Little-ball indicators

[Ytown Tribe fan]

We all know that the Tribe is nearly the WORST team in baseball at playing "little-ball" this year, made even more pathetic by that being their stated goal coming into the season.

For that reason alone -- total failure to efficiently utilize available talent and/or total ineptitude in trying to do so -- both Shapiro and Manuel share blame.

So I thought, which are the best and worst little ball teams in the majors today?

The best POSSIBLE little ball team would do the following things:

1) They'd rank 1st in runs scored.

2) They'd rank 1st in OBP.

3) They'd rank 1st in stolen bases.

4) They'd rank LAST in GiDP.

5) They'd rank last in caught stealing.

Other variables such as homers, SLG, sac hits and sac flies would be lesser indicators; such a team would likely have more SH and SF than other teams, but league-leading run scorers rarely need the SH or SF that much, relying on lots of baserunners, speed, and timely hitting.

So, how does the Tribe rank? A simple scoring system is this: Take the team's rank in runs, OBP and SB, added together as your base score. To that, add the team's rank in GiDP and CS (both subtracted from 31). Divide the total by 5.

The total score would reflect how well they did in all categories compared to the league. A perfect score would be 1.0 and the worst would be 30.0.

As of today (May 24), the Tribe ranks 24th in runs, 17th in OBP, 26th in SB, 1st in GiDP, and 8th in CS. The total average score, the "Little Ball Index" is 24, out of 30 teams.

First of all, it's HARD to rank 8th in caught stealing when you're only 26th in stolen bases. Also, it's hard to rank 1st in GiDP when you're only 17th in OBP. You have to have baserunners first before you can pick a lot of them off two-at-a-time.

It would be damned hard to find a worse "little-ball" team. There are no teams this year that are worse overall.

[Swanny]

Well done!

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Thanks.

I ran the formula for the top ten scoring teams in the majors, with some surprising results.

First off, the rankings will be biased toawrd the AL, since they score more runs there. Also, it should really be called the "smart-ball" index, since these are all things that a smart team would do (except for the SB part, which is indicative of a non-power team, usually). But power or no, ALL teams can play "smart ball". All teams except for the Tribe, evidently.

Rnk / Tm-Lg / R / SB / OBP/ GDP / CS / Score

1 / ANA-A / 4 / 4 / 10 / 29 / 17 / 6.8
2 / CHI-A / 1 / 5 / 13 / 26 / 17 / 7.6
3 / SEA-A / 1 / 1 / 1 / 22 / 3 / 8.0
4 / BOS-A / 5 / 19 / 2 / 16 / 17 / 11.0
5 / ARI-N / 6 / 11 / 4 / 9 / 17 / 11.4
6 / NY -A / 3 / 19 / 3 / 3 / 25 / 11.8
6 / MIN-A / 7 / 15 / 5 / 27 / 3 / 11.8
8 / FLO-N / 10 / 2 / 7 / 16 / 1 / 12.8
9 / TOR-A / 9 / 18 / 20 / 14 / 27 / 13.6
10 / COL-N / 7 / 8 / 6 / 5 / 8 / 14.0

[TexasTribe]

I'm a big fan of little ball and have been incredibly disappointed with the Indians this year. Your scoring system is interesting, and it reflects most of my frustration with Manuel this year.

One other indicator that you might consider would be the ratio of runs to hits. Little ball teams maximize runs per hits and the larger this ratio the more effective the team is at little ball. The Indians, on the other hand, have had pathetically small ratio's such as last weeks game of 1 run on 10 hits. This is a greater reflection of random hits with no management of the batters or of the base runners.

I would consider this ratio more important than total runs scored as a little ball team will usually win by only a run or two. Teams with power may win by five runs or more which would make this factor alone less reliable.

Thanks

[Alex]

Runs lost because of the double-play.

In tonights game against Toronto, a fielders choice in the fifth inning preceded the Tribe scoring three runs.

If that had been a double-play, perhaps we don't score at all in that inning.

So a double-play can do way more damage then simply making two outs. It can prevent multiple runs from being scored.