Stolen Bases

[Inside Pitch]

Before we can determine whether or not stolen bases are 'overrated' we must come up with a determination of exactly how people are rating stolen bases...

 

A steal increases a player's chance of scoring around +20%, as in from around 40% to 60% (depending on the base / out scenario).

 

Now these 'new' theories were derived near the height of the offensive era. It is important to realize that as average run scoring goes UP the value of each base goes DOWN, and the value of simply not making an out increases. Think of if this way, if a team had a near 1.000 OBP there would be no difference in the value of different types of hits. The only value is in not making an out, there would be no point in attempting a steal.

 

The last couple of seasons have seen dramatic declines in offense, to the point of being among some of the more pitcher friendly eras of all time. As offense decreases the value of each base increases. Steals are more valuable than ever, and the downside of being thrown out is minimized,

 

At the height of the offensive era the break even point on steal attempts was around >70%, I haven't seen any research on it today but I would wager that it is closer to >60% now.

 

Great post and dead on.   

[Hubs]

Awesome. Sabermetrics proves that Conger = starting catcher. He doesn't even need to try to throw the runner out since steals don't matter

 

 

 

Stealing second to avoid the GIDP simply "takes the bat out of the hands" of whoever is batting. Pitcher can walk him and setup up the GIDP and the force at 3rd or home.

 

Let's say Bourjos reaches base on a one-out single. Trout singles, Bourjos to 3B. Trout steals 2nd. All that accomplishes is taking the bat out of Callapso's hands

And what's wrong with that? Considering that, you know, Callaspo sucks.

[ettin]

Here is an excellent article at FanGrahps: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-changing-caught-stealing-calculus-2/

 

It speaks to the MLB break-even average which is around 67%, currently. Last year the Angels had the 2nd highest success rate (thank you Mr. Trout!) with a break-even point around 70%.

 

The bottom line is that stolen bases are becoming more valuable but you obviously have to have the right players capable of stealing bases at a high success rate.

[Hubs]

1) Bourjos has played one full season in the majors and seen limited AB's in the other two. To say that he is what he has always been (in this case, not a great base stealer) is inaccurate. Last season, yes he had just three SB. Yet he really was a pinch hitter and defensive replacement for most of the season. He stole 22 in his quasi-rookie season of 2011, which is more accurate of what we should expect. I would sandwich a hot hitting Bourjos between Trout and Pujols, because you'd get a lot of steals that way, plus Bourjos can bunt, but if he's in front of Trout from the #9 spot that would work as well. Aybar would be my choice to hit #2 if PB hits #9. 

 

2) Bourjos is not as fast as Trout from home to 1st, or from 1st to 2nd on a steal, but I think he is faster going first to third. He takes a second to get going and you forget how fast he is until he does. Perhaps he can learn from Trout, or even Vizquel who has 400 career steals. 

 

3) Run Values say that a stolen base is "rarely worth the risk" because they don't take into account the situation, the actual game of baseball. It's hard to quantify what base stealing does to pressure an opposing pitcher, how said pitcher handles the pressure of having a speed demon on 1st…Stats can only take into account the likely outcomes. The biggest issue with steals is being caught. If you are caught, the out basically costs you 2 x the expected gain from stealing a base in terms of run value. Basically this means that if a SB is worth 1/3 of a run a CS takes away 2/3 of a run. That makes some sense.

 

4) Angels don't get caught on the bases. Last year the Angels stole 134 bases, and were caught just 33 times. This is an 80.2% success rate, well above the 67% rate that must occur to break even on expected run values. Iannetta was the worst SB guy on the team being successful in just 1 of 4 tries. Callaspo was just 4 of 7, and Trumbo was just 4 of 9. Howie Kendrick getting 14 steals for 6 CS was pretty close to breaking even, Aybar's 20 steals to 4 CS puts him in good company, and Pujols 8 steals to 1 CS is the one of the best rates on the team. The best is Trout at 91% success, followed closely by Hunter (9 of 10) and Izturis (17 of 19).

 

In 2011, though, the team still stole 135 bases, but were caught 52 times. Players don't always have the same success. Still 180 SB with 45 CS is 80% and that would be fantastic. 

[shellback]

pestering the pitcher aspect of stolen bases is underated and valuable. helps the batter and is fun to watch.

[Pbonetheman]

pestering the pitcher aspect of stolen bases is d and valuable. helps the batter and is fun to watch.

Yeah, I remember Orlando Cabrera jumping around second was enough to give me a seizure.

[Hubs]

Before we can determine whether or not stolen bases are 'overrated' we must come up with a determination of exactly how people are rating stolen bases...

 

A steal increases a player's chance of scoring around +20%, as in from around 40% to 60% (depending on the base / out scenario).

 

Now these 'new' theories were derived near the height of the offensive era. It is important to realize that as average run scoring goes UP the value of each base goes DOWN, and the value of simply not making an out increases. Think of if this way, if a team had a near 1.000 OBP there would be no difference in the value of different types of hits. The only value is in not making an out, there would be no point in attempting a steal.

 

The last couple of seasons have seen dramatic declines in offense, to the point of being among some of the more pitcher friendly eras of all time. As offense decreases the value of each base increases. Steals are more valuable than ever, and the downside of being thrown out is minimized,

 

At the height of the offensive era the break even point on steal attempts was around >70%, I haven't seen any research on it today but I would wager that it is closer to >60% now.

 

In the original article it discusses the break even point to be now 66% down from 69% at the height of the steroid era.

 

3% may not seem like a lot, but it really is in this case. Over a season, a team steals bases to a 75% success rate which is a 9% gain instead of a 6% gain in run expectancy. 

[Angel Oracle]

The Reds built part of their 1975-1976 Big Red Machine on stealing bases and going 1st to 3rd often.

 

An important but:  the Reds didn't allow any Torii Hunters to be thrown out too often.   If a baserunner showed an inclination for being thrown out, they reined him in. 

 

Pitchers and catchers today are better than ever at containing the running game.

Of course, the Halos were an exception in 2012, three of the five starters sucking at holding runners.