Lou on SportsCenter

[David]

Did you really think i was talking about 2008?

 

I think he was just joking with you.

 

Everyone here needs to chill a little bit, damn.

[imb]

Did you really think i was talking about 2008?

 

I think he was just joking with you.

 

Everyone here needs to chill a little bit, damn.

 

It's not like I'm furious about it. It was just a stupid thing to even bother bringing up.

[CuseCubFan69]

trying to steal third is one of the stupidest things a team can have someone do. God I hate it.

 

If Freddy Garcia is pitching or Mike Piazza is catching, you almost have to try to steal third. In other situations it's a dicey move, but sometimes you give it a shot.

 

And how often is that going to happen with Piazza DH'ing in Oakland, and Garcia pitching for Philly?

 

I'm thinking his point is having a poor pitching/catching combo in holding and throwing runners out.

 

It's still a stupid risk. How often are you going to have a wild pitch or passed ball? You're in scoring position; why run yourself out of scoring position?

 

You're far more likely to kill a rally that create a run.

 

You have the numbers for that or is that your opinion? I see you forgot to add a Sac fly or groundball. Do you actually think it's easier to drive in a runner from 2nd than it is a runner from 3rd?

[David]

For my 3500th post, I will just say that I agree with IMB! that attempting to steal 3B is a bad idea 999 times out of 1000.

[third eye]

I'm not sure i understand the argument that says it's no better to have someone on third with one out vs on second with one out. There are significantly more ways to score without needing a hit (beyond wild pitches). most contact to the right side and most fly balls for a runner with Soriano's speed (or even average speed) will score him. Even if the infield is drawn in during a tied game, there is a better chance for a ball to get through. I agree that with any slow pitching/catching combination and a good base stealer it should be considered. Now of course you dont run if it will be the first or third out of the inning at third. But this, to me, is the same as why you stretch out an extra base hit for a triple when there is only one out in the inning. Am I misunderstanding the anti-3rd stealers here, or are you arguing that no one should try to take third in any case ever? I understand the sentiment against Baker's "clogging the bases" argument, but this strikes me as extreme on the other end.

[David]

I'm not sure i understand the argument that says it's no better to have someone on third with one out vs on second with one out. There are significantly more ways to score without needing a hit (beyond wild pitches). most contact to the right side and most fly balls for a runner with Soriano's speed (or even average speed) will score him. Even if the infield is drawn in during a tied game, there is a better chance for a ball to get through. I agree that with any slow pitching/catching combination and a good base stealer it should be considered. Now of course you dont run if it will be the first or third out of the inning at third. But this, to me, is the same as why you stretch out an extra base hit for a triple when there is only one out in the inning. Am I misunderstanding the anti-3rd stealers here, or are you arguing that no one should try to take third in any case ever? I understand the sentiment against Baker's "clogging the bases" argument, but this strikes me as extreme on the other end.

 

The chances of scoring by being on 3rd as opposed to 2nd aren't improved enough to outweigh the negative of the likelihood of being thrown out and killing the rally altogether.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm not sure i understand the argument that says it's no better to have someone on third with one out vs on second with one out. There are significantly more ways to score without needing a hit (beyond wild pitches). most contact to the right side and most fly balls for a runner with Soriano's speed (or even average speed) will score him. Even if the infield is drawn in during a tied game, there is a better chance for a ball to get through. I agree that with any slow pitching/catching combination and a good base stealer it should be considered. Now of course you dont run if it will be the first or third out of the inning at third. But this, to me, is the same as why you stretch out an extra base hit for a triple when there is only one out in the inning. Am I misunderstanding the anti-3rd stealers here, or are you arguing that no one should try to take third in any case ever? I understand the sentiment against Baker's "clogging the bases" argument, but this strikes me as extreme on the other end.

 

The chances of scoring by being on 3rd as opposed to 2nd aren't improved enough to outweigh the negative of the likelihood of being thrown out and killing the rally altogether.

 

That is if you look at all the stats and that's what they say but I'm not even sure that's true. I think it's foolish to throw away an option that may present itself to your teams advantage.

[USSoccer]

 

You have the numbers for that or is that your opinion? I see you forgot to add a Sac fly or groundball. Do you actually think it's easier to drive in a runner from 2nd than it is a runner from 3rd?

 

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/10/net_stolen_base.php

 

Sure. Here are some numbers that show the epic stupidity of stealing 3rd. :

 

In one of many studies on the value of stolen bases, James Click demonstrated that the breakeven point for stealing second base is approximately 73%, and it ranges from 70% to 93% (depending upon the number of outs) for stealing third base.

 

OUTS STOLEN BASE BREAKEVEN

0 Second 73.2%

1 Second 73.1%

2 Second 73.2%

0 Third 74.8%

1 Third 69.5%

2 Third 92.7%

 

The above breakeven points may zig and zag a percentage point or two from one season to the next, but the basic premise is the same year in and year out. When stealing bases, a player needs to be successful somewhere between 70-75% of the time. If not, he is doing more harm than good by attempting to steal bases. Sure, there are some other factors at play here, mainly the game context (i.e., the score, the number of outs, who's pitching, who's catching, and who's at bat). But, generally speaking, a baserunner needs to be called safe nearly three times as often as out when attempting to take those extra 90 feet

.

 

So it's a bad move between 70 and 94% of the time. You need to succeed at those rates to make it worthwhile.

 

Now, as far as Soriano being a weapon? Let them drop some knowledge on you:

 

PLAYER TEAM SB CS PO NET SB*

10 Alfonso Soriano Was 41 17 2 3

 

3 net stolen bases? But wait, he stole 41 in total! He must be a weapon because conventional wisdom says being 40/40 is awesome and stolen bases help teams win close games!

 

Looking at net stolen bases can be valuable in so many ways. For example, if a team wants to sign Alfonso Soriano to a huge long-term contract, I just hope that management realizes what it's getting or not getting, as the case may be. Every serious baseball fan knows by now that Soriano became just the fourth player to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases in the same season. But, if the truth be known, he wasn't much of an asset when attempting to steal bases in 2006. At best, Alfonso turned in an ever so slightly positive net SB contribution last year

 

That's the guy people want stealing 3rd. The guy with 3 net steals last season, when he stole 41 overall.

 

Now, does anyone here care to cite any numbers backing up their points, or is it all just old school baseball nonsense with nothing to back it up?

[SouthSideRyan]

All your break even points proved is that it's stupid to steal 3rd with 2 outs, which is pretty obvious. Everyone's overreacting to the thought that he might try and steal 3rd a few times and treating it like he's gonna attempt it 20 times a year. It's not a horrible idea in the right circumstances, which come up far more often than 1 out of 1000 times.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

You have the numbers for that or is that your opinion? I see you forgot to add a Sac fly or groundball. Do you actually think it's easier to drive in a runner from 2nd than it is a runner from 3rd?

 

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/10/net_stolen_base.php

 

Sure. Here are some numbers that show the epic stupidity of stealing 3rd. :

 

In one of many studies on the value of stolen bases, James Click demonstrated that the breakeven point for stealing second base is approximately 73%, and it ranges from 70% to 93% (depending upon the number of outs) for stealing third base.

 

OUTS STOLEN BASE BREAKEVEN

0 Second 73.2%

1 Second 73.1%

2 Second 73.2%

0 Third 74.8%

1 Third 69.5%

2 Third 92.7%

 

The above breakeven points may zig and zag a percentage point or two from one season to the next, but the basic premise is the same year in and year out. When stealing bases, a player needs to be successful somewhere between 70-75% of the time. If not, he is doing more harm than good by attempting to steal bases. Sure, there are some other factors at play here, mainly the game context (i.e., the score, the number of outs, who's pitching, who's catching, and who's at bat). But, generally speaking, a baserunner needs to be called safe nearly three times as often as out when attempting to take those extra 90 feet

.

 

So it's a bad move between 70 and 94% of the time. You need to succeed at those rates to make it worthwhile.

 

Now, as far as Soriano being a weapon? Let them drop some knowledge on you:

 

PLAYER TEAM SB CS PO NET SB*

10 Alfonso Soriano Was 41 17 2 3

 

3 net stolen bases? But wait, he stole 41 in total! He must be a weapon because conventional wisdom says being 40/40 is awesome and stolen bases help teams win close games!

 

Looking at net stolen bases can be valuable in so many ways. For example, if a team wants to sign Alfonso Soriano to a huge long-term contract, I just hope that management realizes what it's getting or not getting, as the case may be. Every serious baseball fan knows by now that Soriano became just the fourth player to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases in the same season. But, if the truth be known, he wasn't much of an asset when attempting to steal bases in 2006. At best, Alfonso turned in an ever so slightly positive net SB contribution last year

 

That's the guy people want stealing 3rd. The guy with 3 net steals last season, when he stole 41 overall.

 

Now, does anyone here care to cite any numbers backing up their points, or is it all just old school baseball nonsense with nothing to back it up?

 

How did Soriano do when he attempted to steal third which was the point of the debate? Number 2...the non threat to ever steal third gets the pitcher in a comfort zone and on rhythm. Also as I said earlier taking advantage of certain opportunites that present themselves is something a good manager should do and sitting back not doing so isn't taking advantage of an excellent opportunity.

[USSoccer]

All your break even points proved is that it's stupid to steal 3rd with 2 outs, which is pretty obvious. Everyone's overreacting to the thought that he might try and steal 3rd a few times and treating it like he's gonna attempt it 20 times a year. It's not a horrible idea in the right circumstances, which come up far more often than 1 out of 1000 times.

 

Did you even read that? You have to succeed at least 70% of the time on average with 0 or 1 outs. Soriano was below 70% success rate last season. This means that he's not going to create any chances by stealing 2nd or 3rd over the course of a season.

 

You want to let him "take advantage of matchups and opportunities"? Fine. You'll run yourself into unnecessary outs. You will lose scoring opportunities just for the sake of creating a situation where someone might score a manufactured run.

 

You will be better off letting Soriano stay at 2B and letting Lee, Ramirez and Barrett try and drive him in. All 3 guys are over .300 hitters, which means the odds of them getting a hit are better than the odds of Soriano successfully stealing 3rd. Which means Soriano stealing 3rd is a stupid idea.

Edited February 19, 2007 by USSoccer

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

Could some of his bad numbers be due to switching leagues last year?

[third eye]

I'm not sure i understand the argument that says it's no better to have someone on third with one out vs on second with one out. There are significantly more ways to score without needing a hit (beyond wild pitches). most contact to the right side and most fly balls for a runner with Soriano's speed (or even average speed) will score him. Even if the infield is drawn in during a tied game, there is a better chance for a ball to get through. I agree that with any slow pitching/catching combination and a good base stealer it should be considered. Now of course you dont run if it will be the first or third out of the inning at third. But this, to me, is the same as why you stretch out an extra base hit for a triple when there is only one out in the inning. Am I misunderstanding the anti-3rd stealers here, or are you arguing that no one should try to take third in any case ever? I understand the sentiment against Baker's "clogging the bases" argument, but this strikes me as extreme on the other end.

 

The chances of scoring by being on 3rd as opposed to 2nd aren't improved enough to outweigh the negative of the likelihood of being thrown out and killing the rally altogether.

 

Oh, I agree with that, but you have to understand the likihood of getting thrown out in that situation versus applying a blanket caught stealing rate - in the same way you'd be more likely to try to take third on a weak outfield arm than on a strong one. Why wouldnt the abilities of the pitcher and catcher come into play in the same way? I'm only arguing for the circumstance where it gets you to third with just one out. An average base stealer who is successful 75% of the time would probably have that success rate increase to over 90% with a slow battery. I have no stats to back that up, so feel free to pile on if I'm wrong. With a runner on 2nd and 1 out, if the next two hitter are .300 hitters, then there is a 49% chance that neither of them gets a hit (Yes, I'm using average rather than OBP, because we're talking about driving the run in). So we're about 50/50 with good hitters up that the run will score. With a 90% success rate of getting to 3rd, the next hitter would only need to put the ball in play 60% of the time in order for stealing third to be a better proposition. This is what my intuition tells me. Those of you who have the actual numbers out there, let me know if I'm way off base here. Also, clearly, I've used situational adjustments here, so I'm not advocating running all the time. Just when the situation is favorable.

[David]

All your break even points proved is that it's stupid to steal 3rd with 2 outs, which is pretty obvious. Everyone's overreacting to the thought that he might try and steal 3rd a few times and treating it like he's gonna attempt it 20 times a year. It's not a horrible idea in the right circumstances, which come up far more often than 1 out of 1000 times.

 

 

That's nowhere near true. It proved that stealing 3rd is only slightly more stupid than stealing 2nd when there are no outs, a little less stupid with 1 out, and far more stupid with 2 outs.

 

 

How many players can actually steal 3rd base at even a 70% clip? Much less a 75% or 93% rate?

[CubinNY]

All your break even points proved is that it's stupid to steal 3rd with 2 outs, which is pretty obvious. Everyone's overreacting to the thought that he might try and steal 3rd a few times and treating it like he's gonna attempt it 20 times a year. It's not a horrible idea in the right circumstances, which come up far more often than 1 out of 1000 times.

 

Did you even read that? You have to succeed at least 70% of the time on average with 0 or 1 outs. Soriano was below 70% success rate last season.

 

You'll run yourself into unnecessary outs. You will lose scoring opportunities just for the sake of creating a situation where someone might score a manufactured run.

 

The Cubs appear to be heavy on the SLG side and light on the OBP side of the OPS stat. OPS being the most telling for winning ball clubs. With that in mind, I'd rather not see a ton of stolen base attempts from the Fonz.

 

If he's on the chance that he gets driven home via an extra base hit from Lee, Aramis, JJ, or Floyd are better if he's not sitting in the dugout.

[CuseCubFan69]

All your break even points proved is that it's stupid to steal 3rd with 2 outs, which is pretty obvious. Everyone's overreacting to the thought that he might try and steal 3rd a few times and treating it like he's gonna attempt it 20 times a year. It's not a horrible idea in the right circumstances, which come up far more often than 1 out of 1000 times.

 

Did you even read that? You have to succeed at least 70% of the time on average with 0 or 1 outs. Soriano was below 70% success rate last season.

 

You'll run yourself into unnecessary outs. You will lose scoring opportunities just for the sake of creating a situation where someone might score a manufactured run.

 

The Cubs appear to be heavy on the SLG side and light on the OBP side of the OPS stat. OPS being the most telling for winning ball clubs. With that in mind, I'd rather not see a ton of stolen base attempts from the Fonz.

 

If he's on the chance that he gets driven home via an extra base hit from Lee, Aramis, JJ, or Floyd are better if he's not sitting in the dugout.

 

I agree that he should cut down his attempts but it has to remain an option.

[USSoccer]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide numbers to back their side of the argument up, as I did.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Could some of his bad numbers be due to switching leagues last year?

 

I don't know the cause, but last year was the first year that he wasn't very efficient on the basepaths. Using SB-(2*CS) for net stolen bases:

 

2001: +15

2002: +15

2003: +19

2004: +8 (18 steals, 5 CS)

2005: +26

2006: +7(He must've been picked off twice last year, can't find it for previous years)

[USSoccer]

All your break even points proved is that it's stupid to steal 3rd with 2 outs, which is pretty obvious. Everyone's overreacting to the thought that he might try and steal 3rd a few times and treating it like he's gonna attempt it 20 times a year. It's not a horrible idea in the right circumstances, which come up far more often than 1 out of 1000 times.

 

Did you even read that? You have to succeed at least 70% of the time on average with 0 or 1 outs. Soriano was below 70% success rate last season.

 

You'll run yourself into unnecessary outs. You will lose scoring opportunities just for the sake of creating a situation where someone might score a manufactured run.

 

The Cubs appear to be heavy on the SLG side and light on the OBP side of the OPS stat. OPS being the most telling for winning ball clubs. With that in mind, I'd rather not see a ton of stolen base attempts from the Fonz.

 

If he's on the chance that he gets driven home via an extra base hit from Lee, Aramis, JJ, or Floyd are better if he's not sitting in the dugout.

 

I agree that he should cut down his attempts but it has to remain an option.

 

A very sparingly used option.

 

As I typed in my edit, Soriano will usually be standing on 2nd with Lee, Ramirez and Barrett coming up and 1 out. Those are .300 hitters. The odds of them getting a hit are better than the odds of Soriano successfully stealing 3rd.

 

So you can let Soriano run, but he'd better steal at closer to an 80% clip for it to outweigh the odds that one of Lee/ARam/Barrett don't just drive them in themselves.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide numbers to back their side of the argument up, as I did.

 

Back up what? Your numbers helped prove my point by saying that if the situation exists you can help your team score. I didn't see it say that you can't steal 3rd and if you did 100% of the time it hurts your team. I saw 92.7 which means that if you do it correctly you can take advantage. Also, these numbers are flat across the board numbers and doesn't pertain to certain situations/matchups.

[David]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide numbers to back their side of the argument up, as I did.

 

Back up what? Your numbers helped prove my point by saying that if the situation exists you can help your team score. I didn't see it say that you can't steal 3rd and if you did 100% of the time it hurts your team. I saw 92.7 which means that if you do it correctly you can take advantage. Also, these numbers are flat across the board numbers and doesn't pertain to certain situations/matchups.

 

How many players out there can you count on to steal 3B with a 93% rate of success??

 

Even a 70% rate of success stealing 3rd is tough to achieve.

Edited February 19, 2007 by David

[USSoccer]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide numbers to back their side of the argument up, as I did.

 

Back up what? Your numbers helped prove my point by saying that if the situation exists you can help your team score. I didn't see it say that you can't steal 3rd and if you did 100% of the time it hurts your team. I saw 92.7 which means that if you do it correctly you can take advantage. Also, these numbers are flat across the board numbers and doesn't pertain to certain situations/matchups.

 

Needing to succeed at something between 70 and 95% of the time for it to be worth it isn't a good thing. The onus is on you to provide statistical proof to back up your claims, as I have done mine.

 

The odds of successfully stealing a base are lower than the BA's of the guys who immediately follow Soriano in the batting order. This adds further weight to the assertion that Soriano stealing 3rd so he can score on a groundout/flyball/wild pitch/balk/passed ball isn't worth the corresponding risk.

 

If you feel that there are situations that warrant the risk, and can provide numbers to back the assertion that those situations are going to occur often enough to where they outweigh the built in risk, by all means, provide them. Until you do, the notion that stealing 3rd is an acceptable option with Soriano isn't going to wash. It's nothing more than rhetoric.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide numbers to back their side of the argument up, as I did.

 

Back up what? Your numbers helped prove my point by saying that if the situation exists you can help your team score. I didn't see it say that you can't steal 3rd and if you did 100% of the time it hurts your team. I saw 92.7 which means that if you do it correctly you can take advantage. Also, these numbers are flat across the board numbers and doesn't pertain to certain situations/matchups.

 

Needing to succeed at something between 70 and 95% of the time for it to be worth it isn't a good thing. The onus is on you to provide statistical proof to back up your claims, as I have done mine.

 

The odds of successfully stealing a base are lower than the BA's of the guys who immediately follow Soriano in the batting order. This adds further weight to the assertion that Soriano stealing 3rd so he can score on a groundout/flyball/wild pitch/balk/passed ball isn't worth the corresponding risk.

 

If you feel that there are situations that warrant the risk, and can provide numbers to back the assertion that those situations are going to occur often enough to where they outweigh the built in risk, by all means, provide them. Until you do, the notion that stealing 3rd is an acceptable option with Soriano isn't going to wash. It's nothing more than rhetoric.

 

You supplied the proof for me. The 92.7 is a flat rate correct?

[USSoccer]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide numbers to back their side of the argument up, as I did.

 

Back up what? Your numbers helped prove my point by saying that if the situation exists you can help your team score. I didn't see it say that you can't steal 3rd and if you did 100% of the time it hurts your team. I saw 92.7 which means that if you do it correctly you can take advantage. Also, these numbers are flat across the board numbers and doesn't pertain to certain situations/matchups.

 

Needing to succeed at something between 70 and 95% of the time for it to be worth it isn't a good thing. The onus is on you to provide statistical proof to back up your claims, as I have done mine.

 

The odds of successfully stealing a base are lower than the BA's of the guys who immediately follow Soriano in the batting order. This adds further weight to the assertion that Soriano stealing 3rd so he can score on a groundout/flyball/wild pitch/balk/passed ball isn't worth the corresponding risk.

 

If you feel that there are situations that warrant the risk, and can provide numbers to back the assertion that those situations are going to occur often enough to where they outweigh the built in risk, by all means, provide them. Until you do, the notion that stealing 3rd is an acceptable option with Soriano isn't going to wash. It's nothing more than rhetoric.

 

You supplied the proof for me. The 92.7 is a flat rate correct?

 

You think that that's an acceptable level of risk? If you have a 9% failure rate it becomes not worth it.

[CubColtPacer]

Ok, obviously stealing 3rd with 2 outs is silly-let's throw that completely out of the discussion.

 

With that said, the rates show that stealing 3rd can have a lower break-even rate than stealing 2nd-so the original post who said that stealing 3rd was silly (and didn't mention stealing 2nd, which meant that he thought that stealing 2nd was better than stealing 3rd) has been disproven.

 

Also, I'd love to see the stats on the percentages of break-evens if it is a double steal. Obviously, a double steal would lower the break-even percentage by at least another few percent. If that is true, than Soriano's career numbers of stealing 3rd by himself or as part of a double steal would be slightly above break even. If you can at least break even on your steals, then it is a good idea to do it because of the extra threat to the pitcher and catcher that it provides as well.