Give Sisco another Chance

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

I'm glad you have the ability to watch the pitcher's delivery and the jump of the runner live during a game and make that assessment. All I did was go back and watch actual video of the two steals, watching while timing the pitcher's delivery and pop times and then another take to watch the jumps, but hey, you do you. 

You aren't the fist person or last person who thinks they are right, proven wrong with facts and details, and then still wants to stick to your live in game view. OldFan#5 would be proud. At least Chance Sisco sounds like a baseball name so you got that going for you.

Honestly, Tony, you sound a bit defensive (no pun intended) in this post and a few others in this thread.   I didn’t see this game, and I will acknowledge your point that Sisco has a poor arm and his pop times are slow.    But it seems to me there are four factors in whether a runner is safe or out on an accurate throw.   

1.   Pitcher’s time to the plate.

2.   Catcher’s pop time.

3.   Speed of the runner.

4.    Jump of the runner.   

Your post addressed the first two, not the last two.   You could have two pitches with the exact same TTTP, but in one case the runner is 25 feet down the line when the pitch is released and in another case he’s 35 feet down the line.    (Those numbers are made up; I don’t know how far down the line the runner would typically be.)    I don’t know what Bundy’s TTTP is, but I do know I’ve seen two or three occasions where a runner took off and he never even looked, and the runner would have been safe no matter what his TTTP was.    

Anyway, again I’m not defending Sisco or commenting on these specific steals, which I didn’t see.   Just pointing out that a bad TTTP isn’t the only factor in saying that the base was stolen on the pitcher.    

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

(Sigh) Corn Corn Corn...are you saying that a free base isn’t worth taking?

Are you saying that because the Nats lost last night, it proves that stolen bases are meaningless?

Tsk tsk.

we exploit our enemies’ weaknesses, and if our catchers are lousy throwers( combined with new pitchers every week or so, and awful pitchers every single day) well then that’s a major weakness that can be exploited. “Nobody steals bases anymore” except against the Orioles.

I'm saying that overall stolen bases are not very impactful.

[interloper]

2018: Couldn't hit or throw.

2019: Can hit but can't throw.

#improvement

[El_Duderino]

Last year he had “poor bat speed” , now he can’t throw...

If he OPSes .950 all year I don’t care if he never throws another runner out and neither should you.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, El_Duderino said:

Last year he had “poor bat speed” , now he can’t throw...

If he OPSes .950 all year I don’t care if he never throws another runner out and neither should you.

It is remarkable how he fixed his poor bat speed.  He should talk to Davis.

[Sessh]

I generally disagree with all the "data" about how meaningless stolen bases are because I see that data as being flawed and meaningless itself. Any data that tries to tell me that getting a runner into scoring position is "marginal" or meaningless is data I disregard as flawed immediately. All that data is really doing is isolating one or two aspects of hitting with RISP based on how the runner got in scoring position in the first place which really doesn't matter at all. Once the runner is there, how he got there means nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not he scores afterwards. If it's a lead-off double and he doesn't score, is that a strike against lead-off doubles or is it just a failure of the rest of the team to hit with RISP?

Stolen bases create scoring chances. They don't create runs. Hitting with RISP after a stolen base creates runs. Getting a runner into scoring position is never "marginal" or meaningless especially if it can be done without the batter having to do anything. It's a scoring chance, not a guarantee and of course there's the risk of being thrown out, but also the risk of a double play. I'm not against the stolen base at all provided we're not throwing away too many outs. Once the stolen base is successful, the rest is up to the hitters and it is on them if the runner in scoring position doesn't score.

[Can_of_corn]

So you ignore data that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

 

Got it.

[makoman]

4 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I generally disagree with all the "data" about how meaningless stolen bases are because I see that data as being flawed and meaningless itself. Any data that tries to tell me that getting a runner into scoring position is "marginal" or meaningless is data I disregard as flawed immediately. All that data is really doing is isolating one or two aspects of hitting with RISP based on how the runner got in scoring position in the first place which really doesn't matter at all. Once the runner is there, how he got there means nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not he scores afterwards. If it's a lead-off double and he doesn't score, is that a strike against lead-off doubles or is it just a failure of the rest of the team to hit with RISP?

Stolen bases create scoring chances. They don't create runs. Hitting with RISP after a stolen base creates runs. Getting a runner into scoring position is never "marginal" or meaningless especially if it can be done without the batter having to do anything. It's a scoring chance, not a guarantee and of course there's the risk of being thrown out, but also the risk of a double play. I'm not against the stolen base at all provided we're not throwing away too many outs. Once the stolen base is successful, the rest is up to the hitters and it is on them if the runner in scoring position doesn't score.

Stolen bases are great. The problem is outs are really terrible, so even being successful 80% of the time doesn’t buy you much over just staying put all the time. Especially as home runs become more prevalent. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by makoman

[weams]

5 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I generally disagree with all the "data" about how meaningless stolen bases are because I see that data as being flawed and meaningless itself. Any data that tries to tell me that getting a runner into scoring position is "marginal" or meaningless is data I disregard as flawed immediately. All that data is really doing is isolating one or two aspects of hitting with RISP based on how the runner got in scoring position in the first place which really doesn't matter at all. Once the runner is there, how he got there means nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not he scores afterwards. If it's a lead-off double and he doesn't score, is that a strike against lead-off doubles or is it just a failure of the rest of the team to hit with RISP?

Stolen bases create scoring chances. They don't create runs. Hitting with RISP after a stolen base creates runs. Getting a runner into scoring position is never "marginal" or meaningless especially if it can be done without the batter having to do anything. It's a scoring chance, not a guarantee and of course there's the risk of being thrown out, but also the risk of a double play. I'm not against the stolen base at all provided we're not throwing away too many outs. Once the stolen base is successful, the rest is up to the hitters and it is on them if the runner in scoring position doesn't score.

It's marginal because some runners fall down. Some get thrown out. Some get picked off. It is marginal. 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, makoman said:

Stolen bases are great. The problem is outs are really terrible, so even being successful 80% of the time doesn’t buy you much over just staying put all the time. Especially as home runs become more prevalent. 

Exactly. That's the whole thing. 

[Sessh]

Just now, weams said:

It's marginal because some runners fall down. Some get thrown out. Some get picked off. It is marginal. 

 

4 minutes ago, makoman said:

Stolen bases are great. The problem is outs are really terrible, so even being successful 80% of the time doesn’t buy you much over just staying put all the time. Especially as home runs become more prevalent. 

Most outs are strikeouts these days. Is that better? Plenty of guys strike out trying to hit home runs. Strikeouts buy you even less because no one reaches base at all. There's risk to everything. Isn't this just a call for more "three true outcomes" baseball? It's boring for one and probably not even good for the sport in general.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

9 minutes ago, weams said:

Exactly. That's the whole thing. 

I think Bill James wrote back in the 80’s that if a base stealers success rate was less than 80%, it really wasn’t worth the risk to attempt and steal bases. 

[weams]

Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I think Bill James wrote back in the 80’s that if a base stealers success rate was less than 80%, it really wasn’t worth the risk to attempt and steal bases. 

And he did not even include pickoffs in that napkin calculation. 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Sessh said:

 

Most outs are strikeouts these days. Is that better? Plenty of guys strike out trying to hit home runs. Strikeouts buy you even less because no one reaches base at all. There's risk to everything. Isn't this just a call for more "three true outcomes" baseball? It's boring for one and probably not even good for the sport in general.

I'd rather watch Davis strike out than Villar get picked off.

[weams]

6 minutes ago, Sessh said:

 

Most outs are strikeouts these days. Is that better? Plenty of guys strike out trying to hit home runs. Strikeouts buy you even less because no one reaches base at all. There's risk to everything. Isn't this just a call for more "three true outcomes" baseball? It's boring for one and probably not even good for the sport in general.

No. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that base stealing is marginal. At best.