Give Sisco another Chance

[SteveA]

8 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.

The point is, if you steal steal:

   -- the next guy walks -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy gets out -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy triples -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy hits a homer -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy doubles -- maybe he scores when he wouldn't have from first, let's say 50/50

   -- the next guy singles -- THERE you gained something

   -- if there's less than 2 outs and the next guy hits what would have been a DP ball -- you gained something

So probably 80+% of the time, getting the steal didn't really help you.   The only time it helps you is if the next batter singles, sometimes if the next batter doubles, and if you stole with less than 2 outs and the next guy hits what would have been a DP.   And even THOSE times it might not help you.   Maybe the next guy singles and you think wow, that stolen base helped me get a run.   But if the guy after that gets a hit -- you would have wound up scoring anyway.  So in that case the steal didn't really make a difference either.   Basically in certain very limited circumstances it helps you get 1 more run than you would have gotten... if the next guy knocks you in and the guy(s) after him all get out.   That's one run you wouldn't have had, but it is not very often, and in this environment where there are fewer singles than ever, it is pretty rare.

So if it's not a tight game late, getting a stolen base only helps you a small percentage of the time to gain ONE extra run.

Getting caught, on the other hand, could cost you multiple runs.   Not just the guy who got caught who might have scored, but any more runs that don't score in the inning because you gave away an out.  

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, 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. 

The break even point is closer to 70%.    It changes a little based on the offensive environment at the time.    High scoring era with lots of homers ==> break even point is higher.    Low scoring era with fewer homers ==> break even point is lower.    But it’s always been closer to 70% than 80%.

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The break even point is closer to 70%.    It changes a little based on the offensive environment at the time.    High scoring era with lots of homers ==> break even point is higher.    Low scoring era with fewer homers ==> break even point is lower.    But it’s always been closer to 70% than 80%.

And of course it's more important late in a close game where 1 run provides a bigger difference in leverage.   And less important earlier in the game, or in a game that isn't close.

[Sessh]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

If I had to pick one, I'd rather see the pick off. It's far more entertaining than watching Davis whiff on a pitch down the middle. Both are undesirable since they're outs, but at least the pick-off involved a hit first and a good move to first from the pitcher. Strikeouts are just boring.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

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

The quickest way to stop a rally is to give the other team free outs. 

Quoting the legend Earl Weaver:

 “your most precious possessions on offense are your 27 outs,” and “if you play for one run, that’s all you’ll get.”

[weams]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The break even point is closer to 70%.    It changes a little based on the offensive environment at the time.    High scoring era with lots of homers ==> break even point is higher.    Low scoring era with fewer homers ==> break even point is lower.    But it’s always been closer to 70% than 80%.

That debate is no longer settled. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The break even point is closer to 70%.    It changes a little based on the offensive environment at the time.    High scoring era with lots of homers ==> break even point is higher.    Low scoring era with fewer homers ==> break even point is lower.    But it’s always been closer to 70% than 80%.

Ok, that makes sense. I couldn’t remember the exact break even point on stole base attempts. 

[Sessh]

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

The point is, if you steal steal:

   -- the next guy walks -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy gets out -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy triples -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy hits a homer -- you didn't gain anything

   -- the next guy doubles -- maybe he scores when he wouldn't have from first, let's say 50/50

   -- the next guy singles -- THERE you gained something

   -- if there's less than 2 outs and the next guy hits what would have been a DP ball -- you gained something

So probably 80+% of the time, getting the steal didn't really help you.   The only time it helps you is if the next batter singles, sometimes if the next batter doubles, and if you stole with less than 2 outs and the next guy hits what would have been a DP.   And even THOSE times it might not help you.   Maybe the next guy singles and you think wow, that stolen base helped me get a run.   But if the guy after that gets a hit -- you would have wound up scoring anyway.

So if it's not a tight game late, getting a stolen base only helps you a small percentage of the time to gain ONE extra run.

Getting caught, on the other hand, could cost you multiple runs.   Not just the guy who got caught who might have scored, but any more runs that don't score in the inning because you gave away an out.  

Stealing third with less than two outs makes it possible to score a run without a hit. Ground ball, sac fly, squeeze, wild pitch etc.. or stealing second, maybe he gets to third on a ground ball to second. Is a lead off double also marginal if the next guy walks? You gained nothing from it, right? What about advancing to second on a wild pitch? Is it pointless to try because the batter might walk or hit a triple? You could still be thrown out trying to take that base. It's a gamble, sure, but getting a runner into scoring position is never marginal. If the next guy walks, that doesn't mean it was pointless to create that scoring chance nor should it be a deterrent in the future anymore than striking out should be a deterrent to swinging the bat.

[weams]

23 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.

This is a modern ballplayer.

 

[SteveA]

4 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Stealing third with less than two outs makes it possible to score a run without a hit. Ground ball, sac fly, squeeze, wild pitch etc.. or stealing second, maybe he gets to third on a ground ball to second. Is a lead off double also marginal if the next guy walks? You gained nothing from it, right? What about advancing to second on a wild pitch? Is it pointless to try because the batter might walk or hit a triple? You could still be thrown out trying to take that base. It's a gamble, sure, but getting a runner into scoring position is never marginal. If the next guy walks, that doesn't mean it was pointless to create that scoring chance nor should it be a deterrent in the future anymore than striking out should be a deterrent to swinging the bat.

No, you have a guy on 2nd after the leadoff double that you wouldn't have had if the batter had gotten out.   A double is a good thing.   Now taking a chance stretching a single to a double is marginal, just like stealing.

If you steal 2nd, and then the next guy walks, the steal didn't help you at all.   The batter would have gotten to 2nd anyway.

Yes, getting a runner into scoring position is marginal.   It increases his chance to score a little bit, but ONLY if the next guy gets a single or maybe a double.  And even then, if the guy after that gets a hit, you would have scored without the steal.   So you really don't increase your chance of scoring that much by stealing a base.   Not enough to offset the terrible cost of an out, which can cost you MULTIPLE runs.

Villar on first, one out.

He steals.

What happens the rest of the inning?

   -- next two guys get out... the steal didn't help you

   -- one of the next two guys gets a homer... the steal didn't help you, Villar would have scored from first on the homer

   -- one of the next two guys gets a triple ... the steal didn't help you, Villar would have scored from first on the homer

   -- one of the next two guys walks ... the steal didn't help you, the walk would have moved Villar to 2nd anyway so if someone knocks him home he would have scored anyway without the steal

   -- one of the next two guys hits a double that would have scored Villar from first ... the steal didn't help you

   -- the ONLY way the steal helps you is if one of the next two guys singles, or hits a double that WOULDN'T have scored Villar from 1st.   How often is that the case?   And guess what... even if the next guy does hits a single, if the guy after that gets a hit too... the steal didn't help you.   Villar just would have scored on the 2nd hit and not the first hit.  But he would have scored anyway.   So it basically only helps you if he subsequently scores on a hit that would NOT have scored him from first, and no one else gets a hit after that.   That is a very limited set of circumstances where the steal got you one more run.   But getting caught might end what would have been a big inning.   Example:   Villar on first, one out.   He is caught stealing.   Next guy walks.   Next guy gets out.   So the next guy never gets to bat.   Say that's Renato Nunez, who has a HR every 15 at bats or so.   There's a chance that caught stealing cost you THREE RUNS (or more depending on what the guys after Nunez would have done).

A caught stealing hurts you a lot more than a steal helps you.   That's just a fact, and it's more of a fact than ever because singles are far less prevalent than they used to be.

 

 

[Frobby]

Long posts here.    Obviously, stealing a base increases the chance of scoring a run, and getting caught stealing decreases it and in a two-out situation completely kills it.    And we know pretty much exactly how much it increases/decreases the odds in every situation from charts like these: https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=2800999.   So yes, I believe the data.   Why wouldn’t I?

[Sessh]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Not enough to offset the terrible cost of an out, which can cost you MULTIPLE runs.

A caught stealing hurts you a lot more than a steal helps you.   That's just a fact, and it's more of a fact than ever because singles are far less prevalent than they used to be.

..and yet, people are all for more "three true outcomes" baseball, so more strikeouts are ok, but getting thrown out on the bases isn't? Both are terrible outs, right? At least you had guys on base in one of those scenarios. From the rest of your post, it seems it's pointless to advance more than one base at a time because it's probably going to be an effort in vain. Any time you reach second base and there's no runner on first, it's probably all for naught. Why even try then? It's such a defeatist viewpoint to me. Let's not even try since there's a good chance it won't work out. Even hitters fail to get on base 2/3rds of the time or worse and that doesn't seem to be getting much better either.

I would take more singles over more strikeouts any day even if some guys get thrown out because at least something is happening. It's no wonder younger people think baseball is boring. Three true outcomes is bad any way you look at it and it's something baseball should be trying to get away from, not do more of. I've been watching a lot of older baseball games on YT from the 70's and 80's and despite fewer home runs, there's also fewer strikeouts and games are more entertaining to watch. Hell, a ground out to shortstop is more entertaining than a strikeout. The HR obsession is not good for the sport and some of the more entertaining aspects of baseball have fallen away to make room for it. It's sad that I enjoy watching games that happened 25-40 years ago more than I do games today. It should be the opposite and not hard to see why younger people think it's boring. It's not the game length, it's that nothing happens most of the time now.

[weams]

15 minutes ago, SteveA said:

No, you have a guy on 2nd after the leadoff double that you wouldn't have had if the batter had gotten out.   A double is a good thing.   Now taking a chance stretching a single to a double is marginal, just like stealing.

If you steal 2nd, and then the next guy walks, the steal didn't help you at all.   The batter would have gotten to 2nd anyway.

Yes, getting a runner into scoring position is marginal.   It increases his chance to score a little bit, but ONLY if the next guy gets a single or maybe a double.  And even then, if the guy after that gets a hit, you would have scored without the steal.   So you really don't increase your chance of scoring that much by stealing a base.   Not enough to offset the terrible cost of an out, which can cost you MULTIPLE runs.

Villar on first, one out.

He steals.

What happens the rest of the inning?

   -- next two guys get out... the steal didn't help you

   -- one of the next two guys gets a homer... the steal didn't help you, Villar would have scored from first on the homer

   -- one of the next two guys gets a triple ... the steal didn't help you, Villar would have scored from first on the homer

   -- one of the next two guys walks ... the steal didn't help you, the walk would have moved Villar to 2nd anyway so if someone knocks him home he would have scored anyway without the steal

   -- one of the next two guys hits a double that would have scored Villar from first ... the steal didn't help you

   -- the ONLY way the steal helps you is if one of the next two guys singles, or hits a double that WOULDN'T have scored Villar from 1st.   How often is that the case?   And guess what... even if the next guy does hits a single, if the guy after that gets a hit too... the steal didn't help you.   Villar just would have scored on the 2nd hit and not the first hit.  But he would have scored anyway.   So it basically only helps you if he subsequently scores on a hit that would NOT have scored him from first, and no one else gets a hit after that.   That is a very limited set of circumstances where the steal got you one more run.   But getting caught might end what would have been a big inning.   Example:   Villar on first, one out.   He is caught stealing.   Next guy walks.   Next guy gets out.   So the next guy never gets to bat.   Say that's Renato Nunez, who has a HR every 15 at bats or so.   There's a chance that caught stealing cost you THREE RUNS (or more depending on what the guys after Nunez would have done).

A caught stealing hurts you a lot more than a steal helps you.   That's just a fact, and it's more of a fact than ever because singles are far less prevalent than they used to be.

 

 

That's not even considering the pitches taken or swung at strictly to protect the dancing lad.  And the penalty to the batter at the plate due to that. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

..and yet, people are all for more "three true outcomes" baseball, so more strikeouts are ok, but getting thrown out on the bases isn't? Both are terrible outs, right? At least you had guys on base in one of those scenarios. From the rest of your post, it seems it's pointless to advance more than one base at a time because it's probably going to be an effort in vain. Any time you reach second base and there's no runner on first, it's probably all for naught. Why even try then? It's such a defeatist viewpoint to me. Let's not even try since there's a good chance it won't work out. Even hitters fail to get on base 2/3rds of the time or worse and that doesn't seem to be getting much better either.

I would take more singles over more strikeouts any day even if some guys get thrown out because at least something is happening. It's no wonder younger people think baseball is boring. Three true outcomes is bad any way you look at it and it's something baseball should be trying to get away from, not do more of. I've been watching a lot of older baseball games on YT from the 70's and 80's and despite fewer home runs, there's also fewer strikeouts and games are more entertaining to watch. Hell, a ground out to shortstop is more entertaining than a strikeout. The HR obsession is not good for the sport and some of the more entertaining aspects of baseball have fallen away to make room for it. It's sad that I enjoy watching games that happened 25-40 years ago more than I do games today. It should be the opposite and not hard to see why younger people think it's boring. It's not the game length, it's that nothing happens most of the time now.

I'm going to say making an out after you already reached base is worse than making an out before reaching base.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm going to say making an out after you already reached base is worse than making an out before reaching base.

Seems to me it’s pretty much the same.