Debating the stolen base -- are you for or against?

[TS Garp]

People have long debated the wisdom of giving runners the green light, and this became an especially hot topic after the release of Moneyball. I noticed that David Wright just got caught stealing for the 7th time. He's now stolen 7 bases in 14 attempts. David DeJesus has stolen 1 base in 5 attempts, and 52 bases in 102 attempts over his career. Most people would agree that these rates are unacceptable (although Wright has typically had a much higher success rate in his career), but do you buy into the argument that there's other value in having a baserunner who might steal -- i.e. getting in the pitcher's head/taking the pitcher out of his rhythm, making the defense edgy, etc? Or does it not make any sense to you unless a runner proves that he can be successful at least 75-80% of the time? Or are you somewhere in between?

Discuss!

[chancellor]

In between. In order to get a realistic assessment on success rate, one would need to know how many failures were on straight steals versus hit and run plays. I'm always sceptical of a guy like Wright's success rate, compared to someone who clearly attempts many more steals than hit and runs, like Dee Gordon.

[Moonlight J]

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sb_and_cs_run_values/

learn it, live it, love it

[cavebird]

Personally, I believe in the hard math established on this subject. The effective success rate for stolen bases is based on league-wide scoring. Essentially, back in the 1960s when it was much, much harder to score, the effective success rate of stolen bases only needed to be in the low to mid 60 percent range. That increased over time to the low to mid 70 percent range in the late 2000s.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/01/stolen_base_str.php

I think that aiming for 75% or higher would be reasonable and probably put you well ahead now that pitchers are experiencing a resurgence.

On the other hand, I think things can be more team and situation specific, too. For example, teams like the Pirates, Mariners, and Padres who have a harder time scoring runs would be wiser to run more often than other teams.

[joncarlos]

On the other hand, I think things can be more team and situation specific, too. For example, teams like the Pirates, Mariners, and Padres who have a harder time scoring runs would be wiser to run more often than other teams.

Yes, I completely agree. The breakeven rate is based on R/G and there is a team context there. A team with a .220 batting average needs to try more steals.

I believe I read some research that said the impact of a potential steal on a pitcher was negligible, or couldn't be verified, or something like that. But I still believe that it does have some impact. Obviously it has more of an impact on some pitchers than others, and there are other factors as well. The hitter might be at a disadvantage if he takes a pitch. The pitcher might throw more fastballs. The hole between 1B/2B is vacated slightly, and that could matter if there is a lefty at the plate.

My personal opinion is that all these factors are probably around 5%. So if the breakeven rate from a pure safe/out perspective is 74%, then maybe the threat of a steal lowers that to 69%.

[Erik]

I agree -- the worse your team is at hitting, the more the SB becomes necessary.

It also helps if you can time the pitcher's delivery. Davey Lopes performed this function when he was 1B coach for the Phils and they led the league in SB% every year he was there. I presume he is now doing this with the Dodgers, though I don't know if it's had the same results.

[chancellor]

What I really want to know is how Yadier Molina can possibly have 6 SBs.

[Kevin Seitzer]

In between. In order to get a realistic assessment on success rate, one would need to know how many failures were on straight steals versus hit and run plays. I'm always sceptical of a guy like Wright's success rate, compared to someone who clearly attempts many more steals than hit and runs, like Dee Gordon.

What chancellor said.