All of what years? I've been here for quite some time, and I've been forced to listen to Napear and Reynolds for that entire span. I also watch other teams play, when they're not playing the Kings, and listen to other teams' announcers, since I don't necessarily consume the NBA through a Kings-only lens.
I find that to be the most common line of demarcation in discussions like this, IMO. If you ("royal" you) look at the other teams in the NBA through a Kings-only lens - meaning that you don't bother paying attention to the other teams unless they're playing the Kings, or in terms of how their wins and losses directly affect the Kings - then you tend to grade the relative quality of a broadcaster according to how "fair" they are to the Kings. For example, if Steve Martin and Dell Curry are uncomplimentary to the Kings, and make sarcastic remarks during the game then, through a Kings-only lens, they would be perceived as "bad" commentators.
Since I am Kings-first, but not necessarily Kings-only, I don't put how "fair" or complimentary a broadcaster is to the Kings very high on my list of desirable attributes for a broadcaster. I'm not going to sit here and say that Jerry Reynolds is stupid, but he's not good at articulating what he sees on the basketball court. He's not good at conveying whatever intellect he does have in a way that people understand that he might actually know what he's talking about. He's not good at explaining what happened in a play in a way that a basketball neophyte will understand, nor is he good at explaining what happened in a way that will not irritate more knowledgeable basketball fans. What he is good at (for differing values of "good"), is making homespun, folksy aphorisms, bad nicknames for players, MOTO-like observations, and echoing his broadcast partner. That might be good enough for some. but it's not good enough for me.
I like Christensen as the color analyst because, arguably even more important than knowing the game, she's good at articulating that knowledge. She can explain why the team ran a play, what they were trying to exploit, why it worked, or why it didn't. She's not just going to spout off platitudes about how we need to score more points, or how we need to get stops; she can explain where those points could and should come from, in a manner that people of different levels of basketball knowledge can all be comfortable with. I'm not sure whether or not Christensen has any on-air chemistry that Reynolds has with Napear, or whether she is capable of at all replicating it but, if it came down to it, I'd find someone who would be a good fit to call games alongside Christensen, and give Napear and Reynolds their gold watches.
