The What Makes a Better In-Game Analyst Debate – Does An Analyst Need Playing Experience?
Read Sports Geek’s argument that a trained broadcaster with no playing experience is better, and Loyal Homer’s argument that a former player with no formal broadcasting experience is better.
“Do you believe in miracles?!”
– Al Michaels at the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team’s ‘Miracle on Ice’
“The band is out on the field!”
- Joe Starkey calling ‘The Play’ as Cal’s Kevin Moen scores a game winning touchdown by plowing through Stanford’s band in the endzone
“A win for the ages!”
- Jim Nantz at the 1997 Masters as Tiger Woods putts to win his first Major by a record-tying 12 strokes
“The Indians win it! The Indians win it! OH MY GOD the Indians win it!”
- Harry Doyle (Bob Uecker) as the Cleveland Indians beat the New York Yankees to advance to the ALCS in the movie “Major League”
Okay, so the last one does not REALLY count since it is from a movie, but you get my point!
The most memorable of sporting events are often punctuated with equally memorable commentary. As you read those quotes you can picture the events, as they unfolded, in your mind. Like a smell that takes you back to childhood, or hearing a song on the radio that awakens a fond memory, words and sound bytes act as a trigger allowing you to relive those moments just as though you were watching them for the first time. They leave indelible impressions that are forever intertwined with the emotion and excitement of the drama that unfolds before our eyes.
It cannot influence events, but commentary is a vital element of the sports experience for any fan of any game.
So, what makes for good commentary? Of course, it helps when that commentary is associated with some remarkable feat of athletic accomplishment; but, those events are too few and too unpredictable to be relied upon. I argue that good commentary can come from any event, no matter how insignificant the scope is. The responsibility falls upon the person behind the microphone.
Many people have taken their shot at broadcasting. Some have seen wild success, many more have seen failure. As long as there is a need to broadcast sporting events there will be an equal need to find qualified people to handle the responsibilities of commentary.
Cue The Sports Debates.
My question to Sports Geek and Loyal Homer today is: What qualification makes for a better in-game sports analyst?
There are generally two different types of broadcasters who foray into sports commentary. The first is “classically” trained but lacks experience as a player in the game they are broadcasting. The second is a former player in the game who possesses intricate and experiential knowledge of the sport, but who may lack a traditional background in broadcasting.
Loyal Homer will argue that the better in-game analyst is the former player who can provide insight and real-world experience that brings the fan “inside the mind” of the player. While this person may not be as polished in their role as a broadcaster, their ability to relay and analyze information that only a player would know makes them much more valuable to any broadcast.
Sports Geek will argue that the better in-game analyst is one whose experience and training comes from a true media background. While they may lack direct playing experience, it should not be implied that they are any less knowledgeable on the topic in which they are commenting. These broadcasters, despite having never played the sport they are commenting on, possess an ability to communicate in a manner which makes the sport compelling to watch.
We’re about ready for kick-off, so let’s go to Sports Geek and Loyal Homer on the field to hear what they have to say.
The What Makes a Better In-Game Analyst Debate – Does An Analyst Need Playing Experience?
Read Sports Geek’s argument that a trained broadcaster with no playing experience is better, and Loyal Homer’s argument that a former player with no formal broadcasting experience is better.
“Do you believe in miracles?!”
– Al Michaels at the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team’s ‘Miracle on Ice’
“The band is out on the field!”
- Joe Starkey calling ‘The Play’ as Cal’s Kevin Moen scores a game winning touchdown by plowing through Stanford’s band in the endzone
“A win for the ages!”
- Jim Nantz at the 1997 Masters as Tiger Woods putts to win his first Major by a record-tying 12 strokes
“The Indians win it! The Indians win it! OH MY GOD the Indians win it!”
- Harry Doyle (Bob Uecker) as the Cleveland Indians beat the New York Yankees to advance to the ALCS in the movie “Major League”
Okay, so the last one does not REALLY count since it is from a movie, but you get my point!
The most memorable of sporting events are often punctuated with equally memorable commentary. As you read those quotes you can picture the events, as they unfolded, in your mind. Like a smell that takes you back to childhood, or hearing a song on the radio that awakens a fond memory, words and sound bytes act as a trigger allowing you to relive those moments just as though you were watching them for the first time. They leave indelible impressions that are forever intertwined with the emotion and excitement of the drama that unfolds before our eyes.
It cannot influence events, but commentary is a vital element of the sports experience for any fan of any game.
So, what makes for good commentary? Of course, it helps when that commentary is associated with some remarkable feat of athletic accomplishment; but, those events are too few and too unpredictable to be relied upon. I argue that good commentary can come from any event, no matter how insignificant the scope is. The responsibility falls upon the person behind the microphone.
Many people have taken their shot at broadcasting. Some have seen wild success, many more have seen failure. As long as there is a need to broadcast sporting events there will be an equal need to find qualified people to handle the responsibilities of commentary.
Cue The Sports Debates.
My question to Sports Geek and Loyal Homer today is:
What qualification makes for a better in-game sports analyst?
There are generally two different types of broadcasters who foray into sports commentary. The first is “classically” trained but lacks experience as a player in the game they are broadcasting. The second is a former player in the game who possesses intricate and experiential knowledge of the sport, but who may lack a traditional background in broadcasting.
Loyal Homer will argue that the better in-game analyst is the former player who can provide insight and real-world experience that brings the fan “inside the mind” of the player. While this person may not be as polished in their role as a broadcaster, their ability to relay and analyze information that only a player would know makes them much more valuable to any broadcast.
Sports Geek will argue that the better in-game analyst is one whose experience and training comes from a true media background. While they may lack direct playing experience, it should not be implied that they are any less knowledgeable on the topic in which they are commenting. These broadcasters, despite having never played the sport they are commenting on, possess an ability to communicate in a manner which makes the sport compelling to watch.
We’re about ready for kick-off, so let’s go to Sports Geek and Loyal Homer on the field to hear what they have to say.
Share this:
Like this:
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 5th, 2009 at 1:13 pm and is filed under The What Makes a Better In-Game Analyst Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.