The Art of Stealing Bases

[King Glorious]

From those comparisons, I noticed a couple of things. For the guys that stole 80+, they often had a better success rate of stealing and scored runs at a higher percentage.

The 80+ guys had 12 of 19 seasons where the success rate was 80% or more. The leaders from this decade have 11/20. You would think that with guys being more selective these days and picking their spots, the success rates would go up. The run % were higher for those big base stealers too.

15%+
80s-17 of 23 seasons
2000s-11 of 20 seasons

18%+
80s-8 of 23 seasons
2000s-1 of 20 seasons

Cannon says that studies show that it isn't worth losing an out for a base but the guys that took more chances and stole more bases scored runs at a higher percentage were able to do so without sacrificing their success rates and were putting themselves in scoring position and scoring more runs than these guys are today.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

From those comparisons, I noticed a couple of things. For the guys that stole 80+, they often had a better success rate of stealing and scored runs at a higher percentage.

The 80+ guys had 12 of 19 seasons where the success rate was 80% or more. The leaders from this decade have 11/20. You would think that with guys being more selective these days and picking their spots, the success rates would go up. The run % were higher for those big base stealers too.

15%+
80s-17 of 23 seasons
2000s-11 of 20 seasons

18%+
80s-8 of 23 seasons
2000s-1 of 20 seasons

Cannon says that studies show that it isn't worth losing an out for a base but the guys that took more chances and stole more bases scored runs at a higher percentage were able to do so without sacrificing their success rates and were putting themselves in scoring position and scoring more runs than these guys are today.

Cannon is just the messenger. There are many, much smarter guys that have proven it. I am smart enough to know that your hypothesis is quite flawed and your results are basically meaningless.



The Sabermatricians analyzed all the historical records they could get their hands on to determine how individual players scored runs and helped their team win. They determined that the most important thing a batter could do was keep from getting out. Stealing bases and sacrifice bunting do not help a team score runs. A batter's most important responsibility to his team is to get on base -- be it by hit or walk. This conclusion is not based on opinion or tradition; it's supported by evidence from actual games.

[Cannon Shell]

From The Book blogs

Have you guys ever done a study (or know of someone who has done a study) on the optimal stolen base percentage for a given player? I don’t know the exact number, but let’s say the break-even stolen base percentage is 67%. If a player steals at a rate of 60% with 20 attempts, then the right thing for him to do is to reduce the number of attempts, specifically the tougher attempts against better throwing catchers or tricky pitchers with good moves to first. That’s a pretty easy one. But I also think if a player steals at a rate of 84% (I’m thinking of Tim Raines), he probably didn’t attempt enough steals. Surely ther were situations where he would have had a 73% chance of success, but he didn’t make an attempt for whatever reason (fear of failure? fear of lowering his SB%? saving his legs/body against the brutalness of sliding head-first into second?) whether reasonable or not, he didn’t.

So, a player specific question I’m interested in is: did Tim Raines attempt enough Stolen Bases in his career? Given his talents and success rate, was he playing suboptimally by not attempting enough steals? I think there are a ton of factors that needs to be considered, including stealing 2nd vs stealing 3rd, game situations, possibly helping the batter hit better by staying at first, protecting his body in a long season/career, etc. etc.


The best way to get me to quote a reader is by saying “Tim Raines”. Yes, I have thought about that. Not so much Tim Raines, since he attempted quite alot of SB, but more about Carlos Beltran, who has an even higher SB success rate than Raines, but attempts far fewer bases.

I would guess that the “beating up the body” is the best reason to err on the side of caution. That perhaps a player, be it Raines, Rickey, Coleman, Beltran, Ichiro, etc, could attempt more steals on situations where they think they would be successful 75% of the time, but they don’t do it, because the extra cost on their bodies. If you make the SB worth +.02 wins and the CS as -.04 wins, then a 75% success rate means adding .005 wins per attempt. If there are 20 such attempts that these runners are giving up, they are giving up 0.1 wins in a season (i.e., 1 run). I think it’s worth giving up that run, if it means not having to have their bodies pound against the dirt an extra 20 times on a play that is a bit over break-even.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Cannon is just the messenger. There are many, much smarter guys that have proven it. I am smart enough to know that your hypothesis is quite flawed and your results are basically meaningless.



The Sabermatricians analyzed all the historical records they could get their hands on to determine how individual players scored runs and helped their team win. They determined that the most important thing a batter could do was keep from getting out. Stealing bases and sacrifice bunting do not help a team score runs. A batter's most important responsibility to his team is to get on base -- be it by hit or walk. This conclusion is not based on opinion or tradition; it's supported by evidence from actual games.

Of course the most important responsibility is to get on base. But we are talking about once a runner is on base. Sacrifice bunting doesn't even belong in this conversation because it has nothing to do with whether or not attempting to steal is worth it or not. It's almost always a guaranteed out for the batter. That's giving up an out almost 100% of the time. A guy that steals bases at an 75%+ rate is not giving up an out almost 100% of the time.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Of course the most important responsibility is to get on base. But we are talking about once a runner is on base. Sacrifice bunting doesn't even belong in this conversation because it has nothing to do with whether or not attempting to steal is worth it or not. It's almost always a guaranteed out for the batter. That's giving up an out almost 100% of the time. A guy that steals bases at an 75%+ rate is not giving up an out almost 100% of the time.

The intent is the same, to move the runner over. While it is surely not the same the 2 are part of a theory of small ball that go hand in hand.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The intent is the same, to move the runner over. While it is surely not the same the 2 are part of a theory of small ball that go hand in hand.

The theory is the same but the way they are carried out is far different. In one, you are going to be successful 75% of the time without giving up an out and in the other, you are almost 100% of the time going to give up an out and it's probably less than 75% of the time that the runner advances without being the sacrificee.

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2607


"A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

Not all steals come with a runner on first and no one out, of course, and there's a lot of math that goes into the 75% conclusion. Michael Wolverton covers the concept in this excellent piece. The main point is that in considering stealing bases, you have to consider both the benefit and the cost. In all but the most specific situations, outs are more valuable than bases, which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high. "

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2607


"A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

Not all steals come with a runner on first and no one out, of course, and there's a lot of math that goes into the 75% conclusion. Michael Wolverton covers the concept in this excellent piece. The main point is that in considering stealing bases, you have to consider both the benefit and the cost. In all but the most specific situations, outs are more valuable than bases, which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high. "

that number seems appropriate for people who only convert 50% of the time.. @ 75% it seems like it should be half of that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that number seems appropriate for people who only convert 50% of the time.. @ 75% it seems like it should be half of that.

It has nothing to do with the runner, just the avg run expectation between no outs and a runner on versus one out and no runner on

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2607


"A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

Not all steals come with a runner on first and no one out, of course, and there's a lot of math that goes into the 75% conclusion. Michael Wolverton covers the concept in this excellent piece. The main point is that in considering stealing bases, you have to consider both the benefit and the cost. In all but the most specific situations, outs are more valuable than bases, which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high. "

All of that would be fine if the chances of successfully stealing a base were 50/50. Sure, if the guy is only 50/50, you don't want him running wild on the bases. But when your success rate is 75%, and usually up around 85% for the best base stealers, that throws those expected run numbers out of the window. If the chances of getting an out and a base are even (as with a 50% base stealer or in the case of sacrifice bunts), then it's not worth it. When the chances of getting that same base without giving up an out is 80%, I think it's worth it. The numbers giving expected runs are based on all base runners being equal. They aren't.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

All of that would be fine if the chances of successfully stealing a base were 50/50. Sure, if the guy is only 50/50, you don't want him running wild on the bases. But when your success rate is 75%, and usually up around 85% for the best base stealers, that throws those expected run numbers out of the window. If the chances of getting an out and a base are even (as with a 50% base stealer or in the case of sacrifice bunts), then it's not worth it. When the chances of getting that same base without giving up an out is 80%, I think it's worth it. The numbers giving expected runs are based on all base runners being equal. They aren't.

That isnt truye. It is simply run expectation of a man on and no outs versus no one on and one out. You may believe the average player is in the 50% range but that isnt true. In 2009 there have been 1900 SB and just 694 CS. In 2008 2739 sb and 1035 cs. In 2007 2918 sb and 1002 CS. In 1980 during the SB era the numbers are 3294 and 1610.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2607


"A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

Not all steals come with a runner on first and no one out, of course, and there's a lot of math that goes into the 75% conclusion. Michael Wolverton covers the concept in this excellent piece. The main point is that in considering stealing bases, you have to consider both the benefit and the cost. In all but the most specific situations, outs are more valuable than bases, which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high. "

this even proves snipers math is correct

"which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high"

aka 70-75%. a person who steals at an 85% clip would be above the break even point.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this even proves snipers math is correct

"which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high"

aka 70-75%. a person who steals at an 85% clip would be above the break even point.

However in running more their overall % will drop, quite possibly to below the break even point.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2607


"A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.

Not all steals come with a runner on first and no one out, of course, and there's a lot of math that goes into the 75% conclusion. Michael Wolverton covers the concept in this excellent piece. The main point is that in considering stealing bases, you have to consider both the benefit and the cost. In all but the most specific situations, outs are more valuable than bases, which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high. "

this is the primary reason stealing bases has become a lost art. from a fan's perspective, it's an exciting play that no longer really exists.

i think the EV shouldn't be taken as straightforward as it is though, there are situations where the EV would be even more +, for instance when you have a double play candidate at the plate. you turn a potential double play into a runner on third, one out situation, which clearly has a positive EV for virtually any reasonable base stealer (1.0303 runs vs .1083 runs.)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

this is the primary reason stealing bases has become a lost art. from a fan's perspective, it's an exciting play that no longer really exists.

i think the EV shouldn't be taken as straightforward as it is though, there are situations where the EV would be even more +, for instance when you have a double play candidate at the plate. you turn a potential double play into a runner on third, one out situation, which clearly has a positive EV for virtually any reasonable base stealer (1.0303 runs vs .1083 runs.)

No doubt. Just as sac isnt a bad or low % play with a pitcher batting especially against a ground ball pitcher.