And are the Angels it?
Small Ball (per the baseball announcer vernacular): the ability of a team to grind out runs; a style of play involving bunting, stealing, and hit and run plays; often best played by "gritty" players (see Erstad, Darin); also known as "get em on, get em over, get em in" or the "National League brand of baseball"
Well, the Angels seem to be this type of team on the surface. Despite Vladdy (and the recent additional of Teixeira), they don't hit many homeruns, or extra base hits period. Scioscia is known as a small ball manager. They win a lot of one run ballgames. They've had their fair share of "gritty" players, going back to Eckstein and Erstad, to today's Izturis and Willits.
Small ball is still held in some reverence by many of the old guard announcers. It's considered by them to be smart baseball - the way the game was meant to be played. Conversely, most people who have caught on to the recent statistical revolution use small ball as a derogatory term. It ignores important things like power and walking, over-emphasizes the ability not to strike out, and gives away too many outs.
I generally find myself siding with the statheads, but this one is tricky. I think the Angels do exhibit many of the characteristics of a small ball team. They go first to third more than any team in the league. They're 4th best in the AL at NOT striking out. They don't hit a lot of home runs. They steal a lot.
But they also don't sacrifice THAT much. They are middle of the pack in sacrifice hits in the AL, and have been since 2005. Everybody thinks of the Angels and assumes they'll bunt with a guy on first every time. They don't.
I don't mind the use of the term small ball to describe the Angels. I think it fits in most ways. Just don't use it as a way of insulting their game, because I think the Halos can play small ball in a way that helps them win instead of the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i am not sure what the angels stolen base success rate is... i wonder if it is high enough to be considered an effective strategy.
i do think the angels aggressiveness is generally a positive... the angels analysts definitely seem to think it is; Gubie and Hud especially are fond of talking about how speed affects the pitcher and fielders when a fast runner is on base or at the plate. I don't know how that could be statistically shown, nor do i think it could be statistically disproved, so I'm with it. And besides, first to third is always good when it works.
But i think the angels, and scioscia in particular, have always talked about "developing RISP" as a key factor in being successful, which i think is a waste. OBP is, according to most of the stat dudes, the most important thing you can be good at... and the angels just don't seem to develop that in their young players (although if they can swap all of them for sick all-stars from other teams kotchman for teixeira syle, it won't matter).
Well, I know Posnanski is fond of saying it, and it seems like it's true. OBP (or the underlying "pitch selection") is a God-given talent on par with "raw power" or "arm strength" rather than something that can be taught, like a tweak to a batting stance or hitting the ball to the opposite field. However, it's certainly something that can be developed and honed, so maybe your point still stands, but the Angels need to do a better job of drafting guys with good pitch selection instead of pounding their head into a brick wall trying to get free swingers like Aybar to take a walk. In other words, their lack of OBPage may not be Scioscia's fault.
Their SB% is mediocre this year and has fluctuated. It was poor last year, good the year before that and excellent the year before that (relative to league average anyway). It seems like Scioscia has realized his guys aren't as good at stealing as they were (Figgins has lost a step, Aybar gets terrible reads, Vlad's knees are a surgeon's nightmare) and has slowed down the running game in the last few months.
Post a Comment