For her, and I'm imagining a lot of more casual fans, they relate to his down-home personality and his directness. They respect that he's a former player and that he can speak from experience.

Like a lot of you, I'm ambivalent about him. I know he has that podcast with Marcus Spears, another analyst with an over-the-top, big personality. But Marcus, to me, is a much better analyst because he is a better communicator and has a larger body of knowledge to pull from than just his experiences as a player. I don't think Perk shows a great faculty discussing nuances of the game. Now, it's worth noting that on The Old Man and the Three with JJ Redick, Perk basically said that he tries to speak to both casual fans and those who are more numbers-based. But as someone who likes to hear about the strategic analysis of basketball, I rarely come away from an interview or hit by Perk feeling like I learned something new. In fact, I often wonder why he's getting so much exposure. (like his take before the Finals that Jalen Brown and Jason Tatum were the best players in the series. Or he said something to that effect)

But like you all say, Chuck is one-of-a-kind in that he has an outsized and relatable way to him (like Perk, in doses), but he also can communicate his understanding of basketball very well, something I don't think Perk does well. (i don't always agree with Barkley, but some of his takes are compelling)