Why all the hate for small ball?

[brewcrewkid14]

I can see all the arguments that everyone is making here, and I am glad this has turned into a pretty good conversation. I guess I fall somewhere in between for my preference, but at this point I think it was necessary. I think MNBrew hit it right on the head with his first post. Yost refused to make any changes in his approach and chose to wait for the offense to get out of its funk, and he lost his job as a result.

 

Svuem decided that in order to get this offense going, he was going to go back to the basic old school combination of good pitching/small ball, and I'd say it's worked to an extent. It seems as if the team's got some of their mojo back, and he just might have picked the right time to start doing it because one of the things that's been consistent from both points of view is that it is extremely necessary in the playoffs. If the Brewers can get there, I'm glad to know that they will be willing to lay down a bunt or two (or three) to score some runs.

[logan82]

Giving up outs when you are not hitting only makes things worse in my opinion. Even moving a guy over with a bunt usually requires a hit to score that guy at some point. Given the SLG of our team, we would be better off waiting for that hit instead of giving up outs. I have no problem with pitchers attempting sac bunts and an occasional sac bunt by another player, but 2+ per game is sheer lunacy. If I was the opposing manager I would be eager for the Brewers to give me 10% of their outs per game.

[bklynbrewcrew]

Giving up outs is almost never a smart strategy unless its a pitcher or Counsell/Kendall doing the bunting. When a pitcher walks two consecutive batters and cant find the plate it is lunacy to send Bill Hall up to bunt the runners over. This is how you get a pitcher out of a jam. Sveum just isnt very smart and I really hope he doesnt come back next season as a result of his strategic lunacy. Give me Davey Johnson or Bobby Valentine, two strategic genuises who dont believe in bunting 10 times a game.

[rluzinski]

There are certainly times where a bunt attempt is a sound strategy and many of them have already been mentioned. Bunting with a aman on first isn't necessarily bad when the defense isn't expecting it since there is a reasonable chance the bunter could reach. Even if that chance is only 15%, that might make it a good move.

 

Bunting with very poor hitters isn't always bad, like with Kendall or Counsell. Bunting when a single run can shift the win probability for that game to the extreme is not necessarily bad. An extreme example is the bottom of the 9th in a tie game. That second run is worth nothing.

 

There are other things to consider of course. The problem is, it appears that Svuem is considering NONE of this. If Fielder isn't batting, he considers the sacrifice bunt a viable alternative with a runner at 1st or 2nd and no out. It's an easy call to say he's wrong.

[jeffy]

Yost refused to make any changes in his approach and chose to wait for the offense to get out of its funk, and he lost his job as a result.

 

Svuem decided that in order to get this offense going, he was going to go back to the basic old school combination of good pitching/small ball, and I'd say it's worked to an extent.

Based on what? Going 2-6 against the Cubs and Cincinatti and then beating up on Pittsburgh. The team did those things with Yost in charge, as well.

 

I'm no fan of Yost and Sveum is giving the fans what they wanted as (judging from my limited experience with the forum on the brewers web site, calls to sports talk shows, and letters to the editor in the JS sports section) it seems like the masses have a strange desire to see more bunting. If Hall had struck out last night the fans would have booed loudly, but I heard none when he popped out on a bunt attempt. So fans are okay with bunting failures. Another bunt attempt (which I don't necessarily disagree with as CC not running the bases would be a positive) resulted in a double play.

 

JJ Hardy has been hitting well, yet he was called on to but with 2 strikes. That is just assinine, the fact that it happened to work does not make it a good decision.

 

In a previous game, Durham, who has also been hitting well was called on to bunt in the first inning.

[jeffy]

Bunting with a aman on first isn't necessarily bad when the defense isn't expecting it since there is a reasonable chance the bunter could reach. Even if that chance is only 15%, that might make it a good move.

 

With Sveum, I think they'll be expecting it every time, unless Fielder is batting.

[rluzinski]

If anyone wants to read a very good study on the topic, go to Amazon.com and search for this book:

 

"The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball"

 

Do a search for "sacrifice or not" and you can read much of the chapter online for free. If you don't want to read all the guts of the study, just ook for the boxed "The Book Says" summaries. The bunting proficiency of the batter and the defensive positioning are two huge factors on whether attempting a bunt is a good move. Svuem doesn't care about either because he isn't considering anything. He's playing deadball era baseball.

 

Maybe someone could provide a direct link to the Amazon online reader to that chapter. It's essential reading for a discussion like this.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I don't think the reason we weren't scoring runs is because we weren't playing enough small ball. The reason is that we can't get a darn hit with RISP. That is why the Twins are scoring a ton of runs these days and we aren't. Because their batting average with RISP is off the charts. Any thoughts to why that is? Is there a certain skill to hitting with RISP? For me, I don't get it at all.

[jeffy]

If my memory is correct, early in the season they were not hitting well (in terms of BA) but were getting timely hits with RISP and scoring enough runs to win, despite the poor hitting.

 

Why did this go the opposite way in Sept? Was it just random chance or was it due to there being less pressure in April than there is in Sept?

[JohnBriggs12]

Suddenly having players who haven't bunted all season try to sacrifice doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially in front of Braun (who's been awful with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs) and Fielder. In my mind with those guys up, anyone on base is in scoring position anyway. Besides, Hall was bunting there after back to back walks. No way to you give a pitcher in that situation an out. I know Hall's struggled but he's likely to get a pitch there he can drive and who knows, one big hit by Hall might wake him up.

 

If you insist on bunting there, send up a quality bunter. They took Hall out of the game anyway.

 

The other issue is that playing for one run often limits you to one run. Suppose Hall swings away and doubles in 2 runs? Now you have a chance to bust a game wide open and instead of using up Gagne and Torres, you could get through the game with Stetter and Dilllard.

[paul253]

Its not always about giving up outs. Just because you try to hit behind a runner doesnt mean you are giving yourself up. Teams like the Cubs have plenty of guys who can get hits while still hitting behind the runner. Similarly, a bunt doesnt always have to be a sacrifice, as Hall showed last night. You can move a runner up and get a bunt single at the same time. I am just so sick of seeing the same scenario play itself out all the time, including once on Tuesday. They get a guy on second with nobody out and 3 batters later the inning is over and the guy is still standing on second because every one of our hitters tried to hit the ball as hard as they can, which never involves opposite field.

[rluzinski]

The Cubs score a lot of runs because they got on base a ton and hit for power. I don't think their situational hitting has much to do with anything.

 

If the league average offense scored 4.5 runs/game and your team averages 4.6, there are still going to be stretches where the offense is going to be below average. The Brewers' offense might be streakier than average (I really don't know) but all offenses are streaky to some degree. Every team has at least a couple "offense still slumping" articles written about them every year. It's the nature of the game. Everyone always wants an explanation for streaks but often, there isn't one.

[joepepsi]

I don't think the reason we weren't scoring runs is because we weren't playing enough small ball. The reason is that we can't get a darn hit with RISP. That is why the Twins are scoring a ton of runs these days and we aren't. Because their batting average with RISP is off the charts. Any thoughts to why that is? Is there a certain skill to hitting with RISP? For me, I don't get it at all.

The Twins are 2nd in the league in batting average, the Brewers 11th. The Twins are also 3rd in obp; the Brewers, 8th. The Brewers are bad in RISP because they are low average, low on base hitters. Their offense has disappeared at times for the same reason. Teams that draw a lot of walks tend to hit for higher average, score more runs, and avoid prolonged offensive slumps. It really has nothing to do with bunting runners over or making "productive" outs. When one team hits .280 with a .341 opb it will have more opportunities and score more runs than a team that hits .254/.327obp.

 

Good discussion.

[jeffy]

I am just so sick of seeing the same scenario play itself out all the time, including once on Tuesday. They get a guy on second with nobody out and 3 batters later the inning is over and the guy is still standing on second...

 

The problem I have with bunting there is suppose you are successful at bunting 80% of the time and get a runner on 3rd with one out, are the odds of getting him to 3rd via either a fly ball, grounder to the right side, or a base hit really all that much less than 80%? In addition, by not bunting you also have a chance that you will have 2 on with no outs via either a hit or a walk or even one on, no outs and a run in (not to mention the possibility of a HR scoring 2 with no outs).

[bcf5575]

always waiting for the homerun or the big hit is a big casue of the september collapse. the manager needs to know his team well enough to know when to let them swing away, and when to play small ball and try to get at least a run in. if you are on fire and scoring 5+ runs a night go ahead and swing away. when runs arent coming that easy, he needs to do what he can to get any run across possible.

imo, small ball is a tool that can and should be used at times.

that said, I do think that anytime this team has runners an 1st and 2nd with 0 outs and the #2 hitter at bat - it should be a bunt. i believe that 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with Braun and Prince coming up is better than risking what the 2nd hitter is going to do swinging away in that situation. those are the 2 best hitters on the teams and I want them to get their AB's with 2 runners in scoring position...

[MessiahRp]

My personal opinion is small ball should have been employed way more often then it was under Yost. I don't think there's any time when we should be resorting primarily to small ball but there are times where playing for a tying or go ahead run makes more sense than letting Counsell or Cameron or Bill Hall hack away. Sure the last two guys have power but more times than not they're likely to strike out and then you got nothing out of their PA anyway.

 

I tend to believe that if you have guys who don't have colossal power, have 0-1 outs with a runner on second or third and are down a run or two, that playing for a run is smarter baseball than having guys who are barely average hitters swinging away.

 

I don't believe it makes sense to have Prince or Braun bunt at any time unless it's a game winning squeeze type of play where the whole thing would surprise and throw off an opposing team not playing for the bunt defensively.

 

Rp

[endaround]

More often than not all players make outs therefore they all should always bunt!

 

The worst thing a manger can do is "make something happen!" That's how you get men thrown out at home by 20 feet.

[Invader3K]

The worst thing a manger can do is "make something happen!" That's how you get men thrown out at home by 20 feet.

This sounds silly to me. People were ripping on Yost for basically trotting out the same lineup game after game, and leaving in guys when they had been 0-3 at the plate, in late inning potential scoring situations. Do you really want Sveum to just sit on his hands and not do anything? Callnig for a sac bunt is a lot different than the third base coach waving someone around when an outfielder already has the ball in hand.

[bklynbrewcrew]

Calling for bunts from many of your best hitters like Hardy and Hart every time a runner is on base with no one out is flat out stupid. Its one thing to have lousy hitters like Counsell and Kendall bunting but its another to let good hitters like Hardy bunt in the middle innings. Bunting should only be done by pitchers and extremely weak hitters unless its the 8th or 9th inning and you only need one run. Lets remember that you only get 27 outs in a game and giving away as much as 3 or more per night is just mathematical suicide.

[Invader3K]

Well, Hardy I can partly agree with, but Hart has been having a pretty weak second half at the plate. Same goes for Bill Hall...I still don't get why people were mad that he was bunting last night. His batting average is awful, so at least calling for the bunt gave them some chance of moving someone over...I'd rather see that than another strike out or weak fly out.

[bklynbrewcrew]

Invader, the reason Hall shouldnt have been bunting is because the pitcher had already walked the first two batters of the inning and was nowhere near the plate. Why give them an out when he hasnt shown an ability to throw a strike.

[logan82]

From this thread.

1992casey
Article:
Too Much of a Sacrifice?

Old threads:
To Bunt, or Not to Bunt
Article: "Too Much of a Sacrifice?" (bunting)

 

 

 

In the first article "Too Much of a Sacrafice?" they set thresholds for players who should bunt. .206OBP/.132SLG Almost no everyday player is below that. You still should bunt occasionally to keep the defense honest. Yost bunted about the right amount.

 

 

[Invader3K]

Invader, the reason Hall shouldnt have been bunting is because the pitcher had already walked the first two batters of the inning and was nowhere near the plate. Why give them an out when he hasnt shown an ability to throw a strike.

OK, I hadn't thought about it. I do see your point there.

[Phenomenal Smith]

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.

Baseball has a problem in that the style of play that is most interesting to watch is not the one that is the most effective in winning.

 

The game was a lot more enjoyable back in the 80s when teams were stealing like mad. Walks and three run homers make the game less watchable.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I don't want the team I follow to employ much (if any) small ball for a myriad of reasons, most of which have been mentioned by others already in this thread. But that isn't why I hate small ball. I hate small ball because of garbage like this:

 

What's Brewin': Small ball lights a fire

 

By my count, the Brewers attempted 3 bunts last night. CC bunted into a DP in the 3rd. Hardy bunted successfully in the 6th, and it is possible that without employing the sacrifice there, the team fails to score the 1 run it ultimately scored on Hart's sac fly. Hall bunted unsuccessfully in the 7th, possibly wrecking a shot at a big inning.

 

In the inning that really mattered, the 3-run 4th, nothing remotely resembling a small ball strategy was used, and if it had been (if at any point they'd given up an out), the Brewers very likely would have cost themselves the opportunity to eventually draw 2 bases-loaded walks and score what proved to be the game winning run.

 

Yet this author feels it is appropriate to attribute the win to Dale Sveum's precious small ball philosophy, because the team scored 4 runs on just 2 hits.

 

And this is the kind of reasoning I see as more or less omnipresent among those that cover baseball for a living (tv, radio, print, online...pretty much everywhere outside of a few stat geek websites). In a shallow, superficial, meaningless sort of way, I guess this helps baseball fans that think they're more than casual fans feel superior to chicks that dig the long ball, or something. What other possible point or purpose this sort of blatantly misleading (deliberately dishonest?) story could serve...well, I got nothing.