BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Tim McCarver Blames “Climactic Change” For The Increase In Major League Home Runs

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Tim McCarver Blames “Climactic Change” For The Increase In Major League Home Runs

Plate tectonic–clonic seizures can occur at any time!

...Tim McCarver said one of the stupidest things ever spoken on a television broadcast today, blaming global warming for “making the air thin” and thus leading to a rise in home runs.

Climate change, or in McCarver’s words “climactic change,” is the culprit (and not, say, steroids, the age of which McCarver insists is over). Global warming is a real thing (climate change deniers are already giving McCarver a beatdown online) but the theory it’s led to increased major league offensive production is one of the most insane things ever asserted by a professional broadcaster. And this man is in the Hall of Fame!

Repoz Posted: April 28, 2012 at 03:13 PM | 45 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: history

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. The District Attorney Posted: April 28, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4118576)

the theory it’s led to increased major league offensive production is one of the most insane things ever asserted by a professional broadcaster.

Forget that... is there even any "increased major league offensive production" to be explaining?

this man is in the Hall of Fame!

No, he isn't.

Anyway, how do I change my party registration?

2. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4118584)

Isn't McCarver this year's Frick Award recipient?

3. frannyzoo Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4118585)

Instead of passing along my own "theory" about all this, I'll just set the over/under line on posts for this thread at 1,000. I'm always wrong in determining whether a thread will go "viral" or not, but there ya go.

4. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4118588)

Under. Even the recent Staley patriotism thread flamed out south of 800.

5. Walt Davis Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4118595)

Regardless, I blame Republicans for McCarver.

6. Sweatpants Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4118597)

The best part of all this is that Kyle Lohse's glove reads "K-LO." His last name is already one syllable, but someone felt that it still needed to be shortened.

7. Kiko Sakata

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4118602)

Tim McCarver said one of the stupidest things ever spoken on a television broadcast today, blaming global warming for “making the air thin” and thus leading to a rise in home runs.

I don't really understand the science, but isn't it widely accepted that warmer temperatures lead to more run scoring, including more home runs? Now, as #1 says, I'm not seeing the "rise in home runs" that actually needs to be explained over the past two or three years, but if we're talking about going back to what triggered the "Steroid Era", isn't "global warming" one plausible answer?

8. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: April 28, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4118604)

I don't really understand the science, but isn't it widely accepted that warmer temperatures lead to more run scoring, including more home runs? Now, as #1 says, I'm not seeing the "rise in home runs" that actually needs to be explained over the past two or three years, but if we're talking about going back to what triggered the "Steroid Era", isn't "global warming" one plausible answer?

The difference in temperatures from global warming is a fraction of the difference in temperatures between April and July. While it could have a very small impact, it isn't anything like the rise in home runs that we saw.

And unless something happened in 2002 and again a few years ago, we can't explain why home runs have dropped like they have.

9. Bhaakon Posted: April 28, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4118615)

I don't really understand the science, but isn't it widely accepted that warmer temperatures lead to more run scoring, including more home runs? Now, as #1 says, I'm not seeing the "rise in home runs" that actually needs to be explained over the past two or three years, but if we're talking about going back to what triggered the "Steroid Era", isn't "global warming" one plausible answer?

We have a good handle on the affects of weather on ball travel, and the actual temperature change we're talking about is so slight that it just wouldn't make that big a difference. It would just be completely dwarfed by dozens (maybe hundreds) of other factors, juiced balls, juiced players, the popularity of denser in wood bats, new parks, and the addition of teams in high altitude cities like Denver and Phoenix, to name a few.

Besides, I'm don't think the average temperature during actual baseball games is going up. Not only are there way more night games now than historically, but the expansion of the playoffs and the 162 game schedule have pushed the starting date forward from mid-April to (in some seasons) the end of March.

10. Kiko Sakata

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4118620)

Okay, fair enough #8 and #9. Still, "eh, probably not" seems like a more appropriate reaction than "one of the stupidest things ever spoken on a television broadcast". My goodness, has this person never watched reality TV (which would very much be to his credit, mind you)?

11. Zipperholes Posted: April 28, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4118627)

Now, as #1 says, I'm not seeing the "rise in home runs" that actually needs to be explained over the past two or three years, but if we're talking about going back to what triggered the "Steroid Era", isn't "global warming" one plausible answer?

McCarver said "over the last fifty years."

And his theory is that the air is thinner, not that temperatures are higher.

12. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: April 28, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4118630)

Okay, fair enough #8 and #9. Still, "eh, probably not" seems like a more appropriate reaction than "one of the stupidest things ever spoken on a television broadcast". My goodness, has this person never watched reality TV (which would very much be to his credit, mind you)?

I would agree with you on that. It probably wasn't among the top 10 dumbest things McCarver said that night, let alone "one of the stupidest things ever spoken on a television broadcast".

13. The District Attorney Posted: April 28, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4118639)

Isn't McCarver this year's Frick Award recipient?

That is not "in the Hall of Fame."

14. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4118641)

Right but it would explain why the author described him that way.

15. The Piehole of David Wells

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4118659)

That is not "in the Hall of Fame."

Well, the award is presented by the HOF, and he gets a plaque in the HOF Library, doesn't he? And gives a speech on HOF weekend? I presume that you don't dispute that the library of the HOF is "in" the HOF, right? Why is it important to people to parse out that the award is not "in" the HOF?

Edit: I just realized that this is the same thing that the Queen bowed to when in her memorial speech about Diana she referred to her as "the people's princess." The Frick award is part of the people's HOF. It's also like people saying that certain kinds of money are "fiat" money when all money is--in the credit era--fiat money.

16. TomH Posted: April 28, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4118669)

Hey, maybe the thin air is the reason to ask if Jeter can hit .400!!

17. Bob Evans Posted: April 28, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4118719)

18. tshipman (The Viscount of Variance)

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 08:20 PM (#4118724)

Believing climate change to be the cause for the 90's-2000's offense is only slightly crazier than saying that it was all steroids.

19. Accent Shallow is still reading xi as squiggle Posted: April 28, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4118726)

Hey, maybe the thin air is the reason to ask if Jeter can hit .400!!

Maybe. But if you neutralize Jeter's stats to 2000 Coors Field, his career high BA is .390 in 1999 (although he gets to .387 in 2006, and .375 in 2009)

20. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 28, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4118750)

Jeter's first step to his left is an inconvenient truth.

21. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: April 28, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4118755)

Jeter's first step to his left is an inconvenient truth

Jeter and glaciers do have something in common

22. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4118776)

Do we think the spoonerism may be part of what's allegedly so dumb about this statement?

23. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4118798)

If I buy a ticket and walk in, does that make me in the HOF?

Only until closing time.

Anyway, Frick Award recipients do not get individual plaques in the HOF library; they get their names added to a single plaque. And I can't speak to why "people" want to parse out that Frick Award winners are not "in" the HOF, but I will note that the people who run the HOF make a point of emphasizing that Frick and Spink Award recipients are not inducted into the HOF.

24. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: April 28, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4118812)

I can't speak to why "people" want to parse out that Frick Award winners are not "in" the HOF, but I will note that the people who run the HOF make a point of emphasizing that Frick and Spink Award recipients are not inducted into the HOF.

Perhaps so, but most people who hear or read that X is a "Hall of Fame writer" know that he's being honored somewhere within the Hall of Fame, and that if they travel to Cooperstown they'll find his name displayed within the Hall of Fame's library. The Hall of Fame may have its reasons for making it clear that the Frick and Spink Award winners aren't really "in" the Hall of Fame, but in reality it's a pedantic and rather meaningless distinction. Much as it may pain some people, Murray Chass and Bill Madden are more "in" the Hall of Fame than Pete Rose or Jack Morris.

25. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:38 AM (#4118866)

That is not "in the Hall of Fame."

Well, the award is presented by the HOF, and he gets a plaque in the HOF Library, doesn't he? And gives a speech on HOF weekend? I presume that you don't dispute that the library of the HOF is "in" the HOF, right? Why is it important to people to parse out that the award is not "in" the HOF?

So when I go visit the Hall of Fame, I can call up the paper and they will happily report that I am now in the Hall of Fame?

EDIT: Coke.

26. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:42 AM (#4118867)

Perhaps so, but most people who hear or read that X is a "Hall of Fame writer" know that he's being honored somewhere within the Hall of Fame, and that if they travel to Cooperstown they'll find his name displayed within the Hall of Fame's library. The Hall of Fame may have its reasons for making it clear that the Frick and Spink Award winners aren't really "in" the Hall of Fame, but in reality it's a pedantic and rather meaningless distinction.

Priceless. The Hall of Fame goes out of its way to make it clear that these people are not in the Hall of Fame, and, yet, you conclude that that is a "pedantic and rather meaningless distinction."

These people are not in the Hall of Fame.

Much as it may pain some people, Murray Chass and Bill Madden are more "in" the Hall of Fame than Pete Rose or Jack Morris.

No. Chass and Madden are just as out as Rose and Morris. It's a binary thing, Andy. One is either in or out. You can't be half pregnant here.

27. Walt Davis Posted: April 29, 2012 at 03:04 AM (#4118878)

But, regardless of what the HoF says, such writers and broadcasters are regularly referred to as "Hall of Fame writer/broadcaster." If the article above had ended "and this man is a Hall of Fame broadcaster" I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Oh, who am I kidding, of course pedantic sods would still get a stick up their butts (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Americansportscastersonline (there's a url for ya) refers to 1992 Hall of Fame inductee Vin Scully. On April 10/12/15, when he was out for a bit then returned to the booth, ESPN referred to him as an HoF broadcaster. Sporting News also referred to him that way. Officialvinscully.com (which may or may not be official as far as I know) says it is the official site of the HoF Broadcaster.

Now, perhaps if these sites were questioned, they would point out that Scully (and Caray and ...) is in the sportstcasters HoF, the Radio HoF and probably a few more HoFs.

28. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 29, 2012 at 08:57 AM (#4118906)

This argument is moot. McCarver is an inductee into the Irish American Baseball Hall of Fame, along with Steve Garvey, John Flaherty, and Kevin Costner. He's also a member of the Christian Brothers High School Hall of Fame in Tennessee. However, McCarver has thus far been blackballed by the Rochester Red Wings Hall of Fame and the Great American Songbook Hall of Fame, presumably for steroids.

29. Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:00 AM (#4118907)

Chass and Madden are just as out as Rose and Morris.

Those guys are all Friends of Dorothy? I really need to keep up with this sort of this. Is there a scorecard somewhere?

30. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4118908)

But, regardless of what the HoF says, such writers and broadcasters are regularly referred to as "Hall of Fame writer/broadcaster."

By themselves. It's like me "regularly referring" to myself as the sexiest man alive.

31. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:06 AM (#4118909)

The Hall of Fame may have its reasons for making it clear that the Frick and Spink Award winners aren't really "in" the Hall of Fame, but in reality it's a pedantic and rather meaningless distinction.

My point was about the source of the pedantry. #15 sort of implies that it comes from "people" like the DA (in #13). The reality is that it comes from the directors of the HOF. If "it's their museum, they can do what they want" is an appropriate reaction to Pete Rose, Marc Ecko, etc, etc, then why isn't it appropriate on this issue?

32. Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:11 AM (#4118910)

It's like me "regularly referring" to myself as the sexiest man alive.

Whereas it's usually Andy saying that about you.

33. Tom Goes to the Ballpark Posted: April 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM (#4118934)

By themselves. It's like me "regularly referring" to myself as the sexiest man alive.

I'm pretty sure that Vin Scully has never referred to himself as a hall of famer, but he is frequently introduced and written about as Hall of Fame announcer Vin Scully.

34. Dale H. Posted: April 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4118976)

And his theory is that the air is thinner, not that temperatures are higher.

That would certainly be worthy of the title of "climactic change."

35. phredbird

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4118998)

geez, isn't it just a term of convenience? its easier for headline writers and reporters and broadcasters to say or write 'HOF announcer' and assume everybody understands the distinction, and leave it to the pedants to do the dirty work.

36. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4119020)

I'm pretty sure that Vin Scully has never referred to himself as a hall of famer, but he is frequently introduced and written about as Hall of Fame announcer Vin Scully.

Again: he is written about that way by the people whose self interest is to create and promote that misconception.

---

geez, isn't it just a term of convenience?

No. Writing "HOFer" instead of "Hall of Famer" is for convenience. Writing "Hall of Famer" instead of, well, "not a Hall of Famer" is just a lie.

37. Downtown Bookie

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4119025)

30. RayDiPerna Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4118908)

By themselves.

36. RayDiPerna Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4119020)

Again: he is written about that way by the people whose self interest is to create and promote that misconception.

That's a pretty neat trick, there. You say two different things in two different posts (themselves in #30; others in #36) and then tie them together with the word "again", in order to imply that you said the same thing both times.

DB

38. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4119031)

That's a pretty neat trick, there. You say two different things in two different posts (themselves in #30; others in #36) and then tie them together with the word "again", in order to imply that you said the same thing both times.

I said the exact same thing in both posts. In the first post, "by themselves" was in direct response to "such writers and broadcasters." In the second post, "the people" was in direct response to the people who "introduce and write about Vin Scully," i.e., "such writers and broadcasters."

And Vin Scully, whose website dishonestly refers to him has having been "inducted into the Broadcaster’s wing of the National Baseball Hall of Fame as the Ford C. Frick Award recipient." There is no "broadcaster's wing." He hasn't been "inducted" into anything -- as the Hall of Fame takes careful pains to point out on its website in the Museum (note: not the Hall of Famers) section:

The Ford C. Frick Award is presented annually during the Hall of Fame Weekend. Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee) is presented with a calligraphy of the award and is recognized in the "Scribes & Mikemen" exhibit in the Library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Below is a complete list of the Ford C. Frick Award recipients.

Scully is an award recipient -- not a Hall of Famer. He's listed as part of an exhibit. He's not in the plaque room. Scully didn't receive 75% of any vote. He wasn't part of some VC induction. He won an award, which is an honor, but doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

39. Downtown Bookie

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4119039)

I said the exact same thing in both posts. In the first post, "by themselves" was in direct response to "such writers and broadcasters."

I see. If that's the case, then how do you explain the quote in its full context:

30. RayDiPerna Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4118908)

By themselves. It's like me "regularly referring" to myself as the sexiest man alive.

Because it seems pretty clear that the "themselves" in your first sentence is meant to equal "myself" in your second sentence. In other words, not some third party.

DB

40. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4119042)

Because it seems pretty clear that the "themselves" in your first sentence is meant to equal "myself" in your second sentence. In other words, not some third party.

By a first party, or a third party. In this case, Scully qualifies, as his own website pretends he's a Hall of Fame inductee.

41. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4119043)

Scully didn't receive 75% of any vote.

This doesn't add much to the argument, since he did win some kind of election to get the award and for all I know (since I can't find any Frick or Spink award voting results) might well have received more than 75%.

Ford C. Frick is himself a HOFer, of course.

42. Ray (CTL)

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4119047)

This doesn't add much to the argument, since he did win some kind of election to get the award and for all I know (since I can't find any Frick or Spink award voting results)

Well, granted, he was on a 10-person ballot voted on by 20 members. So he may well have received "75% of the vote" by happenstance. Or he may not have. The point is that the 75% threshold is irrelevant, as one person (and only one person) wins this award every year, and the "vote" is not the same as an induction vote.

Sheesh. I should think what I posted in #38 from the Hall of Fame's own explanation of the award would have put this issue to rest. "Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee)." That pretty much ends the ballgame. Why are people still arguing the point?

43. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4119051)

Those guys are all Friends of Dorothy? I really need to keep up with this sort of this. Is there a scorecard somewhere?

Which one is the Tin Man?

44. Downtown Bookie

Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4119064)

By a first party, or a third party.

So you're saying that when you used the word "themselves", you really meant "themselves, or some others who are not them".

Thanks for clearing that up.

DB

45. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 29, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4119080)

Why are people still arguing the point?

I'm not arguing the point, I'm arguing the argument. To the extent that I ever was arguing the point, I was arguing your side.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Tim McCarver Blames “Climactic Change” For The Increase In Major League Home Runs

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics