Smallball Theory

[motherscratcher]

Smallball it the only thing that I can really get to work, but I can't say I really understand why it does.

In Home Run parks, you can stock a team with players that fit your park and have BPHRs on their card. I believe BPHRs vary between 0-8 per side on players cards, so there is a wide variety of who will and who will not work.

But BP singles are different. If you are playing in Forbes 57, why is it beneficial to play guys like Cobb, Simmons, Lindstrom, etc...who don't hit a lot of HRs compared to other players? For the most part they all have 5 BPSI per side, so it's not like you are taking advantage of your park the way you can with BPHR.

Why wouldn't a team in Forbes 57 with a bunch of mashers with a lot of natural HRs perform just as well, or even out-perform a team with less power. The BPSI chances between both of these types of teams should be about the same, shouldn't they?

[rburgh]

Well, Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, etc. Generate their salaries without the potential benefit of ballpark HR's, so their value does not decrease as much as a big bopper's would in a park where ballpark HR is simply another word for out.

In general, the value of guys with a lot of ballpark HR's fluctuates a lot based on the relevant ballpark HR factor, while guys with minimal power have much the same value in all parks. Ballpark singles, on the other hand, are either 5 or (rarely) zero, so the value of all players with 5 ballpark hits goes up and down with the park factor in unison.

[Valen]

I think that nails it. In a pitcher park you are paying salary for HRs expected from a big bopper but not getting those HRs. So you are overpaying relative to what you are getting.

On the flip side if the pitchers with high #s on card have a reduced price to reflect their HR vulnerability it is possible you could get more value than what you are paying for.

Ideal situation is to underpay for both your hitters and pitchers so you are getting more value overall for your team than you pay.

I love small ball. But for me the challenge of it is that players like Cobb and Wagner are going to provide value for the price fairly equally in all parks. Thus they are just as valuable to a bopper team as tablesetters as they are to you. That makes them a little more difficult to get in a draft as more teams are potentially going for them.

[scorehouse]

i think it has to do with the fact that on small players cards, hits account for obp not walks. these turn into runs especially since alot of small ballers are 16-17 runners, not 10-14. ex. man on second, sber hit a single he scores. man on first then steals second. hrber man on second, batter walk, next batter dp. of course i just had a team in forbes and the pitchers, all 8 mil+, still gave up 35+hrs.

[The Last Druid]

IMHO Cobb and Wagner [b:877eaa683e]aren't[/b:877eaa683e] just as valuable in bomber parks as in small ball, particularly in capped leagues at 100M or less. There all you need are guys with decent OBP in the the 1 and 2 slots followed by guys with 8#. If you are paying 10M+ for a Cobb or Wagner to lead off, you're just throwing money down the drain. This would not apply so much in live drafts or 200M leagues.

Problem with Cobb at 100M or less is that someone else is gonna have him ranked first, so getting him requires at best a 50-50 shot, probably less as there could be several guys listing him first. I used to get him all the time. Now I almost never even try for him, except in the 2nd round at live drafts.

[motherscratcher]

I try to get Cobb a lot and always put him 1st when going that way. I'd estimate I've gotten him in 75% of my teams where I put him forst. Maybe, he's gotten so popular that a lot of players like Petro don't bother even trying anymore.

Wagner is a guy I never get, probably because I don't rank him high enough. It just seems that when you are playing small ball, SS is a position where you can get a good cheap serviceable defender who won't hurt you and spend that money elsewhere. I guess I'd have to locate a decent cheap backup for Wagner too.

[motherscratcher]

I think rburgh nailed it too and it makes sense that you are getting better production from players when you are not spending on BPHR.

Valen - One thing I hadn't considered is getting pitchers that have higher BPHR on their cards making the rest of their cards undervalued in comparison. How do you weigh the value of a pitcher who has higher BPHR on their card, so might perform well in the home ball park, against the prospect that they will give up some dingers away? Is it worth it because they spend more time at home?

[scorehouse]

it would depend on the rest of the parks in my division. i'm in forbes with a polo, a coors and a fulton, i'm not trusting #hr pitchers

[rburgh]

Petro,

Cobb and Wagner will generate MORE offense in Polo 41 than in Petco - that's undeniable, since they each have a couple of ballpark HR's on their card. The problem they have in Polo 41 is that players with more ballpark HR shots gain more offense going from Petco to Polo 41 than they do, so the offense they generate, although greater on an individual basis, is a far lower percentage of their team's total offense.

See, for example, Bill James' discussion of how to calculate win shares in Coors vs. the Astrodome.

But the reason Cobb and Wagner are such wonderful small-ball players is that they drive in runs with their XBH and clutch hits. You wouldn't use either as a leadoff man in a small-ball park very often; the same guys who are more economical leadoff options in Polo 41 are more economical leadoff options in Petco.

The reason Cobb and Wagner aren't good fits for Polo '41 is that they are not good values as leadoff men, and that guys with 8 ballpark HR's are more efficient at driving in runs than they are.

[FUDU]

My question doesn't pertain to strictly the small ball question at hand, but more so about value that is so often mentioned, why is "value" so sacred as opposed to winning, b/c the two don't have to be inherently tied together.

I'm not suggesting value isn't important b/c it obviously is, but couldn't over seeking value be detrimental to winning at some point? I mean aren't there guys worth putting on rosters that are not great values but that are clearly significant factors to winning games?

Isn't that what this is all about winning games?