably tell you so.
Imagine you are at a doctor’s office awaiting a consultation with your cardiologist. You are talking to the nurse and she says, “What they usually do is go in and…” Now, ten minutes later, you talk to your doctor and he tells you, “Loyal Homer, I have done hundreds of surgeries like this. What I will do is connect this valve to this valve and…” Now, who makes you feel better there?
Analysts analyze. Just ask yourself… can you really effectively analyze if you have not been in that position yourself? No you cannot!
Loyal Homer, you’re the only person I know who could make in-game sports analysis and commentary as serious as heart surgery.
It was the only example that came to mind, even though I admit it was over the top!!
Sometimes people not directly involved in a sport can have a better perspective. Example: Me – I never boxed someone in a ring, but I have seen every great fighter on film and read many books. I have in my possession over 2,500 fights on DVD/VHS. Do I know more than Teddy Atlas or Larry Merchant? Probably not, but I would challenge Max Kellerman in a debate on boxing knowledge any day of the week! And Joe Tessitore and Jim Lampley don’t know as much as me about boxing. Those guys are very good at what they do and I enjoy listening to them, but they possess solid general knowledge in all sports – nothing specifically!
I enthusiastically agree, Mike! This verdict is bogus! The ability to add perspective and context is not exclusive to the play-by-play announcer. Also, inside knowledge of a sport can be achieved without haven’t played. There is far too much bad ex-player noise on the airwaves where an educated fan of a sports might add a lot of perspective without speculation.
Glad to have found another Max Kellerman hater Mike. Welcome to the Club! Do you want two non-athletes announcing a game? Would the quality suffer? One “student” and one “player” is a better match.
I’m not really a Kellerman hater. I respect his knowledge, but I didn’t appreciate it when he said Gatti never won a major fight except against Tracy Harris Patterson. That’s another debate for another day because I could go on a tangent.
Here’s another example: In a lot of ways, Floyd Mayweather Jr. was right when he told ESPN’s Brian Kenny he’s a jack of all trades, master of none. Look at ESPN’s REAL experts: Peter Gammons, Teddy Atlas, Barry Melrose…Now let’s look at former GM Steve Phillips. If Phillips knew so much about baseball, he’d be working for another team! All their anchors have a depth of sports knowledge, but most are experts in nothing.
That’s a good point, and part of the point I tried to impress on the judge. A true expert must be multi-dimensional to provide good context to something in real time, they must understand the ramifications of an event in both the immediate and long-term. Ex-players are one-dimensional.