 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Small Ball! (Woo-hoo!)
Duff77
Can't help but think the Yanks might've knocked off the Angels if they'd laid down a few bunts in some of those games, rather than sit back and wait for the big hit that never came.
I'm also pleased that two cities who's fans can't remember a World Series are duking it out for the World Championship.
And it's "World Championship." Not "World Series Championship." I hate that crap.
Small Ball! (Woo-hoo!)
October 22, 2005 at 02:53AM View BBCode
Has this can of worms been opened yet? Anyway... This is my favorite postseason ever, because it vindicates the use of small ball, in the playoffs if nothing else. Granted: Over a 162 game season, too much small ball costs you runs and wins, but against the condensed pitching talent seen in October, it is often the only way to win.Can't help but think the Yanks might've knocked off the Angels if they'd laid down a few bunts in some of those games, rather than sit back and wait for the big hit that never came.
I'm also pleased that two cities who's fans can't remember a World Series are duking it out for the World Championship.
And it's "World Championship." Not "World Series Championship." I hate that crap.
skierdude44
Anyway, my point is generally the team that hits better will prevail no matter what style they play. The idea that small ball is the way to win in the playoffs is a myth. Small ball, like any other offensive strategy, has to be properly executed to work and therefore is no more or less effective than any other strategy.
October 22, 2005 at 04:55AM View BBCode
It's not that the team that plays small ball better will win, the team that hits better will win. Let's take a look at the Yankees-Angels series you mentioned. Neither team hit particularly well, but Anaheim hit alittle bit better and capitalized off of Yankee miscues in the field. The Yankees best hitters, Arod for example, were non-exisitent because they hit like .133 and he wasn't the only one. The Yankees gave away a lot of extra outs to the Angels as well which really came back to bite them. Yes, the Angels put down some bunts but overall the Yankees did a pretty good job not letting them do what they wanted to do: get guys like Figgins on and create havoc on the bases to set up the big hitters like Vlad. They actually kept both Figgins and Guerrero quiet and dominated the Angel running game (Posada through out 80% of base stealers that series). They just gave the Angels too many extra opportunities via errors and couldn't capitalize offensively when they had their men on base.Anyway, my point is generally the team that hits better will prevail no matter what style they play. The idea that small ball is the way to win in the playoffs is a myth. Small ball, like any other offensive strategy, has to be properly executed to work and therefore is no more or less effective than any other strategy.
FuriousGiorge
October 22, 2005 at 05:09AM View BBCode
Small ball is the most conservative, cowardly way to approach the postseason. Play for one run, get one run. There's nothing wrong with that approach when it's the ninth and you just need one to win or tie. But it always boggles my mind that fans applaud this conservative crap. Do fans applaud football teams that elect to kick the field goal on 4th and inches? Or those that pound the ball up the middle instead of running play action and getting someone open in the endzone? In game 5 of the ALCS, the Angels were down 2-1 in the bottom of the 5th, one man on and Chone Figgins at the plate. The announcers were sure Figgins would bunt to move the man over, that the Angels would play for 1 to tie it up. But Scoscia chose to hit and run instead, an aggressive move that wound up netting the Angels 2 runs in the inning and the lead. The bullpen would blow that lead and the series but that doesn't take away from the fact that this was a great, bold move by Scoscia to take the game back into the Angels' hands. If timid, conservative crap like bunting and playing for one run at a time are what win in the playoffs, then I'll go watch a football game instead - at least there you can see teams showing some testicles in how they approach a game.
hobos
I'd say it's still the best pitching that wins, you just can't smallball your way past it, or any method. St Louis could out smallball Houston all day (and did), but it just didn't work against the big 3. Go against a great rotation (Houston) or a hot one (Chicago), and you can't smallball your way to victory, just ask the Angels and Cardinals
I'm not really arguing that smallball isn't effective, it is. But of the last 4 teams that were left, the free-swinging smallball lost, the patient smallball won, the power smallball lost, and "Berkman/Ensberg/pray for rain" ball won
October 22, 2005 at 05:21AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Failed small ball seemed to run rampant, especially in the ALCS. Caught stealings, failed bunts, etc. That's not to say it's less effective than other forms though
I'd say it's still the best pitching that wins, you just can't smallball your way past it, or any method. St Louis could out smallball Houston all day (and did), but it just didn't work against the big 3. Go against a great rotation (Houston) or a hot one (Chicago), and you can't smallball your way to victory, just ask the Angels and Cardinals
I'm not really arguing that smallball isn't effective, it is. But of the last 4 teams that were left, the free-swinging smallball lost, the patient smallball won, the power smallball lost, and "Berkman/Ensberg/pray for rain" ball won
ABDREW
October 22, 2005 at 05:41AM View BBCode
Chicago had the 5th most homeruns in the league and was 11th overall in SLG%. I don't see how thats small ball.. Houston maybe, Chicago no.
jetpac
actually, that doesn't really deserve a laugh, but w/e
October 22, 2005 at 05:18PM View BBCode
:lol::lol:actually, that doesn't really deserve a laugh, but w/e
Cubsfan13
October 22, 2005 at 06:11PM View BBCode
I agree with furious. The only time I think small ball wasn't used that it should have been in this postseason was when the Cardinals didn't squeeze in the 9th inning of game 4. I don't mind going for a hit with nobody out, but with one out and men on first and third with John Mabry up, I think you need to do it. Mabry is left handed so they probably woiuld have needed to pinch hit with someone like Abraham Nunez (I don't even remember if he's right handed...screw it, I'm not going to look it up). They probably would have squeezed if LaRussa hadn't gotten thrown out a couple of innings before.
hobos
October 22, 2005 at 08:29PM View BBCode
ABDREW, have you heard of Ozzie's Smartball? It's essentially smallball, but he get's away with it because his team is fairly patient (they don't draw a lot of walks, but they take more pitches than say, the Angels) and his team has a lot of power
jetpac
October 23, 2005 at 12:39AM View BBCode
so, of course, the first 2 runs of the series were scored on solo shots
Duff77
October 23, 2005 at 03:54AM View BBCode
Ew, brutal--as expected. I'm not saying you can rely entirely on small ball. You've gotta have some hitters, and both these teams do. But I think these playoffs have at least made the point that in certain circumstances, small ball can win you games. There's no single philosophy that works in every situation.
FuriousGiorge
October 23, 2005 at 05:32AM View BBCode
No, but there is one single philosophy that is practiced by little sissy girls. You know which one it is, you big lug!
whiskybear
Way to show some conviction. FACE!
October 23, 2005 at 05:42AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Ew, brutal--as expected. I'm not saying you can rely entirely on small ball. You've gotta have some hitters, and both these teams do. But I think these playoffs have at least made the point that in certain circumstances, small ball can win you games. There's no single philosophy that works in every situation.
Way to show some conviction. FACE!
youngallstar
October 23, 2005 at 06:25AM View BBCode
Its nice to see the oh so adorable Duff-Furious love quarrels have come back
Duff77
I disagree with Furious about this "sissy" BS, however. There's nothing sissy about a bunt. I say that because of how often bad bunts result in disaster. I think it takes some balls to call for a bunt against a guy throwing high and tight and hard. That said, I don't much care for bunting a guy to second. The hit and run is a riskier but much more entertaining way to get the job done. It's still a nice diversion from "let's wait for A-Rod to hit it to the black seats."
October 23, 2005 at 11:19PM View BBCode
And whisky just being a flat-out dick. But fence-sitting is the curse of the liberal, so he has a point.I disagree with Furious about this "sissy" BS, however. There's nothing sissy about a bunt. I say that because of how often bad bunts result in disaster. I think it takes some balls to call for a bunt against a guy throwing high and tight and hard. That said, I don't much care for bunting a guy to second. The hit and run is a riskier but much more entertaining way to get the job done. It's still a nice diversion from "let's wait for A-Rod to hit it to the black seats."
ABDREW
October 24, 2005 at 01:09AM View BBCode
I would have though you guys would be tired of calling each other names by now. ClosingPages: 1