Chances are, if you’re a genuine fan of Major League Baseball and have been for a while, you really don’t care for those in-game interviews.
You know what that’s all about—when the announcing team for one of those Game of the Week broadcasts wires up a player for an interview...
....while the player is on the field and actually supposed to be fielding grounders, chasing down fly balls or trying to throw out a player going for an extra base.
Yes, according to spokespeople for those networks and MLB itself, we baseball fans love it.
Do you? Who are the baseball fans who like it? Actually, they seem to be few and far between. It’s not easy to find any kind of survey on the topic, but if you conducted your own—with people who actually like baseball and like seeing the game played—you’d find a miniscule percentage of them give in-field interviews the thumbs-up.
When the interview crosses the line.
A game early in the new 2024 season gave non-believers plenty of reason to continue disliking the practice of in-game chats with announcers up in the booth. The ESPN broadcast team (Karl Ravech and former players David Cone and Eduardo Pérez) had mic’d up Dodgers infielder Kiké Hernández in the 3rd inning of a game against the St. Louis Cardinals.
But the crowd was noisy, so Hernández did something to increase the volume, which caused his mic to also pick up the PitchCom communications being fed into his ear. You heard right...and so did the announcers. If you watch a clip, you can hear what pitch the catcher was calling for the pitcher.
The announcers heard it and even referenced it. But they did nothing to stop it. Hey, the more they can invade the game the better, is probably their thinking. In the broadcast, in real time, you could hear a whispered “changeup” or “fastball away,” the pitches actually being called.
And during this time, the announcers chatted with the infielder, asking insightful baseball questions, such as whether the “rally banana” (a reference to a dugout stunt Hernández did nine years ago) would make a comeback at Dodger Stadium. Yes, real insights.
You have to guess there’s lots to love about the in-game interviews if you just give it a chance.
Dodgers player accidentally tipped off pitches during ESPN interview
© Provided by Awful Announcing
Small sample, but clearly representative.
One National League fan, who hates the in-game interviews, sent a text to her baseball text-chat group, asking what they thought of it. It didn’t take them but a few seconds to express their thoughts, and there wasn’t anything that resembled “two sides” to the issue.
“I don’t mind interviews with players in the dugout during the game, but I hate them with players in the field. They should be focused on the game, not chatting with announcers.”
“I personally think it could be dangerous, because if they’re distracted, with balls coming at them at 100 miles per hours…they need to be focused on that instead.”
“I think it’s disrespectful to the game, really. It makes the game less serious and turns it into an entertainment moment. They wouldn’t dare interview an NFL player during a game!”
“I hate it! Let the player do what they’re paid to do. Play the game. Not only could it distract the player, it totally distracts me as I’m trying to watch the game. Get rid of it!”
What’s to like?
Okay, to be fair, there must be a few fans (real ones, not occasional ones) who like the in-game interview with players on the field. Here’s one positive take on it:
“I like the on-field interviews. I like hearing what the player is thinking about, watching out for, and any communication with his teammates.”
Okay, but if that’s the case, the same result could be obtained by simply letting a mic’d-up player on the field express his thoughts. The announcers could say, “Hey, Mickey: Just remember you’re mic’d up, so talk to yourself about what you’re doing and why during the action.”
I think most baseball fans could tolerate that. They player would have total control of his concentration. But that’s not the case with the actual in-game interview with an on-field player.
Turns out that even players in general aren’t or weren’t so wild about the idea in the beginning. What changed?
Who knew! Turns out players are paid for these on-field interviews.
You won’t hear about this too much, but according to a few websites, players on the field have an incentive to talk to whoever is in the booth on these national broadcasts.
They cash in.
An article in SportsBusinessJournal.com cited sources that revealed “players receive $10,000 to do the segments.” There’s also an interesting wrinkle to that, according to the article (and other sources)—the money is not coming from the networks/outlets. It’s not coming from the pockets of ESPN or FOX or TBS.
Instead, the money for the players’ real-time chats comes out of a joint fund controlled by both the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and MLB itself. One article took the view strictly from an investment point of view, saying it’s “a pretty good deal for talking over the course of a half-inning for, say, like, 10 minutes, which works out to an average of $1K a minute.”
One writer made a lawyerly-like case for the extra pay, claiming that “...it absolutely is extra work (for the player) to have to balance competing at a high level athletically, while also talking about it with the broadcasters calling the game.”
“Ridiculous!” most fans would answer back. That money paid to the player is more like a bribe. It’s just a payout to get a professional athlete to join in on some seriously annoying, useless and distracting banter. So, where did the idea for this incentive come from?
Evidently, the MLB and MLBPA realized they needed to do something to “entice players” to do the in-game conversation. Money talks.
Well, if you put it like that, who are we to protest millionaire ballplayers earning an extra $10K for ruining a telecast! Especially when the networks and MLB love it so much.
In love with their own idea, who cares what fans think?
MLB itself, it seems, loves their own idea. On their official X (Twitter) page a few years ago, they posted a clip noting that “having the pitcher Alek Manoah mic’d up while pitching was electric.” (Yes, they thought it was “electric.”)
There also seems to be some support from sportswriters who feel (or believe) that The Game (meaning MLB) needs these sorts of gimmicks.
The announcers believe in it too. They don’t feel they’re crossing any boundaries.Here’s how Karl Ravech of ESPN views the players they interview during the action: “They’re doing their job,” Ravech says. “We don’t ever want to interfere with that. We trust them to speak when it makes sense, and they trust us to ask questions and realize, look, there may have to be a pause here.”
One writer expressed the opinion that these in-game, on-field interviews are good.
“First and foremost, it is nice for the national games to have wrinkles to make them feel different. That is helpful. Second, it gives MLB stars a chance to show their personality.”
So, in the eyes of some people, the ever-increasing in-game interviews are a positive thing and seem to be working out well for players, broadcasters and the League. And it seems to be doing a decent job of promoting the game so far.
And now, a word from more real baseball fans.
On YahooSports.com, there was a post referring to on-field interviews. Under the post were over 100 comments from baseball fans on the practice, and (not surprisingly) nearly everyone was negative. So, to close things out, here are just a few more negative takes on the topic, which are clearly representative of how fans feel today:
- “I hate, hate, HATE in-game interviews! They completely disrupt the game. Do them before or after, NOT DURING! Imagine doing this in the NBA or NFL.”
Well, what do the fans know! Major League Baseball seems to know what we should and should not like.
Resources: awfulannouncing.com/espn/kike-hernandez-pitchcom-game-interview; sports.yahoo.com/espn-broadcast-tips-dodgers-pitches; sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/mlb-ingame-interviews; awfulannouncing.com/mlb/players-paid-in-game-interviews
