Are SBs really just running in place?

[DWKB]

There was a discussion last night on BBT where argued the production value of the SB. Harold Reynolds took the "pro" side (of course), and Bobby Valentine took the "con" side.

Bobby was quoted as saying:

I think the idea of risk/reward is what we deal with in our society. To risk an out, and your reward is only a base, I think is not quite what we want to do. It's not good economics of baseball.

Team	[b]SB[/b]	HR	R	BB	AVG	OBP	SLG
FLA	[b]52[/b]	36	148	112	0.267	0.335	0.435
OAK	[b]5[/b]	33	148	112	0.257	0.330	0.420

I think this shows that the SB as an offensive weapon is really fairly futile. If 50 more SBs doesn't add to your RS over another team with the same component stats, then how many do you need?

 

[moviegeekjn]

Originally posted by DWKB
I think this shows that the SB as an offensive weapon is really fairly futile. If 50 more SBs doesn't add to your RS over another team with the same component stats, then how many do you need?

A big "if" that may well be determined by the team makeup. In the case of the Marlins and A's it definitely holds, but I'm still thinking of the old days in the sixties when the Dodgers had almost no power and relied on Maury Wills to generate a few runs.... and the Cardinals during the Lou Brock era--but both of those basestealers (and Rickey Henderson) were very rarely thrown out.

Other factors to be considered are the effects that base stealing players have on the pitchers and catchers, who may be concerned enough to throw more fastballs to hitters... Outside of the "sure thing" base stealers, a team is much better served with smart baserunners that have decent speed than the risky ones that run you out of innings.

 

[DWKB]

Re: Re: Are SBs really just running in place?

Originally posted by moviegeekjn
A big "if" that may well be determined by the team makeup. In the case of the Marlins and A's it definitely holds, but I'm still thinking of the old days in the sixties when the Dodgers had almost no power and relied on Maury Wills to generate a few runs.... and the Cardinals during the Lou Brock era--but both of those basestealers (and Rickey Henderson) were very rarely thrown out.

I should have added the caveat that in this era they seem futile. You are correct that in certain eras where the scoring is dampened (the 60's or against Pedro) that the SB has more value. Still not that much, but more regardless.

Even a prolific baserunner like Henderson contributed more with his BBs and HRs than he did with his SBs (all 1400+ of them).

Originally posted by moviegeekjn

Other factors to be considered are the effects that base stealing players have on the pitchers and catchers, who may be concerned enough to throw more fastballs to hitters... Outside of the "sure thing" base stealers, a team is much better served with smart baserunners that have decent speed than the risky ones that run you out of innings.

These "other factors" are considered. When you look at RS you consider every factor that contributes to that (including effects on pitchers and catchers and more fastballs). But I have to ask how much importance that has in the general sense if it doesn't show up as a change in the RS?

How do we consider the impact of more fastballs, moving defenses, etc.. in the comparison of FLA and OAK? How many runs did those add to FLA that aren't there for OAK?

 

[moviegeekjn]

Re: Re: Re: Are SBs really just running in place?

Originally posted by DWKB
Even a prolific baserunner like Henderson contributed more with his BBs and HRs than he did with his SBs (all 1400+ of them).

I doubt that anyone would make a case that a SB equals a HR since that's an instant run vs. a potential run.... and anytime you get on base is a valuable asset to the team. The fastest runner in the world does a team zero good without the ability to get on base.

But I'm not sure what data would support the idea that a runner like Henderson (in his prime) serves his team better by remaining at first instead of picking up an extra base via the steal, considering various nebulous factors in addition to the idea of being in scoring position for most singles:

1. double play avoidance
2. increased tension on part of defense
3. additional odds of fastballs to follow up hitters
4. number of outs in the inning

How to get a breakdown of Henderson's odds of scoring during those years on times he stole bases vs. the times he didn't while taking the unquantifiable factors into account would be virtually impossible... You'll end up with theoretical and philosophical and non-definitive answers in the end.

 

[AZCB34]

I would ask how viable the comparison is between FLA (NL) and OAK (AL) is anyways. The Al, at least peception wise, is they don't steal as much as the NL thus comparing the 2 isn't really comparing like apples, even though their numbers at a glance are very similar. How FLA compares to the rest of the NL and how OAK compares with the rest of the Al may paint a much different picture.

I would also be curious as to what the stats you show are really telling us. Are these numbers for a certain time period (must be)? Are we to assume that FLA hit 36 HRs immediately following a SB (in that inning)?

 

[schillingfan]

Your stats are really interesting, I would have said you were dead wrong that stolen bases didn't help the Marlins. they sure hurt the Phillies when we played them.

What shocks me is that the Marlins slugging and home runs are greater than the A's.

The only quibble that I have with your numbers is that you can't determine from them what the Marlins would have hit average or OBP without the stolen bases. In other words did a guy stealing improve the hitting of the team overall by disrupting the pitcher, or being on base. I mean, the talent level is higher on the A's than it is on the Marlins, so we don't know what they would be hitting or scoring of they didn't steal.

 

[DWKB]

I don't consider the two leagues that much different. You still score runs the same way and certain things contribute to those runs in the same ways.

The stats are FLA and OAK team stats to date. What I read is that a certain amount of HRs, BB, and a certain level of OPS gives you a certain amount of RS regardless of if you've stolen 50+ bases or 5 bases. IOW the stolen base doesn't appear to contribute highly to RS at all.

Now I don't think anybody said Rickey staying at 1B was worse than him going to 2B but we're not always assured Rickey would get there safely.

In a 4.5 R/* environment, the SB is worth alittle less than 1/5 of a Run and a CS cost a little more than 1/4 of a Run on average.

In 1983 (what I think is Rickey's most productive SB year) the AL scored 4.48 R/* on avg (close enough to 4.5 R/*).

Rickey, with his 108 SB and only 19 CS generated a little over 13 Runs with his SBs. His 9 HRs that year generated a little over 12 Runs. This is all approximation of course, but shows a good comparison.

 

[AZCB34]

This thread should be resurrected at the end of the year for a full season comparison of the 2 teams. Month+ is a good start but it would be more interesting to see how the whole year shakes out. Again, I believe there is a difference in the 2 leagues use of SBs but I admit that may be my preception. I don't have the numbers leahuewide for each from last year to see if I am right or not.

 

[ChinaMeng]

Don't forget that Oakland gets a DH, while Florida has a pitcher in the batting lineup. For both of these teams to have similar offensive stats, means that the stolen bases have to be doing something.

 

[unc84steve]

The Bobby Valentine quote is the key to explaining what's happening.

I think the idea of risk/reward is what we deal with in our society. To risk an out, and your reward is only a base, I think is not quite what we want to do. It's not good economics of baseball

Valentine puts it well: a base for an out in baseball aren't equal. But that's not the trade-off. It's an out plus the runner.

If it were just the out, here's what the rule would be. Tony Womack reaches first base on his relatively rare occasion (20% onbase pct.) instead of making an out as usual (80%). We use his "talent" and send him. Some "bucket-head" calls him out. Tony gets to return to first base.

That would be a "base vs. out" trade. A "base vs. runner trade" would be if caught stealing rule that didn't result in adding an out to the scoreboard--just returning Tony to his home on the bench.

That's the true tradeoff. In an era where runs are scare and outs plentiful, the extra base is worth a lot more, and thus worth sacrificing a few runners to try and score one off of Sandy Koufax or Tom Seaver.

But in this era when on-base pct is higher and baseball is more like a picnic softball game, it's silly not to be patient and see if Sally from accounting & Joe from legal can't get a few base hits and get your carcass around to score some more runs. (The picnic softball equivalent of a "stolen base" is trying to "steal" a beer or hot dog between batters and not be punished with the out/runner penalty; then you have to explain to Sally & Joe why you couldn't wait for them to score you. Not only could you have had the beer & dog, but if the inning kept going with more runs, Sally & Joe could have gotten some food & beverage too. But noooo! Now everyone has to play defense for 20 minutes and watch the other team score, eat, drink & be merry--all because you had to try stealing).

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by unc84steve

But in this era when on-base pct is higher and baseball is more like a picnic softball game, it's silly not to be patient and see if Sally from accounting & Joe from legal can't get a few base hits and get your carcass around to score some more runs. (The picnic softball equivalent of a "stolen base" is trying to "steal" a beer or hot dog between batters and not be punished with the out/runner penalty; then you have to explain to Sally & Joe why you couldn't wait for them to score you. Not only could you have had the beer & dog, but if the inning kept going with more runs, Sally & Joe could have gotten some food & beverage too. But noooo! Now everyone has to play defense for 20 minutes and watch the other team score, eat, drink & be merry--all because you had to try stealing).

I definately see your point and agree with the content steve, but I don't like the idea of bringing in softball to the discussion because that tends to attach a 'feeling' to the style of play. Softball isn't pleasing to the eye so it is easy to rationalize it as being 'wrong'. If 'softball' is 'wrong' then the opposite must be 'right' and therefore, SBs must be 'good'. I think this causes rationalization more than logical thinking.

SBs are more fun => SBs are 'good' => find reasons why.

instead of

look at SBs compared to RS and other component stats=> decide how much SBs add to RS for a team

 

[unc84steve]

I'm sorry DWKB, I wasn't trying to bring emotions into the discussion when I mentioned softball. I can see the misunderstanding. My style can be irreverant.

To me slow-pitch softball is the logical exaggeration of a really high on-base pct. environment. It helps me mentally picture why the SB gain of a base is pointless if you're more likely to get knocked around the bases anyway.

Fast-pitch softball would be the opposite. I assume a typical score is 1-0 or 2-1. I assume they can whip the ball in rapido from 45 feet. In that environment, a baserunner on first is a rarity. If SB's & bunts were allowed, they'd definitely be worth it. In a scoreless game, looking from first, scoring position would be a VIRTUAL VICTORY, right? (1-0 games). So go for it!

And once you're on second, especially with 2 outs, on a single to right, even if the RF has a gun, the 3rd base coach SHOULD SEND THE RUNNER, because that's a VIRTUAL VICTORY too! (even in the 4th inning.

But if we're talking about slow-pitch softball, such sends are nuts. The next hitter has a great chance of scoring everyone.

So I'm just using the various forms of softball (slow-pitch vs. fast-pitch) not as emotional value-judgments on which is more emotionally appealing. I could see how 1-0 or 23-22 could be boring to some or exciting to others. To me they are extensions past 1960's baseball on one end & Coors Field 1995 on the other.

The relevant point is that the baseball environment alters the "equation" on when you bunt, send runners on steals & send runners home as a coach.