Two sides of story ... in the booth

Tonight's start of the Cubs-White Sox series is a good time to point out that the best thing about having two teams in town is the distinct choices they present a fan.

No, this isn't about invalid stereotypes like classical vs. country, SUVs vs. pickups and ascots vs. string ties.

It's more about valid stereotypes like older Wrigley Field vs. newer Comiskey Park and mostly day games vs. mostly night games.

Specifically, it's about Bob Brenly vs. Hawk Harrelson.

I know, I know, Brenly is a color commentator on Cubs telecasts with Len Kasper next to him and Harrelson is a play-by-play man on Sox telecasts with Steve Stone next to him.

Still, Harrelson was an analyst when he first came to town and remains an analyst at heart.

So Brenly and Harrelson can be compared on how they digest a game and spew it back to fans.

Last week the Sox and the Cubs both struggled, providing an opportunity to contrast the two announcers side by side in different booths.

Harrelson has been with the Sox for so many years - decades actually - that he can't help but be the cheerleader that club chairman Jerry Reinsdorf prefers.

Meanwhile, Brenly's allegiance to the Cubs still is evolving, enabling him to provide a balanced commentary.

The results are two guys as different as Brie and beef.

Last week when the Cubs played like Thillens Stadium should be their home park - sorry, that was too cheap a shot at Thillens - Brenly identified the culprits.

Yes, they were the Cubs and nobody else.

Brenly's observations were as uncomplicated to the average fan as saying the Cubs' fundamentals are horrible, and as complicated to the average sports writer as the catcher's signs not flashed the right way.

Overall Brenly sounded like the Cubs didn't have any excuses for the ugly baseball they were foisting upon fans. He gave baseball reasons for the bad baseball.

Meanwhile, Harrelson also identified culprits for the Sox follies, but they weren't often the good guys wearing black.

As the Sox lost three of five to the first-place Tigers, Harrelson dwelled on what he considered inferior umpiring.

This call was wrong, that call was awful, occasionally they got one right, generally this was a good umpiring crew having a poor series.

To his credit, Harrelson didn't say the Sox would prevail if only the umpires doled out justice. Instead he sort of skimmed over the Sox' inadequacies, or at least obscured them with all that complaining about the umps.

So what you have here are styles impacting substance.

Harrelson, who should be voted into the broadcast wing of the baseball Hall of Fame within the next couple of years, allows his emotional attachment to the Sox to affect his perspective.

Then there's Brenly, a few decades behind Harrelson on the road to Cooperstown, still being detached enough from the Cubs to be objective.

Take your pick. If you like Harrelson you can be a Sox fan. If you like Brenly you can be a Cubs fan.

The only problem is if you're a Sox fan who would prefer Harrelson be more objective or a Cubs fan who would prefer Brenly be more of a homer.

mimrem@dailyherald.com