1 comment has been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
February 27, 2004 Baseball Prospectus BasicsStolen Bases and How to Use ThemThink of stealing bases as a bit like one of those commercials for breakfast cereal. You know, the ones where they say it takes 14 bowls of Cereal X to equal what you get from one bowl of Cereal Y. In this case, it takes three stolen bases to equal one walk of shame back to the dugout. If you're stealing at less than a 75% success rate, you're better off never going at all.Consider the run-expectation table from 2003:
Bases Outs
0 1 2
------------------------------------
empty 0.5219 0.2783 0.1083
1st 0.9116 0.5348 0.2349
2nd 1.1811 0.7125 0.3407
1st 2nd 1.5384 0.9092 0.4430
3rd 1.3734 1.0303 0.3848
1st 3rd 1.8807 1.2043 0.5223
2nd 3rd 2.0356 1.4105 0.5515
1st 2nd 3rd 2.4366 1.5250 0.7932
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. Much of the frustration "statheads" have with base-stealing isn't that it's happening, but with how teams misuse the tactic. You want to steal bases when:
The vaunted secondary effects of stealing bases--distracting the pitcher, putting pressure on the defense--do not appear to exist. In fact, most secondary effects argue in favor of keeping the runner of first base. A runner on first is more disruptive to a defense, with the first baseman holding and the second baseman cheating towards second for a double play, than a runner on second. Additionally, studies show that stolen-base attempts negatively impact the performance of the batter at the plate, presumably due to hitters getting themselves into negative counts by taking pitches or swinging at bad balls to protect the runner. While you can use stealing bases to assist in run scoring, you can't run your way into a good offense. The core elements of offense are getting on base and advancing runners on hits. Teams--more often managers--that announce plans to create more runs by stealing bases are usually saying, "we can't hit, and we hope that if we move around a lot, no one will notice." It won't work. Here are the top basestealing teams since the 1993 expansion: Year Team Steals Runs Lg. Rank 1993 Expos 228 732 7 1996 Rockies 201 961 1 1996 Royals 195 746 14 1997 Reds 190 651 14 1995 Reds 190 747 2 1998 Blue Jays 184 816 8 1996 Astros 180 753 8 2002 Marlins 177 699 12 1995 Astros 176 747 3 1999 Padres 174 710 15 2001 Mariners 174 927 1 1996 Reds 171 778 2 1997 Astros 171 777 5 1993 Blue Jays 170 847 2 1993 Angels 169 684 13 2000 Marlins 168 731 14 1999 Dodgers 167 793 11 1999 Astros 166 823 8 1999 Reds 164 865 4 1997 Cardinals 164 689 11 Stealing a lot of bases doesn't have anything to do with having a good offense. Here's the flip side: Year Team Runs Steals Lg. Rank 1999 Indians 1009 147 1 1996 Mariners 993 90 9 2000 White Sox 978 119 4 2000 Rockies 968 131 3 1998 Yankees 965 153 2 1996 Rockies 961 201 1 2003 Red Sox 961 88 9 1996 Indians 952 160 2 2000 Indians 950 113 5 1996 Orioles 949 76 12 2000 A's 947 40 14 1999 Rangers 945 111 6 1998 Rangers 940 82 13 2000 Astros 938 114 5 1996 Red Sox 928 91 8 1996 Rangers 928 83 11 2001 Mariners 927 174 1 2000 Giants 925 79 13 1997 Mariners 925 89 10 1997 Rockies 923 137 6 2001 Rockies 923 132 2 There looks to be a little more of a relationship here, which can be attributed to good offenses having more runners on base, and therefore more opportunities to steal. Certainly, though, a number of these teams eschewed the stolen base and yet still ranked among the best offenses of the period. One last note that deserves mention: For all the attention the running teams of Whitey Herzog got--teams that were successful more because of their high OBPs than their stealing--the unheralded master of the running game is Lou Piniella. In his career as a manager, Piniella's teams have almost always been among the league leaders in stolen-base percentage: Year Team SB CS Pct. Rank Lg. Pct. 2003 TBY 142 42 77.1% 3 70.0% 2002 SEA 137 58 70.3% 5 68.1% 2001 SEA 174 42 80.6% 1 71.0% 2000 SEA 122 56 68.5% 7 68.8% 1999 SEA 130 45 74.3% 3 68.0% 1998 SEA 115 39 74.7% 1 69.0% 1997 SEA 89 40 69.0% 5 67.3% 1996 SEA 90 39 69.8% 6 69.6% 1995 SEA 110 41 72.8% 3 69.4% 1994 SEA 48 21 69.6% 8 69.0% 1993 SEA 91 68 57.2% 12 64.0% 1992 CIN 125 65 65.8% 8 67.8% 1991 CIN 124 56 68.9% 3 67.1% 1990 CIN 166 66 71.6% 6 71.1% 1988* NYY 146 39 78.9% 1 68.7% 1987 NYY 105 43 70.9% 6 69.2% 1986 NYY 139 48 74.3% 1 65.9% Total 1903 808 70.2% *Piniella managed the Yankees for their first 93 games. Stats listed are for the full season. Piniella identifies the guys who can steal bases at a high rate of success and lets them run, while not wasting outs with the other guys. That's how you use the stolen base as a weapon.
Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus.
|
Playoff Prospectus: PECOTA Odds and ALCS Gam...
Pinella only was successful in stolen bases 70.2 % of the time, wouldn't that mean he was still counter productive to his offences (>75%)