Jump to content

Give Sisco another Chance


Legend_Of_Joey

Recommended Posts

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.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...