Good ole small ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I agree with that........though i would go further and just throw the term 'small ball' out of the baseball dictionary altogether because it's used in such rediculous situation such as yesterdays game.

Maybe, back in the stoneage of baseball there were teams that felt they should bunt and run all the time? I dont' know........but this terminology is now used to claim teams use it as a philosophy, and it's just a poor way of saying they can't hit. It irates me to hear a team getting props for being a 'small ball' team.

---

true but some teams build more for stealing and bunting. is that not a small ball club??? or to you label them as a team that uses snall ball more often???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

... people have grown accustomed to announcers overemphasizing every time they move a runner over or god forbid score a run because of a passed ball after a stolen base. ..

---

EXCELENT point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

true but some teams build more for stealing and bunting. is that not a small ball club??? or to you label them as a team that uses snall ball more often???

---

I understand what you're saying. If you want to call a steal 'small ball' than I guess you could say they use it more often. I just call it a team with alot of team speed. Stealing use to be aggressive baserunning, now it's 'playing small ball'.

This is the best way I can put it;

Teams with weak hitters will drop a bunt to avoid a double play and get a guy in scoring position.....it means they have weak hitters. Don't mask it and try to make it a positive by trying to say they are being innovative (small ball).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I understand what you're saying. If you want to call a steal 'small ball' than I guess you could say they use it more often. I just call it a team with alot of team speed. Stealing use to be aggressive baserunning, now it's 'playing small ball'.

This is the best way I can put it;

Teams with weak hitters will drop a bunt to avoid a double play and get a guy in scoring position.....it means they have weak hitters. Don't mask it and try to make it a positive by trying to say they are being innovative (small ball).

---

i believe we are both sort of getting to the same point in different ways.

I ment stealing was used to try and keep teams from hitting into double plays by getting a guy to 2nd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

i believe we are both sort of getting to the same point in different ways.

I ment stealing was used to try and keep teams from hitting into double plays by getting a guy to 2nd

---

I too believe you and I are really on the same page with this whole thing. However I don't think many teams try to steal second to avoid the DP though, I think they more so do it to put RISP by playing aggressively. Even the 'big ball' Red Sox and Yankees do it. Isn't Ellsbury atop the league in steals? Sox must be a small ball team eh??

If a team really wanted a DP opportunity, they'd just walk the next batter after the SB. You see it all the time in tight games with runners on 2nd & 3rd, they walk the bases loaded purposely. Not saying stealing to avoid a DP never happens, and probably does more so in the NL with the pitchers.

grrr... two post replies I can handle, three is just too much. When the postbit takes up just as much space or more than the content, something is wrong. :rolleyes:

Well, if that's all it is then no problem. I don't mind merging stuff, I just don't want to start a big old argument about it is all. It's not that important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

No, you're not even close to the concept. Right, teams don't want to play small ball, but sometimes they have to. It's just using the resources you have in a way to create more wins, jeesh.

---

Yes, sometimes teams play smallball. ALL TEAMS. There is no such thing as a "small ball team", though.

Quote:

---

He made an off topic example, then tried to use that as a reason why smallball doesn't exist. Silly. And not even worth responding to, actually. I don't even know why I did.

---

Posting an example of the media calling something small ball is somehow off-topic in a discussion of...small ball? :confused:

Quote:

---

Sometimes not so weak lineups will do it too when the game situation warrants it - then it is smallball. FFS, stop.

---

Dude, nobody is saying that that isn't true. wtf? You seem to be completely misunderstanding the point dickay (and I) are making.

I'll explain it again, although it's like talking to a brick wall.

"Small ball" exists, in that, teams play for one run sometimes, teams bunt, teams steal, whatever. Obviously, that's true. All teams do this during the course of a season. There is no team that solely does this. There is no team built on the "smallball" concepts. A team built on stealing bases, and bunting, would fail miserably. Such a team does not exist. When a team has a weak offense, and thus, uses "smallball" tactics a little more than usual, the media praises them for being innovative, and "manufacturing runs" and being a "smallball team." None of that is true, though. They are just simply another team. Sometimes, teams use such tactics more often than others. That does not make them a team built around smallball, as the media likes to claim. That is the point dickay has been making. There are no smallball teams. He is not saying that "smallball" tactics like playing for one run, bunting, etc. don't exist. So, FFS, stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I would have done it that way, but I find it impossible to do it without typing the user name in manually. Thanks for the cleanup.

---

If you don't want to type the user name in, just, right click the Quote button, open it in a new window/tab, copy the quote block, and paste it into the reply box with the other quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Actually, ok - if the theme is the media over labels 'small ball' and overrates it - then yes I agree. However, it is a viable method of offense for any team in the right situation.

---

And I'd love for you to show me where anybody in this thread has said otherwise. You've been arguing against something nobody's been saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'll explain it again, although it's like talking to a brick wall.

---

now THATS antagonistic and mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And I'd love for you to show me where anybody in this thread has said otherwise. You've been arguing against something nobody's been saying.

---

*sigh*