I'm glad we have a thread where we're somewhat discussing feedback. A lot of caster development is self done through reviewing our own casts etc, which does fix some issues, however getting actual feedback can be even more beneficial. It's more beneficial for a few reasons, it points out what we do that annoys some viewers, it can reinforce our views on something we need to fix, and it can open our eyes to something we dont even realize is an issue.
As for my "i dont know" for a while when I was still with EVL I used Fat way too much. I also used systematic failure like 5 times during an ozfortress cast. I'm sure I also have a pile of other ones I haven't even noticed.
gecks2. I think taking the sports broadcasting approach is best here. That is, only doing play by play, and any sort of analysis is short and concise (a general point or underlying theme of the game, something to fill a small amount of time etc.), often used to lead your color guy into a topic of discussion, and have him expand on that point further.
I agree. There's a reason sports casting has been around for a long time in that style, it has a formula that works.
gecksOne of the only guys I can think of that doesn't do it is Mike Emrick, who is probably the best play by play broadcaster I've ever listened to. You could make the case that maybe he says "drive!" too much for when someone shoots the puck, but to me that's just part of his style. Maybe he has something else, but I've never noticed it.
As an aside, anyone that has never heard Mike Emrick broadcast, you should. He's a magician behind the mic. The guy used 153 different words to describe puck movement during an olympic hockey game a couple years back. Like how can someone even do that
No question Doc has an incredible way with words, his ability to describe anything and everything is enviable. But you're right, that even he has his repetition words and phrases, even though he does it less than anyone else.