Big Bats vs. Small Ball: A Change in Philosophy?

by rangersfan34 on Dec 29, 2006 2:34 PM CST Comment 27 comments

Reading through several of the diaries over the past few weeks, a consistent theme keeps being brought up by many posters, which is that we need to add a "big bat" to the lineup if we really want to have a chance at competing in 2007.

I read those posts and think back to Ron Washington's introductory press conference. At that time, he mentioned that he's more of a "small ball" guy when it comes to his philosophy, although he said he could work with a team made up of guys that rely on the three-run homer. Since the time of Washington's hiring, JD appears to have set out to bring more of a small ball approach to the Rangers by signing consistent high-OBP guys that have some speed, rather than the "big bat" guys, thus giving Washington the foundation to implement his preferred philosophy.

With this change, it's possible that the 2007 Rangers will be unlike most of the incarnations of our team from the last couple of decades. I see us bunting when the situation calls for it (unlike Buck, who almost never had our guys bunt), a major increase in stolen bases, and running more frequently in general. Thus, I question the need for the big bat that so many other LSBers are clamoring for, assuming we can manufacture the runs that used to be generated by the three-run bomb.

My question to those of you that are bigger stat-heads than me is this: Can we still score more than five runs a game we've typically averaged with this change in philosophy? I'm interested in any type of stats that show projected run production, but I don't know of (or subscribe to) any sites that offer such stats. Personally, I think Washington's philosophy can make up for the lack of a big bat, and I can see the 2007 Rangers looking unlike almost any Rangers team most of us can remember, while still scoring enough runs to win more consistently...

Please share your thoughts, as I'm interested to see what the consensus opinion will be... (As an aside, I'm not stating that I believe "small ball" WILL work for us -- I'm just curious what others think of this possible philosophy change and whether it will, in fact, lead to a better team in 2007.)

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

small ball

should be able to work for the rangers. i think home runs will happen by accident, if you can call it that, in this ballpark. i think small ball is a commitment to winning on the road which is normally where the rangers b/a and power numbers decline. i think if Hicks, JD, and Washington commit to this, the rangers could be a well rounded team with quite a few more baserunners. i've been a fan of "national league" ball for a while now and it would be refreshing to see the rangers manufacter some runs this year in close games.

"Did that blow your mind, because that just happened"

by MATEO LEG on Dec 29, 2006 2:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

First, a mostly qualitative post

This question of the change in the makeup of the Rangers' offense really is making it hard to get a feel for next season. OT1H, guys will be on base. OTOH, more hits will need to be made to drive them in as the Rangers will probably hit fewer HR than in a long time. It's hard to project how this team will do compared to last year's. Without an in depth analysis, I'd put the change in their run production at no more than +/- 5% of last year's total. They're returning most of the run producing core, and it's unlikely the lineup will have any holes (it seems the player with at largest risk of being a black whole would be Cruz followed by Laird then Wilk if his surgery didn't take). They'll rely less on the top of their lineup to produce runs. An MVP year from Teixeira appears to be there for the taking.

The main individual hitting statistic that relates to run production is OPS (on-base plus sugging percentage). I'll have to poke around on baseball-reference to see how Lofton/Cat compares with GMJ/DeRosa on that stat.

by rooster on Dec 29, 2006 2:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I advocated a big bat

but, mainly only Sheff or Manny, if we could have worked something out. The more I think about it, the more I'm comfortable with the roster right now. I still say the Angels are a slight favorite to win the West, but we've got a better team than Seattle and Oakland.

you jackin' it?

by chief on Dec 29, 2006 3:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

tangent

The difference between the NL and AL is almost entirely a function of pitchers hitting, not philosophy. The average NL team attempted only seven more steals than the average AL team during the entire season. Once you deduct the pitchers, the typical NL team executed only five more sac bunts than an AL team. And AL teams outhomered NL teams by an average of just four.

by Lucas on Dec 29, 2006 3:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Power

No matter how the manager intends to manage the game, I'd like to see one more slugger on the team. There are some good hitters and some bad ones, but only Teixeira is a threat to go deep at any time.

I don't think they'll get a slugger, but it would be nice to have one.

Small Ball/Big Ball? I don't really care. Unless they're running themselves into outs on the basepaths, small ball is fine with me. Basically, I just want to see disciplined hitting.

http://tinyurl.com/vxkvz

by Dustin on Dec 29, 2006 3:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

small ball

I don't have a problem with more stolen base attempts or bunts as long as the situation calls for it. If it doesn't, then no thanks. As Earl Weaver said, if you play for one run, that's all you're going to get.

It seems to me the small-ball philosophy applies more to teams that have a low OBP. If Lofton's on base and your #2 hitter bats .300 with a .375 OBP (like Little Cat), how often will it be logical to take the bat out of his hands by bunting? Not often at all, I'd say. Whereas if your #2 hitter is Adam Everett (God forbid), you'd bunt like crazy.

The better your team is at getting on base, the less you need to give up outs to score one run.

by Lucas on Dec 29, 2006 3:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh

You only have 27 outs, so you have to make each one count. Only steal/bunt if the player, lineup, count, and inning call for it. Otherwise, no.

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 29, 2006 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe not small ball but onbase/well-rounded ball

I'm sure we'll run a bit more with Wash than we ever did with Buck, and the team does have more speed as constructed. But instead of a lot steals, I see a team that will just always have guys on base. There won't be thumper numbers outside of maybe Tex, but he won't have huge RBI numbers, b/c he'll be walked a lot with runners on. But the 5 guys behind him could all hit 275/350/450 and knock in 80 or so

by The other Thomas on Dec 29, 2006 3:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

on-base/well-rounded

Yeah, I think that's a better way to look at it than "smallball". Hopefully they'll walk a lot and hit bunches of liners to the gaps, mixing in a HR now and then. I would like to see them hit & run more, but I'm not all that crazy about straight steals unless you have the right guy in the right situation. Others have said pretty much the same thing and I agree.

http://tinyurl.com/vxkvz

by Dustin on Dec 29, 2006 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

I think the Rangers under Daniels have been making a conscious shift from low OBP/high SLG to a more OBP-heavy offense, even if it means hitting a few less homers.

I'd like to see the Rangers put together an offense similar to what the Mariners did in the 90s- a bunch of high-OBP doubles hitters with a couple big thumpers. Having Cat and Lofton in front of Young and Teixeira should lead to more runs. I'm a little concerned about the 5-9 spots, though Kinsler and Laird should be solid, and both have decent plate discipline.

I do hope the Rangers run more, both in terms of steal attempts and the hit-and-run. While I'm a definite fan of the sabermetric approach, I'm also not opposed to running when you have guys like Lofton, Young, and Kinsler in the lineup. There's just no reason Young shouldn't be stealing 15-20 bases a year. He's got the speed to do it. Same with Kinsler. Laird had three minor-league seasons with 10+ steals, so he's certainly got the ability to run as well.

by RCCook on Dec 29, 2006 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd go so far as to say

It's almost criminal that Showalter completely throttled the running game. They need to take the extra base when they can, you know? He was way too conservative with it. I suppose that's better than being a total loose cannon, but damn, you'd think he would've had the sense to find a middle ground somewhere.

http://tinyurl.com/vxkvz

by Dustin on Dec 29, 2006 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who was going to run?

For the most part the Rangers didn't have any guys who could run. Last year they have GMJ and Kinsler. Before that they had Soriano for a couple of years but it's hard to run when you aren't on base.

I got a fever and the only prescription is more blockquotes!

by Chris Martin on Dec 29, 2006 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kinsler

He's not that fast.

And GMJ has never stolen many bases, even in the couple of seasons where he played 140+ games before coming to Texas.

This team just wasn't built to run. That's probably of Hart's influence than Buck.

by BurntOrange on Dec 29, 2006 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not stealing, necessarily

I was talking about the hit & run, mainly. You don't have to be fast to do that. All that's needed is a guy at the plate who can make contact.

And I think they could've stolen a few outright, too, but they very seldom tried to.

You have to keep the other team honest by mixing it up sometimes. I'm definitely not saying they should've led MLB in steals or anything.

http://tinyurl.com/vxkvz

by Dustin on Dec 29, 2006 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

More like

being better on the base paths. Last year we gave away several innings beause of bad base running.

by boomer1 on Dec 29, 2006 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the truth

They could've stood to be a little more conservative when it came to trying for extra bases on batted balls. It did seem like they gave away a lot of outs that way.

http://tinyurl.com/vxkvz

by Dustin on Dec 29, 2006 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with Buck

is that everyone knew that the Rangers weren't going to run, bunt, hit and run, etc.

You have to run at least sometimes to maintain the psychological advantage of having a man on base. It throws a wrench in defenses and pitching strategies if the guy at first may take off. Sacrificing a few outs (literally) along the way, especially in games which are decided already, can go a long way in the managerial chess match. Of course, Buck was playing checkers...

by JBImaknee on Dec 29, 2006 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On-base percentage

I completely agree with regards to on-base percentage. I think that has been our biggest weakness on offense this entire decade. Even in the years where we scored a lot of runs, that was in large part due to the ballpark and not to being that well-rounded on offense.

I advocated getting a "big bat" as strongly as anyone, and still believe that we need one. However, the guys I was pushing -- Ramirez (.411), Drew (.393), Bonds (.443), Dunn (.380) and, to a lesser extent, Burrell (.362) -- are all great OBP guys as well as being big hitters. In fact, Drew's OBP was the primary reason I was such a proponent of trying to sign him.

by BurntOrange on Dec 29, 2006 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On Base/Slugging and getting bargains

The thing is, I think JD figured out that slugging came easy in our park but he needed to pick guys who would be on base.

If you have a hitter that features both prominently, you're going to wind up with a premium offensive player likely paid as such. If you only get one or the other in the player, they're likely to cost a lot less

I figure JD is spending on OBP and figuring that his park will add value to their slugging anyway. For example, Cat will slug better here than he has the last couple years. But you can't bring in a slugger and have his OBP rise (Hidalgo is the only name coming to me as I write)

This offense, as it now stands, features a lot of guys who handle the bat pretty well, take their pitches but don't carry power as their calling card. The park will help us out there, kind of like how the Coliseum and the big A help Oakland and Anaheim pitchers.

by The other Thomas on Dec 30, 2006 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep...

I actually think that despite hitting fewer homers, that they offense will be more efficient...even if Tex isn't all-star caliber (and I don't think he will be).

I think we will still struggle in the rotation (and I also forsee another injury problem) while the pen will be very good.

Problems in the rotation (Tejeda not being as good as advertised with Padilla and BMac being up and down -- with no one holding down the 5th spot for a while) will limit this team to 80-85 wins.

"Chip" first person on LSB to be berated by someone on the 25-man roster. - RangerMoto

by ortonius on Dec 29, 2006 3:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

forsee an injury problem in the rotation?

Who? Padilla? Everyone else has a pretty healthy track-record.

Pretty much every team in baseball is one starting pitcher injury away from scary times. I think the Rangers this year don't have nearly the worry that they should have had last year, when the Adam Eaton injury was as inevitable as they come.

I'm not completely sold on Tejeda as a #4 - but he did look good last year, and I prefer him in there to Kam Loe going into last year. And our battery of potential 5th starters (Koronka, Rheinecker, Rupe, CJ, Volquez, ...) should keep us from making desparation moves even if we encounter an injury here or there.

by JBImaknee on Dec 29, 2006 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

injury

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Mr. Millwood's body to hold up.

by The other Thomas on Dec 30, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think people here are

use to 'swing for the fences and sit down' as a strategy and any thing more creative would be considered small ball by comparison. I also think that small ball as a strategy is used most effectively as you say to win as the circumstance requires. Yet, for what seems decades, the Rangers have relied on the long ball. How many times did Michael hit into double plays last year or Tex or Hank for that matter?

People on here argue 'why give up an out when you only have 27' with regard to bunting. Always one out with a runner in scoring position is better than two outs and no one on. I have a question. I've heard that Cruz can fly down the base path. That he has five tools, including speed. How then does he end up with one steal last year and that slug (only with regard to speed) Carlos Lee have seven with only about twice the number of singles? Perhaps he is more suited to run on dirt than grass.

I think everyone noticed how much more the team seemed to work the count at the plate last year to make the opposing pitcher work. Also it seems that two of the best at that were Dero and Mathews who, as we all know, are gone. Cat, I haven't seen in several years and I'm not as familiar with Loften so will they help in this area?

As for Tex driving them in. It depends entirely on Hank or someone stepping up to protect Tex or he won't see much worth hitting. An aside for Hank: you are pressing too hard. Homers are great and you have natural power but you have to break the shift. Take the bunt down third from time to time and learn to hit to left to break the shift. Three men between the 1st and 2nd make it difficult to hit grounders or liners out of the infield. Tex this wouldn't hurt you either. Bring up your average 10-15 point at least.

by jackbnimble on Dec 30, 2006 12:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

P/PA

Cat is one of the tops in the league in pitches/plate appearance at 3.95/pa last year. Lofton was slightly below average last year, but still a somewhat respectable 3.63.

by jtts on Dec 30, 2006 2:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good stuff.

seems you might know a little something about baseball.

Seriously, I appreciate the insight.

On a personal level, what age did you start out at? Did you ever burn out a little as a youngster? I ask because my stepson is a 9 yo lefty natural who has played above age level, on select, travel, and tourney teams for 3 years, (not all at once of course). I am his coach, I try to balance practice, games, and fun, but lately he honestly seems a little burned out. Any experience you can share. Thanks.

by ncrangerman on Dec 30, 2006 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good Questions

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Dec 30, 2006 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

#s

Just looking over the numbers (stupid ESPN's site is being a pain about things this morning), it looks like you guys have several young guys that are patient. That's encouraging. With a middle-bottom half of the lineup of Teixeira-Blalock-Wilkerson-Botts-Kinsler-Cruz there's the potential for a pitcher to get frustrated having to continually throw 6-7 pitch ABs.