You're giving the same value for a BB and a SB, as you would for a 2B, when they're clearly not equal.

 

 

 

As Northside mentions,

With runners on base, the double is more valuable.

 

With no one on base, the ability to steal a base (an indicator of good speed) is clearly more valuable, than the ability to slug a double. Not just for the base he stole, but for his ability to advance and score on various other hits, sacrifices, groundouts, passed balls, etc.

 

 

 

As Northside mentions,

With runners on base, the double is more valuable.

 

With no one on base, the ability to steal a base (an indicator of good speed) is clearly more valuable, than the ability to slug a double. Not just for the base he stole, but for his ability to advance and score on various other hits, sacrifices, groundouts, passed balls, etc.

 

What about the ability of a baserunner to mess with a pithcer's psyche/approach.

I like the thinking in this thread. Kudos to northsidesox for the attempt to bring steals into the overall offensive equation.

 

My thoughts regarding measurements.... I like the idea of simply adding stolen bases to the current formula for slugging percentage (which would have to be renamed of course), so it gives a true picture of total bases per plate appearance.

 

The resulting number could then be added to OBP to give us a 'steals adjusted OPS value' or OPSS.

 

As a few posters have mentioned, obviously with runners on a double is likely to be more valuable than a single and a steal, but...

 

It might also add some value (and interesting discussions) in adding 'speed' to OPS discussions and comparisons.

Edited September 21, 200718 yr by scenario

Doesn't Runs Created account for stolen bases? If it does you can just go by that...

 

...or we can continue to use a stat that puts a SB and a walk on the same level, not to mention makes no adjustment for the fact that the reward of a stolen base is much less than the risk of a caught stealing.

I'm working on making some of those adjustments, but here is an open question: does anyone know if someone keeps track of the extra bases that runners take on hits? For example scoring from 2nd on a base hit, 1st to 3rd on a single, etc.

 

I know the Angels score from 2nd and go from 1st to 3rd more than any team in baseball. I saw the stat a couple weeks ago during an Angel telecast and it showed some of the other teams (I'd assume the Sox are right around dead last in this category) as well.

 

However, I've never seen this sort of stat on ESPN (but mlb has a pretty good database so maybe there is a way to get it from there).

... not to mention makes no adjustment for the fact that the reward of a stolen base is much less than the risk of a caught stealing.

 

Not true. There are several very good analytical studies that show the benefit of steals normally exceeds the potential cost.

I just want to say as a whole this is a great thread. Props to NS for thinking outside of the box and bringing up this discussion and props to all of those who have contributed in this thread discussing different aspects that make NS's stat flawed or that can be added to improve the stat (as a whole though its a good start and I personally agree with where NS is coming from in the case that there isn't a really good stat out there that truly takes into account the added benefits speed can bring).

 

We all know speed means guys can go from 1st to 3rd (score from 2nd). But its not a tangible stat (aside from looking at stolen bases). How do you factor in the added pressure a good base s tealer puts on the pitcher (which ultimately could lead to him losing focus on the hitter or adjusting his pitch selection to where he throws more fastballs...both giving the batter added benefit).

 

 

Not true. There are several very good analytical studies that show the benefit of steals normally exceeds the potential cost.

Links? Cuz that's basically the opposite of everything I've seen.

 

I think the problem is in trying to too finely mesh 2 concepts. Obp is roughly seen as 'non-out-making' ability. Slg is roughly seen as 'power' -- are you giving those guys on the bases time to get around and score? Ops is a very rough measure of 'overall offense', but noone pretends that it's too meaningful, it has no natural interpretation, and, iirc, attempts to 'optimally' combine obp and slg tend to weight obp higher. Ops is just a first pass, it's not meant to be very sophisticated.

 

The first thing to be clear about is what you want to measure. You seem to want to define some measure of 'base-getting'. I'm sure it can be done, but it wouldn't replace obp or slg or ops. And you'd need to convince people that it's important. My intuition is that that would be tough to do -- precisely because most studies that I've seen emphasize that being on base improves runs scored (on average) by quite a bit, while advancing a base helps only marginally.

I like the stat, but think HBP shouldn't be included, as batters shouldn't have any control over that... it's blind luck.

I like the stat, but think HBP shouldn't be included, as batters shouldn't have any control over that... it's blind luck.

I like the stat, but think HBP shouldn't be included, as batters shouldn't have any control over that... it's blind luck.

Craig Biggio begs to differ.

Craig Biggio begs to differ.

 

I beg to differ as well. I set HBP records at Portage Park.

 

HBP = my fondest baseball memories

 

I'm not gonna let you take that away from me, Steve.

I guess it takes a big hulking mathematical formula to show that Jerry Owens is good at baseball.

I guess it takes a big hulking mathematical formula to show that Jerry Owens is good at baseball.

 

No. A .321 BA and .415 OBP do a pretty nice job.

 

I'm working on making some of those adjustments, but here is an open question: does anyone know if someone keeps track of the extra bases that runners take on hits? For example scoring from 2nd on a base hit, 1st to 3rd on a single, etc.

 

Bill James has started tracking this incorporated with a few other things to come up with a stat for 'good baserunning' (independent of stolen bases or caught stealings. I posted about this a couple weeks ago and included his top 25 and bottom 25 baserunners). It's in his book, but I don't know if it's online anywhere. If you don't have the book, I could give you 2006 numbers for a few players if you want.

 

I guess it takes a big hulking mathematical formula to show that Jerry Owens is good at baseball.

Actually, with the adjustments so far, he's not that good. With XBOH that will help him a bit, maybe. But it certainly isn't making him out to be anything great. If I can get XBOH in there, I'll feel better about validity.

 

No. A .321 BA and .415 OBP do a pretty nice job.

 

Craig Biggio begs to differ.

 

Sorry, just because one asshole leans into too many pitches doesn't mean I want a whole stat other than "hbp" itself telling me about it.

 

Take out the HBP and it's a more accurate telling of a batter's worth.

Hits are weighted extra in the EqA formula for good reason. OBP is considered (four times) more valuable than SLG. Think of it this way: four singles are four total bases and a solo home run is also four total bases. Getting four consecutive singles (or even walks) will score you a lot more runs than a solo home run.

Sorry, just because one asshole leans into too many pitches doesn't mean I want a whole stat other than "hbp" itself telling me about it.

 

Take out the HBP and it's a more accurate telling of a batter's worth.

It's not just him. Batters who get plunked a lot one year tend to get plunked a lot the next, and those who seldom get hit tend to avoid the ball the next year, too. Thome's had about 5 hbp almost every year. Delgado's consistently been about 10 hbp higher. It's not dumb luck, at all, so it should be considered.

 

Anyway, hammerhead has so little. Why would you take this away from him?

Edited September 22, 200718 yr by jackie hayes

HBP is a big factor for a leadoff guy like Reed Johnson, who might be available this offseason--probably for a reasonable price.

 

http://torontosun.com/Sports/Baseball/2007...517163-sun.html

 

The sox have few internal options for a #1 or a #2 hitter-both huge sox needs. Free agency looks weak. It's going to take a few trades to get the necessary peices. I know he'll be a bit of risk following his surgery--much like Crede. The sox could acquire Johnson, saying they'll play him in CF, and have Fields in LF and Joe in 3b during spring. Joe proves he's healthy to other teams, then move him. I give Fields credit for moving to LF, and not having a drop off at the plate. Yet his long term future is probably at 3b for the sox as soon as 2009.

Edited September 22, 200718 yr by beck72

The thought is good but its already been done, far better than anyone here could hope w/o putting months and maybe years into their formulas. Its called EqA and VORP is good too, WARP is even better because it has defense.

NSS72, Great stuff as usual. Some of those stats are pretty revealing. Our catchers suck. Gonzalez needs to be in Double-A. Please just let Pods, Erstad, and Uribe go. That alone would be a multiplication by subtraction.

 

 

I guess it takes a big hulking mathematical formula to show that Jerry Owens is good at baseball.

Now that's pretty funny.

Edited September 22, 200718 yr by RME JICO

Sorry, just because one asshole leans into too many pitches doesn't mean I want a whole stat other than "hbp" itself telling me about it.

 

Take out the HBP and it's a more accurate telling of a batter's worth.

Pick 10 players who have played a few years. Any 10. Check their HBP numbers. You will note that, sure enough, some players get hit more often than others, and that they do it consistently. HBP is not a fully random stat, or even close. Some players get on base that way a certain number of times a year, regularly, and that is worth the same as a walk for any significant purpose.