Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Norman

Ask the Slouch

16 posts in this topic

Q. MLB has banned the third-to-first fake pickoff move, deeming it “detrimental to the game of baseball.” Shouldn’t they also take a look at Tim McCarver’s broadcasting career? (J.B. Koch; Waukesha, Wis.)

 

A. To be fair, McCarver did Sports Nation a great service last week, announcing this would be his last season on Fox baseball.

 

Boy, I won't miss him!

 

 

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q. MLB has banned the third-to-first fake pickoff move, deeming it “detrimental to the game of baseball.” Shouldn’t they also take a look at Tim McCarver’s broadcasting career? (J.B. Koch; Waukesha, Wis.)

 

A. To be fair, McCarver did Sports Nation a great service last week, announcing this would be his last season on Fox baseball.

 

Boy, I won't miss him!

 

 

Link

 

me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCarver became intolerable several years ago when he started peddling the BS about all the subtle strategies in baseball. I remember one telecast when he went on an on about the significance of how an infielder was leaning (right or left) before a pitch.

 

One of the announcers on the Duke-Louisville game yesterday also qualified for the McCarver Hall of Idiocy. He was speculating on how Duke would play with short rest in the tournament. The announcer proudly proclaimed that he had done a statistical analysis of Duke's regular season games and determined that they won by an average of 20 or more points with four days rest and 15 or more points with three days rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the hidden ball trick at first would be detrimental, also. Just need it to happen one more time before it's banned.

 

They should also ban spitting during games. It's bad for the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q. MLB has banned the third-to-first fake pickoff move, deeming it “detrimental to the game of baseball.” Shouldn’t they also take a look at Tim McCarver’s broadcasting career? (J.B. Koch; Waukesha, Wis.)

 

A. To be fair, McCarver did Sports Nation a great service last week, announcing this would be his last season on Fox baseball.

 

Boy, I won't miss him!

 

 

Link

 

I like McCarver. What is so bad about him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCarver became intolerable several years ago when he started peddling the BS about all the subtle strategies in baseball. I remember one telecast when he went on an on about the significance of how an infielder was leaning (right or left) before a pitch.

 

One of the announcers on the Duke-Louisville game yesterday also qualified for the McCarver Hall of Idiocy. He was speculating on how Duke would play with short rest in the tournament. The announcer proudly proclaimed that he had done a statistical analysis of Duke's regular season games and determined that they won by an average of 20 or more points with four days rest and 15 or more points with three days rest.

 

What is wrong with either example? Arent analysts supposed to um, analyze?

The guy who used to drive me nuts was Buck Martinez. His voice always sounded like he was talking while chomping on a cigar hanging out of the side of his mouth and most of the stuff he said was so obvious you might as well been listening to nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is wrong with either example? Arent analysts supposed to um, analyze?

The guy who used to drive me nuts was Buck Martinez. His voice always sounded like he was talking while chomping on a cigar hanging out of the side of his mouth and most of the stuff he said was so obvious you might as well been listening to nothing.

 

Here's what's wrong with the two analyses:

 

1. If a player leans slightly to the right or left during a long tiresome game, it's probably caused by muscle fatigue rather than some complex baseball strategy.

 

2. The comments by the analyst on the Duke-Louisville game suggests that he attributes a five point differential to 3 days of rest or 4. There's a concept in logical thinking called cause and effect. The analyst left out far more significant variables such as the quality of the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's what's wrong with the two analyses:

 

1. If a player leans slightly to the right or left during a long tiresome game, it's probably caused by muscle fatigue rather than some complex baseball strategy.

 

2. The comments by the analyst on the Duke-Louisville game suggests that he attributes a five point differential to 3 days of rest or 4. There's a concept in logical thinking called cause and effect. The analyst left out far more significant variables such as the quality of the opposition.

 

1. Maybe, maybe not. I used to lean a certain way when I played the infield in anticipation of where the ball may be hit. I could actually tell when a RH hitter was going to try to hit the ball to the right side of the infield so I would lean that way.

 

2. I agree with you that there would be other variables to take into account but the basic premise makes sense in that a team with an extra day of rest should possibly play a little better. What wouldn't make sense is the other way around.

 

I see no problem with either example, but it is apparent that you just don't like McCarver, which is fine. I dislike hearing Buck Martinez - to each his own.

 

Answer me this question. Why do you think the Orioles lost so may games a couple seasons back when they played on Sundays? Was it due to Wieters being rested, or the players out partying Saturday night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a moronic analogy. When did a cigarette ever save someones life?
Guns don't save lives. People save lives. Guns are inanimate objects.

Share this post


Link to post
1. Maybe, maybe not. I used to lean a certain way when I played the infield in anticipation of where the ball may be hit. I could actually tell when a RH hitter was going to try to hit the ball to the right side of the infield so I would lean that way.

 

yeah, but that was before the invention of gloves :-).

 

McCarver, while at one time was a decent analyst, he crossed over into the "taking to hear himself speak" category....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCarver crossed over into the "talking to hear himself speak" category....

 

there it is.

 

if he was rooting for a team, and he always had an obvious dog in every fight, everyone on that team was a god among men. as a NYY sycophant, he would do things like heep high praise on the infield grass at yankee stadium for instantly growing 1/16 of an inch to slow down a NY bunt, allowing the runners to advance.

 

the most routine positioning and play is a HOF worthy moment if it was perfromed by the team he was rooting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there it is.

 

if he was rooting for a team, and he always had an obvious dog in every fight, everyone on that team was a god among men. as a NYY sycophant, he would do things like heep high praise on the infield grass at yankee stadium for instantly growing 1/16 of an inch to slow down a NY bunt, allowing the runners to advance.

 

the most routine positioning and play is a HOF worthy moment if it was perfromed by the team he was rooting for.

 

He was a StL Cardinal catcher and actually faced the Yankees in the WS

(1964 I believe) so why would he be rooting for them?:confused: I could see his favortism if the Cardinals were one of the teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites