Olbermann story sheds light on famous Jackie Robinson photo

The email from Keith Olbermann contains this line: “Haven’t had so much fun in years.”

Olbermann, a passionate student of baseball history, feels he added an extra layer today, the 66th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s first game with Brooklyn.

Writing on his Baseball Nerd site (no jokes, please), Olbermann gives a behind-the-scenes look to the famous Robinson photo:

You probably don’t know Eddie Dweck (smiling kid at left), but you’ve probably seen him before. Because of The Photograph he has a cameo role in history. But history is a defiant and elusive thing. It will tell you that The Photograph Eddie Dweck is ruminating on is one of the iconic images of Jackie Robinson just before he stepped out of that Ebbets Field dugout and into history 66 years ago today.

Except it wasn’t taken on April 15, 1947. And Mr. Dweck will also reveal to you that – albeit in the mildest sense of the word – the photograph was staged.

It turns out the photo was taken on April 11, 1947, an exhibition game between the Yankees and Dodgers at Ebbets Field. And there was something else about the photo.

Having clarified history’s erroneous conflation of Robinson’s first game in a major league uniform in a major league stadium (April 11, when the photo was taken, when Robinson went hitless but drove in three runs, one on a fielder’s choice and two on sacrifice flies) and his first official Major League Game (April 15), what was that part again about the photo – a photo which nearly all the rest of us look at as we might look at an image of Abraham Lincoln in a crowd or at least Babe Ruth – what was that about it being staged? 

“Staged,” he said again, and matter-of-factly. “We had maybe bleacher seats, the cheapest seats, and we trying to get to the Dodger dugout just like we tried to get to the Dodger dugout every game we went to. But there were a hundred photographers taking pictures of him. This was a momentous day. So they told the ushers ‘let these kids come down, and lean over like you’re trying to get his autograph.’ And that’s how we got down there. It was a matter of a few minutes, five minutes, ten minutes as I remember. Then we had to scatter.”

And here’s the connection between Olbermann and Dweck:

In some indirect way, it hurt him to the degree that until last month, he hadn’t owned a copy of The Photograph since that edition of The Brooklyn Eagle came out. That is even stranger when you consider what Eddie Dweck does for a living. Today he is the with-it, energetic co-proprietor of Studio 57 Fine Arts on West 57th Street in New York, and can use the photograph to prove to doubters that he wasn’t in diapers in 1947. The gallery features not just high end art and some of the metropolitan area’s avant-garde painters, but has also always offered a great supply of historical baseball photographs, many of which are at the level of sophistication and eccentricity of a shot of Babe Ruth pitching for the Yankees and a variety of shots of Dweck’s beloved Ebbets Field. More over, I’ve been one of his customers since 1997 and last January was the first time he ever mentioned that it was him in the Robinson/Fans photograph.

“Well,” Eddie Dweck says with a measure of contemplation that dissolves into a laugh. “You didn’t ask.”

 

It’s a fun story. Worth a read.

 

 

Posted in MLB

Tiger factor? Masters final round rating goes up 26 percent

In 2012, when Tiger Woods finished 40th, the Masters did an 8.1 rating during the final round.

In 2013, when Woods finished in a tie for fourth, the Masters did a 10.2 on Sunday, an increase of 26 percent.

Tiger factor in play? For sure.

Both tournaments had thrilling playoffs producing popular winners: Bubba Watson in 2012 and Adam Scott this year.

It has been pointed out that last year’s final round took place on Easter Sunday. So that might have accounted for some of the difference in the rating, but hardly 26 percent.

The Saturday ratings also show the Tiger impact. They were up 24 percent (6.3 from 5.1). The additional viewers definitely tuned in to see how Woods would handle the aftermath of his two-shot penalty. CBS gladly showed nearly every one of his shots over the weekend.

Even when Woods doesn’t win, as long as he is in the hunt, TV wins.

 

Switch: Dan Hicks to handle play-by-play duties for Notre Dame games on NBC

Notre Dame fans, prepare to get acquainted with Dan Hicks.

Hicks will replace Tom Hammond as the play-by-play voice for NBC’s coverage of Notre Dame home games. Hicks will team with Mike Mayock and Alex Flanagan on the telecasts.

NBC definitely wants to raise Hicks’ profile beyond his main duties as anchor of the network’s golf coverage. Hicks had filled in for Hammond on Notre Dame games, and did the NFL wildcard game for NBC in January.

The move is an opportunity for Hicks, 50, to become more of a signature voice for NBC Sports. He will get plenty of exposure on the Irish games.

Hammond, who turns 69 next month, will remain with the network, covering horse racing events (including the Triple Crown races) and the Olympics.

********

Here’s the official release from NBC:

NEW YORK — April 15, 2013 – Dan Hicks, NBC Sports Group’s longtime and critically-acclaimed golf and Olympic commentator, will join NBC Sports’ Notre Dame Football coverage this season as its lead play-by-play voice. His first assignment comes this Saturday, when NBC Sports Network presents Notre Dame Football’s 84th Annual Blue-Gold Game at 1 p.m. ET.

A versatile voice, Hicks is well-known for his coverage of high-profile events, such as the PGA TOUR, the U.S. Open, the Ryder Cup, Olympic speed skating and Olympic swimming, which includes all of Michael Phelps’ 18 gold medal victories. Hicks also has significant football experience, having called NFL games in the 1990s for NBC’s AFC package. Earlier this year, he teamed with Mike Mayock and Alex Flanagan for the AFC Wild Card game on NBC between the Houston Texans and Cincinnati Bengals. Hicks has Fighting Irish broadcasting experience as well, including filling in for Tom Hammond for one game in each of the last two seasons.

“Dan is a gifted commentator, and we wanted to find more high-profile opportunities to showcase his talents,” said Sam Flood, Executive Producer, NBC Sports & NBC Sports Network. “Coming off an undefeated regular season and a berth in the BCS Championship Game, Notre Dame Football provides a perfect platform.”

Hicks will continue to work as the lead commentator for NBC Sports Group’s live-event golf coverage, and will return for NBC’s Olympic coverage, including the 2014 Sochi Olympics and the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Hicks succeeds Hammond, who has been the play-by-play voice for Notre Dame Football on NBC for most games dating back to 1992. Renowned for his work on the Olympics and horse racing, Hammond recently agreed to a new multi-year deal. He will continue to be the lead voice for three of NBC Sports Group’s most prestigious properties: Triple Crown horse racing; figure skating, including at the 2014 Sochi Olympics; and track & field, including at the 2016 Rio Olympics.

84TH ANNUAL BLUE GOLD GAME

The 84th annual Notre Dame Blue-Gold spring football game will air on NBC Sports Network, Saturday, April 20 at 1 p.m. ET, marking just the third time that the Fighting Irish’s traditional spring scrimmage game will be televised nationally.

In his first official assignment as the newest member of NBC Sports’ Notre Dame Football on-air team, Dan Hicks will call play-by-play, and be joined by analyst and 2013 Sports Emmy Award nominee Mike Mayock, and sideline reporter Alex Flanagan.

NOTRE DAME FOOTBALL ON NBC

Notre Dame Football on NBC begins Saturday, August 31, at 3:30 p.m. ET, when the Fighting Irish host Temple. The 2013 schedule also includes games against Michigan State on Saturday, September, 21; Oklahoma on Saturday, September, 28; Arizona State from Cowboys Stadium in Dallas, Tex., on Saturday, October 5; USC on Saturday, October, 19; Navy on Saturday, November 2; and BYU on Saturday, November, 23.

The following is the NBC Sports Group 2013 Notre Dame Football schedule (all times ET)

 

Date Opponent Network
Saturday, April 20 Blue-Gold Game NBC Sports Network
Saturday, Aug. 31 Temple NBC
Saturday, Sept. 21 Michigan State NBC
Saturday, Sept. 28 Oklahoma NBC
Saturday, Oct. 5 Arizona State* NBC
Saturday, Oct. 19 USC NBC
Saturday, Nov 2 Navy NBC
Saturday, Nov 23 BYU NBC

*Off-site home game from Dallas, Texas.

Sunday books: Q/A with LA Daily News columnist on his love of baseball books series; 30 in 30 days

I love baseball books. In fact, I am in the process of writing one myself (plug alert) on the myth and reality of Babe Ruth’s Called Shot homer. Published by Lyons Press, it is due out next spring.

I hope my effort is worthy of Tom Hoffarth’s attention in 2014. The Los Angeles Daily News sports media columnist really loves baseball books. So much so, that he does an annual review of 30 baseball books in 30 days in April on his Farther off the Wall site.

It has become a rite of spring for me and others who still enjoy a good book about the grand old game. Hoffarth writes about books that you likely wouldn’t find otherwise. Such as: Baseball’s Last Great Scout: The Life of Hugh Alexander, by Dan Austin

Earlier this week, Hoffarth provided a 10-day update so you can see what you missed.

I asked Hoffarth to detail what he enjoys about baseball books and why he decided to engage in this exercise.

Here’s Hoffarth:

*******

It’s the fourth year I’ve attempted this, mostly the result of loving baseball literature, find it to be a pleasure rather than work, and realizing there were so many baseball-related books that seem to come out every spring that it wasn’t possible to give them all their proper due. I guess I’ve succeeded to the point where some publishers finally have me on the radar and send me review copies earlier so I can start this process in February, but for the most part — seriously — I go out and find the books in the store and buy them (don’t tell my wife).

I want the review to be something where a reader may not just be intrigued by the book, but if he goes out to buy it and it’s not out yet, that’s frustrating. I find that too often in my own experience. Every April, the newspapers come out with their roundup of baseball books, and half of them aren’t out until June.

It’s not a perfect system, because sometimes the book won’t come out until later in April, or early May, so I had to set a window — the book had to be new in 2013 (so I kind of eliminated anything that came out late in ’12) and available to buy.

I’m still a book guy. A print guy. I don’t have a nook or ereader. I want to touch the pages, feel at the photos. smell that new-book smell.

When I travel, my backpack usually has a couple of books jammed in there and I don’t care about the extra weight. One of my favorite times are to take a weekend, go to spring training in Arizona, and read three or four books on the trip.

I’m not a speed reader per say, but I do consume quickly and I think my intent is to make the Southern California reader mostly engaged in the content. I can’t get caught up in the latest book about the Yankees or Red Sox. At some point, they all seem the same to me.

But then, there are three books out related to the Detroit Tigers this year — a new biography on Hank Greenberg, a book written by Ty Cobb’s grandson, and another on Mark Fidrych.

There’s a new book on Lenny Dykstra may not seem to be SoCal centric, but it is because he lives out here, opened up a car wash, bought Gretzky’s home in Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks and his son, Cutter, got drafted out of Westlake High. And he’s in jail here,currently. And in a review of the new book, “Nailed!” I try to take it from a personal perspective and give it my own spin before getting into the review. What drew me to the book? What could draw you as well? In this case, Dykstra once offered me a job to write for his magazine. I never followed through because of his reputation. Now it’s all there in book form to confirm my reservations.

So maybe it’s like the book “Cardboard Gods,” where these books replace the cards and make me reflect on something baseball-related in my life.

I’m at a point where I think I can get 30 quality books in the 30 days, and even leave a couple out of I can’t get to them in time. In the past, I’d have to fill some dates with books I thought were less-than B-plus quality, and then review it that way, either because the book was popular, topical or related to a Southern California figure. A book about Don Mattingly, for example, came out a couple of years ago just as he was stepping in fulltime as the Dodgers manager. I didn’t enjoy it at all and wrote that, as a warning for those who might just pick it up without thinking twice.

Every spring, I look forward to a new Jackie Robinson book, because inevitably, one is timed with the April 15 celebration. This year isn’t any different and I’m so enthralled with “Behind the Plate” by Mike Long, who did “First Class Citizenship” recently. Long collected newspaper columns that Robinson wrote in the late ’50s and early ’60s and categorized them. You find how relevant they are today as they were 50 years ago — such as Robinson warning the Republican party that they were too white and exclusive and it would come back to burn them some day. Surprise! And Robinson was once compelled to campaign for Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, but not in ’68.

I’m also huge on history-related books, but only if they’re written well, not like a college dissertation but with a writer’s flare to insert color and not just research. This year, another book by Robert Weintraub nails it with “The Victory Season.” The opposite is true with a bio on “Smoky Joe Wood.”

I also would love to give a shout-out to one of my biggest supporters, Ron Kaplan, who not only has a great blog ronkaplansbookshelf.com but also has a book himself out called “501 baseball books fans must read before they die.” I did a column Q/A with him before the series started and will leave a review of it for the final one this month.

 

 

 

 

Really? Nick Faldo changed his mind on Tiger; his statements on the Golf Channel

It appears it also won’t be a good day for Nick Faldo.

Upon further review, Faldo completely changed his tune on CBS regarding the Tiger Woods controversy. He now understands how it all came down.

Carry on, old chap.

Wow.

Just a refresher, this is what Faldo said on the Golf Channel earlier in the day:

“There’s absolutely no intention to try and drop that as close to the divot.  Absolutely none at all.”

“This is dreadful … in black and white – and that is the greatest thing about our game, our rules are very much black and white – that’s a breach of the rules. Simple as that.”

“Sometimes the black-and-white factual of them is harsh, but I think Tiger would gain massive Brownie points if he stood up and said, ‘You know, you’re right guys.  I clearly have broken the rules and I’ll walk, I’ll see you next week.’”

“This one has clearly changed the lie of the golf ball.  Absolutely clearly.”

“He should really sit down and think about this and the mark this will leave on his career, his legacy, everything.”

*****

Well, speaking of legacy, Faldo’s career likely will be linked to this reversal. Do you think somebody at Augusta National talked to the three-time Masters winner?

Faldo is getting ripped on social media. Among the tweeters were CBS’ own Doug Gottlieb.

@GottliebShow: Who knew Nick Faldo was a cover cornerback? Impressive back peddle from this AM until now #Tiger #CBS

Yep, Gottlieb might get a phone call from someone at CBS Sports over that tweet.

 

 

CBS’ McManus: Tiger impact on ratings isn’ts as “dramatic” at Masters as other weeks

Bet it has been an interesting morning for CBS.

Given what has transpired, it seems to be an appropriate time to discuss Tiger Woods’ impact on the ratings at the Masters.

Earlier this week, CBS Sports President Sean McManus said in a conference call that the Tiger effect wasn’t as profound at Augusta National.

“It’s very documented the kind of spike you get when Tiger Woods is in contention,” McManus. “During a regular PGA Tour event, that can be anywhere from a 100 to 200 percent increase. It’s not as dramatic at Augusta. The Masters traditionally is the most-watched event of the year. There’s no question if he is in contention, we’ll get a spike.

“The good news is that even (when Woods isn’t in the hunt), the ratings have been pretty darned good. If he’s not in contention, I’m still confident we’ll get a terrific rating.”

The ratings always are strong, but you have to keep one thing in mind: Woods contends almost every year. Since 2005, Woods only has one sub-top 6 finish at the Masters; he placed 40th last year. He won in 2005; was second in 2007, 2008; and fourth in 2010, 2011.

Last year, when Woods stumbled badly, the ratings did take a hit. Sunday’s final round did an 8.0 rating, down from 9.5 in 2011; CBS’ two-day average for the weekend was 6.8, down from 8.2 in 2011.

In 2010, when Woods made his comeback following his “troubles,” the rating was 10.7 on Sunday, and 9.0 over the weekend for CBS.

So McManus is correct in the sense that Woods doesn’t produce a 100 percent bump in the ratings at the Masters. However, there was a 16 percent drop in last year’s final round from 2011 and 25 percent compared to 2010.

Those still are significant decreases. They gave CBS ample reason to hope Woods shows up for his 1:45 p.m. (ET) tee time this afternoon.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in CBS

Faldo, Chamblee calling on Woods to DQ himself

Nick Faldo and Brandel Chamblee have the same advice to Tiger Woods: DQ yourself.

On the Golf Channel, Faldo said: “This is dreadful..The greatest part of our game is the rules are black and white….Tiger should stongly consider disqualifying himself”

Chamblee said: “He knows he is  in violation of the rule. He knows it is the right thing to do. He hasn’t done it yet. That’s sad.”

Chamblee added, “He gained an advantage by breaking the rule.”

If Woods does play, it will be interesting to see if Faldo is as vocal about his views on CBS today?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in CBS

History of Masters TV: Remember Vin Scully on 18? Brent Musburger, Dick Enberg working Butler cabin?

Classic Sports TV and Media did a terrific post chronicling the history of the Masters on TV.

There was plenty of good stuff in there that I didn’t know or forgot about it. For instance:

Vin Scully manned the 18th tower from 1975-82. Pat Summerall didn’t take over until 1983.

Brent Musburger and Dick Enberg each served as hosts in the Butler Cabin.

In 2003, the telecast went without sponsors in the wake of the Martha Burk furor over the no women membership. I definitely remember that one.

Frank Gifford actually worked the Masters while he was at CBS in the late 60s.

When was Gary McCord’s last Masters on the CBS telecast? The answer: 1994, when he made his infamous “bikini-wax” remark about Augusta National’s green.

Chris Schenkel and Bud Palmer called the first Masters for CBS in 1956.

That first televised tournament had 2.5 hours of coverage. This year, they will be 18 hours. As I have written often this week, that’s not enough.

 

 

 

Mixed reviews for 42: ‘Ground-rule double’; director could have done more

The new movie on Jackie Robinson, 42, opens in theaters today. I was interested in what the critics had to say. While some critics raved, the general consensus seems to be that director Brian Helgeland could have done more with the story.

A.O. Scott in the New York Times appeared to be underwhelmed:

But while “42,” Brian Helgeland’s new film about Robinson, gestures toward the complicated and painful history in which its subject was embroiled, it belongs, like most sports biopics, in the first category. It is blunt, simple and sentimental, using time-tested methods to teach a clear and rousing lesson.

In other hands — Spike Lee’s, let’s say, or even Clint Eastwood’s — “42” might have taken a tougher, more contentious look at the breaking of Major League Baseball’s color barrier. But Mr. Helgeland, whose previous directing credits include “Payback” and “A Knight’s Tale” (and who wrote “Blood Work” and “Mystic River,” speaking of Clint Eastwood), has honorably sacrificed the chance to make a great movie in the interest of making one that is accessible and inspiring.

High praise from Ann Hornaday in the Washington Post:

Anchored by a solemn, quietly compelling lead performance from Howard University graduate Chadwick Boseman, “42” possesses the solid bones, honeyed light and transporting moral uplift that define an instant classic. With luck, audiences will treat it as such, and flock to it in numbers that encourage Hollywood to keep making ’em like this.

 

Good, not great, is the assessment from Richard Roeper at RogerEbert.com:

(This) is more a ground-rule double than a grand slam.

As written and directed by Brian Helgeland, “42” is competent, occasionally rousing and historically respectful — but it rarely rises above standard, old-fashioned biography fare. It’s a mostly unexceptional film about an exceptional man.

To be sure, there are scenes of racist fans heckling Robinson and many of his own teammates signing a petition demanding Robinson not be allowed to join the Dodgers — but “42” falls short in giving us a full measure of the man himself. The Jackie Robinson of “42” is a high school history lesson, lacking in complexity and nuance. Even the domestic scenes with the beautiful Nicole Beharie as Rachel Robinson paint an almost too-perfect picture. The real Rachel Robinson was also a hero, but in “42,” she’s portrayed as a near-saint, patiently counseling Jackie to hold his temper, and looking like a movie star as she quietly endures the morons in the stands behind her.

Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune also felt the movie comes up short:

This is a smooth-edged treatment of a life full of sharp, painful, inspiring edges. Helgeland tips the narrative balance in the direction of Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, played here in a sustained grumble by Harrison Ford, opposite Chadwick Boseman’s implacable Robinson. The latter’s story cannot be brought to life without Rickey’s, and vice versa; their fates and their places in history belonged to one another. But “42” settles for too little, for being an attractive primer, an introduction to the legend of Robinson and the faith that saw him through. The movie doesn’t condescend. Rather, it protects and enshrines.

Owen Glieberman at Entertainment Weekly says it is a B+:

The movie covers just three years of Robinson’s life, beginning in 1945, when he’s a World War II veteran playing in the Negro Leagues and gets recruited by the forward-thinking Dodgers general manager, Branch Rickey, to join his minor-league club, the Montreal Royals. As Rickey, a stogie-chomping grump with a heart of gold, Harrison Ford seems to have reinvented himself as an actor. He gives an ingeniously stylized cartoon performance, his eyes atwinkle, his mouth a rubbery grin, his voice all wily Southern music, though with that growl of Fordian anger just beneath it. Calling Robinson into his office, he tells him that he needs a player who doesn’t so much have the guts to fight back as the guts not to fight back. 42 is a rousing tribute to how impossible, and therefore heroic, a stance that was.

Scott Foundas in Variety felt the movie was too ordinary:

(Brian) Helgeland, a fine screenwriter (“L.A. Confidential,” “Mystic River”) with a patchy career as a director, doesn’t even try for any of the irreverent stylistic touches here that he brought to his earlier “Payback” and “A Knight’s Tale,” framing the action in the same, unwavering procession of medium shots and closeups whether we’re on the field, in the dugout or in the locker room. Shot by regular Robert Zemeckis collaborator Don Burgess, the images have the overly lit, diffuse halo effect that seemed to attend Redford every time he stepped up to plate in “The Natural,” while the entire movie bears the too-new look of certain period films, with every freshly pressed costume and vintage automobile gleaming like it just came off the assembly line. A movie about Robinson isn’t obliged to be dark or edgy, but for all of “42’s” self-conscious monument building, the cumulative effect is to render its subject markedly smaller and more ordinary than he actually was.