Tim McCarver's Genius

[philkid3]

There are no words for this:

"We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking."


Aren't you all just quivering with anticipation for the wonderful voices of the playoffs!

[Dalkowski110]

During the same game, he called Nats pitching coach Randy St. Claire "Randy Saint Pierre" (what makes this so inexcusable is that Randy St. Claire isn't some unknown...he's a well-known pitcher and pitching coach) and also said that Charlie Manuel should be Manager of the Year (Bob Melvin anyone?).

[jalbright]

There are no words for this:

"We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking."


Aren't you all just quivering with anticipation for the wonderful voices of the playoffs!

I hear you on McCarver on this one. Timmy Mac, there's a logic in having a run already in to getting to a multi-run inning. That home run has gotten you half way there. Many times, the walk won't score, or will lead to the only run produced--if and when the walked batter scores, you've just tied the number of runs already produced by the leadoff jack. You're simply further along in the process with the lead off homer as opposed to the lead off walk. I don't think there's much conventional thinking that can refute that simple logic.

[Stray Cat]

He wrote a book. :noidea

http://www.mrsassy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/timmccarver.jpg

[rdonahue]

He wrote a book. :noidea

http://www.mrsassy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/timmccarver.jpg

Remind me never to buy this or read this. Yikes!

[SamtheBravesFan]

He wrote a book. :noidea

http://www.mrsassy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/timmccarver.jpg

... I actually have that book. I bought it at a dollar store, I think. Maybe I should read it and tell you guys how dumb it is.

[jalbright]

... I actually have that book. I bought it at a dollar store, I think. Maybe I should read it and tell you guys how dumb it is.

You paid a whole buck for it???? Man, you badly overpaid!!! ;)

[SamtheBravesFan]

You paid a whole buck for it???? Man, you badly overpaid!!! ;)

I know. I felt terrible. :(

[jalbright]

BTW, does McCarver's book have connect the dots pictures and some baseball player pictures to color in? ;)

[TonyK]

Tim is working on a sequel to his book. The title is A Lead Off Walk Is As Good As A Lead Off Home Run.

[philkid3]

... I actually have that book. I bought it at a dollar store, I think. Maybe I should read it and tell you guys how dumb it is.

Please do!

[SamtheBravesFan]

Please do!

I actually expect it to be hit and miss. I don't think McCarver can be all wrong. However, I'm quite sure that there will be lots and lots of gems.

[Old Sweater]

I don't care for McCarver as a announcer but I also know that he has forgot more on how to play the game then most will ever know.

I do find it odd that a lead off walk scores at a higher % then a lead off hit.

[AznInvasion]

Lead off walks really are trouble. They aren't just kidding when they say that at least. The pitcher tends to walk the next batter or give up a hit. It's all downhill after that lead off walk.

[Old Sweater]

Lead off walks really are trouble. They aren't just kidding when they say that at least. The pitcher tends to walk the next batter or give up a hit. It's all downhill after that lead off walk.

Yeah, in todays 4-3 Rockies win I know that 2 of the 3 runs that the D Backs had were lead off walks. The 1st run of the game was a 2 out walk to Atkins and then the red hot Hawpe doubled him in.

[Urbanshocker13]

Boy do I hate that man!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on2REm4O_yE

But this is really funny got to love family guy!!

[philkid3]

Lead off walks really are trouble. They aren't just kidding when they say that at least. The pitcher tends to walk the next batter or give up a hit. It's all downhill after that lead off walk.

Do you have any support for this statement? And you're not like Tim McCarver thinking a walk is worse than a home run to lead off an inning, are you?

[Westlake]

All he was saying (my interpretation) is that if a pitcher gives up a lead off walk, he's probably more likely to be "off" and give up more walks or hits.

From past conversing with Azn, I dont think he'd agree to the latter part of your statement. He does, in fact, have a brain.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I think we've stranded off the reservation a bit here. The question is whether or not a leadoff home run or a leadoff walk will lead to a multiple-run inning. Wouldn't it be a leadoff home run?

[philkid3]

I think we've stranded off the reservation a bit here. The question is whether or not a leadoff home run or a leadoff walk will lead to a multiple-run inning. Wouldn't it be a leadoff home run?

Yes, obviously.

[KCGHOST]

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.

The context of the argument is whether it is easier to score two runs when the first batter gets a walk versus scoring one more run when you have bases empty and no outs.

[EricDavis]

He's a moron. I was watching the Astros final game on FSN and one of the broadcasters was talking abut one of the first game's he bradcast and he says "I don't remember if it was a spring training game, but if it was I'll never forget it."
And I'm like... what?

[skyking162]

If Tim McCarver led off the inning with a walk and you offered to let him steal 2nd, 3rd, and home without tagging him out, would he refuse?

[redlegsfan21]

McCarver actually does say some intellegent things.

"If you leadoff and you play every day, you're guaranteed to bat with the bases empty at least 162 times."

"Pitching is such a vital part of the game, as far as winning is concerned"

[digglahhh]

He wrote a book. :noidea

http://www.mrsassy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/timmccarver.jpg

I love how whenever FJM references a fictional article or book and adds a hyperlink to it, the link always either directs you to this book or to Joe Morgan's Baseball for Dummies.

[Erik Bedard]

Speaking of FJM, I read this over there:

And When the Game Is Over, His ERA is Zero!
Reader Dave checks in with this lovely bit of investigative mathematics from Yankee broadcaster and Comparer-of-Trivial-things-to-War-Crimes Michael Kay:

I was watching the YES broadcast of the Yanks / Tigers game on Saturday, with Wang pitching. I've heard that Wang is much better from the windup than the stretch, and this seems true based on what I've seen. However, discussing this, Kay and Al Leiter had this exchange (paraphasing):

Kay: "...And when Wang pitches from the windup, his ERA is .53! That's like a high school ERA!" (I don't really understand what this means, but whatever). "His ERA from the stretch, though, is almost 16.00! That difference is 'UGE! So Wang really has trouble pitching from the stretch."

Leiter: (not sure if he was just dodging Kay as much as he could or not) "Yeah, Greg Maddux told me once that you should always warm up from the stretch, since that's how you'll be throwing your most important pitches..."

Then Kay basically repeats how amazing the large difference between Wang's stretch and windup ERAs is.

When nobody is on base, his ERA is small. And when runners are on base, his ERA is high. Wow.

You heard it there first, people. The number of solo homers Chien Ming Wang gives up is smaller than the number of runs scored on him by all other methods combined.

[plask_stirlac]

It's an interesting question, it just was probably misphrased.

"Which is more likely, a run or more will score AFTER a leadoff HR in an inning, or two or more after a leadoff walk?" Percentage of opportunities where it does happen.

Obviously there will be more total leadoff walks, so it happens more often in that way.

Maybe he meant more big, multi-run innings, quantity-wise, start with a leadoff walk than with that homer, so don't sleep on the walks (though a home run in an inning is damage already).

[philkid3]

I'm sure everyone heard this, but he brought it up again.

He's still dumbfounded that home runs lead to more runs than walks. And he's still saying "one would think" as if he assumes everyone is as stupid as he is.

[Williamsburg2599]

I'm sure everyone heard this, but he brought it up again.

He's still dumbfounded that home runs lead to more runs than walks. And he's still saying "one would think" as if he assumes everyone is as stupid as he is.

The third post about this in as many minutes around here. MR. MCCARVER, IT'S THAT OBVIOUS!:rant:

[SamtheBravesFan]

It must be pounded in his baseball brain that runners on base cause more mistakes and more hits, which lead to more runs. That is the only reason I can think of him clinging to this.

[Brian McKenna]

I'm sure everyone heard this, but he brought it up again.

He's still dumbfounded that home runs lead to more runs than walks. And he's still saying "one would think" as if he assumes everyone is as stupid as he is.

I heard him say that again tonight - couldn't stop laughing.

[SamtheBravesFan]

One in, none on and none out. (Whole inning of outs to at least get another run)

VS.

None in, man on first and none out. (Danger of double play killing inning decreases the likelihood of another run fast)

It's not that hard to figure out. :twocents:

[Old Sweater]

Whats really scary is that McCarver knows how to play the game more then 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999% of the fans that think they know how.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Whats really scary is that McCarver knows how to play the game more then 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999% of the fans that think they know how.

Yes, that is the case, but isn't it logically sound to believe that it's more likely to score multiple runs when an inning is led off with a homer than a walk?

[philkid3]

Whats really scary is that McCarver knows how to play the game more then 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999% of the fans that think they know how.

And yet he doesn't know how the game actually works as well as many fans.

[Old Sweater]

Yes, that is the case, but isn't it logically sound to believe that it's more likely to score multiple runs when an inning is led off with a homer than a walk?

Yeah it is, I think he even confuses himself. Of course they get some great stats in that announcers booth.

With the percentage of a lead off walk coming around to score maybe it defys logic.

Not in the game tonight between the Indians and the Red Sox though, all 10 runs were scored after a lead off homer.

[Dalkowski110]

Did anyone else catch McCarver saying how unhittable Paul Byrd was and the Red Sox were done...and within three seconds (literally), Kevin Youkilis pounded a homerun? He started defending his statement, too...as David Ortiz launched another one and Byrd came out the game. When Jensen Lewis came in, McCarver bizarrely asked if they were bringing him in with no warm-up. His broadcasting partner was even shocked that he'd ask that. The response was really off balance, and was something like "Umm...well...no Tim, they warmed him up."

[Chickazoola]

The whole problem with McCarver, Morgan et al. is not that they are wrong about some things, but rather their absolute reluctance to acknowledge that new ways of looking at baseball may in fact have some value.

They are basically stuck in the past with their heads in the sand when it comes to Sabrmetrics and 'Moneyball' and other new school baseball philosophies.

Obviously the playing experience that Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan have is immense, but they are no longer players, they are analysts paid to analyse, and they don't do a very good job of it in many respects because they are stuck in the past and/or rely heavily on their reputation as former players. They have a holier than thou attitude about their understanding of baseball, as if no one else could possibly do what they do.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Yeah it is, I think he even confuses himself. Of course they get some great stats in that announcers booth.

With the percentage of a lead off walk coming around to score maybe it defys logic.

Not in the game tonight between the Indians and the Red Sox though, all 10 runs were scored after a lead off homer.

Exactly. I know I've seen leadoff walks come around to score lots of times, but still.

[Stray Cat]

The whole problem with McCarver, Morgan et al. is not that they are wrong about some things, but rather their absolute reluctance to acknowledge that new ways of looking at baseball may in fact have some value.

They are basically stuck in the past with their heads in the sand when it comes to Sabrmetrics and 'Moneyball' and other new school baseball philosophies.

Obviously the playing experience that Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan have is immense, but they are no longer players, they are analysts paid to analyse, and they don't do a very good job of it in many respects because they are stuck in the past and/or rely heavily on their reputation as former players. They have a holier than thou attitude about their understanding of baseball, as if no one else could possibly do what they do.

So why don't they hire some younger ex-players who are up to speed.

[Sweet Lou]

So why don't they hire some younger ex-players who are up to speed.

Hopefully we'll see more Gwynn, but I think he's so committed to San Diego that we'll only likely see him on special occasions. It's a shame. I've enjoyed listening to him on TBS.

[NickU]

well how bout game three when mccarver spent three innings talking about how the catcher has to use his thumb when a pitcher has five pitches to throw. "NO WAY, ARE YOU KIDDING? THE FIFTH FINGER REPRESENTS A FIFTH PITCH?!?!?! NO KIDDING?"

[digglahhh]

I think Bob Gibson summed up McCarver pretty well one day when Gibby was getting touched up a bit and McCarver came out to have a word with him.

"Get you (butt) back behind the plate; the only thing you know about pitching is that it's hard to hit!"

[Erik Bedard]

The whole problem with McCarver, Morgan et al. is not that they are wrong about some things, but rather their absolute reluctance to acknowledge that new ways of looking at baseball may in fact have some value.

They are basically stuck in the past with their heads in the sand when it comes to Sabrmetrics and 'Moneyball' and other new school baseball philosophies.

Obviously the playing experience that Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan have is immense, but they are no longer players, they are analysts paid to analyse, and they don't do a very good job of it in many respects because they are stuck in the past and/or rely heavily on their reputation as former players. They have a holier than thou attitude about their understanding of baseball, as if no one else could possibly do what they do.

Well said. That and Joe Morgan often ducking out of answering a question that he is asked in a segment where he is supposed to be answering questions that he is asked. And his railing against the ideas portrayed in Moneyball (which he apparently thinks are that all players need to do is walk and hit HRs) when he hasn't read the book himself.

well how bout game three when mccarver spent three innings talking about how the catcher has to use his thumb when a pitcher has five pitches to throw. "NO WAY, ARE YOU KIDDING? THE FIFTH FINGER REPRESENTS A FIFTH PITCH?!?!?! NO KIDDING?"

What really got me is that that's not even necessarily true.

[philkid3]

Hopefully we'll see more Gwynn, but I think he's so committed to San Diego that we'll only likely see him on special occasions. It's a shame. I've enjoyed listening to him on TBS.

I love Tony Gwynn, but he's not that good, either.

Cal doesn't say a lot of stupid things. Hell, he even said strike outs are just another out the other night. :nod:

[Erik Bedard]

Is it just me, or was McCarver just harping on about a great ALCS between the Indians and Yankees in 1997 that ended with a Sandy Alomar Jr. homer off Mariano Rivera?

1) The Indians faced the Orioles in the 1997 ALCS.
2) Alomar's homer of Rivera was in Game 4 of the 1997 ALCS
3) Alomar's homer was in the eighth inning, so it couldn't have ended the series.
4) Alomar's homer tied the game, not ended it.

[philkid3]

He is way too up in arms over Manny right now.

It was stupid, yeah. Don't take it personally.

[EdTarbusz]

McCarver got one right by ripping Ramirez's single.

[philkid3]

McCarver got one right by ripping Ramirez's single.

I think he got it wrong by ripping it way too much.

[redlegsfan21]

He is way too up in arms over Manny right now.

It was stupid, yeah. Don't take it personally.

Well, if Manny did it in Cincinnati, he would be criticized so much including all the radio announcers that we have. In fact, Edwin Encarnacion got demoted to AAA for not hustling out of the box.

[philkid3]

Well, if Manny did it in Cincinnati, he would be criticized so much including all the radio announcers that we have. In fact, Edwin Encarnacion got demoted to AAA for not hustling out of the box.

Did Edwin Encarnacion do as much to help his team as Ramirez?

Seriously, it was stupid, but it doesn't really need to be attacked like, dare I say it, the end of the world.

[philkid3]

Someone just reminded me about the '92 Deion Sanders rant.

It's just a game, dude.

[redlegsfan21]

Did Edwin Encarnacion do as much to help his team as Ramirez?

Seriously, it was stupid, but it doesn't really need to be attacked like, dare I say it, the end of the world.

Ehh, don't worry, Ken Griffey Jr. and a couple others got ripped for not hustling in May '06 when we had the best record in baseball (at that time).

[tigers527]

Timmy did over react. However, if Mike Lowell had hit a double and Man Ram winds up on third, then he would of had a point in complaining about Man Rams lack of hustle. Since Mike Lowell grounded out, the point of Man Rams lack of hustle becomes moot.

[Williamsburg2599]

Timmy did over react. However, if Mike Lowell had hit a double and Man Ram winds up on third, then he would of had a point in complaining about Man Rams lack of hustle. Since Mike Lowell grounded out, the point of Man Rams lack of hustle becomes moot.

While we're playing the IF game, IF the umps got the call right he would of ended up in the dugout too, but he would of touched home first. Never seen a baseball fly 300+ feet and then backspin like a golf ball while striking a soft, flat surface like the top of a padded wall.

[philkid3]

Timmy did over react. However, if Mike Lowell had hit a double and Man Ram winds up on third, then he would of had a point in complaining about Man Rams lack of hustle. Since Mike Lowell grounded out, the point of Man Rams lack of hustle becomes moot.

I think it's dumb, and he should point out that it's dumb.

He should not rant about how Manny Ramirez is bringing upon the apocalypse for two innings.

[rockin500]

I think it's dumb, and he should point out that it's dumb.

He should not rant about how Manny Ramirez is bringing upon the apocalypse for two innings.
[channeling mccarver]ya know, back in the day, he would have gotten one in the ribs. when we played he would go down hard. [/mccarver]

[TonyK]

Tim needs to read the story "Ten Little Indians" before Game 6 and show he can count up to 10.

At one point last night he said Beckett retired 6 Indians in a row, then he blurted out it was 10 Indians in a row, and then he changed his mind and said it was 9 Indians in a row. All he had to do was look at anyone's scorecard and count...1, 2 3, etc. If someone fed him the wrong info then it is his responsibility to know what the right number is before giving it to viewers.

[plask_stirlac]

Can;t we just call the yellow line a home run? Wouldn't that be easier?

[bluezebra]

Tim McCarver's Genius

An oxymoron on the scale of: Military Intelligence, Civil War, Giant Shrimp, etc.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Tim needs to read the story "Ten Little Indians" before Game 6 and show he can count up to 10.

At one point last night he said Beckett retired 6 Indians in a row, then he blurted out it was 10 Indians in a row, and then he changed his mind and said it was 9 Indians in a row. All he had to do was look at anyone's scorecard and count...1, 2 3, etc. If someone fed him the wrong info then it is his responsibility to know what the right number is before giving it to viewers.

All he had to do was look at anyone's scorecard and count...1, 2 3, etc.

You're acting on the assumption that he can read a scorecard.

Bob

[Macker]

McCarver said Manny hit the longest single in history. I wonder how far this one went:

[from Retrosheet]
7/4/1976: Catcher Tim McCarver of the Phillies hit a grand slam in the second inning of the first game of a doubleheader at Pittsburgh. The 375 foot homer came off Larry Demery. However, after rounding first base, McCarver passed Garry Maddox and was called out. He received credit for a single and three runs batted in.

[Williamsburg2599]

McCarver said Manny hit the longest single in history. I wonder how far this one went:

[from Retrosheet]
7/4/1976: Catcher Tim McCarver of the Phillies hit a grand slam in the second inning of the first game of a doubleheader at Pittsburgh. The 375 foot homer came off Larry Demery. However, after rounding first base, McCarver passed Garry Maddox and was called out. He received credit for a single and three runs batted in.

So basically McCarver can never talk about someone else's baserunning again.

[philkid3]

So basically McCarver can never talk about someone else's baserunning again.

That is the point! THAT is the POINT!!!

[plask_stirlac]

Wouldn't that be Maddox's gaffe?

[TonyK]

All he had to do was look at anyone's scorecard and count...1, 2 3, etc.

You're acting on the assumption that he can read a scorecard.

Bob

Certainly. How else could he have figured out that leadoff walks lead to more multi-run innings than leadoff home runs?

[Macker]

Wouldn't that be Maddox's gaffe?

No. Maddox had good speed. Depending on the situation, a runner on first with other runners on base will sometimes also tag up and get into scoring position. The batter should know enough to watch for that runner.

[Solrac]

While we're playing the IF game, IF the umps got the call right he would of ended up in the dugout too, but he would of touched home first. Never seen a baseball fly 300+ feet and then backspin like a golf ball while striking a soft, flat surface like the top of a padded wall.

Actually the ground rules of Jacobs Field says that any ball hit OVER the yellow line is a HR...not a ball that HITS the yellow line.

Is it just me, or was McCarver just harping on about a great ALCS between the Indians and Yankees in 1997 that ended with a Sandy Alomar Jr. homer off Mariano Rivera?

1) The Indians faced the Orioles in the 1997 ALCS.
2) Alomar's homer of Rivera was in Game 4 of the 1997 ALCS
3) Alomar's homer was in the eighth inning, so it couldn't have ended the series.
4) Alomar's homer tied the game, not ended it.

hhmmm...somehow this doesnt make sense...

[Williamsburg2599]

Actually the ground rules of Jacobs Field says that any ball hit OVER the yellow line is a HR...not a ball that HITS the yellow line.




Which is why I'm claiming it hit the black metal-like surface after the yellow line.

[Macker]

Which is why I'm claiming it hit the black metal-like surface after the yellow line.

Didn't it hit both? I thought it hit the yellow and the edge of the surface beyond the yellow. I don't think the yellow should be painted on the surface beyond the vertical height of the fence, but since it is, I think the umps got it right.

[Los Bravos]

Someone just reminded me about the '92 Deion Sanders rant.Which Deion handled the way you should: directly.

All the pearl-clutching and garment-rending that went on when that happened was really pathetic.

Writers and broadcasters saw an opportunity to trash a guy they didn't like and support one of their own (which is fine, by itself), but to do so they invented this whole bizarre parallel universe where no writer or broadcaster had ever gotten wet in a victorious locker room and kept screaming that poor, wet Tim could have been electrocuted. It was a squalid farce.McCarver said Manny hit the longest single in history. I wonder how far this one went:

[from Retrosheet]
7/4/1976: Catcher Tim McCarver of the Phillies hit a grand slam in the second inning of the first game of a doubleheader at Pittsburgh. The 375 foot homer came off Larry Demery. However, after rounding first base, McCarver passed Garry Maddox and was called out. He received credit for a single and three runs batted in.There is a photo of him arguing that call with the Umpire in the '77 Street and Smith's, all agitated and with his hair sticking up (no hat) and I swear, every time he starts one of this dopey rants, I flash on that image and I have to smile.

[digglahhh]

Wouldn't that be Maddox's gaffe?

Timmy Mac was just hustling...


Here's my problem with his ripping of Manny. It was a freaking homer. Manny's gaffe was only so because the umpires blew the call. He's sitting there, like Manny should be in scoring position. No, dude, he should be in SCORED position, enjoying a refreshing Malta with David Ortiz in the dugout.

[Toy Boat]

Which Deion handled the way you should: directly.



I wouldn't exactly praise Deion for dumping ice water several times on a man 25 years older than himself and then running into the crowd to avoid confrontation. That isn't exactly being direct. We may not all be the biggest McCarver fans, but what Deion did that night was just plain gutless.

(Edited for grammar.)

[Westlake]

Ehh, don't worry, Ken Griffey Jr. and a couple others got ripped for not hustling in May '06 when we had the best record in baseball (at that time).

You mean JUST like Manny is being ripped for this right now? Like how Manny is getting ripped in a Tim McCarver thread?

[plask_stirlac]

No. Maddox had good speed. Depending on the situation, a runner on first with other runners on base will sometimes also tag up and get into scoring position. The batter should know enough to watch for that runner.

Bases loaded, though. I've never seen a triple tag but I guess it can happen, weird play either way!

[redlegsfan21]

You mean JUST like Manny is being ripped for this right now? Like how Manny is getting ripped in a Tim McCarver thread?

Umm, yeah. Even Senior got onto Junior for not hustling back when he was chasing #500 and ironically, it was also at Jacobs Field. Griffey, hit a ball high off the left field wall and only ended up at first. He was ripped this year for not hutling after balls hit in the outfield and not hustling on the basepaths.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Umm, yeah. Even Senior got onto Junior for not hustling back when he was chasing #500 and ironically, it was also at Jacobs Field. Griffey, hit a ball high off the left field wall and only ended up at first. He was ripped this year for not hutling after balls hit in the outfield and not hustling on the basepaths.

I can't blame him for not doing that. With as many leg and lower body injuries as he has had, he can play conservatively all he wants.

[Los Bravos]

I wouldn't exactly praise Deion for dumping ice water several times on a man 25 years older than himself and then running into the crowd to avoid confrontation. That isn't exactly being direct. We may not all be the biggest McCarver fans, but what Deion did that night was just plain gutless.

(Edited for grammar.)Let's just say I disagree and leave it there.

[DiMag4Life]

2000:
1139 Leadoff HR => 294 2+ run innings, 25.81%
2705 Leadoff BB => 622 2+ run innings, 22.99%

2001:
1026 Leadoff HR => 247 2+ run innings, 24.07%
2238 Leadoff BB => 473 2+ run innings, 21.13%

2002:
1015 Leadoff HR => 229 2+ run innings, 22.56%
2296 Leadoff BB => 508 2+ run innings, 22.12%

2003:
1051 Leadoff HR => 252 2+ run innings, 23.97%
2261 Leadoff BB => 479 2+ run innings, 21.18%

2004:
1071 Leadoff HR => 246 2+ run innings, 22.96%
2321 Leadoff BB => 443 2+ run innings, 19.08%

2005:
979 Leadoff HR => 210 2+ run innings, 21.45%
2135 Leadoff BB => 462 2+ run innings, 21.63%

2006:
1069 Leadoff HR => 260 2+ run innings, 24.32%
2154 Leadoff BB => 490 2+ run innings, 22.75%

[SamtheBravesFan]

Well, well, well, looks like leadoff home runs win by a nose.

[DiMag4Life]

Now, I'm not against those who say that was irresponsible analysis. But does it warrant a whole thread? I think not.

I'm the first to say McCarver is a terrible analyst ......... but this is unneccesary.

[Westlake]

Now, I'm not against those who say that was irresponsible analysis. But does it warrant a whole thread? I think not.

I'm the first to say McCarver is a terrible analyst ......... but this is unneccesary.

Making a thread about a terrible baseball color guy is unnecessary when there are like 2 threads about Manny's comments and one about Dane Cook? I've enjoying this one more than most in this forum..

[DiMag4Life]

Making a thread about a terrible baseball color guy is unnecessary when there are like 2 threads about Manny's comments and one about Dane Cook?

I never said those comments were a cup of tea either.

[Lefty32]

During an all-star game one year, must have been '99 or '00, he claimed that Mike Lieberthal was one of the greatest offensive catchers of all-time.

To this day I can't even completely believe that I heard him say it, but he did. Amazing.

[DiMag4Life]

During an all-star game one year, must have been '99 or '00, he claimed that Mike Lieberthal was one of the greatest offensive catchers of all-time.

To this day I can't even completely believe that I heard him say it, but he did. Amazing.

LOL, are you serious? :eek::crazy

Because even though McCarver has looked like he's been hittin' the sauce before........... WOW.

[plask_stirlac]

Maybe he meant Jewish catchers?

[holyroman]

Last night he said Willy Taveras had a below average arm or something to that degree. This was after the double to left center that went to the base of the wall and Willy threw to the cut-off man.
At least he could do some research before he opens his big mouth!

[Old Sweater]

Last night he said Willy Taveras had a below average arm or something to that degree. This was after the double to left center that went to the base of the wall and Willy threw to the cut-off man.
At least he could do some research before he opens his big mouth!

That was on that play when RMB's GG left fielder Holliday let the ball get by him.

I was surprised that McCarver said what he did but this year I just haven't seen the plus arm I heard about from Taveras. I see him take the big crow hop and fire the ball but the ball don't travel like when Hawpe throws it.

[Sweet Lou]

I spent most the evening last night confused about anything he said. I'm not sure if it was him or Joe Buck speaking, but there were comments about Richard Dreyfuss going to his backyard, Derek Jeter's cologne and how "breathtakingly fragrant" it was, and how the 3rd base coach has a big job, because after 3rd base, it's home plate....
I don't know, you tell me.
Is there someone we can write to at Fox and complain? I'm tired of it.

[BenB]

During one of the ALCS games I remember McCarver saying something about Royce Clayton.

I didn't catch all of what he said, but it struck me that Royce Clayton didn't play for either team involved.

[Williamsburg2599]

During one of the ALCS games I remember McCarver saying something about Royce Clayton.

I didn't catch all of what he said, but it struck me that Royce Clayton didn't play for either team involved.

He is actually a member of the Boston Red Sox.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Clayton


Although he has barely played, so I understand why you would even know he's on either team.

[Old Sweater]

That was great last night when Clayton and a teammate were talking about the free taco.

Then I liked Clayton getting on Lofton to get in the batters box. They never showed that side of Clayton when he was a Rockies player.

[HDH]

2000:
1139 Leadoff HR => 294 2+ run innings, 25.81%
2705 Leadoff BB => 622 2+ run innings, 22.99%

2001:
1026 Leadoff HR => 247 2+ run innings, 24.07%
2238 Leadoff BB => 473 2+ run innings, 21.13%

2002:
1015 Leadoff HR => 229 2+ run innings, 22.56%
2296 Leadoff BB => 508 2+ run innings, 22.12%

2003:
1051 Leadoff HR => 252 2+ run innings, 23.97%
2261 Leadoff BB => 479 2+ run innings, 21.18%

2004:
1071 Leadoff HR => 246 2+ run innings, 22.96%
2321 Leadoff BB => 443 2+ run innings, 19.08%

2005:
979 Leadoff HR => 210 2+ run innings, 21.45%
2135 Leadoff BB => 462 2+ run innings, 21.63%

2006:
1069 Leadoff HR => 260 2+ run innings, 24.32%
2154 Leadoff BB => 490 2+ run innings, 22.75%

Thanks DiMag4Life, I would've never guessed the number of leadoff totals for the year. Overall, the leadoff walk does produce more 2+ innings and the difference in percentage are surprisingly low. Maybe McCarver knows more than "we" give him credit for.

Before I saw this, I was thinkng that during the course of a 162 game season, I would guess there would be some 150 -200 leadoff walks or thereabout? I would guess there would be 10 - 20 leadoff homers? I really don't know. Unless my guess is way off, I'm as "stupid" as Tim McCarver. I would think that there would be more chances for multi-run innings when leadoff walks were issued.



Who was the dumb ass last night who was pointing out that the Rockies never faced an offense like the Red Sox in post season, then went on to say that the CUBS offense was overrated and the Diamondbacks offense was not potent like the Red Sox's? I guess he didn't remember that the Rockies beat the PHILLIES in the 1st round, not the CUBS.

[BenB]

He is actually a member of the Boston Red Sox.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Clayton


Although he has barely played, so I understand why you would even know he's on either team.

Whoa, my bad. Is he on the playoff roster? The Red Sox site doesn't list him on the 25 man.

[Williamsburg2599]

Whoa, my bad. Is he on the playoff roster? The Red Sox site doesn't list him on the 25 man.

No, he isin't. I believe Tim mentioned Royce when they captured him and Coco talking about the taco promotion during the game yesterday. That's the only time I remember him talking about him, but then again I didn't see the whole game.

[BenB]

No, he isin't. I believe Tim mentioned Royce when they captured him and Coco talking about the taco promotion during the game yesterday. That's the only time I remember him talking about him, but then again I didn't see the whole game.

The game I was talking about was in the ALCS.

[Williamsburg2599]

The game I was talking about was in the ALCS.

Ah, true, sorry about that. He was not active for the ALCS either, though.:

http://soxanddawgs.com/?p=2439

[Erik Bedard]

Anyone else bugged by McCarver insisting that "rarely is Schilling's splitter a strike"? If a pitch is rarely going to be a strike, why throw it?

[Williamsburg2599]

Anyone else bugged by McCarver insisting that "rarely is Schilling's splitter a strike"? If a pitch is rarely going to be a strike, why throw it?

I suppose it would be to make the batter chase. I guess I can sort of see where he's coming from.

Anyways, I can't wait for my Spanish to be fluent enough to understand Fox en Espanol. I wonder if their color commentator knows that a lead off HR is more valuable...

[2Chance]

Anyone else bugged by McCarver insisting that "rarely is Schilling's splitter a strike"? If a pitch is rarely going to be a strike, why throw it?
John Franco could go YEARS without throwing a strike.

For some reason, batters chased his junk anyway. :shrug:

[philkid3]

On his own blog Schilling says he doesn't throw the splitter in the zone. He recently admonished himself for throwing it in the zone too often at some point.

Hitters swing because they're trying to protect themselves when down in the count. He throws it out of the zone so it's harder to hit.

[rockin500]

Anyone else bugged by McCarver insisting that "rarely is Schilling's splitter a strike"? If a pitch is rarely going to be a strike, why throw it?
no not really, since it never will be called a strike since it dives out of the zone.

[Erik Bedard]

If the batter swings and misses, then it will be a strike. McCarver was going on and on about how the splitter will rarely be a strike. Not that it dives out of the zone, which I could understand, or how Schill's main idea in throwing it is to get the batter to chase, just that it will rarely be a strike. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense.

[Sweet Lou]

Thanks DiMag4Life, I would've never guessed the number of leadoff totals for the year. Overall, the leadoff walk does produce more 2+ innings and the difference in percentage are surprisingly low. Maybe McCarver knows more than "we" give him credit for.

Before I saw this, I was thinkng that during the course of a 162 game season, I would guess there would be some 150 -200 leadoff walks or thereabout? I would guess there would be 10 - 20 leadoff homers? I really don't know. Unless my guess is way off, I'm as "stupid" as Tim McCarver. I would think that there would be more chances for multi-run innings when leadoff walks were issued.
I'm probably confused, but the percentages make the difference to me. There is a greater chance of multi run innings when a leadoff HR is given up compared to the chances when a leadoff walk is issued. The percentages are indeed closer than I would have guessed, but the percentages are still slightly higher for HR.
Now as far as how many multi run innings there are, there is a greater number of those that start out with leadoff walks than start out with leadoff HR, but that is only because there are less leadoff homeruns. So in that sense, what McCarver was saying was true.
But...if you want a multi run inning, you increase your chances of that by hitting a leadoff HR more than you increase your chances by a leadoff walk.

Man, I'll say one thing: At least McCarver makes us all think about stuff....:shrug:

[Sweet Lou]

If the batter swings and misses, then it will be a strike. McCarver was going on and on about how the splitter will rarely be a strike. Not that it dives out of the zone, which I could understand, or how Schill's main idea in throwing it is to get the batter to chase, just that it will rarely be a strike. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense.
Maybe McCarver needs to clarify himself better. Maybe he's saying that if the batter doesn't swing, if the batter could lay off, exercise patience and take the pitch, it would be called a ball. But Schilling knows how to dress it up with gift wrap and bow, complete with a card that says "This is for you, go ahead and take it, as a gift from me" and he knows those batters are like kids that just can't say no!
Who know, but I'm about to go to a buddies house and listen to more fodder for this thread.
Go Rox!

[Old Sweater]

Hate the split screen on the interviews.

[rockin500]

If the batter swings and misses, then it will be a strike. McCarver was going on and on about how the splitter will rarely be a strike. Not that it dives out of the zone, which I could understand, or how Schill's main idea in throwing it is to get the batter to chase, just that it will rarely be a strike. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense.
i think its understood or at least it [i]should[/b] be understood what he means. I cant stand mccarver, but in this case, hes accurate enough.

[Erik Bedard]

I get that, but it just bugs me that he goes on and on about something that isn't even technically true.

[rockin500]

I get that, but it just bugs me that he goes on and on about something that isn't even technically true.
eh, i find lots of other reasons to get irritated at him! :D

[TonyK]

Tim did make one point that I've never heard before. When the Rockies battery was having difficulty over a sign, he explained that it might be because the catcher made a mistake and wanted to change it. I thought he was being honest when mentioning sometimes the catcher may give a sign and realize too late that he had given the wrong sign.

About all the catcher can do once he realizes the wrong pitch is coming is ask for time, or lean back and pray.

[Erik Bedard]

Most coaches that I know of have a "wipe-off" sign when giving instructions to baserunners. I'd be surprised if there weren't some form of that for catchers.

[Williamsburg2599]

Most coaches that I know of have a "wipe-off" sign when giving instructions to baserunners. I'd be surprised if there weren't some form of that for catchers.

The problem is that the pitcher usually gets the sign, looks at the runners, and throws, and he obviously can't stop unless timeout is called. Tim actually made a pretty good point here, he should talk more about his on field experience and less about stats and trying to make everything a rhyme or pun.

[HDH]

Tim did make one point that I've never heard before. When the Rockies battery was having difficulty over a sign...

Just a small point. I'm sure you are referring to the moment that Jason Varitek of the Red Sox stood up when he realized he gave the pitcher the wrong sign...

[TonyK]

Just a small point. I'm sure you are referring to the moment that Jason Varitek of the Red Sox stood up when he realized he gave the pitcher the wrong sign...

That could be it but I'm not sure. These 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. nights are getting to me. Thanks.