Can you link to the number of guys who have stolen 200 at 90% success?

 

No, but I bet they were not hurting their team.

No, but I bet they were not hurting their team.

That was Jose Abreu's point though, it's all about the efficiency. Any base stealer stealing at a 90% clip is going to be helping his team.

If you get caught 20 times and you steal 200, are you still hurting the team?

 

Um, no? But what's your point?

If you get caught 20 times and you steal 200, are you still hurting the team?

 

This is like saying "If you hit 80 home runs but strike out 200 times are you hurting the team" in response to "If you hit 20 home runs but strike out 200 times you're hurting the team"

It's not about how many bases you steal, it's about how often you're caught stealing. You can steal 40 bases all you want, but if you're caught 20 times, you're hurting the team.

 

 

Depending on sources, runner on first and no out has about a 43% chance of scoring. Runner on 2nd no out is 63% (different sources have slightly different numbers, but it around 40% to around 60% seems pretty consistent (there is also about a 20 point jump for 3rd over 2nd).

 

Obviously the CS% is a huge factor. With out doing any analysis on it, I would have to say that 80% success is excessive. If a guy is hitting on 2/3 steals that could be hugely beneficial to the team.

 

Please, don't get too hung up on this. I know it isn't perfect. It is just an example running the numbers made up off the top of my head right now.

 

But...

 

For example, a guy with 600 PA and an OBP of .322 (last year's avg) would have reached base 193 times in that season. If he steals 20 bags and is caught 10 times, basically simulating that he had made an out in his PA instead of getting on, it would effect his OBP by .017 points (from .322 to .305).

 

So, last year, league average SLG was .417. In 600 ABs that would equate to 250 total bases. Adding on those 20 stolen bases as total bases (basically moving singles to doubles) would move a player with a .417 SLG to a SLG of .450.

 

So a guy with an OBP of .322 and SLG of .417 (OPS of 739) turns into a guys with an OBP of .305 and a SLG of .450 (755 OPS). If he is successful on 2/3 SB attempts he essentially raises his OPS .14 by virtue of those steals.

 

In this rough draft example the risk of those SBs outweighs the risk of being caught 10 times, at least with my screwy way of accounting for things.

 

I know game situation matters here as well. Just a rough example, but this team has a couple guys with fairly elite speed, if they could use it well enough, it could be a weapon. And this season, where win totals didn't really matter, was a great opportunity to work on base stealing skills.

 

Jose Abreu, the poster, not the player stated that it doesn't matter how many bases you steal, but how many times you get caught stealing. My point was that it the ratio that matters. That both numbers factor in to it. Sorry if my point did not get across.

Depending on sources, runner on first and no out has about a 43% chance of scoring. Runner on 2nd no out is 63% (different sources have slightly different numbers, but it around 40% to around 60% seems pretty consistent (there is also about a 20 point jump for 3rd over 2nd).

 

Obviously the CS% is a huge factor. With out doing any analysis on it, I would have to say that 80% success is excessive. If a guy is hitting on 2/3 steals that could be hugely beneficial to the team.

 

Please, don't get too hung up on this. I know it isn't perfect. It is just an example running the numbers made up off the top of my head right now.

 

But...

 

For example, a guy with 600 PA and an OBP of .322 (last year's avg) would have reached base 193 times in that season. If he steals 20 bags and is caught 10 times, basically simulating that he had made an out in his PA instead of getting on, it would effect his OBP by .017 points (from .322 to .305).

 

So, last year, league average SLG was .417. In 600 ABs that would equate to 250 total bases. Adding on those 20 stolen bases as total bases (basically moving singles to doubles) would move a player with a .417 SLG to a SLG of .450.

 

So a guy with an OBP of .322 and SLG of .417 (OPS of 739) turns into a guys with an OBP of .305 and a SLG of .450 (755 OPS). If he is successful on 2/3 SB attempts he essentially raises his OPS .14 by virtue of those steals.

 

In this rough draft example the risk of those SBs outweighs the risk of being caught 10 times, at least with my screwy way of accounting for things.

 

I know game situation matters here as well. Just a rough example, but this team has a couple guys with fairly elite speed, if they could use it well enough, it could be a weapon. And this season, where win totals didn't really matter, was a great opportunity to work on base stealing skills.

But OBP is more important than SLG. I'd rather have the .322 OBP and .417 SLG than the .305 OBP and .450 SLG.

But OBP is more important than SLG. I'd rather have the .322 OBP and .417 SLG than the .305 OBP and .450 SLG.

To me, that depends on who it is. If it's a guy who can run like the wind, I'll take the OBP.

Jose Abreu, the poster, not the player stated that it doesn't matter how many bases you steal, but how many times you get caught stealing. My point was that it the ratio that matters. That both numbers factor in to it. Sorry if my point did not get across.

That's not exactly what I meant but I see how it could've come off that way. I read in Keith Law's book that anyone who can steal bases at a 71% clip or better is most likely helping his team, so at that point, I'm all for stolen bases. If you're 2015 Avisail Garcia, though, my position changes.

That's not exactly what I meant but I see how it could've come off that way. I read in Keith Law's book that anyone who can steal bases at a 71% clip or better is most likely helping his team, so at that point, I'm all for stolen bases. If you're 2015 Avisail Garcia, though, my position changes.

 

It will vary depending on the run scoring environment. A few years back, 67% or better would have helped the team, while during the middle of the steroid era is was 75%. All the same, right around that 71% is a safe estimate.