Speed

[weams]

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I feel like this is what the Orioles did with Alex Ochoa, Darnell McDonald and Curtis Goodwin.  It's not the best approach, IMO.  Hammonds could have been the real deal, could never stay healthy.  

Draft the best pitchers and hitters. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sessh said:

Of course there's variables, but the bottom line is a stolen base creates a scoring chance by moving a runner into scoring position or improves one by moving a runner to third or getting two guys in scoring position instead of one. To say that steals are negligible because they don't score is extremely misleading since the reason they didn't score has nothing at all to do with the stolen base. It has to do with the guys behind him in the order that failed to bring him in and this data then uses that failure of the batter to justify saying steals are negligible. It's flawed.

Let's extend that to other situations, a bases empty double for example. What this data is trying to tell me is that if that runner doesn't score, it means bases empty doubles are negligible even though the reason the run didn't score had nothing to do with the double. Scoring chances are not guaranteed runs, they are chances. If we get a lead off double and the next three guys strike out, that does not mean that lead off doubles are negligible and that's what this data is saying about steals. It is projecting the responsibility of the other hitters in the lineup to produce with RISP on the stolen base or the double and using that as "data" to say that the scoring chance created by those plays are negligible.

What if we got three walks to lead off the inning and the next three guys strike out. Does that mean walks are negligible? Does it mean loading the bases is meaningless? That's why this is a team sport. There's lots of ways to put runners in scoring position with steals being only one such way. Doubles are another way, a single and a walk is another way and so on. If those runs don't score, it's not because they are meaningless, negligible strategies. It means the offense failed to produce with RISP. This is blame misplaced. The guy who hits the double or hits a single/takes a walk and steals second both got themselves into scoring position. They did their part. Their part is not negligible if his teammates fail to produce and bring him home. What more are they supposed to do exactly? Steal home? Whether that run scores or not has nothing to do with the double, steal or walks. It has to do with the failure of the rest of the lineup.

The point is, we know how much a stolen base increases the chance of scoring.    We also know how much a caught stealing decreases the chance of scoring.    So, we can weigh the two and figure out the break even point.   

Simplest example:

Run expectancy with a runner on 1st, nobody out: .831 runs

Run expectancy with a runner on 2nd, nobody out: 1.068 runs.

Run expectancy with bases empty and one out: .243 runs.

So, a successful steal of 2B with nobody out increases expected runs by .237 runs.    An unsuccessful steal decreases run expectancy by .488 runs.   You can pretty much see from this that you have to be successful slightly more than twice as often as you fail to break even.    In that situation it works out to 67.3%.    (Probably a little lower if you factor in the occasional throwing error that advances the runner to 3B.)

[weams]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

The point is, we know how much a stolen base increases the chance of scoring.    We also know how much a caught stealing decreases the chance of scoring.    So, we can weigh the two and figure out the break even point.   

Simplest example:

Run expectancy with a runner on 1st, nobody out: .831 runs

Run expectancy with a runner on 2nd, nobody out: 1.068 runs.

Run expectancy with bases empty and one out: .243 runs.

So, a successful steal of 2B with nobody out increases expected runs by .237 runs.    An unsuccessful steal decreases run expectancy by .488 runs.   You can pretty much see from this that you have to be successful slightly more than twice as often as you fail to break even.    In that situation it works out to 67.3%.    (Probably a little lower if you factor in the occasional throwing error that advances the runner to 3B.)

We also know that those "fleas" try to steal with two out or force a hitter to ground out on a pitch they would otherwise not swing at. So go for a 73% success rate to be even. And you will still be light. 

[weams]

We also haven't even addressed "getting picked off, tryin' to steal, ... , takin' runs away from you..."

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, weams said:

We also haven't even addressed "getting picked off, tryin' to steal, ... , takin' runs away from you..."

Well, that’s a whole other can of worms.   Last year there were 169 pickoffs in the AL, of which 60 were recorded as pick off/caught stealing.    There were 468 total caught stealings, including those 60.     On how many of the pickoffs was the runner actually trying to steal, as opposed to simply getting a good lead?    Who knows.    

[weams]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, that’s a whole other can of worms.   Last year there were 169 pickoffs in the AL, of which 60 were recorded as pick off/caught stealing.    There were 468 total caught stealings, including those 60.     On how many of the pickoffs was the runner actually trying to steal, as opposed to simply getting a good lead?    Who knows.    

I count them all under the category of speed. 

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, weams said:

I count them all under the category of speed. 

Jonathan Schoop, who stole no bases this year, was picked off once.    Danny Valencia, who stole one base, also got picked off once.   Were they trying to steal when they got picked off?    Odds are, they weren’t.    And I certainly wouldn’t accuse either one of having speed.   

[weams]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Jonathan Schoop, who stole no bases this year, was picked off once.    Danny Valencia, who stole one base, also got picked off once.   Were they trying to steal when they got picked off?    Odds are, they weren’t.    And I certainly wouldn’t accuse either one of having speed.   

I still count them. Probably trying to impress someone with their "Johnny Hustle."

[Sessh]

6 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I feel like this is what the Orioles did with Alex Ochoa, Darnell McDonald and Curtis Goodwin.  It's not the best approach, IMO.  Hammonds could have been the real deal, could never stay healthy.  

That's a fair point, but I'm not sure that I would count it against them for not being able to stay healthy since it's not necessarily something in your control past a certain degree. I agree about Hammonds as well.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sessh said:

That's a fair point, but I'm not sure that I would count it against them for not being able to stay healthy since it's not necessarily something in your control past a certain degree. I agree about Hammonds as well.

Stealing bases is an activity that increases your chances of injury.

 

[Sessh]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

The point is, we know how much a stolen base increases the chance of scoring.    We also know how much a caught stealing decreases the chance of scoring.    So, we can weigh the two and figure out the break even point.   

Simplest example:

Run expectancy with a runner on 1st, nobody out: .831 runs

Run expectancy with a runner on 2nd, nobody out: 1.068 runs.

Run expectancy with bases empty and one out: .243 runs.

So, a successful steal of 2B with nobody out increases expected runs by .237 runs.    An unsuccessful steal decreases run expectancy by .488 runs.   You can pretty much see from this that you have to be successful slightly more than twice as often as you fail to break even.    In that situation it works out to 67.3%.    (Probably a little lower if you factor in the occasional throwing error that advances the runner to 3B.)

I don't want to keep beating this horse as we'll all agree to disagree. Again, I am basically referring to players who can steal successfully at an adequate rate and not all players who steal bases or can steal bases. There is obviously a balance to strike there, so we're not in disagreement there.

The rub is when i think about what the difference is between a player who reaches second with a double and a player that reaches second through a steal. Once that runner is on second base, what's the difference? What does it matter how they got there? The only thing that matters to me is that he's there and once he's there, the "how" is irrelevant. The only responsibility the runner has at that point is not getting picked off or getting thrown out trying to steal third. The rest of the responsibility for scoring that run is on the bats that come up after this.

That's why these stats, to me, are doing more to confuse a very simple aspect than anything else. If Joey Rickard is on second base and Chris Davis is at the plate, what does it matter how Rickard got to second? It's all the same thing once he's there and it comes down to RISP production from the rest of the offense. I fail to understand what significance such a stat would hold that tries to differentiate between a runner that reached second base VIA a double and one that reached VIA a steal. Once the runner is on second, what's the difference? The bottom line is a player got himself in scoring position. How he got there will not affect whether or not Chris Davis strikes out and these stats you're throwing at me attempt to assign meaning to something that has no meaning. A stolen base is a cog in the run scoring machine. It is one of many means to get yourself into scoring position to make it easier for your teammates to drive you in. The more means a team is able to assimilate into their strategy to generate scoring chances, the better. If those scoring chances don't pan out, it does not mean that the means used to get those scoring chances is negligible.

Anyway, I said all I wanted to pretty much. We'll just agree to disagree, but I think it's a flawed statistic that produces misleading data.

[Sessh]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Stealing bases is an activity that increases your chances of injury.

 

That's a really bad angle IMO. So does standing in the batter's box, diving for fly balls, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, running around in the outfield. So what? So does everything else when it comes to sports. Everything increases your chances of injury.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sessh said:

That's a really bad angle IMO. So does standing in the batter's box, diving for fly balls, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, running around in the outfield. So what? So does everything else when it comes to sports. Everything increases your chances of injury.

Right, but base stealing is an additional risk.  It is an avoidable risk.

How much did the Angels like Trout's base stealing when he hurt his thumb?  

[Sessh]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Right, but base stealing is an additional risk.  It is an avoidable risk.

How much did the Angels like Trout's base stealing when he hurt his thumb?  

Sure, but I doubt Trout is going to be on first base thinking that he better not steal second because he might get hurt. I just don't buy that. In the heat of the moment, you want to do what it takes to win the game.  I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. Putting your body on the line for your team is just part of the job and occasional injuries are part of the territory. I don't imagine rationality would trump competitiveness and the desire to win when you see an opportunity to go the extra mile for your team.

It's kind of the same thing in hockey when it comes to star players blocking shots. You have to do it and put your body on the line, injuries be damned.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sessh said:

Sure, but I doubt Trout is going to be on first base thinking that he better not steal second because he might get hurt. I just don't buy that. In the heat of the moment, you want to do what it takes to win the game.  I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. Putting your body on the line for your team is just part of the job and occasional injuries are part of the territory. I don't imagine rationality would trump competitiveness and the desire to win when you see an opportunity to go the extra mile for your team.

It's kind of the same thing in hockey when it comes to star players blocking shots. You have to do it and put your body on the line, injuries be damned.

I don't get the relevance of your comments.

I stated that stealing bases increase the chances of a player being injured.

You agreed and then you lost me.