I’m watching the Cubs play at the Texas Rangers today.  In the top of the 6th, Soriano worked a walk, and is taking a lead from first.  Brenly mentions that Soriano has his right foot (the one closest to second base) slightly behind the right foot.  According to Brenly, this allows Soriano to get  a better jump, because his left foot (the one he takes his first step with when he tries to steal) won’t have to come all the way around the right foot.  I had never heard that before, but after thinking about it, it makes sense.

I was never able to actually hit a pitched ball, much less hit it with enough authority to get on base.  Most leagues I played in also had a “Courtesy Runner” rule, where you could substitute anyone from the bench to run for someone on base.  Being fat and slow, and having almost never gotten on base, I was always subbed out.  So it’s no surprise that I don’t know much about baserunning.

Meanwhile, I can see a drawback to Soriano’s offset leadoff.  If he has to get back to first base, then his right foot has to come further around to get the first step back.  This means he has to stay a little closer to the bag, and therefore will take longer to get to second on a steal.  Overall, I suspect this evens out with the advantage you get in a better jump to second.

There’s a third possibility, which is that the open stance allows him to get a better view of the pitcher, which could prove invaluable in getting a read on the pitcher’s move to first.  In this case, the guy on the mound is CJ Wilson, a southpaw.  So that makes a some sense.

As the inning continues, Soriano is on the run with a 3-2 count, and Nady drops a pop fly down the right field line.  Brenly and Len Kasper wonder if he’d have been better off running through to third because if the ball is caught, he’s going to be doubled off of first no matter what.  I think I agree, but this has to be a rare baserunning situation, even for the experienced guys.  He didn’t get forced out, that’s the important thing.

Soriano is subsequently out on a groundball toward the hole at short, where Michael Young makes a good play to get to the ball and flips it to third because that’s his only play.  He’s out on the force.  The next batter, Koyie Hill, knocks a dying quail into right, and Nady goes face-first into the shin guards of the cacher to score an insurance run.  I don’t know how he didn’t break his nose and separate both shoulders on that play.

This is probably the most interesting inning of baseball I’ve seen since October 2003.  But let’s not talk about that.

Gus Johnson is somewhat of a polarizing figure in NFL announcing. He gets berated by many for getting incredibly exciting at even the smallest things. His defenders claim that that’s exactly why he’s great: he announces the game like an actual fan, instead of like a wooden puppet (Joe Buck). Myself, I don’t have an opinion, because I rarely get to see him announce. Stupid NFL broadcast rules.

I got my chance to evaluate him firsthand today, as he was calling the Illinois – Michigan State game. This was a game that reasonable people would expect Michigan State to win by 10, and in fact they did. But Johnson’s exuberance shined right through from his opening statement, “A matchup between the top two teams in the Big 10!” Sure, top two teams in that their both 4-0. But Illinois has their wins over Iowa, Indiana, Penn State, and Northwestern. With the possible exception of Michigan, these are the four worst teams in the conference. Michigan State, meanwhile, has W’s over Northwestern and Iowa, but also Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Context matters, and although I understand that you want a strong lead-in for the national broadcast, I will not forgive over-indulgence without providing the context. The strength of schedule was never mentioned during the entire broadcast, and the schedule at all didn’t even come up until about 4 minutes to go in the game. That’s bad coverage.

I don’t have much more to say about Gus. He got really worked up about Raymond Greene, MSU’s first man off hte bench, and that proved prescient: Greene had a solid game. At halftime, he did note Greene’s modest stats, and mentioned that he was a bigger factor “in the cerebral game.” I think I know what he was talking about, but I’m not sure. I’m going to let that one go.

Johnson’s partner, who’s name I only caught on screen once and then I forgot, was God-awful. He continuously confused Mike Davis with Mike Tisdale. At one point, when Davis was called for a foul, he called it on Tisdale, listed Tisdale’s game stats, and went on about how pour a game Tisdale was having.

Coming out of halftime, in what was an obvious scripted segment, Gus asked him about team rebounds. He defined them as rebounds where you’re diving on the floor, going after loose balls, etc. NO! Those rebounds are attributed to a person. Team rebounds are when the shot goes off the rim, and goes out of bounds before anyone on either team can control it. I understand they were trying to talk about hustle and getting to loose balls, but the way they went about it, it seems like these guys shouldn’t be trusted to read a box score.

And finally, this dude came up with the quote of the day.

When they get down by a lot, that’s when they like to come back.

Oh, I get it. When they’re ahead, they don’t like to come back, because it’s not possible. When they’re down by a little, they don’t like to come back, because I guess that’s just too easy. It’s only when they get behind by a lot that they really like to come back. Otherwise, coming back is just overrated.

I’ve just got a quick note about Arizona – New Orleans. There was an Arizona interception in the first quarter that was called back due to a roughing the quarterback penalty. Daryl Johnston and Tony Siragusa (the odd sideline reporter that wanders around the field, and gets to interrupt whenever; it’s strange) got into an argument about the validity of the call. Warner was hit on the head lightly by the defensive lineman, who then caught a piece of Warner’s facemask as well.

Johnston took issue with the call because it was a light hit. Siragusa argued that the call was correct, because the rule says that no contact to the head is allowed. Then he adds that there was a facemask after that. Johnston says that they should have called it a facemask then, and Siragusa backs off a little bit.

I don’t have a problem with Johnston disagreeing with the rule, but as an announcer, he should make it clear that it’s the rule that should change, and that the refs called it correctly. I didn’t like that Siragusa backed off him about it. He had the opportunity to agree that the rule might not make a lot of sense, but stay firm that the call was correct.

None of that is particularly egregious, but i find it ironic that there was so much discussion over the call in the booth. Arizona won last week on a very similar call. Green Bay had second down and medium deep in their own territory in overtime. They converted the first down, but the play was called back for holding. However, replays show that Aaron Rodgers was hit not-so-lightly (though not that hard) in the head after the throw. The penalty was not called.

Green Bay gained a few yards on the next play, leaving them in third and long. Rodgers dropped back, was hit as he threw, and Arizona intercepted and ran it in for the game winning touchdown. Except the guy that sacked Rodgers grabbed all over his facemask, which should have negated the interception and given Green Bay a first down. There was no discussion of this at all in the announcers booth, although that was the end of the game, and there was a lot of talk all over the place during the following week.

And finally, Candice gave me a good quote today. “Until you’re a statistician, I don’t care what kind of statistics you try to tell me about.” It’s good to be skeptical, but wow, now I need to get another Bachelor’s degree before I can talk to you about statistics? For the record, this outburst came after I expressed amazement at how well Reggie Bush was playing as a running back (4 carries, 3 for first downs and the other for TD, and 70 yards in the first half), considering he hasn’t looked anything like a professional running back in the past 4 years. She demanded I back this up with a statistic, and when I began looking up the numbers, that’s when she attacked my credibility.

I was going to write up a story about Len Kasper and Bob Brenly last week, but I got too ambitious, and I think the piece just died. We’ll see. Meanwhile, the Cards are playing at Wrigley in a few minutes, and it’s on Fox (YAY!). So, I’ll get to “critique” Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

Biases

I hate both these guys. It seems that Joe Buck, as the play by play guy, just plain doesn’t care to tell us what’s going on. As if our eyes are glued to the screen, and we’ve got all the camera angles at our disposal. Sometimes I like to go get another beer, or start making dinner, or just talk to my wife, Joe. Occasionally, I get up to pee. If you’re the play by play guy, I expect you to tell me what’s going on.

Tim McCarver is a horrible analyst. He takes too long to make his point, to the degree that sometimes, by the time he makes his point, he’s forgotten what it was in the first place. Half the time I disagree with him (though half the time, I don’t, I just think he’s too long-winded).

Both these guys have a face for radio, and when they put them up in front of the baseball diamond, holy cow, they look like Muppet rejects. But that’s my bias, and to be honest, I don’t care what they look like (except for the cheap laugh). I’m going to take them apart on their crappy commentary alone.

The Telecast

McCarver thinks Lilly (as a LHP) throws inside to righties more often than righties do to righties, and that makes him “gritty”. We can look that up. Well, I can’t look that up, but I’ve put in a request to someone who can look that up via Pitch F/X and to teach me how it’s done.

Buck is talkative thus far, filling in with all sorts of crap that the color guy should say. He’s doing very well talking about all star stats historically, and then TmcC has his first comment about Cub pitcher Dick Ellsworth, and channels that to a discussion of attendance.

The only comment I can conjure for that is: ?

Joe tries to bring it back to economics by saying the last time the Cubs were sold was in 1981, for 20 million dollars. Lots of gobbledygook that’s incomprehensible for anyone with a background in economics, sports, history, or LIVING, and then Pujols comes to bat.

That slows things down, because “Lilly has the good fortune of facing Pujols with no one on base.” Since he had absolutely nothing to do with getting those first two guys out, he’s just really lucky.

It’s a Cards / Cubs game in Chicago, Pujols gets a mixture of boos and cheers, and McCarver says “If you’re shaking your head, we understand”. After that commentary, I’m shaking my head.

Buck does a good job explaining a confusing-looking situation on the first pitch to Fukodome in the bottom of the first. The ball was hit off the end of the bat, Kosuke ran toward first, the ball hit him, it was called foul. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the announcers (even ones I held in high esteem) blow that call, even when it was obvious on replay. Kudos to Buck for getting it right on the first try.

Buck continues his play-by-play color with a two minute sililoquy, trying to bait McCarver into talking. I still haven’t heard McCarver utter more than a half phrase in almost a full inning.

Finally, McCarver contributes to the broadcast. He got Tony La Russa to say: “if we get Thompson to the 5th, that’s bonus for us.” Further, McCarver informs us that the Cardinals use their AAA affiliate as an expansion of their roster. Nice insight there Sherlock: EVERY MLB TEAM uses their AAA affiliate as an expansion of their roster.

On 2-0 Theriot was running, there was no mention of it.

McCarver quote: “Right into the teeth of that wind blowing in, from left field, which has shifted, as you said, there was no wind, and sure enough it has kicked up from the right field line to left field, normally, that ball is flirt-able with a homerun.”

Finally McCarver offers some real analysis:
Molina reminds Thompson to keep that shoulder closed. Of course, he doesn’t follow it up with anything coherent, but at least the comment makes sense. It’s too late as I go back through my original notes to see if Thompson really was throwing his shoulder open, but if he was, the result would have been pitches landing in the dirt or ending up far outside to right handed hitters (or hitting lefties).

One of these nitwits notes (I paraphrase): “We do not have statistics for this, but I think Soriano swings at more bad balls than any other hitter.” That might be true, but I doubt it when there are still people like Jeff Francoeur and Vladamir Guerrero in the league. This is another thing I could look up if I knew more about Pitch F/X.

Buck adds even more commentary by citing salaries and such. I’m not paying attention to what exactly he says, because I’m just plain floored that Buck, as the play by play guy, is saying this when he’s got a (presumably) perfectly good color guy in McCarver sitting right next to him.

Buck cites batting average as his clutch stat for a left handed batter, possibly because Milton Bradley (with a .238 batting average entering the game) is up. Bradley “works the count” to 0-2, then gets hit by the pitch, thus adding to his .367 on base percent, and driving in a run (since the bases were loaded). With two out and the bases loaded, what’s the better statistic: batting average, or on base percent?

McCarver thinks the waste pitch is overrated, because sometimes it hits the guy with an 0-2 count when the bases are loaded. That’s quality analysis right there.

Jeff Baker hits a line drive up the middle to score two, and McCarver says that Thompson is “Wild in the strike zone”. He could have eliminated everything else he has to say in this inning my simply stating that “Thompson grooved a changeup right down the middle.” Oh, and he had an 0-2 count on a guy that has a .238 batting average but a .367 on base percent, and hit him to drive in a run in the last at bat. Yeah, that’s wild in the strike zone.

McCarver mentions that Soriano likes to hop when he catches the ball in left field. He and Buck discuss fielding errors in the outfield, and generally deride the signature hop. Now, I’ll be the first to say that Soriano’s hop when catching the ball is absolutely stupid. However, it does not contribute to errors (he doesn’t drop easy fly balls, at least no more than a second baseman should), and if it improves his timing, then that’s fine. It annoys me when he has to go on the DL due to straining a calf while doing that hop (it happened last year), but he also has double digit assists from the outfield on a routine basis.

What bugs me about this is that either of them (BOTH of them) can think that errors are a good way to evaluate outfield defense. To my thinking, there isn’t any real good way currently to evaluate outfield defense (the fielder covers a lot of ground, whether he makes the play depends on where he’s positioned before the pitch, there’s no baseline for throwing out runners, etc). But just dismissing this as “the hop makes him commit errors” is just plain wrong, as well as short-sighted.

OMG they’re gonna put McCarver in the bleachers in the 7th, this is gonna be AWESOME. (EDITOR’S NOTE: too bad I got so sick of the broadcast by the 5th that I quit watching).

McCarver does his best to explain why allowing the pitcher to bat 8th is absolutely genius. None of his explanation makes any sense at all. Bill James has estimated that the most optimal batting lineup has the pitcher batting 8th, but that same research shows that the difference between hitting the pitcher in the most optimal vs. the least optimal (4th) position in the order equates to about one win over the course of a season. This is a very small move that doesn’t warrant this level of discussion, especially considering the elephant of outfield defense that was completely glossed over the previous half inning.

On the All Star Game, McCarver thinks Lincecum should start (he’s probably right). His argument is that Lincecum should have played in the ASG last year but didn’t get the chance, and the Giants are in contention in the NL west, and most people can’t name most of the players on the NL all star pitching staff this year anyway. I … can’t really complain about any of those points. I’ve got at least two tons of opinion about the all star game, but this isn’t the place.

Buck claims the NL has the best opportunity to win the all star game because of Lincecum and Dan Haren, and then you have the short relief. I might have to make another post about the ASG just because of this half inning.

McCarver claims that Ramirez still hurts when he checks his swing, and that he hurts when swinging at high pitches. Ramirez is recovering from a dislocated left shoulder. Will Carroll tells me (rather, I infer from his readings) that shoulders are imperative for decelerating the arm when pitching. As such, it stands to reason that they would be necessary for decelerating on a check swing. I can imagine that it would hurt to swing at high pitches. I don’t fully believe this statement, but I can’t prove its falsehood.

I’m ignoring Ken Rosenthal entirely… he’s like Tony Siragusa (who I don’t completely despise, keep tuned through NFL season).

In the top of the 4th, Lilly gives up an infield single to Rasmus. Then, while pitching to Pujols, he’s called for a balk.

That balk was not a balk. Lilly dropped his glove to his knee after he came set, and then stepped off the rubber immediately. The umpire jumped up to call shenanigans, and to avoid looking foolish, decided he had to call a balk, and uphold the decision. The same thing happened to me in little league once. I stepped off the mound to the front, instead of to the back, and threw to first. The umpire called a balk. He then came up to me and said that although I had followed all the rules, he couldn’t tell that I had until he got a better look. I asked him to take back the balk, and in exchange, I wouldn’t confuse him like that again, but he was an asshole.

This play was broken down after the commercial break, and not to my satisfaction. There are some 17 things you can do to cause a balk, and none of them were in play there.

McCarver understandably wonders why Lilly is worried about the runner anyway, with Pujols at bat. Seriously, even La Russa wouldn’t send the runner when the best power hitter in the world is at bat.

In the bottom of the inning, Joe and Tim start chatting with La Russa about… whatever. Bradley steals a base, but it’s scored a wild pitch. Meanwhile, the casual fan has no idea why Bradley’s on first (now second). Then there’s a walk to the Cubs worst hitter. Upon reading the play by play, it appears Bradley struck out and reached first on a wild pitch.

Chat with Lou!
Lou thinks club needs to stay healthy. His regular lineup has been on the field only twice this year. This is something that can be looked up on Retrosheet, but it’s now 11 PM, and I’m not going to bother. Somehow, I doubt it.

Lou: Pitcher feels something on his foot, can affect his shoulder or elbow, we’ll be careful. This is good to hear. It means Lou won’t let Dempster (who has a lot of money and another year on his contract) try to come back from his toe injury early, for fear that he’ll alter his mechanics and hurt his elbow or shoulder. I have a feeling that the way it was phrased, the casual fan won’t catch that nuance.

McCarver delves further into the cascading toe-shoulder injury, by bringing up Dizzy Dean. Dean was a great pitcher in his day, but then suffered a broken toe. He tried to pitch through it, altered his mechanics, and ended up blowing out his shoulder. When he returned, he’d lost a ton of velocity, and never was the same pitcher.

In the bottom of the 5th, McCarver starts talking about how to get facial hair. Buck asks Rosenthal about how to get facial hair, and then there are actual statistics about facial hair numbers.

They’re talking to Rosenthal again about trade rumors. The response is not comprehensible for non-accountants. “Anything we get after 5 innings from Thompson today is a luxury”; and yet, the argument for the Cardinals getting a better starter is thrown out the window.

McCarver says some crap that is incredibly incomprehensible, but I take it to mean (from the swing and miss) that Soriano swings at balls out of the strike zone. And then he gets an identical pitch to what he swung at on 0-0, and takes it, to make the count 1-1. Then, a single to left to score a run. It was the same pitch, in the same location, as each of the first two. So, blame him for swing and miss on the first (out of the strike zone), then praise him for taking the second pitch in the same spot for a ball, and then praise him profusely for hitting the third pitch (in the identical spot) to left for an RBI single.

And La Russa goes to the bullpen, in the 5th. Buck thinks the numbers for Thompson are respectable. 4 2/3 innings, five earned runs on five hits and three walks, with three strikeouts.

I was just offered the opportunity to go outside and play with my son, which sounds about a billion times more appealing than watching La Russa go to the bullpen a half dozen times in the next two hours. So, I’m calling it quits.

My conclusion here (keep my biases in account) is that Joe Buck actually isn’t that bad. It seems to me that he spent the first two innings covering for McCarver’s hangover (considering McCarver barely opened his mouth in that time, despite the 3 PM first pitch). After he warmed up, McCarver was better than I typically remember him, but he did still spout off a bunch of unjustified (and unjustifiable) crap. Ken Rosenthal should be dropped from the telecast entirely; he added nothing to it.

On the whole, there was a total of one interesting and correct point (the Dempster comparison to Dizzy Dean). There were a handful of other points that were either interesting or correct, but overall, it was a really boring telecast. Even with a good interview from Lou Piniella and a Cubs victory against the hated Cardinals, the game just couldn’t compare to a day at the park with my two year old.

I’ll almost certainly have another chance to evaluate this broadcast team in the near future, so keep tuned, because I will definitely be looking into it.

Sports announcing is very strange. Almost anyone can do it, and almost no one can do it well. Perhaps this is because of the incredible pressure placed on the announcers themselves. I, for one, couldn’t come up with enough idle chit-chat to fill two uneventful middle innings in a baseball game, especially if the only people I had to talk to were Joe Buck and Scooter. In that regard, Tim McCarver is a genius.

Easy as it is to bash on the hosts of the Game of the Week, I’m starting this off on the wrong foot. Of course everyone hates Tim McCarver. For six games a week, five if there was a day off, you get to watch your team with your own hometown announcers. Those guys follow your club from spring training through the postseason, and accompany the team in their off-season public appearances. They root for your team, and they are very familiar with everyone in the organization. Even if the game is on Wednesday Night Baseball on ESPN, it gets blacked out there, and you get to hear your local guys (instead of Rick Sutcliffe) call the game. Then Saturday comes along, and here’s a couple of yahoos that haven’t been anywhere near as close to your team, and worse yet, who don’t have right of approval from your favorite ball club (that means, they can’t get too happy when the home team scores, or too sad when the visitors score). That’s a delicate line to walk, and I admire them for even trying.

In this series, I hope to report a neutral stance about announcing using advanced statistics (whether it be major league baseball, college basketball, or college or NFL football; those are the sports I follow). I will attempt to be open and honest about my biases. If I get the gumption, I will link to others who have a positive or negative spin on the topic of discourse.

Which brings me to my final introductory point. I want to be as much positive as I am negative, at least, with this endeavor. It’s not fair to always criticize and never complement, especially in a genre that really leaves itself out there to be critiqued. There are lots of people trying to get into this business, and there are only a handful of slots available. The profession as a whole deserves some slack, and I intend to provide it. Reasonably. I also expect to be called out in the comments if I’m not being reasonable, even though we only have about five regular readers.