Joe Buck, reviled broadcaster (at least in my household), recently suggested that he’d like baseball players to be more available to be interviewed in the middle of a game. (Link.) This strikes me as being a horrible idea. As is, in-game interviews with managers are often awkward and rarely insightful from my point of view. I really don’t want someone getting in the face of an athlete who is about to perform to ask inane questions. I already sit through this while watching hockey games; I sure as hell don’t want to see it in baseball.
But since these kinds of interviews are taking place, I assume someone must enjoy them or find them valuable. So I’d like to hear how the rest of you feel about them.
They’re pretty universally terrible, outside of Gregg Popovich. I mean, I guess I’d be curious to see what the similarly curmudgeonly Bill Belichick would do if they brought this to football, but generally that time could be better spent. Then again, in baseball there’s so much empty time that it would probably be taking away the least of any major sport.
When they talk to starting pitchers during a game on their off day it’s pretty harmless. But I generally do not enjoy the interviews. Especially during a baseball game where they’re taking away from the on-field action. 99% of all player/coach interviews are uneventful filler. Now and then you’ll hear something insightful or entertaining from mic’d up players and officials.
And I guarantee you players like Dustin Pedroia would rather be engaged in the game than talking to Joe Freakin’ Buck upstairs. Buck probably wants this so he can spend less time interacting with Harold Reynolds. Good lord, I don’t remember Reynolds being so insufferable on other networks.
Good Lord, no. During the game? Those sorts of interviews already annoy the crap out of me. I’ve been seeing a lot of this during the NHL playoffs, coaches getting interviewed during the game in a break of the action. Let them concentrate 100% on the game during the game itself, and ask all the questions you want after it’s all done. Look, I respect reporting and journalism is my background and former profession, but, if I were an athlete, the last thing I would want to do during a game is talk to some reporter. Let me concentrate on my job. Plus, it’s always just empty chatter, anyway. You’re not going to reveal anything of substance during these interviews.
I have no idea how standard this is, but during LA Kings broadcasts, there are a couple of times during the game where they interview a player who is on the ice waiting for play to resume after a commercial break. At least once, the player cut the interview short to get into the face-off, and all of them feel rushed since obviously play is about to resume. I see absolutely zero point to doing these interviews, and it makes me uncomfortable how close they come to infringing on actual game action.
“Anze, how do you feel about your team’s play this period?”
“Uh, good. We need to keep the puck in the offensive zone more, keep more pressure on their guys. Good shifts so far.”
“OK, thanks Anze. Back to you in the booth.”
How would he like to be interviewed while he’s trying to call a game? It’s a stupid idea; the manager and players are concentrating on the game and it’s not a time to pester them.
Further, the answers are all going to be completely dull. Do you really think they might discuss strategy when someone in the other team’s clubhouse might hear it?
" I think, if we go out there and give 110 percent, good lord willing, good things will happen." can only be said so many times before wanting to shoot something.
Joe Buck has a lot of time to fill, and every 3 minute interview with a player is 3 minutes he doesn’t have to come up with something else to talk about. He’s trying to make his job easier, not improve the broadcast.
I knew what the result of this poll would be before I looked. And, I also know that in-game interviews will continue to proliferate, even though none of us like them.
Why? There are huge amounts of money associated with every rating point on a national telecast. Why do the producers (and it’s their decision, not Joe Buck’s) do things that nobody likes?
Is the problem that the people posting in this thread are going to watch the games anyway? Is there a silent majority of brain-dead channel flippers out there who surf past a sports event and think, “Oh cool, they’re talking to somebody on the field, I’m going to watch this until I get bored and Dancing With the Stars comes on”? I don’t get it.
I gotta believe that Fox values Buck’s input on production. If HBO or someone who wouldn’t have to worry about censoring could mic up players on the field and we could just listen to their chatter, that would be pretty awesome. It would be so much more insightful than the canned answers they’ll give during an in-game interview.
I wish they’d stop post game interviews as well. No one ever says anything useful, or even interesting. I think they must train players to not say anything that can go viral and make them look stupid, so it all cliches all the time.
If more players or coaches said what they really think, like Charles Barkley, then they might be worth watching.