Good ole small ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Who tried to do that? I'm confused...

---

I'm confused too. I really don't understand this myth that 'small ball' exists....or even better, someone in here mentioned 'big ball' lmfao???? Anyone ever see Rodney Dangerfield in the soccer movie 'Ladybugs'?

"All I know is.......I got alot of balls"!! Classic.

Anyhow, I understand people like to say this 'small ball' bunt they guy over, hit and run, steal a base yadayadayada exists.......but I think its a myth. I don't see it. It's a generalization of small market teams and a wrong one at that IMO. Every team bunts, tries to steal occassionally etc. etc. Of course teams with speed try it more, but I don't think that teams try to play 'small ball'.

I'm gonna go play with my big balls now. This conversation is painful.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Obviously, small ball only works in conjuction with a good staff because the run expectation is indeed lower. So then you get people like HGM say, omgz the pitching was good. No ****. Small ball is used when you need to increase the chance to score, not the run expectation.

---

HUH??? Don't you think EVERY team wants to 'increase the chance to score'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Anyone ever see Rodney Dangerfield in the soccer movie 'Ladybugs'?

"All I know is.......I got alot of balls"!!

---

lol the kid actualy could have passed for a chick too lol... i think he is the guy in the neverending story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

OMG. You can increase the chance to score in any giving situation if you're willing to sacrifice expected runs. This will only work if you have a pitching staff capable of shutting down a team once you get a lead.

---

But everyone does that from time to time, and no team does that all of the time. Nobody always bunts a guy from first to second to get him into scoring position. So how do you quantify that some teams 'play small ball' and others don't? Is 'small ball' a onetime thing, or a methodology? If it's a one time thing...OK, thats fine. All teams play 'small ball' then once in awhile. What I gather is that people try to say it's a methodology and I say that is BS.

I don't believe teams try to play this 'small ball' game all the time, or near all the time. I don't believe it would work if thats the case. I feel it is simply an untrue generalization of small market low payroll teams. When they happen to bunt, steal, or hit and run successfully, it gets termed 'small ball' and they get play for it as a 'small ball' team.

Why do you think the NL is said to play this style more often?? Surely it has nothing to do with a weak hitting pitcher who is so likely to make an out that they just assume have him bunt and move the runner over. :rolleyes: This isn't 'small ball' its necessity because the pitcher can't hit a lick. So because they have the horrific hitting pitchers drop a bunt, they get proclaimed as 'small ball' teams. I just don't get it.

I'd love to see statistics that would somehow prove 'small ball' is a legitimate method of playing the game. I just don't get it. I know some of this may not make sense. I think the suicide squeeze is the most exciting play in the game.......but I won't call that 'small ball'. I suppose I'm OK if that type of play is termed 'small ball' but to generalize a team and say they play 'small ball' is something that doesn't make sense to me.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Yeah, use one case to try to disprove every one. Like anyone is going to fall for that.

---

Please show me how I was using one case to try to disprove every one, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Or use one successful steal and suicide squeeze bunt to try and prove that small market teams without big HR hitters greatly benefit from 'small ball'.

---

Very true. Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Who tried to do that? I'm confused...

---

And who tried to use one case to disprove smallball?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Obviously, small ball only works in conjuction with a good staff because the run expectation is indeed lower. So then you get people like HGM say, omgz the pitching was good. No ****. Small ball is used when you need to increase the chance to score, not the run expectation.

---

My point was that the when the media creams itself over a smallball team, they make no mention of the fact that the team is winning because of their good pitching, not because they play smallball. Then the media gets up in arms when a "smallball" teams acquire some big sluggers, and they write about how it's going to hurt the team, and then the team's pitching inevitably regresses, while their offense improves by a huge margin, but they win less games, and the media uses that as proof that smallball worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I suppose I'm OK if that type of play is termed 'small ball' but to generalize a team and say they play 'small ball' is something that doesn't make sense to me.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Or use one successful steal and suicide squeeze bunt to try and prove that small market teams without big HR hitters greatly benefit from 'small ball'.

---

It can happen in BM...er...have I mentioned Canajun Ehs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I am not surprised you are confused, however I am not going to go through the effort to explain it to you.

---

LOL, thats fine. I learned all I needed to learn watching the Yankee game last night. Hows it go????????

Oh yeah;

- Walk, Balk, passed ball, grounder to the second basemen scoring a run..."pure small ball".

- Taking advantage of poor defense..."ultimate small ball".

It's easy, and I was wrong. The media doesn't invent the terminology and label it onto teams that can't hit. :rolleyes: I wonder if the Yankees and their 200 million dollar payroll scored in similar manners if it would also be termed as 'small ball'? :confused::rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I wonder if the Yankees and their 200 million dollar payroll scored in similar manners if it would also be termed as 'small ball'? :confused::rolleyes:

---

:D not they would be ridiculed for not bunting arod down by 1 with 1 out in the 8th inning and a guy on 2nd. to me... its not even a question... i dont care he could win the game with 1 bat... get the d@mn runner over. i can kill me all u want i dont care... if im managing the team... he bunts or sints... im the manager i dont CARE of he is making 30 million.

dont give me the cr@p i used to hear about giambi... "oh he can't bunt he isnt any good at it." FUC*ING LEARN!!! take more than HR swings in batting practice

be a complete player and EARN your 20 million dlck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

:D not they would be ridiculed for not bunting arod down by 1 with 1 out in the 8th inning and a guy on 2nd. to me... its not even a question... i dont care he could win the game with 1 bat... get the d@mn runner over. i can kill me all u want i dont care... if im managing the team... he bunts or sints... im the manager i dont CARE of he is making 30 million.

dont give me the cr@p i used to hear about giambi... "oh he can't bunt he isnt any good at it." FUC*ING LEARN!!! take more than HR swings in batting practice

be a complete player and EARN your 20 million dlck

---

sorry got a little carried away there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Now you're just being silly.

---

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. You're just calling him silly and saying that you're not going to explain something to him.

What exactly is your point?