Scott Garceau

[Philip]

There’s a story about Tom Landry having to cut one of his players who was also a very dear personal friend and very active in several Christian organizations along with Tom, and if I remember correctly, Tom was telling the team that he had had to cut this man, and he burst into tears.

The point is if that if a guy is terrible it doesn’t matter if he’s a nice guy. Melanie Newman may be the most wonderful human being God ever created, but she is an awful announcer in every possible way. I can’t bear listening to her, I feel like I’m in a therapy session. That she remains employed-or was hired in the first place-reveals too much about the judgement of Management..

Garceau doesn’t bother me as much as some do, But if he’s the most respected broadcaster in Baltimore than sheesh, there’s a real problem.

[Tony-OH]

17 hours ago, JimGinSP said:

DRINK ................. responsively.  Hilarious, a professional comic! 

Garceau didn’t have to do that interview,  I give him props for that.  I’m sure he didn’t think he was buying into calling games from monitors with players he has never encountered in locker room or hotel lobby situations.  
Anyone out there who filled out the fan survey a year or so ago regarding media thinking “be afraid what you ask for”?  
But really, I guess this is now the third year of the Orioles using Kevin Brown.  Not sure if anyone noticed about two weeks back when he worked with Hollander on the radio side that he would be excited to be off for awhile doing the Women’s Softball Collegiate WS (for ESPN, not mentioned).  The Orioles really need to get away from this “contract labor” approach to broadcasting.  Sign Brown to be the next “voice of the Orioles” and roll with him for the next few decades.  It’s MLB damn it,  your leading broadcaster leaving for awhile to do SOFTBALL!  Not quite like missing Sunday games to do Sunday Night Baseball.  

And this is the beginning for him. The Orioles would do well to get sign him to a contract and make him the lead announcer on TV because if not, he's going to be gobbled up by a national broadcast entity. 

[Tony-OH]

16 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Brett Hollander has really impressed me because when he was originally hired I assumed his role would mostly be hosting the pregame and postgame shows. I've heard him call several games this year and he does a good job.

And Brett really knows the minor leagues and he asks excellent questions to Elias and other when he has opportunities. Brett has always been an under utilized entity around Baltimore since he lost his main sports gig when WBAL lost the Orioles broadcasts. I'm glad to see him getting another shot and he's done very well. He teams up very well with Geoff Arnold on the radio. Arnold was a minor league announcer who was ready for the big leagues and he's improved over the last year or so and has good chemistry with both Hollander and Brown.

[Tony-OH]

15 hours ago, Philip said:

There’s a story about Tom Landry having to cut one of his players who was also a very dear personal friend and very active in several Christian organizations along with Tom, and if I remember correctly, Tom was telling the team that he had had to cut this man, and he burst into tears.

The point is if that if a guy is terrible it doesn’t matter if he’s a nice guy. Melanie Newman may be the most wonderful human being God ever created, but she is an awful announcer in every possible way. I can’t bear listening to her, I feel like I’m in a therapy session. That she remains employed-or was hired in the first place-reveals too much about the judgement of Management..

Garceau doesn’t bother me as much as some do, But if he’s the most respected broadcaster in Baltimore than sheesh, there’s a real problem.

Newman is really quite knowledgeable about baseball but her catatonic tone during her radio broadcasts really comes across like a minor league broadcast more than a major league one. She struggles to describe the type of action making it hard to know whether the play was routine or fantastic before the actual play was made. I struggle to understand the flow of the game action when she announces.

I think she does much better with the aftergame show and I've heard her on the pregame radio show before and she does quite well when giving analysis. I will say she's the weakest broadcaster of the new blood brought, but she does have some redeeming qualities with her baseball analysis and understanding of the game.

 

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Newman is really quite knowledgeable about baseball but her catatonic tone during her radio broadcasts really comes across like a minor league broadcast more than a major league one. She struggles to describe the type of action making it hard to know whether the play was routine or fantastic before the actual play was made. I struggle to understand the flow of the game action when she announces.

I think she does much better with the aftergame show and I've heard her on the pregame radio show before and she does quite well when giving analysis. I will say she's the weakest broadcaster of the new blood brought, but she does have some redeeming qualities with her baseball analysis and understanding of the game.

 

If you have a bad voice nothing else matters. And she does. She might be great for anything that requires subtlety gentleness, but nothing involving excitement. 

[scbalt52]

13 minutes ago, Philip said:

If you have a bad voice nothing else matters. And she does. She might be great for anything that requires subtlety gentleness, but nothing involving excitement. 

Yeah she would be a great golf announcer

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Newman is really quite knowledgeable about baseball but her catatonic tone during her radio broadcasts really comes across like a minor league broadcast more than a major league one. She struggles to describe the type of action making it hard to know whether the play was routine or fantastic before the actual play was made. I struggle to understand the flow of the game action when she announces.

I think she does much better with the aftergame show and I've heard her on the pregame radio show before and she does quite well when giving analysis. I will say she's the weakest broadcaster of the new blood brought, but she does have some redeeming qualities with her baseball analysis and understanding of the game.

 

I agree with all this.  I’m more than fine with her pre- and post-game work.   Her in-game work might be better if she just relaxed a bit and let her personality show through.   

[SteveA]

4 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Newman is really quite knowledgeable about baseball but her catatonic tone during her radio broadcasts really comes across like a minor league broadcast more than a major league one. She struggles to describe the type of action making it hard to know whether the play was routine or fantastic before the actual play was made. I struggle to understand the flow of the game action when she announces.

I think she does much better with the aftergame show and I've heard her on the pregame radio show before and she does quite well when giving analysis. I will say she's the weakest broadcaster of the new blood brought, but she does have some redeeming qualities with her baseball analysis and understanding of the game.

 

Exactly this.   With the really good announcers, when something big is happening, there is change in the tenor of their voice to suit the "bigness" of the moment.  No occasionally that can be deceiving (i.e. Fred Manfra thinking that routine fly balls might clear the wall clearly getting excited about them).   But after a lifetime of listening to baseball on the radio. we all expect those non-verbal cues to help paint the picture.   When they aren't there we actually have to parse the words one by one to understand what happens.   

Let's say Austin Hays is trying to throw a runner out at the plate.   In anticipation of that play, one of the most exciting plays in baseball, most announcers' tone will change and by the time the announcer says "and he's out!" or "and he's safe!" we have built up our excitement and have an immediate reaction with the word "out" or "safe".

With Newman, she will be describing what happens in a monotone, the play will be over, and it will take a second or so for our mind to register the words and then we realize -- oh, Austin Hays threw that guy out at the plate.   How nice.   That endorphin rush of excitement you get as a fan from the exciting play never comes.   It's a big letdown.   It is almost like work to listen to her because you basically have to parse every word to find out what's happening because there are no nonverbal cues in the change of tone to indicate what is critical.

It's like someone who just learned to read and has to sound out each word and then put them together and glean the overall meaning of the sentence, as opposed to veteran readers who glance at the text, and while they may miss a word or two or some nuance, can pretty much get the gist of a sentence in one glance.

[WillyM]

I sometimes wish that the current Oriole announcers could listen to tapes of Chuck Thompson and how he used to describe a close play during a radio broadcast.

For example, if Luis Aparicio tried to steal a base, Chuck's commentary would go something like this.

"Aparicio takes his lead at first.  The pitcher comes set.  Aparicio runs.  The pitch is taken for a strike.  There's the throw to second and he iiiis - SAFE at second base (or OUT at second base, if that were the case)."

We listeners knew something exciting was about to happen and then Chuck told us what happened, right away.

While the current announcers eventually get around to telling us what happened, the excitement level is several notches below what Chuck used to be able to create.

[Philip]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I agree with all this.  I’m more than fine with her pre- and post-game work.   Her in-game work might be better if she just relaxed a bit and let her personality show through.   

If she has a personality, she has it hidden far far away

[Philip]

2 hours ago, SteveA said:

Exactly this.   With the really good announcers, when something big is happening, there is change in the tenor of their voice to suit the "bigness" of the moment.  No occasionally that can be deceiving (i.e. Fred Manfra thinking that routine fly balls might clear the wall clearly getting excited about them).   But after a lifetime of listening to baseball on the radio. we all expect those non-verbal cues to help paint the picture.   When they aren't there we actually have to parse the words one by one to understand what happens.   

Let's say Austin Hays is trying to throw a runner out at the plate.   In anticipation of that play, one of the most exciting plays in baseball, most announcers' tone will change and by the time the announcer says "and he's out!" or "and he's safe!" we have built up our excitement and have an immediate reaction with the word "out" or "safe".

With Newman, she will be describing what happens in a monotone, the play will be over, and it will take a second or so for our mind to register the words and then we realize -- oh, Austin Hays threw that guy out at the plate.   How nice.   That endorphin rush of excitement you get as a fan from the exciting play never comes.   It's a big letdown.   It is almost like work to listen to her because you basically have to parse every word to find out what's happening because there are no nonverbal cues in the change of tone to indicate what is critical.

It's like someone who just learned to read and has to sound out each word and then put them together and glean the overall meaning of the sentence, as opposed to veteran readers who glance at the text, and while they may miss a word or two or some nuance, can pretty much get the gist of a sentence in one glance.

In a nutshell, she’s BAD. She’s no emotion in her delivery. She sounds like they reading the phone book. When I describe her to Siri, I’m being literal. Next time you use your GPS, Compare Siri’s. Voice to Newman’s and you’ll agree that Siri is more involved. It’s not just how she uses her voice, it’s the voice itself. Monotonic and monochromatic.  There’s no overtones, no inflection , no changes in pacing or delivery. She has no business doing this job.

 

[SteveA]

4 hours ago, SteveA said:

Exactly this.   With the really good announcers, when something big is happening, there is change in the tenor of their voice to suit the "bigness" of the moment.  No occasionally that can be deceiving (i.e. Fred Manfra thinking that routine fly balls might clear the wall clearly getting excited about them).   But after a lifetime of listening to baseball on the radio. we all expect those non-verbal cues to help paint the picture.   When they aren't there we actually have to parse the words one by one to understand what happens.   

Let's say Austin Hays is trying to throw a runner out at the plate.   In anticipation of that play, one of the most exciting plays in baseball, most announcers' tone will change and by the time the announcer says "and he's out!" or "and he's safe!" we have built up our excitement and have an immediate reaction with the word "out" or "safe".

With Newman, she will be describing what happens in a monotone, the play will be over, and it will take a second or so for our mind to register the words and then we realize -- oh, Austin Hays threw that guy out at the plate.   How nice.   That endorphin rush of excitement you get as a fan from the exciting play never comes.   It's a big letdown.   It is almost like work to listen to her because you basically have to parse every word to find out what's happening because there are no nonverbal cues in the change of tone to indicate what is critical.

It's like someone who just learned to read and has to sound out each word and then put them together and glean the overall meaning of the sentence, as opposed to veteran readers who glance at the text, and while they may miss a word or two or some nuance, can pretty much get the gist of a sentence in one glance.

Absolute perfect example.  Was just driving home from work and listening on the radio.  Mountcastle was on first with two outs.

Melanie's call, with little change or inflection in her voice to indicate anything unusual happens, went something like: "Mountcastle runs and... That's 1-3-4.  He ran too soon in and the inning is over".  Hearing the 1-3-4 I have to do the mental calculations and realize that he got picked off first.

A professional broadcaster would have said something like "Mountcastle takes off .. and the pitcher goes to first, they have him picked off, he throws to the 2nd baseman for the out".  And the tone of the professional's voice would have changed to grab you attention and indicate a significant play was happening.  You wouldn't be left puzzling out "it's 1-3-4" to piece together exactly what happened.  She never explicitly mentioned the pitcher throwing to first as it happened or even after.  She didn't paint a picture, she left clues and left it up to the listener to piece it together.  The listener who is likely driving or doing something else  land is expecting a pitch to the plate.

[Yardball85]

16 hours ago, WillyM said:

I sometimes wish that the current Oriole announcers could listen to tapes of Chuck Thompson and how he used to describe a close play during a radio broadcast.

For example, if Luis Aparicio tried to steal a base, Chuck's commentary would go something like this.

"Aparicio takes his lead at first.  The pitcher comes set.  Aparicio runs.  The pitch is taken for a strike.  There's the throw to second and he iiiis - SAFE at second base (or OUT at second base, if that were the case)."

We listeners knew something exciting was about to happen and then Chuck told us what happened, right away.

While the current announcers eventually get around to telling us what happened, the excitement level is several notches below what Chuck used to be able to create.

I know he isn't popular around here, but Jim Hunter was very good at this.  Jim was good at a lot of those types of things, he was just a  big homer. 

[glenn__davis]

13 hours ago, SteveA said:

Absolute perfect example.  Was just driving home from work and listening on the radio.  Mountcastle was on first with two outs.

Melanie's call, with little change or inflection in her voice to indicate anything unusual happens, went something like: "Mountcastle runs and... That's 1-3-4.  He ran too soon in and the inning is over".  Hearing the 1-3-4 I have to do the mental calculations and realize that he got picked off first.

Spot on.  This has been my main criticism of her.  I listen to games on the radio a lot, and she just doesn't call the action well enough yet.  Too many times she doesn't describe everything that happened in a play and you're left trying to piece it together.  We got spoiled by Jon Miller and Joe Angel but they were exceptional at this.

I do like the rest of her game though, so I hope she can continue to improve and get better at this part of it.

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

I counted 4 names he got wrong yesterday and 3 so far today but I was working and not fully paying attention in this blowout. That is nuts. You can't get that many names wrong on a daily basis.