Originally Posted by FlightRick
Let me assure you: I like Kelch because he's good at his job, and whatever aesthetic/subjective issues people have with tone-of-voice or perceived personality are not things that I've registered to a degree that it annoys me. That's the sundae.
I do, however, like him even more than I otherwise would have because he's not Thom. And there's your cherry.
Bingo. That says it all, but the multitudes will disagree. You like him because he is not Marty and Thom, but Marty and Thom are revered by most of Redsland.
I like Marty (but not Thom), but listening to baseball, if you're not a baseball geek (as most of us are) require a little entertainment. Marty gives you that. Riding along in a car, you need to be entertained. Most people feel this way, and that's why Hawk Harrelson and others just keep people interested. It's more than the balls and strikes and errors and pitch counts as well as the OPS and OBP to most folks. It's the whole package. Guys like Kelch just give you the Joe Friday "just the facts, man" deal. It's Ok for most of us, but listening to a little commentary keeps things interesting for some of us. A monotone voice and a strained delivery (which I think Kelch has) tells us what is going on, but the entertainment factor is about zero. I don't listen to radio so much anymore unless I'm exiled in the bowels of lower Virginia like I was this weekend. I decided that it was much better to read here than put up with the long pauses and wrong names and boring delivery. Yep, that's me and as Randy said--differnt strokes for different folks. If I wangt a monotone delivery, I'll listen to Kris Kristofferson. If you can't see, it's important to paint a picture. Jack Fleming and Vin Scully did this. Jim Kelch, as nice a guy as he is (I've met him and like him) is not.