Conclusion: Good Night Everybody
Scully was also a great interviewer on the post game shows. I would love to rediscover his interview of Maury Wills when Scully asked him three times in a row what he was thinking after he had made an error, the interview when he asked Roberto Clemente if the blooper hits and line drive outs evened out over a year.
This is Scully’s introduction to the Jerry Doggett interview of Sandy Koufax following the 1965 perfect game:
“Hi everybody, this is Vin Scully along with Jerry Doggett, welcoming you to the Sandy Koufax scoreboard, brought to you tonight by Carnation, a world leader in nutrition and by White Al Cigars.”
“There were a lot of baseball games played today but there was only one that’ll be heard all over the country and around the world. Sandy Koufax made baseball history tonight, but first the totals. The Dodgers one run on only one hit, and while we’re all delighted about Sandy you can just imagine the emotions of pitcher Bob Hendley, who is back in the shadows of defeat in the Chicago dressing room. One run, one hit for the Dodgers and their run came not as the result of a hit. It came on a walk, a sacrifice, a stolen base and a throwing error and then Koufax proceeded to be the first man in history to pitch four no-hitters. He has pitched them in consecutive years. Bob Feller, Cy Young and Larry Corcoran, way back in the 1880’s were the fellows that pitched three no-hitters, but Koufax now stands alone. Sandy’s no-hitters in 1962 in June against the Mets, in 1963 in May against the Giants, in 1964 in June against Philadelphia, and then tonight, September the 9th, 1965 a perfect game. Striking out 14, striking out the last 6 consecutively. The last perfect game, during a regular season game, was Jim Bunning last year, when he pitched a perfect game against the New York Mets. Since 1900 there have been…seven counting tonight, seven perfect games, and of course, Don Larsen reached the highest point by pitching a perfect game in the World Series. But Koufax, the only man in history with four no-hitters, and his fourth no hitter a perfect game."
Vin Scully has had a great impact upon his audience, but eventually it is about the quality of the work, not the quality of the influence. What is it that Scully does that sets him apart and raises his work to the standards of great Art? To begin with Scully has a great sense of multiple contexts. The quality of the day, the time of day, the weather. The fans wherever they may be, the fans in the stadium. The conditions of the stadium. The teams, the players, the umpires, family in the stands. The significance of the game, others being played that day, the pennant race, the season, Dodger history, baseball history, cultural, life. He has a sense of which of those contexts are important at any given time and references them as they are related to appreciating the moment at hand.
His basic structure is organized around the unit of the at bat. Especially early in the game he gives the audience the salient features about the height and weight, age, schools, home town, birth town, other baseball organizations the player has been with, statistics, especially against the pitcher on the mound and the team they are playing. Since the starting pitcher will most likely be in the game on the second time through the line-up, he will give some of that same information, but spread it out over subsequent batters and innings. These are the building blocks that structure the broadcast. Informative, professional, and told with the enthusiasm Scully seems to have for every player who has ever had the good fortune to make even a single appearance in the Major Leagues.
The pitcher flings, hurls, fires the ball; the batter chips, slaps, hammers the pitch. Scully communicates that any one at bat could be the turning point of the game, but most batters make simple outs, one hoppers to short, pop flies to second, easy fly balls to center. Until the sudden break through and something special happens. A line drive into the gap, a deep fly ball to right center. He narrates the game. Meanwhile, and seemingly few notice, he also commentates on the game. When there is reason to do so, and only when there is reason to do so, he passes along his observations, he discusses (and teaches) the inner game of baseball, he speaks what Emerson calls the "rude truth" so matter of factly, no one seems to notice or mind that he consistently says harder things than, for example, L.A. Times writer T.J. Simer, who is infamous for trashing players in his column. Occasionally he will make an evaluation that one knows must be true, because Vin Scully must be baseball greatest connoisseur, "somehow this was not just the best Fernando game, it was his finest." And even more rarely, he shares his implicit understandings of life, "Andre Dawson is listed as day to day, aren't we all?" The audience hears the broadcast, the commentary, and the wisdom.
But none of this really explains the brilliance of his art. Some of his success comes from his uncanny ability to combine and synthesize the traditions of both story telling and composition. His success with traditional elements of fiction are somewhat surprising in that a story teller is relating a story that already exists, Scully finds the story that develops in front of him. Yes, he is a broadcaster, but he consistently describes the aspects of the setting that are most relevant, whether it is a rabid crowd, a wind blowing out, or an impossibly cold day. He finds the turning point of the game's plot. He captures the personal qualities of the characters who will become the victors or losers, the heroes or goats. He finds the game's themes, whether it is missed opportunities, the vagaries of fate, the nobility of endurance. He seems like an omniscient narrator because he seems to know everything. Even in "reality television" the editor has had long amounts of time to find the story to edit for an audience. Scully finds the thread of the story as it develops.
Most any regular listener knows that he uses language brilliantly, colorfully. He often starts with the clarifying statistics, but his artistry is much more in his attention to suggestive details. He suggests strategy (will he send the runner?) and discusses causes of results (at 39 Piazza is having a harder time coming out of his crouch to make that throw). He adds details that trigger pictures (waving the bat back and forth). He loves nicknames. He loves to turn a phrase. Similes and metaphors abound, but they are worked smoothly and seamlessly into his speech. He even gets away with puns and some otherwise real groaners because he never ever calls attention to them (like announcer Tim McCarver is so apt to do.) His diction is marvelous. If he uses a word like "balderdash," it is always so out of the context of his usual word choices as to delight.
His "colorfulness" is always in great control. His style is clearly influenced by the standards set forth in the classic text by Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. He places himself in the background. He uses language in a way that comes naturally...using words and phrases that come readily to hand. He prefer nouns and verbs (and gerunds). He does not overstate. He avoids the use of qualifiers. He does not affect a breezy manner. He does not explain too much. He avoids fancy words. He does not use dialect. He is clear. With regard to the admonition not to interject opinion, his interjections are much more convincing evaluative observations than mere opinions. He uses figures of speech sparingly, but to great effect.
Scully's techniques of style are clearly within the traditional expectations of "composition". His exposition uses identification, definition, classification, illustration, comparison and contrast, analysis. His narration is largely chronological since he is broadcasting a live game. His description evidences that his "details are selected according to some purpose and to a definite point of view. His images are concrete and clear. He makes discreet use of words of color, sound, and motion.
His success in composition measures up to the traditional Canons of Rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, Delivery. In every game he brings up just the right anecdote or example to flesh out something about the current game he is describing.
The best case against Scully's work being great Art includes the argument that his work is too sentimental. He does have a soft spot for kids in the stands, and the tears of a ballplayer. But that sentiment must have a proper setting. The two primary sources for imagery for Scully are work and combat. The baseball world that Scully presents is often victimized by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, his players toil, and the game of baseball is characterized by much violent imagery. In that context the game and life itself has the reminder of the children, and the implicit theme to all of Scully's work that the world needs to be inclusive, that all people should be treated equally, and that only with a large amount of common decency can a world characterized by toil and conflict survive.
Yet none of that in the final analysis accounts for the conclusion about the greatness of Scully's work. Scully's work itself has "recreated the foreworld," that it is transcendent, that it has flow. Logos. The creative force of the word. Many have remarked that attending a Dodger game is not as thoroughly satisfying as listening to Scully call a game. The man Vin Scully need not be discounted by stating that he is really only a conduit. He is not merely calling a game, truth and meaning send their shafts of light through his words.