Geoff Young recently used a BP Unfiltered post to come clean about his unrequited man crush on David Eckstein, setting off a wonderful comment thread in which readers described the players that they consider “guilty pleasures” – those that may not be stars, but are fun to watch nonetheless. Reading through the comments, I was struck by the many different types of players that can catch a fan’s fancy, but one variety seemed to be particularly popular: The Little Guy. Maybe it’s the David vs. Goliath matchup of the smaller batter versus the hulking pitcher that appeals to us; maybe we just identify with a more normal-seeming scale of player; in any case, shorter players seem to have some level of curb appeal that can’t be explained by their stats.
For me, there’s an even more specific type that draws my eye. It’s the Little Guy that tries to play like a Big Guy – maybe successfully, maybe to the detriment of his team – that captures my heart. Not a slap-happy speed merchant, not Jay Jaffe‘s Lil’ Bastard, but a Little Big Man (or LBM), a player with a Chihuahua’s bark and a Newfoundland’s bite, a guy who likes to swing the bat – with authority. Right now my guy is Dustin Pedroia, generously listed at 5’9″, who swings from the heels at any offering that looks good to him and more often than not makes loud contact.
Which got me to wondering which historical players might best fit this mold: short of stature, with that grip-it-and-rip-it mentality that’s less reliant on walks with a double shot of power. If I were to travel back in time to, say, the 1940s, which players would catch my eye as Little Big Men?
To determine this, I first needed to define two things: (1) what is “short” for a batter; and (2) what sort of statistical profile might denote an LBM?
To define “short” I looked at the average heights and weights of batters and pitchers since the dawn of the live-ball era. I chose the 1920s as a starting point because the dead-ball style of play seemed unlikely to produce players of the LBM profile even if I didn’t consider a player’s height. The results:
Avg Male Avg Batter Avg Batter Avg Pitcher Avg Pitcher Decade Height* Height** Weight Height*** Weight 1920s 68.1" 70.4" 171 72.1" 179 1930s 69.2" 71.2" 176 72.5" 184 1940s 69.6" 71.6" 181 72.9" 187 1950s 69.8" 72.1" 185 73.0" 189 1960s 70.0" 72.3" 187 73.5" 193 1970s 69.8" 72.4" 188 73.9" 195 1980s 69.1" 72.6" 190 74.3" 198 1990s 69.2" 72.7" 193 74.4" 200 *Cobbled together from various CDC and academic sources **Calculated using player-seasons with at least 300 ABs ***Calculated using player-seasons with at least 30 IP
Over time, baseball players have tended to be taller than the average U.S. adult male, and pitchers have tended to be an inch or two taller and 4-8 pounds heavier than batters. Also note that by the 1990s both batters and pitchers were 2.3″ taller than they had been in the 1920s. Interestingly, baseball player height has continued to rise each decade while average height has essentially leveled off. Given these numbers, even in the 1920s a player of Dustin Pedroia’s purported height (69″) would be 1.4″ shorter than his peer batters, and 3.1″ shorter than the average pitcher he was facing. That seems like enough difference for Pedroia to look like a Little Guy even in the 1920s. Thus to honor the player I call Petey Plane, and for simplicity’s sake, batters must be Pedroia’s height (5’9″) or less in order to take a ride on the LBM coaster.
To ascertain what statistical profile might be used to denote a Little Big Man, I tried subtracting OBP from SLG and called the result “LBM”. OBP basically has a swinging-the-bat component (hits) and a bat-on-the-shoulder component (BB + HBP). SLG contains the same bat-wielding component (hits), but with additional points for extra base hits. The difference between a player’s SLG and OBP can thus be viewed as roughly signifying the player’s reliance on extra base power compared to their reliance on drawing walks.
As a crash-test for LBM, let’s look at these numbers for the same cohort of batters used in the chart above:
5'9" Or Less Over 5'9" Player Player Decade Seasons AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM | Seasons AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 1920s 346 .293/.358/.395 .037 | 1040 .302/.364/.432 .068 1930s 184 .281/.346/.400 .054 | 1243 .295/.361/.432 .071 1940s 162 .273/.352/.380 .028 | 1232 .275/.348/.398 .050 1950s 131 .279/.358/.401 .043 | 1229 .275/.350/.426 .076 1960s 148 .269/.332/.366 .034 | 1587 .265/.334/.409 .075 1970s 138 .261/.334/.354 .020 | 2135 .269/.339/.403 .064 1980s 141 .269/.338/.372 .034 | 2228 .270/.338/.412 .074 1990s 198 .277/.346/.385 .039 | 2337 .276/.350/.438 .088
Clearly, taller players have a much higher LBM. Note that OBP is often similar for both groups, but SLG is universally higher for taller players. This makes intuitive sense – if smaller players are less able to generate power, they would need to do something else (get on base a lot, play solid defense, steal lots of bases, or maybe all of the above) to stay in the lineup. Given that LBM is higher for taller players, especially sluggers, I’m comfortable using LBM (along with height) as my criteria for describing a Little Big Man.
Armed with this information, we can name a Little Big Man Award winner for each live-ball decade through the 1990s (I’m already carrying a torch for Pedroia’s 21st Century LBM street cred), focusing on players that score well in the LBM metric numerous times. For each decade, I’ll list the top LBM seasons – and to further honor these players’ achievements in overcoming their diminutive stature, I’ll shorten the standard Top Ten list to instead display a Top Eight.
The Twenties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Hack Wilson 1929 CHN 574 .345/.425/.618 .193 30 5 39 5'6" Mandy Brooks 1925 CHN 349 .281/.322/.513 .191 25 7 14 5'9" Mel Ott 1929 NYG 545 .328/.449/.635 .186 37 2 42 5'9" Hack Wilson 1928 CHN 520 .313/.404/.588 .184 32 9 31 5'6" Hack Wilson 1927 CHN 551 .318/.401/.579 .178 30 12 30 5'6" George Harper 1925 PHI 495 .349/.391/.558 .166 35 7 18 5'8" Joe Harris 1925 WSH 300 .323/.430/.573 .144 21 9 12 5'9" George Harper 1924 PHI 411 .294/.361/.504 .142 26 6 16 5'8"
Lewis Robert “Hack” Wilson is the embodiment of the Little Big Man. Listed at 5’6″ and 190 lbs., but likely heavier, Wilson was built like a washing machine, with short, thick arms and an 18″ neck. His power bat was the terror of the National League in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but unfortunately he was also well-known at every speakeasy in Al Capone’s Cicero. Hack’s long, slow dance with the demon rum likely contributed to his rapid career decline and untimely death at the age of 48 – but when he was right, he was a marvel. So in his honor, the Little Big Man award shall henceforth be known as the “Hack Wilson Award,” and the trophy will be surmounted with this figure.
The Thirties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Hack Wilson 1930 CHN 585 .356/.454/.723 .269 35 6 56 5'6" Ripper Collins 1934 SLN 600 .333/.393/.615 .222 40 12 35 5'9" Mel Ott 1932 NYG 566 .318/.424/.601 .177 30 8 38 5'9" Mel Ott 1934 NYG 582 .326/.415/.591 .176 29 10 35 5'9" Hack Wilson 1932 BRO 481 .328/.366/.538 .173 37 5 23 5'6" Mel Ott 1931 NYG 497 .311/.392/.545 .153 23 8 29 5'9" Mel Ott 1935 NYG 593 .308/.407/.555 .148 33 6 31 5'9" Ripper Collins 1932 SLN 549 .308/.329/.474 .145 28 8 21 5'9"
Hack Wilson’s 1930 campaign is the stuff of legend – his 191 RBIs is a record that hasn’t been seriously threatened for 70 years, and his .269 LBM mark is the highest in history (for height and AB qualifiers). However, Wilson’s quick decline leaves the door open for Mel Ott to be named the 1930s pre-eminent Little Big Man. The Giants HOF right fielder was the first NL player to reach 500 career home runs and, in addition to his smallish stature, was known for his unique (for the time) pre-swing leg kick – always a bonus when picking favorite players. Fun to see Ripper Collins on this list – his 1934 season helped lead the Gas House Gang to a championship, and his 369 total bases was an NL record for a switch-hitter until Jimmy Rollins‘ amazing 2007 breakout.
The Forties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Yogi Berra 1949 NYA 415 .277/.323/.480 .157 20 2 20 5'8" Yogi Berra 1948 NYA 469 .305/.341/.488 .147 24 10 14 5'8" Enos Slaughter 1940 SLN 516 .306/.370/.504 .134 25 13 17 5'9" Eddie Miller 1945 CIN 421 .238/.275/.404 .128 27 2 13 5'9" Eddie Miller 1947 CIN 545 .268/.333/.457 .124 38 4 19 5'9" Mel Ott 1944 NYG 399 .288/.423/.544 .121 16 4 26 5'9" Chet Laabs 1941 SLA 392 .278/.361/.482 .121 23 6 15 5'8" Chet Laabs 1942 SLA 520 .275/.380/.498 .118 21 7 27 5'8"
With the top two scores of the decade and a long history as one of baseball’s most lovable characters, Yogi Berra is an easy choice as the pre-eminent Little Big Man of the 1940s. After helping dispatch a more virulent strain of LBM as a naval gunner’s mate during the war years, Yogi hit double-digit home runs for 16 straight seasons while using his legendary plate coverage to rarely strike out more than 30 times per year. Glad to see the St. Louis Browns representin’ with Wisconsin’s own Chet Laabs, a flawed mini-prototype of the Three True Outcomes hitter whose ability to draw walks kept him from showing up higher on this list.
The Fifties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Roy Campanella 1953 BRO 519 .312/.395/.611 .216 26 3 41 5'8" Roy Campanella 1951 BRO 505 .325/.393/.590 .197 33 1 33 5'8" Roy Campanella 1955 BRO 446 .318/.395/.583 .188 20 1 32 5'8" Roy Campanella 1950 BRO 437 .281/.364/.551 .187 19 3 31 5'8" Hank Thompson 1953 NYG 388 .302/.400/.567 .167 15 8 24 5'9" Yogi Berra 1953 NYA 503 .296/.363/.523 .160 23 5 27 5'8" Yogi Berra 1956 NYA 521 .298/.378/.534 .156 29 2 30 5'8" Yogi Berra 1958 NYA 433 .266/.319/.471 .152 17 3 22 5'8"
Say what you will about the Holy Trinity of shortstops, or the Willie/Mickey/Duke convergence in NYC’s center pastures – to me, having Campy and Yogi face off in a subway series five times in eight years ranks with any of them. Between them they recorded 14 of the top 17 LBM scores of the 1950s (the others were Hank Thompson’s 1953 and two Smoky Burgess seasons) – that’s what I call diminutive domination. With the top 4 scores of the decade, Campy wins this round hands down.
The Sixties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Jimmy Wynn 1967 HOU 594 .249/.331/.495 .164 29 3 37 5'9" Yogi Berra 1961 NYA 395 .271/.330/.466 .136 11 0 22 5'8+" Smoky Burgess 1962 PIT 360 .328/.375/.500 .125 19 2 13 5'8" Tony Gonzalez 1962 PHI 437 .302/.371/.494 .123 16 4 20 5'9" Smoky Burgess 1961 PIT 323 .303/.365/.486 .121 17 3 12 5'8" Jimmy Wynn 1966 HOU 418 .256/.321/.440 .119 21 1 18 5'9" Don Zimmer 1961 CHN 477 .252/.291/.403 .111 25 4 13 5'9" Don Zimmer 1964 WSH 341 .246/.302/.411 .109 16 2 12 5'9"
This award is tailor-made for Jimmy Wynn. “The Toy Cannon” was a low-average hitter with tremendous raw power, the fear of which caused pitchers to surrender plenty of walks. Playing in the Astrodome was a major drag on his raw power numbers – consider that from 1965-1969 Wynn launched 136 bombs, but Clay Davenport translates that to 202 home runs (including 54 during the 1967 season shown above). As charming as it is to see Popeye muscle his way onto this leader board, Jimmy Wynn was the man.
The Seventies
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Joe Morgan 1976 CIN 472 .320/.444/.576 .132 30 5 27 5'7" Jimmy Wynn 1974 LAN 535 .271/.387/.497 .110 17 4 32 5'9" Rich Coggins 1973 BAL 389 .319/.363/.468 .105 19 9 7 5'8" Al Bumbry 1973 BAL 356 .337/.398/.500 .102 15 11 7 5'8" Jimmy Wynn 1970 HOU 554 .282/.394/.493 .099 32 2 27 5'9" Davey Lopes 1979 LAN 582 .265/.372/.464 .092 20 6 28 5'9" Walt Williams 1973 CLE 350 .289/.316/.406 .090 15 1 8 5'6" Denny Doyle 1975 BOS 310 .310/.339/.429 .090 21 2 4 5'9"
Joe Morgan was arguably the best player in baseball during the 1970s – and he was a little guy with lots of pop who posted 5 of the decade’s top 8 slugging percentages among the Randy Newman set. But … Joe has gotten plenty of recognition over the years (much of it good, some not so much). So I’m going to give the award to someone who will appreciate it more: Jimmy Wynn, who launched 145 more round-trippers from 1970-76 (translated to 204 homers on his DT card). Full disclosure: I loved Jimmy Wynn when I was a kid. When I close my eyes and think of a little guy muscling up to crush a ball 500 feet, I picture The Toy Cannon – reason enough for him to win back-to-back trophies.
The Eighties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Kirby Puckett 1986 MIN 680 .328/.366/.537 .171 37 6 31 5'8" Kirby Puckett 1988 MIN 657 .356/.375/.545 .170 42 5 24 5'8" Kirby Puckett 1987 MIN 624 .332/.367/.534 .167 32 5 28 5'8" Darryl Motley 1985 KCA 383 .222/.257/.413 .155 20 1 17 5'9" Luis Salazar 1985 CHA 327 .245/.267/.404 .136 18 2 10 5'9" Oddibe McDowell 1985 TEX 406 .239/.304/.431 .127 14 5 18 5'9" Darryl Motley 1984 KCA 522 .284/.319/.441 .122 25 6 15 5'9" Lonnie Smith 1989 ATL 482 .315/.415/.533 .118 34 4 21 5'9"
Baseball players come in all shapes and sizes, and Kirby Puckett was, shall we say, unique. You’d look at him and wonder how he could cover so much ground in center field, or how he could get in one of those zones where they could throw a slider two feet off the plate and he’d still reach out and drive it into right field. You’d wonder how that guy, that guy right there, could be one of the best players in baseball. Glaucoma ended his career, scandal riddled his later years, and a stroke killed him at the age of 45 – but for a decade or so no one was bigger than Kirby Puckett.
Oddibe McDowell and Darryl Motley seem to fit the LBM profile well enough. But Lonnie Smith? I didn’t realize he had morphed into the leading slugger on that woeful 1989 Braves squad which spawned the classic rhyme “Smoltz and Glavine, Then No One Worth Havin’.”
The Nineties
Player Year Team AB AVG/ OBP/ SLG LBM 2B 3B HR Height Ivan Rodriguez 1999 TEX 600 .332/.356/.558 .203 29 1 35 5'9" Matt Stairs 1997 OAK 352 .298/.386/.582 .196 19 0 27 5'9" Kirby Puckett 1994 MIN 439 .317/.362/.540 .178 32 3 20 5'8" Luis Polonia 1999 DET 333 .324/.357/.526 .169 21 8 10 5'8" Matt Stairs 1999 OAK 531 .258/.366/.533 .167 26 3 38 5'9" Ivan Rodriguez 1998 TEX 579 .321/.358/.513 .155 35 14 13 5'9" Terry Pendleton 1991 ATL 586 .319/.363/.517 .154 34 8 22 5'9" Matt Stairs 1998 OAK 523 .294/.370/.511 .141 33 1 26 5'9"
The .203 LBM posted by Pudge Rodriguez in 1999 is the 4th highest in history – bully for him – and it’s always good fun to catch up with Luis Polonia (La Hormiga Atomica), if only to be reminded of how Dennis Lamp described his defense. And yet the award here has to go to Matt Stairs. The Wonder Hamster posted three seasons in the top 8, and … well, just look at him. Tell me that’s not a postmodern rendering of Hack Wilson.
So the roster of Little Big Man Award winners is:
1920s: Hack Wilson (Hall Of Fame - Short Career Wing) 1930s: Mel Ott (Hall Of Fame) 1940s: Yogi Berra (Hall Of Fame) 1950s: Roy Campanella (Hall Of Fame) 1960s: Jimmy Wynn (Hall Of Very Good) 1970s: Jimmy Wynn (Hall Of Very Good) 1980s: Kirby Puckett (Hall Of Fame - Short Career Wing) 1990s: Matt Stairs (Hall of Oddities)
That’s a pretty strong group, although we’ve gone from no-doubt hall of famers down to merely good players. With player size continuing to increase, is it getting harder for smaller players to slug their way to success? We’re not yet through with the first decade of the 21st century, but there are still a few short-statured players putting up high LBMs: Pudge Rodriguez is the clubhouse leader, but Jimmy Rollins has made some noise as well. Counting players that are 5’10” as “short” seems justified given that the average batter is now nearly 6’1″, and doing so would increase the pool of LBM candidates – but somehow that seems aesthetically lacking. I still want baseball’s Little Big Men to be truly little, but carry a big stick.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
It seems to me that the author did address Pedroia's real height with "generously listed at 5'9"."
Easy thumbs up...
which means I've given a thumbs up to everyone this week... either based on past performance or what they did this week... hrm...
I liked the breakout by decades. I liked the style. I followed the links I wanted to follow, and ignored the rest, as always. I thought "Little Big Man" was an inspired name. I'm even ok with the metric -- Jimmy Wynn and Mel Ott come out on top **in spite** of their high walk totals, which is just fine.
And it didn't feel long at all, because I was enjoying reading it all the way through.
I agree that the metric in question didn't *quite* capture what Ken wanted it to. While Yogi Berra embodies the LBM concept (as stated) very well, I don't think Jimmy Wynn or Mel Ott do at all. Both had enough value tied up in their walks that saying they were less reliant on them than power rings a bit hollow.
I also would have preferred a structure that didn't feel like a subway ride, making too-frequent stops and not lingering at any of them long enough to enjoy the scenery.
With that having been said, I absolutely loved the article. It's odd -- I don't think I'd ever argue it was the best piece, but it's clearly my favorite. I have a hunch many of my fellow Funcksters are in the same boat.
Easy thumbs up. I want this guy writing for BP long term, no doubt about it.
Minimum 500 career games (thru 2008):
Hack Wilson .307/.395/.545 .150
Roy Campanella .276/.360/.500 .140
Ivan Rodriguez .301/.339/.475 .136
Yogi Berra .285/.348/.482 .134
Ripper Collins .296/.360/.492 .132
Matt Stairs .266/.358/.483 .125
Mel Ott .304/.414/.533 .119
Kirby Puckett .304/.360/.477 .117
Lower the threshold to 1000 ABs, and you get Hack Miller (.129) and Darryl Motley (.122).
Easy thumbs up.
Since this is the last of the articles I read this week, I wanted to just say how disappointed I was overall in the lack of "history" involved in this week's pieces. Everyone seemed to approach the topic as "how can I use advanced metrics in a historical sense". I really would have loved to read just one piece that wasn't stats-based, that went back to an earlier time and gave us some historical insight that wasn't entirely based on modern concepts. But then, Goldman IS my favorite BP writer.
Agreed 100%
Funck is the only one I think that has a definite style of his own that is already fully formed. He consistently writes entertaining pieces and comes up with weird ways to meld statistics. By far the most Jamesian of the writers.
Penguin was listed at 5'10". Wishful thinking, maybe, but I had to go with what's listed.
The links...I've never been so glad to see Hitler's picture, as I wasn't sure which theater Yogi had served in.
Unfortunately, that somewhat hints that the LBM's in this piece were also affronting baseball-loving humanity by committing heinous crimes that go against the humane order of the game. I didn't take that train of thought while reading the article though, so enjoyed the little big joke
And yet, a little entertainment counts for a lot. This was both entertaining and informative, and I loved it.
It's also interesting to note that Matt Stairs was singled out by Bill James as someone who would have had a Hall of Fame career if only teams hadn't dismissed him (he came up as a 2nd baseman) based on his build.
Oh, and that picture of Hack Wilson reminds me of my dad. It's uncanny (and he's also 5'6").
Given the subject doing this decade by decade was logical and Ken brought his own style and humour to it.
Excellent effort.
Also, Ken, nice job re-aiming your tone. The past criticisms of you being "cutesy" and cloying were well-founded. Here, you had a light, humorous tone while avoiding being "too clever by half". You only get in trouble when you decide to be entertaining. When you just try to write it straight, your natural ability to entertain shines through.
Mr. Goldman criticized the effort pointing out the LBM (which he generously calls a "metric", apparently missing the tone) because it still captures high-walk guys. OK. But it still captures guys (by definition) whose power eclipses their walk rates; the point isn't that they never drew a walk, its that they aren't Eddie Gaedel. Its not like Ken misled us; on Wynn's power: "the fear of which caused pitchers to surrender plenty of walks". Steven, its OK to read the entry before commenting.
This criticism extends to Will as well. He says that Ken did "not even address" Pedroia's actual height; actually Ken labeled 5'9" as both "generous" and "purported". Perhaps, Will, you meant a failure to address the lack of precision in historical height data. That would be valid, but, again, you are missing the point.
This is like a critic ripping "The Vagina Monologues" because vaginas can't actually speak (OK, some of you want to comment that they do, indeed, speak to you. Shut up.). You hate James Bond movies because they aren't realistic. You hate roller-coasters because, statistically, they really aren't that dangerous. Lighten up, you self-serious --- OK, end of rant.
If you want a serious criticism, its the idea that a guy 5'6" and at least 190 was a little man. Especially at that time. Even today that's a tank, and in is time Hack Wilson was beyond a fireplug. If you want to exalt David Ecksteins, you need to include weight as a criterion.
Ken, content-wise this was not your best effort. But stylistically, this was a huge step forward (and you were already several steps in front of your competitors). If you can meld the content heft you have shown earlier, with the writing style you showed this week, you will win. Hands down.