No, it would be a single. Going to third on a double is pretty automatic. McCarver is right in this case, as it has something to do with playing strategy, and not rules interpretation.

With one out it is the recommended situation to try for 1st to 3rd on a slight gamble. If R1 gets thrown out at 3rd, it's not the end of the inning, plus the BR can usually take second on the throw, which leaves a runner in scoring position with 2 out. This is what McCarver was referring to by saying that sometimes it's a good play to get thrown out at 3rd.

That sounds like a rule 10 question. Do we have a resident Rule 10 expert
here ? :D

last night he said something about a guy wearing glasses must be a book reader. :confused:

It's never a good play to get thrown out at third. That's my point. It's a stupid remark. Typical "McCarverism." Let see what would you rather have 1st and 2nd one out or runner on 2nd two outs? You never want to get thrown out at 3rd. Being on 2nd you're already in scoring position and have more outs to work with and therefore a greater probability of having a big inning. I'm a fan of "money ball".

With all fairness to Tim McCarver (I can't believe I'm saying this), I have heard this phrase (never make the 1st or 3rd out at third base) many times growing up. I never understood why it was okay to make the 2nd out at third.

All I know is that when I played my "moments" in professional ball, we got our butts chewed - big time - if we got thrown out at 3rd no matter how many outs there were!

When I played Little League, I didn't want to get thrown out at any base.

Maybe I was intolerant.

SDS had it right: of course, you don't want to get thrown out at 3B (or any other), but with 1 out on a single to RF, R1 will usually try to get to 3B. It's a risk, but with 1 out the risk is worth it.

Why not with 0 or 2 outs? With 0 outs you run the risk of killing a big inning; and with 2 outs, there's no further chance to score.

The odds of scoring go up dramatically by having the runner at 3B as opposed to 2B, and this fact justifies the risk of trying to get R1 over to 3B.

McCarver was repeating a standard piece of strategy, not making things up.

Oh, lighten up. The bitter irony was intentional.

That was my hope and desire from the beginning, mc. ;)

You're asking a lawyer to lighten up? :D

What would you rather have. First and second and one out or a runner on second and two outs? If oyu're going from frst to third on a hit you better be 99% certain that you're going to make it. It's not a good play if you're thrown out at third. Saying it is is just plain silly.

You're right. It's not a good play if you're thrown out at third, but the percentages are in your favor with the ball in right field that you'll make it safely to third. If the defense does play on R1 at third, then the BR should be able to move up to second to remove the DP potential. There's a lot that has to go right for the defense to successfully throw out a runner at third from right field. Unless they have a player with an absolute cannon who can get it there on a hop, there has to be a good throw to the cutoff, a good turn on the cut, a good throw from the cut, and a good tag on R1.


Tim.

This is why the people who say this, and take the risk with one out, are managing in the big leagues, while you are posting on an internet umpire forum criticizing this time-honored philosophy.

McCarver doesn't have the scoop on Sean Casey (1B Detroit) who stretches his left hip-flexor, every time, just before he steps into the batter's box.

McCarver said it was because of his calf injury in the ALDS, but since he's been a Tiger (back in August ?) he's been loosening up those ol' bones and things.

Tiger fan.

Your Tigers had better start hitting....