I’ve heard it mentioned and seen it written in a couple places…well, I’ll just call it what it is…the threat of “small ball” coming to the Indians for the 2010 season.
To briefly outline the details, “small ball” is generally used to describe a style of play on offense that emphasizes bunts, steals, and moving the runner, ahead of home runs and extra base hits.
The “logic” behind the foresight of the few people I’ve heard bring this up seems to stem from what I would call a vague impression that the Indians are getting faster. The catalyst for this appears to be the addition of Michael Brantley, the subtraction of Victor Martinez, the continued presence of Grady Sizemore and Shin Soo Choo, and the possibility that Eric Wedge and his philosophies will not be shepherding the ferry next season.
Aside from the fact that I don’t really see how the Indians have suddenly got a whole lot faster with the addition of one player who may or may not even have a place on the 25 man roster next season (Brantley playing LF means LaPorta would have to play 1B, and Andy Marte is still out there), I think the link that’s being made between speed and small ball is a complete fallacy.
I would never advocate against athleticism and speed on the baseball diamond - but I would advocate against using athleticism and speed to give away outs, which is essentially the cornerstone of the small ball approach.
Any time a hitter sacrifice bunts or bats a ground ball to the right side of the infield with a runner on 2nd without trying to get a hit, he’s admitting defeat. He’s settling. He’s saying, “Well, I can’t get a single and drive the runner in, so I might as well move him over to third so the next guy can try and do better than me.”
The only batter that should think this way, ever, is the pitcher - and the Indians are still, unfortunately, in the American League.
Moneyball goes more deeply into why, historically speaking, it doesn’t make sense to bunt - Billy Beane basically forbade Art Howe from doing so - but you don’t have to look at the stats to understand why giving away an out doesn’t make sense. In baseball, outs are a precious commodity. Your team has 27 of them - your opponent is trying to take them away from you. Why hand them one with a tip of the cap and a pat on the back?
Yes, we’ve all seen scenarios where a runner gets on first, he’s bunted over, and the next guy up gets a single and drives him in. But we’ve also seen situations where that same guy hits a home run. What good did the bunt do then? Plus, of course, there’s no guarantee that the bunt will be successful, nor is there any guarantee that the man who bunts couldn’t have gotten a single, double, triple, or home run if he wasn’t busy bunting and giving away an out.
I’m not entirely against bunting and moving base runners by purposefully creating outs - I believe that in certain situations the percentages can change to the point where it makes sense to give away an out in exchange for moving the runner into scoring position, namely late in the game, with a crummy hitter, or when facing a dominant pitcher - but I do firmly believe that if an organization preaches making outs to get runners closer to home plate they have very little faith in their team.
More importantly - when it comes to the hearsay that provoked the writing of this post - I don’t understand why having a fast team means you should play small ball, especially when, like in the case of the Indians, you have a bunch of position players who can hit for extra bases, e.g. LaPorta, Valbuena, Cabrera, Hafner, Sizemore, Choo, Peralta, and even Marte.
Rather, speed should be utilized as an asset alongside hitting, to score runners from first on doubles, to move guys from first to third on a single, to steal bases at a high success rate, and to guarantee there are as few stop signs being held up by Joel Skinner at third base as possible.
To conclude, speed is good - it helps you score runs and it can help you take outs away from the opposing team on defense - but there’s no reason it should be accompanied by defeatist small ball principles. If the Indians do fire Wedgie and the next manager’s eyes light up when he says the word “bunt,” we should all be very afraid.
I don’t believe that will happen though…I think Shapiro and company know their team better than that.
