small ball

"John" <ajshoe RemoveThis @cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its either
> home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit first
> pitches for double plays.
> Is this the managers fault ?
> IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be fun
> to watch ! John

Hmmmm.........I saw a lot of two out singles scoring runs during the winning
streak. The streak would have continued tonight, but the position of SS ate
them alive.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On May 20, 2:25 am, "Bob Braun" <oxin....TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> "John" <ajs....TakeThisOut@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> > May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its either
> > home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit first
> > pitches for double plays.
> > Is this the managers fault ?
> > IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be fun
> > to watch !  John
>
> Hmmmm.........I saw a lot of two out singles scoring runs during the winning
> streak.  The streak would have continued tonight, but the position of SS ate
> them alive.

Yeah, SS was a killer.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"John" <ajshoe RemoveThis @cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its either
> home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit first
> pitches for double plays.
> Is this the managers fault ?
> IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be fun
> to watch ! John

There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called small
ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference compared to
other types of play. You're probably the target audience.

Here it is:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On May 20, 5:11 pm, "RJA" <r....RemoveThis@nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "John" <ajs....RemoveThis@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> > May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its either
> > home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit first
> > pitches for double plays.
> > Is this the managers fault ?
> > IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be fun
> > to watch !  John
>
> There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called small
> ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference compared to
> other types of play.  You're probably the target audience.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04...

thats an awesome article. I can see the old guys sneering at it from
here. The authors say many of the things we've been talking about here
for years. Hopefully Baker will read that and stop batting Patterson
leadoff (if at all). Nah, wont happen.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:11:31 -0400, "RJA" <rja DeleteThis @nospam.cinci.rr.com>
wrote:

>There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called small
>ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference compared to
>other types of play. You're probably the target audience.
>
>Here it is:
>
>http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/
>

I'm not sure that's *exactly* what Erardi meant with that, but
nevertheless, it fails to recognize that what might not seem to make
much difference over a hundred games or a thousand games or whatever
might make a HUGE difference in ONE game...and they usually only play
one game at a time.

If you're facing a power pitcher who doesn't give up many dingers
(SEE: Oswalt, Roy; historically a thorn in the Reds' side for
precisely that reason) then you better have some other way of putting
runs on the board or you're going to lose (SEE: Reds' record against
Oswalt), and this is one way to put a run or two on the board that
might make a difference in that particular game.

Either that or you're praying your pitching matches up so the opposing
manager has to pinch hit for his starter in the late innings and you
can hit a long ball or two off their bullpen. In recent years the
chances of the Reds' pitching matching up to an Oswalt when Harang
wasn't pitching have been about equivalent to the chances of you, me,
Kevin, and Danny being the starting infield against the Dodgers
tonight, so most of the time that approach isn't going to get it
either...especially if the opposing team has a decent bullpen.

No, you need more than one way to score runs. The three-run homer is
more dramatic and scores more runs (3) than single/steal/bunt/sac fly
(1), but since singles are more plentiful than homers - especially
against the Oswalts of the world - I maintain that these things will
always have their place in the game regardless of what sabermetrics
enthusiasts think of the idea. Three runs scored with small ball is
still three runs scored - much better than zero.

JK
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:18:14 GMT, John Kasupski <kc2hmz DeleteThis @verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:11:31 -0400, "RJA" <rja DeleteThis @nospam.cinci.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called small
>>ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference compared to
>>other types of play. You're probably the target audience.
>>
>>Here it is:
>>
>>http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/
>>
>
>I'm not sure that's *exactly* what Erardi meant with that, but
>nevertheless, it fails to recognize that what might not seem to make
>much difference over a hundred games or a thousand games or whatever
>might make a HUGE difference in ONE game...and they usually only play
>one game at a time.
>
>If you're facing a power pitcher who doesn't give up many dingers
>(SEE: Oswalt, Roy; historically a thorn in the Reds' side for
>precisely that reason) then you better have some other way of putting
>runs on the board or you're going to lose (SEE: Reds' record against
>Oswalt), and this is one way to put a run or two on the board that
>might make a difference in that particular game.

Erardi's point was pretty clearly that getting on base is much more
important than "small ball" stuff like bunting and hitting behind the
runner. That is true. In fact, getting on base is more important than
anything else when it comes to scoring runs. That's true in *every*
game.

The common belief is that the Reds don't score when they don't hit HRs.
I suspect that while there is likely something to that, what is probably
more at play is that they don't win when they don't get as many guys on
base before their HRs. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of HRs and
baserunners in wins and in losses.

>No, you need more than one way to score runs. The three-run homer is
>more dramatic and scores more runs (3) than single/steal/bunt/sac fly
>(1), but since singles are more plentiful than homers - especially
>against the Oswalts of the world - I maintain that these things will
>always have their place in the game regardless of what sabermetrics
>enthusiasts think of the idea. Three runs scored with small ball is
>still three runs scored - much better than zero.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point, John.

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:53:18 -0400, Kevin McClave
<kmcclave.DeleteThis@SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote:


>Not surprisingly, you missed the point, John.

Yeah, ok...well...FWIW, there were still a couple of things contained
in what Erardi wrote that don't wash as far as I'm concerned..

One is his contention that the reason the 1976 Reds scored the
second-most runs in franchise history despite setting the major league
record for the most runners LOB in a season is because they also had a
franchise-record OBP. The OBP is why they had so many runners on base
in the first place - regardless of whether they scored or were LOB.

The reason so many of those runners scored isn't only that they had a
high OBP (although obviously that's part of it), it's also related to
the fact that that they had guys like Perez, Griffey Sr., Foster,
Bench, and Morgan in the lineup who put balls in play and did other
things to help bring those runners in. There were two guys in that
lineup (Morgan and Foster) who drove in more than 100 runs. Neither of
them hit 40 homers like Adam Dunn- nobody on the entire team hit 40
bombs. But neither of them struck out 100 times either - nobody on the
entire team struck out 100 times (let alone came close to 200). They
put balls in play, they hit behind the runner, they did things to
enhance their chances to score, rather than standing around waiting
for somebody to hit a jack, or striking out while trying to do so.

Then there's Erardi's contention about Dunn belonging in the 2-hole
because of his high OBP (due to walks) and the fact that he hits 40
dingers a year. Well, yes, batting him second might get him 50 more
plate appearances, but he's not going to hit homers in anything even
close to a majority of those 50 extra plate appearances, and he's
going to strike out in a good many of them, thereby accomplishing
absolutely nothing advantageous to the team.

Erardi also says Dunn's right around league average in terms of
advancing runners from first base, but there's a reason why in the #2
slot you want somebody who is ABOVE league average in this department.

Erardi himself states, "Runs come from hitters getting on base and the
hitters behind them getting them home." I'd much rather have Keppinger
in the #2 slot than Dunn because while Keppinger has nearly the same
OBP (.373) as Dunn (.376), he also has only 8 Ks as compared to to 38
for Dunn (one reason why he's only 8 RBI behind Dunn) and in fact has
a higher slugging percentage and a 90-point advantage in BA.

Unfortunately, Keppinger is now on the DL and will be for some time to
come. Based on performances so far this season, I'd have Hairston
batting second right now. Or Janish, which is exactly who Dusty had
there last night.

JK
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

there's a little more meaning to small ball than just scoring runs with
singles. The Reds are missing the basics of baseball on about every game
they play. Bunting, opposite side grounders to advance runners, sacrifice
flies, smart baserunning, knowing when and not to dive for balls in the
field, executing hit and runs, and taking some pitches to get a good pitch
to hit. Is this a function of the manager ?
All of these little things effect the moral of the team and the way each
player executes.
If we had 3 players that hit each 50 home runs and had 100 RBIs during the
year - would this guarantee a winning year - I don't think so.

This team is going nowhere until these things improve.

"RJA" <rja.DeleteThis@nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4833688a$0$31761$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "John" <ajshoe.DeleteThis@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its either
>> home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit first
>> pitches for double plays.
>> Is this the managers fault ?
>> IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be
>> fun to watch ! John
>
> There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called
> small ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference
> compared to other types of play. You're probably the target audience.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/
>
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"John Kasupski" <kc2hmz RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c419345crjgvrvm8ld1snef8pdbftpr1h8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:53:18 -0400, Kevin McClave
> <kmcclave RemoveThis @SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Not surprisingly, you missed the point, John.
>
> Yeah, ok...well...FWIW, there were still a couple of things contained
> in what Erardi wrote that don't wash as far as I'm concerned..
>
> One is his contention that the reason the 1976 Reds scored the
> second-most runs in franchise history despite setting the major league
> record for the most runners LOB in a season is because they also had a
> franchise-record OBP. The OBP is why they had so many runners on base
> in the first place - regardless of whether they scored or were LOB.

The point is that as OBP increases, so do runs scored. Correlation
coefficient quite strong.

> The reason so many of those runners scored isn't only that they had a
> high OBP (although obviously that's part of it), it's also related to
> the fact that that they had guys like Perez, Griffey Sr., Foster,
> Bench, and Morgan in the lineup who put balls in play and did other
> things to help bring those runners in. There were two guys in that
> lineup (Morgan and Foster) who drove in more than 100 runs. Neither of
> them hit 40 homers like Adam Dunn- nobody on the entire team hit 40
> bombs.

You can roll all of that up into slugging percentage, at least that's my
guess. All those guys likely had high ones.

> But neither of them struck out 100 times either - nobody on the
> entire team struck out 100 times (let alone came close to 200). They
> put balls in play, they hit behind the runner, they did things to
> enhance their chances to score, rather than standing around waiting
> for somebody to hit a jack, or striking out while trying to do so.

Ehh...they hit for power and average.

> Then there's Erardi's contention about Dunn belonging in the 2-hole
> because of his high OBP (due to walks) and the fact that he hits 40
> dingers a year. Well, yes, batting him second might get him 50 more
> plate appearances, but he's not going to hit homers in anything even
> close to a majority of those 50 extra plate appearances, and he's
> going to strike out in a good many of them, thereby accomplishing
> absolutely nothing advantageous to the team.
>
> Erardi also says Dunn's right around league average in terms of
> advancing runners from first base, but there's a reason why in the #2
> slot you want somebody who is ABOVE league average in this department.
>
> Erardi himself states, "Runs come from hitters getting on base and the
> hitters behind them getting them home." I'd much rather have Keppinger
> in the #2 slot than Dunn because while Keppinger has nearly the same
> OBP (.373) as Dunn (.376), he also has only 8 Ks as compared to to 38
> for Dunn (one reason why he's only 8 RBI behind Dunn) and in fact has
> a higher slugging percentage and a 90-point advantage in BA.
>
> Unfortunately, Keppinger is now on the DL and will be for some time to
> come. Based on performances so far this season, I'd have Hairston
> batting second right now. Or Janish, which is exactly who Dusty had
> there last night.

Definitely not. Hairston is returning to his stinky level, and Janish is
too green. Give me Dunn with some protection behind him any day. His
career numbers batting 2nd were pretty scary the last time I checked.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"John" <ajshoe RemoveThis @cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4834ec3e$0$4092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> there's a little more meaning to small ball than just scoring runs with
> singles. The Reds are missing the basics of baseball on about every game
> they play. Bunting, opposite side grounders to advance runners, sacrifice
> flies, smart baserunning, knowing when and not to dive for balls in the
> field, executing hit and runs, and taking some pitches to get a good pitch
> to hit. Is this a function of the manager ?
> All of these little things effect the moral of the team and the way each
> player executes.
> If we had 3 players that hit each 50 home runs and had 100 RBIs during the
> year - would this guarantee a winning year - I don't think so.

In other words, I shouldn't bother looking up stories to give you links to
since you're not reading them.


> This team is going nowhere until these things improve.
>
> "RJA" <rja RemoveThis @nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4833688a$0$31761$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> "John" <ajshoe RemoveThis @cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its
>>> either home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit
>>> first pitches for double plays.
>>> Is this the managers fault ?
>>> IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be
>>> fun to watch ! John
>>
>> There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called
>> small ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference
>> compared to other types of play. You're probably the target audience.
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

<tmbowman25.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa4181b1-0248-4045-a203-362ab693615d@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 5:11 pm, "RJA" <r....RemoveThis@nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "John" <ajs....RemoveThis@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> > May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its
> > either
> > home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit first
> > pitches for double plays.
> > Is this the managers fault ?
> > IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be
> > fun
> > to watch ! John
>
> There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called
> small
> ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference compared to
> other types of play. You're probably the target audience.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04...

>thats an awesome article. I can see the old guys sneering at it from
>here. The authors say many of the things we've been talking about here
>for years. Hopefully Baker will read that and stop batting Patterson
>leadoff (if at all). Nah, wont happen.

He's got a lot of good articles. Here's another from this past Sunday.
He's got a couple stat-heads helping out, though.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080518/SPT04/805180425/
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

read those articles in enquirer several days ago. Obviously the owner
dosen't read them or he would have made some changes to this team. He has
said more than once this year he's in this to win ! John
"RJA" <rja.DeleteThis@nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4834edce$0$7714$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "John" <ajshoe.DeleteThis@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4834ec3e$0$4092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> there's a little more meaning to small ball than just scoring runs with
>> singles. The Reds are missing the basics of baseball on about every game
>> they play. Bunting, opposite side grounders to advance runners, sacrifice
>> flies, smart baserunning, knowing when and not to dive for balls in the
>> field, executing hit and runs, and taking some pitches to get a good
>> pitch to hit. Is this a function of the manager ?
>> All of these little things effect the moral of the team and the way each
>> player executes.
>> If we had 3 players that hit each 50 home runs and had 100 RBIs during
>> the year - would this guarantee a winning year - I don't think so.
>
> In other words, I shouldn't bother looking up stories to give you links to
> since you're not reading them.
>
>
>> This team is going nowhere until these things improve.
>>
>> "RJA" <rja.DeleteThis@nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4833688a$0$31761$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> "John" <ajshoe.DeleteThis@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48325586$0$30180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> May have a nice winning streak - but this team cannot execute. Its
>>>> either home runs or leave the bases loaded, bad base running, and hit
>>>> first pitches for double plays.
>>>> Is this the managers fault ?
>>>> IF the Reds could just get back to fundamental baseball, this would be
>>>> fun to watch ! John
>>>
>>> There's an article on the Enquirer site about how small ball is called
>>> small ball because in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference
>>> compared to other types of play. You're probably the target audience.
>>>
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:42:16 -0400, "RJA" <rja RemoveThis @nospam.cinci.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>> Then there's Erardi's contention about Dunn belonging in the 2-hole
>> because of his high OBP (due to walks) and the fact that he hits 40
>> dingers a year. Well, yes, batting him second might get him 50 more
>> plate appearances, but he's not going to hit homers in anything even
>> close to a majority of those 50 extra plate appearances, and he's
>> going to strike out in a good many of them, thereby accomplishing
>> absolutely nothing advantageous to the team.
>>
>> Erardi also says Dunn's right around league average in terms of
>> advancing runners from first base, but there's a reason why in the #2
>> slot you want somebody who is ABOVE league average in this department.
>>
>> Erardi himself states, "Runs come from hitters getting on base and the
>> hitters behind them getting them home." I'd much rather have Keppinger
>> in the #2 slot than Dunn because while Keppinger has nearly the same
>> OBP (.373) as Dunn (.376), he also has only 8 Ks as compared to to 38
>> for Dunn (one reason why he's only 8 RBI behind Dunn) and in fact has
>> a higher slugging percentage and a 90-point advantage in BA.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Keppinger is now on the DL and will be for some time to
>> come. Based on performances so far this season, I'd have Hairston
>> batting second right now. Or Janish, which is exactly who Dusty had
>> there last night.
>
>Definitely not. Hairston is returning to his stinky level, and Janish is
>too green. Give me Dunn with some protection behind him any day. His
>career numbers batting 2nd were pretty scary the last time I checked.

It's as though John doesn't even read these articles. I realize we *all*
have our biases, but the comments on this article remind me of the
discussion I had with him last season about the article on why the Reds
should (or shouldn't) keep Adam Dunn. He's setting up straw men and
knocking them down and arguing about things that aren't even discussed
in the article (same as in last season's discussion).

I'll sum it up as I did back then. John, you aren't debating the points
made in the articles, your biases are resulting in you completely
disregarding provable facts.

********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: small ball