Gaudin and Nitkowski- meh

The Braves TV broadcasters are ok. But just ok.

I 've tried to like them. But so far, they're not growing on me. C+ on a good day.

When I think of broadcasters in general, I want them to be informative or entertaining, and ideally both. Think of John Madden calling a football game. His insights are certainly worth hearing, and his style and timing added to the overall appeal. For baseball, Vin Scully. Granted, that's a pretty high bar. But high bars are good for the craft.

To be fair, I'd say the "chemistry " between Gaudin and Nitkowski seems good. But that's a bonus, and not essential to making a great team. It's been awhile, but Skip Caray / Pete Van Wieran paired with Don Sutton was more effective for my listening pleasure .

Gaudin seems to want to give some food review talk at some point during most games, sometimes while he is eating. Why? If I had his contact, I'd call him to discuss it– while I was scarfing down a big burger​

And he gave us a heads-up on a bathroom break a few weeks ago when he told CJ to be prepared to handle the next inning on his own because ".. my back teeth are floating". I don't recall ever hearing anything like that before. And I also don't recall missing not hearing it.

As for Nitkowski, he gives me far more "expert" detail than I care about, and I often wonder if it's on target. Granted, he has pitched infinitely more major league baseball than I have (336 appearances to zero).

Although his numbers aren't great. To wit:

336 games, 18-32 record with a 5.37 Era over 479 innings. He struck out 347 and had a WHIP of 1.63., with a negative career WAR at -1.0. He was a first- round pick by the Reds in 1994 , out of St. John's ( NY). He was initially used as a starter, but became the stereotypical situational lefty by the fourth year of his 10 -year career. Given that convenient 10 -year stint as a denominator, his seasonal averages look like this: 1.8 wins, 3.2 losses, 33 appearances, 48 innings, with that era of 5.37.

Of course, none of those details has any direct effect on his skill and style as a broadcaster. But for my taste, he is over the top with granular details on almost every pitch– where it was, where the pitcher tried to put it, how that pitch might have been better conceived or executed. Most of that commentary comes after the fact, raising the accuracy, but dropping the insightfulness value to nil.

I hate to say it, but his broadcast style came to mind the other night while I was viewing a tornado watch broadcast on local television. The meteorologist was speaking rapidly, non- stop, with lots of details ( including terms I'd never heard, like " tornado signature ") . He was quite animated, but 95% of his verbiage was about what had just happened to our west, as opposed to what was happening in the moment , or about to happen in the near future. To borrow a line from Tom Cruise's character in" A Few Good Men, "his passion was compelling, but also useless. " That's probably a little harsh, but it's no less true.

As a bonus, CJ will on occasion drop off an A-Rod- like morsel of absurdity, disguised as inside information (recall A-Rod's contention that even number leads are always better than odd number leads). A week or so ago, CJ sought to put a positive spin on a bad moment, after a Braves reliever had just given up a late three- run homer by saying " the good thing is , that gets rid of all that traffic on the basepaths".

Huh? Isn't the reason that "traffic" is bothersome to a pitcher is because it MIGHT produce runs for the other team? If so, then there is no good thing about traffic that just disappeared by actually becoming runs.

And just last night, Nitkowski covered for a baserunner who held third base against the wishes and gyrations of his third base coach by saying " the runner couldn't hear him." Highly unlikely, said my brain, as they were only about five feet apart and in plain view proximity. Why not say that the runner seemed to defy his base coach, and explore that circumstance? That kind of " expert commentary" invites skepticism, not understanding.

My personal preference is a little more embrace of quiet time on a television broadcast, as opposed to radio. Both CJ and Gaudin like to talk. And really, that's their job. But​ it's a rare three or four seconds that aren't filled with words. In fact, I sometimes wonder, are they paid by the word?

I say to all TV announcers, emphasize the "vision" in television. Add helpful detail, sure, if available and pertinent, --as opposed to incessant detail, that can invite wonder about when and how the talker actually inhales air.

To be fair, the job these guys perform is probably more challenging than I realize. And maybe they review each game like a good coach might do, assessing what to keep and what to change. But I look at it as though these two guys are right behind me at a ballgame, where I cannot help but hear everything they say​. My gauge is to decide if I'd like to lean in and hear every word, or get up and move out of earshot. For now, for them, I'd make the move. Not in a hurry, mind you– but I'd make the move.

One final whine– they both love to keep us updated on the pitch count. From the second inning on, the count will be mentioned and emphasized. For a stat that was barely considered a generation ago, now we hear about it incessantly.

When I coached 12u, we had strict pitch counts for young arms, which made sense. For grown men making millions to pitch every five days, I don't think we need a running constant awareness of the pitch count like a sort of doomsday clock countdown for the hurler.

So, as the announcing options go, I prefer the " aw, shucks" affable tones of Jeff Francoeur, or the spare stylings of Joe Simpson.

Or sometimes I just go with the mute button for an inning or two.