PDA

View Full Version : Grinders V Superstars


Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 02:35 PM
Like others have said a grinder doesn't have MVP talent but a MVP heart and huge pasion for the game. The greatest example of a grinder in present day Chicago would John Paxson. The talent issue is why I would exclude Frank from be grinder, he just has too much talent.

The need for grinders/role players is far less then that need in other team sports due due to the individualism of the game. No one needs to block someone for the running back to succeed. No one needs to make the extra pass to get the better shot for the team. If you had a team of superstars in baseball, you would beat a team of grinders at a greater percentage then any other sport. This isn't to know grinders, but just explaining I think their worth to winning team is less then grinders in other sports. Thats why I think Kenny's concept of grinders isn't going to work if the stars of the team (Frank, Mark, Paul, Freddy) don't come out and play. Which raises the issue, if this team doesn't have much success, does the concept of marketing grinders backfire as trying to satisfy consumers with substandard product.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 02:41 PM
Like others have said a grinder doesn't have MVP talent but a MVP heart and huge pasion for the game. The greatest example of a grinder in present day Chicago would John Paxson. The talent issue is why I would exclude Frank from be grinder, he just has too much talent.

The need for grinders/role players is far less then that need in other team sports due due to the individualism of the game. No one needs to block someone for the running back to succeed. No one needs to make the extra pass to get the better shot for the team. If you had a team of superstars in baseball, you would beat a team of grinders at a greater percentage then any other sport. This isn't to know grinders, but just explaining I think their worth to winning team is less then grinders in other sports. Thats why I think Kenny's concept of grinders isn't going to work if the stars of the team (Frank, Mark, Paul, Freddy) don't come out and play. Which raises the issue, if this team doesn't have much success, does the concept of marketing grinders backfire as trying to satisfy consumers with substandard product.You mean the way the star-laden Yankees beat the Red Sox grinders?

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 02:48 PM
You mean the way the star-laden Yankees beat the Red Sox grinders?

Ha, I forgot the Red Sox didn't have any stars on the team. Please.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 02:50 PM
Ha, I forgot the Red Sox didn't have any stars on the team. Please.Maybe the Marlins of '03? Or the Angels in '02? Or the D-Backs in '01. EVERY team has stars, so if that's your criterion, that's ridiculous. It's still a team game. The Yankees unquestionably have by far the most star players on any team. If that's what it took, they should have run away with it every year.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 02:53 PM
If you had a team of superstars in baseball, you would beat a team of grinders at a greater percentage then any other sport.

Kinda like how the superior talent on the White Sox have whooped the Grinders on the Twins the past few years, eh?

maurice
02-14-2005, 02:54 PM
If we're going to ID former Bulls who qualify as "grinders," I would take Rodman any day over a bit player like Pax. Rodman is freaky as heck, but few players have accomplished more in the NBA with less talent. It's not a coincidence that he has so many championship rings. He was easily the best rebounder and defender of his day, despite playing against and along side of scores of players who were MUCH taller, heavier, quicker, etc. He constantly dove for loose balls, was an underrated passer, and didn't care whether he ever took a shot.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 02:55 PM
Maybe the Marlins of '03? Or the Angels in '02? Or the D-Backs in '01. EVERY team has stars, so if that's your criterion, that's ridiculous. It's still a team game. The Yankees unquestionably have by far the most star players on any team. If that's what it took, they should have run away with it every year.

In addition to your point, the last time the Yankees won anything was when they had Grinders such as Chuck Knoblauch, Paul O'Neil and to a letter extent Tino Martinez and Scott Broscious.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:05 PM
Kinda like how the superior talent on the White Sox have whooped the Grinders on the Twins the past few years, eh?

Did the Sox have superior talent, or did we delude ourselves into thinking that? Look a team full of grinders won't win in baseball. You need that talented player to get hot and carry the team to win the in playoffs. The 2002 Angles might be the closest example to a grinder team, but they won because the entire lineup went super nova in the playoffs and their bullpen dominated. The Marlins had pretty good players in Lowell, Pierre, Caberra, Lee, I Rod, Pavno, Beckett and Willis. Grinders on that team would be a Conine, Redman, Hollansworth. Why they helped the 03 Marlins, they aren't the main reason that team won.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 03:08 PM
Did the Sox have superior talent, or did we delude ourselves into thinking that? Look a team full of grinders won't win in baseball. You need that talented player to get hot and carry the team to win the in playoffs. The 2002 Angles might be the closest example to a grinder team, but they won because the entire lineup went super nova in the playoffs and their bullpen dominated. The Marlins had pretty good players in Lowell, Pierre, Caberra, Lee, I Rod, Pavno, Beckett and Willis. Grinders on that team would be a Conine, Redman, Hollansworth. Why they helped the 03 Marlins, they aren't the main reason that team won.You're just re-defining after the fact to suit yourself. Beforehand you would certainly have classified a lot of these guys as grinders. But once they win, you just conveniently re-define them as stars. The Yankees had All-Stars at every position but 2B last year. No one else can come close. If that's what it took, no one would have touched them.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:14 PM
Maybe the Marlins of '03? Or the Angels in '02? Or the D-Backs in '01. EVERY team has stars, so if that's your criterion, that's ridiculous. It's still a team game. The Yankees unquestionably have by far the most star players on any team. If that's what it took, they should have run away with it every year.

Hey you used the example of a 100 million team beating a 200 million team as how grinders compete. What I am saying to win you need studs, you can't have all role players. Baseball is less a team sport then any other team sports. There is no equivlate in baseball for blocking, there is no equivlate in baseball for boxing out and setting picks, there is no equivlate for dumping and chasing in baseball. The basic contest of baseball is pitcher vs batter, one on one. Baseball is as much an individual sport as it is a team game.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 03:16 PM
Did the Sox have superior talent, or did we delude ourselves into thinking that?

Hey, I'm not using my words to describe the team here. I'm using the words of various GM's and baseball people here. Most notably, I'm using the words of the Twins themselves to describe the White Sox.

Behind the caustic comments, the truth is these teams respect each other greatly. Both organizations have done an excellent job developing talent, which has allowed them to compete without a top-tier payroll. The White Sox have more talent, top to bottom, on their roster but have not been able to get the kind of overall results from it as the Twins, who show players as much patience as any organization in the majors.

That's a quote from espn.com (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/rogers_phil/1512817.html)before the 2003 season, I'm studying right now, so I don't have time to look for the quote from Hunter, who I believe concurred with the assessment.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:19 PM
You're just re-defining after the fact to suit yourself. Beforehand you would certainly have classified a lot of these guys as grinders. But once they win, you just conveniently re-define them as stars. The Yankees had All-Stars at every position but 2B last year. No one else can come close. If that's what it took, no one would have touched them.

I am not redefining anything. Grinders are role players by nature. They lack the talent of star players and won't produce at that level over the course of time. They play the game hard and with tons of passion or they wouldn't be playing at all. I think every player on the Sox has been label a grinder in this thread, which is a gross redefining of the term. People are calling a Frank Thomas a grinder. Frank Thomas isn't a grinder not because he doesn't play hard, but because he has too much talent.

Jjav829
02-14-2005, 03:24 PM
I am not redefining anything. Grinders are role players by nature. They lack the talent of star players and won't produce at that level over the course of time. They play the game hard and with tons of passion or they wouldn't be playing at all. I think every player on the Sox has been label a grinder in this thread, which is a gross redefining of the term. People are calling a Frank Thomas a grinder. Frank Thomas isn't a grinder not because he doesn't play hard, but because he has too much talent.

So how much talent would you say Derek Jeter has? I'm curious because he is sort of the posterboy for grinders, at least in the national spotlight. I know what you are saying, but I do think that it crosses over. There are guys with talent that are considered grinders.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 03:27 PM
I am not redefining anything. Grinders are role players by nature. They lack the talent of star players and won't produce at that level over the course of time. They play the game hard and with tons of passion or they wouldn't be playing at all. I think every player on the Sox has been label a grinder in this thread, which is a gross redefining of the term. People are calling a Frank Thomas a grinder. Frank Thomas isn't a grinder not because he doesn't play hard, but because he has too much talent.First of all, I don't agree that a grinder is necessarily someone of lesser talent. It's more the approach to the game, and in my book, a talented player can be a grinder just as much as a mediocre one. Walter Payton was a grinder. Michael Jordan was a grinder. These guys brought a passion and dedication to the game and a willingness to do whatever it takes to win. Someone here had a Vince Lombardi quote on his sig that said "Lots of people have the will to win. Few people have the will to prepare to win." That's a big part of being a grinder - being willing to put in the long hours of preparation that goes into winning.

So if your definition of grinder is one of lesser talent, I'd agree that it's pretty tough for a team like that to win. But neither is it true that the team with the most stars will necessarily win. There are lots of other factors.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:32 PM
So how much talent would you say Derek Jeter has? I'm curious because he is sort of the posterboy for grinders, at least in the national spotlight.

I guess national media has never been wrong in assigning labels. The term grinder conveys feelings that every player wants to be associated with. So media and others know the power of the term use it to say Jeter is a good player, since it makes themselves have more knowledge then just saying Jeter is good. Plus Jeter can't play defense and isn't that a requirement of being a grinder?

Listing every good player as a grinder completely makes the term useless because it says nothing other then the guy is a good player. To me, a grinder is a role player. A player who goes out there and does small things needed to win because that accloplishing that is best thing the player can contribute. If John Paxson led the Bulls in scoring, it was a bad night for the team but if Paxson led the team in threes and assits it was a good night.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 03:33 PM
Hey you used the example of a 100 million team beating a 200 million team as how grinders compete. What I am saying to win you need studs, you can't have all role players. Baseball is less a team sport then any other team sports. There is no equivlate in baseball for blocking, there is no equivlate in baseball for boxing out and setting picks, there is no equivlate for dumping and chasing in baseball. The basic contest of baseball is pitcher vs batter, one on one. Baseball is as much an individual sport as it is a team game.

No, what you said was:

If you had a team of superstars in baseball, you would beat a team of grinders at a greater percentage then any other sport.

I agree that you do need some superstars on the team to win everything. However, a team with a higher percentage of grinders and a couple of superstars will win more often than a team with only a high percentage of superstars.

To continue on with your other points. The equivalent in baseball to blocking is the sacrifice fly or hitting the ball the other way to score a run. I come to that conclusion by saying that if they didn't block, the team wouldn't score, whereas, if the hitter didn't hit that sacrifice fly, the runner would be stranded on third. Boxing out and setting picks is the equivalent to taking out the second baseman on a potential double play... the runner forces the fielder to move his position from where he wanted to be, thereby allowing and offensive opportunity for his team. Dumping and Chasing has similarities with laying down a drag bunt or stealing a base. In both instances the offensive team is putting the ball in play and making the opposition make a perfect play on the ball. If the opposition doesn't make a perfect play by being in position, reacting very quickly to the ball, and fielding perfectly, the offense has a scoring opportunity. The faster the offense is, the lower the margin of error becomes for the opposition. Just like in hockey, if the opposition plays the puck correctly, they'll diffuse the situation and control the puck. If there's any slip up, the offense will be on the puck in the corner and have a scoring opportunity.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:34 PM
First of all, I don't agree that a grinder is necessarily someone of lesser talent. It's more the approach to the game, and in my book, a talented player can be a grinder just as much as a mediocre one. Walter Payton was a grinder. Michael Jordan was a grinder. These guys brought a passion and dedication to the game and a willingness to do whatever it takes to win. Someone here had a Vince Lombardi quote on his sig that said "Lots of people have the will to win. Few people have the will to prepare to win." That's a big part of being a grinder - being willing to put in the long hours of preparation that goes into winning.

So if your definition of grinder is one of lesser talent, I'd agree that it's pretty tough for a team like that to win. But neither is it true that the team with the most stars will necessarily win. There are lots of other factors.

My point was, a team with tons of talent beats a team with a great deal less talent. I disagree with your usage of grinder, as it is too broad of a use to have much meaning.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 03:42 PM
My point was, a team with tons of talent beats a team with a great deal less talent.Kinda going out on a limb, there, aren't you?:D:

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 03:44 PM
I think the best example of the difference between a grinder and a superstar is this:

Superstar: Sammy Sosa in his prime
Grinder: Frank Thomas in his prime

The difference being, Sosa would do nothing else but try to hit homeruns regardless of the situation and it would lead to a lower percentage of success and a higher rate of failure, i.e. a strikeout. While Thomas has the huge talent to hit a homerun, yet he'd hit the ball the other way, or take a walk, or get hit by the pitch, (actually he'd jack-knife out of the way of a ball on the inside corner to get it called a ball) or he'd hit a sac fly to score the runner from third, or he'd hit a line drive to the gap, or if he had a pitch to hit, he'd hit a homerun. He would do whatever necessary to help the team. As opposed to Sosa who would do whatever was necessary to gain the spotlight.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 03:47 PM
No, what you said was:



I agree that you do need some superstars on the team to win everything. However, a team with a higher percentage of grinders and a couple of superstars will win more often than a team with only a high percentage of superstars.

To continue on with your other points. The equivalent in baseball to blocking is the sacrifice fly or hitting the ball the other way to score a run. I come to that conclusion by saying that if they didn't block, the team wouldn't score, whereas, if the hitter didn't hit that sacrifice fly, the runner would be stranded on third. Boxing out and setting picks is the equivalent to taking out the second baseman on a potential double play... the runner forces the fielder to move his position from where he wanted to be, thereby allowing and offensive opportunity for his team. Dumping and Chasing has similarities with laying down a drag bunt or stealing a base. In both instances the offensive team is putting the ball in play and making the opposition make a perfect play on the ball. If the opposition doesn't make a perfect play by being in position, reacting very quickly to the ball, and fielding perfectly, the offense has a scoring opportunity. The faster the offense is, the lower the margin of error becomes for the opposition. Just like in hockey, if the opposition plays the puck correctly, they'll diffuse the situation and control the puck. If there's any slip up, the offense will be on the puck in the corner and have a scoring opportunity.

I completely think you are stretching in your examples. A sac fly is just a failed at bat that there happen to be a runner at third to make it a successful one. A few more feet and there are two+ runs instead of one. Blocking is vital for the play succeed and isn't a result of a failure of accomplishing something else. If Sac Bunts were vital to a team success the Expos would have won more then 67 games last year and teams would average more then one per game, MLB games average .71. When you see a team with only 12 sac hits last year won it all, you have to ask how valuable are sac bunts.

While breaking up the double play is good to see to play, it doesn't happen with as much regularity as boxing out, setting picks does in a basketball game, thus isn't as vital. You could win a game without breaking up one double play, but you can't win a basketball without boxing out.

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 03:54 PM
I completely think you are stretching in your examples. A sac fly is just a failed at bat that there happen to be a runner at third to make it a successful one. A few more feet and there are two+ runs instead of one.


I disagree with your contention that a sac fly is a failed at bat where there "happens to be a man on 3d". IMO there are plenty of times when a guy KNOWS there's a man on 3d and deliberately tries to hit a fly ball to score the run rather than trying to get a hit. So while they decrease their chance of getting a hit (bad for them), they increase the chance of the run scoring (good for the team), hence "giving themselves up for the team".

PaleHoseGeorge
02-14-2005, 03:55 PM
Advertising theme aside, if the 2005 Sox are a successful team it will not be because of "grinders." I think it's pretty silly that we're debating this point.

The 2004 Sox had some incredibly large talent holes with players like Schoenweis, Wright, Grilli, Burke, Harris, and not one but two different Alomars handed way too much responsibility. If the 2005 Sox succeed, it will be because we upgraded at all these positions: #3 SP, #4 SP, #5 SP, C, and 2B.

Yes, the Sox lost Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez, both of them very talented and useful players in the past for the Sox. We'll have to wait and see if Maggs is still useful for Detroit, or even worth the boxcar salary they offered him.

"Grinders" doesn't mean jack compared to having a competent ballclub, 1 through 9 in the line up and 1 through 5 in the rotation.

And yes, the Twins won division crowns because 1-9 and 1-5 they had more talent than the Sox, perhaps a lot more talent after key cogs like Frank and Maggs went down with injuries.

OEO Magglio
02-14-2005, 03:57 PM
Like others have said a grinder doesn't have MVP talent but a MVP heart and huge pasion for the game. The greatest example of a grinder in present day Chicago would John Paxson. The talent issue is why I would exclude Frank from be grinder, he just has too much talent.

The need for grinders/role players is far less then that need in other team sports due due to the individualism of the game. No one needs to block someone for the running back to succeed. No one needs to make the extra pass to get the better shot for the team. If you had a team of superstars in baseball, you would beat a team of grinders at a greater percentage then any other sport. This isn't to know grinders, but just explaining I think their worth to winning team is less then grinders in other sports. Thats why I think Kenny's concept of grinders isn't going to work if the stars of the team (Frank, Mark, Paul, Freddy) don't come out and play. Which raises the issue, if this team doesn't have much success, does the concept of marketing grinders backfire as trying to satisfy consumers with substandard product.

Wow, I completely disagree. The yankees haven't won a world series in the past four years because they went with the approach of going with all superstars and got rid of their grinders. A team with all stars won't ever win.

spawn
02-14-2005, 04:00 PM
I think a better comparison of superstar and grinder is this:

Superstar: Barry Bonds
Grinder: Ichiro Suzuki

I disagree with the notion that a grinder can't be a superstar. Ichiro last year hat 262 hits last year, of which 225 were singles, he scored 101 runs, had 36 stolen bases, and only struck out 63 times in over 700 at-bats. Get on base any way you can, get yourself in position to score. And he plays great defense.That's a grinder. And the guy only made $6.5 million last year.

MRKARNO
02-14-2005, 04:05 PM
I have to agree DaDawg. For instance if Rowand continues what he did last year or improves upon it, then he must be a star and not just a "grinder," despite what labels people want to put on him. You're a star if you play like a star. You're a grinder if you play like a role player. There's no inbetween. You might be a star who happens to be a hard-worker, but a "grinder," which is a bad term in my point of view, indicates someone who simply cannot put up the big numbers but is valuable to the team. Putting up such big numbers would imply stardom.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 04:06 PM
I think a better comparison of superstar and grinder is this:

Superstar: Barry Bonds
Grinder: Ichiro Suzuki

I disagree with the notion that a grinder can't be a superstar. Ichiro last year hat 262 hits last year, of which 225 were singles, he scored 101 runs, had 36 stolen bases, and only struck out 63 times in over 700 at-bats. Get on base any way you can, get yourself in position to score. And he plays great defense.That's a grinder. And the guy only made $6.5 million last year.

Are you saying you rather have Ichiro then Bonds?

fquaye149
02-14-2005, 04:14 PM
^^^it's a silly post. I don't know what makes Barry Bonds a non-grinder. A better comparison would be someone like Sosa, Magglio (GIDP) Ordonez, or Konerko.(<---yes, I know I'll get flamed on that one, but I just can't refer to Konerko as a grinder.)

I'd probably rather have Ichiro than all of them except maybe Magglio.(healthy)

spawn
02-14-2005, 04:15 PM
Where did I say that? I gave the difference between a grinder and a superstar. Sure, I'd take Bonds over Ichiro, but Bonds is the best player in the game. I'd take Ichiro over a healthy Maggs, or CLee.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 04:16 PM
I completely think you are stretching in your examples. A sac fly is just a failed at bat that there happen to be a runner at third to make it a successful one. A few more feet and there are two+ runs instead of one. Blocking is vital for the play succeed and isn't a result of a failure of accomplishing something else. If Sac Bunts were vital to a team success the Expos would have won more then 67 games last year and teams would average more then one per game, MLB games average .71. When you see a team with only 12 sac hits last year won it all, you have to ask how valuable are sac bunts.

While breaking up the double play is good to see to play, it doesn't happen with as much regularity as boxing out, setting picks does in a basketball game, thus isn't as vital. You could win a game without breaking up one double play, but you can't win a basketball without boxing out.

Only if you've never played baseball, or don't understand the subtleties of the game, would you consider a sac fly a "failed at bat." Hitting a home run is tough to do. Hitting a fly ball of various depths and directions is much easier to pull off.

I never said sac bunts. I said bunts. Like Brett Butler. Bunting for basehits. To a lesser extent Ichiro. He doesn't bunt a ton, but he still uses a bunter's mentality. He puts the ball in play and uses his speed to get on. Like I said earlier, the faster the offense the lower the margin of error. Put the ball in play to give yourself a chance to get on base. To continue on, philosopies change. Just as there aren't many hockey teams that dump and grind any more, there aren't many teams that bunt for hits anymore. Just to be clear I said Bunt for Hits not sac bunts.

Regarding the frequency of breaking up a double play, you're right, it doesn't happen as frequent as in basket ball. However, you asked for similar plays in both sports and I gave you one. And, to kinda back my point up, the offense doesn't score 100 points in baseball as it does in basketball. So their is a fundamental difference in scoring opportunities that limits the occasion to break up a double play.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 04:17 PM
I have to agree DaDawg. For instance if Rowand continues what he did last year or improves upon it, then he must be a star and not just a "grinder," despite what labels people want to put on him. You're a star if you play like a star. You're a grinder if you play like a role player. There's no inbetween. You might be a star who happens to be a hard-worker, but a "grinder," which is a bad term in my point of view, indicates someone who simply cannot put up the big numbers but is valuable to the team. Putting up such big numbers would imply stardom.Who is the first guy Kenny applied the term to...Carl Everett. A two-time All-Star.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 04:20 PM
Wow, I completely disagree. The yankees haven't won a world series in the past four years because they went with the approach of going with all superstars and got rid of their grinders. A team with all stars won't ever win.

The Yankees have been the the playoffs each year, 2001 ran into better pitching in World Series. Schilling and Johnson combined for 4 wins and a ERA about 1.4 in more then half innings the D Backs pitched in. Not many if any team could have defeated that.

2002, ran into super nova Angles team. An offense which puts up a .376/.406/.624 line is very hard to beat.

2003, you might have somewhat of a point as I really have no idea how the Yankees lost this one other the a gratefull god helping the Marlins out.

2004, two equal teams going at it. With the Red Sox finishing on top with a gutty performance by Schilling.

Then again if the Sox did what the Yankees have done the past four year, four divisional wins and two pennants, I would be happy but wanting more.

Two By Four
02-14-2005, 04:20 PM
...does the concept of marketing grinders backfire as trying to satisfy consumers with substandard product.
No marketing can withstand losses and lack-luster play.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 04:22 PM
I think a better comparison of superstar and grinder is this:

Superstar: Barry Bonds
Grinder: Ichiro Suzuki


I don't think it's necessarily a fair comparison. I chose Frank and Sosa simply for the fact that they have, in their primes, similar power capabilities, similar avg. capabilities, similar speed. I'd try to keep things as equal as possible.

Though, on a side note, some people might not realize the power potential Ichiro has. During BP last year, he had 21 swings over the course of 3 trips to the cage and 18 of those swings yielded a homerun. Barry didn't do that. He had about 5 homers during BP. Though, one of his homers hit the Stadium Club glass and another ball was a foul ball that landed in the upper deck over the Dominick's sign above the Stadium Club.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 04:24 PM
Where did I say that? I gave the difference between a grinder and a superstar. Sure, I'd take Bonds over Ichiro, but Bonds is the best player in the game. I'd take Ichiro over a healthy Maggs, or CLee.

I wasn't sure if that was what you were inferring from your post, which is why I asked. But I think fquaye149 is crazy for probally wanting Ich over Bonds.

spawn
02-14-2005, 04:26 PM
I don't think it's necessarily a fair comparison. I chose Frank and Sosa simply for the fact that they have, in their primes, similar power capabilities, similar avg. capabilities, similar speed. I'd try to keep things as equal as possible.

Though, on a side note, some people might not realize the power potential Ichiro has. During BP last year, he had 21 swings over the course of 3 trips to the cage and 18 of those swings yielded a homerun. Barry didn't do that. He had about 5 homers during BP. Though, one of his homers hit the Stadium Club glass and another ball was a foul ball that landed in the upper deck over the Dominick's sign above the Stadium Club.
That's what makes Ichiro a grinder in my opinion. When he comes to the plate, he's not looking to jack one out of the park. He's looking to get on base. Barry in his earlier years was comparable in speed and power to Ichiro. At least I think they were comparable, and I believe Barry was more of a grinder then...:D:

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 04:27 PM
IMO one key is that Kenny's definition of grinder doesn't exclude talent. He's talking about "playing all out and playing the right way". Doing that with a ton of talent is great, but his philosophy is that a team needs some guys who do that even if they're less talented. I.e. a team where all guys have a ton of talent talent but don't "grind" is not as good as a team with some guys that have talent and some that are less talented, but who are "grinders".

I think aqcuiring superstar grinders would be ideal, but it's obviously hard to do - so the next best thing is to make sure you at least have some guys who can grind but with lesser talent.

And agreeing with PHG, it's all the better when you take guys with average talent who are grinders and use them to replace guys who suck, which the Sox are doing this year (except for Carlos).

Two By Four
02-14-2005, 04:29 PM
You're a star if you play like a star. You're a grinder if you play like a role player. There's no inbetween.
I respectfully disagree, the first player I have ever heard use the term was Johnny Bench (well, I didn't actually hear it, but read it). He was referring to himself. Now he was certainly a star, but he believed himself to be a grinder, the kind of player that would do anything for a win. I believe that IS Rowand and Timo and Frank and others. If any of them get hot they will ALSO be stars. You cna be both.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 04:30 PM
Jeez. This thread has really degenerated. How much longer until spring training?:D:

OEO Magglio
02-14-2005, 04:31 PM
The Yankees have been the the playoffs each year, 2001 ran into better pitching in World Series. Schilling and Johnson combined for 4 wins and a ERA about 1.4 in more then half innings the D Backs pitched in. Not many if any team could have defeated that.

2002, ran into super nova Angles team. An offense which puts up a .376/.406/.624 line is very hard to beat.

2003, you might have somewhat of a point as I really have no idea how the Yankees lost this one other the a gratefull god helping the Marlins out.

2004, two equal teams going at it. With the Red Sox finishing on top with a gutty performance by Schilling.

Then again if the Sox did what the Yankees have done the past four year, four divisional wins and two pennants, I would be happy but wanting more.

You can get to the playoffs but you just won't win a world series with a team full of superstars. You need those grinders, you need the type of guys who do the little things to win a ball game, period. O'neil, Brosius, Tino, these are all guys who were grinder types and those are the type of guys that the yanks lack now(well except in older tino).

maurice
02-14-2005, 04:34 PM
IMHO, Everett wasn't always a "grinder." It seems that Everett started out as a "me-first" player. As he aged, his tools declined, but he compensated somewhat by becoming more of a "grinder."

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 04:40 PM
No marketing can withstand losses and lack-luster play.

I am not saying that, the success of the gate depends greatly on the success of the team. Rather the term grinder will either equal a wining team full of hard working players or a losing team talentless hacks. If the team struggles, I can't see this campaign lasting more then a season. Forcing the Sox to spend more money coming up with a whole new branding exercise. On the other hand if the team succeeds the Sox has something that will last a few years. One of the things I think Sox have suffered with is a lack brand message. The message changes every year, one year its the Kids can Play, then its bring your A game, then its family friendly, then its Sox Pride, after while it becomes hodgepodge and carries very little weight.

The greatest thing about the Cubs marketing plan, it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the team but the atmosphere of the park. Not to say the Sox should emulate that part, but the dream for any professional sports team is to have marketing strategy like the Cubs. The closest to this would the Sox Pride message from last year. The message was great last year and I think should be the overriding theme just for the sake of continually. Sox Pride = blue collar players and fans = Grinders, would be the best approach, I would think.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 04:42 PM
Advertising theme aside, if the 2005 Sox are a successful team it will not be because of "grinders." I think it's pretty silly that we're debating this point.

The 2004 Sox had some incredibly large talent holes with players like Schoenweis, Wright, Grilli, Burke, Harris, and not one but two different Alomars handed way too much responsibility. If the 2005 Sox succeed, it will be because we upgraded at all these positions: #3 SP, #4 SP, #5 SP, C, and 2B.

Yes, the Sox lost Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez, both of them very talented and useful players in the past for the Sox. We'll have to wait and see if Maggs is still useful for Detroit, or even worth the boxcar salary they offered him.

"Grinders" doesn't mean jack compared to having a competent ballclub, 1 through 9 in the line up and 1 through 5 in the rotation.

It's tough to comment on this post. I agree with you... but I think you're taking the concepts I'm trying to convey (and others are trying to convey) about a grinder and using your own terms to describe them. You say "'Grinders' doesn't mean jack compared to having a competent ball club." I agree. I've been arguing that having Grinders is another word for having a competent ball club.

And yes, the Twins won division crowns because 1-9 and 1-5 they had more talent than the Sox, perhaps a lot more talent after key cogs like Frank and Maggs went down with injuries.

I don't agree with you that Minny had more talent than the Sox. I define talent as how high a player ranks in the categories of physical traits that can be measured objectively. I think over all, certainly before the start of the season before Santana blew up, the Sox were faster, stronger, and had better arms than the Twins. I think what the defenders of the term Grinders are trying to convey is... what a player does with his talent determines whether he's a Grinder or not.

Ideally a team wants players who have physical talents and the wherewithall to use them properly to win games. It's a lot easier to call those players Grinders.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-14-2005, 04:43 PM
....
I think aqcuiring superstar grinders would be ideal, but it's obviously hard to do - so the next best thing is to make sure you at least have some guys who can grind but with lesser talent.

And agreeing with PHG, it's all the better when you take guys with average talent who are grinders and use them to replace guys who suck, which the Sox are doing this year (except for Carlos).

Yes, and this is what makes me worried about the obvious confusion Sox Fans have about what being a "grinder" is all about. You need talent, not grinders.

Talent-wise guys like Iguchi and Pierzynski are "superstars" compared to "grinders" like Harris and Burke. It's talent that matters. Any ad campaign based on "grinding" needs to be careful not to confuse the issue.
:cool:

WikdChiSoxFan
02-14-2005, 04:46 PM
Could it be said that the game of baseball, which we all love and watch religiously, has a little more depth than can be measured by the amount of talent and/or effort that any given team has at any given time?

I happen to believe that teams need the talent and they need the firestarters and the grinders or what have you. They need all these elements to pick the team up, produce consistently, or just plain want it more than anyone else.

I also believe that a team like the Yankees who throws money at all there problems couldn't possibly have a higher chance of winning than anyone else. I think the players mindset has a lot to do with postseason performance. If I'm get paid a truckload of money regardless what happens and if I look next to me and see a guy getting the same mountain of money...I'm thinking, "this guy will produce, look at the size of his wallet" That guy next to me is thinkin the same about me. In the end, everyone lets everyone else down and the team loses four straight just waiting for the other guy to carry the team. (Where was the Boone element of last year? He would have hit that ball a mile regardless of who was batting in front of him or behind him?)

As for the question of whether or not marketing out team as "grinders" is good or bad...I believe we are generally a grinder loving team...i mean look at the fans...the "Crede's Crews" the "Harris' Homies" and the soon to be "Aaron's Apostles" Every player is represented...down to Timo and Gload. And I think if you get Timo to run down a ball that couldn't possible be run down except for this day of miraculous days when he ran faster than he has ever run before, I think the Frank's and the Paulie's get pumped. Teammates like to see other teammates do well. Grinders are an essential element to a team. Why not market for the Grinders?

I, for one, do not want to market our team on the sole premise that we shelled out the most money so we're bound to win. I would rather Uribe have a Magglio-esque year and shove it in all my flub and twin friend faces!!!

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 04:48 PM
That's what makes Ichiro a grinder in my opinion. When he comes to the plate, he's not looking to jack one out of the park. He's looking to get on base. Barry in his earlier years was comparable in speed and power to Ichiro. At least I think they were comparable, and I believe Barry was more of a grinder then...:D:

Bonds had a .604 OBP last year. Plus he hit a HR in 12% of his at bats, if you rate that out to Ich's AB, that is 84 HRs. If a team would pitch to Bonds, I rather have him try to get a hit, which means pulling the ball, then anything else.

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 04:50 PM
Talent-wise guys like Iguchi and Pierzynski are "superstars" compared to "grinders" like Harris and Burke. It's talent that matters. Any ad campaign based on "grinding" needs to be careful not to confuse the issue.
:cool:

Yes exactly, maybe the ad campaign needs to give the term a proper definition so there is no confusion to the term "Grinder."

P.S. I never considered Harris or Burke "Grinders." I think that's why the term "Scrubs" were invented.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 04:59 PM
Bonds had a .604 OBP last year. Plus he hit a HR in 12% of his at bats, if you rate that out to Ich's AB, that is 84 HRs. If a team would pitch to Bonds, I rather have him try to get a hit, which means pulling the ball, then anything else.I wouldn't have Mr. Flaxseed Oil on my team for anything.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 05:06 PM
I wouldn't have Mr. Flaxseed Oil on my team for anything.

I differ there, if a player is going to better then one who is currently doing the job and the team can afford the price, I say bring them to Chicago. I could deal with players like Albert Bell but not Will Cordaro because of the playing ability of the player.

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 05:13 PM
Yes, and this is what makes me worried about the obvious confusion Sox Fans have about what being a "grinder" is all about. You need talent, not grinders.

Talent-wise guys like Iguchi and Pierzynski are "superstars" compared to "grinders" like Harris and Burke. It's talent that matters. Any ad campaign based on "grinding" needs to be careful not to confuse the issue.
:cool:

I would disagree in the sense that I think Harris & Burke are "talentless grinders", whereas Iguchi & AJ are "talented grinders".:cool:

I believe the discrepancy KW's trying to address would be the difference between say Carlos Lee (Highly talented hitter, not really a "grinder") and AJ Pierzynski (less talented hitter, but a "grinder"). KW's thinking is that a team of Carlos Lees will lose to a team of 75% Carlos and 25% AJP despite being more talented.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 05:16 PM
I differ there, if a player is going to better then one who is currently doing the job and the team can afford the price, I say bring them to Chicago. I could deal with players like Albert Bell but not Will Cordaro because of the playing ability of the player.Are you thrilled seeing Barry Bonds hitting 500 ft. home runs, too?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-14-2005, 05:37 PM
I would disagree in the sense that I think Harris & Burke are "talentless grinders", whereas Iguchi & AJ are "talented grinders".:cool:


Well there you go. In a single thread we've discussed "superstar" grinders like Bench, "talentless" grinders like Harris, and "talented" grinders like AJ.

Once and for all, do you FINALLY see a pattern? It's not grinding that matters. It's talent.

Any ad campaign based on grinding is fraught with problems for serious Sox Fans. We want talent, grinding or not. "Grinding" is the sort of ad campaign that other team would use with the idiots they draw to their shrine, because only an idiot would believe it.
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 05:44 PM
Well there you go. In a single thread we've discussed "superstar" grinders like Bench, "talentless" grinders like Harris, and "talented" grinders like AJ.

Once and for all, do you FINALLY see a pattern? It's not grinding that matters. It's talent.

Any ad campaign based on grinding is fraught with problems for serious Sox Fans. We want talent, grinding or not. "Grinding" is the sort of ad campaign that other team would use with the idiots they draw to their shrine, because only an idiot would believe it.
:cool:I don't think anyone has suggested that you can win without talent. Rather, the question is, which would you rather have, a bunch of superstars playing for themselves or a group of talented, but not superstar caliber players going all out for the team? I think you'll fare better with the latter.

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 05:46 PM
Well there you go. In a single thread we've discussed "superstar" grinders like Bench, "talentless" grinders like Harris, and "talented" grinders like AJ.

Once and for all, do you FINALLY see a pattern? It's not grinding that matters. It's talent.



I don't think anyone's disputing that talent matters, but there is some debate about talent being the ONLY thing that matters.

Put it this way - unless there's a significant difference in talent level, I think other factors come into play, i.e. how smart & hard you play the game. You need to get in the ballpark talentwise, but once you're there, "grinding" ability becomes a factor.

The Sox situation is tainted in terms of that comparison because last year we had talentless players - without talent it doesn't matter if you're a grinder or not. Thie year they hopefully are back in the game talent-wise both 1-9 and 1-5 on the mound. And they have enough guys who are also grinders that they can actually win something.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-14-2005, 05:49 PM
I don't think anyone has suggested that you can win without talent. Rather, the question is, which would you rather have, a bunch of superstars playing for themselves or a group of talented, but not superstar caliber players going all out for the team? I think you'll fare better with the latter.

I don't disagree. I'm simply illustrating that the 2005 Sox are (hopefully) a better team than the 2004 Sox, not because we have more grinders, but because we have more talent.

Guys like Grilli, Schoenweis, Burke, and Harris have been replaced with El Duque, Contreras, Pierzynski, and Iguchi. That's a talent upgrade, the kind that ought to make the Sox a better team, grinding or not.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-14-2005, 05:52 PM
I don't think anyone's disputing that talent matters, but there is some debate about talent being the ONLY thing that matters. ...

Flight, here is something you can take to the bank. Any ex-Sox ballplayer from 2004 you wish to impugn for not having adequate "grinding" ability, I can impugn 10-times over for not having enough talent.

Give it up already.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't disagree. I'm simply illustrating that the 2005 Sox are (hopefully) a better team than the 2004 Sox, not because we have more grinders, but because we have more talent.

Guys like Grilli, Schoenweis, Burke, and Harris have been replaced with El Duque, Contreras, Pierzynski, and Iguchi. That's a talent upgrade, the kind that ought to make the Sox a better team, grinding or not.Agreed. They are a much more talented team, and without that talent they'd go nowhere.

But once you get up to the point where you're competing with the better teams, they all have talent, and the more talented team doesn't necessarily win. Otherwise, the Yankees would be 7-time defending WS Champions. At that point, other factors come into play. Having that "grinder" mentality is often the difference. A little luck doesn't hurt, either.:smile:

Flight #24
02-14-2005, 05:58 PM
Flight, here is something you can take to the bank. Any ex-Sox ballplayer from 2004 you wish to impugn for not having adequate "grinding" ability, I can impugn 10-times over for not having enough talent.

Give it up already.

Which is why I said the Sox are a bad comparison for this because they had guys with whom the issue was not whether or not they were grinders - it's whether or not they had talent.

That said, consider it "up".:D:

TheBull19
02-14-2005, 06:05 PM
Once and for all, do you FINALLY see a pattern? It's not grinding that matters. It's talent.


:cool:

I don't know, who would you rather have Royce Clayton or David Eckstein?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-14-2005, 06:17 PM
I don't know, who would you rather have Royce Clayton or David Eckstein?

Well that depends. With or without gym shoes in the dugout?
:wink:

TaylorStSox
02-14-2005, 06:41 PM
4 pages and nobody can even agree on what a "grinder" is. The only real comment on I have on this thread is that it's ridiculous to call a sacrifice a "failed AB." Sometimes stat heads make me come real close to hating baseball.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 07:21 PM
4 pages and nobody can even agree on what a "grinder" is. The only real comment on I have on this thread is that it's ridiculous to call a sacrifice a "failed AB." Sometimes stat heads make me come real close to hating baseball.

I said sac fly which is fly ball caught. I don't think hitters should go up there thinking I have to hit a fly ball deep enough so the guy at third can score on a sac fly, but rather hitters should always try to drive the ball and hope it will land for a hit. Thus on a sac fly, the hitter failed to get a hit but accomplished something since there was a runner at third. Also, I really don't care if you hate baseball or not. I think we all love baseball, some have different things they love more then others, but we all love the game. If statheads can make you hate the game, then are you really a fan at all?

voodoochile
02-14-2005, 07:28 PM
I said sac fly which is fly ball caught. I don't think hitters should go up there thinking I have to hit a fly ball deep enough so the guy at third can score on a sac fly, but rather hitters should always try to drive the ball and hope it will land for a hit. Thus on a sac fly, the hitter failed to get a hit but accomplished something since there was a runner at third. Also, I really don't care if you hate baseball or not. I think we all love baseball, some have different things they love more then others, but we all love the game. If statheads can make you hate the game, then are you really a fan at all?

Why? What about with a man on third, down by a run and 1 out in the ninth?

What about the same situation but the game is tied?

What if Frank or PK is at the plate - guys who have no problem normally hitting a medium deep fly ball anytime they want to?

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 07:40 PM
Why? What about with a man on third, down by a run and 1 out in the ninth?

What about the same situation but the game is tied?

What if Frank or PK is at the plate - guys who have no problem normally hitting a medium deep fly ball anytime they want to?

K.I.S.S. the method of hitting is the best. If you start thinking too much out there, you out think yourself. A hitter has a split second to recognize the pitch, judge its location, swing and make contact with it. So just go up there trying to drive the ball and let the chips fall where they may.

As for that situation of course tying the game would be great, but you know whats better, a basehit which puts a man at first with one out and tie game, better then that a double now RISP, better then that a HR to take the lead or win the game.

Jabroni
02-14-2005, 07:44 PM
4 pages and nobody can even agree on what a "grinder" is. The only real comment on I have on this thread is that it's ridiculous to call a sacrifice a "failed AB." Sometimes stat heads make me come real close to hating baseball.Agreed, I laughed my ass off at that comment. :rolleyes:
K.I.S.S. the method of hitting is the best. If you start thinking too much out there, you out think yourself. A hitter has a split second to recognize the pitch, judge its location, swing and make contact with it. So just go up there trying to drive the ball and let the chips fall where they may.

As for that situation of course tying the game would be great, but you know whats better, a basehit which puts a man at first with one out and tie game, better then that a double now RISP, better then that a HR to take the lead or win the game.Have you ever played in the MLB? I think getting a hit in a high pressure situation is easier said than done. You make it sound like you could do it yourself quite easily.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 07:53 PM
Agreed, I laughed my ass off at that comment. :rolleyes:
Have you ever played in the MLB? I think getting a hit in a high pressure situation is easier said than done. You make it sound like you could do it yourself quite easily.

Have you? I am saying its hard to get a hit anytime so the easier you make your mental process the better.

voodoochile
02-14-2005, 07:57 PM
K.I.S.S. the method of hitting is the best. If you start thinking too much out there, you out think yourself. A hitter has a split second to recognize the pitch, judge its location, swing and make contact with it. So just go up there trying to drive the ball and let the chips fall where they may.

As for that situation of course tying the game would be great, but you know whats better, a basehit which puts a man at first with one out and tie game, better then that a double now RISP, better then that a HR to take the lead or win the game.

Except hitting a flyball is much much easier than trying to drive the ball. It allows the hitter to take more time recognizing the pitch. It simplifies the swing. It in all ways is easier than trying to "get a hit" and you see it all the time when guys need a sac fly to tie or win the game in late innings.

Honestly, I find it mindboggling that you don't even recognize that idea. How many sure out flyballs sail over pulled in OF heads because they know any deeper it will be futile to make a play? Playing for an out is ALWAYS easier than playing for a hit.

maurice
02-14-2005, 09:08 PM
In many instances, it's best to just try to make good contact. However, in some situations, it's better to try for a long fly ball or maybe a ground ball. The concept of "situational hitting" cannot be reduced to Frank Thomas bunting a runner from first to second base in the first inning. That would always be stupid. However, there are several examples of clearly appropriate "situational hitting," including:
- When the bases are loaded with less than two outs in the bottom of the ninth in a tied ballgame, it is appropriate for a batter to try for a long fly ball.
- When a speedy contact hitter with little power is leading off an inning, it is appropriate for him to try to slap or bunt the ball to the left side of the IF, and try to leg out a single, especially if he has been overpowered by the pitcher, if the IF is playing back on grass, or if the 3B sucks defensively.
- It is appropriate for a .087-hitting pitcher batting with no outs and a runner on first to bunt and try to advance the runner for the top of the lineup.
In some instances, it would be inappropriate for the batter to try to drive the ball.

WikdChiSoxFan
02-14-2005, 09:36 PM
Brent here, Hitting Coach to the Stars...listen to the testimonials...

"I couldn't hit my four-square ball out of the driveway before I met Brent, 6 years in his intensive H.T.C.O.O.T.B. program, now I can kick it down the street." -My Brother, age 6

"Although I don't normally mention it, Brent's H.T.C.O.O.T.B. has really taught me how to hone my skills. I am confident that once I am forced to stop rubbing this cream all over my body, I shouldn't see a drop in my numbers even though I stand to lose 78% of my body mass." -Barry Bonds

"I wish I had Brent's H.T.C.O.O.T.B. program back in the day. I had real potential. If I could have Hit The Crap Out Of The Ball back then, I'm sure I wouldn't have stopped playing before high school." - Myself

So, take it from me, someone who's never faced a major league pitcher, minor league pitcher, and was always pinch hit for during high school kickball games. My system, proven over and over again, works. It's money in the bank.

Despite the fact that I know nothing about facing a major league pitcher in a pressure situation, I'll derive my thinking from what little logic I've been able to scrounge up in my short life. But seeing as, well I don't know what the average scores are now a days, a sacrifice fly is pretty damn good. Especially since there are a lot worse ways to get out that won't score the run, or advance a runner. One run is a big deal. Plain and simple, if there's a guy on third with less than two outs and the ball isn't right where you want it (it never is) take that ball to some place that's gonna do your team good.

fquaye149
02-14-2005, 10:03 PM
I wasn't sure if that was what you were inferring from your post, which is why I asked. But I think fquaye149 is crazy for probally wanting Ich over Bonds.

where in the mother****ing world did i say that? in my post i said i dispute the assertion that bonds is NOT a grinder and ichiro is. I don't know what about a guy who works out for 8 hours a day makes him not a grinder (i'm referring to bonds.) As far as who i would take in a quote/unquote fantasy draft, i don't want ANYONE over bonds, including pujols. Read my post again.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 10:21 PM
where in the mother****ing world did i say that? in my post i said i dispute the assertion that bonds is NOT a grinder and ichiro is. I don't know what about a guy who works out for 8 hours a day makes him not a grinder (i'm referring to bonds.) As far as who i would take in a quote/unquote fantasy draft, i don't want ANYONE over bonds, including pujols. Read my post again.

^^^it's a silly post. I don't know what makes Barry Bonds a non-grinder. A better comparison would be someone like Sosa, Magglio (GIDP) Ordonez, or Konerko.(<---yes, I know I'll get flamed on that one, but I just can't refer to Konerko as a grinder.)

I'd probably rather have Ichiro than all of them except maybe Magglio.(healthy)

I read "all of them" to include Bonds.

Dadawg_77
02-14-2005, 10:27 PM
Except hitting a flyball is much much easier than trying to drive the ball. It allows the hitter to take more time recognizing the pitch. It simplifies the swing. It in all ways is easier than trying to "get a hit" and you see it all the time when guys need a sac fly to tie or win the game in late innings.

Honestly, I find it mindboggling that you don't even recognize that idea. How many sure out flyballs sail over pulled in OF heads because they know any deeper it will be futile to make a play? Playing for an out is ALWAYS easier than playing for a hit.

Really? How times have you seen a guy trying to give his swing more of an upper cut, only to drive the ball straight into the ground or completely miss the pitch? If you (non stat heads in general) watched the game, you'll see this happen tons of times from 16" softball to the majors. The reason players like Frank and PK can hit fly balls easily is there swings have a nature uppercut motion to them and they drive the ball. Also the reason they hit scorching grounders.

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 10:30 PM
Really? How times have you seen a guy trying to give his swing more of an upper cut, only to drive the ball straight into the ground or completely miss the pitch? If you (non stat heads in general) watched the game, you'll see this happen tons of times from 16" softball to the majors. The reason players like Frank and PK can hit fly balls easily is there swings have a nature uppercut motion to them and they drive the ball. Also the reason they hit scorching grounders.But if you're only trying to lift a fly ball you don't swing as hard, thus keeping your bat in the zone longer and increasing your chances of making contact.

Daver
02-14-2005, 10:32 PM
There is no stat for understanding situational hitting, therefore it is unimportant in the grand scheme of baseball.

Jabroni
02-14-2005, 10:32 PM
But if you're only trying to lift a fly ball you don't swing as hard, thus keeping your bat in the zone longer and increasing your chances of making contact.This makes sense to me. :dunno:

I think Dadawg is assuming that any player who tries to hit a deep sac fly is going to take a Jeromy Burnitz-style uppercut swing approach. Sosa and Burnitz may do that but not every player swings like those hacks.

Jabroni
02-14-2005, 10:33 PM
There is no stat for understanding situational hitting, therefore it is unimportant in the grand scheme of baseball.So true... (according to stat-heads). :)

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 10:35 PM
There is no stat for understanding situational hitting, therefore it is unimportant in the grand scheme of baseball.No, there is no such thing as situational hitting.:o:

Jabroni
02-14-2005, 10:37 PM
No, there is no such thing as situational hitting.:o:Just like how clutch hitting is a myth.

eastchicagosoxfan
02-14-2005, 10:38 PM
4 pages and nobody can even agree on what a "grinder" is. The only real comment on I have on this thread is that it's ridiculous to call a sacrifice a "failed AB." Sometimes stat heads make me come real close to hating baseball.
A grinder is a machine. A meat grinder makes pork into kielbasa. Do the Sox have a team capable of being a grinder? Each part of the grinder rips and tears and shreads the meat until it is reduced enough to come out the other side. 1983's Winning Ugly described a team of grinders, IMO. Does each player contribute to the slow process of tearing the opposition apart? Sometimes it's a sacrafice, or going from first to third, or playing hurt, or fouling off 8 pitches in a late inning pressure situation. It varies everyday. What did it take to win today? Did someone do what was necessary to tear that meat. Remember, eventually, the grinder has to handle bone, and have some of it's teeth replaced.

voodoochile
02-14-2005, 10:42 PM
Really? How times have you seen a guy trying to give his swing more of an upper cut, only to drive the ball straight into the ground or completely miss the pitch? If you (non stat heads in general) watched the game, you'll see this happen tons of times from 16" softball to the majors. The reason players like Frank and PK can hit fly balls easily is there swings have a nature uppercut motion to them and they drive the ball. Also the reason they hit scorching grounders.

I honestly can't say. I admit my evidence is annecdotal. I admit I tend to remember the good sacrafices and not the failures. I also admit from what I can tell many players find it easier to just loft a flyball into the OF rather than get a hit. That is my experience.

I also believe that these guys actually practice this stuff and that while for the most part, they try NOT to loft flyballs during the game, the majority of them can hit one when necessary. If they try to hit one, they increase their chances of hitting one. I would bet players spend time working on it just like they spend time working on bunting, fielding and tagging up (at least I damned well hope so).

There are times in a baseball game when one run is as big as it gets. When you have a man on 3B, less than two outs and a power hitter at the plate you would expect the hitter to try to loft a flyball into the OF and not try to simply rip the cover off the ball...

RichFitztightly
02-14-2005, 11:41 PM
Really? How times have you seen a guy trying to give his swing more of an upper cut, only to drive the ball straight into the ground or completely miss the pitch? If you (non stat heads in general) watched the game, you'll see this happen tons of times from 16" softball to the majors. The reason players like Frank and PK can hit fly balls easily is there swings have a nature uppercut motion to them and they drive the ball. Also the reason they hit scorching grounders.

Listen to Ol' #2. He has the right idea. To combine a lot of your arguements, I'll boil it down to this. Anybody who has ever played baseball knows it's a lot easier to hit a fly ball. To hit a sac fly you don't have to hit it very deep. Last year, during the first game of the first double header for the Sox, Magglio scored on a sac fly that the right fielder actually came in on. Mags may have been out at the plate, but he was called safe, therefore it's a sac fly.

In my 20 years of playing baseball, I've recognized the extreme uppercut swing as the batter attempting to lift the ball out of the park. Generally, in addition to the uppercut swing, the batter is also over swinging. That's why they have that uncontrolled at bat where the ball gets topped, or popped up to the shortstop, or missed completely. When a person is hitting a sac fly, generally, they've slowed their swing down, are looking to hit the ball the other way, thereby giving themselves a longer look at the ball. Having a longer look at the ball allows them a better chance of just putting the bat on the ball.

If a player is looking to have success, it's a lot easier to put a controlled swing on a ball and put it in the air to the right side, then it is to crush a pitch over the fence. Hitting a homerun is difficult to do. Hitting a flyball of various distances and directions is much much easier.

maurice
02-15-2005, 02:19 PM
A MLB hitter does not need to swing hard or increase the uppercut in his swing to hit a 90 MPH pitch 300 feet. Good situational hitters know this and can frequently produce a long flyball out on demand (certainly more frequently than they can produce a hard line drive).

Fierce uppercut swings do often cause the batter to pop up, ground out weakly, or strike out . . . but this type of swing is typical of BAD situational hitters, not good ones.

Dadawg_77
02-15-2005, 03:15 PM
A MLB hitter does not need to swing hard or increase the uppercut in his swing to hit a 90 MPH pitch 300 feet. Good situational hitters know this and can frequently produce a long flyball out on demand (certainly more frequently than they can produce a hard line drive).

Fierce uppercut swings do often cause the batter to pop up, ground out weakly, or strike out . . . but this type of swing is typical of BAD situational hitters, not good ones.

That is what I was getting at in my example of Thomas. His nature swing is too drive the ball with a little uppercut in it. Thus Thomas or any good MLB hitter takes the same swing in a sacrifice as they do in any other situation. When players start to alter mechanics without practicing before hand, leads to bad swings and such. If this is the case, then the player is swinging to get a hit. Getting a hit is always better then a sacrifice except in case when the sacrifice brings in the winning run, then its equal outcome. So while a sacrifice scores a run, it isn't the most positive event which may occur.

RichFitztightly in a situation where you have a man on third and righty at bat, wouldn't you rather pull the ball since the Left Fielder generally has a weaker arm then the Right Fielder?

maurice
02-15-2005, 04:34 PM
When players start to alter mechanics without practicing before hand, leads to bad swings and such.

That's why good situational hitters practice cutting down their normal swing (not amping it up), practice hitting behind the runner, practice driving the ball to right-center, practice bunting down the line, practice slapping the ball into the hole, etc. The primary goal of these swings often is to advance the runner in an appropriate situation. Getting a hit would be frosting.

Thomas' normal swing is (or was) intended to drive the ball to right-center. That's Walt Hriniak's influence and not typical of all good hitters. For example, Barry Bonds' normal swing is intended to pull the ball into the stands. The same is true of many (most?) other good power hitters. Even Ted Williams was a dead pull hitter (known to bunt in certain situations).

BTW, while a ball hit to the left fielder might have a somewhat better chance of scoring a runner on average, a batted ball hit to the right side is more likely to advance a runner to 2B or to 3B than a ball hit to the left side, and also less likely to result in a GiDP. Also, for a right-handed hitter, trying to hit the ball to the right side allows the batter to cut down on his swing, to keep the bat in the hitting zone longer, and to see the ball a bit longer before offering.

Jurr
02-15-2005, 05:00 PM
I just love the Street and Smith's picture on the first page of the Sox preview. Does anyone recall what that picture is?????????

Ol' No. 2
02-15-2005, 05:04 PM
That is what I was getting at in my example of Thomas. His nature swing is too drive the ball with a little uppercut in it. Thus Thomas or any good MLB hitter takes the same swing in a sacrifice as they do in any other situation. When players start to alter mechanics without practicing before hand, leads to bad swings and such. If this is the case, then the player is swinging to get a hit. Getting a hit is always better then a sacrifice except in case when the sacrifice brings in the winning run, then its equal outcome. So while a sacrifice scores a run, it isn't the most positive event which may occur.

RichFitztightly in a situation where you have a man on third and righty at bat, wouldn't you rather pull the ball since the Left Fielder generally has a weaker arm then the Right Fielder?NO!!! A good hitter does NOT take the same swing in a SF as he does in other situations. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! He doesn't change the direction, but to get a SF he doesn't swing as hard, keeping the bat in the zone longer and increasing the chance of making contact.

Edit: Any player that can't loft a fly ball a lot more often than he can hit safely should be flipping burgers.

gobears1987
02-15-2005, 05:55 PM
The best example of a grinder in baseball today would be none other than ARow.

HebrewHammer
02-15-2005, 06:04 PM
So this is this year's stupid offseason pissing contest thread, is it? I figured there would be more posts.

Jurr
02-15-2005, 06:11 PM
I just love the Street and Smith's picture on the first page of the Sox preview. Does anyone recall what that picture is?????????
Well, since nobody answered, it was a pic of Podsednik practicing (PRACTICE??) his bunting skills in the cage. Attention to detail, folks. Hopefully this team is smarter than the last 4 years' Sox teams, and we get it done with teamwork.

fquaye149
02-15-2005, 07:26 PM
That is what I was getting at in my example of Thomas. His nature swing is too drive the ball with a little uppercut in it. Thus Thomas or any good MLB hitter takes the same swing in a sacrifice as they do in any other situation. When players start to alter mechanics without practicing before hand, leads to bad swings and such. If this is the case, then the player is swinging to get a hit. Getting a hit is always better then a sacrifice except in case when the sacrifice brings in the winning run, then its equal outcome. So while a sacrifice scores a run, it isn't the most positive event which may occur.

RichFitztightly in a situation where you have a man on third and righty at bat, wouldn't you rather pull the ball since the Left Fielder generally has a weaker arm then the Right Fielder?

Look - have you played baseball at a situational level...that is, for most people, varsity high school?

We worked ceaselessly at "small ball" baseball - that is, sac bunts, hitting behind the runner, sac flies.

There is a DISTINCT difference in approach. Sac flies, as number 2 said, involve taking an easier swing - basically giving yourself up, not TRYING to get a base hit, especially not a home run. It' snot just uppercutting - in fact, uppercutting is a poor technique for sac flies. Hitting behind the runner (that is, to the right side of the infield, or to the left side if you're a lefty and it's a hit and run) involves keeping your hands back and slapping the ball. Someone who really wants to drive it will not be able to do this. Sac bunts speak for themselves.

A superstar should be able to do all this. Some choose not to (Sammy).

It's not really debatable. It's a fundamental thing - situational hitting requires a different approach and a concerted effort to fulfill the situation. It's not random chance.

RichFitztightly
02-15-2005, 10:58 PM
RichFitztightly in a situation where you have a man on third and righty at bat, wouldn't you rather pull the ball since the Left Fielder generally has a weaker arm then the Right Fielder?

No, you don't really want to do this. Mainly because it's an easier throw for the left fielder and an easier throw for the catcher to handle. Basically, a throw from left field allows the catcher to see the ball and the runner in his field of view. The catcher can just park himself in front of the plate to block it and brace himself for any collision while he's in perfect position to field the ball. If it's a poor throw and the left fielder throws it short, then the catcher could come up the line and catch the ball and put a swipe tag on the runner, or force the runner to miss the plate allowing the catcher to tag him.

Now, if the batter hits the ball to right field, the catcher has to watch the ball and has no idea where the runner is. Also, he's not in a good position to brace himself for a collision. If the throw is short, then the catcher has to run up the first base line which takes him out of the play. From either position in the field, if the throw is off laterally, the catcher is going to be out of position at the plate, with the added bonus of a throw from right field being off to the third base side will take the catcher right into the path of the runner coming home. We all saw the aftermath of that situation when Torii Hunter bulldozed Jamie Burke last year.

The best example, I can think of, showing what happens with a throw from left field is illustrated by a play during the 2003 playoffs... I think. I'm going off memory here, but I seem to remember the final play of the Giants/Marlins series where Ivan Rodriguez catches a throw from left field and is able to brace himself for the collision at the plate. He holds on to the ball then gets up screaming and clutching the ball for all to see before he spikes it and gets mobbed by his teamates. Being that it was a throw from left field, he was in perfect position to field the ball in his chest and brace himself for the collision, while giving the runner no opening to touch the plate.

RichFitztightly
02-15-2005, 11:08 PM
Just my luck. This link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2003/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1630617) shows the difference between the two throws. One throw from right field, one throw from left field, and a column dedicated to backing up my point.

Ol' No. 2
02-16-2005, 09:51 AM
Just my luck. This link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2003/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1630617) shows the difference between the two throws. One throw from right field, one throw from left field, and a column dedicated to backing up my point.I might add that trying to pull the ball risks a hard ground ball to the 3B which leaves the runner in a pickle. Or even worse, he could hit a line drive to the 3B for a possible double play. Pulling the ball is the LAST thing you want to do in this situation. Even a decent grounder to a middle IF is probably going to score the run. Any player worth a roster spot should be able to successfully lift a fly ball a lot more frequently than he can hit safely. It's about maximizing the chances of scoring the run.

The source of this disagreement seems to stem from the stathead belief that you NEVER want to give up outs. But there is such a thing as a "productive out". You only get 27 outs in a game. Outs are precious, and you don't want to give them away unnecessarily. But scoring opportunities are even rarer and more precious. With few exceptions, I'm more than glad to sacrifice an out for a run.

Dadawg_77
02-16-2005, 08:15 PM
I might add that trying to pull the ball risks a hard ground ball to the 3B which leaves the runner in a pickle. Or even worse, he could hit a line drive to the 3B for a possible double play. Pulling the ball is the LAST thing you want to do in this situation. Even a decent grounder to a middle IF is probably going to score the run. Any player worth a roster spot should be able to successfully lift a fly ball a lot more frequently than he can hit safely. It's about maximizing the chances of scoring the run.

The source of this disagreement seems to stem from the stathead belief that you NEVER want to give up outs. But there is such a thing as a "productive out". You only get 27 outs in a game. Outs are precious, and you don't want to give them away unnecessarily. But scoring opportunities are even rarer and more precious. With few exceptions, I'm more than glad to sacrifice an out for a run.

I don't believe in giving one self up unless it can win the game. Anything else is bad baseball by manager managing not to win but not to hear the newspapers and sports radio ripping on them.

Last year one fourth of MLB at bats occurred with runners in scoring postion, 25.15%. Now since we can agree that if you leadoff an inning you can't hit with runners in scoring postion. I estmated there were 40,740 leadoff at bats last year and if you take that out, you'll end up that 33% of non leadoff at bats occurred with a runner in scoring postion. Thus I don't think scoring opportunities are that rare that you want to scarfice a chance to score more runs.

Last year you could expect 1.16 runs with a runner on second and no body out, with a runner at third and one out .972 runs. So why would you want to trade an out for a worse situation? Fact remains small ball doesn't work half the time is tried and some of you act like it works 90% clip level.

Ol' No. 2
02-16-2005, 08:41 PM
I don't believe in giving one self up unless it can win the game. Anything else is bad baseball by manager managing not to win but not to hear the newspapers and sports radio ripping on them.

Last year one fourth of MLB at bats occurred with runners in scoring postion, 25.15%. Now since we can agree that if you leadoff an inning you can't hit with runners in scoring postion. I estmated there were 40,740 leadoff at bats last year and if you take that out, you'll end up that 33% of non leadoff at bats occurred with a runner in scoring postion. Thus I don't think scoring opportunities are that rare that you want to scarfice a chance to score more runs.

Last year you could expect 1.16 runs with a runner on second and no body out, with a runner at third and one out .972 runs. So why would you want to trade an out for a worse situation? Fact remains small ball doesn't work half the time is tried and some of you act like it works 90% clip level.How long did you have to look to find the most ridiculous example? No manager with a brain would sacrifice a runner from second to third with no outs. I could just as easily pick a ridiculous example, but I won't bother. You've just bought into this stathead nonsense about all outs being bad, and you can't/won't understand the concept of productive outs.

It's real simple. You get 27 outs in a regulation game. You don't get anywhere close to that many scoring chances. With a few exceptions, trading outs for runs is a winning proposition.

Jabroni
02-16-2005, 08:53 PM
Last year you could expect 1.16 runs with a runner on second and no body out, with a runner at third and one out .972 runs. So why would you want to trade an out for a worse situation? Fact remains small ball doesn't work half the time is tried and some of you act like it works 90% clip level.This could be the most ridiculous stat that I've seen in my life.

Stats don't determine the game; the game determines the stats.

Dadawg_77
02-16-2005, 09:21 PM
How long did you have to look to find the most ridiculous example? No manager with a brain would sacrifice a runner from second to third with no outs. I could just as easily pick a ridiculous example, but I won't bother. You've just bought into this stathead nonsense about all outs being bad, and you can't/won't understand the concept of productive outs.

It's real simple. You get 27 outs in a regulation game. You don't get anywhere close to that many scoring chances. With a few exceptions, trading outs for runs is a winning proposition.

Hitting behind the runner instead of doing your best to get on qualifies for me. Trading outs for to advance a runner isn't a winning propostion. I understand the concept of productive outs, I just think it is fundamentally wrong. If an out is an outcome of the plate appearance, I want something productive to come of it, but I don't believe in creating outs.

Outs aren't bad, but created outs on purpose is.

Dadawg_77
02-16-2005, 09:26 PM
This could be the most ridiculous stat that I've seen in my life.

Stats don't determine the game; the game determines the stats.

Lol, you totally misunderstood what stats are telling you. They tell what happen in the past and you could use it to predict what will happen in the future. The stat in question takes number of runs scored after a certain situation occurred divided by the amount of times the situation occurred. So yes the game created that stat, but that stat shows you what happen in the game. If you did this for the history of baseball, you will find similar numbers.

Ol' No. 2
02-16-2005, 09:37 PM
Hitting behind the runner instead of doing your best to get on qualifies for me. Trading outs for to advance a runner isn't a winning propostion. I understand the concept of productive outs, I just think it is fundamentally wrong. If an out is an outcome of the plate appearance, I want something productive to come of it, but I don't believe in creating outs.

Outs aren't bad, but created outs on purpose is.I noticed you've now changed the discussion from a sacrifice fly to hitting behind the runner.:o: But let's take it at face value. Hitting behind the runner means you are still trying to get a hit, but you're trying to get one to the right side, knowing that while your chances of getting a hit may be a bit lower, then even if you do make an out (a 70% chance in any case), something good will come of it. It's a simple tradeoff. Your chances of the jackpot may be lower, but it was an unlikely event, anyway. But now you get some benefit from the most likely event. You're playing off the big gain from the unlikely event against the smaller gain from the most likely event.

Moreover, hitting behind the runner is more often done with a runner on first, and in this case a hit will allow the runner to go to third easily, while pulling a hit to LF leaves you in a much less favorable position, especially if you have less than 2 outs. Which brings us all the way back to the sacrifice fly.:D:

Dadawg_77
02-16-2005, 09:46 PM
I noticed you've now changed the discussion from a sacrifice fly to hitting behind the runner.:o: But let's take it at face value. Hitting behind the runner means you are still trying to get a hit, but you're trying to get one to the right side, knowing that while your chances of getting a hit may be a bit lower, then even if you do make an out (a 70% chance in any case), something good will come of it. It's a simple tradeoff. Your chances of the jackpot may be lower, but it was an unlikely event, anyway. But now you get some benefit from the most likely event. You're playing off the big gain from the unlikely event against the smaller gain from the most likely event.

Moreover, hitting behind the runner is more often done with a runner on first, and in this case a hit will allow the runner to go to third easily, while pulling a hit to LF leaves you in a much less favorable position, especially if you have less than 2 outs. Which brings us all the way back to the sacrifice fly.:D:

If a hitter can go the opposite field with easy, then do it and find the hole between the first baseman and second baseman. But if I have dead pull right hander good hitter, I am not telling him to go the other way. Plus you have to figure a pitcher is going to try and jam a righty and go away from a lefty in this situation. So a hitter should also take that in account and go with the pitch. My thinking, a team should try to make every play the most productive it can be. So if an out is record a runner try to advance if success rate is high enough. A team should never create outs since it is never the most productive play.

I use the example since we were talking about moving the runner over in the thread. But a man on second no outs yields more runs then a man on third with one out.

Ol' No. 2
02-16-2005, 10:03 PM
If a hitter can go the opposite field with easy, then do it and find the hole between the first baseman and second baseman. But if I have dead pull right hander good hitter, I am not telling him to go the other way. Plus you have to figure a pitcher is going to try and jam a righty and go away from a lefty in this situation. So a hitter should also take that in account and go with the pitch. My thinking, a team should try to make every play the most productive it can be. So if an out is record a runner try to advance if success rate is high enough. A team should never create outs since it is never the most productive play.

I use the example since we were talking about moving the runner over in the thread. But a man on second no outs yields more runs then a man on third with one out.We've been talking very theoretical, but obviously, the choice depends on who you have at the plate, who's on the mound, how fast/smart is the runner at second, what inning, the score and a host of other factors. You're not going to do something stupid. If the guy is a dead pull hitter, I probably wouldn't have him try to hit the other way with a guy at second. He's liable to flub one to the pitcher and get the guy on second caught in a pickle, which is the worst possible outcome.

There are always exceptions, and as Hawk keeps saying (ad nauseum), you don't ask a guy to do something he can't do. What I think this points out is the value in having guys on your team that have the ability to hit behind the runner successfully.

maurice
02-17-2005, 01:55 PM
A "dead pull" right-hander hitter who can't bunt = a bad situational hitter. Though it occasionally happens, it's exceptionally stupid for a manager to ask such a hitter to try to bunt or to hit the ball to the opposite field in a MLB game if he can't even do it well in BP. (OTOH, a long fly ball to LF with a runner on 3B and one out late in a tied game would be a pretty nifty result.)

Part of the "situation" in "situational hitting" is who's at the plate -- in addition to who's on base, who's on the mound, who's playing 3B, the number of outs, the score of the game, the inning, etc. Aggregate stats don't account for any of these extremely relevant factors. Moreover, none of the stats I've seen account for the fact that a bunt or ball hit to the opposite field often results in a hit or an error. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for a player trying to hit a sac fly to knock the ball into the third row (e.g., a walk-off grand slam with no outs in a formerly tied ballgame).

Dadawg_77
02-17-2005, 02:22 PM
. Moreover, none of the stats I've seen account for the fact that a bunt or ball hit to the opposite field often results in a hit or an error. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for a player trying to hit a sac fly to knock the ball into the third row (e.g., a walk-off grand slam with no outs in a formerly tied ballgame).

Why do you say it is often or common?

maurice
02-17-2005, 03:56 PM
a bunt or ball hit to the opposite field often results in a hit or an error.

Why do you say it is often or common?

Remember (as #2 pointed out) that the result must be measured against what would happen if the same player just tried to get a hit (IIRC, about a 27% chance of a hit or an error on average). I'd speculate that a bunt or ball hit to the opposite field must result in a hit or an error at least 15% of the time. (For what it's worth, anecdotal evidence suggests that errors are more frequent on bunt plays, particularly if the batter is a good drag bunter or if the 3B blows defensively. Moreover, statistical evidence suggests that a certain percentage of hitters actually get a majority of their hits by pushing the ball to the opposite field. Only "dead pull" hitters fail to do so on a regular basis.) Even if the rate is lower than 15%, the rate certainly is not sufficiently low to excuse a failure to account for it statistically. IMHO, the same argument applies to long fly balls. Like every other kind of swing, they usually result in outs -- but it's "not uncommon" for them to result in doubles, triples, and HRs.

You also need to consider (as already mentioned) that a smart situational approach should be at least marginally less likely to result in a GiDP or fielder's choice.

Obviously, I don't have exact numbers for any of these things. I doubt they even exist. However, though common wisdom is often wrong, the burden of proof is on the brave fellow who tries to challenge it.
:wink:

Dadawg_77
02-17-2005, 04:06 PM
Remember (as #2 pointed out) that the result must be measured against what would happen if the same player just tried to get a hit (IIRC, about a 27% chance of a hit or an error on average). I'd speculate that a bunt or ball hit to the opposite field must result in a hit or an error at least 15% of the time. (For what it's worth, anecdotal evidence suggests that errors are more frequent on bunt plays, particularly if the batter is a good drag bunter or if the 3B blows defensively. Moreover, statistical evidence suggests that a certain percentage of hitters actually get a majority of their hits by pushing the ball to the opposite field. Only "dead pull" hitters fail to do so on a regular basis.) Even if the rate is lower than 15%, the rate certainly is not sufficiently low to excuse a failure to account for it statistically. IMHO, the same argument applies to long fly balls. Like every other kind of swing, they usually result in outs -- but it's "not uncommon" for them to result in doubles, triples, and HRs.

You also need to consider (as already mentioned) that a smart situational approach should be at least marginally less likely to result in a GiDP or fielder's choice.

Obviously, I don't have exact numbers for any of these things. I doubt they even exist. However, though common wisdom is often wrong, the burden of proof is on the brave fellow who tries to challenge it.
:wink:

One could put those numbers together but it would take tons of time and effort. http://www.retrosheet.org/