Add new comment

Good post, good subject.
I remember that decades ago James posted that the sacrifice bunt was a poor play in the total run-scoring scheme of things.
One thing to consider here is what the batting average and slugging percentage of somebody "trying to move over the runner on second " (hitting to the right side intentionally) is.  I suppose there are some players who see no great drop in average when trying this.  For them, I suppose, it COULD make sense.  That would be a difficult # to accurately determine, however. 
But, in the end, you only get 27 outs.  Willingly giving them up rarely makes sense.  And Matt hit that nail on the head in his point #1 above.
Playing small ball seems to make even less sense for a team struggling at the plate, like the Mariners.  Giving up the out to get the runner to 2nd for a team that doesn't bring hitters to the plate with a relatively high ability to drive that runner home means, essentially, that you are wasting the AB of the first player.
It also illustrates why you need to have some power in the lineup.  I wen't back and looked at Whitey Herzon'gs great Cardinal teams of the 80's.  Of course, they were famous for being teams that picked you to death with a bunch of single and speed.  It wasn't really quite the case.  Check it out.  Those lineups had pop...just not a bunch of homer pop. 
In each  World Series years of 82,85, & 87 the Cards fielded 4 positions where they got 40+ extra-base hits. In 82 and 85 they were actually middle of the pack in the NL in Slugging. (they led the league in OBP in each of those years)
In each of the years they had one "power hitter" who had some homes...but other guys who whacked doubles and more doubles.
In '82, Lonnie Smith had 51 x-base hits, George Hendrick 44 (with 19 taters), Keith Hernandez 46 and Porter/Tenace combined for 51 at the catcher's position. 
In '85, Jack Clark haad 51 (22 homers), Tommy Herr 49, Willie McGee 54 and Andy VanSlyke had 44.  the catchers combined for another 36.
In '87, Clark had 59 (35 homers), McGee had 59, Terry Pendleton had 45 and the Wizard of Oz had 44!
Even the most famous "small ball" successful lineup wasn't really a small ball lineup. those teams were in the upper heigths of run scoring those years.  they didn't win 3-2 bunting runners along. 
Over the course of those three years those teams had a total of 241 SH's.  122 of them were by pitchers.  In 486 games they has 119 SH's by non-pitchers.  Hardly bunt and run baseball.
The sac bunt or grounder to the right as an offensive strategy is a pretty poor one.
Look at it this way.  Jose Lopez is having a terrible no good crappy year at the plate.  He's grounded into 15(!) double plays.  However, he still leads the team in extra-base hits with 27.  He's much more likely to fuel a rally with a double than kill it with a double play.  (Figgy, on the other hand has hit into 13 DP's with only 15 extra-base hits....)
Years ago, James wrote about "Secondary Average", which IIRC, really highlighted doubles and triples as power #'s.  I was always fascinated by that.
Anyway...back to the thread...playing for one run means you might score one...but rarely more.  Swinging aways means you'll score one just as often...and sometimes score more.
I can figure that out.