My latest Chicago Tribune column is on Peter Gammons anticipating a much different Hall of Fame weekend than what he encountered last year.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed at @ShermanReport.

From the column:

********

Peter Gammons was on the road Thursday, making one of his favorite drives: His annual trek from his home in New England to Cooperstown, N.Y., for the Baseball Hall of Fame induction weekend.

His anticipation level is considerably different than last year when the steroids-backlash produced an empty ceremony that featured no living player, manager or executive. It gave the long-time baseball writer and TV analyst new appreciation for what he was missing.

“It was so unusual,” Gammons said. “For all the years I’ve gone there, it’s the only time it seemed strange. There’s usually such a buzz with all the stores and people. And it wasn’t there.”

The buzz will be there this year, with a considerable portion coming from Chicago. Gammons will be part of MLB Network’s extensive coverage of Sunday’s festivities, beginning at 11 a.m. with a pre-ceremony show featuring Bob Costas interviews with all six inductees, including Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, and Tony La Russa. Then at 12:30 p.m., MLB Network will air the full ceremony with the induction speeches. Joining Gammons will be Greg Amsinger, Harold Reynolds and John Smoltz, who could take his place in the Hall next year.

Gammons and many others are counting on this weekend to knock out the bad taste from last year’s event.

“This is going to fun,” Gammons said. “I heard estimates that close to 100,000 people could be here. There’s going to be a great Chicago contingent and people from Atlanta (for Maddux, Tom Glavine and Bobby Cox). Very cool.”

Gammons has vivid memories regarding the Chicago connection. As the Red Sox beat writer for the Boston Globe, he first connected with La Russa when he was a young coach for the White Sox in 1978.

“Tony hadn’t learned how to hit a fungo,” Gammons said. “I always used to work out before the game and I shagged popups from him. I always told him if he ever gets into the Hall of Fame, he owes me.”

While I was gone, I only had occasional access to email. However, this release from Fox Sports caught my eye. It began:

“Pam Oliver, one of the premier reporters and interviewers in sports television, has been elevated to senior correspondent, FOX Sports, effectively immediately.”

I laughed, as did other media watchers, at the notion that Fox Sports was “elevating” Oliver while replacing her with Erin Andrews on its No. 1 NFL team. Oliver now will work with the No. 2 team.

Oliver deserved better after spending 19 years on Fox’s top NFL crew. She always was solid and was respected for her work.

But she knows it is a business. Fox made a huge investment in signing Andrews. Previous attempts to showcase her haven’t worked. Her role as a studio host for the network’s college football shows were miserable failures.

So it is back to the sidelines for Andrews, where she now will be seen in primetime with Joe Buck and Troy Aikman.

Bob Raissman of the New York Daily News scolded Fox for the move Sunday:

Yet the kind of experience Oliver brought to the table, her years of outstanding work, meant nothing to Fox Sports suits. When it comes to ageism, sexism, and double standards, the Foxies are now officially triple threats. Shanks probably spent more time counting the wrinkles on Oliver’s forehead than the number of quality reports she delivered over the course of her career. Or maybe it was her hair he was concerned with.

The bet here is Andrews is going to get more face time than any other sideline reporter in the business. The Foxies didn’t make this switch to keep her in cold storage. And if Shanks doesn’t like how Andrews ultimately performs (or looks), he can “borrow” one of the many blond talkers on Fox News Channel’s roster.

Raissman wasn’t alone in that assessment. I don’t completely agree. I think the move mostly was motivated by maximizing the investment in Andrews. They need to justify the big money they gave her.

Before there was Jerry Kramer’s Instant Replay and Jim Bouton’s Ball Four, there was Jim Brosnan’s The Long Season.

In 1959, Brosnan, a journeyman pitcher, kept a diary of his year with St. Louis and Cincinnati. His subsequent book was the first inside account from an active player on the ups and downs of life in the big leagues.

It was a groundbreaking book and one of the most important ever written on sports. For many young fans of my generation, it was among the first relevant books we read.

Brosnan, 84, died on June 28. There were several obituaries and tributes filed about him during the holiday weekend.

From Bruce Weber of the New York Times:

In 1959, Brosnan, who played nine years in the major leagues, kept a diary of his experience as a pitcher, first with the St. Louis Cardinals and later, after a trade, with the Cincinnati Reds. Published the next year as “The Long Season,” it was a new kind of sportswriting — candid, shrewd and highly literate, more interested in presenting the day-to-day lives and the actual personalities of the men who played the game than in maintaining the fiction of ballplayers as all-American heroes and role models.

Written with a slightly jaundiced eye — but only slightly — the book is often given credit for changing the nature of baseball writing, anticipating the literary reporting of Roger Angell, Roger Kahn and others; setting the stage for “Veeck — as in Wreck,” the vibrant memoir of Bill Veeck, the maverick owner of several teams; and predating by a decade Jim Bouton’s more celebrated, more rambunctious (and more salacious) pitcher’s diary, “Ball Four.”

“The first workout was scheduled for 10 o’clock,” Brosnan wrote, in a typically arch passage, about the first day of spring training. “The clubhouse was filled by 9, and we sat around for an hour, anxious to go. But first came the speeches. Spring training has a convocation ceremony that follows strict patterns all over the baseball world. Manager speaks: ‘Wanna welcome all you fellows; wanna impress on you that you each got a chance to make this ball club.’ (This hypocrisy is always greeted by an indulgent and silent snicker from the veterans of previous training camps.)”

Dave Hoestkra on his site recalled spending time with Brosnan.

Mr. Brosnan quietly kept notes on a pad while sitting in the bullpen during a game. He never showed his manuscripts to anybody. Not even his roommates. Besides writing books, Mr. Brosnan wrote book reviews for the New York Times and the Chicago Daily News. For 25 years he was the baseball writer for Boy’s Life magazine. In the spring of 1968 he wrote articles for the Chicago Tribune magazine like “Moe Drabowsky Leads the League in Supernonproductive Outs,” and the eternally hopeful “Bonehead Baseball is Out, Out, Out at Wrigley Field.”

On road trips Mr Brosnan would pack books by Dostoevsky (not Drabowsky) and John Updike. He also carried a blue-gray 1960s portable Olivetti typewriter.

The typewriter broke in early 2004 when it fell off a shelf. He did not own a computer. He did not have e-Mail. Mr. Brosnan said he stopped writing after his typewriter went down. I wish I had made the effort to stay in touch with him.

My latest Chicago Tribune examines the record ratings for the World Cup.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed at @Sherman_Report.

From the column:

*******

The TV in the restaurant’s bar had the Cubs game on Monday night. The owner, though, was completely oblivious to Jake Arrieta’s quest to throw a no-hitter against the Red Sox. His sporting mind was elsewhere.

“You watching the U.S. game tomorrow?” he said to a customer. “It should be something.”

That exchange wouldn’t have happened 12 years ago in Chicago, maybe not four years ago.

Clearly, this World Cup has been a watershed moment for soccer in the United States. Interest and awareness have been at an all-time high, delivering record ratings for ESPN.

ESPN hopes many of these new soccer fans will continue to tune in despite the elimination of the U.S. team.

Artie Bulgrin, ESPN’s senior vice president for global research and analytics, crunches the numbers for the network. It is his job to figure out what it all means not only for ESPN but also for soccer.

Here are a few items he is monitoring:

U.S. factor: ESPN would have hit the jackpot if the U.S. had beat Belgium, but the network and Spanish-language Univision more than cashed in with four tightly contested games featuring the Red, White and Blue. An estimated 21.59 million Americans tuned in to Tuesday’s game on ESPN and Univision, second only to 25.2 million for the U.S.-Portugal game.

To put it in perspective, the overall audience for those U.S. games was higher than any World Series or NBA Finals game, and comparable to the BCS title game. And Tuesday’s match occurred on a weekday afternoon. Imagine the numbers if it aired in prime time.

The entire scenario does beg the question of whether the World Cup has become the Olympics version of soccer for U.S. sports fans? Once every four years, Olympic figure skating and gymnastics pull in big numbers for NBC, then pretty much fade from view.

“There’s no question the World Cup is in a class by itself in terms of interest,” Bulgrin said.

Bulgrin, though, thinks a different dynamic is at work for soccer. He contends the momentum has been building with increased ratings for the Premier League and other international soccer telecasts in recent years.

It all came together for this year’s World Cup. Heading into the quarterfinals, ESPN is averaging a healthy 4.1 million viewers for all 56 matches, up 44 percent from 2010. Several non-U.S. games have done strong numbers.

“I think the ratings are where we had hoped they would be,” Bulgrin said. “What we’re seeing is a systematic increase from (the World Cup in) 2006 to 2010 to 2014 in viewing for international soccer. Clearly, the strength of the U.S. team helped out. However, you also have a lot of broad interest for many other teams. Americans are more familiar with many of the stars on the various teams.”

Sad to hear the news this morning that Errie Ball died. He was 103.

When I spent a day with him in Florida in 2008, he was a mere kid at 97. It truly was one of the memorable days in my career. Ball was the last living player from the first Masters in 1934. He played golf with Bobby Jones, for goodness sakes.

Even at 97, Ball still was giving lessons and displayed a swing that surely stood the test of time.

From my 2008 story in the Chicago Tribune:

STUART, Fla. — The oldest Master still has game.

Errie Ball wraps his hands around the driver with the same classic grip he has used for more than 90 years. His backswing is short and compact, definitely not as flowing as in his younger years.

But when his club meets the ball, the sound is unmistakable. There’s the distinctive pop of center-cut contact.

Ball’s drive flies straight through the wind, landing nearly 200 yards out. Then the 97-year-old does it again and again and again.

Admiring the robotic consistency of Ball’s shots, Gerry Knebels, the head professional at Willoughby Golf Club, said, “That’s like breathing for you and me.”

Ball is living, breathing golf history. He competed in nearly 50 majors dating to 1926 when he earned a spot in the British Open as a 15-year-old. He played rounds with Bobby Jones, Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, you name it. He went on to become an accomplished teaching professional at Oak Park and then had a 27-year stint at Butler National in Oak Brook, serving as the host of several Western Opens at the club.

Dapperly attired with gray hair, blue eyes and a firm handshake, Ball still can be found at the range, hitting balls and giving an occasional lesson at Willoughby.

But it’s the Masters, which gets under way Thursday, that marks Ball’s most significant moment in the game. He was in the field for the first tournament at Augusta National in 1934.

In fact, of the 72 players who entered what was then known as the Augusta National Invitational Tournament (the tournament was named the Masters in 1939), Ball is the lone survivor.

“Good Lord, I’ve outlived all of them,” Ball said. “Whew.”

Later I wrote:

Ball eventually left Atlanta to go to Mobile, Ala. In 1934, he received a letter from Jones inviting him to play in a new tournament at a new course called Augusta National.

Ball didn’t think much of the event until he got the invitation.

“I was thrilled to death,” Ball said. “We all were. We knew if Bob put his name on it, it would be top-notch.”

Ball, then 23, recalled thinking the course was beautiful. The atmosphere also was festive with on-course kegs and corn whiskey.

Ball had a great time until the final round. He putted the ball off the green on what now is the 12th hole and wound up shooting 86 to finish in a tie for 38th.

“I couldn’t get out of there fast enough,” Ball said.

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on how playing in the Winter Classic means the Chicago Blackhawks will be featured on 24/7 this year.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed at @Sherman_Report.

Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville will have to go a long way to top Bruce Boudreau in the F-bomb department. A little memory from 24/7 in 2010.

From the column:

*******

The Winter Classic won’t be just a one-day trip to Washington for the Blackhawks.

Rather, it will be nearly a month-long invasion of their privacy. They will be tailed by cameras in the locker room, executive meetings, and even in their homes.

Part of the Blackhawks playing in Washington for the Winter Classic on Jan. 1 is agreeing to participate in HBO’s “24/7,” a behind-the-scenes series that chronicles both teams. Team executives declined comment because an official announcement hasn’t been made about the status of this year’s “24/7.”

However, it will be coming soon, as the popular HBO series has been a huge success in terms of marketing for the NHL and in critical acclaim; last year’s “24/7” won a Sports Emmy for outstanding camera work.

The prospect of doing “24/7” was broached to Jonathan Toews and Duncan Keith by the Tribune’s Chris Kuc at the NHL Awards Tuesday in Las Vegas. They weren’t aware it was part of the Winter Classic package.

“That will be our first experience to see who comes out of the woodwork to try and put on an act for the cameras,” Toews said. “We have a couple of characters that might do that.”

“That might be different,” Keith said. “I might have to hide a little bit. Nobody can know my real personality. I’ll keep quiet.”

The Blackhawks aren’t strangers to being followed by cameras. Patrick Kane was featured in a “NHL 36” film in 2011; there was a behind-the-scenes NBCSN special for last year’s Stadium Series game against Pittsburgh in Soldier Field; and the team’s in-house Blackhawks TV also captures insider access for various programming.

The HBO series, though, takes it all to another stratosphere. The “24/7” name is highly appropriate since the Blackhawks will be followed 24/7 by at least three camera crews for several weeks.

A few years back, there only were two golfers who moved the needle in terms of ratings: Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie.

That’s still the case.

Woods’ return this week figures to lift sagging ratings on the PGA Tour. Meanwhile, it appears Wie still is the face of women’s golf after all these years.

Her victory in the U.S. Women’s Open generated huge numbers for NBC. Saturday’s third round did a 1.24 overnight rating, up 80 percent from last year and the highest Women’s Open Saturday since 2008. Then Sunday, NBC pulled a 1.67 overnight rating, up 92 percent from 2013 and the highest for a final round since 2007.

By comparison, the U.S. Open only did a 3.3 rating for the Martin Kaymer show during the final round, the lowest ever. The Women’s Open rating was somewhat in the ballpark, something that never happens.

Above is a picture Wie posted on her Twitter feed this morning. She is making the circuit of the talk shows in New York, including an appearance on the Today Show.

The Open rating speaks of the drawing power of Wie. Back when she was contending in women’s events and playing in PGA Tour tournaments at 14 , she, along with Woods, was the talk of golf. She was must-see television.

However, unlike Woods, mistakes were made in Wie’s development, and she didn’t become the next big thing. Much to her credit, though, she took control of her life, putting golf on the back-burner to go to Stanford.

Now Wie has re-emerged happily as a grown woman. It was great to watch her finally meet her potential after such a long, tough climb. You have to love the weirdest putting technique in golf.

It would be great for golf, not just women’s golf, if the Open victory was followed by others. After all, she still is only 24.

Annika Sorenstam, working as a commentator for NBC, reminded everyone she didn’t win her first major until she was 24. If Wie could have even remotely close to the kind of career Sorenstam had, golf wins.

Random thought: Isn’t it funny that as the sets for news programs get bigger with more gizmos, the audiences get smaller?

Back in the day, Walter Cronkite sat behind a simple desk at CBS and read the news. And he did huge ratings.

Now the sets are ultra-modern, but with so much available on broadcast, cable, Internet outlets, the ratings for news shows are a fraction of what they once were.

Anyway, I had that thought in anticipation of ESPN making its debut for its new lavish studio for SportsCenter Sunday night at 11 p.m. It takes up a considerable part of the new 194,000 square foot Digital 2 Center in Bristol.

Below is an inside look by New England One.

It will include all the bells and whistles that $175 million can buy. Yet will the tech wizardry provide more ratings for SportsCenter than back in the day when the anchors, like Cronkite, sat behind a simple desk with primitive graphics over their shoulders?

Of course, back in the day, ESPN owned the sports landscape. While that still is pretty much the case, there is an infinite choice of outlets for fans to get their sports news.

Regardless, ESPN hopes the new studio will be a boost to SportsCenter, which still is the live-blood of the network. In a conference call yesterday, Craig Bengtson, vice-president of new, addressed the new look:

Bengtson: You know, what’s great about the studio is we finally have a studio that was built to support a 24/7 show. We’re currently working off a studio that was built at a time when we were live only three hours a day, and now we’re live 18‑plus hours a day.

What that means in general, I think it’s going to be initially a dramatic change in the experience for viewers for a variety of reasons. Number one, because the studio is built for 24/7 program, the programs will be differentiated in different ways by where they stand on the set, because the set has many multiple anchor locations. The lighting in the morning is different than the lighting at night. The music in the morning is slightly different than the music at night. There are more than 100 video and graphic display monitors versus 15 on the current set. They’re big, they’re large, they’re going to be able to deliver information in a better way to the audience, and I think that will make more compelling television.

The graphics have all been adjusted. There are fewer numbers, they’re bigger, they’re bolder, they’re more colorful, they’re going to make it easier for people to digest the information.

The SportsCenter app and what we do in the digital space will be a larger part of the show in terms of how we deliver that information on the television program. I think it’s going to be a dramatic change in a positive way for viewers in terms of how they consume SportsCenter and how we present news and information in a better way.

*******

SportsCenter anchor Steve Levy on how the anchors will be on the move:

Levy: I would say the biggest change for us is certainly awareness of our surroundings. The way I understand it in doing rehearsals, we are almost never, never going to be sitting behind the desk. That might be an opening shot, an establishing shot, a shot for a serious story or a serious discussion, but we’re going to be all over the place, and the place is massive.

So that’s what I mean by awareness of the studio, where we are, where we’re standing, where we’re looking, where we’re going next, what the next move is, and also, I can tell you from the anchor perspective, the desk is nice and comfortable, to be seated there and you have all your papers and all the highlights and all the cards and all the news and notes. But walking around we won’t have that luxury, so sort of the safety net of the hard paper, the script, that won’t be available to us. I think it’s going to be a lot looser. I think the show is going to be a lot looser. I think it’s going to be a lot more on the fly. I think that leads to a lot of fun, a lot of laughs, and in turn, better television, so that’s something we’re all kind of looking forward to, as well.

******

For those who need more, here’s the transcript of the entire call.

At this point, virtually every pro and college team employs sports media trainers to work with athletes on dealing with the media.

Future lessons now should include sharing all the personal stories of baseball writers on their relationships with Tony Gwynn.

It is hard to recall such an outpouring of affection–yes affection–from the media toward an athlete. I would be a rich man today if I had a dime for every variation, “He was a great hitter and an even better person” that has been written about Gwynn in recent days.

Above is an interview Gwynn did with a St. Louis outlet on the eve of his 3,000th hit. Note how Gwynn patiently and thoughtfully answers each question in this 11:36 interview, which is an eternity for a big star.

Yesterday, I did a post on writers recalling Gwynn. Bob Nightengale of USA Today wrote:

He was a baseball reporter’s best friend. You could talk to him about steroid abuse in the game to an occasional hitting slump, and he would give you the same courtesy whether you’re from Time Magazine or the Escondido High school newspaper.

Tyler Kepner, now with the New York Times, underscored that point with this memory:

I was a teenager when I first interviewed Gwynn, working for a small magazine I published from home. This was not Sports Illustrated or ESPN. He had no special reason to be nice. But every time the Padres came to town, Gwynn would greet me warmly.

He noticed things others would not. One time we spoke, I was wearing a Vanderbilt golf shirt. Gwynn noticed the logo and asked if I went there. When I said yes, he lit up. The Padres beat writer Buster Olney, of The San Diego Union-Tribune, also went there, Gwynn said excitedly. “You’ve got to meet him!” he said.

Pause for a moment to consider how rare this is. Few players would bother to notice a detail on a reporter’s shirt. Few would know which college the team’s beat writer had attended. Fewer still would then offer, with genuine enthusiasm, to play matchmaker.

But that was Gwynn. When our interview ended, he went back to the clubhouse, found Olney and brought him to the dugout to meet me. A few years later Olney was writing for The New York Times, and he recommended me for a job. Gwynn had set me on my career path.

Perhaps Gwynn stood out because he ran counter to what the media experiences in the locker rooms, especially among the big stars. Too often, they are inaccessible and uncooperative. For many, interviews are a necessary evil.

Say what you will about Barry Bonds, but the perspective on him might be a bit different if he wasn’t such a jerk to the media.

To be fair, few athletes are wired with the same kind of outgoing personality as Gwynn. He truly loved people.

Yet every athlete can follow his lead and treat the media with a basic level of decency and respect. Gwynn showed the power of nice goes a long way. It builds equity with the media that truly is invaluable.

I never had the pleasure of meeting Gwynn. But as a member of the media, I felt a connection because of all of the accumulated memories from reporters that have poured out about him..

Gwynn’s power of nice eventually became part of his legacy as much as his .338 career batting average. As they have written, a remarkable hitter and a remarkable man.

NBC deserved better.

The golf Gods should have conspired to give the network something on the order of another Payne Stewart winning putt or a Tiger-Rocco playoff for its final U.S. Open.

Instead, Johnny Miller and company were subjected to four days of Martin Kaymer, who sucked all the drama out of the tournament with a Tiger-like performance. The show probably played well in Germany, but likely fell flat with American audiences.

NBC did get to tell the remarkable story of Erik Compton, and had the Dreamsicle-clad Ricky Fowler hanging around to make things colorful. But it’s never a good sign when the network calls it over by the 10th hole.

With nearly two hours to fill Sunday, I wondered if producer Tommy Roy would allow his NBC crew to reminisce about their 20 years of covering the U.S. Open. However, true to his word, Roy stuck with the script: The story of the day was tournament, not NBC.

As a result, NBC did an understated, classy farewell to its signature tournament.

Miller looked to make a concerted effort not to get emotional, as he has done on many occasions. Dan Hicks did set him up at the top of the telecast if he wanted to get teary-eyed one last time.

“We all look forward to this day so much and I look forward to this day so much, Johnny, because I get to sit next to you, watch a final round of the United States Open on Father’s Day,” Hicks said. “I know how much it means to you and how emotional this day is since you won back there in 1973 at Oakmont.”

Miller, though, didn’t go reaching for the tissues.

“I’ll try not to go there as far as getting too sentimental,” he said. “I’m so excited to see this last round at this great golf course, Pinehurst No. 2.”

Hicks and Miller also remained composed for the sign-off.

“Well, this is a moment of our careers here in the U.S. Open, Johnny, that we know is coming to an end here, a moment where we didn’t ever want to greet,” Hicks said. “As many of you know this is the final U.S. Open telecast for all of our NBC crew, and I just want to say to you, Johnny, what a privilege it’s been to sit next to you here at a championship that you’ve loved for so many years. It’s been the highlight of my career. I’ve had the best seat in the house with the best analyst who has ever done this game.”

“Twenty years is a lot of fun, but I’ve always believed there’s a time and a season for everything,” Miller said. “Thank the USGA and, of course, NBC for giving me that opportunity. Been a lot of good memories, lot of great champions, a lot of great moments, and I’ve had my share.”

Now it isn’t as if NBC is signing off forever on golf. However, as I have written earlier, this tournament always meant so much to its golf team. They will feel a void when Fox Sports takes over next year.

The same holds true for ESPN. After 33 years, the network ended its coverage of the first two rounds Friday.

Chris Berman did the honors:

“ESPN began broadcasting the U.S. Open back in 1982, first with ABC and then of course starting in ‘95 with NBC. Some of us have covered this event since 1986. Now here we are in 2014, 33 years after it all began, and the proverbial final putt is about to drop. Our live coverage is about to end. And speaking for the hundreds of ladies and gentlemen through the years who worked so hard for three decades, I’ll admit that we’re sad. We’re sad because we love the event and we’re sad because we love bringing it to you. But above all, we are very proud. Collectively, we’re here from before sunup until the time the sun goes down and way beyond but that’s ok – we’ve just been trying to get it right. If somewhere along the line we helped you enjoy the U.S. Open a little bit more, helped you have some fun, made you bigger U.S. Open fans, then all that work was worth it. Frankly, it’s been one of the best rides in the history of this network. Thanks for sharing it all with us.”