Finn: Red Sox Potentially Changing Radio Broadcast Approach

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,151
I feel like, your average radio broadcast listener isn't particularly interesting in "jazzing" it up. Who is this change supposed to be for? I don't fully understand exactly what it is they're trying to do here. Is this something that has been happening in other markets already?
I feel like the fact that they are doing this in the first place means that the number of regular broadcast listeners is really low and getting lower, and they are doing it to increase that number, or at least level if off. We who post here are the hardcores, and catering to the hardcores is rarely a good idea.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,886
The game threads are popular around here. I think this is a bad idea, but you might be right about the popularity
The difference is, I actually kinda care what you yahoos think while you're watching the game. You're entertaining, I know your personalities and tastes and biases, and it's a bit like watching the game with you at a bar.

The takes and callers you get on sports talk shows, nevermind Boston sports talk shows, are so dumb that every time in the last two decades that I've turned one on while driving, I regretted and fixed my mistake within a few minutes. I'd rather listen to a radio show that's nothing but audio of babies crying, than listen to adult babies getting paid to essentially cry on-air.

2019 Sox broadcast booth:
If they had done precisely this with the 2012 Red Sox, I would have watched it and approved. Let's just say the 2018 version was not MST3K worthy, and the 2019 edition is highly unlikely to be such either.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
I still don't get what this even is. I mean, a regular broadcast is a description of the action and some talking about it. If they remove the PbP then it's not even the thing they're paying to broadcast. They aren't getting rid of commercials. Are they going to have callers on for five or six seconds each? I don't get it.
Live callers (without a delay) would be a short-lived experiment. "Adam Jones is at the plate....whoa....the phones are lighting up......"
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
I feel like the fact that they are doing this in the first place means that the number of regular broadcast listeners is really low and getting lower, and they are doing it to increase that number, or at least level if off. We who post here are the hardcores, and catering to the hardcores is rarely a good idea.
Except that there really can't be more than a handful of different kind of hardcores who would willingly turn down the tv and turn up the radio to experience this (not to mention the sync issue).
I suppose there might be some marginal net gain, because *most* radio listeners are captive to their surroundings -- car, outhouse, etc -- and will have little choice, while a few talk-radio addicts will do the multicast. But when I'm listening late at night to a west coast game, the last thing I want to hear is a bunch of people talking.
 

TedsColdHead

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2002
102
Could this be similar to what TNT does with the NBA - Players Only broadcasts? They have former players in a "conversational style" who talk over the game. I hate it !!!!
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
8,082
I feel like people comparing this to what TV broadcasts have tested out seem to be missing one key element here. There's nothing to see when listening to the radio. I need those people to tell me what is happening in the game pretty much at all times.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
12,635
From the WEEI article linked above, here is their attempt at spinning this:
"But there is room for more opinion. Maybe some discussion around whether Alex Cora should’ve pinch-hit in a specific spot, or if the team is approaching the trade deadline properly."
So they are looking for an announcer who is full of hot takes, who will criticize players and the manager in an attempt to provoke more interest and listeners. I despise this approach. I don't need some dumbass criticizing everything and trying to push the buttons of the audience. Maybe an ideal broadcaster could pull this off with valid, reasonable commentary, but with WEEI in charge, this will be horrible. Maybe they will hire Dan Shaughnessy for this job, he has to be at the ballpark most games anyway, he would be ideal for what they want.

The best sports broadcasts, whether they’re on TV or radio, have a conversational feel. The game remains paramount, but there are engaging discussions about league- or team-related issues. That’s what Lou Merloni, who served as an analyst for Red Sox radio this postseason, says he tries to bring to the booth.
"The game remains paramount, BUT...."

So the broadcast will be about the game and also have a lot of blabbing. Unless they could find another Eckersley, who does not exist, they won't find anyone who can "be conversational" all game long who won't be annoying as hell. Even Eck might get really old on the radio every day, with no video to look at, and relying on him to actually tell us what is happening. The people in charge at WEEI clearly believe that baseball on the radio is boring, so they are going to try to liven it up with what they think is interesting conversation. This will not end well.

Since TV viewers can see the action for themselves, announcers obviously have more leeway to ignore tedious pitches or routine plays. On radio, conceivably, listeners still want to hear the action.
Yes, that is why this will be awful on the radio. The radio guys need to talk about what is happening on the field. If they continue to do that, then the extra "conversation" means that the talking will be nonstop. What will happen is less description of the game and lots more dumb "controversial" opinions.

But Merloni says there’s a way to call the pitches and not allow mundane matters to trample an anecdote or opinion.

“On radio, you would still describe it,” he said. “It wouldn’t be, ‘Oh, it’s 3-2,’ and you haven’t announced whether it’s a ball or a strike. I think you do have to explain ‘ground ball to short’ and things like that. But ‘the wind up, the pitch, he steps off the rubber’ –– that stuff is kind of slow-moving. I think you’ve got to realize people’s attention spans. They’re looking for more.”
Who is actually looking for this kind of "more"? Not many people who actually listen to games on the radio will want this. And WEEI is dumber than I thought if they believe this will draw in millennials to listen to baseball on the radio. That ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for mlb.com allowing you to choose the other team's broadcast. Even though some of the other team's announcers are so bad they make Neverett look like Vin Scully, at least most of them talk about the game and don't try to inject their hot takes.

Dale Arnold agrees with Merloni’s diagnosis, citing the broadcast he did this season with Roger Clemens in Houston. While that was a special event centered around Clemens, it showed how personalities in the radio booth can provide additional entertainment on top of the game itself.

“It has to (have a conversational feel),” Arnold told WEEI.com on the phone. “Having done five sports in this town, baseball is by far the slowest. There is so much time between moments of action. If all you’re going to do is call the action, it’s going to suck. This isn’t like a hockey or basketball game where it’s non-stop. You don’t have time to work in much chitchat. In baseball, you have all of the time in the world. If all you did was call balls and strikes, and didn’t do anything else, it would be pretty lame.”
Dale Arnold sucks, his voice is like audio Pepto-Bismol. I highly doubt he even likes baseball. He thinks palling around with Roger Clemens during a game was good radio. Usually when the radio broadcast has guests, it is bad for the listeners. The announcers tend to be much more interested in chatting with the guest than they are in talking about the game, and it usually is results in bad radio.
Thank god Arnold isn't campaigning for this job. He's awful and he thinks if you call the action, it's going to "suck." But I'm sure whoever gets this job will view it the same way, that's why WEEI included this quote in that article.

The game will always be the centerpiece. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be more.
I don't trust these guys the least little bit to be able to do this successfully. I fear their idea of "more" will be a complete trainwreck. WEEI is in the business of dishing out dumb hot takes to push peoples' buttons, and that is what they will be trying to do here during the broadcasts, despite their corporate spin.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
Lumer Loni is dumb as a post. Sometimes, "'here's the pitch, low and away, ball 2" IS all there is to say. And then there's some announcer babble about the hitter's father being the best blacksmith in Ottumwa.

Sometimes, there are situations that might lend themselves to some further discussion.

But they are going to turn *every* pitch and *every* decision into the week between Patriot games.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,074
New York City
WEEI seems to be attacking a straw man here - radio broadcasts have never been just "balls and strikes." Obviously that would be really boring, which is why all radio broadcasters work in other commentary, anecdotes from the past, etc. - heck, Vin Scully did a single-man booth for a long time and still managed to work in lots of stuff other than "just" calling the game. It's not like last year Castig and Neverett were just sitting there going "Ball. ... Strike. ... Groundout to third, one out."
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,482
I'm a Syracuse Newhouse guy. Been in the radio biz. I'm fine with a radio broadcast being more lively, and Neverett didn't seem to have much of a "personality". So I'm cool with a change. But @The Gray Eagle is right when he said, "The radio guys need to talk about what is happening on the field. If they continue to do that, then the extra "conversation" means that the talking will be nonstop. What will happen is less description of the game and lots more dumb "controversial" opinions." You can "see" the game on the TV screen so doing the broadcast requires far less PBP and allows for more discussion. But the only way to "see" the game on the radio is through the descriptions given by the PBP guy (enhanced by the color guy). There's a lot less room for conversation. Now because baseball is slower than basketball, for example, there's more room for radio conversation in baseball broadcasts than basketball broadcasts, but still...far LESS room than TV broadcasts.

No idea how this is going to work, but I suspect at the end of the day they'll just hire a guy with more personality and they'll encourage a little more discussion. I doubt we're in for some radically new radio product.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,519
Maine
I've said this about TV broadcasts, but it's true of radio as well...silence is okay sometimes. It's one of the things I love about listening to games on radio...the announcers going quiet when there's nothing going on and just letting the sounds of the ballpark come through. The most important thing about the silence to me...it means I'm not missing anything. If the announcer is quiet, so is the game.

That all goes away if they're filling gaps and lulls with conversation and hot takez. Any discussion that isn't about the immediate action on the field makes me think they're missing something they could be telling me about what's going on on the field.

And for fuck's sake, I WANT to hear "he kicks and deals, low and away ball 3". Fuck Merloni for suggesting that stuff is slow paced and unwanted by the listeners. That IS baseball on radio.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,467
Unreal America
This is all so silly. There is sooooooooooo much down time in baseball. The radio team is always discussing things aside from the play on the field. Having some experience in media, this strikes me as coming from someone who is realllllllly trying to get a promotion by pitching this "innovative" idea to management. I can only imagine the words "paradigm" and "disruption" were in that PowerPoint.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,012
Hingham, MA
I've said this about TV broadcasts, but it's true of radio as well...silence is okay sometimes. It's one of the things I love about listening to games on radio...the announcers going quiet when there's nothing going on and just letting the sounds of the ballpark come through. The most important thing about the silence to me...it means I'm not missing anything. If the announcer is quiet, so is the game.

That all goes away if they're filling gaps and lulls with conversation and hot takez. Any discussion that isn't about the immediate action on the field makes me think they're missing something they could be telling me about what's going on on the field.

And for fuck's sake, I WANT to hear "he kicks and deals, low and away ball 3". Fuck Merloni for suggesting that stuff is slow paced and unwanted by the listeners. That IS baseball on radio.
Funny (well not really, more like painful) anecdote about the silence. On Sunday afternoon one of my wife's very good friend was in town, briefly, so we took our kids out to meet up with her family for some frozen yogurt. This was during the 4th quarter of the Pats game. I was following the game on my phone a bit since it was tight and late in the 4th quarter. Ghost kicked the field goal as we were leaving and we went to the car. So a few minutes after we got in the car I flipped the game on the radio, just to hear the end or some immediate postgame. When I turned it on, there was no talking. It was all background noise - it almost sounded like a scrambled signal. I said to my wife something along the lines of are we not getting a signal or something, and she responded along the lines of, no, I hear whistling and noise. Then either Zo or Socci started saying "if this stands..." and it hit me like a ton of bricks. Anyway that sucked. But in one of the most stunning plays in Pats history, neither Zo nor Socci felt the need to just continuously blabber on. The silence was powerful.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,012
Hingham, MA
The use of "tedious" by EEI suggests that they, or whoever wrote the article, does not like baseball. There is nothing tedious about each pitch. And I bet that for fans listening on the radio, there is nothing tedious about it either. Almost by definition those who listen on the radio are the true, serious, die-hard fans. There is no other radio fan base to appeal to. And also, by the nature of the sport being played (nearly) every day for six months, it won't be the casual fan who tunes in to hear "hot takes" about a daily sport. None of it makes sense.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
Merloni and Castig and be done with it.
I dont think Castig can do 9 innings of pbp effectively for a whole season. He certainly hasn't done it on a regular basis in quite a while. He and Merloni weren't totally shitty when it was just the two of them when Neverett missed a few games. But I dont see 162 games of pbp as a viable option.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,482
The use of "tedious" by EEI suggests that they, or whoever wrote the article, does not like baseball. There is nothing tedious about each pitch. And I bet that for fans listening on the radio, there is nothing tedious about it either. Almost by definition those who listen on the radio are the true, serious, die-hard fans. There is no other radio fan base to appeal to. And also, by the nature of the sport being played (nearly) every day for six months, it won't be the casual fan who tunes in to hear "hot takes" about a daily sport. None of it makes sense.
You are absolutely correct. No pink hats listen to the Sox on the radio. Only actual baseball fans to that, and so the thing that actual baseball fans care most about is....baseball!
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,519
Maine
I dont think Castig can do 9 innings of pbp effectively for a whole season. He certainly hasn't done it on a regular basis in quite a while. He and Merloni weren't totally shitty when it was just the two of them when Neverett missed a few games. But I dont see 162 games of pbp as a viable option.
I don't think Castig has done 9 innings of PBP regularly in his Red Sox tenure. From Ken Coleman to Bob Starr to Trupe to Geffner to DOB to Neverett, he's always had a partner who split duties every game. Can't imagine he's interested in calling every inning of the season at this stage of his career.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,105
Rio de Janeiro/Austin
This is actually great news. Whenever I'm consuming a format which uses one fewer sense than television, the one thing I crave is people yelling over each other when a live event needs to be described to me in detail. I've already changed all my conferences at work to "talk radio style", so this is just another welcome step toward my life being 24/7 Idiocracy. I like money.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
19,867
Imagine if the Sox were on the verge of clinching the AL East, AL Pennant or World Series and some mouth breather was bitching about pitch counts or lack of hustle and grit while the final out is recorded.

Instead of Joe Castiglione asking "Can you believe it?"

Larry from Watertown is going to bray, "Why is David Price even on this team? The nerds are ruining this game." before getting cut off to be informed that the Red Sox are the AL East/AL/World Series champs.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
I don't think Castig has done 9 innings of PBP regularly in his Red Sox tenure. From Ken Coleman to Bob Starr to Trupe to Geffner to DOB to Neverett, he's always had a partner who split duties every game. Can't imagine he's interested in calling every inning of the season at this stage of his career.
You're right. Not sure what i was thinking there.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
But @The Gray Eagle is right when he said, "The radio guys need to talk about what is happening on the field.
Well, the TV guys need to discuss what's happening on the field, too, instead of bringing people into the booth to babble. It seems as though everybody on the air today has got to be a "personality;" just doing the job is not enough and they can't get buy with their own personality so they have to have side men/women.

Baseball does have and has had its monotonous moments--the stepping out of the box, adjusting equipment, pitching change, and the like--but you don't see them on radio. Curt Gowdy might have said, "Williams is digging in (at the plate)," but you didn't see it and Gowdy didn't repeat it after every pitch unlike today when you watch batters leave the box after every pitch to adjust something. It was the normal pace of the game. When I watched Garciaparra as he began he career with Boston, I had no doubt that I was watching a future Hall-of-Famer, but, oh, did he drive me up walls, fidgeting with teh straps of his batting gloves.On radio, you would never have noticed.

When I was a kid, well over 90% of the baseball games I followed were by radio broadcast...and it was nice. I could read a book and keep score while the game was going on or I could turnof the rafio in the shed that had a huge loudspeaker and bounce the ball off the roof to practice catching it or mow the lawn (with a hand-mower). Today when I have a game on television and a book or Sunday crossword puzzle at hand, I look up at the crack of the bat...and find a replay or a re-re-replay, not always from the current game. The thing you lose with radio is seeing the great plays, especially as htey happen. The great radio announcers could handle the drama but I suspect that many of today's just think they can been seen later on the 'net or tv.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,908
where I was last at
A couple of thoughts

When I was a boy

Baseball used to be 2 to 2 1/2 hour game, now its closer to 3 1/2 hours or longer if its Sox-MFY, thats a lot more incremental time to banter about. There's only so many times you can tell that really funny story about (whatever) during the rain-delay.

Given the internet and the apps available to deliver MLB anyteam anytime anyplace, the value of radio rights has to be getting trashed, as America ages and those who grew up on mostly listening to the game, die.

Can anyone easily imagine a teenager today listening to 1-game for 3+ hours?

I'm not sure sports radio/hot takz is the way to go, but perhaps it should not be surprising.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
3,155
So they claim "this isn't going to be like talk radio!" and then go on to describe exactly talk radio?

This is going to be just awful.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,608
In the hands of a really thoughtful organization that had previously demonstrated its ability to do things out of the box in a respectful and compelling way, this could be interesting. Team broadcasters are usually considered "part of the team" who toe the party line, so giving more leash to some veteran analysts to tell it like it is during games (Eck has been pretty good at this in the past) could be solid.

But Werner seems to have a tin ear. My understanding is that NESN's broadcasts are generally cluttered and not great; Steve Lyons is terrible; and NESN's programming is unappealing to fans who are most interested in watching baseball -- they could show all kinds of classic games and instead show bad original programming. Combine that with the horror show that is WEEI, and I have a very hard time seeing how this is anything but a disaster.

I also have to wonder if Joe Castig is going to get phased out under this new approach, which would be an absolute embarrassment for the team.
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,487
Vancouver Island
Unfortunately, the radio broadcast already ignores the specifics. Both Neverett and Castig seem to assume fans are listening to them while watching TV. They will say things like "fouled off down the line" without saying which foul line. They will describe a ground single going "past Bogaerts at short" but not say whether it went to his right or left. While multiple replays are shown on TV, they will almost go so far as to tell listeners, "There's his foot touching the bag" as if we can all see it. Also, they both seem incapable of accurately reporting where pitches are caught. I have watched games with the radio sound and they will call very low pitches "down the middle", a pitch right down Broadway as "high" and their calls of inside and outside pitches are often wrong. (Don't they have a monitor?) Neverett often fails to call pitches, which is jarring when he next gives the count.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
3,160
Alameda, CA
I dont think Castig can do 9 innings of pbp effectively for a whole season. He certainly hasn't done it on a regular basis in quite a while.
This is part of the challenge. Viewed charitably (I know), EEI's plan is just to hire a color guy instead of a PBP guy. But whoever they hire is going to have to do a fair amount of PBP. I think there are very few interesting color announcers who can also do good radio PBP. Taken together you get a situation where maybe the Castiglione innings are OK but the other innings are trainwrecks.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,482
Unfortunately, the radio broadcast already ignores the specifics. Both Neverett and Castig seem to assume fans are listening to them while watching TV. They will say things like "fouled off down the line" without saying which foul line. They will describe a ground single going "past Bogaerts at short" but not say whether it went to his right or left. While multiple replays are shown on TV, they will almost go so far as to tell listeners, "There's his foot touching the bag" as if we can all see it. Also, they both seem incapable of accurately reporting where pitches are caught. I have watched games with the radio sound and they will call very low pitches "down the middle", a pitch right down Broadway as "high" and their calls of inside and outside pitches are often wrong. (Don't they have a monitor?) Neverett often fails to call pitches, which is jarring when he next gives the count.
Having broadcast many sporting events on the radio, I can tell you this little trade secret: No radio PBP announcer in any sport tells you all the specifics. Doing basketball, for example, if the ball gets passed from one wing to the top and around to the other wing, the PBP person will usually just tell you the ball has been passed from one side to the other. In hockey, goodness, there's no way they can keep up with it. In football? Radio PBP: "Brady drops back to pass, steps up in the pocket and fires over the middle to Gronkowski - caught, for a 12 yard gain." Ok, like who pressured Brady? How deep was his drop? "Over the middle" can be anywhere from outside the left hash to outside the right hash. Did he catch it 12 yards out then get tackled immediately? Or did he catch it 7 yards downfield and run for the last 5? It's usually the color guy who fills in the details of that.

Same thing in baseball. Ground ball past a diving Bogaerts might be the initial call, but then the color guy will fill in from there: "Judge jumped on that fastball and yanked it to left field past Bogaerts, who dove but couldn't come up with it."
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,308
Newton
One of my least favorite SoSH criticisms is Red Sox broadcast criticisms. The DOB bellyaching, the Orsillo ballwashing, the mistaken “Remy has been great since DO left” narrative, the “Sean McDonough was the best” narrative, the “Tim Neverett is awful” narrative ... I hate them all. None of them is based in fact. All of them are rose-colored, misshapen arguments that have little to do with the reality of the product on the airwaves.

Except Steve Lyons. He really does suck.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,509
Santa Monica
One of my least favorite SoSH criticisms is Red Sox broadcast criticisms. The DOB bellyaching, the Orsillo ballwashing, the mistaken “Remy has been great since DO left” narrative, the “Sean McDonough was the best” narrative, the “Tim Neverett is awful” narrative ... I hate them all. None of them is based in fact. All of them are rose-colored, misshapen arguments that have little to do with the reality of the product on the airwaves.

Except Steve Lyons. He really does suck.
and Eck Rules
 

c_yesterday

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
48
Portland, OR
When Robert Siegel retired from NPR this summer, it dawned on me that Joe Castiglione is pretty much the only person left in media who's been there as long as I can remember. It's going to be really strange when the day comes that I'm whiling away the summer afternoons and evenings without him in the booth. He'll be 72 on opening day, and the idea that he could spend his broadcasting golden years trying to lend a modicum of dignity to the kind of WEEI shitshow that we're all fearing right now really bums me out.
 

section15

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 23, 2007
123
Bradford, MA and section 15
It looks like the shitshow ain't gonna happen - there was some babbling announcement that they never intended to rework the format into gasbag/get-a-life sports..

Translation = sponsors may have gotten PO'd when they were told of , or even inquired about the plan.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
It looks like the shitshow ain't gonna happen - there was some babbling announcement that they never intended to rework the format into gasbag/get-a-life sports..

Translation = sponsors may have gotten PO'd when they were told of , or even inquired about the plan.
That's good news. Now they have to replace Neverett. He wasn't the best, but he developed a little chemistry with Joe C. that made broadcasts tolerable. IMO, there's more room to get worse than better. Fortunately, they have to get someone who also does p-b-p, which rules out full-time Lumerloni as an option. I think its imperative to have someone with some kind of local roots, like Neverett had, even if they didn't call games here before.
 

section15

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 23, 2007
123
Bradford, MA and section 15
That's good news. Now they have to replace Neverett. He wasn't the best, but he developed a little chemistry with Joe C. that made broadcasts tolerable. IMO, there's more room to get worse than better. Fortunately, they have to get someone who also does p-b-p, which rules out full-time Lumerloni as an option. I think its imperative to have someone with some kind of local roots, like Neverett had, even if they didn't call games here before.
Jon Rish comes to mind but they drove him out the door (and out of the business) by starving him out.

Usually, when management makes a decision like that, they stick to their guns, no matter what the overall effect is of their action. I think Rish did come back for a game or two but he's off doing computer programming now and likely making better dough (and has more security).
 
Last edited:

minischwab

lurker
Aug 1, 2006
585
West Hartford, CT
Late last summer, my wife and I put in a patio behind our house with a fire pit dining table. I found it soooo nice to have dinner, then grab a beer and turn the Sox game on the radio while we sat by the fire. As has been said by others, the "nat sound" of the game is a must for baseball on radio. Between pitches just lay out for a bit if nothing is going on, let me feel like I'm at the park. Related to this, I've been pitching for YEARS the idea of a "Nat Sound" button on my TV remote similar to an SAP button. Turns off broadcasters audio but keeps the game audio on instead of muting. I'd use it for just about every national broadcast and probably some local broadcasts too for my teams. Trouble is if it worked too well, networks would have a hard time justifying the salaries they pay to the announcers.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,308
Newton
If you have surround sound, you can just turn off your center channel to get “nat sound.”

Question: when did baseball (or the Red Sox) start using two guys who do PBP? Is it necessary for some reason? And if so, why?
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,074
New York City
Late last summer, my wife and I put in a patio behind our house with a fire pit dining table. I found it soooo nice to have dinner, then grab a beer and turn the Sox game on the radio while we sat by the fire. As has been said by others, the "nat sound" of the game is a must for baseball on radio. Between pitches just lay out for a bit if nothing is going on, let me feel like I'm at the park. Related to this, I've been pitching for YEARS the idea of a "Nat Sound" button on my TV remote similar to an SAP button. Turns off broadcasters audio but keeps the game audio on instead of muting. I'd use it for just about every national broadcast and probably some local broadcasts too for my teams. Trouble is if it worked too well, networks would have a hard time justifying the salaries they pay to the announcers.
You may or may not be aware of this, but the "Game Sound" option is available on MLB.TV.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,687
If you have surround sound, you can just turn off your center channel to get “nat sound.”

Question: when did baseball (or the Red Sox) start using two guys who do PBP? Is it necessary for some reason? And if so, why?

Does the "center channel off" still work?

I think two p-b-p on radio has been the norm, rather than the exception for a long time. Sterling's an exception. (Maybe there are more. I dont listen to very many out of town radiocasts). When I was a kid in NY, the Mets and Yankees each had 3 broadcasters who rotated in game between tv and radio. Sometimes there were 2 on TV; sometimes 2 on radio (I dont think NYY ever let Rizzuto work alone, though).

I think its necessary for the Sox now because I dont think Joe C. can (or wants to ) do 9 regularly. So unless he's gone, too . . . .
 

minischwab

lurker
Aug 1, 2006
585
West Hartford, CT
You may or may not be aware of this, but the "Game Sound" option is available on MLB.TV.
I was not aware but that's great! Difference is, MLB.TV is taking local broadcasts, they're not paying any announcers directly. ESPN, MLB Network, Fox, TBS, etc are all paying their own crews to do the games so they're not going to make that available any time soon I'd wager.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
3,155
It looks like the shitshow ain't gonna happen - there was some babbling announcement that they never intended to rework the format into gasbag/get-a-life sports..

Translation = sponsors may have gotten PO'd when they were told of , or even inquired about the plan.
This is excellent news.

The best part was, after their firm denials, Alex Reimer wrote an article saying it absolutely wasn't ever going to be a "sports radio" vibe, and then went on to describe how it was going to be: a "sports radio" vibe.
https://weei.radio.com/articles/column/media-column-reimer-weei-not-changing-format-red-sox-broadcasts



If you have surround sound, you can just turn off your center channel to get “nat sound.”
This depends on your system. Some will re-adjust levels to spread that center channel signal out to the front left and right.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,519
Maine
Question: when did baseball (or the Red Sox) start using two guys who do PBP? Is it necessary for some reason? And if so, why?
I think that was always the norm for radio for a long time. It really wasn't until TV came along that the notion of a former player/manager color analyst became common, and even then I think it's still more of a TV thing than a radio thing, at least for the local broadcasts. But even in the earlier days of regular local TV coverage, those former player/manager "analysts" were called upon to do play-by-play. Hawk Harrelson's a good example of that as he ended up becoming a full time PBP. I remember Bob Montgomery used to call innings on NESN (like the 4th inning of Clemens' 20 K night in 1986).

I think having two guys doing PBP was (and is) necessary for radio due to the length of the season. Considering that most of the job in radio is PBP and with every game being broadcast, there's a ton of talking to do. It has to grind on even the best voices in the game. I mean, even Vin Scully, renowned for his ability to carry a broadcast solo, took innings off every night (usually the 3rd and the 7th) and ceded the mike to another PBP.