Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Help
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Search
Google Search
Web
Toaster
Dodger Thoughts
Archives

2009
02  01 

2008
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2007
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2006
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2005
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2004
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2003
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2002
09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

How Big? So Big
2003-08-07 16:01
by Jon Weisman
Note: The Dodger Thoughts blog has moved to the Los Angeles Times.

From Steven Goldman, whose writing makes me feel like one of the schlubs waiting to be healed by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, comes this great discussion of big ball vs. small ball. (Scroll down.)

"Bunting and base-stealing make a lot of sense in an environment where runners are unlikely to be advanced by other means or one in which forcing the infielders and the catchers to throw the ball might lead to some free bases," Goldman writes. "Neither condition describes major league baseball today."

However, this does describe major league baseball from the past, which is why some very wizened veterans may cling to the superiority of small ball. Goldman quotes Clay Davenport of Baseball Prospectus as saying:

"Big ball being better than "small ball" is not an absolute truth; game conditions determine how possible it is to achieve "big" or "small" results. Under past historical conditions, with inferior gloves and less developed and trained team defensive strategies, the sacrifice was a much better play (and still is, today, at lower levels of play).
With the Dodgers having abandoned the sacrifice in recent weeks (although Adrian Beltre did square around to bunt with Robin Ventura on second base Wednesday night - before knocking a game-winning RBI single to right), I haven't pursued this topic as much as when this ripening season was 16 going on 17. But I do have one thought from April 5 that bears repeating.

Frankly, IÕve been wondering what makes mediocre offensive teams like the Dodgers think they would be any better at manufacturing runs than they are at buying them retail. If theyÕre not good enough build an above-average OPS, what makes them think that they can execute a fairly difficult play, the hit-and-run?

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.