The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 05:04pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFump
Wouldn't that be a double? Yes he is annoying.
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 24, 2006, 05:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Greater Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 611
Send a message via Yahoo to umpduck11
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFump
Wouldn't that be a double?
That sounds like a rule 10 question. Do we have a resident Rule 10 expert
here ?
__________________
All generalizations are bad. - R.H. Grenier
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 10:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,592
last night he said something about a guy wearing glasses must be a book reader.
__________________
Do you ever feel like your stuff strutted off without you?
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 10:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
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.
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".
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 11:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
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 in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 11:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,577
When I played Little League, I didn't want to get thrown out at any base.

Maybe I was intolerant.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 12:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 02:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueLawyer
How about not talking about Steve Palermo shooting or threatening to shoot anybody? Even McCarver . . .

Strikes and outs!
Oh, lighten up. The bitter irony was intentional.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 02:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Anyone else think it's a bit oxymoronic that something labelled the Tim McCarver Intelligence Thread ended up being long?
That was my hope and desire from the beginning, mc.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 03:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP25
Oh, lighten up. The bitter irony was intentional.

You're asking a lawyer to lighten up?
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 03:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 03:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Bend, In.
Posts: 2,192
Send a message via AIM to BigUmp56 Send a message via Yahoo to BigUmp56
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon30307
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.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 04:04pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon30307
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.
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 04:04pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 08:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,577
Your Tigers had better start hitting....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Official" unofficial LL World Series Thread SanDiegoSteve Baseball 201 Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:17am
Buck and McCarver SanDiegoSteve Baseball 16 Thu Oct 27, 2005 08:48am
Intelligence and the ASA rule book greymule Softball 38 Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:06pm
Mick's huh Thread {worthy of separate thread} Stat-Man Basketball 1 Sun Nov 07, 2004 06:28pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1