Juan Pierre leading the league in caught stealing

[cheapseats]

Juan Pierre has opened up a 3 CS lead in the caught stealing standings.

 

Although he started off the season with a pretty good success rate IIRC, he is hovering around the break-even point right now.

 

In today's Baseball Prospectus, Dan Fox has an article on base-stealing. Interesting fact: Pierre got picked off more than any other player from 2000-2005. By Fox's calculations, Pierre's failed steal attempts cost his teams almost 9 runs from 2000-2005, so even though he's a perennial stolen base leader, it hasn't been doing his teams much good.

 

Three former Cubs were in the bottom ten basestealers:

 

Jeromy Burnitz

Neifi Perez

Jose Hernandez

 

More ammunition for Neifi-haters: he costs his teams runs by not getting on base, and once on base, he costs his teams runs by getting caught stealing. [/url]

[otis89]

44 SB to 17 CS is hovering around the break-even point? :?

[cheapseats]

44 SB to 17 CS is hovering around the break-even point? :?

 

Yep. The rule of thumb is that a 75% success rate is break-even. Pierre's at 72.1% right now.

[Jon]

How many guys are able to consistently do well on the base paths? Pierre was never really that good, but there are some guys who have great years but can't repeat them. Is stealing bases that much of a crap-shoot?

 

Just take a look at Podsednik:

 

2003 - 43/10

2004 - 70/13

2005 - 59/23

2006 - 33/14

 

He was great in 2003 and spectacular in 2004, yet has been bad in both 2005 and 2006.

 

How long until managers actually begin to question the value of the stolen base? And how long until general managers really begin to question the value of going after someone for their speed?

 

And then how long after that will the Cubs begin to rethink things?

[Guest]

The value of the steal (and the CS) depends on the run environment. In a big offensive era (such as, say, now), the value of the extra base means much less because it is more likely that the following hitters are going to drive in the runner no matter what base he's on.

 

In a low scoring environment (such as when the majority of MLB managers were playing the game), the SB is much more important because it is more difficult to scratch out each individual run. But I think most managers in the game have this mindset from their playing days.

[RynoRules]

The value of the steal (and the CS) depends on the run environment. In a big offensive era (such as, say, now), the value of the extra base means much less because it is more likely that the following hitters are going to drive in the runner no matter what base he's on.

 

In a low scoring environment (such as when the majority of MLB managers were playing the game), the SB is much more important because it is more difficult to scratch out each individual run. But I think most managers in the game have this mindset from their playing days.

 

Bingo.

 

BTW - Podsednik had a bad hammy for much of las year.

[Balsa]

Although the steal needs some clarification in the minds of managers, I think the bunt sacrifice needs even more.

 

I just can't stand it when I see Ronny or someone lay down a bunt with nobody out and a man on first.

 

EDIT: Exception being the pitcher of course.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Balsa

[Jon]

The value of the steal (and the CS) depends on the run environment. In a big offensive era (such as, say, now), the value of the extra base means much less because it is more likely that the following hitters are going to drive in the runner no matter what base he's on.

 

In a low scoring environment (such as when the majority of MLB managers were playing the game), the SB is much more important because it is more difficult to scratch out each individual run. But I think most managers in the game have this mindset from their playing days.

You wouldn't expect managers to change their thinking (unnecessary small ball isn't going to be ending anytime soon), but you'd at least hope GMs could think through these things and come to the conclusion that OBP might just be more important than stolen base totals for a leadoff hitter.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

The value of the steal (and the CS) depends on the run environment. In a big offensive era (such as, say, now), the value of the extra base means much less because it is more likely that the following hitters are going to drive in the runner no matter what base he's on.

 

In a low scoring environment (such as when the majority of MLB managers were playing the game), the SB is much more important because it is more difficult to scratch out each individual run. But I think most managers in the game have this mindset from their playing days.

You wouldn't expect managers to change their thinking (unnecessary small ball isn't going to be ending anytime soon), but you'd at least hope GMs could think through these things and come to the conclusion that OBP might just be more important than stolen base totals for a leadoff hitter.

 

Looking at it from an education standpoint the answer is simple.

 

We all carry with us the knowledge we have learned through our lives. To learn new knowledge requires us to "scaffold" the new knowledge onto the old. In this process we decide which of the information is "good" and which is "bad" changing our knowledge base accordingly. When we learn the "bad" new knowledge it requires us to not only unlearn the "bad" new knowledge but also relearn the "good" new knowledge to continue to learn the right things. Hard enough for a grade school student, much less a 50-year-old man whom views himself as a MLB GM.

 

Applying this to baseball, (keeping in mind that the game has a very mafia mind set), you can see the same things happening. The work of Bill James and the others that have followed him have all been done by non-insiders. Hence to the "Made men" of baseball it is for the most part "bad new knowledge" because it challenges the knowledge base that has made them "successful" in their very closed field. Also it challenges the schema of knowledge they have gained through the application of "the good knowledge" to the problems before them. IE; when you steal, playing for one run, the hit and run, the sac bunt, the... you get the picture. If they fail to see a problem then their knowledge is still good. Human pride, which we all have, makes this difficult to see even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

The Billy Beanes and Theo Epstiens of the world are not part of the "Baseball Mafia" who have been able to break into the ranks with out paying the dues (1). Because they enter with a different set of knowledge they are more open to "new" knowledge than their "made man" contemporaries. They have been able to embrace and integrate the new knowledge into the schema of thought in running their organizations. The end result we see is a World Series championship in Boston after a few false starts to learn where human nature must be taken into account over the numbers. Closer by committee comes to mind in Boston leading to the pick of Foulke to be the guy in the ninth.

 

Until Chicago brings in, or promotes from within, someone who is willing to challenge the groupthink and approach the problems with a new schema of knowledge expect more of the same.

 

(1)(Yes Beane was a marginal player, but is the exception to the rule, ala LaRussa who is also book smart that didn’t have the normal career path. Doug Glanville is a good homegrown name to throw out there for the hostility toward the "book smart" player in baseball.)

[Guest]

How many guys are able to consistently do well on the base paths?

btw - Corey is able to.

[Bruno7481]

How many guys are able to consistently do well on the base paths?

btw - Corey is able to.

 

Problem with Corey, he just can't get on base.

[Guest]

How many guys are able to consistently do well on the base paths?

btw - Corey is able to.

 

Problem with Corey, he just can't get on base.

That wasn't the question that was asked, but thanks for contributing.

[Bruno7481]

How many guys are able to consistently do well on the base paths?

btw - Corey is able to.

 

Problem with Corey, he just can't get on base.

That wasn't the question that was asked, but thanks for contributing.

 

Easy there...

 

It fits into the overall discussion because if he were able to get on base consistently, he would be a hell of a player with his stolen base sucess rate.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Jon]

How many guys are able to consistently do well on the base paths?

btw - Corey is able to.

I should have been more specific. I meant the guys most people think of as good base stealers (with high stolen base totals). There seems to be an inconsistency there.

 

Corey has been very good on the bases this year.

[Jon]

The value of the steal (and the CS) depends on the run environment. In a big offensive era (such as, say, now), the value of the extra base means much less because it is more likely that the following hitters are going to drive in the runner no matter what base he's on.

 

In a low scoring environment (such as when the majority of MLB managers were playing the game), the SB is much more important because it is more difficult to scratch out each individual run. But I think most managers in the game have this mindset from their playing days.

You wouldn't expect managers to change their thinking (unnecessary small ball isn't going to be ending anytime soon), but you'd at least hope GMs could think through these things and come to the conclusion that OBP might just be more important than stolen base totals for a leadoff hitter.

 

Looking at it from an education standpoint the answer is simple.

 

We all carry with us the knowledge we have learned through our lives. To learn new knowledge requires us to "scaffold" the new knowledge onto the old. In this process we decide which of the information is "good" and which is "bad" changing our knowledge base accordingly. When we learn the "bad" new knowledge it requires us to not only unlearn the "bad" new knowledge but also relearn the "good" new knowledge to continue to learn the right things. Hard enough for a grade school student, much less a 50-year-old man whom views himself as a MLB GM.

 

Applying this to baseball, (keeping in mind that the game has a very mafia mind set), you can see the same things happening. The work of Bill James and the others that have followed him have all been done by non-insiders. Hence to the "Made men" of baseball it is for the most part "bad new knowledge" because it challenges the knowledge base that has made them "successful" in their very closed field. Also it challenges the schema of knowledge they have gained through the application of "the good knowledge" to the problems before them. IE; when you steal, playing for one run, the hit and run, the sac bunt, the... you get the picture. If they fail to see a problem then their knowledge is still good. Human pride, which we all have, makes this difficult to see even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

The Billy Beanes and Theo Epstiens of the world are not part of the "Baseball Mafia" who have been able to break into the ranks with out paying the dues (1). Because they enter with a different set of knowledge they are more open to "new" knowledge than their "made man" contemporaries. They have been able to embrace and integrate the new knowledge into the schema of thought in running their organizations. The end result we see is a World Series championship in Boston after a few false starts to learn where human nature must be taken into account over the numbers. Closer by committee comes to mind in Boston leading to the pick of Foulke to be the guy in the ninth.

 

Until Chicago brings in, or promotes from within, someone who is willing to challenge the groupthink and approach the problems with a new schema of knowledge expect more of the same.

 

(1)(Yes Beane was a marginal player, but is the exception to the rule, ala LaRussa who is also book smart that didn’t have the normal career path. Doug Glanville is a good homegrown name to throw out there for the hostility toward the "book smart" player in baseball.)

Oh, I pretty much agree. But stolen bases would seem to be one of the easier things to change. With increased power, I still would have expected more people to deemphasize the importance of stolen bases intuitively.

 

Maybe I'm underestimating the marketability of the prototypical leadoff hitter. Or just how attractive the idea sounds.

[Peoriaman]

FWIW, Patterson's OBP is sliding down the last month. .310 now and heading south.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

Oh, I pretty much agree. But stolen bases would seem to be one of the easier things to change. With increased power, I still would have expected more people to deemphasize the importance of stolen bases intuitively.

 

Maybe I'm underestimating the marketability of the prototypical leadoff hitter. Or just how attractive the idea sounds.

 

Look at Earl Weaver. He is looked at as a genious for looking at things like he did in his day. He was also blessed with great players for the 70's teams that won the World Series in Baltimore. He however is the exception to the rule unfortunately.

 

People (especially our current management team) look at the "Pitching, Defense, and the three run homerun" part of his philosophy and completely miss the ingredients that made the three run homerun a reality for all those teams. They are taking the "bad old knowledge" and using it to re-enforce the schema they currently hold. Even though in this case they are using good knowledge, just applying it in a bad old way.

 

Which leads us back to the mafia / made man mindset one sees in baseball. Also throw in the stubborn pride of Baker and Hendry and you have your answer to why they can pay lip service to the right formula, (Weaver in his entirity), and still get the wrong things out of it. IE; your 2006 Chicago Cubs.

[frostwyrm]

For the Cubs I like having SB potential for days when a hard wind is blowing in at Wrigley and the game is low-scoring, otherwise I could do without it. What I absolutely HATE is seeing the same small-ball crapola applied when the Cubs HR hitters are swinging well and the wind is blowing out.

[NCCubFan]

Three former Cubs were in the bottom ten basestealers:

 

Jeromy Burnitz

Neifi Perez

Jose Hernandez

They've been catching too many z's on the basepaths. :D

[hardcorecubfan]

The value of the steal (and the CS) depends on the run environment. In a big offensive era (such as, say, now), the value of the extra base means much less because it is more likely that the following hitters are going to drive in the runner no matter what base he's on.

 

In a low scoring environment (such as when the majority of MLB managers were playing the game), the SB is much more important because it is more difficult to scratch out each individual run. But I think most managers in the game have this mindset from their playing days.

 

Great assumptions but with the Cubs we are always in a low scoring environment.

 

does Juane get caught because of

A. Loss of speed

B. Lack of proper timing

C. stealing off the wrong catcher

D. Jaun is trying his best not to "clog the bases"

[Laura]

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Getting caught: Juan Pierre was caught stealing twice against the Phillies this week. He entered Friday leading the National League in caught stealing with 17, to go along with 44 steals. That’s a success rate of 72.1 percent. Stats people often say that, for the stolen base to be cost effective, the success rate must be 75 percent.

 

Pierre also entered Friday fourth in the NL with 154 hits.

[Jon]

Nice.

 

Have there been any recent studies on the break even point? The latest I've seen uses data from 1999-2002 or something like that.

[Bruce Miles]

Nice.

 

Have there been any recent studies on the break even point? The latest I've seen uses data from 1999-2002 or something like that.

 

Space was tight in the paper for today, but Dusty lamented a number of "questionable calls" on Pierre's attempted steals and that catchers have been throwing it "right on the toe" to nab Pierre.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Nice.

 

Have there been any recent studies on the break even point? The latest I've seen uses data from 1999-2002 or something like that.

 

Space was tight in the paper for today, but Dusty lamented a number of "questionable calls" on Pierre's attempted steals and that catchers have been throwing it "right on the toe" to nab Pierre.

 

Yes, Dusty. That's why those catchers are in the big leagues.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Nice.

 

Have there been any recent studies on the break even point? The latest I've seen uses data from 1999-2002 or something like that.

 

Space was tight in the paper for today, but Dusty lamented a number of "questionable calls" on Pierre's attempted steals and that catchers have been throwing it "right on the toe" to nab Pierre.

 

I recall a couple of CS in the last week or so where Santo was convinced that he was safe. It doesn't much matter, though. Over time, I belive things even out.