Good ole small ball.

[gosensgo101]

Man the Twinkies are exciting to watch. Gomez gets on. Pickoff attempt goes array. He goes to third, would've taken home if the 3rd base coach didn't stop him. The next batter Castilla pushes a bunt down first for a safety squeeze and beats it out. And they just hit and ran. Good thing too, it would've been a double play.

I forgot how exciting small ball could be.

[dickay]

Man the Twinkies are exciting to watch. Gomez gets on. Pickoff attempt goes array. He goes to third, would've taken home if the 3rd base coach didn't stop him. The next batter Castilla pushes a bunt down first for a safety squeeze and beats it out. And they just hit and ran. Good thing too, it would've been a double play.

I forgot how exciting small ball could be.

Small ball is overrated and without meaning. The Red Sox have a lead off hitter that steals a ton of bases......does that mean they play small ball? The guy throws a ball away during a pickoff attempt allowing the leadoff batter to get to third, that is small ball???? A squeeze play......I guess if you want to call that small ball than that is fine, but I don't see how the Sawx or half a dozen other heavy hitting teams would've played it much differently.

I guess there is something to be said about a 'small ball mentality'.....but I don't think many teams if any really have this mentality. The ones who 'analysts' prescribe to be small ball teams (twins for ex.) simply don't have much power hitters so when they do bunt a guy in that gets more play.

[gosensgo101]

Small ball is a good way, in my opinion, for a weaker team to overachieve.

However, to be a great team, you need a mix of both small ball and big ball, so to speak. You can't win 100+ games (including playoffs) by just stealing and bunting, etc. But you also can't do the same with the "homer or nothing" mentality. There needs to be a balance. You need a few spark plugs in your order and some big guys to drive them in once they get on.

[dickay]

Small ball is a good way, in my opinion, for a weaker team to overachieve.

However, to be a great team, you need a mix of both small ball and big ball, so to speak. You can't win 100+ games (including playoffs) by just stealing and bunting, etc. But you also can't do the same with the "homer or nothing" mentality. There needs to be a balance. You need a few spark plugs in your order and some big guys to drive them in once they get on.

Small ball is a marketing ploy used by small power teams to overhype things that most teams do in similar situations.

[HoustonGM]

I remember how the media was ranting and raving about how the 2005 White Sox used small ball to win games, and they were so good at "doing the small things" and then they all booed when the White Sox got Jim Thome and traded away "smallball" Aaron Rowand and made other such changes. Then the White Sox did worse and the media blamed it on the fact that the White Sox decided to stop playing smallball.

Yet the real reason the 2005 White Sox did so good was because they had an incredible pitching staff. Four starters with 200+ innings and 116+ ERA+. 3 relievers with 220+ ERA+. They scored 741 runs (with 200 home runs, a high total). The 2006 White Sox didn't do worse because they traded their "grinder smallball" mentality for home runs. They actually scored
over 100 more runs - 868 and hit 236 homers. They did worse because the pitching went from a team ERA+ of 124 to 103.


In other words, I agree with what dickay's saying.

[dickay]

The mighty Yankees Derek Jeter was thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double late in the game yesterday. **** bonehead play, how dare he try to do that.....thats the reaction from most of the Yankee radio shows & fans calling in today.

When it works, they're brilliant users of 'small ball'. When it doesn't, they're boneheads. Small Ball is 'largely' overrated.

[Rongar]

I forgot how exciting small ball could be.

True...and our Canajun Ehs play it all the time....and very successfully, as witness their feats in the "Dynasty" forum...

[Rongar]

Small ball is a good way, in my opinion, for a weaker team to overachieve.

Hear! Hear! Gose...that works for me -in BM, anyway - again, I offer the Ehs' exploits as proof...

[dickay]

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

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'.

[dickay]

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.

[dickay]

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'?

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[dickay]

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. 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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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

And who tried to use one case to disprove smallball?

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.

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.

[Rongar]

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?