Painting and Puking on the Radio

I was listening to the Twins eventual loss yesterday in the car, and once again was extremely disappointed in the play-by-play. I've never been a John Gordon fan, but have learned to tolerate him to some degree. Dan Gladden, however, has a long way to go in my book.

What I've learned to tolerate about Gordon is the puking (puking is the sound bad announcers make when they are trying to sound like good announcers...think of Bob Uecker's "Juuuust a bit outside" call in Major League), the over-excited way he calls even mundane plays, and his inability to really tell how deep a fly ball is hit. Herb Carneal was the best ever at calling a home run or deep fly out. He seemed to know exactly how excited you should get the moment the ball left the bet.

Anyway, what still irks me about Gordon is the gabbing while you can hear the crack of the bat and even crowd reaction before he tells you what's happening. Worse, he'll gab during a pitch that you'll clearly hear hit the catcher's mitt, then he'll gab some more and say, "First pitch to Punto is low for a ball; Buerhle right back with a strike, it's one-and-one." As if the reason he called the pitches so quickly was because the pitcher hurried up his next pitch, and not because Gordon was falling behind in making the call.

Missing the first pitch of a new inning, something I thought KSTP would do something about when they got the Twins' rights away from WCCO, is also a steering wheel banger. (I bang the steering wheel when I'm driving and get angry. It's my method of controlling my own road rage...it works quite well!)

All that said about Gordon, Gladden is simply horrible. I don't think it's because I'm an ex-radio jock who also did sports and is thus bitter when people of marginal talent have made the big time in the biz. Maybe there's some of that. But come on. Here's a paraphrased transcript of one call from yesterday:

"He checks his swing and...oh...they've got the runner caught between second and third....and they're going to get him out. Nice defensive play there, and big mistake on the base paths by the runner."

So I'm thinking somehow Mauer, the catcher, caught the runner leaning or something and threw him out. Except:

"And (the batter) will be at first and up comes (the next batter.)"

What did I miss?? After Gladden talked about the play a little more I realized that the check swing was a check swing ground ball, and instead of throwing the batter out at first, the defense (Gladden didn't say even which infielder played the grounder, let alone let the listener know in real time it was even a batted ball) threw out the runner who was at second and got caught off base.

A play like this will happen from time to time. Charlie Steiner's ESPN radio home run call of Barry Bonds' record-breaking 71st home run was a boner that comes to mind. But it's the norm for Gladden, and it upsets me because I don't think I should have to work that hard to figure out what's going on in a baseball game I'm listening to on the radio.

Hockey is particularly difficult to get right in real time. Sometimes, before the announcer can even see the puck in the net, the light is flashing and the crowd is cheering and the horn blows. But baseball? With all of that dead time to catch your breath?

There's an old sports broadcasting philosophy that is taught, known as "painting a picture" for the listener. Virtually everyone agrees with it in concept, but it seems to mean different things to different announcers. To former Minnesota Golden Gopher announcer Ray Christensen, it often meant adding details about the color of trim on the opponents' jerseys. A nice touch, as long as he got the game right, too, which Ray did.

A truly exciting play can be enhanced by John Gordon's hyperbolic enthusiasm. And I loved Dan Gladden as a key ingredient, spark plug, etc. of the World Champion Twins teams of '87 and '91.

But as to the "picture painting" metaphor of radio sports broadcasting, to Gordon, perhaps it means just gabbing to fill dead air, and puking to add "color" to the painting. As for Gladden, I doubt whether he has even heard of the concept.