Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
He did.
The baseball thing is weird. For one, it seems pretty clear that he doesn't really know that much about baseball. He tends to give very generic views on things, and Nadel tend to step in and correct him on things.
He also has real trouble with the cadence of the game. When things are moving slow, he fills in with a lot of extra info and discussion, and then he lets that filler step on the actual game. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Oakland beats Anaheim 3-1, ball outside, Toronto beats blah blah blah blah blah...just outside 2-2". Like he gets so caught up in the non-game-related filler that he forgets that we can't see when a pitcher goes into his windup, etc. and just completely stops describing the action.
Drives me completely insane, and it just makes it worse when you hear the greatness of Nadel for over half of the game and then have to be stuck with him.
|
Nadel is absolute greatness. Talk about painting a picture...he will tell you at the start of the game about the five different shades of color in the sunset. And of course, you always know how the colors of tackle twill are arranged on the uniforms.
I hear you on the cadence thing. Sometimes, on radio, you just need silence.
That said, I can't remember Eric working with anyone who I thought was on his par when it comes to play-by-play. (If the guy were, he would probably have a gig of his own.) I guess you are just hoping for some chemistry between the two. It seems like Barnett could handle that. It was certainly the best thing working for Lewin and Grieve.
Are you old enough to remember Holtz and Nadel? That was a great pairing. Ortegel and Followil reminded me of that in a way.