When we've repeatedly stated the same thing, and he keeps arguing against something nobody's saying, it is like talking to a brick wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Printable View
When we've repeatedly stated the same thing, and he keeps arguing against something nobody's saying, it is like talking to a brick wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
so dont argue back :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
:rolleyes: You gotta love that. Putting somebody on ignore because they point out that you're arguing against a nonexistant point.
well what fun is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Anyways, yeah....i agree. I"m at the point to agree to disagree.
What yankee wants to term as small ball, situationally, I would term as simply a sacrifice or aggresive base running. But i'm fine if he wants to call the situational instance small ball. I'll even agree to using different terminology. I highlight situationally because all teams do it based on a slew of factors, one of course being their lineup talent. No team builds to be a 'small ball' team however and has a 'small ball' mentality and approach to the game. In the NL you see the bunt more plain and simple because its a much easier way of the pitchers making contact. Been that way for ages, and rather than striking out the bunt moves the runner over. Weak hitter. You wanna call that small ball, fine. The media however passes that off as being intuitive, and it's so ubsurd.
Really, when YES stated that Toronto scoring runs by taking advantage of horrific defense was the 'ultimate form of small ball'....did anyone else want to smack him?? I feel like HGM getting pissed over a stupid comment by Dusty Baker.........but **** I'm tired of hearing this 'small ball' label given like its a medal of accomplishment to a bad hitting team.
My point was basically, there's nothing to disagree with, anyway. Nobody's disagreeing with anybody else here, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I'm usually not, but it's just plain frustrating when you continue to argue against someone for something they aren't even saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
I agree that no RL Coach would wish to be in charge of a batting line-up that, which consists, mainly, of speedy guys who can make contact, while not able to ding much, but, Dickay, can you not conceive of a coach who, in real life, could be stuck with such a line-up?...a small market Pro team, perhaps, which couldn't afford the heavy hitters?...mebbe a Little League team, of tykes who can run, but, physically, can't swing to the fences?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
If I were a coach in such a situation, I'd give "small ball" at least, a try, making a virtue of necessity.
Yes and no. I did post, by virtue of necessity the NL does bunt more because they have pitchers that can't hit a lick. Rather than a strikeout moving the runner over with a bunt makes perfect sense. I also say yes that teams can have teams that have alot of speed. I say no to the fact that there is a mental approach to small ball however as a team methodology though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongar
And the bigger issue I have been trying to state, is that it is grossly inadequate for the media to label as a good quality teams with 'small ball' approaches like they are being creative or crafty (a term i heard recently to describe this approach).
The fact is, these teams that move runners over do so because they are poor hitting teams, not good quality crafty offenses built with speed and contact. Yes, they may sacrifice a player from time to time, and take advantage when speed is on the basepath and do a hit and run. But all teams do that stuff, even those who aren't labeled 'crafty small ball teams'.
Shouldn't that be "...they can't hit with power"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And you wouldn't give credit to a team that wins because of (or in spite of) playing small ball?
I define a "small ball" team as one whose batters can get on base; bunt well; run & steal judicially; has good pitching and fielding, but doesn't hit many homers.
I believe that such a team will do well, even if it lacks power hitters
I don't know of any team like that. Also, just because they have speed, get on base and can bunt.......does that make them 'small ball'? I thought it was the way they played, and little about the attibutes the players bring. Again, it sounds like people are trying to invent something here. Small ball was sacrificing outs earlier in the thread, bunting someone over, hitting and running, etc. The Angels have alot of team speed but don't play that way. You don't see a ton of bunts coming from them or the twins, two teams people call 'small ball'. And what does pitching and fielding have to do with the 'small ball mentality'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongar
The term 'small ball' comes up nearly everytime a bunt is laid down to move runners over. I'm fine with that. Instead of calling it a sacrifice, call it small ball. Whatever. The team you mentioned is not going to bunt the leadoff batter to second after he gets on first. they will try to get on base themselves, maybe hit a line drive or get a walk. Near the bottom of the order, if the hitter is crappy then they may bunt, or push the runner to second with a well placed grounder. Thats a situational move because they have a subpar hitter, not a mentality.