McCarver had a lot to do with Steve Carlton's early success with the Phillies and has been a good commentator over the years, but anymore I almost will not watch a game he is calling.

I keep the sound off when McCarver is part of the announcers. He does not add much value at all.

I got a copy of the 1960 WS Game 7. What was most telling was listening to the announcer (just one). More significantly was not hearing him talk. It seems now that the announcers need to say something between every pitch. It is annoying. Sometimes silence is the be commentary.

You're right Lee, especially on TV, we don't need a description of what the batter is doing...it is on the screen. That being said, that "wonderful MNF game should ahve pushed a LARGE audiance to the WS game last night. It did at my house.

McCarver can still wow you now and again.
Really Joe? I think someone needs a drug test.

Listening to McCarver beat the same dead horses makes one long for the baseball musings and stylings of Joe Morgan. Ok, not really, but it has gotten at least close to that point.

The comparison to Madden is appropriate. Madden too reached his expiration date - and unfortunately continued working for several years beyond. McCarver needs to realize that his time has come and gone - the next generation of color man needs to be brought in.

I have to confess that I do not understand the criticism of McCarver. I cannot think of a single commentator who even comes close to him for understanding the nuances of the game. In addition to the examples that Posnaski cited, McCarver said during one of the games that he thought the defense should be positioned differently because the hitter - I think it was Andures - would hit the ball to right field. Two pitches later, Andrus reached out and poked the ball to right field. And those litte strategy nuances are what I love about baseball. Even if McCarver repeats stories - I watch a lot of baseball and have never noticed him doing so - I would rather listen to McCarver than any other commentator.

If this was an SAT test question we'd have:

McCarver is to announcing as
LaRussa is to managing

Both have done it for a while and both seem to have a need to prove how smart they are about baseball. McCarver talks too much and LaRussa over manages.

I agree McCarver is well past his prime, but he did correctly foresee in the bottom of the ninth of game 6 that the Rangers had their outfield too far back in a prevent doubles defense alignment, and that did cost them the series, so he still has some brain cells firing.

They were too far back but the run still scores there. It wasn't going to be caught, it was a 2 out hit that was little more than a very soft liner. Runner with decent speed running on contact isn't getting thrown out at the plate. He was rounding third by the time the ball hit the grass.

I'm in mexico and I'm watching the games on the local station, their color commentator is at least 85 years old and was constantly telling stories from 60 years ago, so I think the old color commentator problem is universal, but I still thought the series was really good and the games are more than the music,

I could listen in spanish or turn off the sound and still here the sounds of the stadium, sounds like home.

use to love Mc arver , like I use to love John Madden in the early 80s. The problem is they start off fresh and then become popular and just become parodies of themselves because now they are thinking about sounding smart and generally over thinking instead of just calling the frigging game

Great information, thanks for the share!