PDA

View Full Version : McCarver and Pujols's "great baserunning"



HUHUH
10-30-2006, 02:32 PM
Seventh inning of game 5 (I think. Maybe game 4).
Two outs, Cards with runners at first (Pujols) and second, tie game.
Sharp single to left. Runner from second comes around to score.
Pujuls intentionally rounds second and heads for third to try and get the throw cut off.
Throw from outfield is cut-off and Pujols is easily rundown for the third out.
Run counts and Cards take a one-run lead.

McCarver: (sic)
"That was a great piece of baserunning by Pujols"

Does anyone think not?
It looked to me like the run would have scored easily, and the Cards could have had first and second with 2 outs all over again.

McCarver hyperbole?

TOBTTReds
10-30-2006, 02:49 PM
It is such a cliche to say that was "great baserunning." That is what an announcer is supposed to say.

Was it? I think the guys was going to score too, so maybe not.

savafan
10-30-2006, 02:53 PM
I agree, Taguchi was going to score because had the throw not been cut off it would have been further up the first base line than at home. In reality, bad baserunning by Pujols.

RedFanAlways1966
10-30-2006, 03:03 PM
There is an old saying.... "Never make the 1st or 3rd out at 3rd-base".

Keystone12
10-30-2006, 03:39 PM
I felt the same way when I watched that play unfold.

Pujols was expecting the throw to be gung-ho to home to stop the run, so he was going to sneak to 3rd. In reality, the Tigers smartly cut it off and caught him napping and ended what could've been a bigger inning.

Foolish McCarver.

IslandRed
10-30-2006, 04:55 PM
I agree, it sounds like rationalizing. If the throw's coming home and you have a chance to get the runner at the plate, you're not going to cut it so you can nail a trailing runner. If you don't think you can get the runner (throw won't be in time, it's offline, etc.) then you cut it.

Let me put it this way: I saw the exact same play several times this year with the Reds and at no point did I think to myself, "wow, that was awesome baserunning."

dabvu2498
10-30-2006, 05:17 PM
I dunno about this one.

I agree, the run would have scored regardless of what Pujols did...

But, to ensure that the go-ahead run scores in the bottom of the 7th inning against a team that hadn't been able to score on a consistent basis in the deciding game of the World Series...

It's OK.

Usually, no, but in this case, there's a lot more in play than just the "cardinal sin" of not making the 3rd out at 3rd.

IslandRed
10-30-2006, 08:36 PM
But, to ensure that the go-ahead run scores

I just don't see where that's a credible argument. When a throw is coming to the plate, the decision to cut it or let it through is based on one factor and one factor only: is there a chance to get the runner at home? Whether Pujols did or didn't get too far around second is not part of the decision-making calculus. Only after the call is made to cut off the throw would it matter where the trail runners are.

I mean, we've been following baseball how long? Has anyone on this board ever heard, before now, the suggestion that trailing runners can influence whether a throw to the plate is cut off when it otherwise would not have been because there is a possibility of getting the out at home? And that it's "good baserunning" to get yourself caught that way?

Hap
10-30-2006, 09:12 PM
That play actually happens quite a bit in amateur ball.

Only do the rundown if it is absolutely necessary to get in a run that is absolutely necessary.

RFS62
10-30-2006, 11:33 PM
The catcher makes the call. He's the only one with the play in front of him. The catcher might call out "cut 2", which would mean cut and throw to second base. That's why hitting the cutoff man is so important. If he has a chance to get the runner at home, he lets it go with no cut. If he thinks the runner will beat the throw of if he sees the throw is off line, he will call the cut. All this, of course, in a perfect world.

vaticanplum
10-30-2006, 11:56 PM
There is an old saying.... "Never make the 1st or 3rd out at 3rd-base".

:confused: What if the leadoff hitter digs in for a triple and you have a chance to get him out at third?

cincinnati chili
10-31-2006, 12:04 AM
I was a little woozy when that play went down, but I remember LaRussa's immediate reaction in the dugout appeared to be a bit of dissatisfaction with Pujols.

RFS62
10-31-2006, 07:33 AM
I was a little woozy when that play went down, but I remember LaRussa's immediate reaction in the dugout appeared to be a bit of dissatisfaction with Pujols.




I can't remember a reaction shot of LaRussa, but I can't imagine he'd be calling that play good baserunning by Pujols.

RedFanAlways1966
10-31-2006, 09:01 AM
:confused: What if the leadoff hitter digs in for a triple and you have a chance to get him out at third?

I think you looking at it from the defensive perspective, vatican. You take any out you can get at any base when on defense (absolutely). The old saying is relative to the team batting. The premise of that saying is to stop at 2nd when real risky b/c odds are:

(1) with 0 outs there is a great chance you will score if your team can do something halfway decent (which our REDS had trouble doing this year!).

(2) with 2 outs you should be able to score from 2nd on most basehits (running on contact w/ 2 outs and getting a good jump).

There is always things like a wild-pitch, a balk or an infield single that would score a man from 3rd, but those things are "sort of" rare things to happen and not worth the risk taken (being gunned down at 3rd).

He's Dunn It
10-31-2006, 11:41 AM
I'm the biggest McCarver hater there is...and it pains me to admit what I'm about to say.

Watching the game with my wife, who's a smarter than average baseball fan, and she asked me if it was good that the Cards made the third out that way (at third base) but the go ahead run scored.

During the 4+ minutes of commercials, we talked about making sure the throw was cut off and assuring the Cards of the go ahead run. I do agree that Uncle Albert was trying to sneak to third, but I also don't mind him making sure the throw is cut off, and getting into a rundown to make sure the throw doesn't go through and nail the guy at the plate. It was a bit up the line, but Albert doesn't know that at the time.

I don't think it was "great baserunning" but I did say to my wife "that's a good play to draw the throw late in a tied game." When McCidiot said his comment, my wife laughed and said, "Oh, the two of you agree on something."

I wish she would have called me fat instead of that hurtful comment.

"Great Baserunning"...I don't think so. A good play to make sure the Cards had the lead late, yes. See, I'm already distancing myself from Timmy.

He's Dunn It
10-31-2006, 11:54 AM
when it otherwise would not have been because there is a possibility of getting the out at home? And that it's "good baserunning" to get yourself caught that way?

As a catcher for all of my baseball playing days, I have seen this a few times and it has influenced both me behind the plate and my baserunning.

Granted, this is at the amatuer level, but I have yelled "Cut 3" in situations where it was going to be a bang-banger at the plate (and boy did I really love those--nothing like tagging a guy in the throat or face when he puts his shoulder down...) I'd take the sure third out in an inning my pitcher is struggling. I don't know if I do that in a tie WS game, which perhaps is your point.

As a baserunner I'd take a huge turn around second and allow myself to get caught up if that run would have made the difference. It's kind of like the first and third situation with two outs where the guy on first delay steals to intentionally get caught up, especially on an 0-2 pitcher to a #8 or 9 hitter.

I can't believe Albert would be thinking this, but Inge has already airmailed a couple of throws and that might be in his head. It's clear he's struggled to throw the ball home on quite a few occasions and he--not Pudge--might have thought it was better to get the sure out than try for the play at the plate.

I guess bottom line is I'm willing to trade that out for the opportunity to take the lead in a tight game when we're not scoring a bunch of runs.

Also, do we know what the batter/runner was doing? He may have been 3/4 of the way to second and not giving Mr. Hammy any options about getting back.

OK...the deceased horse, which had been repeatedly whipped unto death, has received another 40 lashes of beating, which caused blunt trauma due to the amount of strikes the dying horse received...

vaticanplum
10-31-2006, 12:19 PM
I think you looking at it from the defensive perspective, vatican. You take any out you can get at any base when on defense (absolutely). The old saying is relative to the team batting. The premise of that saying is to stop at 2nd when real risky b/c odds are:

(1) with 0 outs there is a great chance you will score if your team can do something halfway decent (which our REDS had trouble doing this year!).

(2) with 2 outs you should be able to score from 2nd on most basehits (running on contact w/ 2 outs and getting a good jump).

There is always things like a wild-pitch, a balk or an infield single that would score a man from 3rd, but those things are "sort of" rare things to happen and not worth the risk taken (being gunned down at 3rd).

Ah, I got it.