Keep Talking, Tim McCarver

I have mixed emotions about McCarver, but calling poor fielding by Duncan is like calling a Carpenter strikeout. Or, more accurately, predicting that the sun will come up tomorrow. In a close game, we'd always do better with Taguchi....or pretty much anybody else.

I will complement him on knowing that though. I've been amused many times this season by natonal commentators' who seem to be passingly familiar with players' general reps, but completely ignorant of their actual performance.

Rob

Orlando:

This may not be as easy or as straightforward as you think.

quote:

Originally posted by Orlando:
Or, more accurately, predicting that the sun will come up tomorrow.

What about those guys hunkered down in Tora Bora?

From the deep recesses of their current residence they may not know for sure if the sun came up or not.

Perhaps if Al Jazeera carries The Weather Channel they might be able to keep abreast of the sun's habits.





I know...I know...it's a stretch for sure. Always trying to spread a little sunshine.

I am not a McCarver basher, either, and when I lived in NY in the early '80s I enjoyed him doing the Mets broadcasts. That being said, he is really not very good nor accurate anymore.

Both he and Joe Buck made claims about the Tigers and their players that were just not true, and anyone who saw the Tigers play a lot this year knows that.

He doesn't seem to pay attention to some details and yet he still tries to act as if he is always correct. For example, in the final game last night, first inning, when Verlander threw a wild pitch.......McCarver said it was a fastball and it was due to nerves, because as Tim claimed pitchers usually throw that wildly only with breaking balls and changeups.....and since he thought it was a fastball it has to be nerves.......the pitch was in fact an 80 MPH changeup, and the slo-mo replay even showed the changeup rotation of the pitch, which McCarver did not acknowledge.

His mentioning of Duncan needing to be taken out, as Orlando mentioned, was not a revelation, but ML managers rarely remove a player for defensive purposes that early in a game, especially when the game is still close. My daughter would know to get Duncan out of there in later innings to protect a lead.

Again, I'm not trying to bash him, but when you listen to some national guys like that talk about the team you see play every day, many things just stand out as inaccurate.

Your daughter might have caught that fly ball..........

My impression. McCarver was unusually quiet last night b/c he was having 1968 flashbacks--and perhaps it was keep quiet or be a homer. But him and Buck did a great job in that respect during the series.

That's a good one FO!


And grateful...your thoughts and observations are correct. That's why I prefer to tune in to the homers while watching or listening to the local teams performing on the national stage.

Well this may not be well received but I turned off my sound and listened to John Miller and Joe Morgan on ESPN radio while I watched the game. For my money these two make Buck and McCarver look like hometown hacks. But that is just my two cents.

M&M, B&M, all idiots. I have heard more stupid comments from them than can be counted.

Just like blaming a bad throw by the pitcher on the fact that he fielded the ball barehanded (game before last?). The pitcher fielded the ball clean as could be, he just didn't set his feet before he made the throw. Yet the commentator goes on & on about the error being caused by barehanding the ball.

Then there was McCarver and the "backwards slider". For crying out loud, hasn't he ever heard of a two seam fb?

And then there was the talking head going on about Weaver throwing from the 3/4 slot. Said something about the way he pitched, the ball had to go down as it went to the plate. Ummm... Except for the underhanded pitcher, the ball always has to go down as it goes to the plate.

Talking about how a pitcher was trying to handcuff the batter and what a good job he did of putting it right in there on the fists - but the catcher was set up on the outside corner. {Not arguing at all about it being a good idea to go inside, but that was NOT where the pitcher was trying to go.}

And on & on. I can't believe these guys ever played the game. And frequently, I'm not sure they are watching the same game I am.

If you want to have a pleasurable experience, go to the MLB digital downloads. Download the '64 WS game with the Dodgers and Twins. Listen to those two guys. They called the game. Not all this idiotic "analysis". None of this amazing Kreskin act of telling us what some player or manager was thinking. The game was not about commentators or their egos, but about the play on the field. They weren't scared to have a moment or two of silence along the way. They called a game with class.

quote:

The game was not about commentators or their egos, but about the play on the field. They weren't scared to have a moment or two of silence along the way. They called a game with class.

quote:

The game was not about commentators or their egos, but about the play on the field. They weren't scared to have a moment or two of silence along the way. They called a game with class.

Texan - excellent points.

Vin Scully has a style that basically goes back to the old days so I would prefer to hear someone like that all by himself. Apparently, he follows a tradition that goes back to Red Barber (never heard him while alive). I have always liked John Miller even though he is from the new school. When the Indians were in the WS, I hated McCarver so I understand how people who follow the hometown team may not like him because sometimes he seems to homer for the other team - expecially the Yankees. Didn't seem like he did that this year though. I just do not care for Joe Morgan's analysis for no other reason than I do not care for it.

Funny you should mention that, CD. It was interesting that in that '64 WS broadcast, the Twins man called 4.5 innings, then Scully called the final 4.5. They didn't really work it together.

Scully is probably the best I have heard for baseball.

quote:

McCarver

I hate the ultra-controlled PR tone you hear in these broadcasts. In Paris, we get the "international" feed (i.e. the one also transmitted through the Armed Forces Network). Color man Rick Sutcliff, while known as a very nice fella back in Kansas City, sounded like he was reading his commentary from Bud Selig's laptop.

Visually, Fox's overbearing use of close-up facial photography may appeal to casual fans, but doesn't work for me.

Finally, I miss the ESPN strike zone tracker, which I suspect (subconsciously at least) adds some accountability to the game.

quote:

Originally posted by grateful:
For example, in the final game last night, first inning, when Verlander threw a wild pitch.......McCarver said it was a fastball and it was due to nerves, because as Tim claimed pitchers usually throw that wildly only with breaking balls and changeups.....and since he thought it was a fastball it has to be nerves.......the pitch was in fact an 80 MPH changeup, and the slo-mo replay even showed the changeup rotation of the pitch, which McCarver did not acknowledge.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing....no way that pitch was a fastball!!! Would it have killed him to say "Oh, I guess it was a change-up, not a fastball"

Beez:

quote:

Originally posted by Beezer:
Would it have killed him to say "Oh, I guess it was a change-up, not a fastball"

Probably.

quote:

Originally posted by deldad:
Well this may not be well received but I turned off my sound and listened to John Miller and Joe Morgan on ESPN radio while I watched the game. For my money these two make Buck and McCarver look like hometown hacks. But that is just my two cents.

Del Dad:

You are far from alone on this one... I would rather have Miller and Morgan any day...

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:
Funny you should mention that, CD. It was interesting that in that '64 WS broadcast, the Twins man called 4.5 innings, then Scully called the final 4.5. They didn't really work it together.

Scully is probably the best I have heard for baseball.

That is what NBC used to do every year--use the primary announcer from each team for half of each game. That way we got to hear some of the greats. We also got much better insight since those announcers lived with their teams all year long. I miss those days. Miss afternoon WS games and those special times when the teacher would wheel a TV into the room so we could watch too.