FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
DM: What is it like to hit a game-deciding homer in the World Series?
TM: It's numbing more than anything else. You're almost aesthetically going around the bases.
Maybe he meant "almost anaesthetically," but even that doesn't really make sense. Just a strange thing to say. "Almost aesthetically" does have a certain aesthetic appeal. Does this count as alliteration?
A lot of funny/sad McCarver moments last night. There was the time he asserted confidently that Josh Beckett had retired six batters in a row -- no, wait, it's been ten. Apologies, it was nine. Very soon after that, he talked about how impressed he was about Beckett's low pitch count even with his high strikeout total -- 63 pitches! No, wait, it's 73 (the graphic had just appeared on screen -- and by the time he corrected himself, hey, it was 74 already). There was the seemingly endless digression on the impressiveness of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, all during a close ALCS elimination game.
But perhaps nothing encapsulates the inanity of the broadcast more than the keys to the game:
RED SOX: WIN OR SEE YOU IN FORT MYERS
INDIANS: FINISH THE JOB... NO TRIP BACK TO BOSTON
You see, baseball laypeople, take it from me, Tim McCarver, a baseball expert: the key to winning the game is to win the game. Here is my reasoning: I will tell you the cities to which these teams will travel if they do not win the game.
You people, that is. It's only been a couple of hours, but of course we've been deluged with e-mails from good citizens who've bothered to do some work instead of just making fun of our friend Timothy like we typically do around here.
Here's John:
Using retrosheet data from 2000-2006 and a couple of quickie programs (written in ten minutes) to parse the data, we see the following result (best viewed in fixed font). This is for all of MLB combined; I didn't bother to separate out AL and NL:
2000: 1139 Leadoff HR => 294 2+ run innings, 25.81% 2705 Leadoff BB => 622 2+ run innings, 22.99%
2001: 1026 Leadoff HR => 247 2+ run innings, 24.07% 2238 Leadoff BB => 473 2+ run innings, 21.13%
2002: 1015 Leadoff HR => 229 2+ run innings, 22.56% 2296 Leadoff BB => 508 2+ run innings, 22.12%
2003: 1051 Leadoff HR => 252 2+ run innings, 23.97% 2261 Leadoff BB => 479 2+ run innings, 21.18%
2004: 1071 Leadoff HR => 246 2+ run innings, 22.96% 2321 Leadoff BB => 443 2+ run innings, 19.08%
2005: 979 Leadoff HR => 210 2+ run innings, 21.45% 2135 Leadoff BB => 462 2+ run innings, 21.63%
2006: 1069 Leadoff HR => 260 2+ run innings, 24.32% 2154 Leadoff BB => 490 2+ run innings, 22.75%
(Obviously, "2+ run innings" means innings in which 2 or more runs were scored).
Assuming that the retrosheet data is correct and that I don't suck at programming (iffy), this would seem to support what your correspondents are writing. Also note that Top Analyst Timmy (tm) would have been right in 2005 by the slimmest of margins.
And this from Joel:
Took a stab at the question with the data that I have in my database. It's just Cincinnati Reds games from 2001 to 2006, but it's still 973 games for reference and I checked both the Reds and their opponents in those games.
There were 1179 innings that had a lead-off walk. In those 1179 innings, at least one run score 515 times. At least 2 runs scored 328 times (27.8%). And there was a total of 1132 runs scored in those innings.
There were 589 inning with a lead-off home run. Obviously every inning had a run scored. There were 188 multi-run innings (31.9%) and a total of 956 runs scored in those innings.
I'm pretty sure my queries were right, but I only spot checked them. I'm sure you'll get a plethora of data dumps from nerds like myself. Hopefully we can draw some sort of a conclusion from it.
More analysis welcome, of course. I like to make jokes about dicks and poop and poop-covered dicks and dick-covered poop, but it's also nice to actually be right about something now and then. I think we're nearing a weird through the looking glass point where maybe Timmy wasn't so crazy to be surprised about the study he cited. Nah, still crazy.
I should have posted on this a long time ago, but then I left the country and just moved and blah blah blah. The point is, I got a few emails from people after my super snarky post about McCarver calling Stats. Inc. that showed he wasn't as crazy as I thought he was, and I never posted them. Pure neglect on my part.
Junior -- did we ever solve the mathematical accuracy of the Expected Runs Matrix for Bases Empty, No One Out when the leadoff guy homers? Is it (1+) .whatever? Or just .whatever?
Someone actually wrote in about this. I think it's 1+.whatever, because Tangotiger's system has to do with ... well, here:
I just thought I'd just chime in on the question about expected runs matrix when the lead off guy homers. So, if you assume that the inning is a Markov Chain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain) that is the state of an inning is completely described by the number of outs and what bases are occupied (not really true) then the answer to your question of what is the expected number of runs given that the leadoff guy homers is simply 1 + expected number of runs with no outs and no one on.
This is because you can separate what happens in the past (the lead off guy homers) with what happens in the future, due to the Markov property.
Of course, this is not exactly true, since other things change if the pitcher gives up a homer, such as the likelihood that the pitcher will get pulled. That make this model just an estimate.
Love your blog, James
P.S. Simple proof that it must be 1+whatever and not whatever: (Lets call "whatever" the variable A) Assume that the answer is A, then what if the first B batters (with B > A) all hit homeruns. Then we still have no one on and no outs, but we have B runs scored, this would mean that the expected number of runs (A) is less than the number of runs actually scored, which is a contradiction.
Seriously. My mind is spinning. I'm not sure what to make of this, but here's an e-mail from Richard on leadoff homers versus leadoff walks:
... a leadoff walk is more likely to lead to a multi-run inning than a leadoff homer. (McCarver has his own fact wrong.) I've counted enough innings -- thousands of them -- now to feel comfortable saying this is true.
I've looked so far at the 2007 Angels and Astros seasons (they're first alphabetically), and
-- LA Angels 2007: 120 leadoff walks leading to 124 runs with 33 multiple-run innings (27 percent). 30 leadoff homers leading to 37 runs, with 5 crooked numbers (17 percent).
-- Astros 2007: 102 leadoff walks leading to 83 runs with 24 multiple-run innings (23.5 percent). 42 leadoff homers leading to 57 runs, with 8 multiple-run innings (19 percent).
Basically, if you lead off with a homer, you're going to get one run. If you lead off with a walk, you're probably going to get zero but your chance of getting more than one is higher than it is with a leadoff homer.
Thoughts, people who have enough time and energy to research this type of thing?
Also, I got this from Jacob, and it seems to make sense:
For once, I think you're kind of missing the point on the lead off walk vs lead off HR thing . In either situation, the potential second run of the inning comes to the plate. In terms of whether there will be a multi-run inning or not, it doesn't really matter all that much where the first runner is, since the second guy has to score regardless. Like when you're down two, it doesn't matter a whole lot if the first guy doubles or homers, because the next guy has to score either way.
That being said, McCarver is still an idiot because a) a HR is more indicative of a guy pitching poorly and thus giving up future hits than a walk, and b) the next guy could always hit into a DP if the first guy walks.
Get it? Oops! ... He Did It Again? I'm sure that reference is sailing over your heads. Sorry, guys. I just like to stay on the cutting edge of pop culture. I'm a pop culture maven. I love music and being topical and showing off my knowledge of up-to-the-minute musical references.
Anyway, remember when Tim McCarver said this on Saturday, September 29 (My friends and I keep a record of stupid things Tim McCarver says and post it on an Internet blog with date and time stamps. Don't worry about it. We're pretty awesome.)?
We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking.
Well, he said it again, almost verbatim, last night during the Indians' merciless bludgeoning of the very nearly moribund Boston Red Sox. I cannot believe that Timmy cannot believe this very obvious fact, and that he is so disbelieving that he has wasted our time in two different nationally broadcasted baseball games with his imbecilic disbelief.
For the last time: a leadoff home run guarantees at least one run, leaving you only needing one more run to create two total runs and thus a multi-run inning. A leadoff walk means a guy is on first.
Several of you sent in this bizarro-world pearl of wisdom from my close friend Tim McCarver during today's Fox broadcast:
"We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking."
It's against conventional thinking. Really.
In my mind, conventional thinking on this subject goes like this: if the first hitter in the inning scores one run all by himself, it's more likely that his team will score two+ runs that inning than if he does not. Because in that situation, in order to achieve a multiple-run inning, the team has only to score one additional run. Instead of two runs. See how that works?
McCarver has been obsessed with this subject before. Do a search for him on this very blog, and you will find some real gems.
I like to imagine the guy at Stats, Inc. who had to field that call.
McCarver: So, basically, we want to know which situation leads to more multiple-run innings. A lead-off home run, or a lead-off walk.
Chet, Over at Scouts Inc.: ...Who is this?
McCarver: Timothy Chadwick McCarver, sir, at your service.
Chet: And you want to know whether a team is more likely to score two runs in an inning --
McCarver: Correct.
Chet: -- if the lead-off guy homers, as opposed to walking?
McCarver: Correct.
Chet: It's if he homers.
McCarver: How did you research that so fast? I didn't even hear typing.
Chet: Okay. Hang on. (Sound of obviously fast and nonsensical typing for two seconds) Yup, there it is. It's if he homers.
McCarver: I'll be the son of a monkey's uncle! That goes against conventional thinking!
Chet: I don't think you know what those words mean.
It's almost October, people. Soon, we'll get all McCarver, all the time. Buckle up.
Just talked to my man KT, on his way home from a rough day at Fremulon. All I can say is: if any of our readers are college seniors thinking about becoming insurance adjusters, do not put Fremulon at the top of your list of places to work. They will work you to tha bone!
(Note: This is, in no way, an indictment of Ken's boss, Rog Flavelman, who I have met several times at various F.I. barbecues and bowling parties. Rog is, simply put, a 100% stand-up, awesome dude. There are just some places that have -- I don't know -- an institutional agenda that puts the individual a distant second to the corporation itself. You know what I mean.)
Anyway, Ken tells me that we got some white hot e-mails in re: Timmy McCarvestone at the ASG, but he was too busy dealing with the usual Fremulonsense to post.
Bottom 2. Russell Martin at the dish. Timbo Mac points out that Martin (whose physical resemblance to Entourage's Turtle will be pointed out later in a riveting Fox graphic) has excellent speed for a catcher. Sixteen swipes already this year. Buck then asks Mac what his season high in stolen bases was. His answer?
A very confident: "thirteen."
Of course, the real answer, about which I am even more confident, is nine. Should we be surprised? Not really. This ain't the first time TM has exaggerated about his own abilities. Check it: July 22nd, 2005, Cardinals at Cubs: TM: "Derrek Lee is just an unstoppable force at the plate. Sometimes, you just have a season where everything goes your way." Buck: "Did you have a season like that?" TM: "I did. 1964. Set my career high in home runs for a season: 140." August 1st, 1999, Expos at Braves: TM: "Watch Jose Vidro leg out this triple on the replay. I tell ya, that is not an easy thing to do...hit a triple." Buck: "You hit many in your day?" TM: "Not too many, but when I did, I got four bases instead of three." August 18th, 2002, Mets at Padres: TM: "There we get a great look at Piazza's catcher's mitt, and how he frames the pitch. I myself never wore more than 1.8 catcher's mitts at a time." June 4th, 2006, Orioles at Yankees: TM: "Derek Jeter, of course, the fearless Captain of the Yankees." Buck: "You were a captain once, were you not?" TM: "I was indeed. I had the pleasure of being 3 captains, in fact."
I received many variations on this e-mail; this is the most succinct version, from John:
McCarver is correct -- if you take him literally. If the Giants put someone out at SS without a glove; or Vizquel went out there without a glove...then the Giants would almost certainly give up 100 more runs a year.
Joe Morgan's chat this week is intensely normal, and thus pretty boring. I wish I could even quote one egregious answer, but he doesn't really give one. There are the usual overuses of "consistent" and stuff like that...but nothing terrible.
This has happened before. But don't worry. If history is our guide, things will soon be back to normal.
In the meantime, go here and reminisce about Tim McCarver's feelings re: OBP. That will make you feel better.
Chuck Klosterman has an article in Esquire where he posits whether certain current broadcasters were better as players than they are as announcers. Sound like a tremendous waste of time? It is. But I could not let this snippet pass without posting it on this blog, which is itself a tremendous waste of time.
Tim McCarver: Though he finished second in the voting for the 1967 National League MVP, McCarver was a journeyman best remembered for being Steve Carlton's personal catcher during much of the 1970s. As a broadcaster, he is a stubborn polymath with an uncanny propensity for predicting when broken-bat singles are about to occur. McCarver is regularly criticized for saying what already seems abundantly obvious, but then again, a lot of people who watch baseball on TV are fucking idiots. Better as a broadcaster.
First of all, hat tip to Ryan for the Klosterman tip.
Second, I just re-read the whole Klosterman article. Is that guy the Platonic ideal of alt-cutesy indie rock journalistic bullshit, or what?
Also, he kind of makes light of Steve Kerr's father's murder. Or, if he doesn't "make light" of it, he at least tries to use it for comedy purposes, kind of. Whatever. Shit's just inappropriate, is what I'm saying.
We've all been waiting with bated breath for months on end. I hope you've made all your picks, and good luck in your office pools. It's time for the SI.com 2006 Media Awards!
Oh. Oh no. This I do not agree with.
BEST ANALYST: Troy Aikman, Fox Sports. It's the second consecutive year I'm dropping this honor on Aikman, who keeps improving (has any football analyst benefited more from leaving a three-man booth?) and is always accountable with his opinions. Why do you think ESPN approached him last year to work in the Monday Night Football football booth? Regardless of scheduling conflicts and the fact that he doesn't regularly broadcast college football, Fox should have assigned Aikman as its analyst on the BCS national championship game. I want my best guy -- and football's best analyst, along with Ron Jaworski -- if I'm making my debut in a sport.
Honorable mention: Jaworksi (ESPN), Tim McCarver (Fox)
Best analyst blah blah blah Aikman blah blah blah football blah blah blah and then two words that do not belong. The second one rhymes with McBlarver. The first one is Tim. If you're still stumped, the second one is McCarver.
(The "We don't like Tim McCarver" link goes to a Google search of "tim mccarver" on our site. There are 52 results. I recommend you read them all.)
Here are some things Honorable Mentioned Best Analyst 2006 Tim McCarver has said:
"I only care about on-base percentage if you can run. If you can't run, I could care less about on-base percentage."
"A-Rod just fouls that ball off beautily."
"On-base percentage? How about contact percentage?!"
"First year as a relief pitcher in the Angel chain, Woods made 97 out of 98 starts, did Woods, as a starter."
"In Scrabble, W's are worth 4 points. S's are only worth 1 point. But as far as Papelbon is concerned, S's are worth a lot more than W's."
"It stands to reason that guys vary as far as their strength is concerned from start to start. Sometimes 90 pitches is too much. Sometimes 130 pitches are not enough. A guy could throw 150 pitches per start."
"A Mark Wohlberg fastball. Catch me if you can."
"I think if Norman Rockwell were alive the guy that he would paint more than anyone else would be David Eckstein."
Every day in my hotel I get a little distilled edition of the NY Times slipped under my door. Today I read it as I sipped my coffee and watched "Tommy Boy" on F/X Buenos Aires. (It loses something in the translation.) And today, my NY Times distillation had an article about the AL MVP voting (which had not yet happened). The title of the article was "Jeter Looms as an MVP Candidate."
In the distilled article, there was a quote from worthless pontificator Tim McCarver, who believed that Derek Jeter should have been MVP. Why, you ask? WARP3? VORP? WPA? EqA? Probably EqA. That's McCarver's like go-to stat. I can't quite remember...well, let me just re-read the article and refresh my memory as to why Jeter should be MVP.
"Derek Jeter is different from all the other power guys," said the Fox broadcaster [sic] Tim McCarver..."It's not like he doesn't do anything from a numbers standpoint; he does a lot of things. But he's different, and you have to consider him differently. If Phil Rizzuto can win the MVP in 1950, Derek Jeter can be a candidate 56 years later."
Now, if any of you loyal readers out there ever question again why we at FJM despise Derek Jeter, or Tim McCarver, please just read that quote.
Derek Jeter is different. You have to think of him differently.
Yikes.
Now. It's possible that what McCarver is saying here is:
"Derek Jeter is different from the power guys. You have to take his position into account. You have to realize that the numbers he puts up as a SS are perhaps more valuable than the numbers Justin Morneau puts up as a 1B. Therefore, let's use things like VORP and WARP and stuff to determine exactly how valuable this guy is to his team."
I don't think that's what he is saying, though. I think he is talking about intangibles, here.
Perhaps that is a leap for me to make, here, in Argentina. But look again at that qualifier: "It's not like he doesn't do anything from a numbers standpoint; he does a lot of things." He brings up how Jeter has good numbers, which leads me to surmise that when he talks about how Jeter is "different," he is not actually talking about numbers at all, or about comparitive numbers among players at different positions. Plus, I have heard McCarver talk about Derek Jeter so often, and so miserably faux-poetically, that I'd be willing to bet 10,000 pesos (about $3500 US, give or take) that McC is saying that in a metaphysical, poetic, intangible way, we have to think of Derek Jeter differently.
And to that extrapolated exhortation from McCarver I say: no, sir. No we do not. We do not have to think of him differently. We have to think of him exactly the same as we think of any baseball player. We have to consider his position, yes. But when it comes to evaluating his contributions to his baseball team, we absolutely do not have to think of him "differently".
He does not possess superhuman powers. He is not physically handicapped. He is not a warrior-poet. He is not blessing us with his very presence. He is not a wizard. He is a baseball player.
He should have been the MVP because of how good he is at baseball. Not because of his calm eyes (a phrase McCarver, I believe, invented) or his intangibles or his steely gaze or his charisma or his elegant gait or his composure or the fact that he's currently schtupping Jessica Biel.
The thing that really bugs me is, McCarver is right about the Rizzuto-in-1950 comparison, but not the way he thinks he's right. Rizz had this line:
Phil Rizzuto, 1950:
.324/.418/.439 122 OPS+ 7 HR 112 RC .296 EQA
And there were certainly bigger power guys, like Larry Doby and Vern Stephens and stuff. (Teddy W. would assuredly have won the award if he hadn't played in only 89 games due to Korea -- he hit 28 bombs and had a .338 EqA in those 89 games. Also, did you know he had a farking .419 EqA in 1941? I mean, holy shit.) But, Rizzy had a 12.3 WARP3 because he played SS. Much the way Calm Eyes McGee had a 12.1 this year. Although, to be fair, DJ is a way better offensive player than Rizzy ever was.
I might have actually given the 1950 award to Yogi Berra, who had a 10.5 WARP3 and a .303 EqA, going .322/.383/.533 with 28 HR. But really, I would have given it to him because in 597 AB he struck out TWELVE TIMES. Look it up. That is batshit insane, my friends. But I digress.
The point is, Tim McCarver is a dumb dummy. And he is right about Rizzuto/Jeter for exactly the opposite reason that he is arguing. And no one should ever think of Derek Jeter, or anyone else, "differently" when evaluating him/them.
And if McCarver says tomorrow that all he was talking about was VORP and WARP and RC and FRAA and EqA, I will take this all back. And I will eat my sombrero.
A Spanish language grammar correction from beloved reader Pandrew.
Hey Sr. Tremendous.
The word "noche" in Spanish is feminine and is accompanied by a female article: la noche triste, for example. Thus, the greeting is "Buenas Noches," as both adjective and noun must agree on a gender.
A little correction on beloved reader Pandrew's Spanish:
One would say "Que tengas buena suerte en Argentina."
1. there is no accent over the e on Que because it is not a question marker.
2. When you use que to wish someone well, the verb it precedes should take on a subjunctive ending (further explanation would be long and boring). Anyway, there you go.
Anyone else hear him, bottom of the 7th, after Yadier Molina made a terrible throw to 2nd following a pitchout, allowing Michael Tucker to steal 2nd safely?
"By guessing right, they may have guessed wrong."
How is making a bad throw in any way "guessing wrong"? It's like the try-to-make-things-sound-clever part of his brain is eating all the other parts of his brain.
Also I have a fun game to pass along: any time you read a gossip headline about "Macca" and the crazy breastmilk / stabbing / bedpan allegations made by his ex-wife, imagine that it's actually about Tim McCarver and not Paul McCartney.
I'll tell you what -- it made my day about .4% more enjoyable!
EDIT: after reading some e-mail verifications (thanks Kevin -- but it was Yadier, not Bengie), it appears that indeed McCarver, and not I, am the crazy one.
You heard it here first. Or second, I guess. My apologies if you've been watching the Fox broadcast of the Sox-Yanks game today. If you have, you heard Tim McCarver say the following:
As baseball and those around it continue to do, keep -- keeping track of pitch counts, seems like more pitchers are going down the more that people keep track of pitch counts.
Yes, Tim, that must be it. It couldn't be weight-training or performance-enhancing drugs or perhaps your own antiquated prejudices causing your imagination to produce a world where more pitchers are going down when in fact, they aren't. Also, seriously: read his rambling "thought" one more time -- what?
Then, once you think it's over, he comes at you again with the crazy:
The thing about pitch counts for starters, I think there are a lot of people in and around the game that think that once a guy reaches 110 pitches that there should be cause for alarm. It stands to reason that guys vary as far as their strength is concerned from start to start. Sometimes 90 pitches is too much. Sometimes 130 pitches are not enough. A guy could throw 150 pitches per start. Until -- and if they come up with a gauge that could gauge a guy's potential, then to me, I think it's obscenely obsessive to continue to talk about pitch counts as though they were the only determination of a guy's success or not.
I was with you until you went with the 150 pitches a game thing. Actually, who am I kidding? I was never with you. Everything you say is batshit insane. The thing is, you could definitely make the argument that "it stands to reason that individual guys vary as far as the number of pitches they can throw." Maybe Carlos Zambrano can throw 120 pitches per game and Mark Prior cannot. I'm willing to listen to that reasoning. But "sometimes 130 pitches are not enough"? As if to say that, hey, if Livan Hernandez had become a worker in a drill bit factory instead of a major league pitcher, and on a specific Tuesday, instead of throwing 145 pitches in a baseball game, he decided to manufacture 1,200 drill bits because that's his job, he would incur a terrible arm injury because hey, not enough pitches?
I hate to be dramatic about this, but I think this guy should be fired.
Every time I hear McCarver talk, I think of two things:
"You're a real man, Deion. A real man."
And, from 2004:
"This October, ordinary Foulke has been extraordinary Foulke."
...which is not a pun, makes no sense, has a false premise (that Foulke was "ordinary" before the postseason), mixes a singular verb with a plural (collective) noun that makes the whole thing incredibly wrought and confusing, and also sought to rhyme "ordinary" with "extraordinary." One of the worst faux-poetic things I have ever heard uttered by anyone.
