McCarver was what I called a "nextdec" -- he debuted in MLB in the next decade after he was born (1941, 1959). To make that work, you have to debut in MLB as a teenager, something that isn't done much these days.

EDIT: Elvis Luciano did it (born 2000, debuted with the Blue Jays 2019)...

RIP to the kid from Memphis. In the big leagues as a 17-year-old, had a great long MLB career and was a key player on a pair of World Champion teams, then had a longer second life as a broadcaster.

I know he evolved into a sort of "get off my lawn" type of guy, but for a while there he was a genuinely enjoyable addition to any booth he worked in.

For me, as a Cardinals fan, I still think of him as a Cardinal, and while his days as the team's starting catcher were before my time as a fan, I was around for his second act in St. Louis, as a role player for the good-not-great 1973/74 squads that each finished second by 1.5 games.

As a role player in 1975-77 with the Phillies (plus 12 games with the Red Sox) he hit .297/.408/.465 (137 OPS+) in 497 PA, much of that as Steve Carlton's "personal catcher," continuing a relationship that had begun in the mid-60s with the Cardinals.

He was a part of the game's fabric for a long, long time, and the sport was richer for his presence.

I was never a huge McCarver fan. I felt he was very "Captain Obvious" much of the time. But he was probably more insightful than I gave him credit for. The NBC Sports article about his passing includes this anecdote:

At times, he seemed to have psychic powers. In Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, the score was tied at 2 between the Yankees and the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Yankees drew in their infield with the bases loaded and one out in the bottom of the 9th. Relief ace Mariano Rivera was facing Arizona’s Luis Rodriquez.

“Rivera throws inside to left-handers,” McCarver observed. “Lefthanders get a lot of broken-bat hits into shallow outfield, the shallow part of the outfield. That’s the danger of bringing the infield in with a guy like Rivera on the mound.”

Moments later, Gonzalez’s bloop to short center field drove in the winning run.

I'd add, in 2002, during the 7th inning of game 6, Felix Rodriguez kept throwing fastballs away to Scott Spiezio, promtping McCarver to say "you make a mistake outside, it's a foul ball. You make a mistake inside, it's 5-3". A couple pitches later...

RIP, Tim.

I think he similarly predicted Leyritz HR off Wohlers

Like Shredder, I didn't like McCarver as an announcer when I was growing up. I thought he had an annoying tendency to hammer home the same point in a manner that was tedious to listen to. But he obviously knew the game like few others.

That said, I've grown to appreciate McCarver the player as I've gotten older. I was 3 years old when he played his last game...so I never saw him play, but three things become evident:

1) He must have been incredibly intelligent. To break into the bigs as a 17 year old, despite not being a freakish athlete. I can't imagine how surreal that must have been for him.
2) His prime overlapped with being the catcher for some very good-to-great pitching staffs. I know WAR doesn't paint him as a good defensive catcher, but he must have been doing something right.
3) His late career role as a high-OBP backup catcher (.400 OBP or greater for three consecutive seasons at ages 33, 34, and 35) made him the rare 2nd stringer who added starter-like value. Again, signs of high intelligence.

RIP

What always impressed was that McCarver was a player in the bigs for four decades, no small feat for a dude who was selected to only two All-Star Games.

Fine player, fine broadcaster.

Whatever his style in the booth, the #1 requirement for any announcer, in any sport, is does he love the game he's bringing across to the audience?

McCarver met that in spades. His massive enthusiasm for baseball always came through. As much as another catcher turned broadcaster, Joe Garagiola.

He was a popularizer, and a good one. RIP.

#5 - yes McCarver stayed on a topic to long, but the more he talked in the booth it took away from Joe Buck talking so it was a net gain.

There can't be that many catchers who led the league in triples, as McCarver did in 1966 with 13.

Looking at his B-R page now leads me to wonder:

How rare was it for a player to accumulate over 6000 PA in the post-war era and hit fewer than 100 home runs, as did McCarver? Probably a bunch of middle infielders on that list and not much else.

I'd add, in 2002, during the 7th inning of game 6, Felix Rodriguez kept throwing fastballs away to Scott Spiezio, promtping McCarver to say "you make a mistake outside, it's a foul ball. You make a mistake inside, it's 5-3". A couple pitches later...

Came here to post exactly this. As with most broadcasters (and most people), McCarver aged into a "kids these days" kinda guy, but in his prime, he was a lot of fun, quippy and insightful and easy to listen to. RIP.

Judging McCarver by his broadcasting work when he had lost his proverbial fastball is a bit unfair. Not everyone ages like Scully. He was a fine ballplayer and a very fine broadcaster, and for his time he was an extremely sophisticated student of the game.

I'll always remember him in the booth for that 1980s Angels/Mariners game when Reggie Jackson attempted to kill Queen Elizabeth...

i never saw him eat an ice cream cone.

I always loved listening to McCarver. He was very perceptive, and really loved the game.

This makes me genuinely kind of sad. Some of my happiest memories are of me, as a young person, playing, thinking about, talking about, watching, anything, baseball. There are many senses that go along with those memories, including sound. And one of the key sounds was Tim McCarver.

I agree with those on this thread who say we should not judge McCarver's broadcasting abilities based on his last years in the booth. In his time (I used to watch a lot of Mets in the 1980s in WWOR, and of course he did all the national TV for years), he was ahead of his time as a relatively analytical color commentator. When he and Al Michaels worked together, that was about as good as it got. (FWIW, the sound of Al Michaels' voice, going back to the 1970s, is synonymous with "big moments".)

despite not being a freakish athlete.

I have to contradict you here. Have you ever known any professional athletes? I have and they are all freakish athletes. The slowest guys in MLB are faster then 99% of non pro athletes. Any professional from a ball sport like MLB could pick up a basketball, tennis racket, ping pong racket, etc and just smoke 99% of non-professional athletes in just about any game, any time, anywhere. It's amazing how good their eye-hand coordination is, their balance, their rhythm, anticipation...it is freakish and to be a pro athlete, you need to have it.

As Brian Scalabrine says after he smokes another guy in a pick up game, "I'm a lot closer to LeBron then you are to me."

My only complaint about McCarver was a certain home run in the 1964 World Series.

I have to contradict you here. Have you ever known any professional athletes? I have and they are all freakish athletes. The slowest guys in MLB are faster then 99% of non pro athletes. Any professional from a ball sport like MLB could pick up a basketball, tennis racket, ping pong racket, etc and just smoke 99% of non-professional athletes in just about any game, any time, anywhere. It's amazing how good their eye-hand coordination is, their balance, their rhythm, anticipation...it is freakish and to be a pro athlete, you need to have it.

You don't have to exaggerate to make the point, and it remains an exaggeration. I know this from first hand experience. Ken Harrelson used to fancy himself as a pool shark, and bragged about it in his autobiography. But when he was with the Senators in 1966-67, he would sometimes come up to a pool room off 14th St. that I used to play in, and even though none of the players there were on the pro level, he tried to give the 8 ball (in 9 ball) to a guy I used to beat with ease, and walked out a loser. The better players there would've eaten him for lunch.

Same with Michael Jordan at Carolina. No way on Earth he could ever have beaten any of the better local players, no matter how much smack he talked about his pool game.

Pool and golf require great hand/eye coordination, and it's safe to assume that all pro athletes have it, but it's insane to think that any random pro athlete can just take up those games and succeed at them without devoting an incredible amount of time to perfecting their stroke / swing. If it were that easy, you'd see many examples of it, but to date I can't think of any.

But then maybe you're not talking about sports where the ball is stationary. If so, then I'll let some tennis or ping-pong player reply to your comment.

By the time he became a backup announcer for Cardinal broadcasts, his proverbial fastball was gone, but he was full on committed to the "get off my lawn" role (one thing I hate about both McLaughlin-McCarver and Miller-Morgan is that Miller and McLaughlin both thought it was funny to egg the get off my lawn guy into full rant. There is a reason I don't like Jon Miller as much as others, he intentionally made broadcasts bad because he enjoyed egging Morgan) but he told really good stories, and he was by far the most prepared and insightful announcer for the Cardinals even after losing his edge...The big drawback is that since he was relegated to being a Cardinal announcer, he had a limited number of stories and you would hear the same ones multiple time.


Still a good player, good announcer(at his peak).

The slowest guys in MLB are faster then 99% of non pro athletes

I'm not sure you ever saw Bengie Molina "run".

At times, he seemed to have psychic powers. In Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, the score was tied at 2 between the Yankees and the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Yankees drew in their infield with the bases loaded and one out in the bottom of the 9th. Relief ace Mariano Rivera was facing Arizona’s Luis Rodriquez.

“Rivera throws inside to left-handers,” McCarver observed. “Lefthanders get a lot of broken-bat hits into shallow outfield, the shallow part of the outfield. That’s the danger of bringing the infield in with a guy like Rivera on the mound.”

Moments later, Gonzalez’s bloop to short center field drove in the winning run.

He also sort of "predicted" the 8th inning Alfonso Soriano HR in that same game:

10:34: Alfonso Soriano comes up big again -- a homer to left field! The Yanks lead 2-1, and they have the greatest postseason reliever of all-time coming in to pitch the eighth and ninth.

For once, McCarver sums it up best: "The Yankees and Diamondbacks have played 66 innings ... the Yankees have had the lead for 7½ of those 66 innings. Unbelievable."

(Just for the record, I rewound the tape to the sixth inning for this tidbit from McCarver during Soriano's previous at-bat: "Usually in games like this, a Double Threat ends up being the difference, and Soriano's a Double Threat -- guys who can run and hit with power, 'cause they can beat you on the bases or with the longball." Well done.)

just reinforcing the general sentiment here. McCarver was excellent and even groundbreaking in his early years as a broadcaster.

but he didn't have an unlimited supply of stories, and his insights became a bit less impactful the longer he was from his playing days. so yes, 'late McCarver' was annoying.

still, he had a good peak. RIP

Anyway, RIP to McCarver. I grew up listening to him on Mets broadcasts in the 1980s, so his voice is what a "baseball announcer" sounds like in my head. And he was pretty darn good, despite many of the complaints that people made later in his career.

There's a reason McCarver got the call to do the national games. He was damn good when he entered the booth, and remained that way for quite some time. It was clearly past time to move on when Fox finally dropped him, but he had a good run. It's not easy to remain a good listen for decades in that kind of role (see Tony Romo).

RIP.

For once, McCarver sums it up best: "The Yankees and Diamondbacks have played 66 innings ... the Yankees have had the lead for 7½ of those 66 innings. Unbelievable."

As a Yankees fan, I have to admit that if they'd won that 2001 World Series it would've topped the 1960 WS for the sheer stupidity of the outcome. Even if they'd held on to win that game 7, they still would've been outscored by 35 to 14.

...it is freakish and to be a pro athlete, you need to have it.

My friend was on the track and field team at Dartmouth. He says Brad Ausmus walked into the gym in street clothes, grabbed a basketball and threw down a reverse dunk. This is a 5'11" catcher!
(bbc will love this story, sorry I don't have pics)

Ah, Timmy. He told such fun stories. I remember he used to talk sometimes about the amazing game in 1970 when he and his backup, Mike Ryan, got knocked out of the same game.

The Phillies were playing the Giants in SF, and in the sixth inning, Willie Mays hit a foul tip off of McCarver's right hand and broke his finger, McCarver got pulled from the game, of course, and his backup, Mike Ryan, came in. Meanwhile, McCarver was put into an ambulance to be taken to the hospital for x-rays. But....

A couple of batters later, in a play at the plate, Willie McCovey slid into Ryan and broke a finger on his left hand. They hustled him into an ambulance, and a Phillies utility guy came in to catch. Meanwhile, McCarver arrived at the ER (as he described it, holding his right hand up in the air, limp), and the nurse asked, "Are you Mr. Ryan?" And he said, "No, I'm McCarver. Ryan is in the game catching," and at that instant, Mike Ryan walked through the ER doors holding his left hand limply in the air. And they both burst out laughing. Later, on the flight home, Ryan supposedly said to McCarver, "I've been hoping all along you would get hurt so I could play more, and now look at us!"

Meanwhile, the Phillies (a poor club that year anyway), ended up getting through the rest of the season with the immortal Mike Compton, Del Bates and Doc Edwards (who was actually a coach and former catcher whom they activated, for some experience) catching. Compton hit .164/.240./209 the rest of the way, Bates hit .133/.257/.167, and Edwards hit a robust .269/.313/.269. None of them ever played in the majors again.

And of course, McCarver was a key part of the Dick Allen–Curt Flood deal--just about the only part of that trade that worked out for Philadelphia.

As a Yankees fan, I have to admit that if they'd won that 2001 World Series it would've topped the 1960 WS for the sheer stupidity of the outcome. Even if they'd held on to win that game 7, they still would've been outscored by 35 to 14.

And it was only that close because the manager in the Diamondbacks' dugout was doing everything he could to lose it for his club.

I have to contradict you here. Have you ever known any professional athletes? I have and they are all freakish athletes.

I figured he was speaking relatively here. I doubt he was a freakish athlete for a professional jock. He would very much be one surrounded by Primates.

I figured he was speaking relatively here. I doubt he was a freakish athlete for a professional jock. He would very much be one surrounded by Primates.

Of course that’s what I meant.

My friend was on the track and field team at Dartmouth. He says Brad Ausmus walked into the gym in street clothes, grabbed a basketball and threw down a reverse dunk. This is a 5'11" catcher!

This is a famous story at Dartmouth, which I always thought was apocryphal, until I finally ran into someone who saw it in person. Ausmus never played baseball at Dartmouth - he was recruited to play ball, but then he got drafted and took the contract - but he came anyways and was able to ultimately graduate b/c Dartmouth is on the quarter system. Anyways, it was halftime at a basketball game, people were dicking around on the court (as you were allowed to do, even when I was there about 10 years after him), and he picked up a ball and reverse dunked. As a 5'11 catcher.

When Steve Carlton dies, he will be buried 60 feet 6 inches away from McCarver.

17. So true. I played with Bernard Gilkey in high school. He was SOOO much better than everyone around him. That's when I realized with 100% certainty that I wasn't going to be a professional athlete. To this day, I vividly remember the sound of the ball of his bat, his throws from the OF and his speed. It was like watching a super hero walk amongst mortals.

Oh, I forgot. He was a freshman and I was a senior.

18. Pool isn't a sport. Golf, maybe but let's face it bowling and golf and things like that aren't really "sports". My rule of thumb is if you can smoke a cancer stick or drink a beer during competition and still compete, it's not really a sport. Curling is another "sport" that fails that test.

I played with Bernard Gilkey in high school.

Did you go to U. City High? My oldest sister spent one year there and then we moved to Chicago. I woulda been there two years later had we stayed.

a Phillies utility guy came in to catch.

that was Jim Hutto, who very nearly joined that list of "None of them ever played in the majors again."

he did not play in the bigs in 1971-74, but resurfaced with the Orioles to go 0 for 5 - and that was all she wrote. Go figure - his only start for the Orioles was at catcher.

he appeared in 5 games at C for the 1970 Phillies, no starts, a total of 16 1/3 innings.
12 of his 14 starts for the Phillies were in LF.

Hutto only caught in a total of 11 G in the minors before 1970, but he dabbled in C in 1971-72 and went full-time there in 1973-74. probably was worth a shot....

funny that the 1970 Phillies AAA team had a player by the name of Bob Boone - who played 20 G at 3B, missing most of the season due to wartime military duty. he took up catching the following year.

2091 MLB starts behind the dish later, Boone retired.

Sad news. McCarver in his dotage caught a lot of grief from the smarty-pants community (and Phil Mushnick), but he was an excellent broadcaster for the vast majority of his career. May you rest in peace, sir.

35. Was at Clayton but I believe I encountered him in summer ball. U City was a big school and we were a small school

21 - My recollection is that he also mentioned Bautista who had the only pre-9th inning RBI in that game.

My recolllection was a nothing game. Probably 1997, 1998. Bartolo Colon was pitching against the Yankees and with Posada up McCarver mentioned that Colon was nodding twice whenever a fastball was called. He pointed out that only on the fastball do you get two signs (pitch and location) whereas with off speed stuff you just call the pitch. He said POsada as a catcher was well equipped to recognize that and take advantage. A moment later Posada put one into Monument Park.

(Tracer: Looks like This game in 2001)

18. Pool isn't a sport. Golf, maybe but let's face it bowling and golf and things like that aren't really "sports". My rule of thumb is if you can smoke a cancer stick or drink a beer during competition and still compete, it's not really a sport. Curling is another "sport" that fails that test.

If you say so. My idea of a "sport" demands high level hand-eye coordination, which leaves out many track events, and for the most part soccer.

Who else doesn't qualify in your opinion? Jockeys? Race car drivers? I've heard plenty of people try to claim that those aren't sports, either. (P. S. They're crazy.)

But more seriously, we've had this discussion before, and anyway, I qualified my response to Hugh in my closing sentence.

17. So true. I played with Bernard Gilkey in high school. He was SOOO much better than everyone around him. That's when I realized with 100% certainty that I wasn't going to be a professional athlete. To this day, I vividly remember the sound of the ball of his bat, his throws from the OF and his speed. It was like watching a super hero walk amongst mortals.

My best friend faced Jason Bere in high school. He went 0 for 3, 2 Ks and a 1-3 ground out on a little dribbler. He said the little dribbler was the best at bat of his high school career. He said Bere was completely overwhelming.

Jockeys ? Are you kidding me? Horse racing is a sport .... for horses. The guy holding the reins isn't the one running. Race car drivers? Driving a car in circles is not a sport. To the extent any athletics are being performed it would be the pit crew. I'm sure it's hard to drive a car fast in a circle for hours on end but it's not a sport.

Track and field encompasses a lot of weird events but the core events are clearly sports. The decatholon is the definition of a sport. It's the first true sport.

Most people like to include things like bowling and golf and parlor games like pool because they can play them with their buddies and sometimes be quite good at them but these are mostly weekend activities. I play croquet all the time - basically outdoor pool. It's not a sport. How do I know this ? Because I drink a Beer or two while playing and several people smoke/vape.

This is a famous story at Dartmouth, which I always thought was apocryphal, until I finally ran into someone who saw it in person. Ausmus never played baseball at Dartmouth - he was recruited to play ball, but then he got drafted and took the contract - but he came anyways and was able to ultimately graduate b/c Dartmouth is on the quarter system. Anyways, it was halftime at a basketball game, people were dicking around on the court (as you were allowed to do, even when I was there about 10 years after him), and he picked up a ball and reverse dunked. As a 5'11 catcher.

Good times:

You graduated with honors from Dartmouth and played for Yankees farm teams only in between school quarters. How did a 47th-round draft choice — and Boston fan to boot — convince the Bronx Bombers to agree to such unorthodox terms?

It was actually the Yankees’ idea for me to go to my first full freshman year at Dartmouth before reporting to play. They understood that getting a college degree was important to me and my parents, and they always supported me in my efforts. It didn’t hurt that Dartmouth’s quarter system fit well with the baseball schedule.

Okay, Duke, tell us about how jockeys and race car drivers puff and chug while riding a horse or driving 200 MPH. Tell us how controlling a 1200 pound horse or a 700 horsepower car is less of a sport than sprinting 100 meters with nobody trying to knock you off your pace.

If you say so. My idea of a "sport" demands high level hand-eye coordination, which leaves out many track events, and for the most part soccer.

You're kidding right? So standing around doing something that requires no level of measurable fitness, no balance, no anticipation and that I can do whilst smoking is sport, but most things that require running are not sports?

According to the dictionary, your definition is wrong:

an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

I'm fairly certain the discussion of what is a sport or not has been done to death on this site. Nobody is going to agree, everyone has their own opinion of what a sport is. I'm a bowler, and I don't consider bowling a sport. It upsets a lot of my friends because they argue differently, which is perfectly fine. To me a sport requires some level of maximum personal physical effort, it's just the way I look at it, others see it differently.

Hugh,

If you don't think that playing 36 holes of golf in a day without a cart, or playing in a pool tournament where matches can go from 9:00 AM to 3:00 AM doesn't involve physical exertion, you're just showing your lack of knowledge.** Obviously all competitive activities that involve running can be considered a "sport", but equally obvious is the fact that some of them (basketball, ice hockey, soccer, etc.) involve a much higher skill level than simple track events that amount to nothing but running.

** Here of course I'm talking about pro level pool, not the sort of rec pool played on bar tables. Playing one match after another for hours on end where a single miss can often be fatal isn't something that can be accomplished without an incredible amount of physical stamina and nonstop concentration. One recently completed championship event had a final round that ended after 10:00 AM after both players had been in action for nearly 24 hours with scarcely a chance to rest. Try it yourself sometime.

#33 Happened to me in hockey. I thought I was a pretty good goalie in high school. Good positioning and what I thought was a quick glove hand. And then I came up against somebody who was getting a scholarship to a US university. I never stood a chance.

And that guy was the next cut below future pro.

Watch players from other sports try to throw the first pitch at a baseball game and you will realize that athletic talent doesn’t always naturally translate across sports. I agree that it usually does to a certain extent. I remember in college when one of our star hockey players (he was a 2nd round NHL draft pick) showed up to play intramural softball — he just roped ridiculous line drives all game.

Enjoyable as a player and broadcaster.

Anyone remember his great achievement/somewhat dubious accomplishment on July 4, 1976 on the same play?

Also, I think it was Dan Dierdorf to whom Jim Healy referred to as "McDorkster"

Let's just say that some sports require a broader and / or deeper degree of "athletic talent"** than others. I'd put boxing, ice hockey and basketball at the top of that list, in that order. Boxing is at the top because of the lack of time outs within the action and of course the lack of free substitution.

** Hand-eye coordination, strength, reflexes, and physical / mental stamina. Take away the second and third of these in any of the more physically active sports and you've got a spectator. Take away the first and last of these in any sport and you've got a second rate amateur at best. (Substitute foot-eye coordination for soccer.)

I went to high school with future NBA player Anthony Davis and he was very good at gym class softball. He also did pretty well as a brickwall catcher. My buddy was on base when someone hit a deep flyball. Anthony was the catcher and despite not needing to decided to "block" the plate with a thrown shoulder as my buddy came running home. He flew like 6 feet and landed face down crying.

Good times.

Like a lot of people here I never listened to McCarver at his peak and grated at his tendency towards know-it-all-ness. But I found him insightful on several occasions and specifically remember his prescience on Luis Gonzalez's dink in game 7.

This profile brings up that call but also paints a good picture of what color analysis was like 20 years ago, not to mention men in general.

I remember him on the SI baseball blooper videos where he kind of plays the heel to the SI swimsuit model.

Wasn't huge on substance, but enjoyed his delivery and storytelling. And for me, he was the voice of playoff baseball

My football positions were OL/DL, and in my final HS game the opponent's best player was Jim Kiick, later an excellent RB for the 17-0 Dolphins. We lost by 20-7 as Kiick ran for 2 TDs and tossed an option pass for the 3rd. We lined up across from each other, but he always ran off-tackle or sweep, never a dive, so I had no chance to be made foolish by him. Could not even have a try downfield as the "away" tackle's job was to watch for a reverse rather than pursuit. (They ran one, with a far inferior RB, and it was an easy tackle.)

Re: McCarver's overall athletic ability, his NY Times obit says he was a multi-sport high school star who was recruited to play football by Notre Dame, Alabama, and Tennessee, but opted for baseball because his family wasn't well off (he was from a "tough" Memphis neighborhood, dad was a cop, had 4 siblings) and he could make money right away in baseball.

How rare was it for a player to accumulate over 6000 PA in the post-war era and hit fewer than 100 home runs, as did McCarver? Probably a bunch of middle infielders on that list and not much else.

Yep, a few light hitting CF, at least one other catcher, and some oddities like Mike Hargrove and Carew, although he could fit the middle infielder criteria in the first part of his career.

Oh, and here's a fun bit of McCarver trivia from his SABR bio that's too good not to share: In his first professional game, with Keokuk of the Midwest League in 1959, the home plate umpire was Brent Musberger.

Pool and golf require great hand/eye coordination

No, they don't. The ball is not moving in either case. Doesn't mean they're not difficult to be good at, but it's not hand-eye coordination which is required.

McCarver's decision made sense in an era when the NFL and NBA wouldn't sign players until 4 years after their high school class had graduated, and when MLB's minimum $6000 salary was more than the average salary in the NFL.

Pool and golf require great hand/eye coordination

No, they don't. The ball is not moving in either case. Doesn't mean they're not difficult to be good at, but it's not hand-eye coordination which is required.

Just why do you see pool players constantly looking first at the object ball and then at the cue ball while taking their warmup strokes? It's to freeze their minds in the correct rhythm that coordinates their hands and their eyes. As in golf, the perfect stroke is just as much a matter of timing as it is for a batter trying to hit a fast moving pitch. The degree of that hand-eye coordination required only varies according to the level of the standards you're requiring.** When a pool player or golfer is said to be "out of stroke", all that means is that his stroke rhythm is a bit off, meaning his hands aren't in perfect sync with his eyes.

What differentiates hitting a Major League pitch from hitting a pool ball or golf ball isn't the degree of hand-eye coordination as much as it is the unworldly reflexes required to hit the former, because of the speed and the spin of the pitch. OTOH hitting a batting practice pitch doesn't require any great athletic skills, and hitting a slow pitched softball requires almost no athletic skill at all.

** The standards required in MLB or the PGA / Pro pool tour are immeasurably higher than those in amateur competition.

McCarver's decision made sense in an era when the NFL and NBA wouldn't sign players until 4 years after their high school class had graduated, and when MLB's minimum $6000 salary was more than the average salary in the NFL.

Of course. Also, he got a $75,000 bonus up front, equivalent to more than $750,000 today according to the US BLS CPI inflation calculator.

Keep plucking that chicken Andy, but pool isn't a sport. Lots of things can require coordination and dexterity without being sports. My buddy growing up could put together incredibly complex model planes because he had insane hand control and could visualize how parts fit together; he's now a world-class orthopedic surgeon. But model-making (or orthopedic surgery) aren't sports.

And pro pool isn't model making (where there's no competition) or orthopedic surgery (where medical teams cooperate, not try to beat the competition). YMMV and all that, and at least I note that you haven't tried to demote golf.

"...isn't model making (where there's no competition)..."

As a judge at several International Plastic Modelers' Society contests, I can assure you that model makers are some of the most competitive people I've ever met. Agreed, there's no direct face-to-face competition when the actual model is being built, but when you get a room with 3,000 models on the tables, as was the case at last year's IPMS Nationals, where every builder is convinced that his or her model deserves first place in its category, it can get heated. I agree that it's not a sport, though...

I've gotta love a forum where I can run into a judge of International Plastic Modelers' Society contests. And I mean that sincerely.

Okay, I should've realized that there'd be some sort of competition for plastic modeling, which I imagine is kind of like a Science Fair competition. But as you agree, there's no actual face-to-face competition, which puts it into a different category altogether.

But then strictly speaking, there's no head-to-head competition in golf, either, since in golf the player himself controls the position of the ball 100% of the time. Which isn't true in pool, where defensive play often determines the outcome of a match.

Just why do you see pool players constantly looking first at the object ball and then at the cue ball while taking their warmup strokes? It's to freeze their minds in the correct rhythm that coordinates their hands and their eyes.

Disagree. The eye in pool is projecting spatially the movement of the cue ball based on where it's struck in order to get to the next location, whether that be a bumper or another ball. There is not need to coordinate hands and eyes once the location and speed is determined. The cue ball is not going to move at that point, nor is the target. It's fine motor skill to move the cue at the proper pace over the right distance prior to contact, but it is not eye-hand coordination.

As in golf, the perfect stroke is just as much a matter of timing as it is for a batter trying to hit a fast moving pitch. The degree of that hand-eye coordination required only varies according to the level of the standards you're requiring.** When a pool player or golfer is said to be "out of stroke", all that means is that his stroke rhythm is a bit off, meaning his hands aren't in perfect sync with his eyes.

Absolutely false. Hitting a golf ball, which is stationary on the ground or on a tee, is nowhere near the challenge of hitting a baseball moving at a high speed AND changing trajectory in a multi planar fashion. A golf swing requires almost no eye-hand coordination. It is a gross motor skill, the backswing rotating the torso and loading the rear hip then the downswing rotating the torso back and through while initiating hip rotation to transfer weight through the ball, with some finer motor skill to maintain the grip on the club and the orientation of the club face. Once the golfer has addressed the ball and oriented the club face properly they could swing with the eyes closed. Now that wouldn't produce optimal results as the eyes do give us feedback for balance and alignment, but a professional golfer with hundreds of thousands of practice and competition swings under their belt would still make solid contact most of the time. As you said, it's rhythm, which does not require eye-hand coordination.

The eye in pool is projecting spatially the movement of the cue ball based on where it's struck in order to get to the next location, whether that be a bumper or another ball. There is not need to coordinate hands and eyes once the location and speed is determined. The cue ball is not going to move at that point, nor is the target. It's fine motor skill to move the cue at the proper pace over the right distance prior to contact, but it is not eye-hand coordination.

All I can say to that is that you've never played serious pool.

Absolutely false. Hitting a golf ball, which is stationary on the ground or on a tee, is nowhere near the challenge of hitting a baseball moving at a high speed AND changing trajectory in a multi planar fashion.

Why don't you read what I wrote in #62? But here, I'll spare you the scrolling effort:

What differentiates hitting a Major League pitch from hitting a pool ball or golf ball isn't the degree of hand-eye coordination as much as it is the unworldly reflexes required to hit the former, because of the speed and the spin of the pitch.

There are obviously degrees of difficulty among sports, and degrees of difficulty within each sport. I'd never pretend that the skill required to hit a Major League pitcher isn't far greater than executing a pool stroke or a golf swing, and for the very reason I stated. It's what you might call the "real time" factor that's present only in sports where the ball isn't stationary at the point of contact.

Once the golfer has addressed the ball and oriented the club face properly they could swing with the eyes closed. Now that wouldn't produce optimal results as the eyes do give us feedback for balance and alignment, but a professional golfer with hundreds of thousands of practice and competition swings under their belt would still make solid contact most of the time. As you said, it's rhythm, which does not require eye-hand coordination.

As you're implicitly admitting, you need optimal hand-eye coordination to produce "optimal results". And what good are sub-optimal results?

It's not impossibly hard to achieve a "perfect" practice stroke in golf or pool, but once the ball is on the tee or you're addressing a cue ball while looking at an object ball, all the stroke in the world isn't going to do you any good without near perfect hand-eye coordination. The same could be said for a "perfect" batting stroke---you might be able to train a robot to achieve that.

I saw a clip of an interview with Gibson talking about how lousy McCarver was at throwing out bad runners. He was at 33-34% for his career. Is that lousy? What's the range of good? Molina was nearer to 40% which was considered good I think. Is 34% bad for a starting catcher? McCarver also played during a period when there were lots of attempts

Once the golfer has addressed the ball and oriented the club face properly they could swing with the eyes closed.

Xander Schauffele just did basically this 2 weeks ago

"When Xander Schauffele was a kid, his dad would have him hit balls barefoot and with his eyes closed.

"Situations like that don’t really occur on the PGA Tour for the seven-time winner, but when a business partner approached Schauffele about a unique challenge, he had to say yes out of nostalgia.

"Schauffele teamed up with Hyland – his exclusive software partner that works with half the Fortune 100 – to take part in the Hyland X Vision Challenge. The concept was simple in description but difficult in action: play a par-3 blindfolded twice, once with absolutely no help (other than the yardage) and once with assistance. Joined by his father, Stefan, and caddie Austin Kaiser, Schauffele made a comical effort on the first try and then nearly made an ace with his second."

During McCarver's career, the NL's CS% was 37%, or 3% higher than McCarver's. I think Gibson likely felt that his catcher should be as good in catching base stealers as he (Gibson) was in getting them out by other means.

"When Xander Schauffele was a kid, his dad would have him hit balls barefoot and with his eyes closed.

Eddie Taylor could set up and make cross-corner bank shots on a 5 x 10 pool table with his head turned the other way. But then plenty of pros are also proficient at "wing shots", which are shots pocketed with a moving object ball. It's a shot that looks nearly impossible to a casual observer, but some pros can run an entire rack like that in one continuous series of motions.

And of course, McCarver was a key part of the Dick Allen–Curt Flood deal--just about the only part of that trade that worked out for Philadelphia.

Flood’s replacement, Willie Montanez, provided some mehish value for the Phils for a few years and a lot of value for netting them Garry Maddox in the trade with SF.

I remember well McCarver when he started out as a broadcaster. He was absolutely the gold standard back then. This was at a time when there was a fraction of the amount of baseball available to watch, and the games of the week, all star games and world series broadcasts were really big.

By the time he apparently degenerated into a curmudgeon, I had moved to Honolulu (1989) and was really not watching that much baseball on TV any more due to the time difference, so he never lost his luster for me.

McCarver started his broadcasting career for the Phillies from 80-82 and was something different. He was really, really good.

All I can say to that is that you've never played serious pool.

To this I would say I had excellent eye-hand coordination as a kid and a young man, but I was always incompetent on a pool table. Why? Clearly not because I lacked the eye-hand coordination, but I cannot/do not have the ability to visualize and project the geometry of the sport/game, call it what you will.

Absolutely false. Hitting a golf ball, which is stationary on the ground or on a tee, is nowhere near the challenge of hitting a baseball moving at a high speed AND changing trajectory in a multi planar fashion.

Why don't you read what I wrote in #62? But here, I'll spare you the scrolling effort:

What differentiates hitting a Major League pitch from hitting a pool ball or golf ball isn't the degree of hand-eye coordination as much as it is the unworldly reflexes required to hit the former, because of the speed and the spin of the pitch.


There are obviously degrees of difficulty among sports, and degrees of difficulty within each sport. I'd never pretend that the skill required to hit a Major League pitcher isn't far greater than executing a pool stroke or a golf swing, and for the very reason I stated. It's what you might call the "real time" factor that's present only in sports where the ball isn't stationary at the point of contact.

Yes, there are reflexes and reaction time involved, and they are used to coordinate the hands with the eye. This is the difference in requirement between the two sports. You could have the reflexes required to react in time to hit a baseball, but if you cannot coordinate what the eye is seeing with the hands swinging the bat, they are for naught. There is no such requirement in golf for the reflexes, agreed, but neither is there the requirement for coordinating the hands with the eye to any degree comparable to hitting a moving object. It's simple really. Hand-eye coordination is using the eyes to move the hands (with or without an implement involved) into position to intersect with an object. Clearly if that object is also moving, it is going to be vastly more difficult than if the object is stationary. I find it remarkable that anyone could not see this or would argue to the contrary.

Once the golfer has addressed the ball and oriented the club face properly they could swing with the eyes closed. Now that wouldn't produce optimal results as the eyes do give us feedback for balance and alignment, but a professional golfer with hundreds of thousands of practice and competition swings under their belt would still make solid contact most of the time. As you said, it's rhythm, which does not require eye-hand coordination.

As you're implicitly admitting, you need optimal hand-eye coordination to produce "optimal results". And what good are sub-optimal results?

This is a red herring. We are not discussing results, we are discussing the level of hand-eye coordination/skill required by the activities.

It's not impossibly hard to achieve a "perfect" practice stroke in golf or pool, but once the ball is on the tee or you're addressing a cue ball while looking at an object ball, all the stroke in the world isn't going to do you any good without near perfect hand-eye coordination. The same could be said for a "perfect" batting stroke---you might be able to train a robot to achieve that.

Perfect. If you are looking at an object ball while striking a different ball, you are not using hand-eye coordination because your eyes are not coordinating what your hands are doing. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize. But try this experiment for yourself. Go to the batting cage and take 10 cuts with eyes open, then take 10 cuts with eyes closed. You can have someone say go to give you the release time. Note your results. Then go to the driving range and take 10 swings eyes open, then 10 eyes closed and note your results. Go tothe pool hall and hit a shot 10 times eyes open, then the same shot 10 times eyes closed, and note your results. Heck, you could even hit a baseball 10 times off a tee eyes open, then 10 times eyes closed and compare that to eyes closed off a machine. Let me know how this goes.

As you're implicitly admitting, you need optimal hand-eye coordination to produce "optimal results". And what good are sub-optimal results?

This is a red herring. We are not discussing results, we are discussing the level of hand-eye coordination/skill required by the activities.

And just how do you measure the level of hand-eye coordination---except by results?

Perfect. If you are looking at an object ball while striking a different ball, you are not using hand-eye coordination because your eyes are not coordinating what your hands are doing. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize.

During your warmup strokes, what you're precisely doing is "coordinating" what your eyes are telling you, with what your hand (or really, your hand and arm) needs to do in order to successfully execute your shot. If you don't want to call this "hand-eye coordination", you're free to do so, but it doesn't negate the substance of what's being described.

But try this experiment for yourself. Go to the batting cage and take 10 cuts with eyes open, then take 10 cuts with eyes closed. You can have someone say go to give you the release time. Note your results. Then go to the driving range and take 10 swings eyes open, then 10 eyes closed and note your results. Go tothe pool hall and hit a shot 10 times eyes open, then the same shot 10 times eyes closed, and note your results. Heck, you could even hit a baseball 10 times off a tee eyes open, then 10 times eyes closed and compare that to eyes closed off a machine. Let me know how this goes.

Again, all this experiment will verify is what anyone can see: It's much harder to hit a moving object than it is to hit a stationary one. I've never argued otherwise.

And just how do you measure the level of hand-eye coordination---except by results?

Difficulty of the task.

Again, all this experiment will verify is what anyone can see: It's much harder to hit a moving object than it is to hit a stationary one. I've never argued otherwise.

What differentiates hitting a Major League pitch from hitting a pool ball or golf ball isn't the degree of hand-eye coordination

Precisely, which is why it clearly requires vastly superior hand-eye coordination to hit a baseball than it does to hit a golf ball or a cue ball. If you haven't been arguing otherwise, I thoroughly and completely misunderstand what it is you are arguing for. See the italics above.

Flood’s replacement, Willie Montanez, provided some mehish value for the Phils for a few years and a lot of value for netting them Garry Maddox in the trade with SF.

Could you add any more insight into the Willie Montanez Experience? He stuck around for 14 years barely above replacement for that period. If you throw out his rookie year 1.9 WAR he's right at replacement level his entire career. What was going on there?

#80 I'd say it was mostly teams chasing the potential of the 23 year old who hit 30 home runs. Plus he hit .300 a few times (though never with real HR power).

You can get quite a few years out of one good one -- see Rick Cerone.

What differentiates hitting a Major League pitch from hitting a pool ball or golf ball isn't the degree of hand-eye coordination

Precisely, which is why it clearly requires vastly superior hand-eye coordination to hit a baseball than it does to hit a golf ball or a cue ball. If you haven't been arguing otherwise, I thoroughly and completely misunderstand what it is you are arguing for. See the italics above.

Then you must have completely misunderstood, because never in my life have I ever tried to equate the difficulty of hitting an MLB pitch with hitting a golf ball or a pool ball, even on the pro level.

But that doesn't mean that the skill involved in pro golf or pro pool doesn't also require highly advanced hand-eye coordination. It just means that the requirement for pool and golf is on a lower level of difficulty, because hitting an MLB pitch adds superior reflexes into the requirements.

#80, what 81 days. He was quite flashy, in a “I’m having a good time” way. He was a fan favorite in Philly.

Montanez was also a 1-rated 1B in Strat-O-Matic from 1975-1979, so there was the perception that he was an exceptionally good fielder even if contemporary analytics disagrees. Could be a positional corollary of Nichols Law of Catcher Defense and/or as [83] notes, looking flashy/good as a fielder as opposed to being good.

I had multiple people give me condolences this week because I loved listening to McCarver when I was a toddler. I remember him as a bad national announcer, but my parents claim he was great on Mets games in the 80s.

"All pro athletes are freakish athletes" goes smack into the Nerdsplaining Hall of Fame right along with its first ballot companion "Any deficiencies in the ability to handle pressure are weeded out long before the major leagues."

NY Mets fan here- I watched so many games in the 80's and early 90's with McCarver broadcasting. He was great.
Something changed in a bad way when he got the National TV forum.

fwiw, Ron Darling isn't as good on nationwide broadcasts, either, as he is on SNY for Mets games.