PDA

View Full Version : So many people down on small-ball...


Kilroy
11-04-2003, 07:55 AM
and I don't get it.

Its true, its generally not the AL style of play, and the Sox as we know them aren't built for it. But, even in the AL, when the playoffs start, or the chips are down in the regular season, and a team has to win, they break out the small ball to get the job done.

We know pitching and defense wins in the playoffs. And when the stakes go up, scoring goes down. That's when get 'em over and get 'em in becomes so important.

It wasn't that last year's White Sox team didn't do that, it was that they couldn't do that. It was absolutley infuritating to watch them leave runner after runner on base. That's why ******** Ron Gardenhire said that if we keep them in the ball park, we'll win. The first two games of those last seven, they didn't keep the Sox in the park. The last 5, they did. And that's how that bum-squad sent us home for the winter.

So maybe its not that Ozzie is saying we'll play every game small-ball style, but that when we need to, we will be able to. Because we certainly couldn't do it when we needed to last season.

poorme
11-04-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
and I don't get it.


1. They've read a few Rob Neyer columns and now think they know everything there is to know about baseball.

2. They think "small ball" means bunting every time there's a guy on first with less than 2 outs.

toledosoxfan
11-04-2003, 08:23 AM
Amen.
I disagree with those on this board who are ripping smallball.
Its what I would call the fundamentals of baseball and an essential winning tool. Being able to bunt, sound base running, hit and run, etc. Something the Marlins had and the Sox had a lack of this year. Hopefully Ozzie brings some of that with him.

OZZIE IN '04!

ondafarm
11-04-2003, 08:33 AM
Small ball is a much more exciting brand of baseball but requires more discipline and intelligence, things that aren't always appreciated. For me, it always involved hitting the ball where they weren't, taking whatever they gave you and doing the unexpected. My Japanese manager (a great small ball guy) and I had three deals (which kept me in the small ball regime): 1) we'd pull our own little dog and pony show before every road game, I'd hit my homeruns in BP and never swing for the fences during games 2) when he gave me the sacrifice sign, my job was to move the man up, but I could do it my way (drag bunt for a hit, hard chopper over charging 3B-er, whatever) 3) I could steal at will as long as I thought I had an 85% chance of making it. We won two out of three league championships when I was there so small ball must have worked pretty well.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 08:34 AM
I hate small run ball because like Weaver said if you play for one run that is all you will get. Since everyone mistakenly believes small ball works, managers pull out small ball in the playoffs because they out think themselves into thinking that is the only way to win. They forget the fact they made the playoffs by not playing small ball. The past 5 World Series champions didn't win because of small ball, they won because hit the ball well, and they pitched the ball well.

You have a finite amount of outs in a game, 27, why waste them trying to put yourself in a worse positions. Historically more you score at a higher percentage when you have a runner a first and no outs then a runner at second with one out. Small ball is an outdated strategy which is follow by baseball people who want to make the complicated so they seem important. Baseball is a simple game, good pitching and good hitting wins games.

chosk8
11-04-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
Small ball is a much more exciting brand of baseball but requires more discipline and intelligence, things that aren't always appreciated. For me, it always involved hitting the ball where they weren't, taking whatever they gave you and doing the unexpected. My Japanese manager (a great small ball guy) and I had three deals (which kept me in the small ball regime): 1) we'd pull our own little dog and pony show before every road game, I'd hit my homeruns in BP and never swing for the fences during games 2) when he gave me the sacrifice sign, my job was to move the man up, but I could do it my way (drag bunt for a hit, hard chopper over charging 3B-er, whatever) 3) I could steal at will as long as I thought I had an 85% chance of making it. We won two out of three league championships when I was there so small ball must have worked pretty well.

How long ago did you play in Japan?

poorme
11-04-2003, 08:44 AM
Earl Weaver won because he had the greatest pitching staff of the 1970's.

JRIG
11-04-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
You have a finite amount of outs in a game, 27, why waste them trying to put yourself in a worse positions. Historically more you score at a higher percentage when you have a runner a first and no outs then a runner at second with one out. Small ball is an outdated strategy which is follow by baseball people who want to make the complicated so they seem important. Baseball is a simple game, good pitching and good hitting wins games.

The dead ball era is over folks, and it isn't coming back. You have 27 outs in a game to score as many runs as possible. That's the only limitation you have in baseball. Giving up one of those outs for an opportunity to maybe score one run isn't a good risk/reward strategy. Are there times it is necessary? Of course. But the Dusty Baker strategy of bunting guys over in the first inning just to possibly take a one run lead is a horrible way to play baseball in this era.

poorme
11-04-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by JRIG
Are there times it is necessary? Of course.

And when it was necessary, the Sox couldn't do it.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
Small ball is a much more exciting brand of baseball but requires more discipline and intelligence, things that aren't always appreciated. For me, it always involved hitting the ball where they weren't, taking whatever they gave you and doing the unexpected. My Japanese manager (a great small ball guy) and I had three deals (which kept me in the small ball regime): 1) we'd pull our own little dog and pony show before every road game, I'd hit my homeruns in BP and never swing for the fences during games 2) when he gave me the sacrifice sign, my job was to move the man up, but I could do it my way (drag bunt for a hit, hard chopper over charging 3B-er, whatever) 3) I could steal at will as long as I thought I had an 85% chance of making it. We won two out of three league championships when I was there so small ball must have worked pretty well.

Tokyo Giants would be my guess, but that isn't what I consider small ball. Stealing bases at a clip level over 80% is worth the risk, under 80% the outs on CS cost to much versus what is gained. Look at the Marlins under Torbog they went way too much and McKeon held back the reins and they took off. The outs from CS were killing the Marlins early in the year.

Good hitting is going the opposite way and by using what the pitcher gives you. I don't consider that small ball but rather good fundamental hitting.

I don't believe in sacrificing unless it is the ninth and you need one run. It hurts your team otherwise.


Also one of the things I love about Japanesse baseball is the spins they put on the ball when pitching. Do you think something like the gyro ball could be effective in the American game?

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Earl Weaver won because he had the greatest pitching staff of the 1970's.

And great hitting, pitching is only one part of the equation. You need both to win.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-04-2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Earl Weaver won because he had the greatest pitching staff of the 1970's.

Exactly. And he had big, dumb, slow-footed Boog Powell standing at first base to hit those 3-run homers Weaver knew his pitching needed to win ballgames.

Boog's glovework wasn't what Weaver was interested in. When you chirp cliches like "pitching and defense wins ballgames" you're showing your ignorance for what Weaver preached.

poorme
11-04-2003, 09:01 AM
I guess all those gold gloves that Davey Johnson, Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, Paul Blair and Bobby Grich won didn't mean anything.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-04-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by poorme
I guess all those gold gloves that Davey Johnson, Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, Paul Blair and Bobby Grich won didn't mean anything.

As far as Earl Weaver was concerned, they didn't. He didn't say pitching and gold gloves win ballgames, did he?

poorme
11-04-2003, 09:42 AM
I don't care what he said. Look at the type of players he won with. Cy young type pitchers, sluggers, gold-glove defense, and (gasp!) even stolen bases!

JasonC23
11-04-2003, 09:58 AM
Small ball rocks. I mean, the 1993 and 2000 Sox really rode that small ball all the way to the playoffs!!

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by poorme
I don't care what he said. Look at the type of players he won with. Cy young type pitchers, sluggers, gold-glove defense, and (gasp!) even stolen bases!


http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_1970.shtml

The 1970 O's are consider one of the greatest teams ever. 108-54 record. They were first in OBP, Runs per game, Walks by a wide margin, third in HR and and slugging. Fifth in SB but had a better CS% then the teams with more stolen bases.

They had three gold glove winners(Brooks Robinson, Davey Johnson, Paul Blair), the White Sox had two (Luis Aparico, Ken Berry). The White Sox lost two less games then the O's won. Does one gold glove make up that difference? MVP that year was O's Boog Powell, even though Yaz probably had a better year.

poorme
11-04-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_1970.shtml

The 1970 O's are consider one of the greatest teams ever.

So what you're telling me is that the O's pretty much excelled in every aspect of the game?

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by poorme
So what you're telling me is that the O's pretty much excelled in every aspect of the game?

You don't win 108 if you don't. But what separated them from the rest of the league was their pitching and their hitting. The D might have added a couple of wins at most. Defense might win a few games, but it doesn't win championships in baseball.

FanOf14
11-04-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
You don't win 108 if you don't. But what separated them from the rest of the league was their pitching and their hitting. The D might have added a couple of wins at most. Defense might win a few games, but it doesn't win championships in baseball.

It may not win them, but it sure can lose them.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by FanOf14
It may not win them, but it sure can lose them.

Not as much as not being able to score runs will cause losses.

Randar68
11-04-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
and I don't get it.

Its true, its generally not the AL style of play, and the Sox as we know them aren't built for it. But, even in the AL, when the playoffs start, or the chips are down in the regular season, and a team has to win, they break out the small ball to get the job done.

We know pitching and defense wins in the playoffs. And when the stakes go up, scoring goes down. That's when get 'em over and get 'em in becomes so important.

It wasn't that last year's White Sox team didn't do that, it was that they couldn't do that. It was absolutley infuritating to watch them leave runner after runner on base. That's why ******** Ron Gardenhire said that if we keep them in the ball park, we'll win. The first two games of those last seven, they didn't keep the Sox in the park. The last 5, they did. And that's how that bum-squad sent us home for the winter.

So maybe its not that Ozzie is saying we'll play every game small-ball style, but that when we need to, we will be able to. Because we certainly couldn't do it when we needed to last season.


Here's the problem: You have to have the players to do it. The Sox don't.

ondafarm
11-04-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Tokyo Giants would be my guess, but that isn't what I consider small ball. ?


Actually, I played in the Junior division of the industrial league. Roughly AA ball level, but a surprising number of Japanese major leaguers started there.

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Stealing bases at a clip level over 80% is worth the risk, under 80% the outs on CS cost to much versus what is gained. Look at the Marlins under Torbog they went way too much and McKeon held back the reins and they took off. The outs from CS were killing the Marlins early in the year.


That was the single biggest change from Torborg to McKeon and it was critical.

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Good hitting is going the opposite way and by using what the pitcher gives you. I don't consider that small ball but rather good fundamental hitting.

Since that rarely results in homers I would disagree with your consideration. Calling it good fundamental hitting I agree with.

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Also one of the things I love about Japanesse baseball is the spins they put on the ball when pitching. Do you think something like the gyro ball could be effective in the American game?

I wish somebody would try it. Shootoh and good gyro ball were what allowed my team to own Ichiro Suzuki his year in the league.

doublem23
11-04-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's the problem: You have to have the players to do it. The Sox don't.

***DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING***

Jjav829
11-04-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's the problem: You have to have the players to do it. The Sox don't.

True, however if KW plans to follow through on acquiring grinders to make this team more like the Twins, then we will have the players needed, and Ozzie's style would fit better than Gaston's.

RichH55
11-04-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I don't care what he said. Look at the type of players he won with. Cy young type pitchers, sluggers, gold-glove defense, and (gasp!) even stolen bases!


Tony Womack....World Series Starting SS

Good to see Defense wins championships

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by ondafarm
I wish somebody would try it. Shootoh and good gyro ball were what allowed my team to own Ichiro Suzuki his year in the league.

The first time I saw the gyro, it was a holy **** moment, like the time I saw Randy Johnson throw a slider and hit guy in the chest, after the batter swung at the pitch or a good Barry Zito curve ball. Also isn't supposed to be less taxing on your arm? I wish the Sox would pick up a pitching coach from Japan and have him teach guys who aren't getting the job down or have arm troubles how to spin a ball.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Tony Womack....World Series Starting SS

Good to see Defense wins championships

Womack one, Jeter 4+

poorme
11-04-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Tony Womack....World Series Starting SS


Good to see offense wins championships.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Good to see offense wins championships.

Offense and Pitching. The D Backs had some very good pitching.

poorme
11-04-2003, 01:33 PM
And groundskeeping too. Don't forget that!

Kilroy
11-04-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's the problem: You have to have the players to do it. The Sox don't.

Pardon me for saying this, but that's bull****. I agree, we didn't have the players to be stealing bases and that type of thing, but there's no reasonable explanation for the fact that 20 of the 25 men on the roster not being able to get a bunt down. They're all baseball players, right? Like I said, the Sox couldn't do it when they needed to do it. The Marlins, that was their style of play.
We don't have the players to adopt that as a style of play, but there's no reason that ML ball players shouldn't be able to execute a bunt, and get runners into SP. The Sox blew at that.

crector
11-04-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Pardon me for saying this, but that's bull****. I agree, we didn't have the players to be stealing bases and that type of thing, but there's no reasonable explanation for the fact that 20 of the 25 men on the roster not being able to get a bunt down. They're all baseball players, right? Like I said, the Sox couldn't do it when they needed to do it. The Marlins, that was their style of play.
We don't have the players to adopt that as a style of play, but there's no reason that ML ball players shouldn't be able to execute a bunt, and get runners into SP. The Sox blew at that.

So, what's your solution? That the Sox dismantle the team and rebuild from scratch?

JRIG
11-04-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Pardon me for saying this, but that's bull****. I agree, we didn't have the players to be stealing bases and that type of thing, but there's no reasonable explanation for the fact that 20 of the 25 men on the roster not being able to get a bunt down. They're all baseball players, right? Like I said, the Sox couldn't do it when they needed to do it. The Marlins, that was their style of play.
We don't have the players to adopt that as a style of play, but there's no reason that ML ball players shouldn't be able to execute a bunt, and get runners into SP. The Sox blew at that.

So, with our lack of team speed, instead of going station to station on singles, it seems preferable to move a base at a time by bunting, thus giving up one of your 27 outs each time.

Makes no sense to me.

Kilroy
11-04-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by crector


So, what's your solution? That the Sox dismantle the team and rebuild from scratch?

They were not asked to do it, so they didn't try, and they didn't work on it. Apparently, now they will be asked to do it, so they better work on it.


Originally posted by JRIG


So, with our lack of team speed, instead of going station to station on singles, it seems preferable to move a base at a time by bunting, thus giving up one of your 27 outs each time.

Makes no sense to me.

Why does this make no sense? In baseball there's times when the right play is the sacrafice. That's baseball 101.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
They were not asked to do it, so they didn't try, and they didn't work on it. Apparently, now they will be asked to do it, so they better work on it.




Why does this make no sense? In baseball there's times when the right play is the sacrafice. That's baseball 101.


Sacrafice is rarely if ever the right move in the AL. In the NL with pitchers batting you should she more sacraficing.

Kilroy
11-04-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Sacrafice is rarely if ever the right move in the AL. In the NL with pitchers batting you should she more sacraficing.

I guess we disagree on this one. If a guy doubles and then there's a bunt and a sac fly, I'm plum happy. Of course, if you're down 6 runs, I wouldn't play that way, but who would?

voodoochile
11-04-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I guess we disagree on this one. If a guy doubles and then there's a bunt and a sac fly, I'm plum happy. Of course, if you're down 6 runs, I wouldn't play that way, but who would?

That is a whole different issue. Bunting a man to from second to third with no one out and the team needing one run to tie or win late in the game is solid baseball.

Bunting a man from first to second is almost never a better move because a man at second with one away stands a smaller chance of scoring than a man at first with no one out.

In addition, instead of bunting the man from second to third, why not have the batter hit the ball to the right side of the infield where you at least accomplish the same thing of moving the man over but you also still stand the chance of driving him in with a single. In your scenario with Frank or Maggs at the plate, I would prefer my option to yours because I think Frank and Maggs would stand a better chance of actually accomplishing the goal and they just might do more than expected, where as with a bunt, they will just be out for sure.

poorme
11-04-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
T
Bunting a man from first to second is almost never a better move because a man at second with one away stands a smaller chance of scoring than a man at first with no one out.

According to the study I read, the expected runs scored are higher for a man on first and none out than a man on second and one out. That does not mean the odds of scoring one run are lower when you bunt. I don't know if we're talking about the same study.

Here's a quote from a Neyer article:

The point here is that if you include all possible outcomes of the bunt -- that is, the errors and the hits, along with the various outs -- there are many situations in which the sacrifice attempt is a good move.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1420573.html

Kilroy
11-04-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That is a whole different issue. Bunting a man to from second to third with no one out and the team needing one run to tie or win late in the game is solid baseball.

Voodoo, I believe his statement was "Sacrafice is rarely if ever the right move in the AL." I don't see where any situation was specified. I just pointed out one where it was the right move.

StepsInSC
11-04-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I wish the Sox would pick up a pitching coach from Japan and have him teach guys who aren't getting the job down or have arm troubles how to spin a ball.

Uh no thanks, I dont want our guys throwing every day of the week until their arms fall off.

jeremyb1
11-04-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by poorme
According to the study I read, the expected runs scored are higher for a man on first and none out than a man on second and one out. That does not mean the odds of scoring one run are lower when you bunt. I don't know if we're talking about the same study.

Here's a quote from a Neyer article

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1420573.html

Yeah, I recall that article. The analysis is pretty interesting. I think what it underscores is that if the bunt can be effective, the situations in which one bunts become all the more important. For instance, if the reason bunts actually can be effective is the probability of singles and errors as the article suggests, then bunting with Robbie Alomar, a great bunter with some speed, and trying to place the bunt well instead of only sacrificing the runner is a good idea. Robbie very well may lay down a single as he did a number of times last season. However, laying down a bunt with Tony Graffanino, an average bunter lacking a lot of speed, against a left handed pitcher (he had an ops around 1.000 against lefties last season) is a rather poor idea. The key would seem to be weighing the chances of the hitter getting a hit or a walk against the chances of the hitter making something happen with a very well placed bunt and/or speed. Since our club lacks speed and fundamentals and excells at hitting, bunting seems to be a poor idea in general for our club.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Uh no thanks, I dont want our guys throwing every day of the week until their arms fall off.

I am talking about guys whose chance is already gone. Such as a Jim Parque or Scott Ruffcorn. Guys who failed to make with their regular stuff but might be effective with a gimmick pitch. I wouldn't have a Rauch, honel or Malone do it, but with a lower tier prospect, never was or has been it might make sence.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Voodoo, I believe his statement was "Sacrafice is rarely if ever the right move in the AL." I don't see where any situation was specified. I just pointed out one where it was the right move.

For the Diamond Mind article there maybe a hole in it, is if he counted times a player bunted to get on base. This is a different type of play then a sacrifice bunt. If he combined the two which the article seems like he did, the results may not be valid. As it is more likely a player will get on base if they are bunting for a hit then sacrificing.


Kilroy in your example you gave up two outs for one run. What are the chance of the guy who is bunting getting a hit, so at worse men at first and third no outs, a double one run plus another man at second, a triple, one run and man at third, a home run, two runs, a walk or hbp, first and second no outs. I don't like playing for one run because you don't win or lose many ballgames 1-0. I would want to play for the three run inning.

Daver
11-04-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I am talking about guys whose chance is already gone. Such as a Jim Parque or Scott Ruffcorn. Guys who failed to make with their regular stuff but might be effective with a gimmick pitch. I wouldn't have a Rauch, honel or Malone do it, but with a lower tier prospect, never was or has been it might make sence.

Pitchers should throw everyday.

Not from the mound,or from the wind-up,but they should throw everyday.

Pitchers get hurt because they do no throw enough.

Paulwny
11-04-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Pitchers should throw everyday.

Not from the mound,or from the wind-up,but they should throw everyday.

Pitchers get hurt because they do no throw enough.

Yep, very few listen to Tommy John or Jim Katt.

gosox41
11-04-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by poorme
1. They've read a few Rob Neyer columns and now think they know everything there is to know about baseball.

2. They think "small ball" means bunting every time there's a guy on first with less than 2 outs.

I'm all for bunting in certain situations, but overall I'm not the biggest fan. Remember small ball leads to outs (mosto f the time) and outs are a commodity that you don't want when on offense. I'm certainly not saying I would never bunt, but I'd limit my opportunities.

The reason the Sox left so many hitters on base last season has little to do with inability to play small ball and more to the fact that the Sox in general, have selfsih free swinging power hitters that want to hit home runs. They have too many of these guys. They have boppers that weren't working the counts (outside of Frank) and who wanted to be BBTN.

Getting the right disciplined hitter would help alleivate this problem a lot. The Sox need to break up their tandem of 4 righties in the line up, and being that I wanted Frank back the whole time, it's time to kiss some others good bye.

Bob

Kilroy
11-04-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Kilroy in your example you gave up two outs for one run.


Umm, if a team scores one run for every 2 outs, they'll get 13+ runs a game. I'll take that, won't you?

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Umm, if a team scores one run for every 2 outs, they'll get 13+ runs a game. I'll take that, won't you?

Incorrect way to apply the ratio but I don't think there would a person who wouldn't like 13 runs a game. Remeber each inning is 3 outs, so by giving up two outs for one run would get you only 9 runs. Still I love that.

voodoochile
11-04-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Incorrect way to apply the ratio but I don't think there would a person who wouldn't like 13 runs a game. Remeber each inning is 3 outs, so by giving up two outs for one run would get you only 9 runs. Still I love that.

The problem is that presupposes you can get a man to second to lead off every inning. That's a heck of an assumption to base an offense on...

Randar68
11-04-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The problem is that presupposes you can get a man to second to lead off every inning. That's a heck of an assumption to base an offense on...

LOL! I can't believe nobody recognized that. Sheeesh, if we lead off every inning with a double, we'll score a lot fo runs!!!! LOL

No s***, Sherlock.

nasox
11-04-2003, 07:42 PM
you have to know how to bunt in order to bunt. And if the fundamentals of baseball aren't strong, goodbye smallball.

Dadawg_77
11-04-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The problem is that presupposes you can get a man to second to lead off every inning. That's a heck of an assumption to base an offense on...

I figure that was pretty damn obvious. So I answer on completely hypothetical bases.

StepsInSC
11-05-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
and I don't get it.

Its true, its generally not the AL style of play, and the Sox as we know them aren't built for it. But, even in the AL, when the playoffs start, or the chips are down in the regular season, and a team has to win, they break out the small ball to get the job done.

We know pitching and defense wins in the playoffs. And when the stakes go up, scoring goes down. That's when get 'em over and get 'em in becomes so important.

It wasn't that last year's White Sox team didn't do that, it was that they couldn't do that. It was absolutley infuritating to watch them leave runner after runner on base. That's why ******** Ron Gardenhire said that if we keep them in the ball park, we'll win. The first two games of those last seven, they didn't keep the Sox in the park. The last 5, they did. And that's how that bum-squad sent us home for the winter.

So maybe its not that Ozzie is saying we'll play every game small-ball style, but that when we need to, we will be able to. Because we certainly couldn't do it when we needed to last season.

I just couldnt understand what he was saying. I thought he kept saying "small balls". Thats what I had a problem with.

But yea small ball is fine with me.

RichH55
11-05-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
I just couldnt understand what he was saying. I thought he kept saying "small balls". Thats what I had a problem with.

But yea small ball is fine with me.

Situational Small ball is fine with me.....basically your entire offensive concept on it like you are the 1985 Cardinals is not

Dadawg_77
11-05-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Pitchers should throw everyday.

Not from the mound,or from the wind-up,but they should throw everyday.

Pitchers get hurt because they do no throw enough.

Cool, but I think if a pitcher whose fastball has faded but still wants to make it, could benefit greatly from learning how to spin the ball. The Japanese are crazy over this, they have tested different types of pitches in wind tunnels and computer simulations, to see how a spin would effect the movement of the ball. Japanese pitching techniques haven't made over in the mainstream in American baseball, but a team that masters them could have a great edge on the competition.

StepsInSC
11-05-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Pitchers should throw everyday.

Not from the mound,or from the wind-up,but they should throw everyday.

Pitchers get hurt because they do no throw enough.

Yea but I didn't mean just throwing everyday, I was more afraid of the traditional Japanese way of throwing hundreds of pitches a day from the windup.

Dadawg_77
11-05-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Yea but I didn't mean just throwing everyday, I was more afraid of the traditional Japanese way of throwing hundreds of pitches a day from the windup.

Japanese pitching seems to have mechanics like throwing a football, which is a much more natural way of throwing. This put a lot less stress on a players arm. There are stories that Rodger Clemens and others always throw a football because they thought it helped them pitch better. If I read Japanese I would understand this a lot better, but from what I am able to pick up from people talking about and diagrams, this is some pretty cool stuff.

SpringfldFan
11-05-2003, 01:05 PM
Would it make any sense to refine our defnition of "small ball" a little bit? To me small ball is a lot more then just sacrifice bunting and giving up outs. It also involves bunting for base hits, hitting the opposite way to move a runner to third, hitting to the opposite field when the pitcher is a sinkerballer or relies on the outer half, stealing bases, taking the extra base at the right time, decoying the defense by faking steals and advancement in order to force ill-advised throws, working the count and accepting a walk, squeeze plays, and the simple good old fashioned paying of attention to the game situation so you can make the most effective decisions.

I think the Sox were to some degree lacking in each and every one of the above criteria.

poorme
11-05-2003, 01:17 PM
Those things have no value since you can't measure them.

Dadawg_77
11-05-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
Would it make any sense to refine our defnition of "small ball" a little bit? To me small ball is a lot more then just sacrifice bunting and giving up outs. It also involves bunting for base hits, hitting the opposite way to move a runner to third, hitting to the opposite field when the pitcher is a sinkerballer or relies on the outer half, stealing bases, taking the extra base at the right time, decoying the defense by faking steals and advancement in order to force ill-advised throws, working the count and accepting a walk, squeeze plays, and the simple good old fashioned paying of attention to the game situation so you can make the most effective decisions.

I think the Sox were to some degree lacking in each and every one of the above criteria.

What isn't small ball to you?

Randar68
11-05-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
also involves bunting for base hits, hitting the opposite way to move a runner to third, hitting to the opposite field when the pitcher is a sinkerballer or relies on the outer half, stealing bases, taking the extra base at the right time, decoying the defense by faking steals and advancement in order to force ill-advised throws, working the count and accepting a walk.

Imo, that list is almost exclusively under the category of:

Good fundamental/situational hitting.

ondafarm
11-05-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
What isn't small ball to you?


How about 'relying on homers to score most of your runs'. Or better yet, 'valueing a guy who hits 25 homers a year over a .400 OBP guy'. Or for thirds, 'not even teaching bunting in your organization'.

My olde Japanese organization asked me to interpret for one of their higher ups on a trip here. While doing it, we met a guy I knew was a fairly high level White Sox prospect. Obviously, I'm not using anybody's name here. The Japanese set up an interview for the purpose of considering the guy for a major league contract with them. The question of bunting came up and the prospects answer really shocked me. He said, "Well, I bat second most of the time, so I don't have to sacrifice." That ended the interview right there. No Japanese player gets to the bigs without being a decent bunter. And every number two hitter in Japan knows how to bunt for a hit. That is small ball (although I also consider it good fundamental hitting.

xil357
11-05-2003, 03:46 PM
I don't believe that Guillen plans to make Frank and Maggs line up to bunt at every occasion. But every member of the team ought to at least know how to do it, and how to make contact and slap the ball to right field, if they are major league ballplayers.

The best teams know how to win big with homers, win with singles and doubles, and win low-scoring games when the wind is howling in and the temperature is under 50 degrees.

The Sox turned it on and won games when the heat was turned up in July and August. They flat-out sucked in April and May because they were swinging for the fences and popping out instead. There is no way in hell that the White Sox, with their collection of legitimate talent, should have lost as many games as they did to Tampa Bay, Detroit and Cleveland, especially early in the year. How many 1-0 and 2-1 games did they lose? There is no excuse for that. The Sox hitters ought to be smart enough -- or they ought to have a manager tough enough to insist that they try -- to manufacture runs when they obviously aren't ripping the cover off the ball with three-run homers.

If they had just played .500 ball through April and May they would have run away with the division this year and the Minnesota series at the end of the season would have been moot.

Now for the defense. A better defense helps the pitchers. They key to a better defense on the Sox is a good, rangy CF. All they have to do is promote Borchard and Reed to platoon between DH and CF and back up Maggs and Lee. Borchard and Reed will hit better than Konerko did last year, and Frank will hit better at 1B. Re-signing Alomar and even Valentin will help the defense as well and will help the pitchers. The Sox pitchers suffered too much with Crash Rowand and Dinosaur Junior in CF last year. Konerko can also take his chances at DH. If he continues to suck, he should ride the bench and I believe he will.

crector
11-05-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by xil357
Konerko can also take his chances at DH. If he continues to suck, he should ride the bench and I believe he will.

Why not simply send him to Triple-A and keep him there until he gets his act together?

Daver
11-05-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by crector
Why not simply send him to Triple-A and keep him there until he gets his act together?

He can refuse a demotion to the minors,so he would have to clear waivers.

RichH55
11-05-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Daver
He can refuse a demotion to the minors,so he would have to clear waivers.


I still dont see the problem:)