Sandy Alderson: "Stolen Bases Are A Footnote"
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 12:15 PM EST
Email
PrintSandy Alderson was interviewed at a charity event last night by Ed Randall of Fans For The Cure, a prostate cancer awareness organization. David Lennon of Newsday shared some of Alderson's one-liners. Here is one:
I'll ignore Lennon's Reyes editorial for now and instead focus on the stolen base quote. Alderson is right -- the importance of the stolen base for scoring runs is minimal, compared to not making outs and hitting for power. The risk of making an out on the basepaths is generally greater than the reward. A stolen base percentage less than about 70% damages a team's chances of scoring runs. Additionally, the peripheral effects of base stealing -- getting in the pitcher's head, worrying the defense -- appear to be marginal. Good on Alderson for countering the usual old baseball wisdom, which usually goes something like: "It's better to make outs on the basepaths than not be aggressive at all".
That said, the Mets have been an elite base stealing machine over the last few seasons. And that's despite the occasional baserunning blunder from Angel Pagan or Jose Reyes on which many fans seem to fixate. Those two, plus Carlos Beltran, Luis Castillo and (until recently) David Wright, have been racking up stolen bases in large quantities with tremendous success rates. Here is a happy table to look at, featuring stolen base-related Mets stats since 2006:
| Season | # of SB | NL Rank | SB% | NL Avg SB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 130 | 1 | 74.7% | 71.2% |
| 2009 | 122 | 1 | 73.5% | 70.7% |
| 2008 | 138 | 2 | 79.3% | 73.0% |
| 2007 | 200 | 1 | 81.3% | 75.6% |
| 2006 | 146 | 1 | 80.7% | 71.3% |
The table is generally self-explanatory, but I'll clarify that the NL Rank column represents the Mets' NL rank for total stolen bases, not stolen base %.
The Mets have been in the top two in the National League in stolen bases and above average in stolen base % each season since 2006. This is an area at which they excel and similar performance going forward would be most welcome. Yes, stolen bases are a footnote, but eliminating them from the Mets' arsenal in 2011 would be a mistake.
As a proponent of of the search for objective knowledge in baseball, Alderson's comment is refreshing. As a Mets fan, it worries me just a tiny bit. Hopefully Reyes and co. are not put on a leash. The worry is only tiny because this front office is known for paperwork; for performing sufficient due diligence. If I, a basement-dwelling Cheeto-eater, notice the Mets' recent base stealing prowess then surely d3p0 and J.P. Ricciardi do too. So for now I'll assume Alderson was speaking more about baseball strategy in general, and less about the Mets specifically. It's something to monitor as the season unfolds though.
104 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If only stolen pension funds were just a footnote
by Pack Bringley on Feb 2, 2011 12:23 PM EST reply actions 8 recs
This
but seriosuly, me agreeth with James. I don’t think you can casually dismiss the stolen base as a useful weapon without considering the lineup context (i.e., do you really have the extra-base, non-DP machines to go station-to-station?), the success of the basestealers involved, etc. What’s more, stolen bases also tend to coexist with more aggressive baserunning strategies, generally. So, your advantages can be multiplied. . . . again, if you’ve got the right group.
by tmu on Feb 2, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't the chart support Alderson?
Notwithstanding excellent base-stealing in absolute numbers and %, the Mets were 13th in runs scored in 2010. So, yes, proficient base-stealing helps, but not much.
Yep
It doesn’t help much, but I’ll take any edge we can get. And this group appears genuinely skilled at stealing bases (coaches deserve some credit too, I guess). Maintaining the 2006-2010 base stealing strategy seems like a good idea.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Even a strong point can be better used.
Like you said, a large chunk of the SB were from 5 or 6 players. Those players will still SB. Though it’s weird that guys like Alex Cora, Francoeur, Church, Ike and others would even attempt to SB, since they dont have the skills to do it and their % is horrible.
The team % has also gone from 80-ish to mid-70. Could be because of injuries and aging of the top-5 SB. This year, I’d be happy to tradeoff a bit of total stolen bases for more SB %.
In lobby for: Jaime Cevallos, Zack Lutz, orange unis
The Unwritten Rules of AA
Well you have to consider the opportunity
The pitcher’s delivery and the catcher’s ability, as well as other small things like whether you can catch someone napping can all create worthwhile opportunities to steal.
by TheBigStapler on Feb 2, 2011 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
Great Point
And some consideration has to go to the overall poor field management of the Mets over the last few seasons. Baserunning errors and a lack of focus and discipline may have kept them from maximizing their opportunities.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, there are situations when a steal opportunity might present itself or that it's inconsequential.
Though some guys are so slow/don’t have the skills to steal that their success % is very low. They might as well stay put.
In lobby for: Jaime Cevallos, Zack Lutz, orange unis
The Unwritten Rules of AA
not convinced
that there is “little” value to the distraction factor to the pitcher. Pitching is very much a mind game. And everything he has to think about helps keep him from focusing. Regardless of the unmeasurable things, the more a pitcher believes a guy behind him might be about take off, the more he’s tempted to throw the ball as fast (and likely as straight) as possible. That increased percentage is hard data and knowledge that a hitter could use.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
The criticism of the distraction tactic is not about the pitchers
Almost everyone acknowledges that many pitchers will be distracted by attempted stolen bases. The criticism is that the base runner might also be distracting the batter, in which case it could be counter-productive.
John Paulson for Mets owner!
"The Mets are gonna be amazin'!" - Casey Stengel
"Bounding and astounding!" - Clyde Frazier
Hitters don't necessarily need to think about it unless its a hit and run.
And they have to swing to protect a guy that would’nt be running normally. Guys that have the green light have to be smart about what pitch they go on, for example on a 0-1 pitch following a fastball the next pitch more than likely will be offspeed giving the runner with a good jump a better chance to make it. Some times it helps to have the second baseman or shortstop out of position on a grounder. Its an apples oranges thing ultimately. But I tend to beleive it affects the pitcher more than the guy at the plate.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
The effect on the pitcher is not the only consideration
There’s evidence that batters are negatively affected by base stealers (getting into poor counts swinging at bad pitches to protect runners?). Also, that BP article linked in the post says that having a runner on first is more disruptive to the defense than having him on second — the first baseman holds the runner on and middle infielders cheat towards second when there is a runner on first. It’s an ‘all things considered’ scenario.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Here are links to a THT study on this topic
Part 1
Part 2
There’s a lot of stats mumbo-jumbo in there but here are excerpts from the conclusion:
The goal of this study was to confirm or refute the notion that good base stealers disrupt the opposing pitcher/defense simply by his presence on first base. I reasoned that any disruption would show up in the performance of the batters who came to the plate with a Stealer on first base.
The results obtained indicate a small effect of disruption, amounting to about 0.17 in RC27, for the Stealer on first base situation. An independent cross-check was made considering what happens with any runner on first and again a very small effect of disruption was found (0.07 runs per game for that check). Finally, I found that pitchers hit a few more batters than expected when a Stealer was on first, although the effect was not statistically significant. It could be real, but we can’t say for certain. Pitchers do commit more balks with a Stealer on first base.
Assuming these small effects are real, how much are these base stealer intangibles worth over a season? A typical Stealer is on first base for 180-220 plate appearances per season. That corresponds to about 128 outs (for this group), which adds up to 4.75 games. Assuming the improvement due to disruption is 0.17 runs per game, this gives a measly 0.8 runs over the whole season. Let’s throw in an extra balk and a half-HBP (I didn’t include the HBPs in the OBP calculation for simplicity) and we get an additional 0.5 runs (more or less), for a grand total of about 1.3 extra runs a year.
So, the next time you tune into the White Sox game and Hawk Harrelson is telling you that “Scotty” Podsednik, by virtue of his ability to disrupt the pitcher, is worth more than what his statistics show, well you now know he’s telling you the truth. Podsednik is worth a little over one more run per season.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Question because I'm too lazy to read the study
Did they look at the countervailing effect of disruption of the hitter? It seems like a few more ill-advised swings for 2nd (or worse, 3rd) strikes to protect a stealing runner could erase that small benefit and even turn it into a negative, not to mention any incidental effects on concentration.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
This was looked at in The Book
Some conclusions:
A runner on first with less than two outs is an enormous disruption on the defense. The batter gains 14 points to his wOBA.
The disruptive runner has an enormously negative influence on the batter, enough to almost completely offset the disruption caused to the defense.
The stolen base attempt reduces the wOBA of the batter by 22 points, compared the situation if the runner elected not to attempt to steal.
Ah ok thanks
So it looks like the net effect might actually be worse for the offense.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
don't protect the runners
Maybe it’s the swinning at bad pitches that has the negative effect. Is there data to support that swinging at them helps the runner in any way?
Putting the rest of my reply on hold, reading through the other study you posted, but I’m overall just not confident that everything has been taken into account. I don’t trust the variables.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
That's fine, it's good to be skeptical
This stuff isn’t 100% definitive, but from what I’ve read I lean more towards the conclusion that secondary effects are minimal. Absent evidence to the contrary, I have to be skeptical of what you’re saying.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
Baseball Between the Numbers also tackled the question
Here’s a link to the google ebook version. I hope it works for everyone
The relevant part starts about halfway down that page (115). There’s an effect, but not a great one.
by CajoleJuice on Feb 2, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
bookmarked
It’s getting late, I probably should do some of this work stuff, instead of reading about baseball. Lots to think about.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
Heads up
That’s not the whole book, it just worked out that the sample has the part I was looking for. I recommend the book to everyone here, though, from the most traditionalist fan to the biggest wannabe sabermetrician.
If their on the road at say Philly, Yankee Stadium or Colorado
I could buy the lets not bunt or take the bat out of the hitters hand argument, but at citi field unless they bring in the walls its better try to manufacture runs as a constant strategy.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
Bunting is bad because giving up outs is bad.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
by Ogre39666 on Feb 2, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
"Situationally" speaking, and i'm not talking Jersey Shore
Late in a close game…. In a pitchers duel….. Its been in practice over 100 years. I don’t agree with the 1st inning bunt, but in Citi Field It should be considered “situationally”
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn't matter if it's in the 1st or the 9th
a bunt is still giving up an out.
In fact, bunting in a close game is worse because 1 run could make the difference.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
Ultimately...
You have a great chance to score a tying or go ahead run with a guy on 3rd and less than 2 outs and thats why the bunt will still be aroung in another 100 years.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
Um, you have a better chance of scoring a run with a runner on 2B and 0 outs
than you do with a runner on 3rd and 1 out.
1.189 > 0.983
Save Jenrry Mejia!
Probably overall
But late in a game from the 8th inning on , I’d be curious to see what the stats look like when the pressures on.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily
The run expectancy is higher.
The run expectancy the sum:
p_1_run + 2*p_2_runs + 3*p_3_runs + 4*p_4_runs + …
Your p_1 run could very well be higher at 3rd base/1 out than at 2nd base/0 outs. If you’re looking to tie or go ahead in late inning situations, the p_1_run could be more important than the slight chance of a monster inning.
If you look at the Win Probabilities on fangraphs on a game where there was a successful sac bunt in the bottom of the 9th one run down, you should be able to tease out the p_1_run difference between 3rd/1o & 2nd/0o.
Image credit for Jerrysaurus goes to astromets
Welcome to AA
That chart Ogre posted above is an old standard around here. You’ll see it pop up regularly. Hotspur gives the counter, which is more situational. The better you know the tension between these two, the better the arguments around here. During the season this tension presents itself all the time.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Yeah, run expectancy and run frequency are different
Here’s a link to some run frequency tables, which would help determine when a bunt might be viable.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"Maintaining the 2006-2010 base stealing strategy" is utterly irrelevant
to building the next winning Mets team. There isn’t a single player the Mets should or shouldn’t retain who played in those years because of their ability to steal bases.
As far as its being a strategy, something they consciously developed, it wasn’t. The Mets simply happened to have more than their share of good basestealers. Their offseason acquisitions were Bay and Francouer. Neither of those acquisitions had anything to do with their prowess as basestealers. As for the Mets stealing a whopping dozen or so more bases than they would have if they’d been caught at the typical NL rate, you feel that the Mets should make as many as one personnel move based on this?
As for "Good on Alderson for countering the usual old baseball wisdom, which usually goes something like: “It’s better to make outs on the basepaths than not be aggressive at all”," You can’t be serious. Things have gotten so bad this quickly that Alderson gets a pat on the head for recognizing what every sabr-savvy GM since Branch Rickey has figured out? What’s next, a tip of the hat to Sandy for downplaying batting average’s contribution to building a winner?
2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!
by Jack Str on Feb 3, 2011 6:31 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, here we go
“Maintaining the 2006-2010 base stealing strategy” is utterly irrelevant to building the next winning Mets team. There isn’t a single player the Mets should or shouldn’t retain who played in those years because of their ability to steal bases.
I agree and didn’t argue otherwise. Please show me where I said the Mets should seek out players simply because they are productive base stealers. The point was to say that base stealing is minimally important to a team’s offense, but the current crop of Mets is decent at it so hopefully it won’t be abandoned.
As for the Mets stealing a whopping dozen or so more bases than they would have if they’d been caught at the typical NL rate, you feel that the Mets should make as many as one personnel move based on this?
No, and good job continuing to put words in my mouth and then arguing against it. Again, show me where I advocate making personnel moves because of base stealing. All I’m saying is the Mets have been good at base stealing recently and hopefully in 2011 it will remain a part of their game plan. Nowhere did I say “sign Juan Pierre he’s fast and steals bases”. I even made a point of saying OBP and SLG are the most important components of scoring runs.
As for “Good on Alderson for countering the usual old baseball wisdom, which usually goes something like: "It’s better to make outs on the basepaths than not be aggressive at all",” You can’t be serious. Things have gotten so bad this quickly that Alderson gets a pat on the head for recognizing what every sabr-savvy GM since Branch Rickey has figured out? What’s next, a tip of the hat to Sandy for downplaying batting average’s contribution to building a winner?
Well Jack, maybe not everyone who reads this blog is as brilliant as you are. Maybe a non-genius came across this post and learned a small thing about base stealing and its contribution to an offense. The praise for Alderson is pretty nominal — I didn’t suggest building a statue in his honor for his statement. It’s just nice to hear that the person in charge has a grasp on things, no matter how minor and whether or not every saber-savvy GM since Branch Rickey has figured it out. The prior regime wasn’t so savvy so forgive me for expressing minor approval in this case.
And maybe you should try to be more civil around here. You talk to people like they’re contempible pieces of shit, as if anyone who disagrees with you is an utter moron. Tone it down, please.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 3, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 9 recs
Tone it down? Overreact much?
You’re unable to accept thoughtful criticism with anything approaching a reasoned tone, and after accusing me of putting words in your mouth—despite my actually quoting your remarks—we’re treated to foolishness like “contemptible pieces of shit,” and “utter moron”. Then you have the gall to abuse your authority here by issuing me what was intended to be an anonymous warning without any reference at all to any specifics.
Regardless of whether you feel I’ve understood your argument or not, this is a remarkable display on your part. I couldn’t agree less with most of what you post, but I never use the kind of language you feel free to throw around. As for your thin skin, do you truly think that the occasional pointed sarcasm that doesn’t remotely attack your character (I’ve questioned your motives, to be sure, but I’ve never once attacked your character or descended to name-calling) is inappropriate on the internet? This isn’t church and we’re not choir boys.
I’m sure my direct and distinct dislike of poorly reasoned arguments doesn’t win me any friends, but I certainly don’t object or hide behind the hyperbole in which you so freely indulge when someone attacks my reasoning (as opposed to my character). We disagreed. I thought most of your article was silly and poorly constructed. I said so without mincing words. You responded. Good for you, and I mean that. You’re obviously entitled. But as for the poor-mouthing of your last couple of paragraphs and the childish warning you sponsored, for god’s sake, grow up.
As for what I see as deeply flawed reasoning in your rebuttal, I’ll get to that in a while, assuming you don’t cause me to be banned for having the gall to be appalled by your behavior, and for saying so.
2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!
Proficient base-stealing helps
if you can actually get on base.
Since the Mets had the sixth worst OBP in all of the majors last year and were better only than Houston and Pittsburgh in the NL, it goes a long way to explaining why those SBs were largely wasted.
by Southfield_2001 on Feb 2, 2011 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think they are more
Reyes and guys like him require pitchers to throw more fastballs. fastballs are easier for the power guys to hit. The problem is that you need to swing at the fastball instead of falling behind in the count on thefastball.
Run and hit..running on the base paths, causes the pitcher to hurry and throw a fat fast ball, and the hitter has to take advantage and get the big hit
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
I think any worry that Alderson might leash the runners
is premature and a tad overblown. Alderson has his own ideas of what is important its true, but nothing suggests that he would abandon something that works solely because he doesn’t agree with it, and in any case there is Collins’ ideas to consider as well. His Astros teams were 2nd in the league in stolen bases for three years and his 1996 Angels were ranked 5th. Arguably he lacked prolific base stealers in 97-98 outside of Darin Erstad (who wasn’t all that prolific despite averaging 20+) and Rickey Henderson (who was old).
In short, I’m not worried
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Feb 2, 2011 1:57 PM EST reply actions
It's irrelevant. If guys only stole bases in those late inning situations where the game is on the line
and there’s an overall positive run expectancy from the move, and ONLY in those situations, it wouldn’t change the win column at all.
Nobody disagrees with stealing bases at an 80% clip, including Alderson. It’s simply that it’s essentially irrelevant to winning baseball games. Bill James published the first of many studies that show hitters hit worse when a runner is trying to steal, which overall balances out any slight increase in run expectancy even when a team is as proficient as stealing as the 2010 Mets were.
2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!
I don't think I argued that it makes a difference
or that it doesn’t. I was just pointing out that if you are worried about less base-stealing there is reason not to worry.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Feb 3, 2011 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Yup. I was noting that even if he does leash the runners "it's irrelevant", i.e. nothing to worry about.
Iow, I was agreeing with you, though taking a somewhat different slant on why that’s the case.
2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!
For Lennon to make that leap on his Tweet
is ridiculous and unprofessional. If it’s a joke, it’s a bad one. Reyes would be a keeper even if he didn’t steal 40-50 bases. This is the problem when journalists start tweeting inane, uninformed assumptions.
Let's not get panicky.
I asked Sandy Alderson about this very issue at the Mets Holiday Party last December (still can’t believe I can write that seriously). For me, it was a follow up question about a past comment he made that describes speed as a “nice to have” component instead of a “need to have” component.
Alderson cited his experience with Rickey Henderson and basically pointed out that even Rickey couldn’t steal first base, saying:
"We’re happy to have the kind of speed that is on the club. …I had Rickey Henderson for years. So it’s a tremendous asset to have.
"At the same time, we led the league in stolen bases last year, had a pretty good success rate. And we still ended up scoring fewer runs than maybe 10 or 11 other clubs in the league. So, we do need to be on base. We need to be able to drive the ball. Speed will be a factor for us; I’m not discounting that.
“Ultimately, if you do all the analysis, the things that are most important to run production are on-base percentage and slugging. So, that’s where I think we need to redouble our efforts.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on Feb 2, 2011 2:28 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Nice, thanks
The idiot formerly known as pkyankeefan! Now in Technicolour!
by Hasan Paliwala on Feb 2, 2011 2:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Nice to see Sandy and I are on the same page, so...
…I can haz lobby for front office job now?
by madisonmetsfan on Feb 2, 2011 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
I love Sandy...
But. Were not in the steroid era any more. And playing in Citi Field you need to play the speed game. Scoring from 1st on a double is no given and being that the field is a pitchers park where runs come at a premium bunting, hitting and running and stolen bases will all factor in to their potential success. Not to mention that the majority of the roster runs at least pretty well. I don’t mind walks and bombs but they need to play to their strengths.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 2:53 PM EST reply actions
Maybe I'm still bitter
due to Manuel’s over-bunting, but if I see a non-pitcher bunting, I might break something. And I don’t see how not being in the “Steroid Era” relates to anything. You don’t necessarily need home run power per se, but hitting for lots of doubles along with superb plate discipline works in any time period or ballpark.
What's that about?
True
I’d like to see them push the envelope though, especially in Citi Field where its not too wise to wait for the 3 run bomb.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
You say that Citi is a tough field to hit home runs, which is a given.
However just because it is tough to hit homers doesn’t mean it’s tough to score runs. Via speed and the deep alleys (and not to mention that stupid Mo’s Zone in RF) you can score a ton of runs at this field. It’s not CBP-like in how it happens but there’s the potential for a lot of extra base power if you have line drive hitters in the lineup.
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on Feb 2, 2011 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
And yes...bunting is waste of outs.
You are given 27 outs in baseball…a finite number. You’re given 3 outs per inning, also a finite number. Until out number 3 is made in an inning, you have a shot at scoring runs. Once out 3 is made, that chance is over. How do you score runs? You get guys on base. How do you get guys on base? You don’t make outs.
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on Feb 2, 2011 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I’m talking late inning, tie or go head situations you want to get that guy to 3rd with less than 2 outs.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 3, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
But even then you're giving up the potential of multiple runs (which would presumably include the go-ahead run)
just for the tying run. Yes, you have to tie the game before you can take the lead, but playing for the tie in a bit shortsighted IMO.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
I know what your saying but...
I still got old school values like play for the tie @ home and for the lead on the road because of all the immeasurable intangibles. Like I said from the beginning its a SITUATIONAL thing and no matter what cold, hard numbers may say to you, I still feel there are situations where bunting is the best play like trying to get the tie against a closer @ home.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 3, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Stolen bases, and baserunning in general, don't lend themselves very well to quantitative analysis
Whether or not it is beneficial to run is truly all about context. Because there are stats involved, it’s relatively easy to do a probability analysis regarding stolen bases and run proficiency. However, because the data itself is largely limited in scope (and devoid of context), I think it a mistake to be too definitive in your conclusions regarding the value of stolen bases.
That argument aside, baseball is about entertainment. Stolen bases are entertaining. If they do not have a large impact on wins one way or the other, I’d prefer to watch a team that is aggressive on the base paths.
Exactly
Its a situational thing. I saw alot of mid-late eighties St louis Cards games that they won by running. I’ve also seen alot of recent Mets games they lost by running. Its a game chaning tool when properly executed.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
FWIW
The 1985 and 1987 Cardinals led the league in OBP. The obscene amount of steals are nice but getting on base was the foundation of their success. They didn’t win when they couldn’t get on base (see 1984, 1986, 1988).
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree
stolen bases without OBP is not a recipe for success (see 2010 Mets). However, stolen bases were a very important element to those Cardinal teams. I would argue they would not have been nearly as good without the aggressive baserunning. It was the combination of high OBP and stolen bases that won them games.
They also had Whitey Herzog
Who for my money really knew how to manage, and probably taught guys when to steal and when to stay put (assuming that Vince Coleman was capable of learning anything).
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
He learned how to spray bleach.
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
And throw firecrackers at kids
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Psst!
That was Saberhagen.
-The Department of Worst-Team-Ever-Related Corrections
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 7, 2011 8:15 AM EST up reply actions
Yep.
But given the fact that other than Jack Clark they had no power hitter the stolen bases in my opinion were probably just as important to their success. And if you beleive in the basestealers affect the pitchers argument the distraction created may have contributed to more walks for the cards.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Bill James, among others, have demonstrated repeatedly that hitters hit worse
when the guy on first is trying to steal. Distracting the pitcher had nothing to do with the Cardinals success. Take 1985 for example. OBP was their key. They had four starters with great on base percentages. The run environment in the 80s was also entirely different from the five years we’ve been discussing here, meaning that stolen bases then were much more valuable than they are now. You’re also wrong in that Willie McGee was almost exactly the same hitter Jack Clark was in 85, Clark’s first year with the birdnals In 1986 Andy van Slyke was a little better hitter than Clark. In 87 Clark was an absolute monster and should have won the MVP, but that was the only year he was the best hitter on the Cards.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1985+cardinals
2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!
Numbers can be interpreted in many different ways...
But watching those games I saw that the pitchers were distracted by the runners on base which led to more out of the strikezone pitches which pushed up the team obp. These things go hand in hand. And i’m sure that a accumulation of stats can be found that equates Mcgee and Clark, but the Meat of that line up, the guy people feared and tried to pitch around was Clark. I dont have a link to reference other than my memories of the period.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 3, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
You might have interpreted what you saw as "runners distracting the pitcher"
but the numbers say otherwise. Bottom line is that our eyes lie to us all the time and we as humans often draw incorrect assumptions from seemingly straightforward things. The raw data can’t lie. Only our understanding of the numbers can be skewed.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
So you give no credit to a team of speedy base runners.
Contributing to the overall obp of a team….interesting.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 3, 2011 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
That was funny. Well done.
We’re not the only ones. Everyone who has studied the issue gives “no credit to a team of speedy base runners” for improving a team’s overall OBP. But no one would argue that a specific team (or a specific batter) might not be immune to the distracting effects of a batter dancing around first base.
It’s not an “accumulation of stats…that equates McGee and Clark” (I’m not really sure what that means), but simply their OBP, SLG, and OPS. They were essentially identical that year for all three of those stats. But you’re absolutely right that in spite of that pitchers in general dreaded pitching to Jack Clark. He had Teh Fear in 1985 that Jim Rice could only dream about. I remember that season pretty well and in spite of McGee having a career year and being as good a hitter as Clark that year, no one pitched around Willie McGee (He walked in less than 6% of his PAs in ’85). OTOH pitchers almost always nibbled when Clark was hitting.
2010 Mets: 81-81 Pythagorean record. 656 Runs Scored, 652 Runs Allowed.
Damn You, Manuelllllllllllllllllllllll!!!
RBI Baseball
was the shit. All the players looked like gummy bears.
I love the Show.
I pitched no hitters with Johan, and I use the Cubs and Big Z and threw a one-hitter!
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
Ultimately....
You have a great chance to score a tying or go ahead run with a guy on 3rd and less than 2 outs and thats why the bunt will still be aroung in another 100 years.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 3:59 PM EST reply actions
I still believe...
Its based on the situation. If you have a teams closer whos right handed on and your leadoff guy hits a double. The next hitter is righthanded and has a poor career avg against closer and all your bench is righthanded. The next two hitters after him are left handed. It just makes sense to me to bunt in that kind of “moneys on the table” situation. Not to mention the pressure that it puts on the defense to just record the putout at first.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 2, 2011 4:19 PM EST reply actions
Sure
There are situations when bunting isn’t a bad play. But in general it’s overused.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
No one is saying pitchers or guys with <.280wOBA's should never bunt
just that there are very, very limited situations were a respectable or even slightly below average hitter should bunt.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
Like Cliff Floyd being told to do so by Mr.W.Randolph.
“Hmm, they are expecting him to hit here. Hmm, what if I put down the bunt…hmm, maybe they are expecting me to put down the bunt signal…hmm, hotdogs, … oh screw it just bunt. get me a dog with ketchup”
by ScottfromPeekskill on Feb 4, 2011 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
The right play would have been....
To send in Glavine to execute the sacrifice.
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 5, 2011 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
I really don't see the issue.
He didn’t say the Mets aren’t going to run. He just rightfully stated that stolen bases have a small effect in the grand scheme of the offense.
To the MSM
Stating a general fact = applying it to each and every situation ever.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
So the logic is
“We can gain an advantage by stealing bases. But the effect is small so we won’t steal”?
What BS
In 2006, when Reyes got on first base he would be on second then third and score in the first inning. Watching him dance up and down the base path has to distract the pitcher. If he knows Reyes is going to run, then, he is NOT putting all his attention on the hitter. They always say that you want to be the first to score, and, in 2006 when we scored first, how many of those games did we win? It seems to me that in recent years, the Mets have perfected the come from ahead loss. I think that a guy like Reyes is a huge threat, when he is one base, only if, he is stealing with a high success rate, and, scoring the first run.
I'm just glad
you didn’t say “Reyes Run” or cite the Mets record when Reyes scores. That gets on my nerves.
What's that about?
I think this whole conversation
is to minimize an asset of a player who is up for a contract negotiation and I like that about Alderson.
I like Reyes. I want him part of this team. Future, past and present.
Greatest, Greatest point!!
by The real Julio from Paterson on Feb 3, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
So all the stats
come to the same conclusion as Sandy – minimal effect or a “footnote”. In other words, I am not going to go after stealers unless they bring OBA, defense etc etc to the table. I’ll pay for that but not for the steals potential.
Was Rickey paid for his steals or his incredible ability to get on base so he could steal that many bases?
Of course none of this has anything to do with speed and good base running skills/decisions – which are a hell of a lot more important than steals.
btw, not sure how we migrated to bunts but I HATE them – not even sure I like them with the pitcher up, especially if it is a Johan type. Now a jerry koosman type is different – that was a no-brainer.
I think what Sandy is saying here
is that Reyes’ SB numbers are simply ironic false hustle.
Travis Hafner is made of gold
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
