Horns247 Board

I don't think anyone said you didn't need pitching......

His title teams hit 50+ homers.

As much as i hate the small ball the bats were drastically different back than.

JKates said...

No, it's all about scoring before you're out of outs. Runs and outs. Outs and runs. Advancing runners while intentionally giving up an out is rarely the right move.

I do think it is situational. If you have a runner on 2nd with no outs, I think you should almost always move the runner over.
Obviously, there are exceptions. If you have Paul Molitor up next you let him swing it. jmo
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why? It still takes a base hit to score the runner and most base hits score the runner from second just as easily as third.

Too small a sample size. Look playing money ball guarantees nothing. But the numbers say small ball is less effective than money ball. In any given game or season that might not always be true. Its just like blackjack. You might get a 4 on 17 once in a while but the smart players stand.

Moneyball and small ball are similar.................starting with OBP being the most important stat in baseball. The big difference is in moneyball there is little stealing. Small ball less effective?.............except Gus and Augie have won 7 CWS Championship playing it.

What most people miss with small is when you face the best pitching you have to manufacture runs. Teams that can execute small ball can when needed play for the big inning. Augie's best teams were able to do that in Omaha where the wind blows out and a smaller OF. The reverse is not true...................a team that is a free-swinging team or a team that plays for the big inning can't manufacture runs..........ie the 2007 and 2008 teams.

Correct. And WINS is the most important stat of them all, driven by RUNS, driven by OPS and others.

Do you know what OPS is?

Also, Moneyball and Small ball are nothing alike.

Stop embarrassing yourself already.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-sacrifice-bunt-the-real-rally-killer/

The only thing that needs to be executed is the sacrifice bunt from the playbook of Major League managers. It is not always the wrong move, but it is used far too often and in too many situations where swinging away is more likely to produce a positive result. At the front office level, every organization in the game is getting smarter. In some cities, the on-field personnel are utilizing facts and logic to better inform their tactical decisions. But, by and large, most Major League managers are still like Mattingly and Wedge, and they’re going to bunt regardless of whether or not it actually helps their team’s chances of winning.

We don’t live in 1953 anymore. We have access to more and better information than ever before. Teams are spending large amounts of resources to make better decisions to get improvements on the margins that may end up winning them one or two games over the course of the season. And yet, at the end of the day, most of these teams are still entrusting their in-game strategy to people who simply don’t understand the basic probabilities of the sport.

But what does Dave Cameron know? If he knew baseball he would be corching for a living.

Dodging the argument to name call and bring up tangent points is embarrassing. Not to mention your autistic use of ellipses.

End of discussion I guess. Who can argue with sabermetrics in baseball.
I will listen the day that Billy Beane and his sibermetrics win a championship on any level.
Btw, the A's were under .500 for 5 straight seasons before they got back into the playoffs in 2012.