Kayte Christensen

[Warhawk]

In theory, the PBP guy is like a more polished fan who is making us, the viewers, more excited while we watch the game. Sort of like a narrator. The problem is, the guys who do it now, Draper and Jones, are just absolutely terrible. It's the same lame lines/cliches over and over again:

"Spin cycle"
"Weight room"
"Bully ball"
"Middie"
"Float game"
"Bang, bang, bang"
"Buddy....from Elk Grove" (sometimes they get creative and substitute different cities)

And then there is Jones and everything being a reference to food:

"Fox playing with his food up top"
"A little room service"
"He stole his cornbread"
"Jelly, jam, etc"
"Butter"
And the most incredible one of all: "He's hot like fish grease!"

It's just incredibly cringeworthy. The entire Kings TV crew, other than Morgan, is just terrible. I can deal with Kayte for now and I think she'll get better. I mean, they have Matt Barnes doing the pre, half, and post game shows. It's embarrassing, honestly.

True, but Grant did nothing for me either. Way too often all he said was the players names as they touched the ball. "Webber...Bibby....Christie....Vlade!" or whatever. And his same stuff got so old after so many years. At least these guys try to spice/change it up a bit more. I'm enjoying the broadcasts more this year than previously with the new voices and the increased analysis. I do miss Jerry though.

I'm not anti-PBP per se at all, I'm just personally more interested in the color/analysis side of things while I'm watching a televised game.

 

[GWD]

Good discussion. I said it before and will say it again; announcers are a big part of the enjoyment of the game. Sure, the game is the bottom line for what matters, but enjoying the broadcast and fan enjoyment is what drives the funding for the game.

No enjoyment, no fans, no money, no talent, and then loop back around.

 

[Section 101]

True, but Grant did nothing for me either. Way too often all he said was the players names as they touched the ball. "Webber...Bibby....Christie....Vlade!" or whatever. And his same stuff got so old after so many years. At least these guys try to spice/change it up a bit more. I'm enjoying the broadcasts more this year than previously with the new voices and the increased analysis. I do miss Jerry though.

I'm not anti-PBP per se at all, I'm just personally more interested in the color/analysis side of things while I'm watching a televised game.

They cant even get analysis correct. The other game they didn't know why it was clear path. When the play happened I knew it was clear path because he made the pass before the foul and Metu was ahead of the play. Instead of continuing to talk talk talk, watch the replay and look! You maybe would have noticed the pass before the foul and mentioned it.

 

[Warhawk]

They cant even get analysis correct. The other game they didn't know why it was clear path. When the play happened I knew it was clear path because he made the pass before the foul and Metu was ahead of the play. Instead of continuing to talk talk talk, watch the replay and look! You maybe would have noticed the pass before the foul and mentioned it.

Yeah, I got that one right when it happened, too. That was a strange situation because they called a clear path foul when the person fouled wasn't ahead of the defenders. But in general, I find what they provide informative.

 

[kingwin]

This is what color commentators do more frequently in general, or haven't you heard Jeff Van Gundy ramble on for 5 minutes about something random while play moves on. I don't think she's any worse at this than Christie or Jerry were. She just needs to make sure she picks her spots. End of game, important possessions, etc., of course her focus needs to be on the action. But if we're 2 minutes into the game and she's talking over some run of the mill play, free throw, or whatever, I personally think that's fine as long as the point she's making is interesting (and maybe that's where we differ).

I think she's doing a good job, but as Warhawk said... different strokes for different folks.

Her talking is fine. her doing her job as an analysis is fine. she is just very long winded(Shes not in studio anymore), she need to work on picking her spots, hell even Mark Jones poked fun at her a couple games ago. and im sorry she is def worse than jerry and doug at this point, but shes new, so its to be expected.

 

[Warhawk]

I had a conversation today with one of my best friends who isn't a basketball fan (VERY casual fan at best, and rarely, if ever, watches any basketball games). We never talk Kings, etc., since he doesn't really watch.

We went to a movie today and were driving back from the theater. Out of the blue, he told me he started watching a few more games this year and what has really stood out to him was Kayte's calls and analysis - he has actually started recording games this season and watches maybe half of them, in large part to Kayte's calls. We hadn't been talking Kings or anything. Literally, this was out of the blue.

Maybe some of you don't care for her, but a lot of folks (both who watch the games frequently and who rarely, if ever, watch the games) seem to like what she brings. And she's helping bring in fans to watch.

Edit: She's definitely still learning and will continue to improve, but what she brings is good for the game and the broadcast.

 

[24 rick barry]

I think Katie does a fine job. Should have had the job instead of Doug. But she has it now.

 

[206Fan]

I would agree with those above me. The difference between her and the predecessors is that she’s a lot more analytical than they were. Jerry was really fun with his one liners and had amazing chemistry with Grant. No one can beat them because they were two guys who had great timed stories that had absolutely nothing to do with the Kings currently being down 12pts. Doug reminds me of a younger Jerry before he had his noticeable unfortunate decline. He shared amazing enthusiasm for the team and was a great hire.

With that being said, I think the change is refreshing and great. If we brought someone else who would’ve tried to be Jerry 3.0, it would just sound like they’re trying too hard.

Kayte is really knowledgeable and does a great job of breaking down the plays for fans. She’s also not afraid to be unbiased. I think it compliments Mark Jackson and Draper pretty well (they’re on the more enthusiastic side), thus being a good balance all around.

It was always going to be hard for anyone to follow up Grand and Jerry, but I think our current guys are doing alright.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Kayte Christensen is, objectively, the best color analyst that the Kings have ever had. It's not close. Jerry Reynolds and Grant Napear had an irreplaceable chemistry, but that doesn't make the analysis inherently better. Also, they had thirty years to develop that chemistry: this is Year One for Kayte, and I'm not sure she's even done half the games with the primary play-by-play announcer.

Point is, she's already good, and she's going to get better. The biggest area of improvement for her is to learn to be more concise, and that'll come with time, as I'm sure the chemistry will, as well.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Maybe some of you don't care for her, but a lot of folks (both who watch the games frequently and who rarely, if ever, watch the games) seem to like what she brings. And she's helping bring in fans to watch.
.

The exact same thing you say above could be said for the former broadcast crew. So it’s not really an argument in anyones favor.

Look, we get it. She needs time to refine and improve. And she’ll surely get that time. But you and several others are working way too hard to sell her to others. Waaaaay too hard.

Using your friend as an example doesn’t somehow validate her. My wife and a few others I know can’t stand listening to her. But those examples don’t invalidate her. Both are just isolated examples that can be cited as a form of confirmation bias.

When all is said and done, if she’s really as good as some of you seem to believe she’ll eventually win people over. That’s typically how it works.

What might really help is the KINGS winning more games thus drumming up more interest in even watching these broadcasts. Right now there’s a lot of disinterest in the team.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Kayte Christensen is, objectively, the best color analyst that the Kings have ever had. It's not close.
.

You either don’t have a firm grasp of the meaning of the word “objectively” or are intentionally misusing it. Replace the word with “subjectively” and you’ll actually have a more “objective” take.

Proof lies in the fact that there are other subjective opinions just as valid as yours that disagree.

 

[Krunker]

"Spin cycle"
"Weight room"
"Bully ball"
"Middie"
"Float game"
"Bang, bang, bang"
"Buddy....from Elk Grove" (sometimes they get creative and substitute different cities)

And don't forget "big boy ball"!

I think Kayte's doing good. My favorite sportscaster is G-Man.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You either don’t have a firm grasp of the meaning of the word “objectively” or are intentionally misusing it. Replace the word with “subjectively” and you’ll actually have a more “objective” take.

Proof lies in the fact that there are other subjective opinions just as valid as yours that disagree.

That's not how objectivity works. If I say that, "X makes the best hamburger," that's a subjective opinion, because you can't define what makes a good hamburger by anything other than an individual's personal tastes in hamburgers. If I say that I'm posting in teal, and you say, "It looks kinda green, to me," then one of us is objectively wrong: it doesn't matter whether you "disagree," or not. A color commentator has actual responsibilities during the broadcast, which means how good one is, objectively, can be determined by their skill in executing those responsibilities.

• Analysis of game play. Christensen's game analysis has been expert. Only Doug Christie has been as good, none have been better.
• Ability to describe what is happening, in plain language. Christensen's ability to explain the complexities of basketball plays, in plain language, has been superior to any other Kings analyst.
• Ability to provide background information and statistics. This is an area in which it's not really possible for one commentator to be objectively better than another, as it's rather more of a pass/fail thing: you're either competent at it, or not. My subjective opinion is that Kayte Christensen's background as a studio analyst and sideline reporter makes her better at this aspect of the job than her predecessors.
• Fill dead air periods with anecdotes and light humor. This is where Christensen is currently weakest and can largely be owed to having not worked enough with the primary play-by-play announcer to have developed chemistry, as she has demonstrated superior chemistry with her broadcast partners, both in studio, and on radio. In this aspect, she is not as good as Jerry Reynolds, about as good as Doug Christie.

In three of the four essential responsibilities of a color commentator, Kayte Christensen is as good, or better, than anyone that the Kings have ever hired to fill that role. Which makes her, objectively, the best the Kings have ever had, to do it. You can either like her, or dislike her, and reasonable people can disagree about that. But, if you think that whether she is the best analyst is a subjective opinion, the most likely explanation is that you are defining what makes a good color analyst according to criteria that is, itself, subjective.

 

[New Era]

It doesn't work like this. You're saying it's "objective" because you think the bullet points you listed there are facts. They are not. They are your opinion; your feeling on the subject.

Everything you list there is open to interpretation based on how an individual feels she is doing in these areas. Therefore, it's subjective.

Regardless, I respect your opinion....I'm glad you think she's doing great. I really hope she gets better. I thought she was fabulous as a sideline reporter and the pre/post game shows. Hopefully she'll get better. I think she has the right mindset to be open to critique.

 

[Warhawk]

But you and several others are working way too hard to sell her to others. Waaaaay too hard.

No. I'm not "selling" anything. It's just pushing back against unwarranted criticism that sometimes seems to be based on her sex/gender instead of her abilities (not saying you, but some others sure seem to be). I've been watching/listening to her since the House Party Live days and she brings the goods. Can she improve? Of course! Nobody is saying she is perfect by any means. And I believe, with time, she will continue to get better. But I think some fans have to be complaining or bashing people or else they aren't happy. And it would be a shame to have an overly vocal minority overshadow the good work she is doing.

If you look back, most of my comments state that I like what she brings as far as analysis and game breakdown. Some folks say they would like her to cut it back a bit and let the PBP guy talk more. I just happen to disagree most of the time - I don't find that the PBP (especially Draper) is really contributing all that much to my enjoyment and understanding of the game.

 

[New Era]

No. I'm not "selling" anything. It's just pushing back against unwarranted criticism that sometimes seems to be based on her sex/gender instead of her abilities (not saying you, but some others sure seem to be). I've been watching/listening to her since the House Party Live days and she brings the goods. Can she improve? Of course! Nobody is saying she is perfect by any means. And I believe, with time, she will continue to get better. But I think some fans have to be complaining or bashing people or else they aren't happy. And it would be a shame to have an overly vocal minority overshadow the good work she is doing.

If you look back, most of my comments state that I like what she brings as far as analysis and game breakdown. Some folks say they would like her to cut it back a bit and let the PBP guy talk more. I just happen to disagree most of the time - I don't find that the PBP (especially Draper) is really contributing all that much to my enjoyment and understanding of the game.

What basis do you have to claim that the criticism is mostly based on her gender? I have made it VERY clear that I thought she was outstanding in her other roll (which, traditionally has been held by male counterparts) but I think she's struggling in this role. It's possible she could improve and I hope she does.

I've also said that I think Jones, Draper, and Barnes are absolutely pathetic - they are all males. And I said that I think Morgan is great in her role - she's a female.

You can't just throw out the sexism claims because she is taking some criticism for her new role.

 

[Warhawk]

What basis do you have to claim that the criticism is mostly based on her gender? I have made it VERY clear that I thought she was outstanding in her other roll (which, traditionally has been held by male counterparts) but I think she's struggling in this role. It's possible she could improve and I hope she does.

I've also said that I think Jones, Draper, and Barnes are absolutely pathetic - they are all males. And I said that I think Morgan is great in her role - she's a female.

You can't just throw out the sexism claims because she is taking some criticism for her new role.

If you go back and read my post I specifically said "sometimes" and also not you (and, as you said, you have been clear about that). But I have heard some fans (not necessarily on this board) who have indeed stated, hinted, or implied as much. It is a "thing".

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It doesn't work like this. You're saying it's "objective" because you think the bullet points you listed there are facts. They are not. They are your opinion; your feeling on the subject.

Everything you list there is open to interpretation based on how an individual feels she is doing in these areas. Therefore, it's subjective.

No, the bullet points are, indeed. facts: those are the skill sets that a color analyst needs to have. You can accuse me of having a subjective assessment of those skills, but each of those criteria are metrics that can be graded, objectively. You can even accuse me of grading the criteria, subjectively, which may be a fair debate. But trying to say that the criteria, itself, is subjective, is like disagreeing about math. And if someone believes that Christensen is not, objectively, the best color analyst, I challenge them to provide a method for objectively evaluating color analysis, in which she does not score the highest.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

No, the bullet points are, indeed. facts: those are the skill sets that a color analyst needs to have. You can accuse me of having a subjective assessment of those skills, but each of those criteria are metrics that can be graded, objectively.

I have to disagree, and say that these bullet points are not *objectively* the role of the color analyst (or, lest we get caught up in the word "analyst", the "color commentator", i.e. the #2 person on the broadcast). What best fills the role of the color commentator is going to depend on what the audience wants in that commentary, and that varies from person to person, and from a population level could certainly vary from market to market depending on the demographics of the audience. Perhaps one audience prefers social commentary and politics to your bullet points. Perhaps another audience prefers home team cheering and insults to the opposing team without any analysis at all. Perhaps another audience would prefer that the color commentator simply read out loud from a romance novel during the game. Who's to say they're *objectively* wrong? What we prefer in color commentary is subjective, even if you and I basically agree on what the best color commentary is.

And if someone believes that Christensen is not, objectively, the best color analyst, I challenge them to provide a method for objectively evaluating color analysis, in which she does not score the highest.

I'm not sure I've seen anybody arguing that Christensen is objectively *not* the best color commentator - the argument is rather that there is no objective measure of quality of a color comentator. I'm not sure why somebody who takes the position that there is no objective measure of quality of a color commentator would then accept the challenge to provide such a method.

That said, because I don't think I've chimed in on this and I might be taken to be arguing *against* Christensen rather than arguing against the objectivity of color commentator quality, I'll say a bit more:

1) I basically agree with Slim's bullet points as the qualities that I find important in a color commentator, but I rank "fill dead air periods" higher
2) I agree with Slim that Kayte fills these bullet points better than previous color commentators in the past two decades
3) Kayte, Doug, and Jerry all get passing grades (say, B or better) as color commentators in my opinion. I have them ordered Jerry>Kayte>Doug, because Jerry had a familiar hometimey feel to him that I loved, even though he was not as good as Kayte in giving straight basketball analysis to the audience.

 

[Warhawk]

I have to disagree, and say that these bullet points are not *objectively* the role of the color analyst (or, lest we get caught up in the word "analyst", the "color commentator", i.e. the #2 person on the broadcast). What best fills the role of the color commentator is going to depend on what the audience wants in that commentary, and that varies from person to person, and from a population level could certainly vary from market to market depending on the demographics of the audience. Perhaps one audience prefers social commentary and politics to your bullet points. Perhaps another audience prefers home team cheering and insults to the opposing team without any analysis at all. Perhaps another audience would prefer that the color commentator simply read out loud from a romance novel during the game. Who's to say they're *objectively* wrong? What we prefer in color commentary is subjective, even if you and I basically agree on what the best color commentary is.



I'm not sure I've seen anybody arguing that Christensen is objectively *not* the best color commentator - the argument is rather that there is no objective measure of quality of a color comentator. I'm not sure why somebody who takes the position that there is no objective measure of quality of a color commentator would then accept the challenge to provide such a method.

That said, because I don't think I've chimed in on this and I might be taken to be arguing *against* Christensen rather than arguing against the objectivity of color commentator quality, I'll say a bit more:

1) I basically agree with Slim's bullet points as the qualities that I find important in a color commentator, but I rank "fill dead air periods" higher
2) I agree with Slim that Kayte fills these bullet points better than previous color commentators in the past two decades
3) Kayte, Doug, and Jerry all get passing grades (say, B or better) as color commentators in my opinion. I have them ordered Jerry>Kayte>Doug, because Jerry had a familiar hometimey feel to him that I loved, even though he was not as good as Kayte in giving straight basketball analysis to the audience.

Kings Name Kayte Christensen-Hunter as TV Game Analyst | Sacramento Kings (nba.com)

Well, she appears to have the title of "television game analyst", not "color commentator", so...

I agree with the bolded parts of your bullet points but would have a hard time with ranking Jerry and Kayte. I adore Jerry and what he brings on the air, but Katye actually teaches me something about the game and does it in a manner that is easy to follow and enjoyable. Here's an idea - instead of having a PBP person, let's just have Jerry and Kayte work the broadcast!

 

[Kingster]

I have to disagree, and say that these bullet points are not *objectively* the role of the color analyst (or, lest we get caught up in the word "analyst", the "color commentator", i.e. the #2 person on the broadcast). What best fills the role of the color commentator is going to depend on what the audience wants in that commentary, and that varies from person to person, and from a population level could certainly vary from market to market depending on the demographics of the audience. Perhaps one audience prefers social commentary and politics to your bullet points. Perhaps another audience prefers home team cheering and insults to the opposing team without any analysis at all. Perhaps another audience would prefer that the color commentator simply read out loud from a romance novel during the game. Who's to say they're *objectively* wrong? What we prefer in color commentary is subjective, even if you and I basically agree on what the best color commentary is.



I'm not sure I've seen anybody arguing that Christensen is objectively *not* the best color commentator - the argument is rather that there is no objective measure of quality of a color comentator. I'm not sure why somebody who takes the position that there is no objective measure of quality of a color commentator would then accept the challenge to provide such a method.

That said, because I don't think I've chimed in on this and I might be taken to be arguing *against* Christensen rather than arguing against the objectivity of color commentator quality, I'll say a bit more:

1) I basically agree with Slim's bullet points as the qualities that I find important in a color commentator, but I rank "fill dead air periods" higher
2) I agree with Slim that Kayte fills these bullet points better than previous color commentators in the past two decades
3) Kayte, Doug, and Jerry all get passing grades (say, B or better) as color commentators in my opinion. I have them ordered Jerry>Kayte>Doug, because Jerry had a familiar hometimey feel to him that I loved, even though he was not as good as Kayte in giving straight basketball analysis to the audience.

That's just silly nonsense, that everybody is soooo different that there is no commonality. Yeah, we may like to have her talk about how great Holmes is 99% of the time, even though the Kings are losing, or maybe talk about how great Buddy is 99% of the time, even though the Kings are losing, or how great Fox is, even though they are losing, on and on and on. Yeah, right, it's all subjective. God, for once it would be nice if she and Jones didn't have a pre-planned script that they just HAVE TO TELL YOU just when there is a steal by Davion or Fox goes baseline to baseline for the 2nd time of the season, or they change their defense, you know, something that has to to do with the game of basketball.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

That's just silly nonsense, that everybody is soooo different that there is no commonality. Yeah, we may like to have her talk about how great Holmes is 99% of the time, even though the Kings are losing, or maybe talk about how great Buddy is 99% of the time, even though the Kings are losing, or how great Fox is, even though they are losing, on and on and on. Yeah, right, it's all subjective. God, for once it would be nice if she and Jones didn't have a pre-planned script that they just HAVE TO TELL YOU just when there is a steal by Davion or Fox goes baseline to baseline for the 2nd time of the season, or they change their defense, you know, something that has to to do with the game of basketball.

I'm not entirely sure what just happened here. It seems as if there's one side that thinks there are objective standards that show Kayte to be good at her job, and another side that thinks that there are objective standards that show Kayte to be bad at her job, yet I'm getting potshots for being in the middle and saying there are no objective (only subjective) standards for what makes a good color commentator. OK.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

but Katye actually teaches me something about the game and does it in a manner that is easy to follow and enjoyable.

I got to ask, just what has she taught you about the game that you didn’t already know?

From visiting this site for many, many years I know you’ve been a fan a long time and have been to a ton of games. So unless I’ve drastically overrated your knowledge and long experience watching games it’s really hard to take a comment like this seriously.

It sounds like posturing and agenda pushing to me.

I’m not pretending to know every little detail there is to know about the game of basketball, but I haven’t heard an analyst say anything that “taught” me something I didn’t already know about the game in a long, long time.

Have they pointed out something in replay that I didn’t see live? Sure. Did they provide info from behind the scenes that we fans weren’t otherwise privy too? Of course.

But most these analysts aren’t teaching fundamental aspects longtime fans and those that have played the game much of their life don’t already know.

Seriously, I’d like to hear a few examples of what she’s taught you. This should be interesting.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I'm getting potshots for being in the middle and saying there are no objective (only subjective) standards for what makes a good color commentator. OK.

Potshots or not, you clearly understand the difference between objective and subjective.

Some of the attitudes expressed here remind me of those that believe the type of music or art they prefer most is objectively better than the types they don’t care for.

Preference = subjective opinion.

 

[Warhawk]

I got to ask, just what has she taught you about the game that you didn’t already know?

But most these analysts aren’t teaching fundamental aspects longtime fans and those that have played the game much of their life doesn’t already know.

You are making assumptions not in evidence. Frankly, I never played basketball. I grew up in the country and only played on the county soccer teams from elementary school through high school - I don't even know if the local area had basketball teams when I was a kid. I barely made the high school freshman basketball team (because they didn't have enough players to have to cut anyone) and we lost every game we played, including to the 8th graders. I didn't have a hoop at my house until my freshman year so I could practice shooting on the back patio. I got cut during basketball tryouts every other year in high school (because I had no real skills and had never played before, other than as a benchwarmer that freshman year and at that point I was just still trying to learn how to dribble with both hands instead of actually learning "basketball"). Seriously, don't pick me to be on your team. You'll lose.

So while I know the basic rules of the game, I don't generally know much more than that - even many basic sets, how plays are designed and run to free up players, etc. Sometimes when she's describing how that play developed, I rewind a bit to try to follow along. I'm still learning what the intent of certain cuts or picks were for (or what their various names are), those kinds of things. Seriously, I love watching the game, but I don't "know" the game. So, I'm just trying to pick some things up as she describes them or discusses how something went wrong in a certain play. And I've never gotten that before from the Kings announcers, except maybe a little bit with Doug.

I don't watch college ball, I rarely watch other team's games, and I don't have the time or desire to do so. I've NEVER postured or pretended to know much about the sport (technically). I know a lot of you have played throughout school and maybe in college and have that institutional knowledge. I certainly don't have that. I just love watching the local pro team (since they moved here in 1985). Before the Kings, I just caught a few pro games on OTA/broadcast TV when I could.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I have to disagree, and say that these bullet points are not *objectively* the role of the color analyst (or, lest we get caught up in the word "analyst", the "color commentator", i.e. the #2 person on the broadcast). What best fills the role of the color commentator is going to depend on what the audience wants in that commentary, and that varies from person to person, and from a population level could certainly vary from market to market depending on the demographics of the audience. Perhaps one audience prefers social commentary and politics to your bullet points. Perhaps another audience prefers home team cheering and insults to the opposing team without any analysis at all. Perhaps another audience would prefer that the color commentator simply read out loud from a romance novel during the game. Who's to say they're *objectively* wrong? What we prefer in color commentary is subjective, even if you and I basically agree on what the best color commentary is.

I feel like you and I are arguing two different things, here: what the most important aspect of a color analyst's job is may, indeed, be subject to the whims of a local market. But I don't know how you can reasonably argue that the four criteria I specified are not, literally, the job of a color analyst? Nor do I understand why you seem to think that I was limiting my thesis to the local market, rather than the generic template of what the job is?

What we prefer in a color analyst is subjective. But that's not the conversation that I'm trying to have. I'm not interested in that conversation: arguments about taste are a waste of time, to me.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I feel like you and I are arguing two different things, here: what the most important aspect of a color analyst's job is may, indeed, be subject to the whims of a local market. But I don't know how you can reasonably argue that the four criteria I specified are not, literally, the job of a color analyst? Nor do I understand why you seem to think that I was limiting my thesis to the local market, rather than the generic template of what the job is?

What we prefer in a color analyst is subjective. But that's not the conversation that I'm trying to have. I'm not interested in that conversation: arguments about taste are a waste of time, to me.

You and I do agree that those four criteria are the foundation of color analysis that we enjoy - but I think that comes back to taste.

I'm arguing against the idea that those criteria should be considered "objective". You suggest that there's a generic template of what the job entails, but where does this come from? There's no Platonic form of a color analyst. Presumably most color analysts stick to the model that you've laid out because it suits the majority's taste in the majority of markets. So perhaps those criteria simply describe our taste. You could come from a different angle and say that these criteria describe the current model of color analysts in the NBA, so the template describes something that exists in the real world. But there's still nothing to say that this model won't change if tastes change, which makes it hard for me to call it objective.

To the extent that these criteria are codified, they're codified in individual job descriptions set by the employer. And so I suppose one could say, if one knew the details of the Kings Color Analyst Job Description, that these are the things that Kayte should objectively be doing to fulfill her job duties. Fair enough. Even then, as you've alluded to earlier, the grading is probably still subjective. Some folks - not you or I - suggest that Kayte is far too verbose in her commentary, but I don't think they usually argue that she's not fulfilling the criteria you set out. They just think she's not doing it well. I just think there's a whole lot of taste here and very little "right answer/wrong answer".

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I reject the premise that there is no Platonic template for a color analyst. I will stipulate that the role a specific analyst serves, and the value thereof, likely needs to be tailored to the desires of the local consumers, but if there weren't specified universal skills that a color analyst needs to have, there'd be no need to call it that. That's like how, some boatswain's mates are assigned to duty on the bridge, some are assigned to duty in the forecastle, and some boatswain's mates get to pilot the gig. Certain aspects of the job are more important than others, depending on where you're assigned, but you still have to be able to do all of the job, in order to be called a boatswain's mate.

My thesis is that those criteria that I specified are essential, universal skills that define being classified as a color analyst, and that they are attributes that can be objectively quantified. What is subjective is which skill set is most valuable for the analyst "billet" that you're assigned to.

 

[Kingster]

I'm not entirely sure what just happened here. It seems as if there's one side that thinks there are objective standards that show Kayte to be good at her job, and another side that thinks that there are objective standards that show Kayte to be bad at her job, yet I'm getting potshots for being in the middle and saying there are no objective (only subjective) standards for what makes a good color commentator. OK.

Objectively, Kayte SUCKS as a color/analyst of basketball.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Objectively, Kayte SUCKS as a color/analyst of basketball.

Fine. Words don't mean things anymore. Play by whatever rules you want, I can't convince you otherwise.