Base Stealing Opinion Thread

[baltfan]

As I have requested multiple times now, go ahead and give me something with some meat on it that supports your position. You might want to look at the Reds and see if there is a big difference in pitch usage when Hamilton is on first.

Right now you are basically arguing that it makes a difference because you think it makes a difference.

And it grows tiresome.

Actually, what is tiresome is people pretending that the thoughts of players are irrelevant to this. I challenge you to find a manager or player that says that a stolen base threat doesn't affect the pitcher's stuff, focus, or pitch selection. These are all things that they actually would have knowledge of. They are calling the pitches, nervous on the mound, and seeing the pitches coming across the plate.

Every throw over is an opportunity for an error. Every pitch out is a ball that could have been a strike. Every time the pitcher tries to be a bit quicker to the plate is a time that the stuff could flatten etc. Do you think pitchers are just clueless about what makes them succeed? You know, the same ones that you say are "professional". Do you think any pitcher would rather have a guy they know isn't going to steal on first or one that very well might?

No one is saying Rickard should steal so much that he is caught 50% of the time, but would be nice to see if he could keep his percentage up while running more.

I have a ton of respect for the SABR community, but it isn't perfect. The Royals went about things in a complete opposite manner as the entire community thought a team should and they almost won two World Series.

[Can_of_corn]

I never said that an error couldn't result from a throw over. I said the bad results and the good results tend to even out resulting in little overall impact.

[DrungoHazewood]

Some passages from The Book (unfortunately I don't have my copy handy and Amazon only lets you view selected pages):

The disruptive runner has an enormously negative influence on the batter, enough to almost completely offset the disruption caused to the defense.

The break-even point for the stolen base is highly dependent on the inning and score. The most desirable situations are tied games in the later innings or ones in which the batting team is ahead. The least desirable situations are down by at least two runs in the later innings.

A manager cannot call for an attempted steal so often or so predictably that it becomes correct for his opposing manager to always or at least frequently call for a pitchout. He also cannot call for a steal so infrequently that his opponent never has to pitch out. He must occasionally have his players steal even with a negative expectancy in order to force his opponent to occasionally pitch out.

Managers should pay particular attention to their opponents' tendencies to pitch out, steal bases, hit and run, and squeeze. They should respond accordingly, however they must be careful that they don't stray too far from the equilibrium point, lest they encourage their opponents to play more optimally. For example, against a "pitchout happy" manager like Jimy Williams, it may be correct to never hit and run or attempt a steal.

If you need to leverage a basestealer, put him in front of a batter who hits lots of singles and doesn't strike out much. The likelihood is that your basestealer will be batting fifth or sixth.

Also, according to linear weights a home run is worth 1.65 runs. Last year Billy Hamilton easily led the majors in baserunning runs with 13.4. His running was the equivalent of hitting an additional eight home runs. In all of MLB there were only 20 players who created five or more runs above average with their baserunning.

Then there are the cases like Nori Aoki, Jose Altuve, Alexei Ramirez, and Jose Iglesias who cost their teams 3-5 runs with their poor baserunning.

[weams]

Some passages from The Book (unfortunately I don't have my copy handy and Amazon only lets you view selected pages):

Also, according to linear weights a home run is worth 1.65 runs. Last year Billy Hamilton easily led the majors in baserunning runs with 13.4. His running was the equivalent of hitting an additional eight home runs. In all of MLB there were only 20 players who created five or more runs above average with their baserunning.

Then there are the cases like Nori Aoki, Jose Altuve, Alexei Ramirez, and Jose Iglesias who cost their teams 3-5 runs with their poor baserunning.

I think we can pretty much put this to bed with these excellent answers.

[DrungoHazewood]

I have a ton of respect for the SABR community, but it isn't perfect. The Royals went about things in a complete opposite manner as the entire community thought a team should and they almost won two World Series.

The SABR Community, whatever that is, doesn't proscribe any single way of doing anything. There can't be an exact opposite way of playing baseball unless you're suggesting that the Royals used strategies specifically because research and analysis suggests those strategies are counter-productive. Like maybe stealing only in risky, high-break-even situations. Or batting low-OBP players with poor baserunning skills at the top of the order. Or employing the pen in such a way that their best relievers are pitching in the lowest-leverage situations.

I can guarantee that's not how they operate.

As for being more aggressive on the bases, I think it's clear that rarely gives you an advantage except in specific situations where the opposition presents opportunities like a combination of pitcher/catcher with poor CS rates. Usually the other team quickly adapts to your aggressiveness and you end up costing at least as many runs as you gain. Look at the career of Ivan Calderon for an example - in 1989 he stole seven bases and was worth +0.7 runs with his legs. In 1990 he stole 32 bases and was worth -0.1 runs.

[Can_of_corn]

This was a 2 part series, this is the conclusion.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

Solid piece.

So, according to the work done here, the top 20 basestealers' disruptive abilities resulted in about an additional run per season. When you add in everyone that isn't a top 20 basestealer I am guessing that one run moves down a lot closer to 0.

[Filmstudy]

I hate stealing bases. At anything less than an 80% clip. Plus, that gets Bryce Harper walked six times.

I agree with this, particularly when all the ancillary impacts are considered.

Most times during a game, the way to evaluate stolen bases is by expected runs, As leverage increases later in a close game, the percentage success rate to justify can be much lower if judged by delta win probability.

Since this discussion seems to be about Joey Rickard as a starter, the expected runs argument is more pertinent. If you are talking about Herb Washington, his SB percentage didn't need to be nearly as high to be of value.

[srock]

Stealing bases is an art close to my heart. Senior year of High School I personally stole 2nd (and often 3rd) literally every time I was on first and my OBP was over .600 and I only had 1 extra base hit Of course I was never thrown out either. Why wouldn't I steal? The risk was approaching zero.

Ricky Henderson was my favorite player until I moved back to MD. But my affinity for running bases is because its fun to do and its fun to WATCH. This has no bearing on whether it helps MLB teams win games.

The argument I just read is missing an important piece of the puzzle.

Is it worth attempting to steal bases just to gain an extra 90 feet? Only if you chances of success are VERY high (the opponent puts up no defense). Or in certain situations where the reward is VERY high.

It is true baseball teams put much emphasis and time stopping the opposing teams running game. But this is NOT a logical argument for stealing more bases. No! Its important to stop another teams running game because if you don't even try then stealing bases is incredibly easy. Anyone faster the David Ortiz can steal 2nd if the catcher can't throw and the pitcher doesn't hold them. Essentially turning every single and walk into a double or triple.

All this none sense about getting into pitchers heads and putting pressure on the defense is in the wind. All teams prepare for a running game anyway so its not like stealing bases causes your opponent to play YOUR team any different. Major League players are above being rattled by speed. That works in Little League, not the Show.

[brianod]

The SABR Community, whatever that is, doesn't proscribe any single way of doing anything. There can't be an exact opposite way of playing baseball unless you're suggesting that the Royals used strategies specifically because research and analysis suggests those strategies are counter-productive. Like maybe stealing only in risky, high-break-even situations. Or batting low-OBP players with poor baserunning skills at the top of the order. Or employing the pen in such a way that their best relievers are pitching in the lowest-leverage situations.

I can guarantee that's not how they operate.

As for being more aggressive on the bases, I think it's clear that rarely gives you an advantage except in specific situations where the opposition presents opportunities like a combination of pitcher/catcher with poor CS rates. Usually the other team quickly adapts to your aggressiveness and you end up costing at least as many runs as you gain. Look at the career of Ivan Calderon for an example - in 1989 he stole seven bases and was worth +0.7 runs with his legs. In 1990 he stole 32 bases and was worth -0.1 runs.

My gripe with statements like this is that you say he was worth less like it's an absolute established inconvertible fact. Your measurements are not infallible and could be very wrong in some cases. They are estimates based on assumptions that can be wrong

[DrungoHazewood]

My gripe with statements like this is that you say he was worth less like it's an absolute established inconvertible fact. Your measurements are not infallible and could be very wrong in some cases. They are estimates based on assumptions that can be wrong

It's a baseline starting point, with an assumed level of uncertainty or error. No one should ever assume anything is an absolute established incontrovertible fact, and your assertion that we do appears to be a willful exaggeration to misrepresent that which you disagree with.

You should probably pick your battles. When the best estimate is he's worth -1 to +1 runs chances are he's not worth 50 or -50 or even 5 or -5, the data is probably pretty darned close.

And I'd like to see evidence showing the baseline information is wrong. You can scream until you're blue in the face that evidence is not right, but until you bring us contradictory evidence that it's not right you don't have a leg to stand on.

[brianod]

It's a baseline starting point, with an assumed level of uncertainty or error. No one should ever assume anything is an absolute established incontrovertible fact, and your assertion that we do appears to be a willful exaggeration to misrepresent that which you disagree with.

You should probably pick your battles. When the best estimate is he's worth -1 to +1 runs chances are he's not worth 50 or -50 or even 5 or -5, the data is probably pretty darned close.

And I'd like to see evidence showing the baseline information is wrong. You can scream until you're blue in the face that evidence is not right, but until you bring us contradictory evidence that it's not right you don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm not screaming. I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm saying you could be wrong. Perhaps your stats underestimate the value of the running game. You challenge me to find proof the stats are wrong but isn't that a catch 22? The intangibles mentioned in this thread aren't measurables. I played, I coach, I have a sense that sabermetrics devalues the running game too much based on a lot that's been said in this thread already. But, how do I prove that? I can't. Any measurable I present that would contradict the measurable you present would have the same flaws as your measurables. They would be based on assumptions that aren't provable. So, we are where we are. I think the stats devalue the running game too much, you think they are accurate. Two opinions that aren't provable either way.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm not screaming. I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm saying you could be wrong. Perhaps your stats underestimate the value of the running game. You challenge me to find proof the stats are wrong but isn't that a catch 22? The intangibles mentioned in this thread aren't measurables. I played, I coach, I have a sense that sabermetrics devalues the running game too much based on a lot that's been said in this thread already. But, how do I prove that? I can't. Any measurable I present that would contradict the measurable you present would have the same flaws as your measurables. They would be based on assumptions that aren't provable. So, we are where we are. I think the stats devalue the running game too much, you think they are accurate. Two opinions that aren't provable either way.

No, what we have on one hand is a detailed framework that includes real information from each and every base-out-game state in every single real MLB game over many decades, and analysis breaking down how each on-field event correlates to actual runs scored in every real MLB game. And on the other hand we have you saying nobody can prove anything because you think that.

[weams]

Stealing bases is an art close to my heart. Senior year of High School I personally stole 2nd (and often 3rd) literally every time I was on first and my OBP was over .600 and I only had 1 extra base hit Of course I was never thrown out either. Why wouldn't I steal? The risk was approaching zero.

Ricky Henderson was my favorite player until I moved back to MD. But my affinity for running bases is because its fun to do and its fun to WATCH. This has no bearing on whether it helps MLB teams win games.

The argument I just read is missing an important piece of the puzzle.

Is it worth attempting to steal bases just to gain an extra 90 feet? Only if you chances of success are VERY high (the opponent puts up no defense). Or in certain situations where the reward is VERY high.

It is true baseball teams put much emphasis and time stopping the opposing teams running game. But this is NOT a logical argument for stealing more bases. No! Its important to stop another teams running game because if you don't even try then stealing bases is incredibly easy. Anyone faster the David Ortiz can steal 2nd if the catcher can't throw and the pitcher doesn't hold them. Essentially turning every single and walk into a double or triple.

All this none sense about getting into pitchers heads and putting pressure on the defense is in the wind. All teams prepare for a running game anyway so its not like stealing bases causes your opponent to play YOUR team any different. Major League players are above being rattled by speed. That works in Little League, not the Show.

Rickey Henderson was probably the best baseball player that we have seen. It was not all about his stolen bases.

[brianod]

No, what we have on one hand is a detailed framework that includes real information from each and every base-out-game state in every single real MLB game over many decades, and analysis breaking down how each on-field event correlates to actual runs scored in every real MLB game. And on the other hand we have you saying nobody can prove anything because you think that.

Your detailed framework fails to account for many things that aren't measurable. How many hits over the course of a season occur because a pitcher eschewed throwing a breaking ball with a sb threat at first? The guy at the plate can look for a fastball in that situation, much like he can look for a fastball 3-1. We all know that guys ahead on the count do better. I suspect, but can't prove, that the same effect occurs when a sb threat is at first. Unsuccessful pitchouts are balls that lead to batters getting ahead on the count. Throws to first base add to a pitchers pitch count but are not measured or accounted for. Breaking up a pitchers rhythm is another positive effect that can't be measured. I could go on, but I think you get my point. You just don't want to acknowledge that your valuation system can't measure everything accurately.

[DrungoHazewood]

Your detailed framework fails to account for many things that aren't measurable. How many hits over the course of a season occur because a pitcher eschewed throwing a breaking ball with a sb threat at first? The guy at the plate can look for a fastball in that situation, much like he can look for a fastball 3-1. We all know that guys ahead on the count do better. I suspect, but can't prove, that the same effect occurs when a sb threat is at first. Unsuccessful pitchouts are balls that lead to batters getting ahead on the count. Throws to first base add to a pitchers pitch count but are not measured or accounted for. Breaking up a pitchers rhythm is another positive effect that can't be measured. I could go on, but I think you get my point. You just don't want to acknowledge that your valuation system can't measure everything accurately.

I fully accept uncertainty. It's implicit in everything we do. But you desperately want that uncertainty to be orders of magnitude larger than it really is.