Stolen bases are overrated?

On May 6, 10:46�am, Ron Johnson <john... DeleteThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> On May 6, 5:32 am, JW <Jo... DeleteThis @clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > Didn't someone here make a statement about stolen bases being
> > overrated?
>
> I know I have. All of that running has probably added in the range
> of 3 runs. Or to put in another way, the Giants are still last
> in scoring.
>
> Do fans like running teams? I suppose, but I've never found a
> link between team style and revenue (and I've looked), while
> there are obvious links between winning and revenue.

Early Cardinal teams had success running without power. I think they
hit less than 70 HRs and stole more than 200 bases and came in first
1982.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

benf802961.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:

> Early Cardinal teams had success running without power. I think they
> hit less than 70 HRs and stole more than 200 bases and came in first
> 1982.

Yes, but it's not 1982, and the Cardinals aren't playing in Busch Memorial
anymore.

I don't know if stolen bases were still overrated back in '82, but they were
certainly more valuable than they are now.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

benf802961 RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:

> Early Cardinal teams had success running without power. I think they
> hit less than 70 HRs and stole more than 200 bases and came in first
> 1982.

It's true that those Cardinal teams didn't produce a lot of power, but
they were decent hitting teams. Keith Hernandez, Ken Oberkfell, Lonnie
Smith, George Hendrick. None of them really hit for power (expect
Hendrick, kind of), but they all did an excellent job of getting on base.

The problem with the Giants is that they don't hit for power *and* they
don't get on base. Oh, and the Giants can't play defense, while the
Cardinals were exceptional.

-Brent
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:32:25 -1000, JW <JohnW RemoveThis @clearwire.net> wrote:

>Didn't someone here make a statement about stolen bases being
>overrated?

Stolen bases take away the double play. The Giants need to score more
runs, and double plays kill rallies. Anybody in front of Bengie has
to be able to steal.

-Zz
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

"Zz Yzx" <zzyzx__.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kke124l864a8iov3ksrki3226c1o2d8gup@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:32:25 -1000, JW <JohnW.RemoveThis@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
>>Didn't someone here make a statement about stolen bases being
>>overrated?
>
> Stolen bases take away the double play. The Giants need to score more
> runs, and double plays kill rallies. Anybody in front of Bengie has
> to be able to steal.
>
> -Zz

XBH's are better than singles. If you don't have the guys to hit the 3 run
dingers, and you only have the guys who hit the singles, than stolen bases
are valuable. Just like pickoffs and caught stealings have a negative
value. I'm sure the bums of the early sixties kept their fan base alive
on days that koufax and drysdale didn't pitch with their aggressive running
ie; Maury Wills, Willie Davis, and in later years Davie Lopes.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:32:25 -1000, JW <JohnW.TakeThisOut@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
>> Didn't someone here make a statement about stolen bases being
>> overrated?
>
> Stolen bases take away the double play.

Successful ones anyway. You need to steal at about a 67% clip to break
even though.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

"benf802961@aol.com" <benf802961.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in news:167af866-ba7d-
426e-b023-c05814a15a76.RemoveThis@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Early Cardinal teams had success running without power. I think they
> hit less than 70 HRs and stole more than 200 bases and came in first
> 1982.

This one is long debunked. The Cardinals always were first in the
league in SBs in that era, but their rank in Runs Scored was only 1st
when they did other things: from 1982 on, they finished 5, 5, 6, 1, 12
in Runs Scored. Baseball-reference doesn't seem to have a quick OBP+SLG
rank for teams, so quick'n'dirty I'll average their rank in OBP and
their rank in SLG each of those years: 4.5, 3, 8.5, 3.5, 12.

In other words, they always ran, they sometimes hit; when they hit, they
scored runs, and when they didn't hit, they didn't score runs, even
though they ran just as much.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:

>> Early Cardinal teams had success running without power. I think they
>> hit less than 70 HRs and stole more than 200 bases and came in first
>> 1982.
>
> This one is long debunked. The Cardinals always were first in the
> league in SBs in that era, but their rank in Runs Scored was only 1st
> when they did other things: from 1982 on, they finished 5, 5, 6, 1, 12
> in Runs Scored. Baseball-reference doesn't seem to have a quick OBP+SLG
> rank for teams, so quick'n'dirty I'll average their rank in OBP and
> their rank in SLG each of those years: 4.5, 3, 8.5, 3.5, 12.
>
> In other words, they always ran, they sometimes hit; when they hit, they
> scored runs, and when they didn't hit, they didn't score runs, even
> though they ran just as much.

True, but that is sort of a "water is wet" statement, isn't it? Hitting is
clearly more important than running for scoring runs, so the trend above is
expected. The more interesting question (for me, at least) is how many
additional runs did the running help them score, regardless of whether they were
hitting.

Also, hitting and hitting for power are two different things. In '82 they led
the NL in OBP at .333, but they were in the bottom half in SLG. So their OPS may
have looked good but it was over-weighted in the OBP department. Was the running
more important to a team like StL than it would have been for a team like the
Brewers who hit over 200 HRs and were almost 100 points of SLG higher than the
Cards? Probably.

But I haven't looked at years other than '82 for comparison.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

On May 7, 2:44 pm, Jamal Bernhard <no....DeleteThis@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
> >> Early Cardinal teams had success running without power. I think they
> >> hit less than 70 HRs and stole more than 200 bases and came in first
> >> 1982.
>
> > This one is long debunked. The Cardinals always were first in the
> > league in SBs in that era, but their rank in Runs Scored was only 1st
> > when they did other things: from 1982 on, they finished 5, 5, 6, 1, 12
> > in Runs Scored. Baseball-reference doesn't seem to have a quick OBP+SLG
> > rank for teams, so quick'n'dirty I'll average their rank in OBP and
> > their rank in SLG each of those years: 4.5, 3, 8.5, 3.5, 12.
>
> > In other words, they always ran, they sometimes hit; when they hit, they
> > scored runs, and when they didn't hit, they didn't score runs, even
> > though they ran just as much.
>
> True, but that is sort of a "water is wet" statement, isn't it? Hitting is
> clearly more important than running for scoring runs, so the trend above is
> expected. The more interesting question (for me, at least) is how many
> additional runs did the running help them score, regardless of whether they were
> hitting.
>
> Also, hitting and hitting for power are two different things. In '82 they led
> the NL in OBP at .333, but they were in the bottom half in SLG. So their OPS may
> have looked good but it was over-weighted in the OBP department. Was the running
> more important to a team like StL than it would have been for a team like the
> Brewers who hit over 200 HRs and were almost 100 points of SLG higher than the
> Cards? Probably.
>
> But I haven't looked at years other than '82 for comparison.

What you want to do is find teams with similar counter stats
with the exception of stolen bases. Bill James did this in
one of the Abstracts -- 1986 IIRC.

Or -- well this is quick and dirty but I doubt a more sophisticated
approach will yield a substantially different conclusion.

Basic runs created is AB*OBP*SLG. Between 1982 and 1987 the Cardinals
averaged about 39 more runs scored than the basic runs created
predicts.

Of course those Cardinals weren't your ordinary running team. This
is among the best running teams of all time.

And that goes back to the point I've made in other threads.
Stolen bases are generally overrated but they're not devoid
of value.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

Ron Johnson wrote:

> Basic runs created is AB*OBP*SLG. Between 1982 and 1987 the Cardinals
> averaged about 39 more runs scored than the basic runs created
> predicts.

Cool -- thanks.

> And that goes back to the point I've made in other threads.
> Stolen bases are generally overrated but they're not devoid
> of value.

True, but their value has diminished in the steroids era, no?
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone.DeleteThis@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:h7pUj.16088$2g1.4897@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> Basic runs created is AB*OBP*SLG. Between 1982 and 1987 the Cardinals
>> averaged about 39 more runs scored than the basic runs created
>> predicts.
>
> Cool -- thanks.
>
>> And that goes back to the point I've made in other threads.
>> Stolen bases are generally overrated but they're not devoid
>> of value.
>
> True, but their value has diminished in the steroids era, no?

Also the small-chic-urban-ballpark era and the postage-stamp-
sized-strike-zone era (the last in the late '90s to
get fans back in the ballparks after the '94 strike).

- Gary Rosen
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

On May 7, 5:25 pm, Jamal Bernhard <no....DeleteThis@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Basic runs created is AB*OBP*SLG. Between 1982 and 1987 the Cardinals
> > averaged about 39 more runs scored than the basic runs created
> > predicts.
>
> Cool -- thanks.
>
> > And that goes back to the point I've made in other threads.
> > Stolen bases are generally overrated but they're not devoid
> > of value.
>
> True, but their value has diminished in the steroids era, no?

Not exactly. The stolen base has a broadly similar
value regardless of offensive context. Caught stealing
(or indeed any out) are more costly in a high
offensive context.

One of the things that very clearly happened is with
the advent of the high offensive era starting in the
early 90s is that the type of player than Doug
Drinen called "slapping swifties" (fast, mostly
switch hitter, no power -- think Alfredo Griffin)
were largely driven from the game.

While speed is always useful -- among other things
there's an obvious correlation between speed and
defense -- you simply can't select for speed (alone)
in a high offensive context.

OK, Luis Aparaicio could play in any era, but
that's because he was a great defensive SS who
wasn't a bad hitter by the standards of a
starting SS.

And a young Vince Coleman could add enough with
his legs to make him a viable option in left.
But Omar Moreno couldn't.
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated? 

Ron Johnson <johnson.RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in news:42bd0fc0-abd1-46b7-
a38a-de0470bd4542.RemoveThis@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> And that goes back to the point I've made in other threads.
> Stolen bases are generally overrated but they're not devoid
> of value.

I think the advantage of speed on the bases is legging out hits moreso than
stealing. The Giants legged out several doubles tonight that probably would
have been singles from slower runners. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter
whether the runner dies at second or first if nobody can move them along,
and that was the case in every instance tonight.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Stolen bases are overrated?