Master Index of Archived Threads


The *real* problem with Keith (long-ish)

ageefan Apr 26 2006 12:31 AM

Like a lot of fans, for years I've watched Mets games with the TV sound muted and the radio turned up, in large part because Gary Cohen is the best in the business. With Gary moving to TV, I'm now getting my first prolonged exposure to Hernandez. The problem is not that he's a sexist moron (although he almost certainly is). The problem is that he's an fool who happens to have a microphone in front of him. The professionalism gap between him and Cohen is Grand Canyon-esque. Gary (who clearly misses Howie) constantly has to correct him, cover for him, and essentially carry him. It's pathetic. Tonight alone, Keith has said that Valentin busted it out of the box (wrong), said that Nady's outfield assist "had to be perfect" (the guy was out by six feet), and said "cocina" instead of "cucina" (brilliant for a guy once known as Mex). As I write this, he just said, "If that pitch had been six inches higher, Floyd would have been struck out," which is the same thing as saying, "If that pitch had been a strike, it would have been a strike." Thanks for that expert analysis, dude. A few games ago, Keith speculated that Willie McCovey's rookie year was 1967. Only off by eight years, Keith. I don't mean just to play "Gotcha!," because everyone makes mistakes. But Keith, like most TV analysts -- esp. the ones who are former ballplayers -- serves up his mistakes with with a healthy side order of arrogance and a palpable air of "I played the game, so I know better than you." When he sounds righteous -- which is most of the time -- he just comes off as a jerk. He thinks he's explaining the game, but he's actually *critiquing* the game, which would be exhausting and annoying to listen to even if he was a polished speaker, which he's not. It's the in-game equivalent of talk radio -- a loudmouth with an open mic -- and it's painful to listen to. Frankly, Hernandez isn't much worse than most other TV "analysts" (that term is a misnomer, because McCarver forever redefined the role as "critic," thereby single-handedly requiring the invention of the mute button). He's more of a symptom of a larger problem. But at the end of the day, he's *much* worse than most radio guys, and he's so self-fixated that I don't think he even realizes that the guy sitting next to him is running rings around him (much like Joe Morgan, who has no idea that Jon Miller is playing him like a violin). The saddest part is that those of us who've loved Gary for all these years now have no choice but to put up with Keith if we want to keep hearing Gary. And I'd like to think the second-saddest part is that Gary realizes what a mistake he made by leaving the radio booth.

Zvon Apr 26 2006 12:41 AM

That wasnt too long.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 26 2006 12:41 AM

Strong take. I almost made the same remark tonight re: Gary missing Howie, though I was going to say it because Gary's Met-centric asides and puns aren't shared by Hernandez -- they either go over his head or simply aren't run with. That said I find Hernandez' amatuerism refreshing at times.

Edgy DC Apr 26 2006 01:42 AM

I do too, it's just that he's not an amateur anymore and the refreshingness of his frankness has shown itself to have limitations. I agree mostly, except the matter of degrees. "It's the in-game equivalent of talk radio --- a loudmouth with an open mic --- and it's painful to listen to," is certainly a lot further than I'm willing to go. Keith can go in a couple of directions at this point in his career. Joe Morgan has continually demonstrated how "Brilliant baseball player" + "Stubborn Arrogance" = "Embarassing Foolishness" This could easily happen to Keith if he isn't checked and developed and if he doesn't make a commitment to better himself for the daily grind. But I don't think it will. I think Tim McCarver was everything anyone could hope for in an analyst. He just became too pedantic as a national broadcaster. I also think that somebody who talks so much can't stay fresh forever.

Centerfield Apr 26 2006 10:34 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Strong take. I almost made the same remark tonight re: Gary missing Howie, though I was going to say it because Gary's Met-centric asides and puns aren't shared by Hernandez -- they either go over his head or simply aren't run with. That said I find Hernandez' amatuerism refreshing at times. It was telling when Keith didn't get the Shawn Estes reference.

Edgy DC Apr 26 2006 10:38 AM

Maybe McCarver is also like Nirvana --- a large talent who paved the way for annoying lesser talents.

soupcan Apr 26 2006 11:28 AM

I caught the cocina/cucina comment. Thought it was alternate pronounciation.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 26 2006 11:44 AM

soupcan wrote: I caught the cocina/cucina comment. Thought it was alternate pronounciation. It's nit-picking phony intellectual superiority, Soupy. (As if you can hear the difference between two vowel sounds, or tell the difference between Keith's bad Spanish accent and his misunderstanding of a word). Rule of thumb: if someone has an agenda about some announcer, he'll drag out almost any trivial mistake (or perception of a mistake) to argue furiously against that announcer. For example, every time I hear Eddie Coleman, it drives me nuts, about once per minute of his Mets Report. Lying, fakery, puffery, misstatements, bullshit, pretense, false accuracy, you name it. But I only post the most egregious examples here, because I don't want to be mistaken for someone who simply holds some strange animosity towards Coleman. I carefully select examples (not of pronunciation, either) of things he says with a specific manipulative aim in mind, and I try to show how the mistatement reveals that aim. But to lambaste Keith, who's as brutally honest (if awkward) as Coleman is a lying bag of shit (if falsely smooth at times) is to reveal one's hostility towards truth-telling in general, I think.

ageefan Apr 26 2006 12:36 PM

Right, I'm a phony intellectual with an agenda.... That's great way of defaming the messenger without actually addressing the message. And besides I actually went out of my way to say I didn't mean to over-engage in "Gotcha"-isms. The point is not that Keith sounds amateurish, or that he sounds arrogant -- it's that he sounds *both.* If that means I have an "agenda," fine. I'm happy to lead the anti-Keith movement, because the guy's a total clown.

Vic Sage Apr 26 2006 12:58 PM

Agee, i agree that Keith is unpolished to the point of irritation, and that its especially noticeable next to the very excellent Gary Cohen. Also, his macho breast-beating is disappointing though not out of character. I think some of his observations are cliches and lacking in insight. But i do find him alot more interesting than boobs like Ed Coleman, or gladhanding ex-jocks who never see a problem with their former colleagues, or homers who never criticize the home team. Keith, warts and all, offers more insight into the actual game play than anyb other color analyst since around here since McCarver. And, with regard to McCarver, while i think he fell in love with himself on national tv, i do think he was an excellent announcer. While a play-by-play guy is there to call the game, I WANT the color guy to "critique" the game. "First-guessing" really makes you think about how the game is played. I learned alot about baseball from McCarver, even though I've been watching it for 40 years, and reading about it for 35 years, and thinking about it since reading the James abstracts 25 years ago. Unlike Bret, i respect your right to disagree. i think Bret has developed Tourrettes, which is a shame. He used to be a great poster around here.

A Boy Named Seo Apr 26 2006 01:26 PM

I didn't hear the mispronunciation, but if you mispronounce "kitchen" in Spanish", it could easily come off as "pig", which is more than a mispronunciation and could make whoever said it look like a dork. Edit: Was he shooting for pig or kitchen?