Posted by George Astro on 10/25/2005, 3:59 pm

There was an article in today's Houston Chronicle about the litany of criticism of McCarver. Unfortunately, the writer made his own lame attempts to counter the criticism, but the article was still nice to see. It prompted me to send the following letter to the editor, which I doubt will be printed. Dear Sirs: Thank you for the article by Mike McDaniel on the untalented, overmatched baseball announcer Tim McCarver ["It's Always Hot in McCarver's Kitchen", Star section, 10/12/2005]. While a certain amount of flak is inevitable for any announcer, the article correctly points out that criticism of McCarver is uniquely widespread and long-standing. He is a shining example of the triumph of self-sustaining celebrity over actual talent, and it is refreshing to see him called out in print. I have one question for anyone who would praise McCarver: if he is NOT one of the worst sports commentators alive today, then for Pete's sake, who is? One of the wonderful things about sports is that, on the field, it is so mercilessly meritocratic. One of the the most frustrating things about sports is that off the field -- in the front office, in league administration, in the press box -- merit has so little relation to longevity or advancement. As an example, your writer cites McCarver's Emmy awards and his continuing contract with the Fox network as "evidence" of his supposed talent. Why would your writer assume that, because a media person is fawned over by others in the media, he is actually talented? Oh that's right -- your writer works for the media.