In almost every case it's better to be at the game than watching it on TV. You can't begin to understand a baseball game until you've been to one, and you will only grow more frustrated with the television coverage once you have. Yes, there is more to the game than a guy pitching the ball, a hitter swinging, and an ensuing frenzy of searching for the batted ball (should he hit it). Players are constantly shifting positions, there are several games within the game on the basepaths television viewers are not privvy to, and there is more to the home run than the swing of the bat and the close-up shot of the ball flying over the fence (get this: it has to fly over the rest of the field, too!). Hockey, too, has huge television shortcomings. There are things going on all over the ice and on the benches that a single frame cannot completely capture. There are penalties that occur behind the play, most fights don't start in the middle of the screen, and the players are moving faster than they appear on the screen. There are those games that are better as seen on TV. The best thing about the NBA on television is that you can turn the channel. Football can be impossible to watch in person depending on your seat, and anyone who has ever been to a golf tournament and has tried to figure out what is going on while walking the course knows that if you really want to follow the tournament you have to find a couch near you. All of this said, television brings you to places you wouldn't otherwise be able to go. As much as I'd rather be at the hockey game, I can watch any number of about 10 games some nights on the dish. That's just the NHL games, and if you factor in college hockey that number is closer to 15. There are tons of baseball, football and basketball games on without buying any special pay-per-view package and, let's face it, most of us can't afford, in time nor money, to go to Wimbledon, the PGA Championship, or the Kentucky Derby. As great as sports TV is, though, there are a few things that have me screaming at the television, and no it's not the 6th penalty in a row called against the Florida Panthers. First and foremost, the close-up. I'm all for seeing the faces of the players; the cuts, the bruises, and the emotion is all fantastic. Can we please have it as a replay, though? Why do hockey broadcasters insist on switching to that extreme close-up as Jaromir Jagr flies in on a breakaway? There are 11 other guys on the ice at the same time and chances are that the action will pick up with one of those guys when Jagr is stuffed by Roberto Luongo. Stay wide and show us the play. After it happens, feel free to show us a close-up so that we can understand a little better what happened. Second, the in-game interviews have to go. I'm sorry, but for the integrity of the game I don't want to see Ozzie Guillen chit-chatting and giving shout-outs to Venezuela during the 6th inning of game 3 of the World Series. Maybe I'm an idealist (I hope that I am), but I'd still like to think that these guys are doing the work of geniuses behind the bench -- that they know a little more than the rest of us and therefore don't have time for this garbage. Plus, have you ever seen anything meaningful come out of one of those interviews? It usually goes a little something like this:

Analyst: So, Ozzie, you've stuck with the same lineup for every one of your post-season games so far. Ozzie: Yeah, they be playing good right now. No need to {inaudible} what broken. Analyst: It looks like your team has been real loosy-goosy during these playoffs. What have you done to cast a sense of calmness over them? Ozzie: Yeah, I just tell them, "We won a lot of games this year and this is just a few more."

It's nothing against Guillen, but it's not like he's going to give away his hopes for lefty-righty matchups in the late innings, and quite frankly he's trying to pay attention to the game. I'm happy about what technology has done for sports broadcasting. There is nothing more helpful than the yellow first-down line in football. That doesn't mean broadcasters need to stick their noses into the games, themselves, though. Third, why do analysts keep talking when they have nothing to say? Have you ever listened to a Brewers game on the radio? Half the time you wonder if Bob Uecker keeled over after choking on a bratwurst. There will be good parts of a minute where nothing is said, and that's great -- especially on TV when the viewer can still watch. If I have to listen to Tim McCarver bemoan a successful bunt one more time... Silence is golden -- especially when it comes to Tim McCarver. Fourth, quit taking away the action with permanent graphics! Pretty soon we'll be watching the game on one-quarter of the screen with scores from the four major sports, breaking news, and stock quotes flying by on the other three-quarters. I'm happy about always having the score and the amount of time left permanently burned into the screen, but keep it small and hold it to that. Fifth, keep the camera on the game. I realize that many of the broadcasters feel their importance is something to share with everyone over and over again and that their thoughts are going to drift away from the game, but please at least keep the shot live and on the action. There is no reason why, as the pitcher is winding to deliver, the camera should be planted on some guy on the bench sulking over the third strike pipe-shot he just took. I'm glad he's angry -- he should be -- but the game goes on. I'm grateful that we have the technology to bring games to us that we, years ago, would have been listening to on the radio if we were lucky. I have to say, though, that if we had to go back to a one- to three-camera shoot of these games and the only microphone being the one on the play-by-play announcer, and no graphics on the screen, it would be a far better state of sports broadcasting than we have today. If I didn't have to see another shot from a camera implanted in a net or a base or the dirt it would be too many. If I didn't have to hear Tim McCarver say Brad Ausmus made a mistake by swinging at a pitch because the baserunner was stealing again it would be too many times (Did he ever stop to think it might have been a hit and run?). And if I never had to see Marian Gaborik's nose hairs during live play ever again that would be too many times.