Why all the hate for small ball?

[brewcrewkid14]

I have noticed in the vent thread that a lot of people are complaining about all the bunting that's going on. Why not try something different after such a rough stretch? It worked tonight. Schroeder makes a good point that the Brewers probably have a tougher time winning this game a month ago. I'm not a big fan of waiting for the three-run home run like the way we have for so long under Yost.

 

This is fun to watch for me. I'm lovin' the hit and runs, the running, and the bunting. Obviously it's just my opinion, but I don't think he has been excessive in the bunts. I think it's what they've needed, and it could just light a spark under this offense for these last couple games.

[wisconsinfan47]

Most forms of "small ball" decrease your chances of winning the game. And doing the "little things" like bunting, hitting and running, "getting the uniform dirty," only get you so far. The Brewers didn't win tonight because they bunted, they won because they drew a bunch of walks (including two with the bases loaded), and the pitching was good.

 

Another example from tonight, we had Hall give a pitcher who couldn't find the zone an automatic out. Why not take a few pitches from him instead of giving him a way out of the inning?

[RockCoCougars]

Not a clue, I think it's winning baseball. Goes against all these Billy Beane disciples, I guess.

[sbrylski]

Giving up outs is the opposite of scoring more runs, both through base stealing and bunting. And the numbers have been floating around all over this forum.

 

EDIT: But nobody has said its bad in all situations, or at least they probably shouldn't have.

[homer]

Why is it winning baseball?

[brewcrewkid14]

Yeah, but with the way the offense has been lately, it appears (obviously I can't say much watching it on television) that they are playing more loose and with more confidence which could play a part in the high number of walks. It's not like Maholm was missing three feet off the plate. They took some pretty tough pitches that I haven't seen them take all season.

 

In the Hall situation, who's to say that he doesn't ground into a double play if he doesn't bunt there? If he gets the bunt down, they are in great position to score an important fifth run because Braun grounded out the next at bat.

 

I wasn't sure about Svuem when they hired him, but to this point, I like the new lineup (more pitches, which you talked about, being taken) and I like the new attitude on offense. He also seems to be a much more easy-going guy from what I've seen of him with the press than Yost was. With the situation that he was thrown into, he has responded pretty well and gotten this team back within a stone's throw away from the playoffs (granted it's been against the Pirates and Reds, but they all matter now).

[Ennder]

It is winning baseball when it works, it is losing baseball more often. That is the problem.

[brewcrewkid14]

Well, at this point with such a struggling offense, it has been the smart way to go. They've been waiting for the three-run home run all season (ala Moneyball), and unfortunately their offense has vastly underperformed as a result. Maybe in the future when they've got guys who aren't trying to hit the ball out of the park every time they come up to the plate, they can go back to the Moneyball offense.

[homer]

MOneyball is about getting on base.

[mothershipconnection]

I guess when your offense has recently performed like a lineup of pitchers it's not as bad to bunt as it usually is. When you have several guys putting up an OPS over .800 and playing like it, you don't want to kill outs on bunts.

[endaround]

I'm not sure how giving up PAs is supposed to help a struggling offense. Counsell should bunt when he comes up with a man on 1B no outs and Kendall after him because both are extreme groundball hitters with no power but outside of that its really pointless.

[zzzmanwitz]

I agree that small ball may be a good way to get through a few games when an offense is struggling. But in any given situation, expected runs go down when you give up outs. In the long run, it is always better to swing away than bunt the ball.

[Ennder]

moneyball has nothing to do with OPS or SLG or HRs. Moneyball is about finding value in the marketplace of baseball. When the book was written the value was in high OBP players since they were underrated. Now moneyball is about good defense, troublemakers and 'injury prone' players.

[rluzinski]

This is an above average offense that got that way by hitting for power. I see no way that constently playing for one run is going to score more runs per game. Just because it was in a major funk doesn't mean that you give up on what's made them good for 150+ games, on average.

 

And someone mentioned that they like watching small ball. I like watching small ball as well but I like watching winning more. Too many fans try to force a connection between what's the most fun to watch with what's the best way to win games.

 

Teams like Oaklamd and Boston don't give outs away 3 times a game because they have smart people who have looked into the matter and know it's generally a losing proposition. It's not based on what they like to watch.

 

If anyone really wants to see the evidence, I'll be happy to provide some links. If people already know that small ball is good, there you go.

[homer]

Ennder is correct. I meant the book was about getting on base which at the time was the stat du jour for Billy.

[1992casey]

Smallball strategies are most appropriately used in "run constrained" situations. With the pitcher not finding the plate, I'd hardly call tonight's Hall situation "run-constrained."

 

I think smallball becomes overrated when large audiences see playoff teams employing the strategy. During the playoffs, there's good pitching on both sides, and scoring is suppressed. It's appropriate that smallball could kick in more often than it would against most regular season opponents.

[Ennder]

Hall was bunting for a hit wasn't he, and it almost worked?

 

Small ball does get a bad rap because of bad math. The run expectancy chart is mostly useless. It doesn't take context into account at all. As a very simplistic example Nyger Morgan bunting to 1B against the Sabathia with some other fast guy at 2B and no outs is a much higher run expectancy than Fielder bunting with Estrada at 1B against the a scrub Cubs pitcher with Lee at 1B.

 

The hitter, the runner, the defensive player, the next hitter up to bat, the current pitcher all effect things and there is no easy chart that can do the math on the fly like people suggest. The basic chart almost never gives accurate results for any single situation.

[Diskono]

To me, smallball is kind of like in NHL 94 when you skate down the side of the rink, then turning toward the goalie just before you reach the goal line, and tapping the puck in after skating past the goalie, except not as effective. I don't like smallball.

[rluzinski]

Exactly, Casey. The lower the run environment, the more valuable runs 1 and 2 are. The later in the game of a close contest, the valuable 1 run is. Playing small ball in inning 1 when you'll probably need 4+ runs to win is not smart.

 

Even then, sacrifices oten only marginally improves your chances of scoring a run. If the batter is good or his bunting chances are bad, it' a bad idea. You just have to look at historical data to see proof.

[MNBrew]

The key to making smallball work is rooted in 3 things: judicious/opportunistic timing, solid fundamental execution, and a little luck.

 

For the first 19 or whatever games of this month, when the offense usually played like it was being executed rather than executing its basics, much of the failure of the team offensively was exacerbated by continuing to attempt to solve the problem without much variance in the method for doing so. When the usual methods aren't working, you need to try something else. One way is to create your breaks since you're not getting 'em otherwise.

 

This isn't just a recent problem in the Brewers' history. Late in the Trebelhorn and Garner eras, when their early years were marked by assertive offensive approaches, there was also a consistent and longer-lasting unwillingness to change their approach by trying to create their own breaks. In Spring Training, I remember Yost stressing the bunting, moving runners over, etc. And by August & September he'd fallen into the pattern of consistenly waiting for the HR to bail the team out.

 

Combine a smarter (Moneyball-type) approach to getting on base more (making the pitcher throw more pitches, not making yourself an easy out, making better adjustments and stop watching so many called 3rd strikes) and the right timing for a little smallball (giving the opposition that much more to deal with and creating more chances for them to make mistakes) and you give yourself a better chance of stopping losing streaks and curtailing slumps -- and that's one thing the Brewers needed much more of during those crappy 19 games.

 

Sorry to ramble. I'm not suggesting smallball's the perfect end-all solution. But while it's human to make mistakes, it's the sign of foolishness or a sheer lack of intelligence to keep making the same mistake over and over. It cost Yost his job. They need some luck and did right to try to create it. Maybe the little diversion from the usual route helps make enable the usual route to become productive once again.

[pebadger]

There is a difference between what you have to do to win consistently over the course of 162, and what you have to do in a given situation to win a given one of those 162. Being able to execute small ball when needed in the latter situation is a really valuable tool in the latter situation, though not necessarily critical.

 

As with any competitive situation, having that really valuable tool at your disposal can make all the difference if your opponent lacks that tool. And, as playoff baseball is a much different creature than the 162 grind, usually matching teams that are substatially similar in that they have the broad tools to get that far, those finer tools often take on greater significance when the spotlight is the brightest.

[rluzinski]

If anyone in the universe could predict when a team slump is going to start or end, I could buy changing strategied when in the middle of one. Unfortunately , no one has that skill, since team slumps are more less just random, unpredictable occurances. If anyone has the skill, let me know.

 

Ender,

 

Run frequency and expectency tables do not prove that a sacrice should never be attempted, certainly. But a amanger should take pause when an average situation makes sacrice bunting a losing proposition. Have you ever read "The Book"? Theyy do a very nice job of attempting to adjust for many of the factors you mentioned. If a defense is waiting for the bunt attempt, it's often tough to gain anything by still attempting one.

[MNBrew]

Just caught BB Tonight's highlights of the Twins' win vs. ChiSox. One recurring point was the Twins doing all the little things right.

 

Perhaps the failure to do enough of the little things right is the better explanation for the ugly September play of the Brewers before this week. And perhaps a little judicious smallball here or there might have been one way to do the little things right.

 

I would buy well-timed smallball as a good solution, and predictable smallball as even the opposite of a cure-all.

[bjkrautk]

I don't particularly have a gripe with small ball....I just don't think that the team is well geared for it.

 

Like it or not, this team's offense is imbalanced in favor of slugging. To get the most out of this offense, you need to maximize your team's chances of hitting the longball. Giving up outs may mean one less AB for the heart of your lineup (or at least a pinch hitter).

 

Sveum's tactics would be better-served for a high-OBP, low-SLG team; when you can't sit around and expect a 3-run bomb, it's far more important to take advantage of your opportunities to steal a run when they present themselves. It also makes more sense for a team that plays better defense then the Brewers have (making single runs more valuable).

 

 

That's not to say everything Dale has done with the offense is bad; I think moving J.J. behind Prince in the lineup has been vital to his power coming back. With Hart playing horribly, there hasn't been much of a reason to give Fielder anything to hit.

 

About the only time I'd consider bunting with a non pitcher (not including bunting for a base hit, which fast guys like Corey should try occasionally when no one is on base) is 1st and 2nd, 0 outs; going from memory, the effect on average runs scored is negligible, but the odds of scoring at least one run go up considerably (as there are more ways to score from 3b than from 2b, and because you've temporarily eliminated the double play). Even then, it depends on who's at the plate.

[yogallardo43]

I also watched Fernando Vina's breakdown of the Minnesota Twins. The inning that he chose to prove his point was... an infield chopper over the pitchers mound, and groundball where Punto beat out the throw to first, a bunt single, and an rbi groundout. What I ask is what are these little things? Perhaps the Brewers should try these little things that they have no control over. I don't mean to be frustrated but I disagree with just about anything Vina says. All of the things he cited were lucky, or basic plays like running out a groundball. The Brewers rarely have problems with their players slacking.