Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Pressure to fill Ebersol’s shoes: NBC’s Larazus now squarely in Olympics spotlight

Posted on by

It’s finally here.

After all the countdowns, hype and preparation, the opening ceremonies are set for Friday.

Few people will be feeling the pressure more in London than Mark Lazarus. All the NBC Sports chairman has to do is step into the huge Olympics TV legacy left by Dick Ebersol.

Here’s my look at Lazarus and NBC in a story that also ran Sunday in the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune:

*******

Mark Lazarus is an affable man, but he seems to prefer to be in the background.

The Olympics, though, will thrust him squarely in the intense spotlight created, in part, by his predecessor, Dick Ebersol.

Lazarus, 48, takes control when NBC begins its massive coverage of the Summer Olympics next week. When Ebersol resigned suddenly in a contract dispute in May, 2011, Lazarus stepped in as chairman of the NBC Sports Group; Ebersol will be on hand as a consultant in London.

Lazarus joins a select group. With a couple of exceptions (yes, CBS actually tabbed Tim McCarver to be a co-host for the ’92 Winter Games), Olympic television coverage in the U.S. has been guided by two men: Roone Arledge and Ebersol.

Arledge designed the up-close-and-personal template of getting Americans to develop a bond with the athletes during his Olympic TV days at ABC. His protégé, Ebersol, refined the approach to accommodate a seemingly endless amount of coverage during nine Olympics for NBC.

Lazarus now is charged with shepherding 5,535 hours of coverage across NBC’s multiple platforms. He ultimately will be held responsible for producing ratings and, just as important, critical acclaim for the network’s $1.18 billion investment in these Games.

Indeed, it is a daunting, if not overwhelming task. During a recent press conference in New York, which included his boss, Steve Burke, the CEO of NBC Universal, Lazarus seemed taken aback when asked about the potential for his Olympics legacy. NBC now has the rights for the Summer and Winter Games through 2020.

“I don’t think you can create a legacy with one Games,” Lazarus said. “So my strong preference is to be invited back to do the next one.”

Unlike Ebersol, who had an extensive production background, Lazarus worked his way up through the business side of the industry. He was president of Turner Entertainment Group before coming over to NBC.

So Lazarus won’t be literally calling every shot as Ebersol did; he doubled as executive producer during his Olympics run. Lazarus will consult with Ebersol, who uncharacteristically is keeping a low profile, denying media requests for interviews.

“My job is to help steward this enormous, talented team to help make judgments and decisions on where we’re going to air product and how we’re going to air product,” Lazarus said.

Lazarus did register a big first impression with his decision to make everything available live on NBCOlympics.com (with the exception of the opening and closing ceremonies). Previously, Ebersol had resisted real-time digital coverage for the marquee sports such as track, swimming and gymnastics, preferring to save it all the network’s prime-time telecasts.

However, when it comes to content, Lazarus isn’t looking to reinvent the Olympic wheel. Indeed, virtually every main cog of the NBC machine in London, from executive producer Jim Bell to host Bob Costas, was nurtured under Ebersol.

“What did I learn from Dick?” Bell said. “Oh, let’s see. Only everything.”

Ebersol taught Bell pacing (“keep it moving”), the importance of planning down to the minute for the primetime telecast, and how to change those plans when the unexpected occurs.

At the core, carrying the link back to Arledge, is storytelling, Bell said.

The Olympics doesn’t deliver a typical sports audience. According to its surveys, NBC says 69 million people who tuned into the Beijing Olympics in 2008 never watched a single NFL football game that season. Typically, women make up more than half the viewership for an Olympics.

“Storytelling is the guiding principle of Olympic coverage,” Bell said. “You’re talking about sports that most people don’t follow. So it is important to personalize those athletes.”

Ultimately, regardless of all the planning, NBC needs good, compelling stories from the competition. NBC’s rating built as swimmer Michael Phelps continued his bid for eight gold medals in 2008. NBC could use similar storylines in 2012.

“By one-hundredth of a second or less, in the second of eight gold medal races, if Michael Phelps take silver there, his teammates take silver in a relay race, then the whole storyline changes,” Costas said.  “And that undoubtedly diminishes the rating.”

Thanks to creative scheduling in Beijing, NBC was able to air swimming and other events live in primetime. That won’t be the case in London (eight hours ahead of Los Angeles).

Without live coverage in primetime, Lazarus said ratings for this year’s Olympics likely will be lower than 2008. And even with the massive amount of commercials, NBC still expects to lose money on the Games, he said.

Lazarus will be held ultimately accountable from all angles. Typically, he tried to downplay his role.

“I don’t have an individual goal on the mark I want to leave on the games,” Lazarus said.  “I think that we want to come out of this with a sense that the viewing population of America says, ‘That was a fun two weeks, I can’t wait to do it again.’”

Yet Lazarus knows—everyone knows—what is at stake for him as head of his first Olympic. If things go awry, Costas, noting that the 2014 Winter Games are in a remote part of Russia, warned Lazarus of the consequences.

“You’re going to Sochi, if only as punishment,” Costas said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meet Jim Bell, NBC’s executive producer for Olympics; On his plan and learning from Ebersol

Posted on by

Jim Bell doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who takes himself too seriously.

When I asked how it will feel to sit in The Chair–the “Ebersol chair” if you will–during the Olympics, he went into a mock panic.

“I’m going to be very nervous,” Bell said. “I didn’t think this would actually happen.”

Seriously, Bell knows he has a big seat to fill as NBC’s executive producer for the Olympics in London. Previously, that role was played by former NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol, who personally called the shots for every Olympics televised by the network since 1988.

Now with Ebersol stepping aside and only serving as a consultant in London, it will be Bell, 44, who will be making the big decisions during NBC’s massive coverage of the Games.

He hardly is a rookie. He is executive producer of Today and has worked under Ebersol for several Olympics.

A former All-Ivy defensive lineman at Harvard, Bell talks about the challenge that lies ahead of him in London.

What did you learn from Ebersol?

Oh, let’s see. Only everything. He’s an amazing guy.

He taught me that pace is very important to the telecast. His philosophy was to keep it moving.

Also, he taught the importance of having a plan. Planning out everything to the minute, but also knowing when you have to change off that plan.

Will it be different not seeing him in the big chair?

It’ll be different, sure. I’ll consult with him every day.

Will you will bring a certain style to the telecasts?

We’ll have to see. I expect what’s worked will in the past will work well again. At its core is storytelling.

Dick used to say if you don’t make the athletes empathetic, you won’t get the women to watch. What do you think in that regard?

I think there’s something to that. I might choose the word humanity. You’re talking about sports most viewers don’t follow. So it is important to personalize the athletes.

What has it been like to prepare for the Games?

One of the more interesting aspects is that you get two years to prepare for two weeks. You could make a decision 18 months out and not be bound by it. Something will happen you didn’t plan for during the Olympics.

Seriously, how do think you’ll feel when it all begins with the Opening Ceremonies?

We’ve done this for 20-plus years. Who was the guy? Gladwell? (Malcom Gladwell) talked about the 10,000-hour rule (the amount of time to master something). Well, I will tell you there are people here who have 10,000 hours working the Olympics.

We’ve got people who know what they’re doing. It’s not about one person. It’s about the entire team.

 

 

 

 

Times still tough, but APSE president says mood improved for nation’s sports sections

Posted on by

I heard more than my share of gallows humor when I attended the Associated Press Sports Editors annual meeting last month in Chicago.

I listened to a group of editors discussing their coverage for the upcoming Olympics in London. When somebody mentioned the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, an editor for a major paper said, “I just hope we’re around in 2014.”

It wasn’t the only time I heard a crack of that nature.

Indeed, it isn’t easy to be a sports editor these days. For many, it is a matter of survival with painfully dwindling resources. Even today, there is news about Sports Illustrated making staff cuts.

Yet despite the adversity, an APSE survey reported: Sports editors “remain confident in the future of the industry by a 2-to-1 margin as they cope with new technology, changing reader habits, and a sluggish economy.”

To get sense of the mood of the association, I did a Q/A with new APSE president Gerry Ahern, director of news content for the USA Today Sports Media Group.

More than a few times at APSE, I heard editors say, “If we’re still around….” in an upcoming year. Gallows humor, to be sure. What is your sense of the mood of sports editors these days?

I think the mood of many sports editors in 2012 is far more positive than it has been in recent years. Some papers and websites are actually replenishing staff and other resources. Opportunities, at least in some markets, seem to be growing. Certainly, there are exceptions. When you see what’s happening in markets such as New Orleans you have to scratch your head. When you see media companies embroiled in bankruptcy you naturally and legitimately worry about what’s next. Clearly, the days of the one-trick, print pony are long gone.

Reporters and editors have to have quick-twitch, digital skills and focus on delivering original content distinct to their markets. Advertising support on all platforms has to pick up. The folks who are doing that are seeing gains. The thirst for sports news and information isn’t dwindling, it’s expanding. But readers/users want the information delivered in the fashion they want, when they want it. Our ability to serve their needs, on tablets, mobile devices, etc. will ultimately determine who succeeds.

How difficult have the last few years been for editors, especially the aspect of having to let go of staff?

It’s been quite difficult. It’s never easy to have to let go of staffers, especially those who have contributed to past successes. But again those journalists who have adapted to the digital-first landscape and demands given to us by those who consume media are the folks who give us all the best chance to thrive and survive in an ultra-competitive era.

What are the biggest challenges going forward for sports sections?

One huge challenge is to maintain proper professional and ethical standards in a time where the news cycle is 24-7 and the field we compete against is not all playing by the same rules. There have been incidents, such as with Joe Paterno’s death, where some outlets let their zeal to be first outweigh taking proper steps to vet and verify information and sourcing. That should never happen. Not in print, not online, not with social media. Our credibility is at stake and if we lose that, we are sunk.

Given the rapid rise of websites at newspapers, what is the sports editors’ emphasis on these days? Print or Internet?

I think the best sports editors maintain focus on both. You can break incremental news on your site, provide some instant reaction and analysis, then add depth, perspective and exquisite storytelling in print and in later incarnations online.

Just how relevant is the newspaper sports section these days, given all the various platforms these days?

The relevance is in the brand, not necessarily the print product vs. the digital product. Who can readers/users count on to be credible, to be accurate, to be timely, to be fair? The outlets who continue to breaks news, provide informed commentary and analysis, investigate and uncover malfeasance have bright futures. I’m convinced of that.

 

 

 

Q/A with Bob Costas: The kid now is 60; his Olympics legacy

Posted on by

Feel old everyone.

Bob Costas now is 60. Yes, the NBC broadcaster turned the big 6-0 in March.

How did this happen? Wasn’t it just yesterday that Costas was this hotshot kid working NBC’s Game of the Week with Tony Kubek?

I was taken off-guard that Costas had reached such a milestone birthday. And so were others, he said.

“Yes, they’re surprised,” Costas said. “It doesn’t seem that long ago to me that the word irreverent seemed affixed to my name. ‘Irreverant newcomer.’ I went from irreverent to venerable in what seems to me like the blink of an eye.”

Age, though, seems irrelevant since the ageless Costas continues to deliver on so many different platforms. He made national news with his masterful handling of the Jerry Sandusky interview; and he’s all over the place for NBC and MLB Network, ranging from football, baseball to golf and horse racing.

Perhaps Costas is evidence that 60 is the new 40.

Next week, Costas will return to his familar role as NBC’s primetime host for the Summer Olympics. It will be his 10th Games overall for NBC, and ninth as host.

It’s an incredible run. Think about it: Given the huge ratings for the Olympics, Costas is the most watched broadcaster of this generation.

On the eve of the Olympics, I had chance to visit with Costas during a media day session in NBC.

How does it feel to turn 60?

I don’t feel any different than I did either 10 or 20 years ago. I said this before to somebody, ‘When the miles go by on the right side of the odometer, you don’t take notice. When the number of the left side clicks from 5 to 6, you do take notice.’

Yeah, I’m aware of it. I don’t feel any different than I did when I was 40. But I realize mathematically, I’m equidistant between that and 80. So the facts are the facts. I’ll keep doing this for a while, but I’m not going to be one of these people who hang on just for the sake of being on the air.

There comes a time when everybody should transition. I hope when that time comes in my place, I’ll know it before they tell me.

Nobody will accuse you of slowing down. You have a full schedule with baseball on MLB Network, Football Night in America, shows on NBC Network, other assignments, not to mention the Olympics.

One of the things that has happened to me, because I’ve been around as long as I have, and have done reasonably well, I can do things more or less on my own terms. I’m not forced to present myself in a way where someone who’s younger and trying to break in would be forced to present themselves. To get attention. To jump out of the pack.

The tone and sensibility of what I do is not that much different than it was 10 years ago when I started working at HBO. I bring that same tone and sensibility to the NBC Sports Network. That’s who I am. There are lots of people who I watch and enjoy, where I say, ‘I really like that guy. Or I like that woman. But it would be foolish for me to do it that way, And it would be foolish for them to emulate me.’

Luckily I have enough standing where I can do what do in a way where it seems true to me.

You hear so much talk about the need to reach the younger demographic. Yet so many of the top sports broadcasters are in their 60s and 70s. How do you explain that dynamic?

You have people who are well-established. They have a certain standing. You hope as you continue, you do a good job. Al Michaels is in his 60s (67). It would be foolish to say, let’s get someone who is 35 for the sake of someone who is 35. He won’t be remotely as good as Al Michaels.

How do you view your career as being defined by the Olympics the same way Jim McKay career was defined.

Even to be in same sentence as Jim McKay is a compliment. The world has changed considerably. When Jim hosted Olympics, or for that matter, Wide World of Sports, people were utterly amazed that you were getting a television transmission from Munich or Sarajevo, or wherever. The total of hours were different, the sensibility and expectations of the audience was different. There was a great sense of wonder. He was in fact, he was spanning the globe to bring you a wide world of sports of which people were not familiar.

This is a different world in which we now live. Also, a lot of what Jim did, although he did horse racing and golf, a lot of stuff he did with Wide World seemed to be related to the Olympics. So the Olympics were even more at the center of the definition of him than they are from me.

They are big thing for me. People, though, also associate me with baseball, football, and to a certain extent, basketball (from calling games in the late 90s).

What is your approach as host?

You’re looking for personal stories. You’re also looking for quirkiness too. I think any good broadcast, not just an Olympic broadcast, a good broadcast of a baseball game should have texture to it. It should have information, should have some history, should have something that’s offbeat, quirky, humorous, and where called for it should have journalism and judiciously it should also have commentary. That’s my idea. That’s my ideal. Sometimes we exactly hit that, sometimes we don’t.

How has covering the Olympics changed since your first in 1988?

I will say this, that the essence of good storytelling, and the essence of good broadcasting remains the same.  You know, there, there are a lot of things that technology has brought us, and these additional, you know, tubes of communication have brought us that are wondrous, and a lot of it is just crap.  You know, the more you broaden anything out, it’s like American Idol auditions, you let everybody audition, and you’re going to find some diamonds in the rough.  You’re also going to find people who would be lousy singing in the shower.

The essence of what’s good hasn’t changed.  The essence of how you call a ball game well, you know, there may be different camera angles, there may be different graphics, there may be ways that you can interact with social media if you’re watching it, but the way Al Michaels calls a football game is not that much different, nor should it be, because it’s perfect, than it would have been in 1970.  You know, so some of the features may be shorter because of attention span, some of where we funnel the viewership may be different, but the way in which I anchor the games, based on what they ask me to do, is not much different.

My point I think it was pretty clear, is this: that our objective, at least from a broadcaster standpoint, hasn’t changed that much.  It’s to do a good broadcast, it’s to present things well.  Now, what these additional platforms have done, is that they’ve given us opportunities that otherwise wouldn’t have existed. This isn’t an Olympic example, but I think it’s a good example, I wouldn’t expect NBC as a network to do a show like the one they do each month with me on the NBC Sports Network.  HBO did that, they were well suited to do it.  Now we come close to replicating that idea here on, on the eighth floor, that well suits the NBC Sports Network. But my objective in doing that is just the same as it would have been 20 years ago, to do a good show with good content.

 

 

Dream Team Book Q/A: Best show ever in basketball; landing an interview with elusive Jordan

Posted on by

Jack McCallum was witness to one of the greatest miracles in sports: He saw me make a birdie on the par 3 12th hole at Augusta National. I dropped a six-iron to within four feet and actually made the putt. Not bad for a 15-handicapper who was playing like a 30 prior to that hole.

“Pretty good shot,” said McCallum, recalling our round the day after Jose Maria Olazabal’s victory in the 1999 Masters.

While it was the highlight of my pitiful sporting career (note: this is my blog and I will try to tell that tale as often as possible), McCallum has seen much greater feats of athletic prowess. Perhaps none were greater than the collective talents of the original “Dream Team.”

Twenty years later, the long-time Sports Illustrated writer is out this week with what should be the hottest sports book of the summer: Dream Team: How Michael, Magic, Larry and Charles and the greatest team of all time conquered the world and changed the game of basketball forever.

It seems like every sports book these days has the “changed the game forever” kicker. Publishers must think it adds some gravitas to entice sales.

Often the label isn’t deserved, but not in this case. The Dream Team did change basketball, and sports for that matter.

It was an unprecedented, and never duplicated, array of transcendent superstars playing for the same team; 11 of the 12 players are in the Hall of Fame. The Dreamers featured Michael Jordan, fresh off a second NBA championship with the Bulls, trying to grab the torch away from Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, two aging stars who saved the NBA in the 80s.

McCallum writes, “It couldn’t have been scripted any better, and when the Dreamers finally released all that star power into a collective effort, the show was better than everyone thought it would be…and everyone had thought it would be pretty damn good.”

McCallum, who covered the team from beginning to end, brings his A-game in telling the many stories and taking readers behind the scenes. He includes personal moments of covering the team, including the time he and fellow David Dupree asked to get a picture taken with the team.

McCallum writes that the moment was incredibly awkward, leaving him open to some good-natured verbal abuse from Bird. “Hey Jack,” drawled Bird, “later on, you wanna blow us?”

On that note, here’s my Q/A with Jack:

There’s no talk about this year’s U.S. Olympic team. What made that team so special in 1992?

It’s a cliche, but it was the perfect storm. There was the first time news angle. Then there was the fact that the international stage was set for them. All of sudden at a time (when overseas fans) were experiencing the NBA as an appetizer, here comes the whole entree in the form of the greatest team ever.

I think it was the only time in the sporting culture where NBA players were the biggest stars. LeBron James is huge, but I don’t think, fair or not, he has the same positive impact across the culture like they did back then.

Those guys truly were rock stars. What was it like to travel with them?

I had seen a mini-version of it with Jordan. The best way to describe it is when they got to Barcelona, there was thousands of people surrounding the hotel. I thought, OK, maybe it will be like this for a day or two. On day 17, they were still there. To this day, I still have a hard time trying to figure it out.

In the book, you revisited many of the players and did portraits of their lives today. Why did you take that route?

As you know, access sucks at the Olympics. I was not inside the bubble. I needed to talk to the players to get information on what occurred during the Olympics.

I also wanted to see what they’re doing now. I wasn’t looking to do a Boys of Summer. These are famous guys even in retirement. But I still knew I could find out something else about them. For instance,  to see David Robinson run his school in San Antonio, that puts him in perspective.

Michael Jordan doesn’t do many interviews these days. How difficult was it to get him?

It was difficult. He’s at war with Sports Illustrated (for mocking his attempt at baseball), although that didn’t have anything to do with me. I made it clear this was not a SI project. Finally, I got, ‘Michael Jordan will see you. But it only will be for 15 minutes and you must keep your questions to the Dream Team.’

I knew I was OK. He’s not Charles Barkley, but he’s pretty honest. Michael is an incredible bullshitter and I knew he’d talk about anything. I also knew it wouldn’t be for 15 minutes. The key was getting in the room. It was a great interview. Afterward, I had a sense of relief wash over me. I got him.

Talk about Jordan’s teammate, Scottie Pippen.

He surprised me. Pippen always got the shortshrift. Every time, I came to Chicago, I’d wind up writing Jordan. One time I came in to write Horace Grant and still wound up writing Jordan.

I found a guy in Pippen who you could clearly see how this experience meant so much to him. He couldn’t believe it when he got invited. The way it validated his career was interesting. Chris Mullin said the same thing. Karl Malone, in his own way, did too. It was interesting to me to see how much these guys needed that validation.

What is the legacy of the Dream Team?

All the players wanted to make the point that there was only one Dream Team. Don’t get into this BS about a Dream Team II. As accomplished as they were individually, they all knew they were on the one team that was different. They knew not only how meaningful it was to them, but also across the entire history of basketball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCarver on working with Kiner, Buck and Buck, and possible retirement; I’ll know when had enough

Posted on by

Part 2:

It was one of the five nice days we get in Chicago: A cloudless sky with just enough of a breeze to knock the humidity out of the air.

Over breakfast on that June day, I had spent more than an hour talking to Tim McCarver. It was after 10, and I could tell he was getting antsy.

“You have to get out to the park, right?” said McCarver, who was going to be on the call for the Cubs-Boston game Wrigley Field the following night.

“Yes. I want to get some information of (Cubs pitcher) Jeff Samardzija,” he said.

I asked him: Do you still like the work?

“Not only do I like it, I think it is as important as it was 30 years ago,” McCarver said. “Yes, absolutely. You can tell when someone isn’t informed.”

Therein lies the secret of lasting 32 years in broadcasting, with the last 27 or so as baseball’s leading analyst. It all culminates next week when McCarver will receive the Ford Frick Award for excellence in broadcasting at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

Yesterday, in part 1 of my interview, I talked to McCarver about his broadcast style and how he viewed his role. Today, he reflects back on the start of his career, his broadcast partners, and at age 70, how much longer he wants to work.

Do you remember your first game?

In 1980, my first year (as a broadcaster with the Phillies) I did an inning in spring training. I went to Richie Ashburn for some some advice. He said, ‘You know, the best advice I can give you is, ‘If you don’t have anything to say, don’t say it.’

I said, ‘Is that all you have for me?’

Richie said, ‘Come to think of it, yeah.’

That’s how I got started in broadcasting.

How did you hook up with the Mets?

In ’82, the Mets called me. They wanted me to work with Ralph Kiner. I was interested, but my kids were in school and we didn’t want to move. The Mets called again after the ’82 season. By that time, (Phillies exec) Bill Giles said, ‘We’ll keep you, but we really don’t need you.’

I said, ‘I get it.’ It was time to make the move to New York.

You were with the Mets for 16 years. What was it like to work with Ralph Kiner?

Ralph and I clicked right away. Neither one of us had a lot of play-by-play experience. With our styles, it ended with me doing the bulk of the play-by-play.

The Mets teams were extraordinary. The Mets owned New York. The Yankees weren’t even on the radar until 1995. We had a lot of fun.

Ralph’s non-sequiturs were part of his charm. Gary Cohen always said, ‘He’s so comfortable in his own skin.’ That’s as accurately as you can put it.

He used to call me Jim McCarthy. One time, he said, ‘Now I turn over the play-by-play to my good friend, Ken MacArthur.’ The Mets were getting blown out that night.

I said, ‘Earlier in the evening, you referred to me as Ken MacArthur. ‘You must have been thinking of Gen. Douglas MacArthur. One of his lines was, ‘Chance favors a prepared man.’ The Mets obviously weren’t prepared tonight.’

Without missing a beat, Ralph said, ‘MacArthur also said, ‘I shall return, and so will we after this break.’ It was brilliant.

In 1985, you did your first World Series for ABC. What do you remember from that experience?

We worked the second game of the World Series in 1985. Al Michaels said to me, ‘Is it tougher to play in a World Series than announce in one?’

I said, ‘Are you kidding? Announcing is tougher. You can’t do anything about the outcome. When you’re playing, you can do something about the outcome.’

I felt it was tougher back then, and you know what, I still feel that way today.

You’ve said Michaels had a big influence on you. How so?

He taught me more about the business than any announcer I ever worked with.

I learned television from Al. I learned how to take my time, to take a step back. I learned appropriateness. If you listen to Al, his appropriateness with his remarks is incredible.

What was it like to work with Jack Buck?

He was the voice of a franchise for 48 years. Think about that. His presence was something else. Reggie Jackson used to say (Yankee Stadium public address announcer Bob Sheppard) was ‘The voice of God.’ Believe me, I’ve worked with a few voices of God in baseball, and Jack was one of them.

Then a few later, you work with his son Joe. How would you describe your relationship with him?

I knew from our first telecast Joe and I would hit it off. It’s amazing how close you become when you’re under the pressure of calling a World Series or an All-Star game. Joe found that out later.

When Kirby Puckett hit the homer (to win Game 6 of the 1991 World Series), Jack said, ‘We’ll see you tomorrow night.’ Then to be with his son 20 years later, and David Freese hits a homer in Game 6 and Joe said, ‘We’ll see you tomorrow night.”…To sit next to father and son (and hear those lines). You talk about serendipitous. Wow.

How much longer do you want to work?

I don’t have an answer to that. My contract runs through next year. I don’t know. Like anyone else, your health is paramount. I hope I’m clear enough to say, ‘I’ve had enough. This is it.’ I’m good at that. I’ll know.

You’ve been in baseball since breaking into the big leagues in 1959. After all these years, how do you view yourself: As a player or a broadcaster?

I severed that relationship (of being a player) a long time ago, the minute I entered the booth. I didn’t intentionally do it, but I did it. I realized it was a different job. I had to take on a different intensity.

I’ve been extremely lucky. I don’t take any of this for granted.

How much has the game changed?

It’s changed a bit. The players make a lot more money. But the player really hasn’t changed. He still wants to get a hit and win the game. It’s still the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q/A with Tim McCarver: On being candid, his critics, and going into the Hall

Posted on by

First of two parts:

Tim McCarver gave me my one and likely only mention during a national telecast of a World Series game. He credited me for a line in the Chicago Tribune during the 1987 Minnesota-St. Louis series on ABC.

I wrote that the teflon roof of the ugly Metrodome “looks like your grandmother’s old jello mold.”

“I remember that line,” said McCarver 25 years later when I reminded him of it.

Whether he did or not, it was quite a thrill for a young reporter to get some exposure on national TV.

Fortunately for McCarver, he has had much better material to work with through the years. It’s been quite a run for the former St. Louis and Philadelphia catcher, who decided to give broadcasting a try in 1980.

The pinnacle comes next week when McCarver will be honored in Cooperstown. He is the 2012 recipient of the Ford C. Frick Award presented by The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum for excellence in baseball broadcasting. McCarver only is the second primary television analyst to win the Frick Award, joining Tony Kubek, who received the honor in 2009.

The honor is long overdue. His numbers during a 32-year broadcast career are almost Gretzky-like. Tuesday, he will work his 21st All-Star Game. The next closest are Joe Buck and Curt Gowdy with 14. In October, he will be on the call for his 23rd World Series.

McCarver had a notable 16-year stint working games for the Mets. He has the distinction of being the only MLB analyst to have worked for all four major broadcast networks. Since 1996, he and Joe Buck have been a team at Fox.

Now 70, McCarver remains trim and enthusiastic about his job. Yet with one more year remaining on his contract, he knows he might have a decision to make about his broadcast future after the 2013 season.

I met with McCarver on a Friday morning while he was in town to call a Cubs-Boston game at Wrigley Field. Here’s the first part of our Q/A.

How do you feel about getting this award?

If somebody told me back in 1980 that I would have a 32-year career, and that I’d be receiving this honor, I’d say no way. For three years, I couldn’t even break into the Phillies broadcast booth. I was just hoping to make it, much less be mentioned as a Ford Frick winner. Believe me, when I started out, this award wasn’t even close to being on the radar.

How do you think you’ll feel being up on the stage in Cooperstown?

I’ve only been to Cooperstown once when Steve Carlton was inducted. I suppose it’s a very personal summation of your professional life. It makes me proud of what I’ve accomplished. That’s what makes this award so fulfilling.

How have you viewed your role as an analyst?

I had no training to be a broadcaster. My training came from being behind the plate. When you come to think about it, that’s a good way to be trained.

You see the choreography of the game from behind the plate. Without realizing it, you’re storing up all this information.

You’re looking at all the positions on the field. You see what the shortstop is doing. You see the second baseman cheating in for a doubleplay. So it all gives you an advantage.

Your timing was good. The baseball broadcast in the 80s evolved into putting more emphasis on analysis.

My job was different than the great voices of the game. My job was to explain the how and why. Whenever I’ve gotten into trouble, it’s because I’ve gotten away from explaining the how and why.

People watching on TV can see how something happened during a game. Fortunately, whether they realized it or not, they wanted to know the how and why it happened. I was in a position to explain the game as I saw it, and I saw it differently than a lot of people.

Early on, you had a reputation for being extremely candid, perhaps more so than what was the norm back then. How did players react to you?

Remember, I had played with a lot of the guys. One night, I did a Phillies game and Mike Schmidt hit a ball off the top of the wall. He always hustled, but he watched the ball and got a double. I said, ‘Schmidt should be on third base.’ Then I said, ‘Often, hitters are like artists. They step back and admire their work. They don’t run as hard. It’s understandable why he’s on second, but he really should be on third.’

Mike and I are close friends. The next day, he was acting cool towards me. Common sense says you should deal with it right away. I said, ‘Schmidty, is everything OK?’ He said, ‘No, it’s not. Don’t ever on the air say I didn’t hustle.’ That’s what his father told him I said.

I said, ‘I didn’t say that.’ I explained to him what I said and we were fine.

In New York, I guess I got this reputation (for being overly candid). Listen, I played with a lot of guys who were very direct and honest. Bob Gibson, Bill White, Curt Flood. They said what they felt. I learned it from them. I always approached playing the game in a candid way. I guess it carried over into broadcasting.

Some players may be upset with me from time to time, but overall, nobody can question my fairness. I have no regrets in the way I approached things back then and the way I approach things today.

You have your own critics. Some people say you talk too much and overanalyze.

Did I talk too much (when he first started)? Absolutely. I talked too much because of my enthusiasm for the game. That was applicable back in 1985, but then it followed me into the 90s. (By then), it wasn’t true. I learned. Of course, I did. You’re always trying to improve yourself. You’re talking about your business. You’re talking about the way you do your job.

How do you feel about the critics?

Whenever you hear the term human nature, it’s always for something negative. Nobody will ever say, ‘He’s a great guy, but that’s human nature.’ What is it about we humans that we tend to use that term negatively?

I try not to get caught up in it. I don’t read the blogs. I’ve got a job to do. I don’t pay attention to the negative stuff.

Tuesday: McCarver reflects on his broadcast partners and talks about how much longer he wants to work.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Russo Q/A: Looking back on Mike and the Mad Dog

Posted on by

They are separate now. It’s Mike. It’s Mad Dog.

The “and the” disappeared in 2008 when Chris Russo decided to end his famous pairing with Mike Francesa and start his own Mad Dog network on SiriusXM.

Yet they will be forever linked. For 19 years at WFAN 660, they were sports talk radio’s most powerful duo. They owned New York and beyond, while helping to define the new genre.

Last week, Russo was reunited with Francesa during the station’s 25th anniversary show. It was a fun segment, reliving old times.

Given all the attention on the big birthday, here’s an interview I did with Russo a while back in which he discusses his famous pairing with Francesa.

How did it start?

I got there in ’88. During that seven-month period, I worked for Imus. Imus said, ‘Listen to this guy. He’s nuts, put him on.’ (Afternoon host Peter) Franklin was having issues. He and Imus hated each other.

So they put me and Mike on.

How well did you know Mike?

It was, ‘hello, how are you?’ We saw each other around. I wanted to do it solo. I thought I could do it by myself. I had a job in Orlando.  But I was 29. It was a job I had to do take.

The show took off quickly. Why?

If we had started in ’87 when (WFAN) just began, who knows? We were able to come on the station two years after it got its feet wet. That helped a lot.

I think there was the fact that Mike and me, we’re both Long Islanders. I think it was the dymanic of both personalities. There was a lot of anti-Franklin. We got to the station at the right time. Imus was situated. We had the Mets. We had the Giants. The station was beginning to find its footing.

Talk about your on-air chemistry with Mike.

It took a while for us to develop a friendship, a kinship. Mike and me.

Mike is a lot funnier than people think. Very funny. Very quick mind. I’m more the radio guy. I knew how to do the mechanics of the show. Move the show along. That combination seemed to work.

People identify with radio show hosts much more than TV guys. TV guys are polished. The hair is combed properly. Radio is out there. A little more naked. You’re doing a show for five hours every day. There is a kinship that develops with your audience.

What about your relationship with Mike?

I had a good relationship with Mike. There were some ups and downs. Absolutely. We’re both dynamic personalities. You have to know each other’s whims. If Mike in a bad mood, I have to handle it. If I’m cranky about something, he’s going to handle it.

There was some tension. We had about four periods in the relationship where we didn’t talk at all for about a three-month period.

From the standpoint of our relationship, it probably wasn’t a bad time to leave. We had been together for so long. We had a lot of fights in the spring.

Listen, you put two guys together for 20 years, you’re going to have some issues. There’s no way around it.

When did you realize you guys were big?

To me, it was early. In the Buffalo-Giant Super Bowl in ’91, I picked Buffalo 49-13. There’s no way the Giants win that game. Buffalo scored 51 against Oakland. Bill Parcells was all pissed off at me. He told Mike, ‘How does your ham and egg partner think our team will give up 49 points at the Super Bowl.’

You began to sense you could have an impact with what you said.

Throw in (Jets coach) Bruce Coslett. We both said if he doesn’t win his last game, he will get fired. He got fired two days later. We had a good relationship with him, but he didn’t do anything. We influenced the Jets to do something in that situation. So many people were screaming their heads off.

We got (Mike) Piazza here. The Mets were not going to trade for Piazza. We screamed and yelled. (Mets owner Nelson) Doubleday heard it, and got Piazza traded to the Mets.

These guys listen. GMs listen. Players listen. They put on FAN.

Why did you decide to leave in 2008?

When a man of (Mel Karmazin’s) stature  said, ‘I’m going to give you a channel’…Well, I don’t know when that opportunity will come again. If I ever was going to leave, this was my parachute to leave.

You’ve mention that you were surprised by the intense reaction to the break-up. Why?

When I left, it was a much bigger story than thought it would be. Fans were hurt that I left. They felt I was part of their family, part of their routines for nearly 20 years. I broke up the routine. That bothered a lot of fans. But it was a move I had to make.

******

And here’s an interesting aside. Russo, in an interview with the New York Daily News’ Bob Raissman Sunday, didn’t rule out a more permanent reunion. From Raissman’s story:

Now, with one year left on his Sirius/XM contract  and the radio business changing quickly, would Russo consider going back to WFAN  to team with Francesa if the pontiff blessed the move?

We asked the question over the telephone. For once, Dog didn’t have a quick  response for this longtime listener. There was silence, then an “uhh.” Then  Russo said he “can’t” answer the question. Then he did.

“You never want to say never. You know how the radio business is. So, you  never say never, but I haven’t thought about it in my crystal ball, let’s put it  that way,” Russo said. “But I’ll tell you right now, if Mike and I did shows  together we would have no trouble picking right up where we left off.”

Let’s just say that’s a story for another day. Perhaps Russo posturing a little bit as he goes into a free agent year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What would be Deadspin headline here? Founder Leitch on cover of Illinois Alumni magazine

Posted on by

I’m a proud alum of the University of Illinois. Well, with the exception of the Illini’s recent football and basketball teams.

Every quarter, I receive the Illinois Alumni magazine. The issue focuses on notable graduates, such as scientists, business leaders, economists, etc. Prominent alums, to be sure.

So imagine my surprise when I received the summer issue of Illinois Alumni and saw Will Leitch on the cover. Yes, Will Leitch, the founder of Deadspin.

Turns out Leitch is a ’97 U of I grad. Inside, there’s a four-page piece by Jamie Malanowski, with a subhead that reads:

Founding editor of the website Deadspin, Will Leitch helped pioneer the postmodern world of sportswriting–all the news that’s fit to print, plus all the stuff that maybe isn’t.

I found the cover choice of Leitch to be rather curious. Illinois can be a pretty conservative place. I wonder if the editors know about some of the exact content on Deadspin. Most of you know of what I speak.

On the other hand, perhaps Illinois Alumni is trying to appeal to younger alums, many of whom likely read Deadspin. Hey, we’re hip too.

All in all, I have one essential question: Does Leitch’s presence on the cover enhance or hurt my Illinois degree?

In an e-mail, I asked Leitch if he ever thought he would be on the cover on Illinois Alumni magazine? It turns out Leitch hadn’t seen the magazine since he isn’t a member of the Illinois Alumni Association. Time to pony up, Will.

Here’s Leitch’s reply:

Ha. I had no idea I was going to be on the cover and had honestly forgotten about the interview until someone told me about the story on Twitter. I suppose it’s an honor, but I can’t help but think that the honor, as a concept, is lessened by the fact that it was bestowed upon me (no club that would have me as a member, all that). I really do hope it doesn’t cause anyone to cancel their subscription. You have to be a donor to the alumni association to get the mag — it’s why I’ve yet to see a physical copy — and boy, that school needs all the money it can get. (I think my four years tuition is almost as much as Bruce Weber made during the time it took me to write this paragraph.)
Also please let everyone know that the picture was taken just a few weeks after my son was born and since then I’ve lost that extra weight.

 

 

 

Author Q/A: Sports Illustrated’s Ballard on unlikely story of high school baseball team

Posted on by

Trust me, the book business is extremely tough these days. So it’s difficult to imagine publishers getting excited for a proposal about a small-town high school baseball team from central Illinois in the 1970s.

Yeah, we haven’t had a good high school baseball book in a long time.

But that’s what exactly happened for Chris Ballard’s One Shot at Forever: A Small Town, An Unlikely Coach, and A Magical Baseball Season. The book tells the story of the Macon (Ill.) baseball team’s bid to win the state title against the big-city teams from Chicago led by its beatnik coach Lynn Sweet.

Actually, it hardly was a surprise that publishers (Hyperion in this case) wanted the book. When Ballard wrote about the team in a 10,000-word story for Sports Illustrated, the response was huge. Boom, built-in audience. The next step was to expand the magazine article into a book.

In the capable hands of Ballard, One Shot gets to the heart of what high school sports means to a small town and the lasting impact the games had on those boys more four decades later. Never thought I would get into a book about high school baseball, but I did.

Here’s my Q/A with Ballard:

Given the subject, how unlikely was it for this book to get published?

The battle I originally fought was with the magazine. When I came to them with the initial idea, one editor said, ‘Just start working on it, but it’s going to be a hard sell.’ Even after I wrote it, it sat around the system for a long time before it finally ran. Once it got into the magazine, the reaction was so positive, and the magazine received more letters than it had for a story in a long time. From there, it wasn’t that difficult to get into the book phase.

How did you find out about the story?

An e-mail came into the office from a guy named Chris Collins. He grew up in Macon and was 10-years-old at the time. He wrote a screenplay about the team and wanted to make it into a movie. He hoped if somebody wrote about it, it would be intriguing enough to generate some interest.

What made the story work for you?

When I met Sweet, I knew it could work. (The book) needed a protagonist, and he was that was that guy. There was the counter culture clash. It was pretty pronounced. He had this charisma of not giving a damn while really caring about the kids. That was an easy combination to root for.

What does this book say about the grip of high school sports that lasts a lifetime?

Had they won, it wouldn’t have been all that interesting. They would have been just another underdog team that won. Instead, it was the ability to look back 40 years later and see the power of sports memories from when you go from boy to man. A lot of people can relate to that.

What was the reaction from the Macon players when they learned you wanted to do a book on their team?

It went from being very excited to being very reticent. (For the star player), it was the one thing he couldn’t let go.

I was at a function with the team. There were 350 people, and they gave them a standing ovation. They saw how people responded to them. The guys were laughing and crying. After that, the players understood what that season meant. It reaffirmed that something happened that mattered.