PDA

View Full Version : Article:Ozzie Guillen's "Not So Smart" Ball


FanofBill
10-10-2005, 01:41 PM
http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2005/10/10/ozzie_guillens_not_so_smart_ball.php

It's tough. Every year, the media needs a story. A story about an underdog. A surprise team that nobody saw coming. A David who comes out of nowhere to stare down Goliath. In 2005, MLB's story is the Chicago White Sox. At least, everyone in the media seems to think so.

Tune into any national broadcast of a White Sox game this year, and you won't get through two Chicago plate appearances before being subjected to a monologue on the genius of manager Ozzie Guillen's "little ball" strategy. Bunting, stealing bases, moving runners they all allow the power-poor Sox to outwit their muscle-bound competitors in Boston, New York, and Texas.

It's simple, elegant, and it's wrong.

Attributing the White Sox' success to their playing "little ball" is like saying that the Atlanta Braves are back in the playoffs because their pitchers handle the bat so well. It's true that they play little ball, but it's not why they win. Below are the three most important factors in the Sox' success this season, in order of significance, as well as some thoughts on Ozzie's offensive philosophy.

boiler up
10-10-2005, 01:47 PM
Outs are simply too valuable, and the strategy will limit a team's total scoring in the long run.


this guy is a ****tard, if the sox didn't get those one runs from sac bunts or sac flies, then how would we have won 1 run games. and how can he write an article saying that small ball wasn't there, but then question how many of the 1 run games were won buy it.

SoxSpeed22
10-10-2005, 01:51 PM
:fobbgod:"Welcome aboard! We need to minimize outs in order to increase our big innings and win more games."

FielderJones
10-10-2005, 02:03 PM
Where's the propeller-head tag?

Oh well, this one will do.
:dumbass:

MUsoxfan
10-10-2005, 02:05 PM
I actually didn't disagree with alot of what this guy had to say. I disagreed with the FOBBish parts because I think that's a foolish philosophy, but he did point out some interesting things that most of us here already knew

1951Campbell
10-10-2005, 02:11 PM
That squeeze for an insurance run must have been bad baseball. I guess the Red Sox actually won the VORP/FOBB/Pythagoras ALDS, and the White Sox will have to settle for their measly trip to the real world ALCS.

slobes
10-10-2005, 03:00 PM
Honestly this guy is actually ripping on the Sox because they hit a lot of homers in the ALDS and the regular season.

EastCoastSoxFan
10-10-2005, 04:06 PM
I have neither the mental energy nor the desire to give a fully-reasoned reply to this guy and the rest of the moneyball disciples, but suffice it to say that somebody forgot to tell these people that at the end of a baseball game the winning team is the one with more RUNS, not the team with more OPPORTUNITIES...

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-10-2005, 04:42 PM
The White Sox hit 199 HR versus 1222 singles and doubles, in 5496 AB. This means that 22.2% of the time, they hit a single or double, versus hitting a homer 3.6% of the time. A runner on second can score on a single or double, whereas a runner on first can't always score on a double, and never on a single. So doesn't it make sense to set yourself up for at least scoring one run, which is actually much more likely than getting the HR? What these people don't understand is that smart ball is all about consistency. If you can hit 3 run HRs 4% of the time, that might increase your overall scoring, but there will be more occasions when you don't get the HR and lose by a run.

Anyway, I know that this has been beaten to death, and most people here hate statheads. I think that statistics can be insightful if they are used properly, but when someone says that if the Sox hadn't made so many extra outs, they would have scored more via longballs, they are getting caught up in the home run/steroid era mentality. Everybody pays attention to homers, and they begin to think that's the only way to score runs.

Flight #24
10-10-2005, 05:04 PM
The White Sox hit 199 HR versus 1222 singles and doubles, in 5496 AB. This means that 22.2% of the time, they hit a single or double, versus hitting a homer 3.6% of the time. A runner on second can score on a single or double, whereas a runner on first can't always score on a double, and never on a single. So doesn't it make sense to set yourself up for at least scoring one run, which is actually much more likely than getting the HR? What these people don't understand is that smart ball is all about consistency. If you can hit 3 run HRs 4% of the time, that might increase your overall scoring, but there will be more occasions when you don't get the HR and lose by a run.



You've hit on a problem with the misuse of statistics. They rely on averages, which means nothing in any individual situation. Averages also factor in games against poor competition, something you don't see in the playoffs. "Smartball" is geared to reduce the inherent variability in scoring, which, if your team is structured appropriately, will give you a better chance to get more wins.

It may be a worthwhile strategy to play for the big inning against the likes of Nate Robertson. But when facing a Johan Santana-esque guy, which is more likely in the postseason, getting to 1 or 2 runs may be your best bet. And when you throw Contreras against Santana, that may be enough to get the actual W, as opposed to the simulated W.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-10-2005, 05:05 PM
It doesn't count unless you can simulate the outcome rolling Stratomatic dice.

:cool:

:jeremyb1
"I just keep rolling the dice until I get the outcome that proves I'm smart."

FarWestChicago
10-10-2005, 05:06 PM
One of these days Earl Weaver will sue Beane and BP. Good pitching and waiting for three run homers is such an innovative approach to baseball. :rolleyes:

fquaye149
10-10-2005, 07:27 PM
Ozzie does play "not so smart" ball now and then but it has NOTHING to do with bunts