Enough small ball talk?

[RynMan]

So I log onto mlb.com and on the front page shows how the two teams in the world series are there for pitching, defense and their ability to play small ball.

Can someone, ANYONE show me some evidence that the White Sox doing so well this season was as a result of playing "small ball"?

The White Sox were 5th in the majors in HR's....to me that seems quite high for a team that wins by playing small ball. They were also 13th in Runs Scored....could it be possible that alot of their runs were scored by long balls?

I always said that it was the Sox' defense and pitching that got them as far as they did....why the small ball argument?

[bigh0rt]

Yeah, I'm also tired of hearing this small ball stuff left and right. Whenever a team without big superstars plays fundamentally sound, they are playing "small ball", to the analysts. Boo.

[baseball6791]

I think that the fact that no (or very few) teams actually do play small ball, makes the perception of the meaning of it change from what it actually is to sort of what hort said, but more being fundamentally sound.

[DK]

Well in all fairness most of their HR advantage comes from playing in US Cellular which boosts HR totals. Away they were right in the middle of the pack when it came to homers in the AL.

"Small-ball" is the definition people like to use when a team has a decent offense and good pitching + defense and win games. In reality, the Sox won because of their great pitching staff this year. Their offense was average at best once you factor in the park effect.

[San D]

I think it's a good psychological ploy that keeps them focused on every at bat even though they are MLB average hitters. It makes them feel like they are playing all aspects of the game, keeps the game interesting and it carries over to the fielding.

[HOOTIE]

Chicago ran alot, but was it worth it? Chicago ranked 22nd in sb %, with a terrible 67 %. Their running cost them runs. They only ranked 16th in sacrifice hits.

[RynMan]

Chicago ran alot, but was it worth it? Chicago ranked 22nd in sb %, with a terrible 67 %. Their running cost them runs. They only ranked 16th in sacrifice hits.

Exactly Hootie. They are towards the top in steals, but mainly due to one player they have.....Pods something.

[giants8307]

Chicago ran alot, but was it worth it? Chicago ranked 22nd in sb %, with a terrible 67 %. Their running cost them runs. They only ranked 16th in sacrifice hits.

I think you gain 1/3 of run for every steal and lose 2/3 for every CS. Seems like stealing did exactly nothing for them.

[HOOTIE]

Chicago ran alot, but was it worth it? Chicago ranked 22nd in sb %, with a terrible 67 %. Their running cost them runs. They only ranked 16th in sacrifice hits.

I think you gain 1/3 of run for every steal and lose 2/3 for every CS. Seems like stealing did exactly nothing for them.

linear weights has shown
a sb is worth .17 run
caught stealing worth (-.45) run
72% is around the break even point

[RynMan]

linear weights has shown
a sb is worth .17 run
caught stealing worth (-.45) run
72% is around the break even point

Do you know how they calculate those figures?