Blogger on Marty's game-calling: That poor (expletive) has simply lost it

[Matt700wlw]

Well, there is a big difference. He gets paid to give us a play-by-play of the game as it occurs on the field, something he's been failing to do for years now. Does that count as "lack of hustle" or "not playing the game the right way?"

I had last night's game on the radio (no visual, not working...just listening as a fan) and I had no problem following the game based on Marty "failing to give PBP"

Different strokes for different folks I guess...

[StillFunkyB]

It was so discombobulating that I plan to blame Brennaman when the new shelves come crashing down on the Volvo next winter.

Someone needs to tell him he has it all wrong....

Blame Bob Boone

[lollipopcurve]

Bummer...Marty wants to see a winner like the rest of us.

No, Marty wants a winner now, this minute, or he's going to make a mess of his high chair and scream as loud as he can.

[REDREAD]

Lastly the media in this town is awful. It isn't manditory but I would love to see an explayer host a daily show.

Last night one of Paul Daughtery's topics on the post game show was encouraging people to call in and make the case why it's better to go see the Cyclones (minor league hockey) as opposed to the Reds. This was between the normal sessions of blaming Jr and Dunn for all the team's problems, and a lame attempt to stir the pot to get Cubs fans to call in.

One would've never guessed that the Reds actually won last night based on the postgame.

[dabvu2498]

So why do you listen?

[REDREAD]

So why do you listen?

So I know what happens during the game.. I wish I had a better option, but the radio lets me get things done around the house while I keep up with the Reds. I do enjoy it more when Brantley is on solo.

My only other option is to completely bag the Reds and start listening to the Indians, which I've considered... Or perhaps get XM radio so I only get Marty half the time.. I don't have time to sit in front of the PC all night and watch the ESPN gametracker..

EDIT: If you meant the postgame show, usually the radio goes off as soon as the last out is recorded. Last night I left the radio on because I was in the middle of putting polyeurthane on something..The postgame show blows and I usually avoid it.

[bucksfan]

Listening to baseball is supposed to be fun -- even when they are losing. It is not fun anymore and it is largely Marty's fault.

This part I can really relate to. I won't say it's all Marty's fault because the whole "losing 5 games in a row" thing can shoulder some blame, but I certainly prefer listening to a ballgame to be an enjoyable experience, win or lose. FOr many years it was that for me. I am an unabashed fan of Joe Nuxhall and always have been, but I always thought Marty was really good too. I thought they complimented each other well and absolutely appreciated the skill Marty brings to the broadcast.

I don't expect a rose-colored glasses view of all the games, but I also don't want personal rants and excessive negatism of the team I have always rooted for. Baseball is a business I know, but I don't want it announced like a business, with every single failing to hit every single KPI to be broadcast and harped on endlessly. Admittedly, I do prefer a bit of a homer slant in the broadcast for sure, but really nothing more than what we had a few years agao with M&J in the booth. I can still certainly glean enjoyment out of some of the broadcasts (I try very hard to as listening to baseball on the radio has been a staple in most of my 42 years), even with the losing. But I think Marty now is making it a too hard to do so sometimes.

[SMcGavin]

With Dunn and Harang, I think it's a couple of things. First, it's a matter of expectations. Dunn was supposed to be an annual MVP candidate along the lines of Albert Pujols. When he's not progressed to the level most expected him to (including myself here), he's been seen as a huge disappointment. I'm currently in town for a couple of weeks and went to the game last night for the first time in almost two years, and there are a lot of fans that just loathe Adam Dunn.

I think this is a lot of it. I remember reading an ESPN.com article that asked baseball GMs to name any player 25 and under that they would take to start a franchise. The compiled list started with Alex Rodriguez at #1, and Adam Dunn was #2. He ended up being really good, but to a lot of people he still never lived up to expectations. If Jay Bruce ends up having a career similar to that of Dunn, I think he will get the same flak.

[GAC]

Maybe that's what he meant, but it sure didn't come across that way.
It came across as pretty sarcastic. Why wouldn't he just say "Aaron Harang, who has pitched much better than his 1-4 record indicates".

And I'm 100% sure he said it the way I typed it..Not the way you typed it (which has a different meaning)..

Unless he corrected himself afterwards. Maybe he realized how bad it sounded... I was walking in and out of the room, so maybe he corrected himself.

I heard it, and there was no sarcastic tone to it at all IMO. In announcing the matchups for the next day he said Zambrano will be facing Aaron Harang "the best 1-4 pitcher in major league history." He was definitely implying that Harang has been a tough luck pitcher so far this year who hasn't got the run support. And what he said was right on.

[vaticanplum]

Will someone please, PLEASE tell me what it is Marty Brenneman has to be "bitter" about? He has been recognized as a Hall of Famer. The Reds have gone out and hired his son to work with him. They've also gotten a partner in Jeff Brantley who he seems to have a terrific rapport with. Marty gets nothing but praise and respect all around baseball. He is not, nor has he ever been a bitter man. Is he outraged at the downward path of the club? Yes. So am I. "Bitter" is another instance of Redszone grabbing on to a word because it sounds small or degrading--like "scrappy." It is a classic instance of demagoguery. It needs to just stop--if you disagree with Marty, say so, and say why. He'd afford you that respect. Cut the the diminutive "gotcha" language and grow up.

Apart from the personal sideswipes you make, that's an excellent question. What reason DOES Marty have to be bitter? You tell me, because I can't think of a one. And I listen to him probably more than most, and I do read him as bitter, and it's not my catch phrase way of degrading him, thank you. I think he's an excellent announcer in many respects, but the tone of his calling can be downright vile -- unhappy, disgusted, and yes, bitter. And you're right, he's got a great job and his son is in the booth with him and he's a Hall of Famer etc. And yet he sounds downright personally affronted that his team has become this bad.

Hence my major problem with Brennaman's calling these days: his lack of objectivity. I am personally affronted that this team is so bad, yes. I've given them a lot of my time and effort and money and I expect a better return. But if I'm a journalist, it is my JOB not to bring that personal bitterness to the table. I have to put it aside to objectively analyze, in this case, a baseball game. And as others have stated, Marty's facts are fewer and farther between. His knowledge of a lot currently going on in the game is slipping. His actual game calling is spotty -- it varies from game to game and sometimes from inning to inning. If my baseball team is bad, I want to hear why, and by that I mean facts: wide-ranging statistics explaining the reasons for the batting order, inside knowledge of what the hitting coach is doing to improve batting average. Telling me over and over and over again that the Reds aren't playing fundamental baseball doesn't really help me understand, particularly when "fundamental" is never really defined. He should call each and every game like he's calling it to an audience that has never heard a baseball game in their lives. Period.

A defense I hear a lot in Marty's favor is "he tells it like it is". Ok, I'll tell it like it is: this is a bad baseball team. Is that enough? Couldn't any person who's watched the Reds this season, in that sense, tell it like it is? Baseball announcing is a tough, tough job, and to do it well you don't just tell it like it is. You tell it like it is, and why it is, and what is being done to make it not like it is, and what the exceptions are in its state of is-ness, and why other teams are the way the are, and most of all you have to make sure that you're telling us about the baseball game the way it is, not your personal indignation at how bad it is over. and over. and over. No one is asking him to be a homer. But I would like him to be objective. I'd call him on it just the same if he were overly optimistic and giddy over this team. But I hear very little objectivity in his calling anymore. It's the same old every night, how terrible this team is and how it's never getting better, with very little enlightenment as to why this is or how it can improve.

And yes, it comes across as bitter to me. There's the journalism critic in me that says that anything coming across as such a strong and obvioius personal opinion automatically squelches objectivity, but there's also my own personal taste that I don't happen to find that much fun to listen to. Baseball is my diversion, for crying out loud, as it is for pretty much 99.99% of the people Marty's calling for. I could tune into the broadcast of any games the Reds were losing and enjoy it and learn a lot more if the guy calling the game didn't spend most of his time just letting off steam. Ron Santo, unlike Marty, is inherently a pretty terrible baseball announcer, but he's never more fun to listen to than when the Cubs are losing (hold all Cubs jokes, please). You sense that no matter what he's watching on the field, he'd still rather be watching that field than doing anything else on the planet. That's pretty much how I feel about baseball, or there's no way in hell I'd still be watching this team. You can be disgusted with the choices of your team and still derive great joy from the game. Marty always sounds like he'd rather be anywhere else in the world than calling the game, like he needs a good long vacation. You can be as critical as you want and not sound like that (objectivity helps). And yes, that's my opinion and taste. Call me crazy: spending three hours listening to a game I love railed on and torn apart by someone who sounds like he hates it is not my favorite way to spend my time.

[Yachtzee]

Apart from the personal sideswipes you make, that's an excellent question. What reason DOES Marty have to be bitter? You tell me, because I can't think of a one. And I listen to him probably more than most, and I do read him as bitter, and it's not my catch phrase way of degrading him, thank you. I think he's an excellent announcer in many respects, but the tone of his calling can be downright vile -- unhappy, disgusted, and yes, bitter. And you're right, he's got a great job and his son is in the booth with him and he's a Hall of Famer etc. And yet he sounds downright personally affronted that his team has become this bad.

Hence my major problem with Brennaman's calling these days: his lack of objectivity. I am personally affronted that this team is so bad, yes. I've given them a lot of my time and effort and money and I expect a better return. But if I'm a journalist, it is my JOB not to bring that personal bitterness to the table. I have to put it aside to objectively analyze, in this case, a baseball game. And as others have stated, Marty's facts are fewer and farther between. His knowledge of a lot currently going on in the game is slipping. His actual game calling is spotty -- it varies from game to game and sometimes from inning to inning. If my baseball team is bad, I want to hear why, and by that I mean facts: wide-ranging statistics explaining the reasons for the batting order, inside knowledge of what the hitting coach is doing to improve batting average. Telling me over and over and over again that the Reds aren't playing fundamental baseball doesn't really help me understand, particularly when "fundamental" is never really defined. He should call each and every game like he's calling it to an audience that has never heard a baseball game in their lives. Period.

A defense I hear a lot in Marty's favor is "he tells it like it is". Ok, I'll tell it like it is: this is a bad baseball team. Is that enough? Couldn't any person who's watched the Reds this season, in that sense, tell it like it is? Baseball announcing is a tough, tough job, and to do it well you don't just tell it like it is. You tell it like it is, and why it is, and what is being done to make it not like it is, and what the exceptions are in its state of is-ness, and why other teams are the way the are, and most of all you have to make sure that you're telling us about the baseball game the way it is, not your personal indignation at how bad it is over. and over. and over. No one is asking him to be a homer. But I would like him to be objective. I'd call him on it just the same if he were overly optimistic and giddy over this team. But I hear very little objectivity in his calling anymore. It's the same old every night, how terrible this team is and how it's never getting better, with very little enlightenment as to why this is or how it can improve.

And yes, it comes across as bitter to me. There's the journalism critic in me that says that anything coming across as such a strong and obvioius personal opinion automatically squelches objectivity, but there's also my own personal taste that I don't happen to find that much fun to listen to. Baseball is my diversion, for crying out loud, as it is for pretty much 99.99% of the people Marty's calling for. I could tune into the broadcast of any games the Reds were losing and enjoy it and learn a lot more if the guy calling the game didn't spend most of his time just letting off steam. Ron Santo, unlike Marty, is inherently a pretty terrible baseball announcer, but he's never more fun to listen to than when the Cubs are losing (hold all Cubs jokes, please). You sense that no matter what he's watching on the field, he'd still rather be watching that field than doing anything else on the planet. That's pretty much how I feel about baseball, or there's no way in hell I'd still be watching this team. You can be disgusted with the choices of your team and still derive great joy from the game. Marty always sounds like he'd rather be anywhere else in the world than calling the game, like he needs a good long vacation. You can be as critical as you want and not sound like that (objectivity helps). And yes, that's my opinion and taste. Call me crazy: spending three hours listening to a game I love railed on and torn apart by someone who sounds like he hates it is not my favorite way to spend my time.

I think you've said it better than I could. A sign that Marty doesn't enjoy baseball anymore. . . the fact that he hates extra inning games because they mess with his golf game the next day. I don't think it matters whether the Reds are bad or good, he complains if the game goes longer than he feels it should. If he were a true "fan," as they say, he should be excited that "his" team is still in the game trying to scratch out a win.

Over the years, I've tried to offer constructive criticism of Marty. Many people who have issues with the way Marty calls a game have tried to be constructive. But these threads usually devolve into those who support him trying to discount anything anyone says against Mr. Brennaman and those who don't like his current performance trying to justify a layperson's right to criticize. Just because someone may not like his performance or may find fault with him doesn't mean that that person hates him as a person. It just means they don't agree with the form or substance of his statements toward the team. I don't like Marty's excessively negative attitude so I don't listen. Doesn't mean I necessarily like George Grande's sunshine, puppies, and Jim Edmonds style or want a robot who just drones on about the score and number of outs either. One can be very objective and provide a colorful description of even the most mundane T-ball game, if they love what they do. Based on his approach to Reds baseball, I question whether Marty truly loves what he does anymore. If not, there are plenty of hungry young broadcasters with a love of the game who would be more than happy to have the opportunity. Maybe it's time to look for the next Marty, or Vin Scully or Jack Brickhouse or Mel Allen.

[Always Red]

I think you've said it better than I could. A sign that Marty doesn't enjoy baseball anymore. . . the fact that he hates extra inning games because they mess with his golf game the next day. I don't think it matters whether the Reds are bad or good, he complains if the game goes longer than he feels it should. If he were a true "fan," as they say, he should be excited that "his" team is still in the game trying to scratch out a win.

Over the years, I've tried to offer constructive criticism of Marty. Many people who have issues with the way Marty calls a game have tried to be constructive. But these threads usually devolve into those who support him trying to discount anything anyone says against Mr. Brennaman and those who don't like his current performance trying to justify a layperson's right to criticize. Just because someone may not like his performance or may find fault with him doesn't mean that that person hates him as a person. It just means they don't agree with the form or substance of his statements toward the team. I don't like Marty's excessively negative attitude so I don't listen. Doesn't mean I necessarily like George Grande's sunshine, puppies, and Jim Edmonds style or want a robot who just drones on about the score and number of outs either. One can be very objective and provide a colorful description of even the most mundane T-ball game, if they love what they do. Based on his approach to Reds baseball, I question whether Marty truly loves what he does anymore. If not, there are plenty of hungry young broadcasters with a love of the game who would be more than happy to have the opportunity. Maybe it's time to look for the next Marty, or Vin Scully or Jack Brickhouse or Mel Allen.

good post; and vp's before it as well. Marty is just not much into it anymore, it seems. My idea of a summer's evening in heaven is a warm, beautiful night, and Marty and Joe on the radio- so I have been a big fan, for a very long time.

Maybe some of Marty's attitude (other than bad baseball) is the sickness and passing of his good friend and sidekick Joe Nuxhall? I'm willing to give Marty the benefit of the doubt on that. Regardless- Marty is not the same guy he was. He has lost some of his professionalism, and it seems to have happened mostly after his election to the Hall of Fame.

As far as bringing in the next generation- that ship sailed when the Reds brought in Thom. I like Thom, generally, but as long as Thom is here, Marty will be here, too.

[REDREAD]

I heard it, and there was no sarcastic tone to it at all IMO. In announcing the matchups for the next day he said Zambrano will be facing Aaron Harang "the best 1-4 pitcher in major league history." He was definitely implying that Harang has been a tough luck pitcher so far this year who hasn't got the run support. And what he said was right on.

Again, you are changing the order of the words. It is different when you say it that way. He said it as I quoted it.. Maybe he later retracted it or clarified it, but I quoted how he said it as soon as the game ended.

But you can not deny that Marty continually makes sarcastic remarks like that. In the same game, there were men on base, Dunn at the plate. Brantley said something like "Well, it would be great to get a moon shot here".. Marty quickly snapped "How about just a basehit ..."

It wears on you when the entire game is full of Marty taking every chance to cut the team down. In game 1 of the Cub's series, Marty was relishing the fact that the Reds might blow the game. He got real excited when he it looked like Derrick Lee would get a chance with the game on the line. He got excited announcing as Cordero fell apart...

[Screwball]

It wears on you when the entire game is full of Marty taking every chance to cut the team down. In game 1 of the Cub's series, Marty was relishing the fact that the Reds might blow the game. He got real excited when he it looked like Derrick Lee would get a chance with the game on the line. He got excited announcing as Cordero fell apart...

Maybe you would rather he be monotonous and/or dull, but I sure enjoyed him getting excited during an exciting part of the game.

And Marty must've clarified his statement about Harang, because at one point he definitely said it how I stated. Though, after thinking about it, I can see how someone might take what he said as a shot at Harang.

[AtomicDumpling]

Maybe you would rather he be monotonous and/or dull, but I sure enjoyed him getting excited during an exciting part of the game.

I felt like he was hoping the Cubs would take the lead so he could throw another tantrum. His "excitement" was very sarcastic and sour.

Getting excited hoping the Reds succeed is good.

Getting excited hoping the Reds fail is not good.

I don't really care what he says anymore because I don't listen to him anymore. I have had enough. I quit listening to him last year. I did happen to catch that part of the broadcast though.

I watch on TV or follow it on Gametracker.