Broadcasting: The Painting of Words

Anyone can sit down and tell a story to an audience. Whether they can tell it affectively is the big question. In sports the art of broadcasting takes a whole new direction in the way stories are told. Radio broadcasters have the tougher job in that painting the picture with their words is the key to the entire broadcast. Some may say that over describing the scene is the most successful. From the color of the jerseys, to the pattern of the grass on the field are all part of painting the picture for listeners.

On the other hand, broadcasters for television may not have to describe as much detail because the event is occurring right in front of them, and fans and viewers back home can see most of it, but keeping them engaged is still extremely important. Although engaging fans may seem like a simple task at first, it involves a lot of preparation and knowledge behind the teams, its players, and the sport.

Courtesy of NESN

One pair of broadcasters that have no problem engaging the viewers and put themselves right into the game is Jack Edwards and Andy Brickley of the New England Sports Network (NESN) and the Boston Bruins. This duo step into the booth game after game and provide fast paced, clear, and understandable commentary.

The two were first paired up in the 2005-2006 NHL season calling games together on the road. Starting in 2007 the two took over the duties of calling every game that was broadcasted on NESN. Brickley was a former hockey player, playing in the NHL, AHL, and IHL in a span of sixteen years, as well as three seasons at the University of New Hampshire. Edwards has been broadcasting since the early 1980s, starting his career as a play-by-play announcer for the University of New Hampshire at the same time Brickley was on the ice for the wildcats.

I’ve always enjoyed listening to them when the Bruins play and would rather listen to them every game unless treated with the voice of Mike Emrick of NBC Sports. Last night when the Bruins took on the Winnipeg Jets I focused on the dialogue between Edwards and Brickley and thought about what exactly it was that made it so affective.

Too often we hear structured broadcasts in that the play-by-play announcer calls exactly what he sees while the color commentator will follow up on bigger plays with analysis. What works well for Edwards and Brickley is their constant banter and conversation. Instead of having that structured broadcast style they take the time to talk about what is happening on the ice, offering insight to different players and style of play. This “table tennis” style of broadcasting as I like to call it will always be, in my opinion, the most desired as the game isn’t just being told to you, it’s putting you in it.

Edwards has always been accused of being a “Bruins Homer” in the sense that his style of broadcasting is extremely bias toward Boston. A pure example of this can be seen in the video below (specifically at 3:22). However, many find this style appealing because of the passion that is driven behind it. Though accusations say he’s too biased he still treats the opponent with respect which allows him to still paint that picture for viewers.

Despite all these qualities the most important thing to remember is how the story of the game is told. Word choice is key in getting the message across. Using complex words that most listeners may not understand could cause for the lack of interest in the game in which the remote will soon be picked up to change the channel. 

Edwards is known for his unique choice of words. Some of them may be considered complex, but what makes it easy to understand is the description of the play surrounding the word(s) he uses. While I was watching last night’s game with my brother and my neighbor this exact thing was pointed out. While Edwards was using his “Edwardisms” my neighbor says, “Jack Edwards uses the most interesting words.”

In the end it really is determined by the listener or the viewer on whether a broadcaster is affective or not. The majority almost always wins and if the majority disapproves, then the broadcaster will most likely see his way out the door. It boils down to one point: affectively painting the picture with words.

Play the Game Not the Dollar

In today's society it's all about the cost of something. How much something is worth is one aspect that almost every person has on their mind whether it be a menu item at a restaurant or an antique at an auction. This same situation applies to Major League Baseball and the salaries the boys of summer get year after year. The issue that has come to light lately is, how much is a player worth?

One problem the MLB has today is that it has taken away the idea of baseball as a sport. Baseball as we know it now, is simply a giant business. Every team is its own franchise that feeds money back to the main head quarters where commissioner Bud Selig sits in his office and over looks the money flow. The additional problem is (if sticking with the business idea behind all of this) instead of the players being treated as employees of these franchises, they're treated as assets. How much one team pays a certain player helps determine how much a team, as a whole, is worth.

Every ball club wants to be the best in its division and furthermore hopes to be the best in the entire league. What it comes down to is buying talent and buying wins. General Managers will now go to great lengths to get what it takes to make their team, "the team to beat."

Courtesy of Jeff Gross/Getty Images via Bleacher Report

For example, last year the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim added a huge contract to their team, signing former St. Louis Cardinal, Albert Pujols to a ten year, $240 million contract. At the age of 33, Pujols will collect an average of $24 million a year until he turns 43 years old. With that pay it can almost be assumed that the Angels believe he’ll be as valuable in their line-up ten years from now.

In the first ten years with the Cardinals his lowest batting average was .312 which came during the tenth season. It was followed by a .299 average the year after. When landing in LA he ended his first season with the Angels hitting a career low .285 - a number certainly not worthy of a $24 million paycheck.

Stepping aside from sports, lets look at the average yearly salary of a neurosurgeon. According to a 2012 Medical Group Management Association Physician Compensation Report, the average neurosurgeon earned just over $775,000 in one year. To the average citizen that number is still significantly higher than what they're earning in a given year, but given the circumstances of the job, you're dealing with a human who is paid based on handling a human's life. 

Referring back to Pujols's contract, the slugger is paid just over 30 times more a year than the surgeon. The reason behind this? A hitter such as Pujols is considered a successful athlete even if he fails to get a hit during 70 percent of his at bats. On the flip side, a surgeon becomes distrusted even if he succeeds at over 90 percent of his operations. Look at what is at stake between the two, it seems quite obvious as to what the problem is.

To further back up this point, on February 1st, Daniel Barbarisi of the Wall Street Journal, published a story about New York Yankees first baseman Mark Teixeira and his understanding of the limits he faces as an aging athlete. Since age has been a topic of discussion here, Barbarisi begins his article saying, "In absolute terms, 33 is not old. But for a baseball player, 33 has long been the beginning of the end." In most cases in an athlete's life in a sport, they've already hit their prime. Though they may still be a good player, they are likely to be on the down slope their career.

Courtesy of Getty Images via Wall Street Journal

The article continues on talking about Teixeira and his understanding that he's, "on the backside of his career" and how he, "isn't going to play ten more years." However, isn't he worth the $22.5 million a year the Bronx Bombers pay him? Teixeira doesn't think so stating, "I have no problem with anybody in New York, any fan, saying, ‘you're overpaid.’ Because I am. We all are." He later goes on to state that by the time a player reaches the salary mark of $20 million, the value (s)he once held is not the same as it used to be.

Being overpaid is an understatement if there ever was one. To think that once upon a time as a child on a team in a local little league program the love of the game was the real reason why kids showed up to play. There was no dollar value or thought about whether Little Billy was going to be as good the next three years as he was in his first. To say that professional athletes play the game solely on the basis of passion for the sport is almost unheard of. Sure these player's agents have a lot to do with how much they get paid because they want a big cut of the deal, but has there ever been one player that says he doesn't care what he makes as long as he's playing the game? 

No matter the case, there needs to be some reevaluating in figuring out how much someone is worth. It raises an interesting question on whether players in Major League Baseball would take the game seriously if their pay was significantly cut to a more "acceptable" number. Would the true value of the game be displayed if money wasn't the focus? The ideology behind the sport needs to stray away from a business mentality where athletes are treated as assets and restored to a sense of pride and passion for the game.

Who said it best? It's up to the reader

Almost every sports fan has their one source of media that they turn to in order to get the recap of their favorite team's most recent game. If they weren't able to catch the game, the most important details in the article sought for are the highlights; major moments in the game. Although, if fans consistently turn to one source time after time, will it really matter how the article is written? If the score is included, as well as being accompanied by a few details on how it got to be that way, and a few quotes from coaches or players, will the reader ever consider their source's recap, "poorly written?"

Regardless of how a recap is written, the writers of these articles tend to have their own way of telling the story. Some keep it generic by listing the events in the game in chronological order. Others may focus on one key moment in the contest and lay out the details as to why it formed the final score. The question still remains on whether the style of a given recap tells the story better than another.

Now that the NHL is back in full swing after being locked out for a little over four months, the media has turned a lot of its attention toward the fast-paced sport. More specifically, the Boston Bruins have been in the spot light with their hot 6-1-1 start to the current season. The notable names to start are the improved goalie Tuukka Rask, rookie Dougie Hamilton, and the son of former Bruin Ray Bourque, Chris Bourque. Between Hamilton's quick success on offense, Rask's lights out performance in goal, and Bourque's reputation lying in the hands his father's, Boston's sports writers have had plenty to talk about.

In the most recent game against the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Bruins were able to capitalize and hold the Leafs scoreless in a 1-0 victory. The owner of the B's lone goal? Chris Bourque. To the average fan, this doesn't seem like a big deal, however, what most don't realize is Bourque hasn't scored a goal in the NHL in almost four years.

Photo courtesy of AP via Boston Herald.

ESPN's recap of the game focused mainly on Bourque and the reaction of his team. Most players would be in the spotlight if they were in the same spot as the Bruins' left wing, however what made him different was doing it with a team his father once played for. It only seemed appropriate that this became the main focus. Sure both goalies worked the crease to perfection, and Lane MacDermid proved himself as a fighter, but Bourque's goal was not only the eventual game winner, it was the most talked about moment.

Boston Herald's Stephen Harris took the most standard approach with his take on the game. From start to finish, Harris recaps the game using multiple highlights and statistics from the match-up. At one point he even talks about the killing of all three of the Leaf's power plays. His inclusion of quotes about defense, offense, and specific plays pull the article together to one complete recap.

CBS Sports' blogger Adam Gretz geared his view on the game in a completely different direction. Pre-game notes often included the sluggish start by the Leaf's Phil Kessel and how the trade that sent him from Boston to Toronto included the draft picks that brought both Tyler Seguin and Hamilton to Beantown. Gretz focused on nothing else but Toronto's right-wing, providing an overall analysis on Kessel's performance. He even mentions that, "it takes a ridiculous amount of bad luck for a player with Kessel's ability to go 30 shots without scoring a goal."

Each of these articles were relevant and proved its place on their respective sites, however Gretz's post seemed to stray away from the true definition of a recap. Although, being a blogger for CBS Sports, he has the ability to do that. The fact that these recaps offered such vast styles of writing gives the fan an opportunity to pick and choose what he or she wants to read. It also appeals to the fan in a way that their reading doesn't become redundant, receiving new bits of information in each one.

The overall consensus remains that no matter the style of writing, reporters, beat writers, and bloggers will always have an audience. It is up to the reader to determine what audience they fit into.