The Wisdom of Tim McCarver

Issue: Uh, Wisdom?

Short Answer:  I was being facetious...

Reasoning:  I have to be honest.  After the Reds were knocked out of the playoffs (by themselves), my attention turned to football.  I didn't watch much of the NLCS or ALCS.  However, the World Series is different.  It's quite possibly my favorite sporting event.  So, last night, with Game 1 starting, I settled on my couch with a cold beer and a high definition television, and I prepared myself to be a bum for the next 3 hours.  Sometimes baseball can be boring (no, really, it can be), so I was thinking of a way to keep it interesting, even in the face of what turned out to be an 8-1 Giants victory.  And then it hit me.  Why not keep track of all the insanely stupid things Tim McCarver says during the game?  Yes, I will need multiple notepads and pens, but let's just see how stupid he can be.  I thought I might be able to fit a whole series worth of McCarverisms into one post, but, after only one game, I may already have too many (plus, I may not always have 3 hours to sit down and listen to everything McCarver says, thankfully).  The following is a list of quotes from McCarver last night.  They are NOT direct quotes, as I wasn't going to take the time to rewind and get it exactly right.  I would hear something, wonder if I was dreaming or tripping, shake my head and write down what I could remember.  Here goes:

• With the Tigers' young outfielder Avisail Garcia at the plate, McCarver noticed that he had his left hand (he's a right-handed hitter) down below the knob of the bat.  McCarver said "you don't see a lot of young guys with the grip off the bat like that.  That is VERY unconventional."  Oh, Tim.  First, it's called cowtailing.  Second, almost every freakin' player does it.  A lot of players actually get tapered knobs on their bats to make it easier to cowtail.  Tim just said this to say this, knowing most people would have no idea one way or the other.
• After Justin Verlander gave up an 0-2 homer to Pablo Sandoval, Tim and Joe Buck quipped that Verlander had probably never given up an 0-2 home run.  Then they checked.  McCarver: "There were 192 0-2 home runs given up this year in Major League Baseball.  NONE were given up by Verlander.  NONE.  NONE.  ZERO.  NOT ONE."  This is McCarver attempting to add drama to something that's not dramatic.  Let's do some simple math.  There are 30 teams in MLB.  Most carry around 13 pitchers in the regular season.  That is 390 pitchers, give or take.  Let's say no pitcher gave up more than one 0-2 home run.  That means almost 200 pitchers DID NOT GIVE UP AN 0-2 HOME RUN THIS YEAR.  And, in case you were wondering, Justin Verlander was one of those 200.  He gave up NONE.
• With Omar Infante at the plate, after he was way out in front of a changeup: "He tried to hook that ball down the line."  Uh, Tim, no one tries to hook the ball down the line, ever.  Hitters try to hit the ball hard, period.  Where it goes, it goes.  Didn't you play baseball??
• After Pablo Sandoval's second home run, and the cameras caught Verlander saying "Wow": "Even a 'wow' from Verlander!"  Wrong "wow" Tim.  Verlander was shocked that the ball left the yard, not at how awesome Sandoval is.
• After an unconventional double play where Delmon Young dribbled one in front of the plate, was tagged by Buster Posey, who then threw to second where a tag was applied to Prince Fielder: "Delmon Young refused to run to first.  Had he run, Posey would have had to go to second to get the force and it's doubtful they would have been able to turn two."  He didn't refuse to run, he thought it was going to be foul.  Doubtful they would have turned two?  Have you seen Young and Fielder?  That would be like turning two on the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and the Pillsbury Doughboy.  Pretty sure they still had time.
• After a commercial break, McCarver continued about the same play.  He explained that if Young had run, the ball would have hit him in fair territory and he would have been called out, which would have negated any chance at a double play because after it hit Young, the ball would be called dead.  McCarver: "Either way, had he run, the Tigers would have been much, much better off."  That you Captain Obvious!
• Verlander was so bad last night, even Barry Zito had and RBI single.  Immediately after, the Giants fans chanted "BARRY!  BARRY!  BARRY!"  Joe Buck commented that, even though it had been awhile, this park has chanted that before.  McCarver: "For Barry Manilow.  At a concert."  I was looking at my phone when he said it and my head shot up.  Surely that was a joke.  Even McCarver has a sense of humor.  Right?!?!  Wrong.  He was dead effing serious.  This is a guy hired to talk about baseball on the biggest stage in the world.  And he gives you Barry Manilow.  For those of you still wondering, Joe Buck was talking about that one dude who used to play for the Giants...Barry Bonds.  Duh.
• In one at bat, Pablo Sandoval accidentally let go of his bat while finishing his swing.  The bat slammed into the concrete wall by the dugout, breaking it down by the knob.  McCarver: "That is a RARITY!  How many times do you see that [the bat breaking by the knob]?!?!"  Well, Tim, you don't.  Unless, that is, a guy lets go of his bat after his swing and it slams into a concrete wall.  This guy is unreal...
• As Tim Lincecum went down to the bullpen to warm up: "Lincecum never needs more that 15 pitches to warm up.  Even when he starts."  OK, this in itself is not dumb.  And it may be true.  But, McCarver left it at that.  No explanation.  Is this common knowledge?  Does he have a source?  For the record, after the commercial break, he changed "never" to "rarely" reaffirming the fact that McCarver just made it up in the first place.
• Lincecum threw great.  For those of you who don't know, Lincecum was relegated to the bullpen late in the year after being one of the best starters in the game for the last 4 years.  In the middle of his performance, McCarver dropped this wisdom on us: "There is a 2-fold reason for Lincecum to pitch well in the World Series: 1) to restore his confidence so he can; 2) get back in the starting rotation next year."  What.  The.  F@#k?  I've got one reason for Lincecum to pitch well - to help his team win the World Effing Series.  That is all.
• As Lincecum went full count on someone, up by 5 runs: "He HAS to throw a fastball here."  Slider.  Strike 3.  Good call Tim.
• With Lincecum still on the hill, McCarver started talking about the "illusions of strikes".  Actually he said it about 20 times.  I still have no clue what he is talking about.  I even rewound it to listen again, because I was so confused.  Still nothing.  Let's move on.
• "Most pitchers are 'individual' and not 'team' guys.  By the very nature of their position.  It's a very individual position.  Nothing happens until the pitcher puts the ball in play."  I don't even know where to start.  This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.  First off, right field is just as "individual" as pitching.  In fact, all positions are "individual".  Baseball is often described as an "individual team game".  McCarver's logic is pitchers are individual because they control the pace of the game.  Aren't quarterbacks the same?  So, by McCarver's logic (an oxymoron) all quarterbacks are "individual" and not "team" guys too.  Oh, wait, my bad, I forgot McCarver doesn't think before he speaks.  Perhaps he doesn't think at all...
• With Lincecum now dominating the Tigers: "The Tigers are having trouble because they don't have anyone in the American League that throws like Lincecum."  Tim, no one, anywhere, has anyone that throws like Lincecum.  But you'd have to actually pay attention to baseball to know that.  They call him "The Freak" for a reason.

And that is all in Game 1.  I left some things out because they were dumb, but perhaps not dumb enough.  Although, almost everything McCarver says is dumb.  You know it's bad when he makes a comment that makes sense, and it catches you completely off-guard.  Can't wait to watch Game 2 on mute.

The Wizard of Westwood

Issue: College basketball already??

Short Answer: Sort of...

Reasoning: I was dallying around on Facebook the other day (which means I was so bored I didn't know what to do with myself), when I came across the following video.  Now, before you click play, let me warn you, it is long (something like 17 minutes), and the star of the video, John Wooden, may ramble from time to time (the guy lived to be almost 100...give him a break).  So, for those of you who do not have 17 minutes (I know you are reading this at work right now, soooo, c'mon, let's be honest), I will summarize for you after the video.

The first thing I notice is the title: The difference between winning and succeeding.  Most people would think they go hand-in-hand.  Mr. Wooden believes differently, and he does a great job explaining the difference.  A few other points worth noting:

• "Mr. Webster defined [success]: as the accumulation of material possessions or the attainment of a position of power or prestige...but in my opinion [that is] not necessarily indicative of success."
• "Dad tried to teach me and my brothers that you should never try to be better than someone else...always learn from others."
• "Never cease trying to be the best you can be - that's under your control.  If you get too engrossed and involved and concerned in regard to the things over which you have no control, it will adversely affect those things over which you have control."
• Mr. Wooden's definition of success: "Peace of mind attained only through self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do the best of which you're capable."
• "Your reputation is what you are perceived to be; your character is what you really are."
• Mr. Wooden's number one rule in life: "Never be late."
• Mr. Wooden's advice to young coaches: "Don't run practices late.  Because you'll go home in a bad mood.  And that's not good, for a young married man to go home in a bad mood.  When you get older, it doesn't make any difference."
• "And I say to you, in whatever you're doing, you must be patient."
• "I think our tendency is to hope things will turn out the way we want them to much of the time.  But we don't do the things that are necessary to make those things become reality."
• "Don't whine.  Don't complain.  Don't make excuses.  Just get out there, and whatever you're doing, do it to the best of your ability."
• "My idea is that you can lose when you outscore somebody in a game.  And you can win when you're outscored."
• "I used to say that when a game is over, and you see somebody that didn't know the outcome, I hope they couldn't tell by your actions whether you outscored and opponent or the opponent outscored you."
• "I've had some players the could and wouldn't [pass the basketball], and I've had some that would and couldn't."

Those are the highlights.  What I can't show in my synopsis is Mr. Wooden quoting poetry as if he is reading it out of a book, somewhere in his mid-90's.  It's uncanny.  The video is worth the watch, because, in my opinion, anything Mr. Wooden says is worth listening to.  He is the greatest teacher of all time.

The Cincinnati Redlegs {Sigh}

Issue: Is it your fault the Reds suffered the worst collapse in playoff history?

Short Answer: It could be, but...

Reasoning: I had the honor (?) of attending all three of the Reds home playoff games against the Giants, and I have been getting a lot of crap from people about being the bad luck charm for my beloved Redlegs.  I do take some of the blame, but, it's like my brother said as we were walking out of game 4: [spoken in a tone that one would speak to a 2 year old] "Really?  Do you really think you had something to do with them losing?  Really?"  Good point.  So, I give you a few things we can blame the Reds collapse on...besides me:

1. Dusty Baker.  There are a lot of reasons I can't stand Dusty Baker (he never bunts when he should, he manages his pitchers awfully, he gets lucky all the time, he's loyal to a fault, etc.) and there are a lot of reasons I like Dusty Baker (2 Central Championships in 3 years, players love him....OK, that's all I've got).  However, there were a few moves made in games 3-5 that made absolutely no sense.  The first one happened in game 3.  Aroldis Chapman had just set down the Giants in the top of the 9th on 15 pitches.  The Reds were also retired in the bottom of the 9th.  So what does Dusty do?  He brings in Jonathan Broxton in the 10th.  Alright, I get it, Chapman doesn't normally throw more than one inning.  BUT THIS IS THE PLAYOFFS!!  Who cares?!  Aroldis Chapman is not only your best reliever, he is arguably your best pitcher.  Let him throw another inning.  Wouldn't you rather get beat with your best on the hill?  Instead, Dusty put in Broxton - single, single, K, K, passed ball, error - Reds lose and have to send Mike Leake to the hill the next day.  Uh oh.  The other move Dusty made that didn't make sense was his decision to start Scott Rolen in game 5.  I love Scott Rolen.  I love how he plays the game.  I love having him on our side.  However, his time is up.  Rolen started in game 3 and made the error that scored the game-winning run (he did not lose the game for the Reds, but unfortunately for him, that is the play everyone remembers).  Dusty made a good move in game 4 by starting Rookie-of-the-Year candidate Todd Frazier at 3rd.  Frazier went 0-for-3 with a walk and an RBI in game 4.  Not great, but in an 8-3 loss, not at all terrible (especially when being used exclusively as a pinch-hitter...for reasons only Dusty knows).  So, what does Dusty do for perhaps the most important game in his history managing the Reds?  He starts Scott Rolen.  In Rolen's defense, he was 2 for 5.  In my defense, his 2 hits meant nothing, he stranded 3 runners, and made the last out of the game with the tying runs on base.  Again, I love Scott Rolen, but Todd Frazier was the right start in game 5, if for no other reason than to help energize the crowd, which didn't have much to cheer about.  P.S. For those of you whining about the Reds resigning Dusty, stop it.  He's won 2 division titles in 3 years.  You CAN'T let a guy like that go...even if he may not know what he's doing.
2. Johnny Cueto.  He's the Reds best starter, by far.  He's a Cy Young candidate.  He threw 8 pitches in the series.  I realize we actually ended up winning the game he started, but the ramifications of him getting hurt in game 1 were far-reaching.  Game 2 starter Mat Latos has to come in and finish game 1.  Game 3 starter Bronson Arroyo has to start game 2.  He threw a gem and won.  Game 4 starter Homer Bailey has to start game 3.  He threw a gem and the offense falls asleep.  Now we reach game 4.  Do you start Mat Latos on 3 days rest?  If you do, and he loses game 4, who do you start game 5?  Do you start shoplifting-champ Mike Leake?  What are your chances of winning with him on the hill?  Tough call, but I think Dusty made the right one in starting Leake.  Even though, in the end, you are giving the game away.  If Leake starts, and wins game 4, it would have been a monstrous upset.  Leake had a terrible year, and there was a reason he wasn't on the playoff roster to begin with.  Sending Leake out in game 4 was Dusty essentially telling the Giants "see you in game 5."  Stinks that it had to be that way, but I blame Johnny Cueto.
3. The Reds offense.  Or complete lack thereof.  Let me clarify: it wasn't necessarily the Reds offense, it was the Reds complete lack of clutch hitting.  I say this because the lowest batting average of any every day Red was Ryan Hanigan at .200.  Hell, Drew Stubbs even hit .211!  Zach Cozart (.238), Rolen (.250), and Jay Bruce (.263) all had a respectable series.  Ryan Ludwick (.333), Brandon Phillips (.375), and Joey Votto (.389) all had a fantastic series.  Compare that with some of the Giants numbers: Angel Pagan (.150), Marco Scutaro (.150), Buster Posey (.211), Hunter Pence (.200), Brandon Belt (.077), Brandon Crawford (.182).  And the Reds lost.  Doesn't seem possible.  In the end, the Reds stranded 28 runners over the last three games (a stat that has been repeated ad nauseum in Cincinnati over the last few days) and were 3-for-24 (.125) with runners in scoring position.  Oh, let's not forget the fact that after they recorded three hits in the 1st inning of game 1, they recorded just one more hit the rest of the game, one which they lost in 10 innings.  Yes, this was the same game Homer Bailey took a no-hitter into the 6th...and ended up with a no-decision (he did give up a run however, when he plunked the lead off batter, walked the next, sac bunt, sac fly = 1 run, zero hits).
4. Brandon Phillips.  Say what?!?!  Didn't he have a phenomenal series, offensively and defensively?  Yes, he did.  However, he made one play that may have turned the tide of the entire series, and it happened early in game 3.  The Reds had just finished taking 2 games, rather convincingly, in San Francisco.  They headed home to Cincinnati needing just one win to move on to the NLCS.  They had not lost three games in a row at home all year.  After Homer Bailey retired the Giants in order in the 1st, Brandon Phillips led off the bottom of the 1st with a single to center.  Business as usual.  With Zack Cozart at the plate, Phillips took off for second and the ball got away from Giants catcher Buster Posey.  As Phillips took a hard turn around 2nd base, I realized it was all for show because even a 7 year old kid knows you do not make the first or third out at 3rd base.  Hey Brandon, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!  NO ONE MAKES THE FIRST OR THIRD...and he did it.  He went.  And he got thrown out.  Since I was there, I know why he went: it was the crowd.  45,000+ people screaming at the same moment has a tendency to make someone do something they might not normally do.  And what the crowd made Brandon do was make a HUGE base running blunder.  Cozart walked.  Votto flew out.  Ludwick singled.  Bruce singled, scoring Cozart.  Rolen struck out.  That's 1 run on 3 hits.  Unacceptable.  The Giants came out of that inning feeling like they had won something.  They had to be thinking "did we really get out of that only giving up one run?"  That also seemed like the moment the Reds' offense stopped.  They would only record one more hit the entire game.  The Giants would record 3 hits in the game, all after there were 2 outs in the 6th inning, and would win.  Talk about a momentum shift.  All because Brandon Phillips got caught up in the crowd in the first inning.  If the Reds go up 2-0 in the 1st, they win that series in 3 games.  Since they didn't, they didn't.  Hey, Brandon, just in case you forgot, never make the first or third out at third base.  Thanks.

The worst part about the Reds' collapse in the playoffs is people will remember 2012 for just that reason.  They won't remember the energy the Reds injected into the people of Cincinnati FOR THE ENTIRE SUMMER.  In the past, the Reds have competed, but there always came a time when you knew they would be out of it and going to the ballpark didn't really mean much.  Even in 2010, when they won the Central, you had a feeling the Phillies were just too good.  After Roy Halladay no-hit the Reds in game 1, every one knew they were.  But this year was different.  The Reds had the team.  They had the offense.  They had the pitching.  They had the defense.  They had the bullpen.  They very well could have been the best team in the Majors, on paper.  The only thing the Reds lacked was the moxie to win one game at home, when they had three chances to do so.  Something tells me this winter is going to be a long one.  Can't wait until pitchers and catchers report in February.

The Infamous Infield Fly...

Issue: Was "infield fly" the correct call in the Braves/Cardinals game?

Short Answer: Yes.  And I knew it would take something like this to get me writing again.

Reasoning:  First, let me just say, calm down.  I didn't say I liked the call, I just said it was correct.  And, in order to ascertain why it was correct, we must break down the rule itself.  So, without further ado, Rule 2.00, Definition of Terms, in the Major League Baseball rulebook, states:

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out...When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners....Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder —not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately.

Whew.  That certainly sounds like it was written by a bunch of lawyers.  Unfortunately.  So, since I was trained as a lawyer (sort of), I will try to walk you through this a bit.  First, one should notice that the author of this rule used the term "ordinary effort".  I'm not sure someone could come up with a more vague or ambiguous phrase, and that's how you know a lawyer wrote it.  The rule book goes on to define "ordinary effort" as: "the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions."  One must then ask if Pete Kozma, the Cardinals shortstop, could have made that play with ordinary effort.  The answer is a resounding YES.  I would expect most high school shortstops (and maybe even Little League shortstops) could catch that ball with ordinary effort.  For a Major League shortstop, that ball should be caught with less than ordinary effort.  And, if you watch the video, Kozma is going after that ball with NO MORE than ordinary effort.  He is not sprinting.  He is not panicking.  He is cruising, waiting to open his back pocket so the ball to fall into it. I think we can all agree on this.  Here is the video just so you can review:

The second thing I notice about the rule is the fact that an infield fly can be called even if the ball is eventually fielded by an OUTFIELDER, if the ball in question "could have been as easily handled by an infielder."  Folks, the ball was being called, with waving arms, by an infielder.  It doesn't matter that the ball fell to the ground in the outfield 225 feet from home plate.  Now, I will play the good lawyer and argue the other side of this.  What if someone hit a sky high fly ball, 300 feet from home plate, which gave an infielder ample time to run all the way out there and call the ball.  Is this an infield fly?  The answer is yes.  HOWEVER, I would like to think most umpires would use their best judgment and not call that an infield fly.  I think the whole situation is implausible in the first place, but, under the rule, the umpire would been absolutely correct if he called it an infield fly.  In the case Friday night, Kozma went 225 feet out to make a play he has made 1,000 times in his life.  He was camped.  He was waving.  If I was the umpire, I would have let the play go, but, it is not the wrong call.

Continuing on, we seem to have a contradiction in the rule and in the comment following the rule.  In the rule it says "[w]hen it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners." (emphasis added)  Then, in the comment it states "The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately." (emphasis added).  What gives?  Well, when deciphering this rule (or any rule or law) one must look at the actual rule.  The comments are there to help in deciphering the rule.  In this case, when the comment says the decision should be made immediately, it only refers back to the rule that says the call should be made immediately, after it seems apparent that the ball could be fielded by an infielder.  In this case, the umpire had to wait until he saw who was going to take control of the play.  I think if Matt Holliday is doing his job and comes in screaming off Kozma, the umpire lets the play happen.  Since the ump saw Kozma take control, waving his arms, he then called the infield fly rule.  Late, yes.  Correct, yes.  Unfortunate that the ball hit the turf, no question about it.

Finally, as in law school, one must look at the intent of the original rule.  And, I must say, this is the ONLY reason I believe this call was incorrect.  But seriously, are we going to hold umpires to knowing  every rule, and the intent of every rule?  Maybe at the Major League level, but I still think that's a stretch.  The intent of the infield fly rule was this: "To prevent the defense by making a double play by subterfuge, at a time when the offense is helpless to prevent it, rather than by skill or speed."*  Now, there is absolutely zero chance that, if Kozma were to have dropped that ball on purpose, that he would have turned a double play.  In fact, he may have been lucky to get one.  Although, seriously, if he were going to drop it on purpose, he would have done so by letting the ball drop in front of him, therefore ensuring that he got at least one out.  However, the spirit of the rule dictates that it was put into the rulebook to avoid double or triple plays because of trickery.  Under that intent, the call on Friday night was wrong.  Kozma wasn't being tricky.  He mistakenly thought he was being called off by Holliday or he heard the umpire call infield fly which caused him to peel off (possibly thinking it was Holliday calling him off).  As a former ball player, when you are going out to make a play on a pop-up, part of you is just waiting to be called off, because outfielders are taught to take control.  But, I digress.  Umpires aren't taught to take the intent or spirit of the rule into account when making a call.  They are taught the rule and how and when it applies.  Under that logic, the rule was applied correctly, period.

Again, I'm not saying I like the rule.  I'm not saying I like the call (especially because it helped the Cardinals advance...is there any chance they don't ride this to another World Series title?  I hope that isn't the case).  However, everyone crying foul, saying this call was wrong, is, well, wrong.  A bad call and a wrong call are two completely different things.  And this call was not wrong.  Bad, on the other hand?  You be the judge.

*H. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years (1960)