Reese Kaplan -- Winning Big May Require You to Play Small

Whether in Little League, college ball, minor leagues or even during the World Series we’ve all pondered what it would be like to smash the game winning home run in the bottom of the ninth to convert a sure loss into a nearly mystical level of victory.  The crowd celebrates with reckless abandon, the player who swung the bat is carried off the field by his teammates in recognition of how one at-bat would go into the history books as an incredible and magical transformation from also-ran to all-time great.  Yup, we’ve all wanted to be that slugger whose skill, strength and stamina catapulted himself into legendary status.

During the PED era in particular it seemed as if nearly all clubs were embracing this approach by stacking the lineup with ballplayers who more resembled bodybuilders than stars on the baseball diamond.  Yes, it is a true firecracker moment when this type of long ball results in a change in the lead. While the days of Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco and many others hopefully are long past us, the fact remains that many clubs lean more on the Earl Weaver strategy of waiting for the three-run homer than they do in actually building runs.

The subject for today is the pros and cons of the opposite approach usually known as small ball as a method of scoring more regularly and frequently rather than having highlight reel occasional fence clearing moments of glory.  For the New York Mets, going into this season it would seem that the long ball capable hitters would be plentiful between Francisco Lindor, Juan Soto, Pete Alonso, Mark Vientos, Francisco Alvarez and Brandon Nimmo.

What we have seen is far more impressive pitching than anyone could have expected, but a definite issue with the home runs occurring frequently enough to ensure that the club could start to bank on that weapon as a way to win games consistently.  Instead we see the team batting average hovering towards the bottom of the league as simple base hits were becoming nearly as difficult for the team to enjoy from its batters.

Small ball, however, is not simply about singles vs. home runs.  It’s also a matter of moving runners along with bunts, stolen bases, balls hit to the opposite side and bases on balls helping to create traffic on the base paths.  Think about what it was like having some of the leadoff hitters from the Mets history — Mookie Wilson, Rickey Henderson, even Roger Cedeno.  What they were adept at doing was getting on base, causing havoc for opposing pitchers and catchers once they were and one single run at a time contributing greatly to the team’s probability of winning. 

Not quite so far in the past was the steady on-base capabilities provided by Jeff McNeil and Brandon Nimmo.  As these players started playing differently and contributing in other ways it corresponded with the Mets’ inability to score.  This most recent 9-4 loss to the lowly White Sox demonstrated the anemic ability the club has shown to hit with runners in scoring position. 

Perhaps instead of looking for the next slugger or even the next Tony Gwynn, maybe it is equally valid for the club to think about how to advance from base to base rather than simply focusing on crossing home plate.  How often have you seen bunts used by this club (other than by Starling Marte)?  Even the stolen base is a weapon not deployed as aggressively as was done in the past.  Growing up in Little League everyone had drilled into them the mantra “a walk is as good as a hit” yet nowadays batters are nearly derided for getting on base without taking a swing.

One of the reasons players in the minors like Jett Williams are generating such buzz is that they remember the value in getting on base, stealing bases, hitting  behind the runners already present and doing all of the small things necessary to help put a W on the board.  Yes, it’s great when you see someone advance to the team who can change outcomes with one swing of the bat, but even in a stellar season you’re talking about perhaps 30 to 40 times per season when the slugger is effective.  Unfortunately the player comes to the plate about 600 times and the strategy of hoping for that 30-40 time productivity seems a low probability for success.

Think back for a moment to the pre-McGwire Cardinals and remember how positively crazy they made opponents with their successful implementation of small ball to win regularly.  Some teams take this approach when they lack the long ball threats while others work on it as a philosophical strategy.  It would seem that for the Mets the long-ball approach is nice but inconsistent.  Maybe it is time to try it another way.