 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » sins of small ball (lucky ozzie)
kikicuyler
its funny in the moneyball/smallball debate no one notices the obvious
already in this series every chicago small ball move has hurt them but due to good luck, houstons defensive ineptitude, and especially BIG ball, they have escaped with two wins
earl weaver, a sort of patron saint of sound baseball theory, used to say "The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."
cases in point
game one - fifth inning 4-3 chicago:
ozzie has men on first and second, no out - and he bunts carl everett (191 career home runs, 15 career sac hits, 11 post season hits), astros walk rowand (10 postseason hits 6 (!) doubles) to get to double up milk truck pierzynski -
ozzies sacrificing a precious out to hopefully pick up a run - heres the skinny:
with men on 1st and 2nd and no out a team can expect to score 1.515 runs, with men on 2nd and 3rd 1 out, the average runs drops to 1.3 - in order to pick up one run, ozzie pissed away a chance to score 3 or 4 or more by A) dropping his expected runs and taking a good bat out f the inning (rowand) - this is the essence of the problem with small ball
it was in this inning jermaine dye almost got himself thrown out by not paying attention - he was trying to steal a base with paul konerko up! - you got a monster home run hitter up and you risk an out! because houstons minor league system apparently doesnt teach their players how to run down a dummy in a pickle, ozzie got away with a near-disaster
in the next game, however, andy petitte taught ozzie the problems with his baseball weltanschauung by getting two runners off the bases in the same inning! this is with dye, konerko and everett coming up ... unforgivable
houston is playing like a bunch of nervous nellies (dropping popups, airmailing throws, morgan walking around in a haze) and still they are in the games til the end...
chicago is winning look by tough pitching, their superior fundamentals, and lots of power
earl was right
and ozzie is lucky
sins of small ball (lucky ozzie)
October 24, 2005 at 11:00PM View BBCode
im writing this pre-emptively because if chicago wins (and until the astros get hypnotherapy to calm down they will) everyone will say (like they did in 82) that the "go go sox" won with small ball (go go with slow guys like konerko, crede, aj, etc)its funny in the moneyball/smallball debate no one notices the obvious
already in this series every chicago small ball move has hurt them but due to good luck, houstons defensive ineptitude, and especially BIG ball, they have escaped with two wins
earl weaver, a sort of patron saint of sound baseball theory, used to say "The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."
cases in point
game one - fifth inning 4-3 chicago:
ozzie has men on first and second, no out - and he bunts carl everett (191 career home runs, 15 career sac hits, 11 post season hits), astros walk rowand (10 postseason hits 6 (!) doubles) to get to double up milk truck pierzynski -
ozzies sacrificing a precious out to hopefully pick up a run - heres the skinny:
with men on 1st and 2nd and no out a team can expect to score 1.515 runs, with men on 2nd and 3rd 1 out, the average runs drops to 1.3 - in order to pick up one run, ozzie pissed away a chance to score 3 or 4 or more by A) dropping his expected runs and taking a good bat out f the inning (rowand) - this is the essence of the problem with small ball
it was in this inning jermaine dye almost got himself thrown out by not paying attention - he was trying to steal a base with paul konerko up! - you got a monster home run hitter up and you risk an out! because houstons minor league system apparently doesnt teach their players how to run down a dummy in a pickle, ozzie got away with a near-disaster
in the next game, however, andy petitte taught ozzie the problems with his baseball weltanschauung by getting two runners off the bases in the same inning! this is with dye, konerko and everett coming up ... unforgivable
houston is playing like a bunch of nervous nellies (dropping popups, airmailing throws, morgan walking around in a haze) and still they are in the games til the end...
chicago is winning look by tough pitching, their superior fundamentals, and lots of power
earl was right
and ozzie is lucky
kikicuyler
heres the chart pleez read it
October 24, 2005 at 11:03PM View BBCode
i forgot the chart here it is - this is a sore subject with me because there is the odor of smallballitis in abe and it hurts the game
jetpac
October 24, 2005 at 11:07PM View BBCode
Nice, well thought out post. One thing I'd like to point out that I recently learned, though. There's a spell check.:D
BrutusKhan
Take a look at how Ozzie handles his club, and understands the importance of not having the pressure on his team. He deflects all the media pressure to himself, and forces the pressure on the other team by running and moving guys all over the place. Now, granted, the Sox have been lucky, but at the same time, they have not wasted any opportunities once they have been given any light. The book says a lot of things, but if there was a formula for winning that you could read in a book, we wouldn't have any losers.
I think you point out good points about Ozzie's flaws, but you have to give the credit where it is due. I've watched the Sox all year, and seen Houston play a fair share of games. I know they can't field a hitting team without playing some pretty bad defenders. I'm not a believer in Biggio, Lamb or Lane, & Ensberg's range seems limited. I see Dye being the only defensive liability for the Sox, and he has a great arm. So, when you have a team that is going to make the plays to save your pitching, you can afford to take more chances, hang loose, and watch the other team implode under the pressure. I've seen it in at least 30-40 games this year with the Sox, and I've watched it just MAGNIFY once the playoffs started.
Doug
By the way, I've read all the same books as everyone else, and followed the A's & Braves for years keeping an eye on why they win during the season & lose in the playoffs. Power pitching is a pre-requisite, thus explaining those 2 post-season failures. But why don't the Yanks win anymore? I think they've added one too many MVP's to their roster, and lost focus of the Paul O'neil type guys who have ice in their veins.
October 24, 2005 at 11:27PM View BBCode
I don't think it is coincidence that the team pressing, is loose & getting lucky. I've always been a big believer that the stats show you the results, not how to get them.Take a look at how Ozzie handles his club, and understands the importance of not having the pressure on his team. He deflects all the media pressure to himself, and forces the pressure on the other team by running and moving guys all over the place. Now, granted, the Sox have been lucky, but at the same time, they have not wasted any opportunities once they have been given any light. The book says a lot of things, but if there was a formula for winning that you could read in a book, we wouldn't have any losers.
I think you point out good points about Ozzie's flaws, but you have to give the credit where it is due. I've watched the Sox all year, and seen Houston play a fair share of games. I know they can't field a hitting team without playing some pretty bad defenders. I'm not a believer in Biggio, Lamb or Lane, & Ensberg's range seems limited. I see Dye being the only defensive liability for the Sox, and he has a great arm. So, when you have a team that is going to make the plays to save your pitching, you can afford to take more chances, hang loose, and watch the other team implode under the pressure. I've seen it in at least 30-40 games this year with the Sox, and I've watched it just MAGNIFY once the playoffs started.
Doug
By the way, I've read all the same books as everyone else, and followed the A's & Braves for years keeping an eye on why they win during the season & lose in the playoffs. Power pitching is a pre-requisite, thus explaining those 2 post-season failures. But why don't the Yanks win anymore? I think they've added one too many MVP's to their roster, and lost focus of the Paul O'neil type guys who have ice in their veins.
jetpac
October 24, 2005 at 11:36PM View BBCode
yeah, I'm starting to wish we had another Scott Brosius type instead of A-Rod. Hey wait a minute, is this yet another thread that all of the sudden is about the Yankees?
ME
So, you'd like to not be in the playoffs at all? Or have lost last year's ALDS?
I'm really wondering how Alex Rodriguez gets a reputation as a poor playoff performer - his career playoff line is .305-.401-.534
[Edited on 10-25-2005 by ME]
October 24, 2005 at 11:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jetpac
yeah, I'm starting to wish we had another Scott Brosius type instead of A-Rod. Hey wait a minute, is this yet another thread that all of the sudden is about the Yankees?
So, you'd like to not be in the playoffs at all? Or have lost last year's ALDS?
I'm really wondering how Alex Rodriguez gets a reputation as a poor playoff performer - his career playoff line is .305-.401-.534
[Edited on 10-25-2005 by ME]
skierdude44
As far as the "Paul O'Neill" type players go, I think that Doug has a point. Many of the current Yankees go up there trying to crush every pitch out of the park. When they connect, it works beautifully, but they often miss opportunities where an opposite field single gets the job done nearly as well. O'Neill and many other players on the Yankee championship teams on the 90's were good situational hitters. They had some power, but they could just as easily line a ball to the opposite field. Looking back at the series with the Angels, the Yankees had plenty of opportunities with RISP but converted very few of them because pretty much everyone went up there trying to hit a three-run homer by trying to pull an outside pitch and rolled the ball to second. Sure, the three-run homer is great but a grounder back through the middle gets a run home and keeps the lineup moving.
October 25, 2005 at 12:25AM View BBCode
It's because the only number that people remember is the .133 avg he put up during the ALDS this year. Well, that and since he's come to the Yanks he's become public enemy number one to all other baseball fans.As far as the "Paul O'Neill" type players go, I think that Doug has a point. Many of the current Yankees go up there trying to crush every pitch out of the park. When they connect, it works beautifully, but they often miss opportunities where an opposite field single gets the job done nearly as well. O'Neill and many other players on the Yankee championship teams on the 90's were good situational hitters. They had some power, but they could just as easily line a ball to the opposite field. Looking back at the series with the Angels, the Yankees had plenty of opportunities with RISP but converted very few of them because pretty much everyone went up there trying to hit a three-run homer by trying to pull an outside pitch and rolled the ball to second. Sure, the three-run homer is great but a grounder back through the middle gets a run home and keeps the lineup moving.
kujayhawks15
These are his career stats:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Career Totals 1300 4892 860 1585 294 38 305 935 2870 493 606 151 75 .391 .587 .324
Now look at his playoff stats:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Career Totals 13 50 6 9 0 0 1 7 12 4 7 1 1 .255 .240 .180
Now, I know he has only played in 13 games and had 50 playoff at-bats, but I think it is more than just a coincidence. He is a great regular season player, but (for lack of a better word) "flops" in the playoffs. Whereas on the flip side, people like Brosius seem to "rise to the occasion" during the playoffs, and have better stats than their career.
My two cents.
October 25, 2005 at 12:26AM View BBCode
What he means is he would rather have A-Rod during the regular season, then have Brosius in the playoffs, where A-Rod flops and Brosius has the best month of his career. Also, I don't think it is a coincidence that people like Guerrero and A-Rod flopping during the postseason, they have been on bad teams for so long, they don't know how to play under pressure. I know that some people just play under pressure better than others, but Guerrero plays in Montreal for 8 years, he isn't used to playing with all the media hype, and all of the pressure of being the "star" of the team.These are his career stats:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Career Totals 1300 4892 860 1585 294 38 305 935 2870 493 606 151 75 .391 .587 .324
Now look at his playoff stats:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Career Totals 13 50 6 9 0 0 1 7 12 4 7 1 1 .255 .240 .180
Now, I know he has only played in 13 games and had 50 playoff at-bats, but I think it is more than just a coincidence. He is a great regular season player, but (for lack of a better word) "flops" in the playoffs. Whereas on the flip side, people like Brosius seem to "rise to the occasion" during the playoffs, and have better stats than their career.
My two cents.
ME
Again, how does A-Rod flop? His sample size is small but doesn't differ much from his regular season career.
For the rest: I'll go back to this; if a player couldn't handle the pressure of professional baseball, he never would have made it to the major leagues.
October 25, 2005 at 12:43AM View BBCode
Originally posted by kujayhawks15
What he means is he would rather have A-Rod during the regular season, then have Brosius in the playoffs, where A-Rod flops and Brosius has the best month of his career.
Again, how does A-Rod flop? His sample size is small but doesn't differ much from his regular season career.
For the rest: I'll go back to this; if a player couldn't handle the pressure of professional baseball, he never would have made it to the major leagues.
kujayhawks15
I take back the A-Rod quote, didn't look at his statistics. But my point about Vladdy is still the same, he may be able to deal with the pressures of the regular season, but MAYBE not the post season. I just think he tries too hard and he puts too much pressure on himself, which is natural. I think that his playoff production might go up as he gets older, but as of right now I don't think that he can handle the postseason pressure and still perform at as high a level as he performs during the regular season, where there is less stress.
October 25, 2005 at 12:53AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
Originally posted by kujayhawks15
What he means is he would rather have A-Rod during the regular season, then have Brosius in the playoffs, where A-Rod flops and Brosius has the best month of his career.
Again, how does A-Rod flop? His sample size is small but doesn't differ much from his regular season career.
For the rest: I'll go back to this; if a player couldn't handle the pressure of professional baseball, he never would have made it to the major leagues.
I take back the A-Rod quote, didn't look at his statistics. But my point about Vladdy is still the same, he may be able to deal with the pressures of the regular season, but MAYBE not the post season. I just think he tries too hard and he puts too much pressure on himself, which is natural. I think that his playoff production might go up as he gets older, but as of right now I don't think that he can handle the postseason pressure and still perform at as high a level as he performs during the regular season, where there is less stress.
ME
October 25, 2005 at 01:09AM View BBCode
As for Guerrero, he tore it up at last September (2004) when the Angels were neck-and-neck with the Athletics for the division title. That's certainly a high-pressure situation.
BrutusKhan
One hr every 14 Ab's is real good. You get in a 5 game series how many AB's? 14-20? You're odds of doing anything memoriable is slim, and you have your name on the line as the guy who is supposed to carry the team. Some of it is the unrealistic pressure we put on the power hitters. I loved what Pudge & the rest of Florida did a couple of years ago, going opposite field when they got pitched outside. Put 1st & 3rd a couple innings in a row, & you are bound to score, Hr or not. The most underrated thing the Yankees used to do was wear down the Pedro pitchers, and have a better bullpen than your's is. I mean, the only reason the Yanks lost to the Red Sox was because Rivera finally lost, not anybody else, including A-rod. And the only reason the Diamondbacks won even though Schilling & Randy did great, was again, because Rivera actually lost.
Either way, the White Sox would sweep the Yankees, the Red Sox & any other power team in October with the pressure on while they are playing this loose & pitching this strong. The Astros & the Angels at least made them tight games. Unfortunately, throughout the game for years now, plenty of teams like the Astros & White Sox have missed the playoffs. A power lineup with some pitching is a sure shot at making the playoffs because of the weaker teams. It just doesn't mean crap come October though.
And, because of the early Yankees teams, like 98, I was screaming to trade Carlos Lee last year & get some speed & defense on this team, because we weren't going to outslug the Yanks or Red Sox, and a 70 million dollar power team could never beat a Twin or A's team in October. So, you might as well go for the only thing that could actually win in October if you are a mid to mid-major team.
As to the Yanks, they have no prayer for years with that pitching staff, imo.
October 25, 2005 at 01:42AM View BBCode
Most great hitters who struggle in the post season are the type not to take the walk, but be more of a free swinger, pull the ball guy. The post-season is not only full of pressure that is different than the regular season, but look at the numbers you can't possible compete with:One hr every 14 Ab's is real good. You get in a 5 game series how many AB's? 14-20? You're odds of doing anything memoriable is slim, and you have your name on the line as the guy who is supposed to carry the team. Some of it is the unrealistic pressure we put on the power hitters. I loved what Pudge & the rest of Florida did a couple of years ago, going opposite field when they got pitched outside. Put 1st & 3rd a couple innings in a row, & you are bound to score, Hr or not. The most underrated thing the Yankees used to do was wear down the Pedro pitchers, and have a better bullpen than your's is. I mean, the only reason the Yanks lost to the Red Sox was because Rivera finally lost, not anybody else, including A-rod. And the only reason the Diamondbacks won even though Schilling & Randy did great, was again, because Rivera actually lost.
Either way, the White Sox would sweep the Yankees, the Red Sox & any other power team in October with the pressure on while they are playing this loose & pitching this strong. The Astros & the Angels at least made them tight games. Unfortunately, throughout the game for years now, plenty of teams like the Astros & White Sox have missed the playoffs. A power lineup with some pitching is a sure shot at making the playoffs because of the weaker teams. It just doesn't mean crap come October though.
And, because of the early Yankees teams, like 98, I was screaming to trade Carlos Lee last year & get some speed & defense on this team, because we weren't going to outslug the Yanks or Red Sox, and a 70 million dollar power team could never beat a Twin or A's team in October. So, you might as well go for the only thing that could actually win in October if you are a mid to mid-major team.
As to the Yanks, they have no prayer for years with that pitching staff, imo.
Duff77
October 25, 2005 at 05:12AM View BBCode
The White Sox can win games many different ways. That's why they're successful. The Yankees can increasingly only win games one way, and that might explain why they haven't won more championships lately.
Duff77
I mean I fully believe that emotion matters (to some degree, at least), and that the game cannot be fully understood by statistics, but you can't say A-Rod's a postseason choker based on his last couple years with the Yanks.
One more thing: Managing by the NERV chart is a convenient way to ignore game situations and avoid any real decision-making. If you never try to steal, never try to bunt, never hit and run, never do anything that might risk or give up an out, then you can just blame the players if you don't get the job done. Real managing requires knowing that there are situations with certain hitters and pitchers where that chart is meaningless and has to be ignored.
October 25, 2005 at 05:33AM View BBCode
Oh...and ME... People say A-Rod struggles in the post because he's struggled with THE YANKEES in the post. Meaning, of course, that the sample size is entirely too small to judge anything.I mean I fully believe that emotion matters (to some degree, at least), and that the game cannot be fully understood by statistics, but you can't say A-Rod's a postseason choker based on his last couple years with the Yanks.
One more thing: Managing by the NERV chart is a convenient way to ignore game situations and avoid any real decision-making. If you never try to steal, never try to bunt, never hit and run, never do anything that might risk or give up an out, then you can just blame the players if you don't get the job done. Real managing requires knowing that there are situations with certain hitters and pitchers where that chart is meaningless and has to be ignored.
barterer2002
To be fair, I think he became public enemy number one with many fans when he signed the $250 million dollar contract-even if it ends after 7 years and he doesn't get all $250, that's what people think of with him and say "he's not worth it"
October 25, 2005 at 02:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by skierdude44
Well, that and since he's come to the Yanks he's become public enemy number one to all other baseball fans.
To be fair, I think he became public enemy number one with many fans when he signed the $250 million dollar contract-even if it ends after 7 years and he doesn't get all $250, that's what people think of with him and say "he's not worth it"
Duff77
[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Duff77]
October 25, 2005 at 02:46PM View BBCode
Yeah. A-Rod became evil when he went to Texas. Going to the Yankees brought him signifcantly closer to Satan, but he was most of the way there already. It's amazing how much people read into this stuff, though. I mean would A-Rod have redeemed himself if he'd been traded to the "small market" $123 million Boston Red Sox?[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Duff77]
BrutusKhan
Speaking of going by the numbers, one thing the stats don't show is how differently teams play the A's. Never pitching out, high leg kicks with runners on allowing for better pitching results because everybody knows up front the A's don't believe in giving up outs, or stealing. I think anytime the other team can count on your strategy, or know what you are doing for sure, it is to their advantage on some level. Thus the beauty of Ozzie Guillen, noone on this planet knows what he's going to do, including himself. But, I will say he can be 'overly' aggressive, or sometimes it's his own team pushing the envelope, and not him.
Given the fact that nobody is going to be perfect very long, I'd rather have a team that is pushing than waiting for something to happen, and in the end, I'll take my chances with a team built 'like' the White Sox over most of the teams I've seen the last ten years. Injuries obviously play a role, luck & timing as well. Bartolo Colon makes a difference, as Anaheim is similar to the White Sox. Look at Josh Beckett healthy, along with a healthy Pierre/Castillo. Night & day on that team. So, everything aside, for the regular season, I'd pay A-ROD 25 million. He's yet to not live up to it, and there are very, very, very few in history who can play defense, run & put up his numbers every year, say the right things, look the right way, and not have those 'off' years. However, come the post season, minus Manny Ramirez, Reggie Jackson, Carlos Beltran, Joe Morgan and anybody on that Toronto Blue Jay lineup back in their back-to-back run, that I'd say is a lock to due crap come the post-season. So, you win in the post with pitching & timely hits, and some luck, and anybody paying a hitter big money hoping for anything in the playoffs, is a bad gambler, because history is on my side in this argument.
And at last, how is it if you are talking about Ozzie Guillen, a New Yorker always turns it into a Yankee conversation. Amazing. I could see if you'd won the WS last year, and got knocked out this year, to be talking about your team right now, but all the times the White Sox season ended, I always just moved onto to something else for a while.
Doug
October 25, 2005 at 09:09PM View BBCode
If any of you have ever cashed a large check, you will remember how much it changed your opinion of yourself. And, I think most of the time a player cashes in, it changes them somewhat. Now, not all big time hitters struggle in the post, Manny Ramirez comes to mind. Reggie Jackson, and obviously we could go on. But, I think when a hitter goes up to the plate trying to do too much he is beaten before he starts. And the pitcher is willing to walk the big guys in the post rather than let them beat them. So, it only gets further stretched out into bad numbers.Speaking of going by the numbers, one thing the stats don't show is how differently teams play the A's. Never pitching out, high leg kicks with runners on allowing for better pitching results because everybody knows up front the A's don't believe in giving up outs, or stealing. I think anytime the other team can count on your strategy, or know what you are doing for sure, it is to their advantage on some level. Thus the beauty of Ozzie Guillen, noone on this planet knows what he's going to do, including himself. But, I will say he can be 'overly' aggressive, or sometimes it's his own team pushing the envelope, and not him.
Given the fact that nobody is going to be perfect very long, I'd rather have a team that is pushing than waiting for something to happen, and in the end, I'll take my chances with a team built 'like' the White Sox over most of the teams I've seen the last ten years. Injuries obviously play a role, luck & timing as well. Bartolo Colon makes a difference, as Anaheim is similar to the White Sox. Look at Josh Beckett healthy, along with a healthy Pierre/Castillo. Night & day on that team. So, everything aside, for the regular season, I'd pay A-ROD 25 million. He's yet to not live up to it, and there are very, very, very few in history who can play defense, run & put up his numbers every year, say the right things, look the right way, and not have those 'off' years. However, come the post season, minus Manny Ramirez, Reggie Jackson, Carlos Beltran, Joe Morgan and anybody on that Toronto Blue Jay lineup back in their back-to-back run, that I'd say is a lock to due crap come the post-season. So, you win in the post with pitching & timely hits, and some luck, and anybody paying a hitter big money hoping for anything in the playoffs, is a bad gambler, because history is on my side in this argument.
And at last, how is it if you are talking about Ozzie Guillen, a New Yorker always turns it into a Yankee conversation. Amazing. I could see if you'd won the WS last year, and got knocked out this year, to be talking about your team right now, but all the times the White Sox season ended, I always just moved onto to something else for a while.
Doug
Duff77
That's a great point. One I haven't heard before, but it certainly makes sense.
October 26, 2005 at 02:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by BrutusKhan
Speaking of going by the numbers, one thing the stats don't show is how differently teams play the A's. Never pitching out, high leg kicks with runners on allowing for better pitching results because everybody knows up front the A's don't believe in giving up outs, or stealing. I think anytime the other team can count on your strategy, or know what you are doing for sure, it is to their advantage on some level.
That's a great point. One I haven't heard before, but it certainly makes sense.
ME
They also don't take strikes to give the runners a chance to steal. Baseball Prospectus did a study on how basestealing threats on base affecting hitters at the plate, and it showed that it either had no effect or a slight negative effect, because hitters will take strikes to give guys a chance to steal, and this makes more of an impact than pitchouts.
October 27, 2005 at 06:02AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Originally posted by BrutusKhan
Speaking of going by the numbers, one thing the stats don't show is how differently teams play the A's. Never pitching out, high leg kicks with runners on allowing for better pitching results because everybody knows up front the A's don't believe in giving up outs, or stealing. I think anytime the other team can count on your strategy, or know what you are doing for sure, it is to their advantage on some level.
That's a great point. One I haven't heard before, but it certainly makes sense.
They also don't take strikes to give the runners a chance to steal. Baseball Prospectus did a study on how basestealing threats on base affecting hitters at the plate, and it showed that it either had no effect or a slight negative effect, because hitters will take strikes to give guys a chance to steal, and this makes more of an impact than pitchouts.
Duff77
October 27, 2005 at 06:57PM View BBCode
If you never run, though, it's got to have some effect on a pitcher's mindset. We already know batting averages go up with men on base because pitchers have something else to think about. Seems to me that if you can forget about the runners you're better off.
yankeekid
October 28, 2005 at 12:11PM View BBCode
If you forget about the runnres they'll steal all over you. There is reason that people worry about the runners and throw over there every once in a while.
youngallstar
October 28, 2005 at 02:47PM View BBCode
I always wondered why pitchers occasionally throw to bases that had runners on them from time to time as opposed to throwing to bases with no runners
yankeekid
He said this and I was just pointing out that if you foget about the runners its not gonna work out too well.
October 28, 2005 at 06:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Seems to me that if you can forget about the runners you're better off.
He said this and I was just pointing out that if you foget about the runners its not gonna work out too well.
BrutusKhan
Compare a hitter like Iguchi who can bunt & control the bat(ie hit to the right side of the infield) as opposed to Figgins, a straight hack. Iguchi is going to give you effective AB's w/ or without the first couple of pitches.
Look at when Podsednik's hamstring was 100% during the first half. Uguchi's average was still decent, although lower than if he was just hitting away. But, Carl Everett's RBI & production was through the roof. And, getting that first run across, even though you miss out on scoring 2 runs, can give your pitcher the lead, and make him more comfortable. You rarely see complete games from pitchers who lost the game. It does happen, just more times than not, the CG comes with the win also.
I've read articles & studies by Baseball Prospectus & a few other publications, and while they come close to quantifying the effects of aggressive speed, I've watched too many pitchers fall apart when the Kenny Lofton or Rickey Hendersons get on base. And, during the first half while healthy, Podsednik was that player. And once the Sox got labeled small ball it stayed. But, I wouldn't say in the playoffs they even closely resembled a small ball team.
I will say, I thought Houston playing small ball in Game 3 & 4 by bunting with Taveras when Biggio led off with singles was a big mistake. The entire lineup had 3 hitters in it, and Taveras was one of them. As soon as Garner let him sacrifice, Berkman was guaranteed to be pitched around, or walked, and he just lost one of the best chances on the team to get an extra base hit.
October 28, 2005 at 07:56PM View BBCode
Well, I think a team needs to have the right make-up in their lineup, and you have to factor in a good lead off hitter, a good 2 hitter, and good RBI guys in the 3/4 holes. Frank Thomas used to suck if he had a fast guy trying to steal in front of him, as he even openly complained about it, asking them not to run when he was batting!Compare a hitter like Iguchi who can bunt & control the bat(ie hit to the right side of the infield) as opposed to Figgins, a straight hack. Iguchi is going to give you effective AB's w/ or without the first couple of pitches.
Look at when Podsednik's hamstring was 100% during the first half. Uguchi's average was still decent, although lower than if he was just hitting away. But, Carl Everett's RBI & production was through the roof. And, getting that first run across, even though you miss out on scoring 2 runs, can give your pitcher the lead, and make him more comfortable. You rarely see complete games from pitchers who lost the game. It does happen, just more times than not, the CG comes with the win also.
I've read articles & studies by Baseball Prospectus & a few other publications, and while they come close to quantifying the effects of aggressive speed, I've watched too many pitchers fall apart when the Kenny Lofton or Rickey Hendersons get on base. And, during the first half while healthy, Podsednik was that player. And once the Sox got labeled small ball it stayed. But, I wouldn't say in the playoffs they even closely resembled a small ball team.
I will say, I thought Houston playing small ball in Game 3 & 4 by bunting with Taveras when Biggio led off with singles was a big mistake. The entire lineup had 3 hitters in it, and Taveras was one of them. As soon as Garner let him sacrifice, Berkman was guaranteed to be pitched around, or walked, and he just lost one of the best chances on the team to get an extra base hit.
Pages: 1 2