Small Ball

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Small Ball

     Lovers of "small ball" rejoice---down a run at 7-6 in the bottom of the 5th inning with runners on 1st and second and noone out Tito has Sutton up there to bunt. I can't believe my eyes when he lays down a perfect bunt and the throw is wild at 1st base. When the dust settles both base runners have scored on the play and Sutton winds up at third; and the score is now 8-7 Sox and still there are no outs. Contrary to what some folks on this site proclaim bunting doesn't always produce an out and even when it does produce one it used to be called a "productive out" because it got the runner (s) into scoring position and took off the double play.
     We probably won't see this tactic for another month or so---if then--- but I, for one, got a real thrill from watching the mayhem that unfolded.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from thewags. Show thewags's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Tito will save the next small ball gem for the postseason, but it was great to see this last night. or maybe he'll have sutton have 1 more rep to practice in August, after all, lots of practice makes perfect.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    The fact is that the Red Sox philosophy is not to bunt, sacrifice, and give up outs compared to other teams. Chalk it up to Moneyball principles, Bill James, historic makeup of the team, owner / FO perogative. Once you realize this then multiple threads about their their failure to gamble are moot.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    You know, I often wonder why more AL managers don't do this sort of thing more often. Given that many AL teams have no idea how to defend against it....and usually botch the play because they don't practice it enough.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Small Ball:
    [QUOTE] Lovers of "small ball" rejoice---down a run at 7-6 in the bottom of the 5th inning with runners on 1st and second and noone out Tito has Sutton up there to bunt. I can't believe my eyes when he lays down a perfect bunt and the throw is wild at 1st base. When the dust settles both base runners have scored on the play and Sutton winds up at third; and the score is now 8-7 Sox and still there are no outs. Contrary to what some folks on this site proclaim bunting doesn't always produce an out and even when it does produce one it used to be called a "productive out" because it got the runner (s) into scoring position and took off the double play.  We probably won't see this tactic for another month or so---if then--- but I, for one, got a real thrill from watching the mayhem that unfolded.
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    Right person to do it in the right situation.  If it is Pedroia at the plate (*see the 'why no small ball' critique from previous game), it is not really so smart.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]The fact is that the Red Sox philosophy is not to bunt, sacrifice, and give up outs compared to other teams. Chalk it up to Moneyball principles, Bill James, historic makeup of the team, owner / FO perogative. Once you realize this then multiple threads about their their failure to gamble are moot.
    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]
     Did you happen to notice that no out was given up? Often when the bunt is executed really well, pressure on the 3rd baseman or pitcher to even get the guy at first causes them to fling the ball into right field. I understand that there are different philosophies about the tactic, but as it was used last night it was a thing of beauty.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Folks the RS do what they do because the when the data is all accumulated and crunched the results states that the bunt will only marginal increase your chances of scoring one run and will radically impair your ability to score multiple runs.

    Why? Well aside from forcing a miscue with the bunt like RS did last night, also sprinkled in there is an unsuccessful bunt (out nobody advances) and the two failed attempts and the batter in a hole and he strikes out advancing no one.

    At any rate this is how the RS view this. And it isn't the manager running on his own half cocked. It is embraced by the GM, his staff and the ownership. It is who the RS are.

    If you don't like it, you are rooting for the jersey and not the organization but this is who the organization is. They are an organization that puts a heavy reliance on statistical probability and use it in everything from the draft, player acquisition, player retention to in game tactics.

    If you really like "small ball" and a general disdain for statisical probabilty may I recommend the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. They won a World Series back in 2002.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from steelheadfisherman. Show steelheadfisherman's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Often when you bunt, they charge hard, trow out the lead runner and you accomplish nothing.
    Small ball is bad baseball most of the time.
    Outs are the currency of baseball to give one up to move up one base is selling yourself short.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]Folks the RS do what they do because the when the data is all accumulated and crunched the results states that the bunt will only marginal increase your chances of scoring one run and will radically impair your ability to score multiple runs. Why? Well aside from forcing a miscue with the bunt like RS did last night, also sprinkled in there is an unsuccessful bunt (out nobody advances) and the two failed attempts and the batter in a hole and he strikes out advancing no one. At any rate this is how the RS view this. And it isn't the manager running on his own half cocked. It is embraced by the GM, his staff and the ownership. It is who the RS are. If you don't like it, you are rooting for the jersey and not the organization but this is who the organization is. They are an organization that puts a heavy reliance on statistical probability and use it in everything from the draft, player acquisition, player retention to in game tactics. If you really like "small ball" and a general disdain for statisical probabilty may I recommend the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. They won a World Series back in 2002.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]
     I don't disagree with your analysis of the Red Sox approach to "small ball" but I would respond that there are times such as the recent 14 inning affair where  you don't need "multiple runs" but only one more run to win a ball game. There are also times when the hitter is statistically weak, that getting a "productive out" from him is more likely to occur than a base hit---say with guys like MacDonald, Sutton, or even Scutaro. In any event, the Sox are still my team and when they occasionally pull off a terrific feat of small ball as they did last night it'll invariably make me smile.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Bunting is the easiest skill to learn in baseball, if it's practiced. Why do you think the rules are made to penalize a failed third strike bunt attempt?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from thewags. Show thewags's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]Bunting is the easiest skill to learn in baseball, if it's practiced. Why do you think the rules are made to penalize a failed third strike bunt attempt?
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    I mean, getting a bat on a bunt isnt as hard as taking a full swing. I think its so that hitters dont intentionally foul off pitches with a bunt to inflate pitch count.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Small Ball

       I don't understand the fascination people have with the bunt, never have never will. Name me the last time a team that played small-ball as their basic offense actually won anything. I have to go back to the sixties Dodgers.Many times a bunt takes the bat out of two hitters hands, because after a successful bunt, if good hitter follows he is intentionally walked to set up DP. Then next hitter is matched up with relief specialist. I don't have stats, but from watching many NL games on DTV, the bunt even when successful doesn't lead to the team scoring.There is no more overrated play in baseball.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Small Ball :  I don't disagree with your analysis of the Red Sox approach to "small ball" but I would respond that there are times such as the recent 14 inning affair where  you don't need "multiple runs" but only one more run to win a ball game. There are also times when the hitter is statistically weak, that getting a "productive out" from him is more likely to occur than a base hit---say with guys like MacDonald, Sutton, or even Scutaro. In any event, the Sox are still my team and when they occasionally pull off a terrific feat of small ball as they did last night it'll invariably make me smile.
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    Didn't Francona actually call for a squeeze bunt in that 14 inning game?  And didn't it result in the runner on third getting caught in a rundown because Scutaro missed the signal but the rookie Reddick did not?  And didn't the MLB channel last night carry a discussion by our former thirdbaseman Mike Lowell about how to intercept the bunt signals coming from the bench and thus be ready for the squeeze bunt?  

    I like bunts because we see so few of them, but it's awfully hard to fault the Sox approach to hitting and offense in general.   
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]Tito will save the next small ball gem for the postseason, but it was great to see this last night. or maybe he'll have sutton have 1 more rep to practice in August, after all, lots of practice makes perfect.
    Posted by thewags[/QUOTE]

    Too funny - small ball in game they won 13-9.  Maybe if they play a team the caliber of KC in the post season the bunt will be as successful.

    How many earned runs as a result of the small ball?  0.

    Reddick singles.  Ellsbury singles.  Sutton sac bunts, Scuturo draws a walk.  Agon singles.  Pedroia singles.  Ortiz Singles.  Crawford singles.

    8 guyes come to the plate and 6 get hits,  1 draws a walk,  and they were willing to sacrifice to move the runner.  Doesn't make sense to me.  Why give up the out?

    I can understand a hit and run - but a sac bunt?  Not smart.  This is definitely one of those situations where they won dispite tito.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Small Ball : Too funny - small ball in game they won 13-9.  Maybe if they play a team the caliber of KC in the post season the bunt will be as successful. How many earned runs as a result of the small ball?  0. Reddick singles.  Ellsbury singles.  Sutton sac bunts, Scuturo draws a walk.  Agon singles.  Pedroia singles.  Ortiz Singles.  Crawford singles. 8 guyes come to the plate and 6 get hits,  1 draws a walk,  and they were willing to sacrifice to move the runner.  Doesn't make sense to me.  Why give up the out? I can understand a hit and run - but a sac bunt?  Not smart.  This is definitely one of those situations where they won dispite tito.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    The Sox were down 2, 7-5, with men on first and second and nobody out.  A good bunt gives both Scutaro and AGon a chance to get the tie with a single.  Plus, based on the evidence, Sutton is a very good bunter but might not be so great at hit and run. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Small Ball : The Sox were down 2, 7-5, with men on first and second and nobody out.  A good bunt gives both Scutaro and AGon a chance to get the tie with a single.  Plus, based on the evidence, Sutton is a very good bunter but might not be so great at hit and run. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

      If A-Gon gets to hit in above circumstance, he gets intentionally walked, so the bunt not only gave up an out, but took the bat out of your best run producer.
     

Share