Speed

[Ohfan67]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Let’s say you have two teams.   One never steals.    The other attempts one steal a game and succeeds 70% of the time.    Both those teams are going to be at zero in base stealing runs, but personally I’d rather watch the team that attempts the steals, assuming everything else is equal. It’s more fun.  

I strongly agree with you. I find stolen bases and attempted stolen bases very exciting. Instead of getting rid of the shift it would be more fun if MLB required that every team attempts at least three stolen bases per game. 

[OrioleMagic79]

21 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

I find stolen bases very exciting. Very fun to watch. Unfortunately they are pretty useless. Case in point is the Orioles. They led the American League in stolen bases in 2007. Brian Roberts was tied for first and Patterson was second. That team was fast. The Orioles won 69 games. Orioles were top ten in MLB and third in AL in 2006. 70 wins. Years ago I believed the baseball lore that stolen bases were important and argued on here for that position...until I regressed winning versus stolen bases for several decades of MLB data and realized I was wrong. Earl was right about stolen bases. 

There was A LOT wrong with those teams that negated the benefit of stolen bases ... probably could make an argument that those teams would have been even worse without the SBs ...

[Ohfan67]

5 minutes ago, OrioleMagic79 said:

There was A LOT wrong with those teams that negated the benefit of stolen bases ... probably could make an argument that those teams would have been even worse without the SBs ...

I repeat...I analyzed about 20 years of data for MLB, all of MLB, not those teams. 

[Number5]

Players like Lou Brock, Willie Mays, and Ricky Henderson were extremely valuable because they not only stole bases, but also were good hitters.  The stolen bases added to their offensive weapons, but they had offensive value without them.  Players like Billy Hamilton, not so much.  Pitchers have little fear of Billy Hamilton with a bat in his hands.  As a result, he not only hits his way on in a below average manner, but he sees a lot of strikes and doesn't walk a whole lot, either.  His great stolen base tool is therefore reduced by the fact that he simply doesn't have as much opportunity to use it.  After all, the basic goal each time a player goes to bat is to eventually score.  A lot of players score more runs than Billy Hamilton.  No matter your speed, your not going to score if you never reach first base.  That puts Hamilton's stolen base value in perspective, IMO.

[gmelson26]

31 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I repeat...I analyzed about 20 years of data for MLB, all of MLB, not those teams. 

Is there any data correlating steals and shifts used against?  I wonder if fast teams get the shift used against them less often than slower teams.

[weams]

On 10/21/2015 at 7:54 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

The biggest problem with the stolen base as a weapon is math. A 30-second Google search will tell you that, on average, 50 steals and 10 caught have about the same impact as three or four homers. A lot of effort and risk and beating up the body for little gain.

Drungo explains. 

[Ohfan67]

4 hours ago, gmelson26 said:

Is there any data correlating steals and shifts used against?  I wonder if fast teams get the shift used against them less often than slower teams.

I did that analysis seven to nine years ago before the shift became a thing so I have no idea. 

 

This is not not directed at you, but to others...I was arguing for the importance of stolen bases when I did that analysis. I was shocked at how little stolen bases contributed. 

[atomic]

That 1987 Cardinals teams scored a lot of runs even though they had a low OPS.  Maybe stolen bases and high average with low power is undervalued by WAR.  Maybe a good way to be competitive on the cheap.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, atomic said:

That 1987 Cardinals teams scored a lot of runs even though they had a low OPS.  Maybe stolen bases and high average with low power is undervalued by WAR.  Maybe a good way to be competitive on the cheap.

Data does not support that. At all.

[atomic]

Look at Willie McGee's 1985 season.  Only 10 home runs and 34 walks but incredible offensive season. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, weams said:

Data does not support that. At all.

Cards were 8th in runs and 4th in OBP that year.

 

[atomic]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Cards were 8th in runs and 4th in OBP that year.

 

What does that have to do with anything?  Compare the 2017 Orioles to 1987 Cardinals.  Orioles had much higher OPS but runs score significantly lower.

[Sessh]

7 hours ago, Number5 said:

Players like Lou Brock, Willie Mays, and Ricky Henderson were extremely valuable because they not only stole bases, but also were good hitters.  The stolen bases added to their offensive weapons, but they had offensive value without them.  Players like Billy Hamilton, not so much.  Pitchers have little fear of Billy Hamilton with a bat in his hands.  As a result, he not only hits his way on in a below average manner, but he sees a lot of strikes and doesn't walk a whole lot, either.  His great stolen base tool is therefore reduced by the fact that he simply doesn't have as much opportunity to use it.  After all, the basic goal each time a player goes to bat is to eventually score.  A lot of players score more runs than Billy Hamilton.  No matter your speed, your not going to score if you never reach first base.  That puts Hamilton's stolen base value in perspective, IMO.

While I agree about Billy Hamilton, it still misses the bigger picture. Whether or not stolen bases translate into runs is entirely dependent on what the hitters in the lineup behind that stolen base do. If they produce on a regular basis behind a guy who steals second frequently, it's going to translate into more runs than if those players did not produce such as on bad offensive teams that don't hit well with RISP. The guy stealing the base can only do so much and I consider being able to put yourself in scoring position without needing a hit as being desirable because it puts the team in a better position to score runs.

Any stat that tries to tell me that a runner on second is of negligible benefit when compared to a runner on first is a flawed statistic just as any stat that implies that a lead-off double isn't significantly better than a lead off single. A runner in scoring position is ALWAYS better than a runner on first base. Whether or not that runner on second base scores, no matter how he got there, is entirely dependent on his teammates producing behind him with RISP. This is why steals work better for some teams than others and why it doesn't make a bad team better. The fact that there are more important stats is irrelevant since I don't see anyone saying that it should be among those stats.

The argument that steals are negligible equates to getting a runner on second base instead of first base as also being negligible. The team has a better chance to score with a runner on second than a runner on first. Stolen bases put teams in a better position to score a run since it can be done with a single in that situation. Whether or not they score that run is not a strike against the impact of stolen bases because the base stealer can't score himself except in very rare cases. It's a team effort. If it's a good team, it would work better. If it's not, it won't work at all.

[Number5]

34 minutes ago, Sessh said:

While I agree about Billy Hamilton, it still misses the bigger picture. Whether or not stolen bases translate into runs is entirely dependent on what the hitters in the lineup behind that stolen base do. If they produce on a regular basis behind a guy who steals second frequently, it's going to translate into more runs than if those players did not produce such as on bad offensive teams that don't hit well with RISP. The guy stealing the base can only do so much and I consider being able to put yourself in scoring position without needing a hit as being desirable because it puts the team in a better position to score runs.

Any stat that tries to tell me that a runner on second is of negligible benefit when compared to a runner on first is a flawed statistic just as any stat that implies that a lead-off double isn't significantly better than a lead off single. A runner in scoring position is ALWAYS better than a runner on first base. Whether or not that runner on second base scores, no matter how he got there, is entirely dependent on his teammates producing behind him with RISP. This is why steals work better for some teams than others and why it doesn't make a bad team better. The fact that there are more important stats is irrelevant since I don't see anyone saying that it should be among those stats.

The argument that steals are negligible equates to getting a runner on second base instead of first base as also being negligible. The team has a better chance to score with a runner on second than a runner on first. Stolen bases put teams in a better position to score a run since it can be done with a single in that situation. Whether or not they score that run is not a strike against the impact of stolen bases because the base stealer can't score himself except in very rare cases. It's a team effort. If it's a good team, it would work better. If it's not, it won't work at all.

The fact that there are more important factors offensively than stolen bases is far from being irrelevant.  In fact, it is the crux of the matter.  The point you are overlooking is that the fact that Billy Hamilton doesn't score a lot of runs isn't a statistical anomaly based on the failures of his teammates.  It is rather the very obvious fact that he isn't on base very often, and he certainly doesn't knock himself in very often.  As I thought I had stated clearly, the ability to steal bases can make a good player even better, but it doesn't overcome the inability to get on base.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, atomic said:

What does that have to do with anything?  Compare the 2017 Orioles to 1987 Cardinals.  Orioles had much higher OPS but runs score significantly lower.

I see three components contributing to the Cardinals scoring a lot of runs in 1987:

- .340 OBP, tops in the league.   As is well known, OBP is a much more important factor than SLG in run scoring.    

- Good RISP hitting.    Cards hit about 70 OPS points higher with RISP than with bases empty.

- Good baserunning.    Both BP and Fangraphs have the Cards at +16 that year.

By contrast, the O’s had a pathetic .298 OBP and were 19 OPS points worse in RISP situations than with the bases empty.   They were a below average baserunning team, -4 per BP and -10 per Fangraphs.