Chicks Dig the Long Ball but Commentators Love the Small Ball

by David S. Cohen on Aug 30, 2006 10:59 AM EDT in News Comment 20 comments

As Greg Maddux said, "Chicks dig the long ball." (You should really click on the link to see that commercial again - it's truly a classic.) But as we're told everyday by print reporters, television commentators, and online columnists, Maddux's "chicks" have it all wrong.

What the reporters, commentators, and columnists remind us at every opportunity is that what matters in baseball is "small ball." Why the obsession?

Before offering my theory on why the obsession exists, let's just again state that in today's game, small ball is pointless. The Phillies have not won over the past month because of small ball, despite some commentators' insistence otherwise. The White Sox didn't win last year because of small ball either. In fact, they were fifth in all of baseball in home runs. The list could go on and on. Teams need to be able to hit the long ball to score runs. It's simple.

In fact, it's so simple that you and I and casual fans and non-fans, and even "chicks" too, can see that the long ball is important to the game. And professional commentators hate that!

This is the essence of professional commentators' love of small ball: they need to have something to say that distinguishes their observations from those of anyone else who watches a baseball game. After all, if anyone can see that home runs are important to a team's offensive success and that's what the commentator says, then why bother listening to the commentator?

Thus, the obsession with small ball. Jon Marzano has to point out all the things that he knows about baseball that the average fan couldn't possibly know. Harold Reynolds has to talk about team chemistry and doing the little things because he knows about those things and we don't. Obsession with small ball is all about proving to the general public that the obsessed are smarter than we are.

But, they're not. In fact, they're often quite foolish when they're so obviously wrong. They don't want to admit it, but the "chicks" have it right.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

the question is really pretty simple...

...has Ryan Howard or Shane Victorino been more valuable to the 2006 Phillies?

I'm a big fan of the Flyin' Hawaiian (who's probably the best example of a "small ball" skill set, unless you really want to credit Nunez), but that's not a very tough one to answer.

by dajafi on Aug 30, 2006 11:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But?

What would Jon Marzano say?

by David S. Cohen on Aug 30, 2006 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

happily

I don't live in the Marzano broadcast range, so I'm not exposed to his idiocy.

I forget who it was that observed the reason he "watched the games" was because he was rarely good enough to play in them, but the point seems to hold. I'm confident that Marzano was better at getting down a sacrifice bunt than hitting the ball out of the park; where did it get him?

Exactly: on Comcast.

by dajafi on Aug 30, 2006 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see Marzano sometimes, and

I'd say he's in the range of Chris Wheeler - it's his job to say things, and so he says things every night, and a lot of them are dumb and trite, but he (unlike Wheeler) did play it at a high level, and he does have some genuine insights some of the time. But the overall effect is still pretty annoying.

by The Navigator on Aug 30, 2006 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

re

Boy howdy, sounds like something I'd write ;)

good stuff

http://hugetinymistake.wordpress.com/

by pacino on Aug 30, 2006 12:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Chicks Dig the Long Ball

Awesome commercial and fun to watch again. Thanks for the link.

by Laaaaazzz on Aug 30, 2006 12:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You're welcome

youtube.com is an amazing resource. And, the full version of that commercial really is excellent in so many ways. I assume it was filmed at Busch Stadium, but it really looks a ton like the Vet.

by David S. Cohen on Aug 30, 2006 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Classic

That commercial does bring back memories, thanks...as for the obsession with small ball, could it be most of the current media members i.e. ex-players, coaches etc. had that drummed into their heads and just are not honest or smart enough to re-evaluate today's reality?

by Vote for Kalas on Aug 30, 2006 2:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wait a second

Twins are one of the best teams in baseball, they play small ball. So does that Tigers pretty much. Dodgers, San Diego, and the Cardinals....they all lead their divisions.

by Philsin06 on Aug 31, 2006 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Some of those teams do, but the Tigers are 10th in baseball in home runs, and the Cardinals are 15th. That's not small ball. The Dodgers and San Diego don't have a lot of home runs, but San Diego doesn't have a lot of runs at all. Their pitching is what's doing it for them.

The point isn't that small ball can't win games; rather, the point is that more often than not, commentators who talk about small ball don't know what they're talking about because the numbers don't support them. Just like your comment about Detroit and St. Louis . . . .

by David S. Cohen on Aug 31, 2006 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, commentators like small ball

because it's a well-known fact that when everything was in black and white every game was 1-0. And no one ever hit home runs. Ever. So real baseball is low scoring.

by enterpsmith on Aug 30, 2006 6:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually

That was when things were all white.

by David S. Cohen on Aug 30, 2006 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WHITE-BASED 1-0 GAMES

In 1930, National League teams averaged 11.4 runs per game, or 5.7 runs per team, per game. Hardly "1-0," as you imply. And what makes a 1-0 game, real baseball? What makes a 11-9 game, real baseball? Who defines what is "real," - you?

It seems to me that announcers have to make references to "first-run strategies" in deference to modern-day idiot managers like Charlie Manuel "sacrificing" an out to move a runner up 90 feet, and allowing hot dogs like Jelly Roll to attempt a steal of third base now and then because he's going anyway, whether Charlie likes it or not. From Ty Cobb to Barry Bonds, baseball has changed a little bit, but some in the game, and some in the bleachers don't seem to know that.

by robbybonfire on Aug 31, 2006 9:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re-calibrate your sarcasm detector

I don't think the previous two comments were entirely serious.

by phatj on Aug 31, 2006 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not buying the arguement in this post

Yeah, you can win just by hitting a lot of home runs and the Phillies have been doing that in the last month or so averaging over 8 runs a game. I thought your point was overblown. We've just been watching a team scoring a ton of runs in the last month. We could just as easily had watched a team with great starters that average over 10 K's a game and average 8 innings per start with a team full of gold glovers and conclude that pitching/defense is the way to win.

The way you win is to score more runs than the other team. You can do that by preventing runs (pitching and defense) or by scoring lots of runs (hitting). The Phils still lack the starting pitching to win with pitching, the quesition is can they keep hitting consistently to win.

Personally I like Marzanno a lot and the fact that he wasn't a very good player I think makes him a better commentator. I have to admit Wheels has gotten better this year, although he still talks down to the audience too much for my taste and comments on the bloody obvious far too much. (Every year Wheels is surprised its hot and humid during July and August day games and cool during April night games--duh! I'm sure next month he'll be stunned that the days are getting noticably shorter.)

xats

by xatsman on Sep 1, 2006 3:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

There's no truer statement in baseball than that you win by scoring more runs than the opponent. That's, in fact, one of the only things you can say with 100% certainty about this game.

But, what I was getting at is that today's game is much more about hitting with power than bunting guys over. And, it's stupid on the part of commentators to go on and on about small ball in the face of facts that show the complete opposite is what's happening.

by David S. Cohen on Sep 1, 2006 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

PERCENTAGE BASEBALL

Dave, it is obvious that many managers and many announcers do not know that sacrificing a runner from first to second (by a non-pitcher) lowers the run-scoring potential in an inning. And even fewer insiders and outsiders seem to know that a sacrifice fly LOWERS the run scoring potential in an inning. And if that is not enough, the attempted steal of third base qualifies as the dumbest call in all of sports = miniscule potential gain vs. the risk of major damage to the scoring potential of an inning.

The best reference to the percentages connected with the above is the John Thorn, Pete Palmer classic work, "The Hidden Game Of Baseball." Why baseball people refuse to read it and apply its wisdom is a mystery? I am embarrassed by the display of ignorance demonstrated by the Charlie Manuel's of the baseball world on a daily basis.

by robbybonfire on Sep 1, 2006 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs