Thanks to Steve Z, the Blue Jays' biggest fan in Israel, for this link to a great interview with much-lamented former Jays broadcaster Dan Shulman in the National Post (and this related story in the New York Post). Dan, who now works for ESPN, seems ready to step into Jon Miller's shoes the day the latter wraps up his legendary career; as it is, Dan is already widely considered one of the best play-by-play men in the business. Jays fans will of course recall Shulman's time in the TSN booth with Buck Martinez, making the Jim Fregosi Blue Jays almost watchable. We'd love to have him back -- dear Lord, would we -- but I'm sure all Toronto fans wish Dan the very best as he rockets up the baseball announcers' ladder .
Yay!
Dan Shulman is (after my family, friends and myself) my favourite Mustang.
Western Mustang, that is...
Cheers,
Paul
Dan Shulman is (after my family, friends and myself) my favourite Mustang.
Western Mustang, that is...
Cheers,
Paul
I wish the interview continued; we got to know Dan a bit better, but it left me wanting more. Maybe one day we can get him to step into Da Box and relate some Blue Jays stories.
To me, what sets Shulman (and Miller) apart from the others is their ability to set up their partners. They know exactly what they are seeing, and don't have to wait for the analyst to explain it. In fact, it's a part of the call. Instead of saying, "ball one," which most of us watching TV already know, Dan might say, "can't get him to chase the slider." That saves the colour man from having to identify the pitch, allowing him to add something worthwhile, like "this guy kills fastballs, so he won't see many." If the play-by-play guy inserts thoughts about strategy, the conversation becomes a dialogue, instead of one "expert" over-explaining every little thing to his clueless partner, which frustrates the most knowledgeable segment of the audience.
Once the ball is in play, Shulman has a very good idea where it's going, and the likely outcome. His inflection and his choice of words is almost always perfect. It's unthinkable that he could call "a fly ball to shallow right-center... and it's gone!" You don't hear him getting excited about foul balls or popups. If he's not 100% sure, he fills with appropriately suspenseful tones. Because he's a fan, he also knows the significance of various events that affect a game, and gives them the right emphasis. Best of all, he doesn't resort to awkward, irrelevant catch-phrases as a substiute for style -- whaddaya think about that?
Dan sounds like an excellent companion to watch a game with; he notices details, he has a sense of baseball history, and he cares. The longer he worked with Buck, the more rapport they developed, and (after being as stiff as Cerutti initially) the more Martinez improved. They are both sadly missed, but Shulman could make almost anyone great. OK, not Joe Carter.
To me, what sets Shulman (and Miller) apart from the others is their ability to set up their partners. They know exactly what they are seeing, and don't have to wait for the analyst to explain it. In fact, it's a part of the call. Instead of saying, "ball one," which most of us watching TV already know, Dan might say, "can't get him to chase the slider." That saves the colour man from having to identify the pitch, allowing him to add something worthwhile, like "this guy kills fastballs, so he won't see many." If the play-by-play guy inserts thoughts about strategy, the conversation becomes a dialogue, instead of one "expert" over-explaining every little thing to his clueless partner, which frustrates the most knowledgeable segment of the audience.
Once the ball is in play, Shulman has a very good idea where it's going, and the likely outcome. His inflection and his choice of words is almost always perfect. It's unthinkable that he could call "a fly ball to shallow right-center... and it's gone!" You don't hear him getting excited about foul balls or popups. If he's not 100% sure, he fills with appropriately suspenseful tones. Because he's a fan, he also knows the significance of various events that affect a game, and gives them the right emphasis. Best of all, he doesn't resort to awkward, irrelevant catch-phrases as a substiute for style -- whaddaya think about that?
Dan sounds like an excellent companion to watch a game with; he notices details, he has a sense of baseball history, and he cares. The longer he worked with Buck, the more rapport they developed, and (after being as stiff as Cerutti initially) the more Martinez improved. They are both sadly missed, but Shulman could make almost anyone great. OK, not Joe Carter.
I like Shulman, but, he has one habit I wish he would correct: he tends to add a bounce between the end of a word when it has a consonant and the beginning of another one that has a consonant, like "ground-a-ball." I'm sure he could correct that if he tried, but I wonder where a tendency like that comes from.
Retribe
Retribe
The Coach's comments about Dan Shulman are brillant and exact. I am always delighted and thrilled, whenever I am lucky enough to come across him calling a game. It is always cause to stay tuned regardless of the teams. He so adds to what is already a perfect game. And of course most sadly missed in Blue Jay world.