Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#22439 - 01/09/07 03:15 PM SmallBall
elan71 Offline
Baby Jay

Registered: 04/15/03
Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
it is going to be an interesting year in the mlb. i think that you are going to see a lot more teams going to small ball this next season. with the whole steroids scandal, there have been less home runs, and i think the trend will continue. i think that you'll see a lot more teams play like the angels did a few years ago.
_________________________
"one beaker for another" philippians 4:13

Top
#22440 - 01/09/07 03:35 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: elan71]
Hawk1990 Offline
US Marshal, Kansas Territory

Registered: 09/03/06
Loc: Shawnee, KS
Highly doubtful. In both leagues, runs and homers were both up last year over the prior year's totals and are also higher than '03, the last year without mandatory steroid testing.

Plus, small ball (sac bunts, steals, etc.) just doesn't work in the long haul. Anaheim was successful in '02 because they were 4th in the league in on-base percentage and 6th in slugging. Lo and behold, the finished 4th in runs. Couple that with the lowest ERA in the league, and you get wins.

Top
#22441 - 01/09/07 05:00 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: Hawk1990]
elan71 Offline
Baby Jay

Registered: 04/15/03
Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
i still think that small ball will play a big part this year. a lot of teams don't have big power hitters. it'll be an interesting mix.
_________________________
"one beaker for another" philippians 4:13

Top
#22442 - 01/10/07 09:24 AM Re: SmallBall [Re: elan71]
ManhattanHawk7 Offline
Pure Jayhawk

Registered: 02/18/04
Loc: Castle Rock
Small ball is more prevalent in the NL without the DH. With that said I don't see many teams trying what the Angles did last year. Besides the Angles have spent the offseason trying to aquire power to go along with the best RH hitter in baseball, Vlad.

Even without big homerun hitters you don't need to play small ball. Get a couple of linedrive hitters that can find the gaps and put guys with good OBP in front of them and now you're more power than small ball.
_________________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Top
#22443 - 01/10/07 09:36 AM Re: SmallBall [Re: ManhattanHawk7]
tubby Offline
Nooshie!!!

Registered: 11/28/06
Loc: outside the box
i think we saw small ball 2 years ago when the league really cracked down on 'roids. i think teams are working back towards more strategy and fundamentals (thus a move to small ball) because they see success that teams like the White Sox, Angels, and many others have had with it.
_________________________
http://www.myspace.com/_tubby

Top
#22444 - 01/10/07 10:49 AM Re: SmallBall [Re: tubby]
elan71 Offline
Baby Jay

Registered: 04/15/03
Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
It'll be interesting to see how the Dodgers season goes. There team is built around speed and solid hitters. They are going to have to use small ball a lot this season.
_________________________
"one beaker for another" philippians 4:13

Top
#22445 - 01/10/07 10:58 AM Re: SmallBall [Re: elan71]
tubby Offline
Nooshie!!!

Registered: 11/28/06
Loc: outside the box
the dodgers seem to be on an every-other-year plan, they are up one year, down the next. they have to be built for small ball, that is the only way to effectively play in the NL West. sh*t, those parks are gi-normous. chavez ravine, PetCo, and PacBell or whatever they call it these days.....you need a lot of baserunners.
_________________________
http://www.myspace.com/_tubby

Top
#22446 - 01/10/07 01:19 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: tubby]
Hawk1990 Offline
US Marshal, Kansas Territory

Registered: 09/03/06
Loc: Shawnee, KS
Quote:

i think we saw small ball 2 years ago when the league really cracked down on 'roids. i think teams are working back towards more strategy and fundamentals (thus a move to small ball) because they see success that teams like the White Sox, Angels, and many others have had with it.




Again, the Angels' success was NOT due to traditional smallball tactics like sacrifies and steals. They followed the same formula as the overwhelming majority of successful offensive teams - they got on base and hit for extra-base power. It really is that simple.

And the White Sox success had nothing at all to do with smallball. The were in the bottom half of the league in scoring the year they won the World Series. They won because they had the best pitching in the league and whatever success they had offensively is directly attributable to the fact that they were 4th in the league in home runs. That's not smallball, that's the classic Earl Weaver school of thought - keep the score low and wait for the 3-run homer.

Top
#22447 - 01/10/07 01:23 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: elan71]
Hawk1990 Offline
US Marshal, Kansas Territory

Registered: 09/03/06
Loc: Shawnee, KS
Not really. The Dodgers were 4th in scoring last year almost entirely because they led the NL in team on-base percentage and were sixth in slugging. That is the simplest formula in history for scoring runs.

Top
#22448 - 01/10/07 01:45 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: Hawk1990]
tubby Offline
Nooshie!!!

Registered: 11/28/06
Loc: outside the box
while the pale hose were 4th in the league in HRs, they were 10th of 14 in terms of extra base hits. they hit a lot of singles....got guys on base....moved them over with bunts. then pretty frequently Konerko and the boys would put on a brief show of "gorilla ball". but the WS certainly were a small ball team the year they won it all.
_________________________
http://www.myspace.com/_tubby

Top
#22449 - 01/10/07 01:59 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: tubby]
Hawk1990 Offline
US Marshal, Kansas Territory

Registered: 09/03/06
Loc: Shawnee, KS
Quote:

while the pale hose were 4th in the league in HRs, they were 10th of 14 in terms of extra base hits. they hit a lot of singles....got guys on base....moved them over with bunts. then pretty frequently Konerko and the boys would put on a brief show of "gorilla ball". but the WS certainly were a small ball team the year they won it all.




That's a myth. The White Sox averaged 5 runs per game in that World Series. They scored 40% of their runs on homers and 65% on extra-base hits. They scored the grand total of ONE run in an inning where they laid down a sac bunt.

Top
#22450 - 01/10/07 02:00 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: Hawk1990]
tubby Offline
Nooshie!!!

Registered: 11/28/06
Loc: outside the box
i am talking about the season, amigo.
_________________________
http://www.myspace.com/_tubby

Top
#22451 - 01/10/07 02:53 PM Re: SmallBall [Re: tubby]
Hawk1990 Offline
US Marshal, Kansas Territory

Registered: 09/03/06
Loc: Shawnee, KS
Quote:

i am talking about the season, amigo.




Sorry, it's still a myth. Lots of steals attempts and sac bunts that year got them an offense that was 9th in runs among 14 teams, and if not for their big homer total, it would have been far worse. They wasted a ton of baserunners and outs (no one sacrificed more or was caught stealing more), and coupled with their failure to be patient at the plate (11th in OBP, 11th in walks), they rarely had anyone one base in front of their power hitters. They were still more dependent upon homers to score than any team in the league except Texas. Subtract their homers from their total runs and they finish 13th in scoring that year, one run in front of Baltimore. They didn't "smallball" their way into many runs at all. They won by hitting lots of homers and playing good defense behind a really good pitching staff. That's straight from Earl Weaver's book, only not executed as well because of all the wasted runners and outs sprinkled through the season.

Top

Preview