Tim McCarver's Genius

[philkid3]

On his own blog Schilling says he doesn't throw the splitter in the zone. He recently admonished himself for throwing it in the zone too often at some point.

Hitters swing because they're trying to protect themselves when down in the count. He throws it out of the zone so it's harder to hit.

[rockin500]

Anyone else bugged by McCarver insisting that "rarely is Schilling's splitter a strike"? If a pitch is rarely going to be a strike, why throw it?

no not really, since it never will be called a strike since it dives out of the zone.

[Erik Bedard]

If the batter swings and misses, then it will be a strike. McCarver was going on and on about how the splitter will rarely be a strike. Not that it dives out of the zone, which I could understand, or how Schill's main idea in throwing it is to get the batter to chase, just that it will rarely be a strike. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense.

[Sweet Lou]

Thanks DiMag4Life, I would've never guessed the number of leadoff totals for the year. Overall, the leadoff walk does produce more 2+ innings and the difference in percentage are surprisingly low. Maybe McCarver knows more than "we" give him credit for.

Before I saw this, I was thinkng that during the course of a 162 game season, I would guess there would be some 150 -200 leadoff walks or thereabout? I would guess there would be 10 - 20 leadoff homers? I really don't know. Unless my guess is way off, I'm as "stupid" as Tim McCarver. I would think that there would be more chances for multi-run innings when leadoff walks were issued.

I'm probably confused, but the percentages make the difference to me. There is a greater chance of multi run innings when a leadoff HR is given up compared to the chances when a leadoff walk is issued. The percentages are indeed closer than I would have guessed, but the percentages are still slightly higher for HR.
Now as far as how many multi run innings there are, there is a greater number of those that start out with leadoff walks than start out with leadoff HR, but that is only because there are less leadoff homeruns. So in that sense, what McCarver was saying was true.
But...if you want a multi run inning, you increase your chances of that by hitting a leadoff HR more than you increase your chances by a leadoff walk.

Man, I'll say one thing: At least McCarver makes us all think about stuff....

[Sweet Lou]

If the batter swings and misses, then it will be a strike. McCarver was going on and on about how the splitter will rarely be a strike. Not that it dives out of the zone, which I could understand, or how Schill's main idea in throwing it is to get the batter to chase, just that it will rarely be a strike. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense.

Maybe McCarver needs to clarify himself better. Maybe he's saying that if the batter doesn't swing, if the batter could lay off, exercise patience and take the pitch, it would be called a ball. But Schilling knows how to dress it up with gift wrap and bow, complete with a card that says "This is for you, go ahead and take it, as a gift from me" and he knows those batters are like kids that just can't say no!
Who know, but I'm about to go to a buddies house and listen to more fodder for this thread.
Go Rox!

[Old Sweater]

Hate the split screen on the interviews.

[rockin500]

If the batter swings and misses, then it will be a strike. McCarver was going on and on about how the splitter will rarely be a strike. Not that it dives out of the zone, which I could understand, or how Schill's main idea in throwing it is to get the batter to chase, just that it will rarely be a strike. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense.

i think its understood or at least it [i]should[/b] be understood what he means. I cant stand mccarver, but in this case, hes accurate enough.

[Erik Bedard]

I get that, but it just bugs me that he goes on and on about something that isn't even technically true.

[rockin500]

I get that, but it just bugs me that he goes on and on about something that isn't even technically true.

eh, i find lots of other reasons to get irritated at him!

[TonyK]

Tim did make one point that I've never heard before. When the Rockies battery was having difficulty over a sign, he explained that it might be because the catcher made a mistake and wanted to change it. I thought he was being honest when mentioning sometimes the catcher may give a sign and realize too late that he had given the wrong sign.

About all the catcher can do once he realizes the wrong pitch is coming is ask for time, or lean back and pray.

[Erik Bedard]

Most coaches that I know of have a "wipe-off" sign when giving instructions to baserunners. I'd be surprised if there weren't some form of that for catchers.

[Williamsburg2599]

Most coaches that I know of have a "wipe-off" sign when giving instructions to baserunners. I'd be surprised if there weren't some form of that for catchers.

The problem is that the pitcher usually gets the sign, looks at the runners, and throws, and he obviously can't stop unless timeout is called. Tim actually made a pretty good point here, he should talk more about his on field experience and less about stats and trying to make everything a rhyme or pun.

[HDH]

Tim did make one point that I've never heard before. When the Rockies battery was having difficulty over a sign...

Just a small point. I'm sure you are referring to the moment that Jason Varitek of the Red Sox stood up when he realized he gave the pitcher the wrong sign...

[TonyK]

Just a small point. I'm sure you are referring to the moment that Jason Varitek of the Red Sox stood up when he realized he gave the pitcher the wrong sign...

That could be it but I'm not sure. These 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. nights are getting to me. Thanks.