Gene Honda Civic Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 The problem with the A's style is that it's difficult to change your approach once the playoffs arrive, especially after you've had success with a bombing style. The A's find this out the hard way every year lately, once the playoffs start. It's an advantage to get the balance of styles figured out in the regular season, so it's in the team's natural mental approach and not something they have to think about on the field. Judging by your post, I think we're saying the same thing basically. Yep -- I don't recall any game-winning bunts by the A's -- Oh wait ... There was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I don't think there is ever anything wrong with a sacrifice fly that drives in a run. That's good baseball. But at times, I hate to see a sac bunt just to move a runner a base. Trading an out for a run is one thing, an out for a base is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I'd say we have a pretty good mix going on right now....We're leading the AL in sacrifices, AND we're leading the AL with 37 HRs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I'm remembering more of the sacs where the batter is really trying to also get on base. I doubt there is a stat for this but if Willie lays down an unsuccessful drag bunt, it may look like a sac. Does that make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Yep -- I don't recall any game-winning bunts by the A's -- Oh wait ... There was? They also have three of the best pitchers in the game at the top of their rotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 No offense but some of you people are nuts. Your complaining because we scored the runs and won the game. Someone said that it was stupid to have Uribe bunt and move over the runner, whos to say Uribe doesn't Pop out, Stike Out, Fly Out, Etc. The point is we traded if and maybe's for something a little more guarunteed. This is the ball that will turn us into a playoff contender and this is the ball we need to stick with. You either keep up or you fall behind. Not only that all of you people who are complaining would be the same ones if we didn't lay down bunts and failed to get hits. :finger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted May 3, 2004 Author Share Posted May 3, 2004 No offense but some of you people are nuts. Your complaining because we scored the runs and won the game. Someone said that it was stupid to have Uribe bunt and move over the runner, whos to say Uribe doesn't Pop out, Stike Out, Fly Out, Etc. The point is we traded if and maybe's for something a little more guarunteed. This is the ball that will turn us into a playoff contender and this is the ball we need to stick with. You either keep up or you fall behind. Not only that all of you people who are complaining would be the same ones if we didn't lay down bunts and failed to get hits. :finger The Detroit Tigers led the league in SH's last year so I don't see a direct correlation to wins. There is a time and a place for everything in baseball, Ozzie stretched the odds by giving up an out that early. Yesterday he was right and I was wrong but I think, if he calls this play so early every game, I'd be right more often over a whole season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 With four today, the Sox now lead the AL with 23 sacrifices in 24 games. The four sacs came after doubles and produced 2 runs, but they also gave Toronto two easy outs against Uribe and Olivo. I won't beef about Maggs and Willies sacs because they were going for hits. I have to question the first one in particular. First inning and Uribe is hitting about .400, man on 2B, the Oz traded a chance for a big inning for a single run. It may work regularly in the NL, but it will come back to get you over time against AL powerhouses like the Jays. You rarely beat them with only 3 runs, but Ozzies hot right now and got away with it. I don't think you can constantly give away outs in this league. At least by posting this after a good win, I can't be accused of front running. I kind of think it all depends on the specific game you are in thqat day. Consider the opposing pitcher, how the offense is responding, even the weather conditions, etc. Nothing wrong with advancing the runners on a sac of some type. It opens up a lot of possibilities and giving up the out to advance a runner is just part of game strategy. I think we have seen a real turnaround in the offensive approach this team takes into a game. They can hammer the ball with anybody in the Major Leagues and maybe better than 90% of the teams, but they don't sit back waiting for that long ball. Ozzie managing with that philosophy will give us exciting baseball and more wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Sure small ball wins championships....in the PLAYOFFS. I hate to beat a dead horse but the A's consistently make the playoffs without ANY small ball. There has to be some merit to the system then if it keeps happening. Am I saying we're the A's? No, we lack the strong SP they have. That's why I think the best way for us to make the playoffs consistently is to hit away with the occasional use of small ball to shake things up and produce runs when the bats are struggling. That's the ideal I think. 1. Small ball wins championships (think Kenny Lofton with Cubs and Giants), but if 2001-2003 were any indication, you CAN'T just turn it on and off. Last year, there was a game in which Sox blew 4 (Willie 2, Jimenez, Rowand) sac bunts and lost a game by a run. The team has to be READY, both mentally and mechanically, to sacrifize themselves, whether on a groundball to the right side, bunt, HBP....and just execute. 2. Batista is the type of a pitcher Sox absolutely hate. That had to be done. Tie the game at 1, so now your hitters don't have to sweat and play catchup. If Garland ends up imploding, so be it -- you lose the game either way then. 3. There is undeniable legitimacy to the whole"outs are more precious in the Juice Era of 1993-2004 than ever before" thinking. But it shouldn't be carried out to the extreme. 4. Sox don't have the overwhelming, World Series-caliber talent, not even close. So our chances of going deep into postseason are DIRECTLY proportional not only to our players' willingness to play up to their potential (read: Joe Crede can't bat 240 and Garland can't have ERA over 4.20, etc) for once, which means that their intensity should be higher than competition ala 2000.......but also to whether or not Sox can be more EFFIECIENT than other teams at myriad little things --- defense, moving runners over, avoiding GIDP w RISP, sac bunts, hitting cut-off men, using the entire field with 2 strikes, taking extra bases when the defense makes a mistake, take-out sliding to break up DP's, calling optimum pitches from the dugout, etc, etc, etc. It remains to be seen if Sox can do it, but without Ozzieball (whatever the hell it is), they ain't going places, plain and simple. So while I am not totally satisfied with the way the team is playing right now, I have no beef with Oz bunting Uribe and Olivo. Chances are, one of them could have been safe and now the corner infilders will be just a little more mindful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Listening to the game yesterday was yet another rant against JM and how you have to practice and implement what you need to do to win. We are 15-9 right now because we are doing the little things to win and playing good fundamental baseball. Over the last few years we have made so many stupid mistakes and have done so many stupid things that it was sickening. Only one player has really shined for us (Uribe) but just about everyone else has contributed, no Daubach's and Clayton's just taking up space. When a player does something stupid he is picked up. Guillen stated again yesterday that we need to get away from relying on the 3-run homer every inning to win ballgames. When we do this we turn into the passionless squad that sits around and looses in the end to a team that executes. A sacrifice means you succeed, this is a good thing no matter how many times or how often you do it. Man on third and less than two outs is a great thing. In recent years, we never got him home, this year we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Guillen stated again yesterday that we need to get away from relying on the 3-run homer every inning to win ballgames You need a 3-run homer to get TO the post-season, but once there, going up against Shilling, Pedro, Vasquez, Brown and Hudson, it might no longer be an option -- same swing/approach that produce a home-run in pressure free situations off some AAAA scrub during the regular season, get you a medium-depth fly-out against the ace pitchers in postseaosn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 here's the thing, getting runs early is huge. It makes your pitchers feel more secure and your hitters more at ease. getting 2 quick runs in the 1st and second is a great plan, then let the homers and all the "big innings" come later. it makes sense to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 here's the thing, getting runs early is huge. It makes your pitchers feel more secure and your hitters more at ease. getting 2 quick runs in the 1st and second is a great plan, then let the homers and all the "big innings" come later. it makes sense to me... I agree with you in theory, but doesn't it seem like a big 1st inning is the worst thing that happens to the Sox so far this year? Seems like after a big early inning, they immediately let the opposition back into the game. If there's one thing I haven't seen from the Sox so far, it's the ability to step on the other team's necks and keep them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 thats why i said one or 2 runs, not "big innings" those, as we've seen, come later and secure the lead... i dunno, but i think its an interesting strat that's worked so far so why change it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 These threads are getting me pissed! This is like the damn Harold Reynolds thread! What team have you been watching for the last 4 YEARS? The team I've been watching is a streak hitting team that goes cold just as fast as it goes hot! So the idea that we have a manager that KNOWS how to manufacture runs when the hits are scarce tickles me pink! We had 5 hits in the game. Two by Harris, a HR by Thomas, 1 by Lee & 1 by Rowand. In Sat's game we had 5 hits as well. That 2 wins, 10 hits, 2 games. That's called SMALL ball, & on this team it's long over due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.