Er, if they (Apple) have rights to the game, that is were you watch it (unless you have MLB package). And, sports are entertainment. So, no one forces you. Just like no one force to comment here.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV+ Announces 'Friday Night Baseball' Schedule for July With All Games Remaining Free to Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good guy Apple keeping these free. As a baseball fan it has been so frustrating watching these streaming rights being sold off first of all, but then adding insult to injury Peacock and Prime Video are putting them behind their paywalls.
Then overcharge them to be there and they can feel like they are at the ballpark!
Not sure what rights to the game have to do with not watching it because you don’t like the commentary, not even in the same realm…
baseball is boring. Apple should have gone after NBA or NFL. Big whiff on their part.
I'm honestly surprised that they are featuring the Blue Jays TWICE. Maybe they paid less for those games lol...
Hey Apple, how about streaming the most popular sport in the world?
Try with football (a.k.a. "soccer") and you will sell more Apple TVs.
Ever thought of that? "Think different", at least for once since Steve's passing.
Carlos, from Argentina.
Try with football (a.k.a. "soccer") and you will sell more Apple TVs.
Ever thought of that? "Think different", at least for once since Steve's passing.
Carlos, from Argentina.
Yeah, football rights would be great for Apple outside of the USA/Canada, although both countries are seeing an increase in popularity in the sport.
I guess the problem there is how fragmented the rights are.
Each league has their own TV rights, and then they have different rights for domestic and foreign rights, and different again for cup competitions, and let’s not get started on internationals.
Let’s say you want to buy the rights to the Premier League, which is often described as the best league in the world.
In the U.K. 1 TV distributor can't have all the games packages, so Apple would have to decide which packages they want to show. On top of this they can under no circumstances show every game or show KO’s on a Saturday at 3pm in the U.K.
However if they bought the international rights (and they could for the right money buy all the rights for every country/region aside from the U.K.) they can show every single Premier League match.
So you would have a case of Apple showing all the games in every country except for the U.K. On top of this, they would have to negotiate different deals for the FA Cup and League Cup.
They would then need to do deals with other leagues.
As I say, outside of the USA and Canada this would prove popular, and I guess there is a following in those countries to for it to be popular as well, but it would fragment what users in different regions can see.
Right now with the Baseball we know users in the countries where they show it can see the Friday night games, and it’s not a case of the USA or say the U.K. being able to show games not available in the other country.
With American sports, including the MLS they could go to them and say ‘We want to buy everything and show it everywhere’ and they would likely get it, with local blackouts in some sports.
Because baseball is a dying game in its current form. Games are too long, announcing and game calling are stale and quite frankly out of touch with the audience. The length of the game is the real killer though.
I'm of several minds about all of this (this thread, I mean). Baseball DOES have a problem: broadly speaking, the incentives that teams have are now at odds with the things that make the game fun to watch. That five thousand pitchers trot out each game all throwing 98, that hitters swing for the fences and no one cares about strikeouts, that every at-bat seems to go to 3-2...these are outgrowths of teams' search for the most efficient ways to win ballgames. It's the effect of data analysis. Data analysis is not a bad thing, it's an extremely useful thing. And baseball has well over 100 years' worth of data to analyze and get at some universal truths about winning ballgames!
But that's the thing: all this analysis is trying to answer, "how do we best win ballgames?" It is NOT trying to answer "how do we entertain the fans the most?" This is what the teams SHOULD be doing: figuring out ways to win ballgames (unfortunately they are also all about maximizing profit, too, which I certainly don't blame them for, but it does affect everything mostly negatively). But it falls to the LEAGUE itself to do the other part, to figure out how to entertain fans and attract more of them.
And the thing is they don't have to do it at all to make money. The big money comes from their local TV deals, and they are offering something local TV channels drool over: something like 500 hours of programming. That is a huge deal for local networks, and until MLB throws in the towel it's a supply they will continue to offer and that they control utterly.
So...the money incentive for them to change things just isn't as strong as one would hope. That being said, they do seem to be looking at doing some things, some rules changes they are checking out in the minors right now. I'm one of those old-school fans that would roll over in my eventual grave if they messed with the rules. Don't like the shift? Too bad: it makes all the sense in the world to do it, and they SHOULD do it...so long as it is in the rules. Time to change the rules, which causes me mental pain to say.
Analytics isn't the enemy. They just do what they do: find the best way to win given the rules. So now we change the rules. Let's hope the changes are effective but minimal.
But that's the thing: all this analysis is trying to answer, "how do we best win ballgames?" It is NOT trying to answer "how do we entertain the fans the most?" This is what the teams SHOULD be doing: figuring out ways to win ballgames (unfortunately they are also all about maximizing profit, too, which I certainly don't blame them for, but it does affect everything mostly negatively). But it falls to the LEAGUE itself to do the other part, to figure out how to entertain fans and attract more of them.
And the thing is they don't have to do it at all to make money. The big money comes from their local TV deals, and they are offering something local TV channels drool over: something like 500 hours of programming. That is a huge deal for local networks, and until MLB throws in the towel it's a supply they will continue to offer and that they control utterly.
So...the money incentive for them to change things just isn't as strong as one would hope. That being said, they do seem to be looking at doing some things, some rules changes they are checking out in the minors right now. I'm one of those old-school fans that would roll over in my eventual grave if they messed with the rules. Don't like the shift? Too bad: it makes all the sense in the world to do it, and they SHOULD do it...so long as it is in the rules. Time to change the rules, which causes me mental pain to say.
Analytics isn't the enemy. They just do what they do: find the best way to win given the rules. So now we change the rules. Let's hope the changes are effective but minimal.
As far as announcers...the point's been made elsewhere on the thread that national announcers are ALWAYS worse than the local ones, inasmuch as they can't possibly know as much about your specific team as the local guys do, just by the nature of the limits of time they can spend with the teams.
(The exception to the rule are post-season announcers, who are much better: they can spend the entire month of September paying close attention to just a handful of teams. If you're, say, Joe Buck and John Smoltz, and you know you're doing the ALCS or NLCS and the World Series, then that's only a few teams to worry about. Heck, by the time they get to the World Series broadcast they've already been covering one of those teams intensively for the previous week!)
So national games are behind the eight ball. The best thing they can do, then, is to try to do things differently, somehow. Technology is obvious: more and better cameras, creative angles, that kind of thing. And they might try doing something different with the announcing talent: they have to figure out a reason for out -of-market people to tune in (the fans of the teams that are actually playing will tune in anyway: the local TV stations won't have rights to the game).
The national-vs-local thing is as old as the hills.
(The exception to the rule are post-season announcers, who are much better: they can spend the entire month of September paying close attention to just a handful of teams. If you're, say, Joe Buck and John Smoltz, and you know you're doing the ALCS or NLCS and the World Series, then that's only a few teams to worry about. Heck, by the time they get to the World Series broadcast they've already been covering one of those teams intensively for the previous week!)
So national games are behind the eight ball. The best thing they can do, then, is to try to do things differently, somehow. Technology is obvious: more and better cameras, creative angles, that kind of thing. And they might try doing something different with the announcing talent: they have to figure out a reason for out -of-market people to tune in (the fans of the teams that are actually playing will tune in anyway: the local TV stations won't have rights to the game).
The national-vs-local thing is as old as the hills.
They don't do that for baseball why would they do that for hockey? A rink is a fraction of the size of a baseball field and yet people are able to follow the game. How often do you see the flight of the ball when it's hit to the outfield? The camera generally is set on the outfielder running to make the play.
I don't necessarily disagree...but baseball is different from hockey (and most other sports in fact) in this: the ball isn't actually the thing that scores points. In hockey, if the puck goes into the net then that's a score: it's imperative you be able to see the puck! In baseball, not the same. The scoring happens elsewhere. I guess following the flight of the ball very specifically might apply to home runs: that's a situation where the fate of the ball is definitively equal to the fate of the score. But otherwise, once the ball has been put in play, it's all about the fielders and runners anyway. Heck, when I'm at the game in person I'm still not following the ball, I'm watching the fielders and runners.
That's a good point about the scoring, but using that analogy the pitching the batting is similar. No special technology is used to enhance the artistry on display, and hundreds of pitches are thrown in a game. The puck only goes in the next typically 3-5 times per game.
The problem with the announcers on ATV Friday Night Baseball isn't so much related to their familiarity with the local teams. They are just terrible broadcasters. They're not good at it. Specifically, one of the women started the season playing (or being?) dumb about baseball altogether. I remember one comment about her not knowing the difference between balls and strikes. They wander totally off topic like some sort of nightmare live version of social media posts. It comes of as a cringe attempt to pander to a "younger" audience I guess. Babbling incessantly. Are they competing with one another for air time? It's not fun and it's not funny.
Anyone who actually cares about watching baseball wants them all to just ****.
I think you make a good point about pandering to a younger audience. I don't know if Apple TV+ skews younger, perhaps it does. If you told me it does, I'd believe it, at least. I'd also believe it if you said Apple's baseball coverage is intended for new fans and not experienced ones.
I finally took the opportunity to watch their broadcast. It was an interesting mix. It was Twins vs. Rays; I'm in Minneapolis and I follow the Twins, so I had some background. There were some things I liked, and things I didn't like. I tried to be as open-minded as possible, and tried not to place more "blame" on the Apple broadcasters specifically than I might credit to national broadcasters in specific.
VISUALLY
I think this was the best part. Some of the camera angles are wonderful. The shots that look like it's from a drone circling right around the pitcher are fantastic. It's worth noting you don't HAVE to go to Apple for unusual shots: watching the Twins and Blue Jays last week, I was taken by shots of some of the home runs that looked like the camera was watching from the same angle as the players: down near the ground, with the view foreshortened. But I like that Apple is being creative in this area.
I don't think I like the fake bokeh. At least I think it's fake. I've been to many games, shot DSLR photographs at quite a few, and I think it's fake, and a little disorienting. I don't think they needed to eliminate it, but tone it down by half.
Something that was very interesting to me was how they would overlay the "odds" graphic in the lower right. Like when it would show given the circumstances, matchup and count, what the odds were for this batter to, say, get a hit. Interesting to watch the numbers change as the count progressed. But when they would put that kind of graphic up, they vignetted the screen. Not only was the lower left corner just slightly dimmed, but all four corners were. I don't know if I liked it or not per se...just that I clearly noticed it.
Oh, and...I'm not a young fan. My eyesight is just a little off. I really had to peer closely to see on the graphic how many outs there were and what the count was. I would like to see perhaps some more high contrast to make it easier to read at a glance. For instance, we know there are three outs in an inning. Don't have three circles, with one or two filled in. Just put a dot for each out. Then I can see two "blobs" and know there are two outs. Just an example. I think that whole area is too small.
This is an area where I think Apple does differentiate itself, and should continue to. Unique visuals are things I can't get from my local broadcast, so it can be a treat. I'm willing to give them a little time to figure out what works and what doesn't.
AUDIO
This was a mess. It felt like they couldn't decide on the sound mixing. Early in the game, when fans are full of energy and you can hear it, it felt like they made the talent shout over the fans. Perhaps they really DID feel they needed to shout over the fans because in real life the fans were loud near them, and the production team brought up the crowd noise on the telecast to compensate...but I wouldn't think so. Then in the later innings, they would frequently turn the entire sound DOWN, almost to silent. An announcer would then say something, and you could hear her voice fade in with the sound. Didn't like it at all. I really don't know what was going on, what purpose that served. Perhaps there was some coordination missing: communication between the booth and the truck about when the talent was going to speak.
But why were they turning the sound down at all? If the announcers have nothing to say at the moment, the ballpark sounds should be emphasized and not tuned out.
(Aside: growing up in the Bay Area, the A's had a radio announcer named Lon Simmons. He would often go quiet for long stretches, giving just the bare minimum required information while his listeners could hear the sounds of the park. It was wonderful.)
In the middle of the game they mic'd up Byron Buxton of the Twins. Let's leave aside that Buck is a pretty cliched talker in interviews, but again the sound mixing was terrible. He was having a hard time hearing in his earpiece, I was having a hard time making head or tail of the questions, too. Byron has a constant chaw of sunflower seeds going, and that made his voice difficult to hear as well. THAT'S when you tone down the crowd noise!
They kept talking and talking to him, which would have been cool to get more than just a brief interview, except that Buxton said nothing that wasn't cliche, which was a shame. That part isn't Apple's fault per se: Byron Buxton is the guy you need, he's the team's leader and one of the best players in the game. Carlos Correa would have been a much better interview (Chris Archer is an AWESOME interview, so relaxed and natural, but he had nothing to do with this game). But those who follow the team would know they would never allow that: this is Byron Buxton's team and he's the guy you put up there.
(Another aside: over 30 years and about three or four generations of tech ago, I was on the production team for SportsChannel's coverage of the A's. We would not get an interview without Carney Lansford OKing it. That's just how it works: Lansford was the player that was going to protect the other players. There's a whole social structure you have to navigate as a broadcast partner.)
So Buxton eventually had to go out to the on-deck circle, and they switched off the mic, but he was still wearing it when he got to the plate. You could see the wire trailing down his back as he hit. Weird, and perhaps off-putting.
CONTENT
OK, here we go. I am not going to throw the announcers under the bus completely. Baseball is a game where you just can't talk about one guy the entire time. If you're covering the Buccaneers vs. the Raiders and you want to talk about Tom Brady all night, you have that opportunity. He's taking half the snaps. But if you want to talk about Byron Buxton during the Twins game...there's only so much time you have. So for the first three innings, the broadcast team were talking very very fast, trying to get in as much of the information they prepared.
This is a challenge with national broadcasts. They have to assume that most viewers don't know any day-to-day dope on the players...so they've got to get it all in as packed as possible. Local broadcasters know they are going to have days and weeks and months to talk about everything. Plus a pregame and postgame show. Plus on the radio. They've got all the time in the world.
But for goodness' sake, be prepared about other players. It seemed they were ready to talk about Byron Buxton, Carlos Correa and the starting pitcher Devin Smeltzer. How about Luis Arraez, who is leading the league in hitting? Nothing. How about all the rookies in the lineup from all the injuries? Nothing. I don't expect them to talk at length about, oh, Trevor Larnach or Max Kepler or Ryan Jeffers. But more than just the two hitters, please.
Absent a little more detail on the other Twins hitters, perhaps some more about the team in general. It's not difficult. You had plenty of time to prepare. How the team fared poorly last year but decided not to blow it all up and instead signed Carlos Correa, how in this era of low batting averages they've got a few hitters with high averages. Perhaps they just felt they were catering to a crowd that didn't want any of that background, how boring?
It was the same with Tampa Bay: they're Randy Arozarena and a bunch of other guys, evidently. I try to put myself into the shoes of a distanced or inexperienced fan, but I really can't, because I'm neither of those things. Would I have been OK with what they did if it were, say, the Reds vs. the Marlins? I don't think so.
Oh, and they went on and on about Buxton in the pregame, which is great and appropriate when you've got just a couple of minutes. He is not only a fantastic hitter, he's arguably the best defensive player in the game right now. But...he was the designated hitter on Friday. Tough gig when you go all-in on a player and one of the reasons you did so just isn't relevant to this one game you're doing. They're lucky it wasn't a night the manager wasn't sitting him.
So you get three or four innings of rapid-fire generalities...and five innings of relative silence. Tough job, producing a national telecast. And Chris Young, the ex-player who was with them in the booth, really didn't seem to get much to say. More on that below.
Just one thing I found unforgiveable. Late in the game, they rolled a highlight of a Twins moment from over a decade ago. For the life of me I don't remember the context. But they mispronounced one of the player's names. That is inexcusable, national telecast be damned. It's Michael Cuddyer, pronounced cud-EYE-er, not CUD-ee-er. Bad bad form.
OK, so maybe they are really not going for me. Heck, I'm not turning to them for Twins coverage: I'm watching the local broadcast. I'm only watching because they have the rights to the game. Maybe they think that they have to strip it down to the bare essentials with a lot of camaraderie thrown in, so younger fans will like it. That's not generally true of national telecasts. Come World Series time, I learn a lot more about both teams from Joe Buck and John Smoltz, even if they probably are shortchanging them from their fans' standpoint.
It felt like--this may be too harsh--they were apologizing for how slow baseball can be. Maybe that's why Chris Young didn't say much: he's a baseball player, and baseball is boring? That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Because you can't watch it somewhere else and can get different momentary. Same realm and very relevant. And, if you watched baseball and know the game, you would know there is a big difference when the commentary is good or bad. Or if you have local or national broadcast commentary.
After watching a few sets of games, I like the production values. Great visuals, love the view of the strike zone and how they show where the ball hit and the speed. Keeps great visuals of all aspects of the game. I also like the Mic’d Up feature where you get to hear commentary from a random player in the dug out. (Andrew McCutchen of the Brewers is the best one I have heard so far on this.)
The biggest problem, as most have mentioned, is the announcing. Some of the time, they are just trying to fill dead air. Also, saw one announcer wearing a pair of AirPods Max while interviewing a manager on the field and you could see the cord coming out of the back and down behind her back. Apple has a great start with this, I just hope they could get some Baseball personalities or other announcers from the sports world to help improve their commentary.
The biggest problem, as most have mentioned, is the announcing. Some of the time, they are just trying to fill dead air. Also, saw one announcer wearing a pair of AirPods Max while interviewing a manager on the field and you could see the cord coming out of the back and down behind her back. Apple has a great start with this, I just hope they could get some Baseball personalities or other announcers from the sports world to help improve their commentary.
Last edited: