Is Chris Berman the Derek Jeter of Broadcasting?

Chris Berman has been at ESPN since the very beginning. Now running on 34 seasons, Berman has been a fixture on our television sets for a long, long time. For a network that did everything it could to not create stars of its broadcasters, Berman became a star anyway. How that happened and how ESPN fought the star system was discussed often in the great book this writer read while down in Florida. The book, Those Guys Have All the Fun: Inside the World of ESPN, features interviews with current and former employees of ESPN and nary a word of negativity came across from any of those interviews about Chris Berman. And yet it has become cool to bash Berman just as much as it seems cool to bash Derek Jeter. Hence the heading of this post.

Some things this writer just doesn't get. When ESPN first came on the air, this viewer thought it was the coolest thing since Matchbox cars. Seriously, there were now highlights of games on television that everyone (with cable) could watch!? Yes! And Chris Berman was the ultimate host of shows like SportCenter, Baseball Tonight and the NFL preview and post game shows. His nicknames constantly caused belly laughs as did his funny sound effects when things went awry. It was obvious that he had never been an athlete and was a regular guy just like us who loved sports. It was terrific television.

Berman, along with other stars at the network like Dan Patrick, Stuart Scott and others brought us in to the sports world in a fun and hip way. Or possibly it was the other way around. Perhaps they echoed our world and our love for sports. A lot of that network's success is due to their content, but most of it was because of their people. And yet, it is currently fashionable to hate them. Is ESPN the Yankees? And if so, is Chris Berman their Derek Jeter? To give you an idea of the vitriol that Berman inspires, here is a sample of some "tweets" on the topic:

Get the picture? Perhaps it all started because of this video. In the video (caution: contains swearing), Berman obviously loses his cool at his coworkers who interrupted his concentration while doing his show. The stress of doing any show on ESPN is another component of the book mentioned earlier in this post. The book explains that the veterans were hard on newer studio workers and that was part of the culture to bring everyone up to a level of professionalism. Surely, Berman wasn't the only one that ever got frustrated by the in-studio crew in the 34 years of doing ESPN broadcasts.

Perhaps the real reason for the hatred hurled Chris Berman's way has to do with the network he works for. Like the Yankees, ESPN made incredible business deals that made them the richest and most powerful cable station ever. As much as we like success stories in this country, once a success has become a mega-success, this country loves to tear them down. ESPN made NASCAR what it is today. ESPN increased the popularity of the NFL and MLB. They became the leaders in showing us what the new world would look like.

But we don't like too much success. It's why the Yankees are hated and it's why it's become cool to bash ESPN and by default, Chris Berman. He is as much the symbol of ESPN as just about anything else. Frankly, this writer is a big Fan of both the network and of Chris Berman. Are they perfect? No. The on-air personalities on ESPN have become bland and don't hold a candle to those on the air fifteen or twenty years ago. Often times, this writer would love Berman to clear his throat as his voice is often strained. But it's clear the number one focus for Berman is to have fun celebrating the thing he loves most: Sports.

So yes, Chris Berman is the Derek Jeter of sports' on-air personalities. The vitriol is unfair. And the ironic thing about the whole thing is that the same people that bash the network and Berman still watch! If it's that painful, stop watching! As for last night's Home Run Derby, the event always lasts too long. Three rounds is one round too many. Berman becomes the focus of the overbearing length of the event. But compared to previous years' installments, Berman was much more restrained and contained than in other years. This writer enjoyed his work on that program.

So yeah, this Fan is a fan of Chris Berman and of ESPN. Are their best years behind them? Perhaps. Are Derek Jeter's best years behind him? Yes. But at 55, this Fan's best years are behind him too. This writer wishes Berman was on ESPN a lot more often than he is now. This Fan wishes he would do a SportCenter a week. This writer makes no apologies for what he likes. And Chris Berman and ESPN are among the "likes."

Some Observations- ESPN and Sunday Night Baseball

Sunday night's contest between the Dodgers and the Giants was hugely entertaining. Barry Zito started for the Giants and Hiroki Kuroda started for the Dodgers. Zito looked downright batting practice poor in the beginning and the Dodgers built a quick 3-0 lead. He wasn't helped by a miscue in right by poor Aubrey Huff (more on him later).  But the Giants bounced back to tie the game as Zito got tougher to hit and Burrell and Sandoval hit bombs. All of this was ably called by the trio of announcers calling the game. The Fan would rate Orel Hershiser as very good. Bobby Valentine was pretty good and this Fan doesn't enjoy Dan Shulman at all.

Let's start with Shulman. His conversational voice is pleasant enough, if lacking a little in charm. But when a big play happens and his voice goes louder, he takes on this cartoonish voice that does not sound natural. It's not like a natural voice that gets louder. It's a lounder voice that gets more Dudley Dooright-like. The Fan definitely missed Jon Miller. Miller's voice is so entertaining and his excitement level was so natural, that Shulman paled in comparison.

It was awkward when Shulman and ESPN had to show Miller, who was working the game for his local station, and pay him homage. Shulman was properly respectful to Miller as his predecessor and said a lot of nice things, but it did seem like an awkward moment.

Dan Shulman does do a nice job of conversationally engaging his analysts by asking good questions. He often asked questions that the Fan wanted to ask and that was very good. But Jon Miller was the best. When the Fan thinks back of all the major network play-by-play guys over the years, Miller is right on top.

Hershiser began doing the games for ESPN last year and has seemed to come into his own as an analyst. Last year, he seemed to be like a kid baiting Joe Morgan and fighting for airspace. He's much more relaxed now and at times his honesty is brutal and refreshing. He has kind of a smarmy delivery though which can get annoying at times. This was never more evident than when Tommy Lasorda joined the broadcast for a half inning. It's obvious that Hershiser feels his career success was due to his former manager and that in itself is touching. But it's not as if Lasorda doesn't have a large enough head as it is. Valentine was also doting on Lasorda, but more as a peer than as a "son" of Lasorda.

Orel still puts himself and his pitching too much into the conversation. The Fan hates when ex-players do that in the booth. But it has to be hard to avoid.

Bobby Valentine is still feeling his way in these broadcasts. You can feel him searching for his spots. There is a bit of self-consciousness in his tone. He works best on feeding off of Hershiser and the fact that both are formerly tied to the Dodgers organization gives them a natural bond. The chemistry between the two is fine and there does not appear to be any tension there. Valentine was properly respectful of the managers in the dugout and at times did a nice job of helping us know what they would be thinking.

The team's best moments were of brutal honesty when early in the game they discussed how helpless Barry Zito was. They were also instructive on how Zito's lack of ability to miss bats is hampered by less than stellar defense. The roasting of Aubrey Huff was the proper mix of honestly stating Huff's inadequacy out in right field, but also stating that it's wasn't Huff's fault because he really didn't belong out there. Another great moment of honesty was Valentine roasting the pitching choice of Jonathan Broxton throwing a slider to Aaron Rowand when it was obvious Rowand couldn't catch up to the fastball. Rowand's homer shouldn't have happened and Valentine told us all about it. So they told it like it was without tearing down the player.

Their best moment came when they properly roasted Miguel Tejada for swinging at the first pitch on a non-strike after the relief pitcher had just walked two straight guys, one bringing in a run. It was a terrible at bat for Tejada and Hershiser and Valentine were all over it. Hershiser then gave a concise observation about the pitch being in the middle of the plate but low and out of the strike zone. It was a brilliant moment.

There were some curious moments. One in particular stuck out and left the Fan gasping for more information. Shulman, or somebody made a point about the flexibility the Giants have in their line up construction. Tejada has bounced all over the line up so far. But then Bobby Valentine says that the Giants do a great job with that and praised the Giants players for their lack of egos concerning their flexibility. He then contrasted that with the Red Sox. What did he mean? What does he know about the players on the Red Sox? Was he talking about the Red Sox having players with too much ego? We'll never know. If you are going to open that kind of can of worms, at least let us in on the tease.

It is clear that Hershiser and Valentine offer far more to the table than Joe Morgan. Their insight is sharper and more clear. They don't hold back where Morgan was loathe to berate a play or a player. They come off as far less egotistical than Morgan.

But Shulman is a big step down from Jon Miller. Miller always showed us his own passion for the game and allowed us to get swept up in the emotional roller-coaster that is any kind of game. Shulman does not have the same kind of passion, does not have the same timbre in his voice and does not sound natural in big moments.

The Dodgers and Giants gave us a great game. And for the most part, the announcing team added a lot of fun to the telecast. It's not perfect, but overall, without Morgan, it's a lot juicier for the average fan and for the more devoted Fan of Major League Baseball.

Jon Miller Canned? What the Frick Is That?

[[switching to first person]] I used to love ESPN. I really did. It was fresh and fun and for the first time ever (when they first came out) you could see highlights of all the games. Sports Center used to be the bomb. They had first class talent that made you laugh. Advertisements are still using, "Booyah," in their ads (does Stu get royalties?). Then Baseball Tonight came along and it was perfect. ESPN made a big splash with baseball. I'm not sure it's ever been worth the money they paid for those rights, but they went in big. Their signature event was Sunday Night Baseball which has been broadcast by Jon Miller and Joe Morgan for twenty years. Now ESPN has pulled the plug on the team and this Fan...I...don't like it.

Why don't I like it? The answer isn't rational. I don't like change when it comes to broadcasters. I'm still trying to get used to Don Orsillo (sp?) on NESN. I adopt broadcasters in some sort of emotional way. No, I can't explain that. I just do. Announcers become like uncles you enjoy seeing on a regular basis. Phil Rizzuto was my first and greatest uncle. Joe Garagiola was my second when he did those Saturday broadcasts. Jon Miller became my third.

The reason I adopted Jon Miller was because I'm not a fan of the Red Sox. I probably shouldn't admit that as a "general" blogger. But I'm sure the Red Sox will get over the admission. I do like Jerry Remy who has become almost an uncle of sorts. So since I don't have a home network to watch on a regular basis, I looked forward to the Sunday night games. Thus Jon Miller as my uncle.

Why Jon Miller? He was like the silly uncle that always made you smile. He wore those funky shirts and ties and had the goofiest hair ever seen on national television. But it was his voice and good nature that drew me in. Jon Miller is a broadcaster of the old school. His voice is an instrument and he knows how to use it. He knows when to build the drama and he knows how to carry a game when the broadcast becomes a laugher. But he did it all with such an honest integrity for the game that you could tell he was a fan too. I love that about him.

Now Joe Morgan was another animal. Joe Morgan would never become my uncle. He was like that rich, imperious relative that always felt above your particular station. He was prickly and cold to a degree. But there was respect. He knew the game and though his opinions were strong, at least they were honest. I also felt that Jon Miller made the most of his pairing with Morgan. Many say that he kissed Morgan's feet. He did just enough of that to satisfy Morgan's craving for respect. But he also knew how to poke holes with Morgan and the two adopted a grudging and sometimes humorous relationship.

That relationship was a tightrope. You could just tell it was. Recently, ESPN added a third guy to the booth and that didn't work at all. It felt like an intrusion. It was an intrusion. You could tell Morgan was uncomfortable and it gave Miller too much juggling to do.

Recently, Miller won the Ford C. Frick Award for outstanding work in the broadcasting world. It was well deserved. Which is why I don't get what ESPN is doing. They guy was just honored as one of the best broadcasters ever and his own network responds by canning the guy? Then the network falls all over itself thanking the two stalwarts of Sunday Night Baseball and stating how wonderful they were and how much they created the brand and blah, blah, blah. Then why did they fire them? Don't give us platitudes. You are a news organization. Tell us why.

We deserve an explanation. After all, it is we who pay for the network. Our cable or satellite subscriptions pay for the network and some of us are even stupid enough to pay to be an "Insider" on their website. Don't we customers deserve some sort of explanation?

Don't you just get the feeling that there are some analysts feeling smug because their research showed that the ratings were suffering with the right kind of viewers--namely those in the 18-30 group who we are told make the advertisers the most money? Those same researchers are probably responsible for the abominable David Wells and Kevin Millar that other networks think are so cool. The problem with those guys are that they have no souls. There is no depth in their character that we can relate to. Or they are just bad at getting that across to their viewers.

So ESPN will replace tradition with something younger. Orel Hershiser is okay as a replacement for Morgan. He did make some stupid mistakes early on the way he tried to bait Morgan. He looked like a punk trying to get more face time. But he is likable enough. But who is going to replace Miller? Nobody. You can't replace that voice and that likability. You can't replace an uncle with someone new that your aunt just married because of a divorce. Miller had gravitas. You need a lifetime of experience to earn that.

But this situation has precedent. The same thing happened in New York to Mel Allen years ago. The same thing happened to Carey in Atlanta. And now it has happened to ESPN. Yeah, I fully understand and am aware that I sound like on old creep that is apposed to any change. I get that. I also get that ESPN is probably upset about its ratings. But ESPN is like Microsoft or General Motors. Sooner or later upstarts like MLB.TV and the like eat into those formerly unassailable market shares. It happens. But the one way not to fix it is to discard everything that is likable about what you do.

It was bad enough that they ruined Baseball Tonight so that it became a show about analysis instead of about the highlights. Now they have ruined Sunday Night Baseball. Good luck with that. Thanks for all the memories, Uncle Jon.