Small Ball Who’s Who
by John WalshMay 26, 2006
You hear a lot of talk about "small ball" these days. You know what small ball is, that old-style offensive attack, where speed takes precedence over power. Where one-run strategies such as the sacrifice bunt and the stolen base are preferred to a conservative brand of baseball that depends on walks and home runs to produce runs (and strikeouts) in bunches.
It seems to me this talk about small ball reached a crescendo last season, when the self-avowed small ball White Sox bunted and stole their way to a world championship. Announcers and players, baseball beat writers and managers extolled the virtues of the small ball attack. Not everyone was convinced, however, and some (especially in the blogosphere) were quick to point out that the White Sox hit 200 home runs in 2005, good for fourth place in the majors. How small ball is that?
So, I decided to take a look at some numbers and see if the White Sox really were a small ball club. I came up with a ranking of all 30 major league teams, from most "small ball" to least "small ball." And you know what? The White Sox were indeed quite "small ball" last year, although not the "smallest."
Just What is Small Ball?
Before we can identify the small ball teams, we need to define what we mean by small ball and come up with a few characteristics of teams that play small ball. I came up with six criteria for indentifying small ball teams.
- Stolen bases attempted
- Aggressive baserunning—going first-to-third on a single, etc.
- Bunts
- Productive outs
- Contact rate
- Percent of runs scored on home runs
So what follows is a look at how teams fared in each of the six categories listed above. A big table with the rankings of each team in each category is given at the end, so the impatient reader can scroll down.
The Stolen Base
Along with the bunt, I think the stolen base is the play most commonly associated with small ball. I'm looking at stolen bases attempted because I feel it is a better indication of a small ball philosophy than successful stolen bases. Here are the leaders and trailers in stolen base attempts for 2005. (I will present data for all teams at the end of this article.)
Stolen Base Attempts Leaders Trailers +------+------+------+----------+ +------+------+------+----------+ | Team | SB | CS | Attempts | | Team | SB | CS | Attempts | +------+------+------+----------+ +------+------+------+----------+ | LAA | 161 | 57 | 218 | | ARI | 67 | 26 | 93 | | CHA | 137 | 67 | 204 | | LAN | 58 | 35 | 93 | | TBA | 151 | 49 | 200 | | WAS | 45 | 45 | 90 | | NYN | 153 | 40 | 193 | | KCA | 53 | 33 | 86 | | HOU | 115 | 44 | 159 | | TEX | 67 | 15 | 82 | | SEA | 102 | 47 | 149 | | BOS | 45 | 12 | 57 | | MIN | 102 | 44 | 146 | | OAK | 31 | 22 | 53 | +------+------+------+----------+ +------+------+------+----------+No real surprises here: Angels and White Sox at the top and Red Sox and A's at the bottom.
Aggression on the Basepaths—Taking the Extra Base
As already mentioned, speed plays a crucial part in the small ball attack, but in addition to speed, aggressiveness on the basepaths is also a signature of small ball offenses. After all, if you're not going to bring the runners around by hitting the ball over the fence, you'll have to rely on them getting around the bases on singles, doubles and fly-outs.
To measure aggressiveness on the bases, I've considered five different situations when a baserunner may opt to take an extra base or not. I'm not going to discuss the five different situations here; details can be found in my previous articles on outfield arms.
Note that I'm not ranking teams by success rate in taking the extra base. Dan Fox already did that for The Hardball Times Annual 2006. (You did get it, didn't you?) I'm just ranking teams by how often they attempted to take the extra base, given the opportunity. The results:Baserunning Leaders Trailers +------+------+----------+--------------+ +------+------+----------+--------------+ | team | Opps | Attempts | Attempt_Rate | | team | Opps | Attempts | Attempt_Rate | +------+------+----------+--------------+ +------+------+----------+--------------+ | CHA | 582 | 345 | 0.593 | | NYA | 687 | 360 | 0.524 | | KCA | 624 | 370 | 0.593 | | ARI | 574 | 298 | 0.519 | | TBA | 623 | 368 | 0.591 | | MIN | 603 | 313 | 0.519 | | CLE | 597 | 346 | 0.580 | | CHN | 584 | 301 | 0.515 | | WAS | 575 | 331 | 0.576 | | TEX | 567 | 291 | 0.513 | | ANA | 643 | 369 | 0.574 | | BAL | 616 | 314 | 0.510 | | HOU | 556 | 318 | 0.572 | | LAN | 580 | 288 | 0.497 | +------+------+----------+--------------+ +------+------+----------+--------------+The White Sox were the most aggressive base-running team in baseball last year. Frankly, I expected the Angels to top this category, but they are close to the top (sixth place). It's curious that the Dodgers were the most station-to-station team in the majors last year, and by a goodly margin. I didn't expect to see the Twins among the trailers in this category, either.
The Smallest Hit
What is smaller than a bunt? Everybody knows that the bunt is a key part of good small ball. Getting that bunt down when the sacrifice is in order is part of the fundamental game that is so pleasing to announcers, (some) managers and many fans. But there is more to bunting than just sacrificing. Beating out a bunt for a hit is also a small ball tactic. And what about the squeeze play? It's one of the most dramatic plays in the small ball arsenal. I've chosen to rank teams based on total number of bunts.
By the way, I removed pitcher bunts when making my ranking—just about every pitcher will be asked to bunt in a sacrifice situation, and that's not small ball, it's just baseball. Real small ball is having position players bunt.
Without further ado, here is the team ranking in bunts for 2005:
Total Bunts Leaders Trailers +------+-------+ +------+-------+ | team | bunts | | team | bunts | +------+-------+ +------+-------+ | FLO | 148 | | PHI | 58 | | CHA | 131 | | LAN | 53 | | HOU | 129 | | CIN | 43 | | CHN | 112 | | OAK | 40 | | DET | 100 | | TOR | 36 | | MIN | 100 | | BOS | 33 | | TBA | 98 | | TEX | 15 | | ANA | 98 | +------+-------+ | COL | 98 | | SFN | 98 | +------+-------+There are the White Sox again, near the top. And at the bottom we have some sabermetrically inclined teams: Oakland (Billy Beane, general manager), Boston (Bill James, senior advisor) and Toronto (J.P. Ricciardi, general manager). Note that when you remove pitcher bunts, the top teams are an even mix of NL and AL clubs.
Even though I didn't explicitly use squeeze plays in the rankings, I thought it would be interesting to look at who squeezes most often. I have always heard that Tony La Russa loves the squeeze play, and I was curious to see if the numbers bear that out. Here are the top squeezers in 2005:
Squeeze Plays Attempted Leaders +------+----------+ | team | Squeezes | +------+----------+ | SLN | 14 | | HOU | 8 | | MIL | 7 | | SFN | 5 | | ATL | 5 | | COL | 4 | | CHA | 4 | | ANA | 4 | +------+----------+Tony La Russa has indeed earned his repuatation as King of the Squeeze. By the way, quite a few teams did not attempt a single squeeze play in 2005.
Productive Outs
A couple of years ago several articles appeared in the mainstream media about something called "productive outs," and ESPN actually started keeping track of team productive outs on its website (although that's not the case any longer). There were quite a few rebuttals, mostly in the blogosphere, disputing the value of the productive out stat. Well, if you're interested in the debate, I invite you to plug "productive outs" into Google and read to your heart's content. What I'm interested in here is finding out which teams concentrate on getting productive outs.
What I actually looked at is sometimes known as the "Productive Out Percentage," which is just the number of productive outs divided by the total number of outs in productive out situations. Sacrifice bunts are usually included in this stat, but I removed them since I've considered bunts elsewhere. Here are the results:
Productive Out Percentage Leaders Trailers +------+------+-----------+--------------+ +------+------+-----------+--------------+ | Team | Opps | Prod Outs | Prod Out Pct | | Team | Opps | Prod Outs | Prod Out Pct | +------+------+-----------+--------------+ +------+------+-----------+--------------+ | TOR | 1038 | 291 | 0.280 | | MIL | 938 | 219 | 0.233 | | ANA | 940 | 262 | 0.279 | | CLE | 1020 | 237 | 0.232 | | MIN | 954 | 262 | 0.275 | | CIN | 926 | 215 | 0.232 | | NYN | 910 | 248 | 0.273 | | COL | 956 | 222 | 0.232 | | WAS | 876 | 233 | 0.266 | | BAL | 1008 | 227 | 0.225 | | DET | 963 | 255 | 0.265 | | LAN | 979 | 207 | 0.211 | | SLN | 962 | 248 | 0.258 | | TEX | 1015 | 214 | 0.211 | +------+------+-----------+--------------+ +------+------+-----------+--------------+It's curious that Toronto, often considered a "Moneyball" team, ranks highest on the small ball index in this category.
Texas has been among the trailers in each category examined so far, and the Reds and the Dodgers seem to be a bottom-dwellers as well. We'll see how they fare overall when we total up the scores.
Put The Ball in Play!
An important aspect of the small ball philosophy is putting the ball in play. Don't strike out, do make contact, put pressure on the defense, and make something happen. Even the base on balls, when there are runners in scoring position, is downplayed in favor of hitting the ball.
Contact is the percentage of plate appearances that result in a ball put into play, including home runs. Teams that top this category do not strike out or walk very much. Here are the top and bottom teams in this category (pitcher plate appearances removed):
Contact Leaders Trailers +------+---------+ +------+---------+ | Team | Contact | | Team | Contact | +------+---------+ +------+---------+ | ANA | 0.785 | | WAS | 0.729 | | SFN | 0.779 | | BOS | 0.728 | | CHN | 0.778 | | PHI | 0.727 | | OAK | 0.776 | | LAN | 0.725 | | BAL | 0.771 | | ARI | 0.725 | | FLO | 0.766 | | MIL | 0.721 | | DET | 0.760 | | CIN | 0.694 | +------+---------+ +------+---------+The Los Angeles Angels lead this category, which doesn't surprise me, since they have the reputation of a contact-oriented team. However, seeing Oakland among the leaders did surprise me a bit. It's been pointed out many times that since Moneyball was written in 2002 the A's have been shifting away from the walk-walk-home run paradigm, and this seems to be further evidence of that.
Home Runs or Lack Thereof
One criticism of teams that rely heavily on power is that when a team goes into a home run slump, there is no way of scoring—their lack of speed and aggressiveness precludes them from scratching out that one run that might be enough to win a close game, especially in the playoffs. I don't find this argument very convincing, but that's not my concern at the moment. I just want to identify the teams who least rely on the home run.
I looked at percent of runs scored on home runs. I went through the play-by-play data (you can't get these stats elsewhere, folks!) and looked at what percentage of a team's runs scored were knocked in via the home run. Before I show you the list, a quick comment: just because a team doesn't drive in many runs via the homer doesn't necessarily mean it's a small ball team. It could mean the team just stinks. Maybe the players are trying to hit home runs, but they're no good at it. However, I still think that to some degree percentage of runs scored on home runs can be indicative of a team's small ball tendencies. Here's the list:
Teams Least Reliant on Home Runs Leaders Trailers +------+------+------+-------+-------+ +------+------+------+-------+-------+ | Team | Runs | HR | RonHR | Pct | | Team | Runs | HR | RonHR | Pct | +------+------+------+-------+-------+ +------+------+------+-------+-------+ | WAS | 639 | 117 | 166 | 0.260 | | CLE | 790 | 207 | 321 | 0.406 | | KCA | 701 | 126 | 200 | 0.285 | | ARI | 696 | 191 | 288 | 0.414 | | FLO | 717 | 128 | 215 | 0.300 | | CHN | 703 | 194 | 296 | 0.421 | | SDN | 684 | 130 | 206 | 0.301 | | CHA | 741 | 200 | 314 | 0.424 | | SEA | 699 | 130 | 212 | 0.303 | | NYA | 886 | 229 | 390 | 0.440 | | TOR | 775 | 136 | 238 | 0.307 | | CIN | 820 | 222 | 364 | 0.444 | | PIT | 680 | 139 | 211 | 0.310 | | TEX | 865 | 260 | 413 | 0.477 | +------+------+------+-------+-------+ +------+------+------+-------+-------+ (RonHR = runs scored on HRs)Well, as we already suspected, the White Sox don't look very small at all by this measure, as the Sox were one of the teams most dependent on the the long ball in 2005. The Nats' home park, an inhospitable place for home run hitters, probably has something to do with their leading this category. In looking at the numbers, I think it's difficult to claim that scoring a high percentage of your runs on homers is a bad thing. The "leaders" in this category (the top seven shown above) averaged 699 runs scored for the season, while the trailers averaged nearly 100 more (785).
Total Small Ball Ranking
To come up with a total ranking, I simply ranked all teams in each category. Since there are 30 teams, the leader in a category gets a "30," the second place team a "29," etc., down to "1" for the worst team. (Just like the scoring in many fantasy baseball leagues.) Finally, I added the scores in each category to get a total. Here's the final list:
Final Small Ball Rankings: 2005 Team SB BR Bunts PrdOut Cntct RoHR Total ANA 30.0 25.0 22.5 29.0 30.0 23.0 159.5 TBA 28.0 28.0 22.5 23.0 23.0 16.0 140.5 CHA 29.0 29.5 29.0 17.5 18.0 4.0 127.0 FLO 21.0 12.5 30.0 8.5 25.0 28.0 125.0 MIN 24.0 5.5 25.5 28.0 18.0 22.0 123.0 SLN 18.0 22.5 18.5 24.0 22.0 18.0 123.0 SDN 22.5 22.5 18.5 13.0 16.0 27.0 119.5 DET 8.0 21.0 25.5 25.0 24.0 14.0 117.5 SEA 25.0 17.5 13.0 17.5 18.0 26.0 117.0 HOU 26.0 24.0 28.0 8.5 14.5 13.0 114.0 NYN 27.0 17.5 16.0 27.0 14.5 12.0 114.0 WAS 5.0 26.0 20.0 26.0 7.0 30.0 114.0 TOR 15.0 20.0 3.0 30.0 20.5 25.0 113.5 KCA 4.0 29.5 14.0 15.0 20.5 29.0 112.0 SFN 14.0 15.0 22.5 11.0 29.0 20.0 111.5 CHN 13.0 4.0 27.0 12.0 28.0 5.0 89.0 PIT 12.0 19.0 9.0 10.0 13.0 24.0 87.0 ATL 20.0 8.0 16.0 19.0 9.5 9.0 81.5 OAK 1.0 12.5 4.0 16.0 27.0 21.0 81.5 COL 10.0 14.0 22.5 5.0 9.5 19.0 80.0 PHI 22.5 16.0 7.5 14.0 5.0 15.0 80.0 BAL 19.0 2.0 16.0 3.0 26.0 8.0 74.0 CLE 11.0 27.0 10.0 5.0 11.0 7.0 71.0 NYA 16.0 7.0 7.5 21.5 8.0 3.0 63.0 MIL 17.0 11.0 11.0 7.0 2.0 11.0 59.0 ARI 6.5 5.5 12.0 21.5 3.5 6.0 55.0 BOS 2.0 9.5 2.0 20.0 6.0 10.0 49.5 LAN 6.5 1.0 6.0 1.5 3.5 17.0 35.5 CIN 9.0 9.5 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 31.5 TEX 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 12.0 1.0 21.5 (SB = stolen base attempts, BR = base-running, RoHR = percentage of runs on HR)The 2005 Small Ball Champions are the Los Angeles Angels who scored at or near the top in all six of our categories—their reputation is justified. I hadn't really thought that Tampa Bay was such a small ball team, but considering that Lou Piniella was the manager last year, I guess it shouldn't be surprising. It will be interesting to see where they rank in 2006 now that a new regime is operating in Tampa Bay.
Despite all the home runs, the White Sox rank high on the small ball index. They are near the top in the three categories which only depend on the decisions and not on execution: stolen base attempts, attempting the extra base and bunting. They only ranked towards the middle in productive outs and contact.
The "big ball" championship (for lack of a better name) for 2005 goes to the Texas Rangers who ranked very low in every category except contact. It looks like they have tailored their offense to the high run-scoring nature of their ballpark. The same may be true of Boston, Arizona and Cincinnati.
It's curious that Colorado, despite playing
in a very high-scoring environment, ranks in the middle of the
pack. It looks like Clint Hurdle is a small baller. On the other hand, the Dodgers,
who play in a stingy park for run scoring, definitely played some
big ball in 2005. That surprised me because, although I don't
follow the Dodgers closely, I was under the impression that
saber-minded Dodger fans were less than happy with the way Jim Tracy
was implementing the vision of then-general manager Paul DePodesta. It will be
interesting to see how the Dodgers, with DePodesta and Tracy gone and
Grady Little managing, end up ranking in 2006. Same for the Pirates,
where Tracy is now the manager.
References and Resources
Here are the results for all categories for each team.
Team SB BR Bunts ProdOut Contact RoHR ANA 218 0.574 98 0.279 0.785 0.315 ARI 93 0.519 75 0.252 0.725 0.414 ATL 124 0.533 88 0.250 0.736 0.390 BAL 120 0.510 88 0.225 0.771 0.402 BOS 57 0.541 33 0.251 0.728 0.382 CHA 204 0.593 131 0.249 0.754 0.424 CHN 104 0.515 112 0.237 0.778 0.421 CIN 95 0.541 43 0.232 0.694 0.444 CLE 98 0.580 67 0.232 0.737 0.406 COL 97 0.545 98 0.232 0.736 0.332 DET 94 0.566 100 0.265 0.760 0.362 FLO 134 0.544 148 0.234 0.766 0.300 HOU 159 0.572 129 0.234 0.745 0.371 KCA 86 0.593 82 0.245 0.755 0.285 LAN 93 0.497 53 0.211 0.725 0.347 MIL 113 0.542 68 0.233 0.721 0.379 MIN 146 0.519 100 0.275 0.754 0.318 NYA 111 0.524 58 0.252 0.735 0.440 NYN 193 0.553 88 0.273 0.745 0.373 OAK 53 0.544 40 0.248 0.776 0.326 PHI 143 0.552 58 0.242 0.727 0.359 PIT 103 0.557 65 0.235 0.744 0.310 SDN 143 0.570 95 0.240 0.748 0.301 SEA 149 0.553 79 0.249 0.754 0.303 SFN 106 0.547 98 0.236 0.779 0.328 SLN 119 0.570 95 0.258 0.756 0.342 TBA 200 0.591 98 0.257 0.759 0.349 TEX 82 0.513 15 0.211 0.738 0.477 TOR 107 0.562 36 0.280 0.755 0.307 WAS 90 0.576 96 0.266 0.729 0.260 (SB = stolen base attempts, BR = baserunning, RoHR = percentage of runs on HR)
John Walsh dabbles in baseball analysis in his spare time. He welcomes questions and comments via e-mail.
<< Return to Article