A new way valuing stolen bases?

[ELDoro]

I'm sure someone has thought of this before or has taken into account the importance of stolen bases. I figured this board would be the best place to see what people think. Please check out the newest article on my blog and let me know what you think.

The Purpose Pitch

I don't claim to be an expert statistician but this makes sense to me

[conception]

If you are going to count steals, the times they are caught also needs to factor in.

[ELDoro]

Thats what I origionally thought. However, how I'm going about it is almost pretending the single and stolen base never happened and acting as if it was a straight up double. Do I still need to include caught stealing then?

[Who Killed Kenny?]

Maybe you should subtract caught stealing from the extra base hits columns. If he gets thrown out stealing second, subtract 2. If he gets thrown out at third, subtract 3. If at home, subtract 4. After all a man on first is worth more than a man getting thrown out, IMHO.

This is an interesting idea. A good discussion starter.

[English_Ray]

Originally Posted by Who Killed Kenny?

Maybe you should subtract caught stealing from the extra base hits columns.

The problem then is, of course, what about hitters who get thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double, or a double into a triple...

[Left-handed Badger]

Well, one thing I did to figure out with stolen base value. Was a net stolen bases, and a net %.


I basically count a SB as one point. And a CS as -2 (you lose a base and the out). the net% could theoretically range from 1.000 to -2.000, I guess. Anyhow you would need to be succassful 2/3 of the time to break even (.000). Course that doesnt mean anything better is good. If you attempt 100 steals but get caught 33. You would have 67-(33x2)=1 (lot of work for a net of one. 3/4 success would get a net % of .250. Which I say is about what you would need minimum to be good. (and no I dont take into account which base is being attempted if someone would want to factor that in ok, but I wanted something simple.

Some examples:

Cobbs 96 steal year he got caught 38 times I believe, so 96-(38x2)=20 20 out of 134(# of attempts) gets you around .150

In 1961, memory serves Mantle was 12 out of 13, so 12-(1x2)=10 10 out of 13 is .769

(Interesting, Mantle was more efficient and got half the net steals on so few steals.)

Not sure if how much or little my formula shows. But, it works good for me, for perspective.

[TNCubsFan]

Something else to think about which further adds to the headaches of which and how to count. A steal that allows a player to score that would not have scored normally. Much like how the error saves a pitcher from being charged earned runs. Stealing willy nilly is great, but does that lead to a number other than zero being put on your teams linescore.

If you think about it the steal is a risk taken to place yourself in a position to score. If you take the risk and succeed with the steal but still fail to score was the steal sucessful?

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, one thing I did to figure out with stolen base value. Was a net stolen bases, and a net %.


I basically count a SB as one point. And a CS as -2 (you lose a base and the out). the net% could theoretically range from 1.000 to -2.000, I guess. Anyhow you would need to be succassful 2/3 of the time to break even (.000). Course that doesnt mean anything better is good. If you attempt 100 steals but get caught 33. You would have 67-(33x2)=1 (lot of work for a net of one. 3/4 success would get a net % of .250. Which I say is about what you would need minimum to be good. (and no I dont take into account which base is being attempted if someone would want to factor that in ok, but I wanted something simple.

Some examples:

Cobbs 96 steal year he got caught 38 times I believe, so 96-(38x2)=20 20 out of 134(# of attempts) gets you around .150

In 1961, memory serves Mantle was 12 out of 13, so 12-(1x2)=10 10 out of 13 is .769

(Interesting, Mantle was more efficient and got half the net steals on so few steals.)

Not sure if how much or little my formula shows. But, it works good for me, for perspective.

Another thing that'd be worth considering (if you're going this far with it anyway), is bases advanced due to threat of steal. How many bases were added due to a bad pickoff, or an overthrown base on a steal attempt? It wouldn't be significant, but then you might have a better percentage with the volume stealers (Cobb).

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by enuttage

Another thing that'd be worth considering (if you're going this far with it anyway), is bases advanced due to threat of steal. How many bases were added due to a bad pickoff, or an overthrown base on a steal attempt? It wouldn't be significant, but then you might have a better percentage with the volume stealers (Cobb).

Didnt think about that admittedly, I'd have to go through entire years of retosheet probably to figure that out, admittedly. But, I also know that the volume stealers also might (heck, seeing how some of those pitchers used to get crazy throwing to 1st 10-12 times when Henderson or Vince Coleman were on, almost defintely will) cause the pitcher to break his concentration with the batter. And might fork up a fat fastball at a bad time. It is a good thought and I like it. But, for now I'll keep it simple. Personally, for me, it just works as a simple reminder of keeping steals in perspective. The simple stats involved dont tell me the value of it (when in game it happened, what the score was, did it take away a possible DP with a groundball pitcher, did they eventually score) and I am fine with that. (Note: Heck, I am not really even saying Mantle really was half as valuable in a 1/10 the steal attempts. Just something to think about. In my experience people place way too much or way too little importance on steals.)

And besides I was basically just giving the poster a little more "numerical" idea on how to judge things.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by TNCubsFan

Something else to think about which further adds to the headaches of which and how to count. A steal that allows a player to score that would not have scored normally. Much like how the error saves a pitcher from being charged earned runs. Stealing willy nilly is great, but does that lead to a number other than zero being put on your teams linescore.

If you think about it the steal is a risk taken to place yourself in a position to score. If you take the risk and succeed with the steal but still fail to score was the steal sucessful?

I've thought about at times. The risk that turns out for naught has always been an argument used by people who dont believe steals have value. It does have other values (such as breaking up a possible double play, getting people into scoring position). I guess it depends on the success of the batter.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Didnt think about that admittedly, I'd have to go through entire years of retosheet probably to figure that out, admittedly. But, I also know that the volume stealers also might (heck, seeing how some of those pitchers used to get crazy throwing to 1st 10-12 times when Henderson or Vince Coleman were on, almost defintely will) cause the pitcher to break his concentration with the batter. And might fork up a fat fastball at a bad time. It is a good thought and I like it. But, for now I'll keep it simple. Personally, for me, it just works as a simple reminder of keeping steals in perspective. The simple stats involved dont tell me the value of it (when in game it happened, what the score was, did it take away a possible DP with a groundball pitcher, did they eventually score) and I am fine with that. (Note: Heck, I am not really even saying Mantle really was half as valuable in a 1/10 the steal attempts. Just something to think about. In my experience people place way too much or way too little importance on steals.)

And besides I was basically just giving the poster a little more "numerical" idea on how to judge things.

Yeah. I love that, too. I think the hardcore stats guys certainly have a point when it comes to poking fun at managers and sportswriters who talk about 'intangibles', but there really are still intangibles (not 'grit', per se!) left to be defined and represented. Which is kind of what y'all are brainstorming here.

Baseball is a nut that is FAR from statistically cracked at this point.

[TNCubsFan]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

I've thought about at times. The risk that turns out for naught has always been an argument used by people who dont believe steals have value. It does have other values (such as breaking up a possible double play, getting people into scoring position). I guess it depends on the success of the batter.

I agree with you. When I coached I would become a human rain delay in the coaches box giving signs if it rattled the pitcher. If it was a Lefty on the mound and I could rattle him with fake steals so that he left fat stuff over the plate that is what we did. The opposite would be true also. I tried to know about the other teams as I did my own.

The point is that the steal is one of many tools in the tool box.

Would you count a hit and run or run and hit as a steal? We count a blown H&R or R&H as a caught stealing so why not count the opposite as a success?

[ctorg]

A double is worth more than a single and a stolen base if there are men on base when it is hit. A double increases the likelihood that men on base score.

My favorite way to look at stolen base value is this: in any given situation, there is a likelihood that a run will be scored. Part of what determines that is the position of runners on the bases, and part of it is the number of outs. The generic likelihood can and has been determined by people. There's even a site where you can enter a number of outs and position of runners and it will show you the likelihood of a run scoring, or something like that.

When you steal a base, you make a favorable change in the likelihood that a run will score by changing the position of the baserunners. When you are caught, you make an unfavorable change by increasing the number of outs. In most cases, getting caught is much more of an unfavorable change than stealing the base is a favorable one. The classic argument is that to make a SB attempt worth doing, there should be a success rate over 75%. Players who are caught more than 25% of the time are losing value by attempting to steal bases. I don't know the math behind that, but I usually go with that because it makes intuitive sense to me. The most important thing a player can do, above everything else, is to avoid an out.

Of course, the generic amount of change in likelihood of scoring is rarely the actual one. The batter, the pitcher, the count, the fielders, the upcoming batters, and other factors all play a part. So sometimes it's worth it to steal when the odds are worse, and sometimes it's not worth trying even when the odds are better.

[ctorg]

dola,

Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about.

Let's say there's a guy on second and no one out. Applying a generic value, chance of scoring is 62.5%

If he steals third, there's a guy on third with no one out. Chance of scoring improves to 82.7%.

If he is caught stealing, it is now no one on and one out. Chance of scoring drops to 16.5%.

So if he makes it, he increases his team's chance of scoring by 20.2%. If he doesn't, he drops it by 46%.

If a guy has a 75% chance of successfully stealing third, then he has a 75% chance of increasing the likelihood of scoring by 20.2%. .75*20.2=15.15. He also has a 25% chance of decreasing the team's chance of scoring by 46%. .25*46=11.5. So overall, when averaged out, a guy with a 75% chance of stealing third would increase the chance of the team scoring by 3.65% (15.15-11.5).

In many situations, it means going for third is worth it for a guy with a 75% chance of making it. But of course, it doesn't say how many runs the team is likely to score. I don't know any figures for that, but I would assume this would make the out more damaging. You could go and calculate total expected runs in an inning for these three situations and come up with what would be a better formula. And none of this is tweaked for the many other variables involved.

[The Wolf]

Stealing third, much like the sacrifice bunt, is strategically overrated.