Good ole small ball.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[HoustonGM]

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

[dickay]

so dont argue back

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[Rongar]

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.

[dickay]

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'.

[Rongar]

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

[dickay]

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.

[dickay]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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

[dickay]

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

what he said lol. I really should just stop.

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.

[Reade]

the early to mid 80's St Louis Cardinals. They used steal, bunt, hit to right side, sac fly their why to alot of runs back then

[Rongar]

And what does pitching and fielding have to do with the 'small ball mentality'?

I have to admit, nothing...I only threw in that good stuff, 'cos I felt so sorry for my hypothetical coach, who had little power hitting in his line up.

I am sure that there are many coaches in the baseball world - ranging from Major League to soccer Mom level - trying to run a team that has little or no talent, anywhere.

To me, the only way they can compete at all, is, when at bat, employ "small ball"...and I would throw such coaches bouquets, not brickbats, for playing the crummy hand dealt them, the best way they can

Too bad that the term, itself, riles you so, Dickay,...you can't enjoy watching
t.v. very much if you're irritated by a minor misnomer from a commentator...
Do the terms "Tater"; "Heater"; "Boots the Ball", also upset you?

Why sweat the small stuff?....why not give up suffering?...derive the most fun that you can, from the game?

I don't mind you saying "tomato", as long as you'll forgive me saying "tamale"