Me? I Like the Four-Run Home Run
by David S. Cohen on Sep 17, 2009 10:30 AM EDT
Email
PrintSome people like "small ball." Others talk about "chemistry" and "knowing how to win." Still others insist that a team "play the game the right way" by "manufacturing runs." Me? I like the four-run home run.
I was reminded of this last night when Jayson Werth hit his seventh inning grand slam (the popular term that all the kids are using these days) to put the Phillies ahead 6-0. What if Werth had not been swinging for the fences there (as he obviously was) and instead trying to just get a hit? A ground ball fielded by any of the infielders would have been an out at any base. A single would have scored one or two, still putting the game within reach (especially against the current Phillies' bullpen). Obviously, even better results would have come with a double or triple.
But, with a home run in that situation, it's an automatic four runs. Nothing to go wrong. No contingencies that might come to pass, even if unlikely. No manageable path for the other team to come back in the next two innings. The four-run home run is that good.
Of course, this isn't really that controversial a statement. In fact, it's kind of idiotic to be talking about it. But, I feel like it's necessary in baseball. Lauding small ball and productive outs and moving the runner over and professional hitters and situational hitting and manufacturing runs is the norm in this game. You'd think a team that didn't do this was a team that lost most of its games.
In reality, though, what wins games is one thing and one thing only -- scoring more runs that your opponent. There's no right way or wrong way to get to that result (other than cheating, but even that's allowed in certain circumstances in baseball). But there are ways that are more efficient and more effective than others. And the four-run home run is just that way.
As it happens, the Phillies are the best team in baseball at hitting the four-run home run. The Phillies have 10, whereas the next closest teams have 7 (Detroit, Washington, and St. Louis).
And that's a great thing. It's not something to be embarrassed about because the team isn't playing small ball well. It's not something to fret about because the team doesn't know how to manufacture runs and instead relies on the long ball. No, it's something to celebrate.
Take a look at this comparison. It's between the Phillies and the Padres, two teams that have had roughly the same number of opportunities this season with bases loaded:
| PA | H | BB | K | XBH | HR | R | |
| Phillies | 172 | 34 | 16 | 27 | 15 | 10 | 131 |
| Padres | 179 | 34 | 15 | 31 | 3 | 1 | 98 |
What can we discern from this comparison? The Padres and Phillies both have had a lot of opportunities with bases loaded -- seventh and eighth most in baseball, respectively. They've gotten the same exact number of hits and have walked and struck out at almost the same clip.
But the results are wildly different. The Padres play small ball while the Phillies sit around waiting for the four-run home run. Listen to most baseball announcers these days and you'd think the Phillies were doing something wrong. But outscoring the other similarly-situated team by 33 runs with bases loaded says that the Phillies are doing things just right.
I've been convinced for a long time that this obsession with small ball is all about announcers, commentators, and "serious" fans trying to prove that they know more than the casual baseball fan. But I'm not afraid to say it, even though I'm a diehard: I like the four-run home run.
32 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
So simple yet so true. I like runs, especially when they come 4 at a time.
by James Kannengieser on Sep 17, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions
Too controversial a statement for me...
by David S. Cohen on Sep 17, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
come strong or don’t come at all.
given my moniker, I loves me my multi-run dingers, as it beats the hell out of trying to leg out a double.
by Wet Luzinski on Sep 17, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I suppose the best “devil’s advocate” position would be that even a very proficient power hitter will often fail to hit a home run, and when you try to hit one out and fail, you’re more likely to strike out or make some other kind of “unproductive” out. Whereas a very proficient “small ball” player can have a pretty high success rate at, for instance, driving in a single run with the bases loaded. So comparing homers to single runs isn’t apples to apples. No small ball player goes up to the plate thinking “I’m going to pass up a sure grand slam because I dislike the aesthetic.”
Are the Padres really a small ball team? Doesn’t DePodesta work for them? I think their problem is they just suck.
Psychologically, I think some fans prefer small ball because it’s perceived as being more about effort while homers are more about natural talent. They want to reward the people who earn success over those who are just gifted with success. It’s actually an understandable impulse, though it can be taken too far.
I’ll take a shot at it too… Everyone digs the long ball. But is it an either or proposition? You like to think that when a batter comes to the plate, he’s just looking to put good wood on the ball and take a nice cut. If it’s a base hit, so be it. If it’s a homerun, so be it. But it’s not always that simple. When Matt Stairs comes to the plate, everyone knows he’s trying to gnash the ball into the stratosphere. And there’s certainly times when a hitter is just looking to put a ball in play (ie, guy on third, one out, down by a run late in a game). My point is the hitting approach is situational. And right or wrong, I think it’s fair game to question the approach taken to a certain situation, particularly during that stretch of games when we weren’t scoring and leaving way too many runners in scoring position.
by Boundforbeach on Sep 17, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly what I was going to say
One of the reasons the Phils may have more HRs and runs scored than the Pads is that the Pads O isn’t very good (beyond Gonzales). The Phils may see more bases loaded situations where they already have a lead and swinging for the fences won’t hurt the team as badly. Whereas the Padres have to fight for every run, so a strikeout with the bases chock full is more likely to lose them a game. Making small ball a necessity. The Padres need to make sure they wring at least one run out of that situation.
I like four-run home runs. But what if your leadoff hitter hits a home run? And then the #2 hitter follows up with one as well? And so on. You can’t ever load the bases with this style of play.
The Phillies need to be careful to avoid leadoff home runs and so forth or else they won’t ever be able to hit grand slams.
As we all know, nothing kills a rally faster than a home run
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Sep 17, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
My question...
…and I’ve always wondered this, is whether teams that play “small ball” tend to distribute their runs more evenly (both generally and in specific situations, such as bases loaded) than “bloop and blast” teams.
It makes some intuitive sense. Let’s take, for instance, the Twins and the Rangers, two teams with similar total offensive output (710 runs scored v. 700, wOBA of .334 vs. .336, EqA of .261 v. 255). The Twins are a more contact-oriented club, whiffing just 18.4% of the time and displaying an 82.1% contact rate; the Rangers strike out 22.9% of the time and exhibit a 76.7% contact rate. The flip side is that the Twins have posted a .153 ISO, while the Rangers have a team .193 ISO.
Does this mean that the Rangers are more likely to score in bunches, win two games by scoring 8 runs in each, and then score 4 runs combined the next three games? Whereas the Twins may simply distribute their runs more evenly, scoring 4 runs each game? As I said, that makes some sense intuitively, but I’d be fascinated to hear if the data supports such a view.
All that being said, I certainly agree with David on the overall point.
Today's game
With a matchup of Ross Detwiler vs Cole Hamels and the game being played at home the Phillies should be huge favorites, right?
A quick look at what the so-called experts have to say on the subject matter and they are. Vegas gives the Phillies a win probability of 74.03% and AccuScore a win probability of 79%.
The biggest single factors in determining single game win probabilities is the starting pitching matchup. On the surface it looks like a huge mismatch. Well, it is a mismatch, but perhaps not as huge as the so-called experts are making it out to be.
A quick query of the Fangraphs database shows that Ross Detwiler is the fourth unluckiest pitcher in the major leagues, who has thrown 50+ innings, based on the difference between their ERA and FIP. Detwiler has an ERA of 6.17 and a FIP of only 3.98. Detwiler has a BABIP against of .356 and a strand rate of only 62.4% niether of which is sustainable for a major league pitcher. These are the type of bad luck numbers you’d expect to see if a team were hitting off of a tee.
Cole Hamels on the flip side comes in with an ERA of 4.21 and a FIP of 3.77, which of course is slightly hurt by the ballpark he plays in.
This game is by no means the “gimme” that Vegas or AccuScore makes it out to be.
vr, Xei
the game is played on the field for a reason
those stats mean jack, all that matters is what happens today
I have my doubts as to whether the SBN deal with Yahoo was really a good thing.
by taco pal on Sep 17, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don’t forget being mentioned in a national daily – ‘popularity’ and ‘awareness’ are a double edged sword – sadly when it comes to what you’re saying it’s not an 80/20 split – it’s more like a 95/5 split
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Sep 17, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Phils are a good small ball team
The Phillies have been one of the best teams in the NL in regards to scoring runs during this decade. And they have always done so the way you’re supposed to — the only way that really works — and that is by getting on base and slugging.
But the Phils are also excellent at a lot of small ball aspects of the game. The once again are the best base stealing team in the league (103 steals; 20 CS !!!). They are right at league average in Sac Flies. They have grounded into the fewest DPs in the league !!!. They lead the league in HBP as usual. Nine clubs have struck out more than the Phils. They have even committed the fewest errors and allowed only 30 unearned runs which seems like a remarkably low total and leads the league as well.
I don’t know where to find productive out stats but I’d suspect the Phils are middle of the pack there too (at least). And even if they aren’t who cares? The Phils have not hit for average with RISP in the second half of the season. They still lead the league in runs scored. And, once they break out of this slump, which they do every year, they will score some runs again.
The Phillies have been a great small ball, playing the game right team for this entire decade and they’ve been getting better every year. They have lots of gritty players like Rollins and Howard and Utley and Vic and Ruiz and guys like that. guys with heart and guts and moxie. That, plus they hit lots of home runs. That’s a great thing in my view.
To your point
I also saw a stat saying Utley leads the majors in going first to third on hits to the outfield.
I dont know what to make of this analysis wise, but the XBH disparity was also something that struck me as pretty wild. Haha, maybe I should keep it simple too and just say I like bases loaded doubles.
It’s about getting on base and then hitting the ball hard to move the runners who are on the bases closer to home. All XBHs do that better than bunts and singles.
by David S. Cohen on Sep 17, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Take it from our own Matt Swartz
From one of his first articles for BP as a regular, Matt gave the statistical support for what I’ve written here. His conclusion:
It is clear that power helps you score frequently, and on-base skill helps you pile on when you do score. In fact, a team’s home runs per at-bat has a 0.15 correlation with the difference between the number of wins a team gets beyond what their Pythagorean record predicts. Teams that hit more home runs do better than their Pythagorean Record suggests.
What this means is that power hitters are even more valuable than their VORP suggests. Power hitters not only change the scoreboard, but they change the scoreboard when it matters. The next time somebody tells you that a team is falling short because they rely too much on the long ball, you can reply that they may not rely on it enough.
How fair a comparison are the Padres? I mean…you took once of the worst offenses in the leagues to compare to the Phillies. The Padres have scored the LEAST runs in the league. Using them as a comparison, I feel the term ‘no ball; is better than ’small ball’.
How do some other teams stack up (with similar # of chances):
Team PA HR OBP R
PHI 143 10 .302 131
STL 138 7 .321 113
LAD 130 5 .306 122
ATL 127 0(!) .354 107
NLAvg 131 4 .316 108
Hmm…not the results I was expecting, but I’ll post them up, since I still think it sheds more light on the argument. I included Atl above because they have the highest OBP in the NL with the bases loaded. The fact that they’ve not hit a HR in 127 AB’s with the bases juiced is comical, and I will have to admit, the likely reason they’re in the bottom half of the league in run production in these cases.
Uncle.
Padres
Very different offenses, indeed. But, the point is they have about the same number of opportunities with the bases loaded. And have the same number of hits. And about the same number of walks and strikeouts. Thus, we’re comparing apples to apples here . . . for bases loaded situations.
by David S. Cohen on Sep 17, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the point is that the Padres aren’t an equally talented team that scores fewer runs because of poor strategy. They score fewer runs because they suck. An apples-to-apples comparison would be the Phillies vs. a team that had a lot of offensive talent but chose to play small ball of their own free will, sorta like the early-’90s Pirates (for whom Jay Bell would automatically bunt out of the 2-hole in the first inning of any game where the leadoff man got on base).
OK, but David’s post does operationalize what “sucking” looks like, at least baseball-wise. It does surprise me that the number of chances are about equal, but 33 runs difference in those situations alone — that’s 6-7 games worth of runs, which depending on your pitching staff and/or ballpark can pretty much guarantee wins. On the margins, it matters that the Phils have guys like Werth, Feliz and Ruiz coming up with bases loaded than, say, Blanco, Macias and Durango (last night’s SD lineup). Remember too that you can’t expect guys to do what they can’t do, so some teams don’t have any choice BUT to play small-ball, which in turns changes the pitching approach.
by Wet Luzinski on Sep 17, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
you’re comparing chances in bases loaded situations between a team that scores run and a team that doesn’t.
I find it disturbing that a “bad offense” along the lines of San Diego, has had just as many chances with the bases loaded, as have the phils.
This is an interesting point. I would speculate that a poor offensive team such as the Padres might be able to match the Phillies in bases-loaded opportunities by virtue of NOT hitting for power — IOW, in the rare event that they get three guys on base in an inning, there’s a good chance they’re all going to be on base at the same time because they don’t get a lot of extra-base hits. The Phils on the other hand, might not load the bases as often as you’d expect for a team with a good OBP because the third hitter gets on base by driving in the first two. :)
Not for nothing – but baseball isn’t football – you aren’t running the wild cat or the triple option or the spread – or basketball where it’s an iso play or a triangle offense or a pick and roll.
There may be different philosophies in baseball but offense is offense – there’s no ‘genius’ coming to invent the forward pass or the pick and roll or the Princeton back door offense…baseball is unique in this simplicity and why it’s so easy to look at the statistics so granularly – it’s a team sport that can be broken down quite easily to individual actions…
And even if you want to say there are ‘different offenses’ – the goal is to score run so the phillies ‘approach’ with the bases loded is better than the padres – but about 45%?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Sep 17, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
doesn't Sir Albert
have most of the GS
by SmilingJPhilsPhan on Sep 17, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Small ball does have its advantages in certain situations – most notably, in the ninth inning or in extra innings of a tied game, especially when you’re at home. Under those circumstances, it’s much more advantageous to be good at playing for one run than it is to be able to score more runs on average. So, all things being equal, it’s a good thing to know how to bunt, move the runner, make productive outs, and all that jazz. Of course, if you can only choose one or the other, it’s better to know how to score more runs on average.
Phillies reportedly pulled a delayed double steal last night to score their first run. If that’s not “small ball”, I don’t know what is.
I think all these ‘terms’ for things are just stupid – why do they have to be categorized – this is how guys are called ‘closers’ and only used in th e9th inning as opposed to higher leverage situations in maybe the 8th inning.
I have a hard time calling it small ball when one of the guy involved in the double steal is ryan howard (wasn’t it howard and utley?) I mean dude isnt’ exactly fleet of foot
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Sep 17, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Washington Nationals
@
Philadelphia Phillies
Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 7:05 PM EDT
Citizens Bank Park
Jordan Zimmermann vs Roy Halladay
Partly cloudy,rain. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-10 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 70.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Reds fan catches two home runs in same inning — and then gives both balls away
- Aroldis Chapman arrested after police clock him going 93 mph (in his car) on suspended license
- The Juice: Felix Hernandez bests Yu and the Rangers, Chris Capuano and Dodgers keep rolling
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
