An Idea for Television Directors: Show Us the Throws!

It’s Spring Training, and everyone is trying to improve their game. That means everyone — I mean everyone — is seeking unsolicited advice from baseball writers who have no individual experience in their line of work. Right? Rather than call this advice, because I alone am not qualified to give advice in this particular field, let’s call it a discussion.

A few months back, I wrote a post titled The Outfielders Who Threw 100, in which I used Statcast data to identify the 15 outfielders who cracked 100 mph on a throw last season, and broke down the various types of 100-mph outfielder throws. The post, of course, was full of video clips — clips of the year’s most exciting throws.

But we didn’t always see the throws. Instead, we saw the ball hit to the outfielder, and the outfielder corralling it, and we felt the palpable suspense of watching the outfielder position himself to unleash a momentous throw, except as soon as he did, we saw a quick cut to a baserunner, and then another quick cut back to the fielder receiving the throw we’d just prepared ourselves to witness — a throw that ended up being one of the most impressive of the year.

This is how they all went. All of the year’s most impressive throws weren’t witnessed in full on the live broadcast, and were instead interrupted by a distracting, one-second interjection of a baserunner scrambling toward the next bag. After seeing this a dozen times in a row, I grew frustrated.

Turns out I wasn’t alone. This popped up in the comment section of that post:

Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 9.44.44 AM

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-members

Now, jp laid it on a bit thick here — we could’ve done without the ad hominem attacks; producers are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability — but I did agree with his overall point, and seemingly so did at least 51 other FanGraphs commenters.

The spectacle of these plays is not the baserunner. Joe Mauer plodding around third base is not what made that play above so exciting. Every time a ball is put into play during a baseball game, somebody runs. People are running all the time! The spectacle is the throw. Outfielders make a throw with intent maybe once or twice a game. Someone makes a throw like the one Carlos Gomez made above maybe 10 or so times a year. So why is Joe Mauer interrupting our view of the spectacle?

This is the part where I’m no longer qualified to continue on my own. I had an idea of why this was the case, but I couldn’t be sure, because I’ve never been involved in television production. So I got a hold of someone who was. I spoke with Pat Murray, who retired last year but previously directed baseball television broadcasts for 32 years — the last 10 with SportsTimeOhio — and operated his own company, Pat Murray Productions, for 13.

“For someone who’s not sitting in a stadium, you’re trying as a director to let the viewers know where these guys are going,” Murray said. “You can’t put them in boxes all over the screen and have the ball going in. So how are you going to show all this? Well the only way to do this is to cut.”

It makes sense. Viewers at the stadium have agency over their sightlines. All the action of the game is in front of them, and they don’t need help identifying the actors. Television viewers, though, don’t have that luxury. If you were at that Astros-Twins game from the clip above, you’d follow the ball toward Gomez, and once it became clear he was going to make a throw home, your eyes would probably dart toward Mauer rounding third for a brief moment before quickly returning to Gomez and watching the flight of the throw home. The broadcast director is just attempting to recreate that experience.

Murray brought up another good point, and that’s the difference between viewing a live game, where every future action is unpredictable, and a series of clips with expected outcomes, like in the outfielders-throwing-100 post or in a YouTube video highlighting all of Yoenis Cespedes‘ best throws. In the latter two, we don’t particularly care about the extraneous action, or the position of the baserunner, or the leverage of the moment. We know a good throw is on the way, and that’s all that matters, so of course the cut becomes more distracting in that instance.

Honing in on a real-game situation, Murray presented me with a hypothetical. Here’s the situation: runner on third, one out. Fly ball to a right fielder with a cannon, let’s say Yasiel Puig. Do you ignore the runner at third tagging to go home in the live-action shot?

Me, personally? I’d rather just see the flight of the throw home, but I can see both sides, and that spawned another interesting talking point — the distinction between the casual fan and the hardcore fan. My full-time job is to write about baseball; I don’t need to see the runner tagging up to know that he’s heading home, so I want to see the throw. The runner’s intention becomes obvious fairly quickly, based on the game situation and the way the outfielder prepares his body for the throw. But maybe the casual fan doesn’t put two-and-two together that quickly, and so perhaps the broadcast helps guide them along.

If it’s a throw worth seeing again, we can just wait a second and see it in its entirety, which is fine, but I just wonder if broadcasts are missing out on excitement — even to casual fans — by waiting to show the most compelling version of a play until after the suspense has been ruined. What it boils down to, essentially, is: does the value of scene-setting outweigh the entertainment value of being able to track the flight of the throw live, when the nature of the throw is the most important factor in dictating the outcome of the play?

“To me, that would become a question of taste,” Murray said. “I would say this – if enough people said, ‘Hey, we’d like to see something like that,’ we were always open to stuff like that and talking about what people wanted to see.”

“I wouldn’t disregard what people think about things. If I were directing still, I would be sensitive to that… It would have been something to talk about a little bit.”

Given that, and the original feedback from the comment thread, we ought to hear the opinion of the crowd. I’ve embedded a poll down at the bottom. What would you rather see?

Would you rather see it the way it’s always been done, where the scene is set for you at the expense of the throw:

Or would you rather the replay version be shown live, so the flight of the ball can be tracked in its entirety:

* * *





August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.

63 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
bmfc1Member since 2018
10 years ago

Great column. I primarily watch Mets games and overrated director Bill Webb always cuts to the runner as he approaches home, even if the ball is in the LF corner so we see the runner calmly touching home while missing the action: where is the ball and where is the batter?

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  bmfc1

You take that back about Bill Webb! (Or they’ll put up that damn graphic of him juggling Emmys again)

Mario MendozaMember since 2017
10 years ago

Are there not angles from the outfield walls that would look over the OFs shoulder towards the bases? Then a wide zoom at the start would cover the runners, and a ball-tracking zoom would cover the throw and the live-action.

Mario MendozaMember since 2017
10 years ago
Reply to  Mario Mendoza

^wide-ANGLE at the start followed by a medium-paced zoom from the point of the throw in towards the landing.

nsbb
10 years ago

What’s wrong with a split screen view?

JimMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  nsbb

Too difficult to anticipate. The technical director (who actually pushes the buttons) would not have enough time to get the split ready.

AaronC
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim

I’m not sure I buy that. Somebody is already pushing a button that says “switch to the 3rd baseline camera,” then presses another button that says “now switch back to the home-plate-high camera.” Both in about one second or less.

If split-screen were the norm, the number of buttons would be the same. The only change is that first press is now the “show me the 3rd baseline camera in a window” instead of a full screen.

I’m not sure how it would play out over the course of a full game, let alone a season, but I’d be willing to try viewing a game like we play baseball video games: One main camera behind the plate showing the middle of the field, two smaller views on each of 1st and 3rd base (when there’s a runner near them) shown in smaller windows.

The technology that goes into putting a yellow line on a football field is immensely more complex than keeping baserunners visible.

whobob
10 years ago
Reply to  AaronC

I feel like I’ve already seen this. With a runner at third in a close game, less than 2 outs, there’s a fly ball and they put up a smaller box in the corner that has the base runner on third. We don’t need a big shot, just one that shows that the runner is going to take off, if he stops or not, and the general idea of where he is. The rest of the shot is the fielder trying to get rid of the ball.

Poor Mans Rick ReedMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim

I don’t have any TV production experience, but couldn’t these types of things be prepared in advance? Runners on base, que up the picture in picture or split screen!

Luy
10 years ago

Sorry (not sorry, because it’s a big pet peeve) to be a pedant so early in the day…but what is the ad hominem in the quoted comment by jp?

He calls the producers idiots, because the decision to cut away from the outfielder is an idiotic decision as outlined by his argument. He’s not discrediting their ideas because they are producers. The idea to cut to the runner is being attacked for being a bad idea on its own merits. (And you must agree that it is a good argument, since you included it here.)

Name-calling, while a good indicator that ad hominem may be happening, is NOT the same thing as an ad hominem attack.

TrevorCap
10 years ago
Reply to  Luy

He said “idiotic producers” not the “idiotic decision” so it is ad hominem, rather than just a rude thing to say. It’s the difference between saying “they are idiots because they make bad decisions” and “they are idiots so they make bad decisions.” Definitely ad hominem.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  Luy

I was just heading here to point out the same thing. It’s not an ad hominem at all! It’s not even a mere insult, pure and simple, it’s an insult that is directly justified by the argument. Poor rhetorical etiquette, maybe, to deploy a hyperbolic insult where a more understated conclusion would do, but it’s not even a bad or ill-formed argument, it’s completely on-target.

Not every insult is an ad hominem, and elliding the difference, well, if I wanted to be unkindly demonstrative I might say it makes a writer look like a dummy about rhetoric and argumentation.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  Luy

Furthermore: “producers are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability” is not a very good refutation. Presumably most idiots try to do their jobs to the best of their ability; the allegation is exactly that their ability is insufficient to the task!

DeadLanguage
10 years ago
Reply to  Luy

What an odd pet peeve.

Ad Hominem — to the man. An informal fallacy which seeks to discredit the arguer and not the argument.

Argument: A baseball telecast should cut away from an outfielder and to the base runner.

Who is making the argument: The producer (through his or her action, that is, by doing it.)

Counterargument: A baseball telecast should not cut away from the outfielder and to the base runner.

Who is making the argument: jp

Substance of jp’s counterargument:

1. jp begs the question. “Are there really fans … &c.?”

Fallacious. Presumably some fans do in fact prefer that camera angle. It’s certainly never proven that no one prefers that camera angle.

2. jp describes “a perfect outfield throw” as “one of the most beautiful, exciting plays in baseball.”

Not fallacious. Subjective but not fallacious.

3. jp attacks the intelligence of the producers. “idiot producers”

Definitely fallacious and clearly an ad hominem. jp does not prove the producers are incompetent much less stupid. jp disagrees with them. Failing to provide a logical foundation for his argument, jp attacks the man. The entire purpose of saying the producers are “idiots” is to undermine their credibility. Classic ad hominem.

4. jp criticizes the informative value of showing the base runner “closeups that don’t provide any meaningful information.”

Not fallacious. Not proven but not founded on false principles.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  DeadLanguage

Good job deliberately misconstruing rhetoric as argument to score points! I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you must be a lawyer

mtsw
10 years ago

Given how huge and high-definition televisions are today, why not just cut to a very wide angle that shows both the baserunner and the thrower? The “cut to the baserunner,” seems similar to the problem with weird angles on the CF camera (rather than having it directly behind the pitcher) where it was originally a concession to the lack of clarity/room on the screen but persisted into the HD era even though the reason for it hadn’t.

TJMember since 2020
10 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

I think this is a great point. I wonder if the quick cut is a vestige of editing for 4:3 tv screens?

johansantana17Member since 2026
10 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

But many people watch baseball on their smartphones or computers now, not on huge HDTVs.

attgig
10 years ago

it really depends on the play and players.
if a guy is hustling out of the box, and making the turn to go to second, i think you cut, and see how the fielder handled it on the replay.
if you know the fielder has a good arm on a play to the plate from a guy coming in from 2b or sac fly, you follow the fielder
if the fielder is ben revere, and the runner is billy hamilton (or speedster), you do a cut to the runner.

it just isn’t a one size fit all solution, and i don’t think there should be as much outrage over this as long as there are replays showing both the runner and the fielder and if anything significant happens, we can show them – especially the 100mph outfield throws that are strikes to the plate. no excuse not to have those statcasted immediately and a full replay available that any fangraphs writer can immediately turn into gifs and post for our looping replay pleasure.

scooter262
10 years ago
Reply to  attgig

I completely agree with attgig. I didn’t vote, because neither choice reflects this. It depends. If the fielder has a rocket, then, yes, by all means show me the throw. But many outfielders have average or below average arms. And for these guys, the throw most likely won’t be very interesting.

Similarly, watching somebody fly (e.g. Billy Hamilton) around the bases is awesome. And watching David Ortiz or Joe Mauer plod around the bases is less interesting.

So, overall, my vote is “it depends.” Leave it up to an intelligent producer: show me what’s most likely going to be the coolest shots.

TrevorCap
10 years ago
Reply to  scooter262

Agreed. And to tag on to this, most throws are not outfield assists and so we are starting from a position where we think about improbable, uncommon plays and then frame our decision around that. Most of the time a throw from an outfielder goes to a cutoff man and it is unexciting.

AndyMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  TrevorCap

This point exactly. Puig is exceptionally exciting, but generaly there are way more balls to the outfield with runners on base where you’re not going to want to watch a throw back to the infield. Also, the excitement of the hustle to the ball and the throw from the outfielder and the excitement of the runner hustling for the bag could be equally exciting. Split screen.

Sultan of Say
10 years ago
Reply to  scooter262

I agree that watching Billy Hamilton run is a pretty sight. I also find it interesting to see Ben Revere’s noodle of an arm let one go.

The reason to cut to the runner is to show the audience that the runner is trying to advance. I would rather rely on the commentator to let me know the state of the runners.

edgcarMember since 2024
10 years ago
Reply to  attgig

Agreed. Hate to say it depends but watch Lorenzo Cain going from 1st to home! It is breathtaking. What a show!

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/135309324/v525692683/alcs-gm-6-cain-sprints-at-21-mph-to-score-from-first

Now did anyone mentioned get a GoPro in the outfielder’s hat??? Would love to see an angle from behind the outfielder that zooms in. I know, I’m a nerd lol.

david k
10 years ago
Reply to  attgig

It probably also depends on which broadcast team is covering the action. Say the Mets are in the field and the Phillies are batting, wouldn’t you think the NY broadcast would be more likely to follow what the fielder does, and the Philly broadcast would be more likely to follow what the runner does, because they would be maximizing the coverage of their own players?

deadpilgrimsMember since 2017
10 years ago

For many years I have noticed that Fox and local broadcasts always use cuts in these situations, while ESPN handles it better by going to the high shot from behind home plate and staying with that shot.

dan
10 years ago

Favorite throw of all time (and it cuts away to the runner–Carl Crawford)

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/11493214/v12084469/must-c-cannon-golsons-pinpoint-throw-nails-crawford

The Ghost of Johnny Dickshot
10 years ago
Reply to  dan

That is amazing in the sense that Golson absolutely butchered how you are suppose to catch moving forward.

Sterl73
10 years ago

If he had done that Crawford would have been out by a step and a half and the play would have been less exciting.

glennrwordman
10 years ago
Reply to  dan

And indeed, a hell of a pick and tag by A-Rod.

HarryLives
10 years ago
Reply to  dan

In fairness to the producer, Carl Crawford was actually a guy that you would pay to see run.

Adam Maahs
10 years ago

Could they not have a small box in the corner tracking the runner while the majority of the screen focuses on the throw? This would be somewhat like a video game style presentation but allows the viewer to choose what they watch just like the fans at the ballpark

boringdanMember since 2018
10 years ago

The simple solution seems to be a picture-in-picture, with a small frame showing the runner (perhaps waiting to tag up), and a wide angle to show the outfielder catching the ball and throwing.

RedsManRickMember since 2020
10 years ago

It would be interesting to hear from somebody in the TV industry, but I suspect this might be a function of some standard editorial techniques related to not wanting to show the cameras move that much. The cut buys time for the same camera that captured the OF fielding the ball to pan, zoom out, and properly frame the play at the bag.

Perhaps those types of shots, smoothly tracking the ball in flight, are difficult to execute and risk making the presentation look bad. That is, perhaps it’s less about a editorial decision based on capturing the most compelling action and more about having a reliably well-executed shot. Alternately, perhaps it’s a stylistic choice that mirrors what we’ve seen in many action movies, where frequent cuts are used to build tension during action sequences. In any event, it would be nice to hear from a professional.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  RedsManRick

Thanks for articulating this, it was bugging me as well but I hadn’t thought it out. I pretty strongly share your suspicion that the cut is motivated by wanting to hide a quick pan-and-zoom from the main behind-home-plate camera.

tom@cgm
10 years ago

Agree. Maybe more split screens should be used. Or quad screens. Then they can go back on replay and show it differently.

Actually I would like to see a few games with no announcers, I am watching it and don’t need all the other things they talk about. (mute works, too.)

I wouldn’t mind a game with an announcer from each team working together to get insight into both teams, particularly where teams have same network such as FOX.

chaokangMember since 2020
10 years ago
Reply to  tom@cgm

MLB.tv usually allows stadium sounds, which is a lot better than mute because you still get the crack of the bat and cheering etc.

david k
10 years ago
Reply to  tom@cgm

I’ve seen this done before. I think the Dbacks and Giants traded announcers during one game, where one of the Giants guys was paired with one of the Dbacks guys on one feed, and the other two were paired on the other feed. I think I saw this sometime in the past couple of seasons.

Brian P. Mangan
10 years ago

This is a great article with a great idea but the example used is a little misleading, with the runner going from 2nd to 3rd and a hit somewhat down the line. Tejada gets into the frame earlier on this play than the runner would on a normal throw.

I do care about a great throw. But when the play is live, my #1 concern is what is going to happen to the runner. The cut to the runner lets us know where he is after the ball is launched so we can live in the moment as we wait breathlessly for the outcome. I can wait a few seconds to see a replay of the throw.

Remember, too, that not all throws are impressive. Sure its nice when its Puig or Cespedes but there are a lot of noodle arms out there.

In sum, I like the full angle shot in the case you illustrate above (great thrower, 2nd to 3rd) but in most cases the way it is presently done is sufficient imo.

Bounty
10 years ago

Exactly, the cut only shows that (one of ) the runners is running somewhere. There may or may not be a throw involving that runner. Maybe it’s going home, maybe to get the trailing runner, maybe the cut off man. Who knows? All we know is that Dave is running somewhere, and there may or may not be a play happening somewhere.

bbdawgrex
10 years ago

This is mind-boggling to me. My interest in the throw is ENTIRELY dependent on whether there’s going to be a close play at the end of the throw or not. A frozen rope laser home is absolutely useless to watch if the runner rounds third and then returns to the base, and I have no idea either way. Obviously having the TV directors actively managing this play-by-play, vs. a one-size-fits-all approach, would be ideal, and I have no idea how feasible that is. But the entertainment from the throw is purely secondary to the overall context – to me the context should ALWAYS be included and if you can get the throw, that’s great too.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
10 years ago

My guess is that even though the continuous shot is crushing it in this poll, in reality most people actually enjoy the cutaway more. The bang, bang, bang of the cuts is more visually stimulating than the continuous shot.

I agree about showing the replay with the continuous shot, and lack of replays is definitely my biggest pet peeve about baseball on TV (aside from the announcers, who are generally terrible, and especially so for my favorite team, the Braves). Just show a replay of every play, or multiple replays, time permitting. We don’t need to see the kid in the crowd eating an ice cream cone.

Hyun-Jin Kershaw
10 years ago

Something else to consider is that if you’re watching a baseball game, there is a play by play guy telling you if a runner is tagging or advancing a base. You don’t necessarily need to see joe Mauer rounding third if the announcers tell you that’s what he’s doing. I’d rather listen to baserunning commentary and see the throw live.

Brian P. Mangan
10 years ago

You shouldn’t feel that silly. Although announcers will keep you abreast it’s hardly accurate enough to provide any useful info if you’re on the edge of your seat about the timing of the throw.

Königsblauer S04
10 years ago

As a casual fan (I consider myself one because I only got into Baseball two years ago and my instincts when watching are terrible), all I want to know is wether the runner is trying to tag up or go first to third or whatever. In the video provided, it was not clear to me that the runner was running to third, so I need something to inform me of that. But I do think that the announcer saying it, like they usually do, is enough. Only a problem for people who watch without sound, like in sports bars or w/e.

Beer
10 years ago

At first I thought your name was Lowenbrau.

Beer
10 years ago
Reply to  Beer

* Löwenbräu

merlin401
10 years ago

I get the “casual fan” argument but if the announcers knew that the cut wasn’t going to be there, they could surely be aware to mention it during the broadcasting of the full flight of the ball.

However, how often is there actually an interesting play at a base? I’m actually not sure. If a player is going to score on a throw that gets cut off by the second baseman, I’d probably rather cut to what then becomes important: the runner scoring (or advancing a base). The problem is the throw is the throw may be breathtaking and unique or it may be irrelevant.

PatrickMember since 2020
10 years ago

As a casual fan of the game I find the cut scene jarring. The flash of the runner in the middle is quick enough that just as my brain is beginning to process the switch the cut scene is gone again and the guy is called out before my brain really catches up with the switch.

Mind you this is just watching this clip not watching the game live where I already know who is heading to third. It might not be as jarring live.

FyandorMember since 2016
10 years ago

When a SS or 3B throws across the diamond, you watch the full flight of the ball: there’s no cut to the runner because you know that the runner is going to first. For me, a 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home situation is similarly obvious, so the context of the runner is assumed. Producers must think otherwise, or at least believe that enough fans think otherwise, and justify the cut to runner on those grounds.

vivalajeter
10 years ago

I chose to keep it the way it is. I realize that there are a few great throws here and there, but that’s what replay is for.

It would be curious to see how the voting went if you replaced the GIFs above, with GIFs of regular, everyday plays. For instance, if a ball is hit to a RF with an average arm, he throws to third base and the runner is safe by 15 feet – or the runner stopped at second base – do we need to see the three-hopped throw? I’d rather see the guy slide into third, or hold up at second.

There are certain individual players that might change this. If Puig is throwing, maybe you stick with the throw. If Colon is running the bases, by all means keep the camera on him. But overall, I’m fine with how it is right now.

Astromets
10 years ago

You don’t need to see Mauer rounding 3B because the announcers are going to be telling you something like, “rounding 3B is Mauer.” Ideally, I’d like to see both the runner and the fielder/throw as the play unfolds. You may have to zoom out a lot, but that’s what the real stadium experience is like anyway, and then they can show us each part of the replay separately and zoomed in.

Kyle Sharamitaro
10 years ago

The one thing this article doesnt account for, or at least mention, is who happens to be running on the plays.

If Byron Buxton or Mike Trout or Starling Marte are running, I think the answer to the question can be different than if Joe Mauer or Jhonny Peralta are truckin around the bases.

Bottom line, though, is that more attention overall should be given to the flight of the throws and the release of the ball by the outfielder.

MattabattacolaMember since 2020
10 years ago

I think the real solution is to go to more live games! I have been to 25/30 stadiums and there’s nothing better than sitting in the stadium and watching these amazing plays with your own eyes. I do love this idea though, less cutaways more throws, I watch the game more like that second Puig video.

Hurtlocker
10 years ago

This video still gives me chills every time I watch it;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UUy65ZpSP0

Roberto Clemente one hops a throw to home from the warning track.
There is another clip of Clemente throwing a guy out at third and the camera is right at the third base bag so you see the ball coming in from right, never seems more than 20 off the ground and a rocket. Couldn’t find it on you tube.

Sultan of Say
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

This clip works for me, regardless of whether the runner goes or not.

BuddyTheElf
10 years ago

Bo Jackson’s throw from the warning track to get Harold Reynolds comes to mind.

BiffMalibu
10 years ago

Well, as a TV baseball director I find this conversation very interesting. I have mostly cut to the runner rounding a base after the outfielder touches the ball, to make sure he doesn’t bobble it. My reasoning is this, when I sit in the stands and watch a game and a ball is hit to the outfield, I check to see where the runner is before looking back at the flight of the ball, so I always try to cut the game as I watch it. With the advent of HD and bigger screens, people have played around with boxes and split screens, it just never seemed quite right. I believe timing is important when making the cut, you need to not linger on the runner and get back to the ball in flight, but the Puig play to me was done well, in my opinion, cut after the ball is touched, show the viewer at home the runner is advancing, then back to the ball in the air, that’s the same thing I, and am assuming a vast majority of people in the park do, watch the ball, check the runner, then back to the ball. I encourage discussion and have enjoyed reading this, I believe it’s a small fraction of people who actually pay attention to how a game is “cut” and I appreciate that. Just remember it is the director, as August correctly pointed out in his headline and not the producer who is responsible for that part of the TV coverage.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  BiffMalibu

Thank you for this clear explanation! For whatever it’s worth this is a subject I’d enjoy hearing a LOT more about, even down to the obsessive micro-details. If there’s any good reading (links, articles, books, whatever) on the subject I’d love to hear about it; if not, given that you explained this so clearly, consider writing more about it yourself!

BiffMalibu
10 years ago

There is a decent amount of articles out there here are a couple. This one explains the basics well. http://www.tvtechnology.com/events/0025/directing-baseball-covering-americas-pastimeagain/189448
although this is an old clip, it gives you an idea of what a director does during the play, you are listening to the director give commands as well as ll the truck talk and the announcers, there is a lot going on and most guys do this for 140 or so games a year, with a few days off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PC8w2WZwfo
And one more link to a book that a friend of mine wrote about cutting a live baseball game.
http://cuttingthegame.com

Every director has his or her own style and does things a little differently, but the goal is the same, to show the viewers the game, and make it entertaining.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 years ago
Reply to  BiffMalibu

Bought the book instantly, sounds great, looking forward to reading it. Thanks.