Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that the best sports broadcasting analysts are the ones with playing experience.
Oh, you jocky in-game sports analysts, you’re so amusing. Such airtime to fill, so little to say!
Here are some of my favorite quotes from the former-player cum supposed “experts” of sports analysis – “broadcasters” with playing experience.
Joe Morgan, former Cincinnati Reds second baseman (and MLB Hall of Fame inductee) is infamous for his verbal missteps and blatant gaffes. Despite his enormous playing experience (which he is only too willing to tell us all about, without letting the pesky truth get in the way), he manages to get it wrong. A lot. Don’t believe me? Read this, this, this, this, and this. He even had an entire website devoted to his sucking. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, too.
There is also Mrs. Sports Geek’s all time favorite ex-jock broadcast booth resident – Joe Theismann. Here’s Joe talking about a running back during his last year in the booth, “He really runs with his body on top of his legs.” Genius. Here’s my favorite, “Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.”
My point? What’s so great about playing experience when it comes to in-game analysis from the broadcast booth!? I say, “nothing.” It’s that old battle – jocks versus geeks, brains versus brawn.
Granted, a handful of recent in-game analysts have slightly tarnished my strong belief that playing experience is not necessary to be a good analyst. Dennis Miller – who was hired to replace fired ex-player Boomer Esiason – had a brief stint in the Monday Night Football booth, and tried way too hard. He was not trying too hard to belong, rather trying too hard to be funny (which he rarely was). ESPN baseball analyst Steve Phillips does not have playing experience, but he cannot seem to avoid controversy, either (and not good attention getting controversy, either).
But, Tony Kornheiser, not an ex-player, was good. He was glib when glib was called for, pithy when pithy was called for, and mixed knowledge and humor together in an entertaining and engaging way. He was smart. And, like Washington Post writer Leonard Shapiro, I believe that Kornheiser’s fear of flying contributed in large measure to his lack of enthusiasm about entering the booth again in 2009.
The fact is, “experienced” analysts – the guys who have actually played the game they are analyzing – suck enough that networks should consider the “geek” (or polished broadcaster as Bleacher Fan refers to them) for the role of in-game analyst. The difference between the geek and the ex-jock is in the willingness of each to put in the work to be a good sports analyst. The jocks believe the analysis will come easy and rely a great deal on their general knowledge of the sport to struggle through a game broadcast, leaving general context and insight out of their commentary. The geeks of the world have no choice but to work hard and constantly prove themselves. They have to watch film, they have to interview coaches and players (but decipher the coach speak from the facts), they have to do everything they can to prove they belong – without seeming like they’re trying too hard.
People who are good at their jobs all have one thing in common – they work hard at them. They are always trying to succeed and get better. The geek can never afford to be lazy while the “experienced” jock is allowed to have an “off” day or two. The geek is constantly scrutinized because they lack playing experience while the jock may get the benefit of the doubt. The double-standard is unfair and should no longer be tolerated.
Here’s the forgotten aspect of effective broadcasting – regardless of playing experience – the analyst must be an effective communicator. That does not mean using the biggest words or the most playing references. It means commanding the language, knowing the right information to communicate, and knowing when to communicate it. A good broadcaster and analyst should be a teacher who understands the basics but can add the perspective and detail that put an event into context.
The traits of a good sports analyst are not exclusive to those with playing experience. And you can quote me on that.
Sports Geek, you and I can agree on the stupidy of Joe Theismann and the arrogance of Joe Morgan. But those are just two examples. And as the readers will see in my post, I happen to like Tony Kornheiser. But shouldn’t an analyst analyze the games and not tell jokes specifically? Kornheiser’s role worked because he was in a three man booth. He couldn’t succeed in a two man booth.
I listened to one of the ESPN football analysts this morning make statements like “it is good to be ready for the playoffs.” Is this analysis? I’m surprised he didn’t say “It feels good to win.” really???
Source: http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/espn-sports-analysts-expertise-or-what-else/
Haha, great point. What passes for analysis these days is ridiculous. We have ex-players spewing unintelligent crap on TV. Wouldn’t it be nice if analysis was provided by someone who was an analyst FIRST?