Small Ball

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

    Small Ball

     I was off fishing yesterday afternoonn, but I noticed that Youk led off the 7th inning with a walk. The score was tied at 0-0 and Crawford followed Youk in the order. Did he even try to bunt Youk to 2nd? I noticed that Reddick followed Crawford with a single and I wondered whether small ball might have been enough to win this one, certainly the excuse of wanting the "big inning" wouldn't apply here.   
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Small Ball.  Ok - Youk gets a walk.  Crawford sacs Youk to second.  Man on second. 1 out.

    Red hits single to shallow R, moves Youk to third.

    Tek hits grounder to first scoring Youk.  Or does it.  Do you send the slow footed, bad backed Youk home on a grounder to 1st?  or maybe you have Tek bunt.  Just because Tito puts the squeeze play on doesn't mean Tek is able to get the bunt down.

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

    Re: Small Ball

     You could also pinch run for Youk, since it's already the 7th and there's still no score. Thanks for the response, however, I wasn't exactly sure whether Crawford had attempted to lay one down but been unable to.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Oh, I see why they elected not to bunt Crawford.

    Crawford's stats are deceiving.  He's batting .250 for the season but .280 since May 1. For the season, he's batting .280 against right handed hitters.  I'm betting that since May 1, he's batting over .300 against righties.

    For his career, Crawford is batting over 300 against Janssen. 

    So they have Crawford who has been hitting righties well this season against a guy that he has well in the past.  They hope he can move the runner by either getting a hit or sac to RF.  He got the sac to LF which doesn't help.

    Crawford failed to do his job. 

    Plus, the rogers centre has a hard artificial turf surface.  Very hard to lay down a good bunt.

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

    Re: Small Ball

    Just a guess, but imho, I don't usually bunt with LH speedsters.  You get a huge lift with a single, you get a smaller drag with a flyball or a K.  If you hit the ball on the ground, either you get Youk over, or you have CC on first.  Since CC on first is a substantial improvement over Youk at first, the ground out shouldn't be too costly.

    Or I could see a bunt also.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Small Ball

     To Joebreidey: Interesting post but I would counter by saying that LH burners may well beat out the bunt, cause they're out of the box so quickly have have a shorter distance to run. That puts more pressure on the infields to hurry their throws, so it's possible that the throws are wild off 1st and everyone advances to 2nd and 3rd. I can live with a ground out that forces Youk at 2nd cause then CC can steal second and you have a faster guy trying to score on a single in that instance. A few of the problems I have with CC not bunting are these: right off the bat his OBP is below .300. then he has struck out almost 91 times this year, and finally "the ground out shouldn't be too costly" but he has hit into 7 double plays this season. I like what they used to call "a productive out" and  I seem to remember that Lou Brock was pretty good at bunting for base hits when the sacrifice was on, but of course that was the NL and a different era. I suspect that the same situation will pop up again this season cause Tito clearly disdains the sacrifice. I think we should practice it a bit because it might be crucial in a low scoring playoff game. Just my opinion.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Those one run losses bring out the armchair managers faster than rats jump off of a sinking ship. If Crawford wasn't robbed of the gapper in the 9th the Sox would have won the game and these "experts" would have to postpone their scapegoating.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]Oh, I see why they elected not to bunt Crawford. Crawford's stats are deceiving.  He's batting .250 for the season but .280 since May 1. For the season, he's batting .280 against right handed hitters.  I'm betting that since May 1, he's batting over .300 against righties. For his career, Crawford is batting over 300 against Janssen.  So they have Crawford who has been hitting righties well this season against a guy that he has well in the past.  They hope he can move the runner by either getting a hit or sac to RF.  He got the sac to LF which doesn't help. Crawford failed to do his job.  Plus, the rogers centre has a hard artificial turf surface.  Very hard to lay down a good bunt.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    So he's hitting around 300 against righties. That means he fails to get a hit 7 out of 10 times. I'm wondering if he were faced with 10 legitimate sac bunting opportunities, would he fail 7 out of 10 times? I have no stats, but just from watching baseball for many, many years, I believe the success rate of sac bunts might be a bit higher than 3 out of 10. Again, no stats, but I'm thinking it's more like 7 out of 10 successes with a sac bunt.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Small Ball : So he's hitting around 300 against righties. That means he fails to get a hit 7 out of 10 times. I'm wondering if he were faced with 10 legitimate sac bunting opportunities, would he fail 7 out of 10 times? I have no stats, but just from watching baseball for many, many years, I believe the success rate of sac bunts might be a bit higher than 3 out of 10. Again, no stats, but I'm thinking it's more like 7 out of 10 successes with a sac bunt.
    Posted by BOSOX1941[/QUOTE]

    Over the course of a season Moneyball and Bill James metrics state that sacrificing is a poor strategy. The Red Sox use metrics and you use your gut reactions and 20-20 hindsight. The best GMs are now heavily involved into metrics. Tito was hired to play by the Bill James doctrine in most situations. If you wish to assess blame them blame ownership or else follow a new team.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    I've followed the Red Sox much longer than you have. Score 0-0 in the 7th inning, and your leadoff batter reaches first. SAC BUNT!
    Success rate of sac bunt with no outs and a man on first is over 75%...DUH ! !  Oh wait, what does Bill James think in this particular situation? I'd better look it up. Oh darn, Crawford made an out and now it man on first with 1 out. I'd better look it up to see what Bill says to do. Hopefully I can find it before there's another out. Idiotic!!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]I've followed the Red Sox much longer than you have. Score 0-0 in the 7th inning, and your leadoff batter reaches first. SAC BUNT! Success rate of sac bunt with no outs and a man on first is over 75%...DUH ! !  Oh wait, what does Bill James think in this particular situation? I'd better look it up. Oh darn, Crawford made an out and now it man on first with 1 out. I'd better look it up to see what Bill says to do. Hopefully I can find it before there's another out. Idiotic!!!
    Posted by BOSOX1941[/QUOTE]

    How do you know at that moment that they aren't going to score four runs on six hits, or five runs in the next inning, or six in the ninth? by the way, I've been following the Red Sox since 1954. Your opinion is based on knowing that the final score was 1-0 and that is hindsight since the score could have been a 12-1 win. Any fool can play the hindsight game.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    "That means he fails to get a hit 7 out of 10 times."

    He can walk, he can hit a sac fly, he can get a Fielder's choice.   A sac bunt or a hit are not the only ways to move the runner.  Plus, if he gets a hit, he can move the runner from 1st to 2nd, 3rd or even drive him home. 

    I wish there was a stat like "expected bases".  It's sort of like the OPS, but OPS double counts the trip to first base.  Maybe it's total bases plus walks and erros divided by plate appearances.  That would give you the expected number of bases a batter should get in every plate appearance.  If it's .500, that means on average he'll reach 1 base every 2 plate appearances, or get a double every 4 plate apperances.  And then add in fly balls to RF or at least the number of SAC flies he's had, to give the expected number of bases a batter can be expected to move a runner for every plate appearance.

    In any event, Youk was on second with 1 out, same as if Crawford laid down a bunt, and he still didn't score.  In fact, they had a man on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs and failed to score.  And yet it's tito's fault for not laying down a bunt on artificial turf.

    Of course, if Crawford does lay down a bunt and it's hit too hard and goes to the pitcher for a double play, then it's still Tito's fault.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from neutralned. Show neutralned's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Re: Small Ball:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Small Ball : How do you know at that moment that they aren't going to score four runs on six hits, or five runs in the next inning, or six in the ninth? by the way, I've been following the Red Sox since 1954. Your opinion is based on knowing that the final score was 1-0 and that is hindsight since the score could have been a 12-1 win. Any fool can play the hindsight game.
    Posted by PawsoxPhil[/QUOTE]

    Yeah there is no reason to criticize or second guess anything the Sox do, whats done is done.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    If you condemn the Bill James school of thought, sabermetrics, etc, then you have to get rid of the owner.  John Henry was the guy who hired Bill James, and I think he probably still believes that sabermetrics work.  Before Bill James, the Sox went 86 years without a WS win, and with Bill James they have won two WS. 

    I like bunting, I really do.  I love advancing runners and avoiding GIDP's.  Sometimes Terry Francona likes bunting too and will signal for same.  But most of the time, the statistics say, it is not the best use of an at bat. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Max, who leads the league in Sac Bunts and Steals?  Kansas City for both. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    SAC Bunts are successful 75% of the time?  Where'd that stat come from?

    Again, the Sox had Youk on 2nd with 1 out, same as they would have had if Crawford had successfuly laid down a bunt.  And they couldn't score.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    To me sac bunts are like stolen bases, both of which I happen to like.  But the problem is that you still have to get that guy home, not just to second base.  And, even when the guy is on third with one or no outs, someone has to hit the sac fly or grounder to the right or single or whatever to get him home.  I remember that this year alone Youk has had a problem doing that on at least three occasions. 

    In that excruciating loss, 1-0 to the Jays, Monday afternon, the Sox went 0 for 8 with RISP.  Oh, and the Jays themselves were also hitless with RISP.  They won the game on a solo dinger by a rookie.  Some small ball. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    The critics of Tito and the FO strategy only come out of their holes after a close game. They are obsessed with finding a scapegoat instead of taking a disappointing loss like an adult should. They are immature and cannot admit that close game losses may be due to a host of legitimate reasons and happenings. That is too complex for them. If we lose on a bad hop single, they will never blame it on the bad hop but will somehow blame it on the pitcher, coaches, mamager, or the FO. It is their mindset or else their game.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    In Response to Small Ball:
    [QUOTE] I was off fishing yesterday afternoonn, but I noticed that Youk led off the 7th inning with a walk. The score was tied at 0-0 and Crawford followed Youk in the order. Did he even try to bunt Youk to 2nd? I noticed that Reddick followed Crawford with a single and I wondered whether small ball might have been enough to win this one, certainly the excuse of wanting the "big inning" wouldn't apply here.   
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    With a lefty on the mound, I would bunt Crawford there.  But I can see letting him swing away with a RHH...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Small Ball

    Do you have a larger ball to go with your small ball ...

    Is it considerably larger?  How do you relieve the proportional  discomfort?

    You aren't admitting to having just one, small ball are you?

    Well. Hitler, so I've read, had only one ... and look what it did to him.

     

Share