Good ole small ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And does any follow that as an overall philosophy of how to play ALL THE TIME?

NO. All teams do that when it's called for.

---

no they dont... thats the point i THINK people were making is that it should be done in certain situations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

no they dont... thats the point i THINK people were making is that it should be done in certain situations

---

Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You're confusing this 'strategy' with what baseball people know as a 'sacrifice'. All i'm saying is that 'small ball' is that no team is a 'small ball' team. Anyone who's called that is just a poor hitting team, plain and simple.

---

also a good point... but some teams use it more than others. for examply... you dont see the yanks or sox use it often but angels and MINNY use it more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

no they dont... thats the point i THINK people were making is that it should be done in certain situations

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

also a good point... but some teams use it more than others. for examply... you dont see the yanks or sox use it often but angels and MINNY use it more

---

Really? I'd love to see proof of that. I think thats more of a generalization because they've been soft hitting mid market at best teams (at least for MINN anyhow) for awhile now, and 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.

I watch Minn. all the time....I don't see any difference in philosophy in the way they play than the Sox. There is just an untrue opinion out there that they play differently, and it's driven by poor media coverage trying to find positive in a weak hitting team.

As for LAA, they have had alot of team speed, and probably steal more bases than alot of teams. Thats not a small ball philosophy.......have you ever seen Vlad swing? Nothing small ball about it. Other than him they just don't hit alot of homers so again they get slapped with the small ball label.

I would be my paycheck players HATE being told they play for a small ball team.

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

now THATS antagonistic and mean

---

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 HoustonGM

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.

---

so dont argue back :p

:rolleyes: You gotta love that. Putting somebody on ignore because they point out that you're arguing against a nonexistant point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

so dont argue back :p

---

well what fun is that?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Anyways, yeah....i agree. I"m at the point to agree to disagree.

---

My point was basically, there's nothing to disagree with, anyway. Nobody's disagreeing with anybody else here, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Hrm, so I take HGM off ignore and he says something else stupid. The reason I ignored him and will add after I post is, he is just plain mean.

---

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 dickay

Sorry Ronger, I didn't read your whole post............i really don't care how it works in a baseball simulation game. We're talking real life 'small ball' here.

---

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?

If I were a coach in such a situation, I'd give "small ball" at least, a try, making a virtue of necessity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongar

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?

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.

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

Shouldn't that be "...they can't hit with power"?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongar

Shouldn't that be "...they can't hit with power"?

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'?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Why are you trying to say small ball = team speed?

Trying to move the runners over also doesn't imply giving yourself up. A lot of hitters can try to put the ball on the right side of the infield and get a hit doing it.

If you're saying the media overuses the term then yes I agree. If you're saying a team can't be a smallball team , then no I dont agree.

Pitching is need to make smallball viable. You can smallball your way to a consistent 4 runs, but if you need 6 then you probably cant do it.

---

wow...ok.

i should've quit awhile ago.

I'd like to see where anybody said "small ball = team speed", personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'd like to see where anybody said "small ball = team speed", personally.

---

what he said lol. I really should just stop.

Quote:

---

Pitching is need to make smallball viable. You can smallball your way to a consistent 4 runs, but if you need 6 then you probably cant do it.

---

BTW....can you show me a game summary where someone 'small balled' their way to four runs? LMAO. You ask me why, this was the quote that really makes me think the discussion is over. Even the yankee broadcasters who claimed that taking advantage of errors was 'the ultimate smallball' haven't yet called a defensive unit or rotation 'small ball' yet.