I often wonder if "old school" analysts like Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan are oblivious to the criticism launched in their direction.  Or do they read it, and then find new and zanier ways to attract it?  I am starting to think that it's the latter, given what was offered to us as analysis of the Subway Series.

On FOX's broadcast of the Mets/Yankees Saturday game, McCarver extolled the virtues of running hard to first base - sort of.  Here is how the game played out at the time: Fernando Martinez hits a ground ball to first that has the potential to be a double play.  The Yanks get the out at second.  Throw to first...safe.  We have seen this play a thousand times in our baseball watching careers. 

Now the McCarverism (I'll throw quotes around it if someone Tivoed it and can provide it verbatim) - It is less virtuous to run hard to first base for a base hit than it is to prevent a double play.  This in and of itself is baffling, but perhaps defensible.  Just be quiet now, Tim, and we'll get to the sixth with our credibility intact.  When you are running for a hit, that helps you, whereas avoiding the double play helps the team.  Face. Palm.

Let me understand this concept correctly.  Let's walk through an example.  Following the averted double play, had Jose Reyes hit a gapper, Martinez would have scored.  One run posted for the Mets.  Had Martinez hit a dribbler to A-Rod, and he beat the throw to first, and later scored on the same gapper, is that merely half a run?

Offensively, your goal is to avoid outs.  Intuitively, you understand that an inning continues, so long as the offense avoids the third out.  Here is the evidence:

 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204022

Both events would seem similarly virtuous.  In fact, if we are assigning virtuousness to baseball acts, then we should see if the base hit is the more virtuous of the plays.  Nobody wants to hit into a rally killing double play.  Running hard prevents that stigma.  It's not exactly virtuous when the intent is to avoid ridicule.

Let's go one step further.  Isn't the better team play to allow your teammates to hit in lower pressure situations?  For instance, what if Martinez struck out?  Now Reyes is batting with one more out than Martinez was, and with the runners in the same position.  So now the "nine ways to score from third" philosophy is reduced to a "get a hit" mandate.

Let's try this on for size as well.  Let's leave the infield.  What if Martinez hit the ball down the third base line?  And what if Xavier Nady quickly cuts off the ball, but supplies a half-hearted throw to the infiled.  And what if Martinez, having taken the wide turn, takes advantage of this to stretch his hit to a double?  Is this not a virtuous play because doing it means a better slugging percentage?  It would seem more virtuous, since the next hitter gets to bat with the pitcher at a disadvantage.

I have never understood the concept of selfish hits, homers, and walks.  We hear so much (from managers whose names rhyme with Crusty Faker) that some guys need to get "more aggressive at the plate.  Walks are nice.  Hits are better. Yadda yadda."  The problem is that analysts project walks or whatever else is perceived as selfish as something possibly greater had something else been done.  Of course, they fail to realize that there are worse outcomes as well, which can be easily realized by jamming square pegs into round holes.  Martinez's job was to safely reach base.  The ends would justify the means.  Barring that, Martinez's plan B was to prevent the inning from ending.  Resorting to plan B wasn't more virtuous, but a necessary component of completing his job.