Small Ball

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Javi60. Show Javi60's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Right and my point is that it is a skill that can be acquired with practice.  If you can get base hits, you can lay down a sacrifice bunt.  We aren't talking about bunting for infield hits here.  You are giving yourself up.  Fielder at 1B, a righty........you can't bunt it over to him and get the runner from 2b to 3b?  pathetic.   i think they are teaching guys to swing for the fences because K's don't matter and HR's get you big contracts............

    [/QUOTE]

    Middlebrooks is actually not a bad bunter.

    This talk of bunting skill actually clouds the issue.

    The issue really is whether it was clear cut to bunt in that situation.

    And the answer is no.

    Not because Middlebrooks only swings for the fences to go for the big contract.

    But because there is a guy on second with no outs and a power bat at the plate.  The "book" says this is actually a better situation to swing away in.

    And, even if a great bunter squares away in that situation, the chance for success is still greatly diminished against Verlander.  

    This I'm Smarter Than Farrell talk is hilarious.  

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem  is there are pundits that deny the fans commited to nitty gritty aspects of the game the right to contradict a manager decision at a given time, wether it succeeds or fail... For instance  there was an important game in which a faster runner should have been called to replace Nava at second with the potential winning run, minutes later Nava was gunned down at the plate... the play was critized everywhere, not only in these boards but in the media as well...where do we stand?... Just listen each Saturday as I do the Baseball Show... Many forget it is the fans that substancially sustain the Game...

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

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to Javi60's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Right and my point is that it is a skill that can be acquired with practice.  If you can get base hits, you can lay down a sacrifice bunt.  We aren't talking about bunting for infield hits here.  You are giving yourself up.  Fielder at 1B, a righty........you can't bunt it over to him and get the runner from 2b to 3b?  pathetic.   i think they are teaching guys to swing for the fences because K's don't matter and HR's get you big contracts............

    [/QUOTE]

    Middlebrooks is actually not a bad bunter.

    This talk of bunting skill actually clouds the issue.

    The issue really is whether it was clear cut to bunt in that situation.

    And the answer is no.

    Not because Middlebrooks only swings for the fences to go for the big contract.

    But because there is a guy on second with no outs and a power bat at the plate.  The "book" says this is actually a better situation to swing away in.

    And, even if a great bunter squares away in that situation, the chance for success is still greatly diminished against Verlander.  

    This I'm Smarter Than Farrell talk is hilarious.  

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem  is there are pundits that deny the fans commited to nitty gritty aspects of the game the right to contradict a manager decision at a given time, wether it succeeds or fail... For instance  there was an important game in which a faster runner should have been called to replace Nava at second with the potential winning run, minutes later Nava was gunned down at the plate... the play was critized everywhere, not only in these boards but in the media as well...where do we stand?... Just listen each Saturday as I do the Baseball Show... Many forget it is the fans that substancially sustain the Game...

    [/QUOTE]

    No one would deny fans are committed to the nitty gritty aspects of the game.  But often, one is left to wonder if certain fans reallu understand the nitty gritty aspects of the game.

     

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

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not to many managers are going to bunt with no one outs a man on second. No need to give away an out when the runners already in scoring position...

    [/QUOTE] You get him to 3rd and you can score a run without a base hit.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Small Ball


    I think I finally get it.  Middlebrooks failed to bunt last night because Farrell didn't tell him to.  Therefore Farrell doesn't know how to manage a MLB club. 

    Wait a minute.  Didn't the Sox go from 69 wins in 2012 to 97 wins in 2013 after Farrell became manager?  And didn't the Sox lead MLB in runs scored--by a bunch--this year with Farrell as manager?  Didn't the Sox take 3 of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS with Farrell as manager and aren't they now leading the Tigers 2-1 in the ALCS?  And who won the game last night that Farrell badly mismanaged? 

    I'm sorry, gang, but this just doesn't pass the straight face test. Small ball is great fun to watch for us fans, but it isn't the only way to win a ballgame.  Bill James sabermetrics say bunts are almost always a bad idea because they give up outs. 

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

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's not great strategy to bunt there.  You give up an out to move a guy from second to third.   You've got Verlander on the mound who's already struck out 10 including Ellsbury.  There's a good chance Verlander can strike him out or pop him up.  No guarantee at all that Ellsbury can get the runner in even if you do execute the bunt.

     

    [/QUOTE] Got to disagree. Often enough the bunted ball is thrown into right field and everyone is safe, especially when the pitcher is forced to handle the ball, so while it is most likely an out it isn't always. And Cabrera can hardly move out there. Wouldn't that be a factor? If you force him to field the bunt maybe he'll screw it up. My sense is that every major league player with the exception of the big thumpers should be able to lay one down in a crucial game. The biggest plus for me is that you get the runner to 3rd and you don't need a base hit to bring him home. These have all been 1 run games and I thought an insurance run in that spot would have been hugh.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to trouts' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Got to disagree. Often enough the bunted ball is thrown into right field and everyone is safe, especially when the pitcher is forced to handle the ball, so while it is most likely an out it isn't always. And Cabrera can hardly move out there. Wouldn't that be a factor? If you force him to field the bunt maybe he'll screw it up. My sense is that every major league player with the exception of the big thumpers should be able to lay one down in a crucial game. The biggest plus for me is that you get the runner to 3rd and you don't need a base hit to bring him home. These have all been 1 run games and I thought an insurance run in that spot would have been hugh.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can't leave out the fact that you're totalling bypassing the opportunity for Middlebrooks to knock in the run with a single, or better a double, or much better a home run.  Also Middlebrooks could move Drew to third with a fly ball. 

    There are a lot of permutations and combinations. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I think I finally get it.  Middlebrooks failed to bunt last night because Farrell didn't tell him to.  Therefore Farrell doesn't know how to manage a MLB club. 

    Wait a minute.  Didn't the Sox go from 69 wins in 2012 to 97 wins in 2013 after Farrell became manager?  And didn't the Sox lead MLB in runs scored--by a bunch--this year with Farrell as manager?  Didn't the Sox take 3 of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS with Farrell as manager and aren't they now leading the Tigers 2-1 in the ALCS?  And who won the game last night that Farrell badly mismanaged? 

    I'm sorry, gang, but this just doesn't pass the straight face test. Small ball is great fun to watch for us fans, but it isn't the only way to win a ballgame.  Bill James sabermetrics say bunts are almost always a bad idea because they give up outs. 

    [/QUOTE]


    i hear you max, but I do have a straight face.  and as i have been a big supporter today of "the bunt" in yesterdays situation I will respond.  Farrell has done and amazing job. as has Ben C.  and the players.  SP, RP, fielders, utility guys.  all of them.

    JF turning this club from worst to first has nothing to do with the 8th inning yesterday.  a case can be made that the bunt should have been utilized.  a case can be made that he should swing away.  it is easier after the fact for me to come here and type "he should have bunted" since swinging away obviously did not work and we didn't score the insurance run.  but I can say unequivocally that I was screaming at my TV yesterday evening saying "bunt, bunt".  doesnt mean to say it would have worked and doesnt mean to say that i was right.  i just felt that was the right play with a 1-run lead, 8th inning, on the road, ALCS game 3, against a pitcher with swing and miss stuff all day, without a runner reaching 3b, with a hobbled 3bman, and the leadoff hitter on deck.  

    when all is said and done the Sox got the W.  HUGE W.  the bottom of the 8th would have been less of a heart attack for me with 2 on the board but the RP's did the job. 

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to trouts' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Got to disagree. Often enough the bunted ball is thrown into right field and everyone is safe, especially when the pitcher is forced to handle the ball, so while it is most likely an out it isn't always. And Cabrera can hardly move out there. Wouldn't that be a factor? If you force him to field the bunt maybe he'll screw it up. My sense is that every major league player with the exception of the big thumpers should be able to lay one down in a crucial game. The biggest plus for me is that you get the runner to 3rd and you don't need a base hit to bring him home. These have all been 1 run games and I thought an insurance run in that spot would have been hugh.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can't leave out the fact that you're totalling bypassing the opportunity for Middlebrooks to knock in the run with a single, or better a double, or much better a home run.  Also Middlebrooks could move Drew to third with a fly ball. 

    There are a lot of permutations and combinations. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, what are the odds of Middlebrooks able to get a single vs Ellsbury's odds of getting a sac fly or a ground ball that could get the runner in? 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, what are the odds of Middlebrooks able to get a single vs Ellsbury's odds of getting a sac fly or a ground ball that could get the runner in? 

    [/QUOTE]

    They're difficult to calculate, that's what they are.

    Statistical studies have been done on this.  They show that there is a *slightly* increased chance of scoring one run with a runner on third, one out, compared to a runner on second, no outs.  There is also a reduced chance of scoring more than one run. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to trouts' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Got to disagree. Often enough the bunted ball is thrown into right field and everyone is safe, especially when the pitcher is forced to handle the ball, so while it is most likely an out it isn't always. And Cabrera can hardly move out there. Wouldn't that be a factor? If you force him to field the bunt maybe he'll screw it up. My sense is that every major league player with the exception of the big thumpers should be able to lay one down in a crucial game. The biggest plus for me is that you get the runner to 3rd and you don't need a base hit to bring him home. These have all been 1 run games and I thought an insurance run in that spot would have been hugh.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can't leave out the fact that you're totalling bypassing the opportunity for Middlebrooks to knock in the run with a single, or better a double, or much better a home run.  Also Middlebrooks could move Drew to third with a fly ball. 

    There are a lot of permutations and combinations. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, what are the odds of Middlebrooks able to get a single vs Ellsbury's odds of getting a sac fly or a ground ball that could get the runner in? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you factoring in the odds of Middlebrooks getting a sacrifice bunt down against one of the most difficult pitchers in baseball to drop down a successful bunt against?  Probably not, but Farrell did.  

    Part of the fun of watching baseball is second guessing decisions made by the managers, but don't ever think for a second that as fans, we know more than they do.  They have access to information that fans don't, such as how a particular player is feeling on any given day, they have experienced coaches at their disposal to discuss each situation with, they have statistical data that most fans couldn't comprehend and at the end of the day, it's up to the players to execute.  

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, what are the odds of Middlebrooks able to get a single vs Ellsbury's odds of getting a sac fly or a ground ball that could get the runner in? 

    [/QUOTE]

    They're difficult to calculate, that's what they are.

    Statistical studies have been done on this.  They show that there is a *slightly* increased chance of scoring one run with a runner on third, one out, compared to a runner on second, no outs.  There is also a reduced chance of scoring more than one run. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    that's not what i asked

    i asked you to compare Middlebrooks odds of getting a single vs Ellsbury's odds of getting the run in from 3rd w/ less than 2 men out

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    that's not what i asked

    i asked you to compare Middlebrooks odds of getting a single vs Ellsbury's odds of getting the run in from 3rd w/ less than 2 men out

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't have those numbers and wouldn't know where to look.  But if you find them I'd love to see them.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not obssessed with Trumbo.

    I am obssessed with contingency plans.

    And we need a middle of the order bat for next year.

    If you don't like Trumbo, then who would you prefer?; and it needs to be someone who is realistically available.

    The thing w/ Trumbo is he would hit 40 HR's w/ 81 games in Fenway, he can play LF or 1B (or DH), he is not expensive/under control, and he is still young and developing.  You have to take  chance of buying low.  If you just go after guys who have proven past records you will end up broke and miserable; see Brian Cashman's new york yankees......

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Rest assured once the season ends one way or the other, I will be making numerous posts about the players I feel are solid alternatives.   However, if we win it all, minimizing turnover is not necessarily a bad idea.

    That said, recommending the status quo is not usually my style, simply because it makes for boring posts.  “Hey, let’s do nothing! Discuss!” 

    As for buying low, etc. it’s really the kind of thing I recommend, the Hidden Gems, as I refer to them.  I NEVER recommend going all out for a heavy cost free agent, although I do predict that happens on occasion.  From the hidden gems, some will pan out.  Some will not.  Last off-season, I adamantly recommended Justin Smoak as a buy-low hidden gem.  He did not pan out at all.  I also recommended Will Venable and Francisco Liriano.  They did.  I probably bat less than .500, but I will support even the most outrageous suggestions with something I think is plausible.

    Trumbo, however, will not be anywhere near my list.  First, I question his availability.  He might be movable, but the low cost might keep him around.  But really, I have two problems with him.  First, he isn’t very good. And second, he does not give me any reason to think he will ever get any better. And while age might be on his side, he really is not THAT young. (He will be 28 in January.)  Sure Fenway might help him, but let’s not go overboard here.  His numbers in Boston are nice, but the sample size is so small no conclusion should be drawn from it.

    So, this offseason, I will certainly make some posts about alternatives / other players / buy low candidates.  Nothing crazy like “Hey let’s get Mike Trout and Andrew McCutchen!!” that wil clearly never happen.  And people will read my thoughts  and say “THAT guy? Really?”  I will offer my logic and support, and some will say “OK.  It makes sense now.”  Others will say “THAT guy? Really?” 

    I do plan on throwing around the phrase “The Next Josh Donaldson” a lot.  And I figure many in the media to do so as well.  Possibly even more recklessly than I do, but I am up for that challenge.

    And either way,  Cherington will completely ignore them, and any overlap in names on my list and players he actually acquires will be purely coincidental…

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I think I finally get it.  Middlebrooks failed to bunt last night because Farrell didn't tell him to.  Therefore Farrell doesn't know how to manage a MLB club. 

    Wait a minute.  Didn't the Sox go from 69 wins in 2012 to 97 wins in 2013 after Farrell became manager?  And didn't the Sox lead MLB in runs scored--by a bunch--this year with Farrell as manager?  Didn't the Sox take 3 of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS with Farrell as manager and aren't they now leading the Tigers 2-1 in the ALCS?  And who won the game last night that Farrell badly mismanaged? 

    I'm sorry, gang, but this just doesn't pass the straight face test. Small ball is great fun to watch for us fans, but it isn't the only way to win a ballgame.  Bill James sabermetrics say bunts are almost always a bad idea because they give up outs. 

    [/QUOTE]


    i hear you max, but I do have a straight face.  and as i have been a big supporter today of "the bunt" in yesterdays situation I will respond.  Farrell has done and amazing job. as has Ben C.  and the players.  SP, RP, fielders, utility guys.  all of them.

    JF turning this club from worst to first has nothing to do with the 8th inning yesterday.  a case can be made that the bunt should have been utilized.  a case can be made that he should swing away.  it is easier after the fact for me to come here and type "he should have bunted" since swinging away obviously did not work and we didn't score the insurance run.  but I can say unequivocally that I was screaming at my TV yesterday evening saying "bunt, bunt".  doesnt mean to say it would have worked and doesnt mean to say that i was right.  i just felt that was the right play with a 1-run lead, 8th inning, on the road, ALCS game 3, against a pitcher with swing and miss stuff all day, without a runner reaching 3b, with a hobbled 3bman, and the leadoff hitter on deck.  

    when all is said and done the Sox got the W.  HUGE W.  the bottom of the 8th would have been less of a heart attack for me with 2 on the board but the RP's did the job. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I’m not on board with some of these extremists who think any manager who wins in Boston clearly has no idea what they are doing.

    And I am one of, if not the most anti-sac bunt poster on these boards.  As I say, there is a time and a place for the sacrifice bunt.  The time is 1960, and the place is the National League.

    However, the one time I do like that particular strategy is when it brings the infield in.  It’s worth the giving up the out for the huge advantage it suddenly gives to the next hitter.  We all saw Saltalamacchia win Game 2 with a routine ground ball to shortstop.

    I am quite certain Farrell has heard about the sac bunt at some point in his life, and for some reason decided it was NOT a good move at that time.  Whether it was a lack of faith in Middlebrooks to execute, or that his team had been striking out about 50% of the time anyway, or whatever.  I am sure the thought crossed his mind, and then he decided it was not the right course of action, all things considered.  I’m OK with that.

    I like the sac bunt there, and rarely like it anywhere else.  But it turned out to be a non-factor anyway…

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share