On Jan. 1, the much-ballyhooed launch of the MLB Network took place, with Don Larsen’s perfect game in Game 5 of the 1956 World Series as its flagship program. The game, which had never before been seen anywhere, was a kinescope film of the telecast, with Hall of Famers Mel Allen and Vin Scully on the mike, and more Gillette commercials than anyone has seen, anywhere. This was, for me, a chance to watch history — as the game took place long before I was born — as well as an opportunity to do a three-hour cultural study (male fans in attendance wearing suits and hats, for example), and review how far we’ve come in terms of broadcasting baseball on television.

The program interweaved Bob Costas’s hosting of a Q&A with Yogi Berra and Don Larsen in front of a live audience in MLB Network’s Studio 42 and the game itself. When Costas wasn’t ignoring spoiler alerts and telling us what to watch for in the program (as if we couldn’t figure it out for ourselves), he was playing to his greatest strength — allowing his interview subject to tell the story. The highlight, in my opinion, was the discussion session that followed the final out. Larsen admitted that he knew he pitched a no-hitter but didn’t know it was a perfect game; he didn’t even know what a perfect game was. (I was instantly reminded how when the Astros no-hit the Yankees with six pitchers in 2003, that Jeff Kent didn’t know why his team was celebrating so vigorously until he looked at the scoreboard.) Perhaps Larsen’s most prescient comment, though, came in that same segment. Costas mentioned that 15 Hall of Famers played in that game, and that for Babe Pinelli, the home plate umpire, Game 5 was the last game for which he called balls and strikes. Following that, Larsen said he thinks about the perfect game every day, the Hall of Famers, and that so many of them — especially on the Brooklyn side — are not around now for him to thank them for being part of it also.

THE BROADCAST
• Allen called the first half of the game, and Scully called the second half. If you’ve heard recordings of their radio broadcasts, you could immediately tell how they adjusted their respective styles for television. They let the pictures tell the story, and they did not play to the casual fan. There was an assumption that if you were watching the game, you knew what was going on. In the top of the eighth inning, though, when Jackie Robinson called time and stepped out of the batter’s box claiming there was something in his eye, Scully made no mention of the Yankee fans booing. They knew Robinson was trying to rattle Larsen. Scully, knowing what was at stake for Larsen and perhaps himself as the Dodgers’ lead broadcaster, stayed away from the issue.

• Both Allen and Scully, without the benefit of graphics, mentioned the count only when it was important.

• The camera angle from behind the plate gave a great look to the pitchers. You could truly see the type of pitch Larsen and his counterpart, Sal Maglie, threw, and how those pitches broke. You could also view the nuances of defensive positioning. For example, in the top of the fifth inning, on Gil Hodges’ lineout to Mickey Mantle, you could clearly observe the route Mantle took to make the slick backhand grab. In the following inning, On Carl Furillo’s pop-up to second base, it was a pleasure to see the players moving to back each other up. Gil McDougald moved from shortstop to cover Billy Martin, and Andy Carey sprinted from third to second to cover the bag in the event of an error. It went unseen, but I bet Berra or Larsen covered third to fill Carey’s vacancy. Scully let all that go. Joe Buck and Tim McCarver calling that play today. McCarver would likely spend the remaining half-inning discussing the fundamentals.

I’m not going to say that this telecast or the way it’s presented is better than the daily coverage we see now, but there were some elements that I believe could — and should — be applied to the general broadcasting. The most basic of these is the “less is more” approach to the verbiage. I got caught doing this myself when I did play-by-play in college. I talked too much. I learned how to curb it. Now, I watch games on mute for the most part because I can’t take listening to the excess, the clichés and the catch phrases. (Aside: One of the biggest offenders of this, Matt Vasgersian, is now a lead PBP man for MLB Network. Hmm…) I believe Allen, Scully and their contemporaries understood that no one was tuning into listen or watch them; it was about the game and they were just the messengers.

Game 5 was a great introduction to the network. I know from being at YES when it launched that gathering enough programming to fill 24 hours is a challenge. But here, without having to pay the licensing fees, there’s plenty of room for classic games, specials from MLB Productions — there are infinite possibilities. Putting “Ken Burns’s Baseball” in primetime is a great way to bring back the award-winning documentary. The Hot Stove show is already as good, if not better, than the items on YES and SNY, with Al Leiter, Harold Reynolds and Barry Larkin leading the analyst lineup. Jon Heyman was a smart hire on the Insider beat. What the Network has already done beautifully is integrate MLB.com into its plan. Highlighting specific MLB.com stories in the ticker at the bottom of the screen is an easy way to drive traffic back to the site, and the team sites. And as Cliff Corcoran has noted in this space, and others in media circles have, MLBN already has the NFL Network beat in that it struck a cable deal prior to launch.

The only thing that could impede the progress here is the shill factor. If MLBN chooses to do some investigative journalism — I don’t know if that’s in their plans — they need to be willing to go for it and potentially expose some of the failings of the league. Otherwise, the network will not be viewed upon as much more than a PR leg of the organization at large.

Looking forward to your comments. Anything additional, write me here, with the subject “Yankee Panky.” 

Until next week …