Hawk and Stone, most biased announcers

[southsider2k5]

It is an extremely small sample size, though I doubt the result would be much different with a larger sample

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239...wsj_share_tweet

 

If you're wondering what's going on in the American League Central pennant race over the next week, all you need to do is tune into a Chicago White Sox telecast and listen for the voice of the team's play-by-play man, Ken "Hawk" Harrelson.

 

Harrelson is, to put it diplomatically, a bit of a "homer." In other words, he's unapologetic about his devotion to the White Sox, the team he routinely calls "the good guys." According to one measure, Harrelson and his booth partner, Steve Stone, make more nakedly biased statements during a single game than every other TV broadcast team in the American League combined.

 

"Let's just say that if we're losing, you're going to know it," Harrelson said in a recent interview. "I won't sound happy."

 

The conventional wisdom in sports is that TV announcers should strive to call the game straight down the middle. It's a philosophy that's been embraced over the years by most of the famous baseball voices.

 

Harrelson has taken a decidedly different approach. He considers himself the biggest White Sox fan on the planet. It just so happens that he's paid to talk about them. He's known for begging long fly balls (Stretch! Stretch!) to soar over the fence and imploring the players for key hits. He even criticizes calls that don't go Chicago's way. In May, he went on a rant against umpire Mark Wegner, saying that he "knows nothing about the game of baseball." After that outburst went viral, he met with Commissioner Bud Selig and ultimately apologized.

 

"Everybody I work with, I tell them, 'I announce my (butt) off for my team,'" he said.

 

Prompted by Harrelson's unabashed homerism, the Journal decided to watch one nine-inning game played by every major-league team to evaluate its local broadcasters for bias. To keep things simple, we only evaluated home games that the home teams won.

 

By the rules of our study, anyone with a microphone who used a pronoun like "we," "us" or "our" to describe the home team was given a citation. Obscure pet names for players were also flagged: The Detroit Tigers announcers, for instance, referred to backup catcher Gerald Laird as "G-Money." Additional penalties were given for things like excessive moping after miscues or unrestrained glee after big moments. (A Miami Marlins broadcaster marked the end of a lengthy scoreless drought by screaming "Hallelujah!")

 

It didn't take long for the study to confirm what many baseball observers have long expected. During the White Sox game—a 2-1 win against the Texas Rangers—Harrelson and Stone (but mostly Harrelson) made a whopping 104 biased statements.

 

To put that in perspective, the Cleveland Indians duo of Matt Underwood and Rick Manning ranked second with just 23 biased comments and 24 of the 30 teams had fewer than 10.

 

"You just made my day," Harrelson said when told of his place in the biased standings. "That's the biggest compliment you could give me, to call me the biggest homer in baseball."

 

While Harrelson wears his bias as a badge of honor, every other crew made at least some effort to appear impartial. Five of the broadcast teams made it through their games without a single biased comment: the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Blue Jays.

 

Broadcasters in larger markets were generally less biased: After the White Sox, the next four teams in the rankings were the Indians, Pirates, Astros and Marlins—all small-market franchises.

 

This may not be a coincidence: Curt Gowdy Jr., the senior vice president of production for Mets broadcasts on SNY, said that in a "highly opinionated" market like New York, the fans wouldn't take well to their announcers being blatant homers. "The 'we' and 'our' cannot be in the vocabulary," he said.

 

Cleveland's duo wasn't afraid to criticize the home team and didn't engage in much rah-rah cheering. Their No. 2 ranking came because they often said "we" instead of "they." The culprit was usually Manning, who spent more than eight seasons playing for Cleveland. The announcers declined to comment.

 

"Former players have tremendous equity in the franchise they played for," said Minnesota Twins play-by-play man Dick Bremer, who works with Hall of Famer Bert Blyleven. "From their perspective, I could imagine a strong desire for the team to do well."

 

That doesn't explain Harrelson, though: He played nine years in the majors, but never for the White Sox. His rampant bias is more a product of his—admittedly unorthodox—philosophy toward broadcasting.

 

Harrelson doesn't subscribe to the idea that local announcers must strive for objectivity. Because they cater specifically to viewers who care deeply about the team, they should care along with them. He called a few national games early in his career but stopped accepting those assignments, having discovered his distaste for playing it down the middle.

 

There's reason to believe all announcers may be secretly rooting for the team they call—and Harrelson is just the only one who shows it.

 

Tigers announcer Rod Allen, who played briefly for Detroit in 1984, said "It's important that when you can, you put a positive spin on the things that are going on."

 

Philadelphia Phillies announcer Tom McCarthy added, "We're all homers whether we want to be or not," in part because they spend so much time around the team.

 

Still, both Allen and McCarthy said that there is a line broadcasters shouldn't cross, where their homerism begins to undermine their credibility. Or as Mets color commentator Ron Darling put it, "There are going to be people watching who demand that you get it right, and they'll let you know when you don't get it right."

 

If Harrelson crosses that line, he doesn't seem to mind. "I have my detractors, no doubt about it," Harrelson said. "I look at it as a compliment."

 

Write to Jared Diamond at [email protected]

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

It's almost comical how biased he is, but I don't see anything wrong with that. If I want neutrality I'll go to Sweden. Not sure why Stone's name got dragged into the headline, though. That said, Ron Santo is dead- but even at this very moment he's probably more biased than Hawk.

 

He's known for begging long fly balls (Stretch! Stretch!) to soar over the fence and imploring the players for key hits. He even criticizes calls that don't go Chicago's way.

 

When all is said and done, this is about the extent of what he'll be remembered for, and you get the feeling that it's kind of what he wants.

[Kyyle23]

eh, nothing i didnt already know

[hogan873]

Hawk may be an extreme example of a homer, and he does get to be annoying at times, but I wouldn't want to listen to a boring, called down the middle broadcast. Hawk will acknowledge good plays by other teams, and he often talks about the players he likes from other teams (Fielder, Cabrera, etc.).

 

Stone is much less a homer. He often stays quiet during Hawk's rants, and he doesn't jump on board with Hawk's homerun calls. I thnk they are a decent balance, although Hawk definitely dominates, especially when things are going bad or very good.

[kageman129]

Oh great, another thread where it will be pages of arguing that Hawk is great vs. Hawk is awful . . .

 

I just take Hawk for what he is, he has some fun catch phrases and some awful catch phrases. All in all, he cheers for the Sox and has a good time announcing. As stated several dozen times in the other 50 threads about this same topic, he at least is entertaining which is more than I can say about a lot of other announcers in baseball.

[bmags]

I cried last night when hawk interrupted stone in the smirnoff 8th to say

"If we don't start scorin some runs I'ma need to get me some of that smirnoff"

 

Stone ignored.

[tonyho7476]

Hawk can make me nuts, but I love him. If we ever get a straight down the middle broadcaster, it will be strange. He is all I know.

[MurcieOne]

I cried last night when hawk interrupted stone in the smirnoff 8th to say

"If we don't start scorin some runs I'ma need to get me some of that smirnoff"

 

Stone ignored.

 

Which is why Hawk sounds considerably more happy when Wimpy is in the booth, he has a buddy willing to share in his antics.

 

Hawk is Hawk. I enjoyed him a lot more when I was younger and cared less about the inner workings of the game. I've grown accustomed to researching what I want to know on my own. My biggest issue with Hawk is how he acts when the team is struggling. The silence, groans, and agony make the broadcast a tough follow. He really makes me that much more frustrated when they struggle.

 

When we win, however, it's that much more fun because of the same histrionics. I was at the game last night and couldn't wait to pull up his homerun call in the 8th. I knew it was going to be epic, and he didn't disappoint (he was . . . orgasmic). I guess I'm part of the problem.

[southsider2k5]

Which is why Hawk sounds considerably more happy when Wimpy is in the booth, he has a buddy willing to share in his antics.

Hawk is Hawk. I enjoyed him a lot more when I was younger and cared less about the inner workings of the game. I've grown accustomed to researching what I want to know on my own. My biggest issue with Hawk is how he acts when the team is struggling. The silence, groans, and agony make the broadcast a tough follow. He really makes me that much more frustrated when they struggle.

 

When we win, however, it's that much more fun because of the same histrionics. I was at the game last night and couldn't wait to pull up his homerun call in the 8th. I knew it was going to be epic, and he didn't disappoint (he was . . . orgasmic). I guess I'm part of the problem.

 

I do like when people post these things, and then go into full meltdowns in the game thread.

[sunofgold]

I love the homerism. I have listened to a lot of the other announcers and not as distinctive as the Hawk & Stoney.

 

They are great. I wish they could bash the other team and call them bad names like we do here. I know that they cannot do that fersure but it would be great.

 

Especially against the cuBS and their fans. That would be the ultimate.

 

But at least rooting for the home team is awesome. This isn't national tv. This is local and thus the bias is acceptable even wanted by me. These are the announcers for the WHITE SOX and thus they should be cheering them on.

[3GamesToLove]

I do like when people post these things, and then go into full meltdowns in the game thread.

 

Why? It makes sense.

 

People who say "Hawk is great because he's just like one of us!" are missing the point, because some people don't want a professional broadcaster to be "just like us." They went him to be a professional broadcaster.

[southsider2k5]

Why? It makes sense.

 

People who say "Hawk is great because he's just like one of us!" are missing the point, because some people don't want a professional broadcaster to be "just like us." They went him to be a professional broadcaster.

 

Yeah, that then b**** about how boring a Fox broadcast is during the playoffs.

[kageman129]

Yeah, that then b**** about how boring a Fox broadcast is during the playoffs.

 

 

Yea, or hearing Chris Berman in '05 against the Red Sox - "Oh no!"

 

Although that was more them being homers for the Red Sox than being "professionals".

[Dick Allen]

Why? It makes sense.

 

People who say "Hawk is great because he's just like one of us!" are missing the point, because some people don't want a professional broadcaster to be "just like us." They went him to be a professional broadcaster.

I don't buy it. If you read the gamethreads, there are a few people on there that think they know way more than any broadcaster, player, manager, coach, GM or owner ever will. There is absolutely no one alive except themselves who could get their approval as competent in any of those jobs. A couple of them just post when things are going bad. Once something good happens, like Dunn going deep last night, they scatter like cockroaches.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Dick Allen

[sunofgold]

According to that article, 104 biased comments by Hawk/Stone in one broadcast. Second place was like 23-24. I think this is great and Hawk/Stone should get an award/trophy from the White Sox organization for this. Nobody even close in the bias department.

 

Ask yourself who are watching the WHITE SOX games...duh WHITE SOX fans. Thus, bias is good. lol. Sure you get some fan of other teams who get the broadcast through mlb or watch highlights. But..who cares about them. lol.

[3GamesToLove]

Yeah, that then b**** about how boring a Fox broadcast is during the playoffs.

 

FOX broadcasts are terrible, though.

[MexSoxFan#1]

I'm cancelling my subscription to the WSJ effective immediately...

[Dick Allen]

Yea, or hearing Chris Berman in '05 against the Red Sox - "Oh no!"

 

Although that was more them being homers for the Red Sox than being "professionals".

People complained Joe Buck wasn't excited enough when the White Sox won the WS.

[MexSoxFan#1]

FOX broadcasts are terrible, though.

I love listening to Joe Buck, McCarver however is turrible (imo).

[Dick Allen]

According to that article, 104 biased comments by Hawk/Stone in one broadcast. Second place was like 23-24. I think this is great and Hawk/Stone should get an award/trophy from the White Sox organization for this. Nobody even close in the bias department.

 

Ask yourself who are watching the WHITE SOX games...duh WHITE SOX fans. Thus, bias is good. lol. Sure you get some fan of other teams who get the broadcast through mlb or watch highlights. But..who cares about them. lol.

Exactly. What is the advantage of a neutral broadcast that is being watched by 95 % White Sox fans?

[southsider2k5]

According to that article, 104 biased comments by Hawk/Stone in one broadcast. Second place was like 23-24. I think this is great and Hawk/Stone should get an award/trophy from the White Sox organization for this. Nobody even close in the bias department.

 

Ask yourself who are watching the WHITE SOX games...duh WHITE SOX fans. Thus, bias is good. lol. Sure you get some fan of other teams who get the broadcast through mlb or watch highlights. But..who cares about them. lol.

 

Like I said, the sample bias is there. I'd be curious what game they listened to.

[Dick Allen]

I love listening to Joe Buck, McCarver however is turrible (imo).

He gets a lot of crap, but I like Buck as well. For a White Sox game, though, I'd rather listen to Hawk.

[elrockinMT]

He is prejudiced but it's ok cause it's for the Sox

[MexSoxFan#1]

People complained Joe Buck wasn't excited enough when the White Sox won the WS.

I don't get people who complain about homerism, one of the memorable calls in broadcast history was the "do you believe in miracles?" call by Al Micheals and that was totally a homer call, just ask the Russians.

 

NBC goes full on homer in the Olympics...

Edited September 25, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[MexSoxFan#1]

He gets a lot of crap, but I like Buck as well. For a White Sox game, though, I'd rather listen to Hawk.

I wish Hawk had at least called game 4 of the WS, we all would've been crying tears of joy at the end of that game.