Statistics & You

[CuseCubFan69]

But if 70% or above actaully helps the team, how do you know a guy can steal if you don't do it?

 

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist.

 

i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre.

 

And speed does help "make things happen" in a positive way if you do it right.

 

it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake.

 

Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate?

 

Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time.

 

Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct?

 

Getting on base is primary. If the guy can't get on base at a good enough rate, you don't want him in the lineup anyway. Even if the guy can steal at 95%, you wouldn't want him playing because he would be a drain on the lineup by not getting on (I suppose that hypothetical 95% guy could be of some value as a pinch runner, late in the game when it's not likely he'd wind up having to come to the plate).

 

Sure, Izturis stealing at 80% is a better player than an Izturis who could steal at 62%, but neither one is getting on base enough for it to matter.

 

As for the bolded part, I'm not sure what you're getting at. We have plenty of past numbers on these guys that tell us how efficient they are at stealing bases, just like we have OBP numbers and SLG numbers and so on. We don't need to have, say, Soriano actually attempt steals to have a decent idea of how good he is at it. That would be like saying you need to see Neifi go out there and suck at the plate to know how good (er, bad) he is at the plate.

 

Ok....let's say team Sully does not believe in steals. They stress this throughout the organization. How do you know if a player even could have a 70% steal rate or not if you never attempt to steal in the first place? Where do you get the %? You're coming from nothing and these numbers have to come from somewhere to even know if the percentages are in your favor or not. You see on team Sully they don't bunt, steal or take an extra base and wait for hits/walks to move them around.

[Magnetic Curses]

But if 70% or above actaully helps the team, how do you know a guy can steal if you don't do it?

 

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist.

 

i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre.

 

And speed does help "make things happen" in a positive way if you do it right.

 

it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake.

 

Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate?

 

Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time.

 

Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct?

 

i don't understand what you're arguing, here.

 

Regarding all 3 statements?

 

I'm asking you how do you even know what the steal rate could even be if you never steal?

 

1. you're asking if a player who steals at a better rate has more value? do you really want the answer to that or is it rhetorical? you see, the question is just not geared towards the argument, you're all over the board here with irrelevant scenarios.

 

2. that's what stats or for, they tell you how effective a player is at stealing a base. again, i don't know what you're arguing.

 

3. ????? i never said youkilis wasn't good at something. on the contrary, he's very good at getting on base. i said pierre wasn't good at really anything.

 

i'm really confused as to what you're trying to say. formulate a consistent argument and i'll address it.

[cubweiser03]

 

Ohh and just gotta say this.....Voris McCracken and his 'stat' can kiss my ass.

 

Why?

 

Because i think the stats premise is bunk.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm asking you how do you even know what the steal rate could even be if you never steal?

 

1. you're asking if a player who steals at a better rate has more value? do you really want the answer to that or is it rhetorical? you see, the question is just not geared towards the argument, you're all over the board here with irrelevant scenarios.

 

2. that's what stats or for, they tell you how effective a player is at stealing a base. again, i don't know what you're arguing.

 

3. ????? i never said youkilis wasn't good at something. on the contrary, he's very good at getting on base. i said pierre wasn't good at really anything.

 

i'm really confused as to what you're trying to say. formulate a consistent argument and i'll address it.

 

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70%, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

2. that's what stats or for, they tell you how effective a player is at stealing a base. again, i don't know what you're arguing.

 

you make decisions based on past trends. if i took control of the cubs today, i'd have an accurate set of data in which to base my decisions on.

 

the importance of stealing is a hotly debated topic. based on past performace, there are only a few players that i would give the green light to, carlos beltran being one of them.

 

i don't know how cesar izturis has anything to do with the discussion, either.

[imb]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument.

[David]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

If we're really going to get into this extreme hypothetical, I'll go ahead and contend that at the major league level, on the baseball field, the #1 priority is to win. The minor league system is meant not so much to win as it is meant to develop and evaluate potential major leaguers. Therefore, you can allow guys who have the potential to be good base stealers (i.e. faster guys/good baserunners) to steal in the minors and you'd be able to get a fairly good read on how good they would be at stealing bases.

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument.

 

Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have?

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

If we're really going to get into this extreme hypothetical, I'll go ahead and contend that at the major league level, on the baseball field, the #1 priority is to win. The minor league system is meant not so much to win as it is meant to develop and evaluate potential major leaguers. Therefore, you can allow guys who have the potential to be good base stealers (i.e. faster guys/good baserunners) to steal in the minors and you'd be able to get a fairly good read on how good they would be at stealing bases.

 

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

[Productive Outs]

This is an example of why some of us (traditionalists with a few of the newer stats) are traditionalists. If I have to spend an that much time reading and digesting what some obscure statistic means, then it becomes work and not enjoyment. As I stated before, some of the newer stats are one way to compare players, but you don't need a bunch of statistics to see that Pujols is a great hitter and Neifi Perez isn't.

 

however, you do need those statistics to determine if player x had a better year than player y when their avg/obp/slg are close (i.e. Lee and Pujols in 2005).

 

i'm into most of the batting metrics, but i haven't taken the time to understand a few of the newer pitching metrics.

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument.

 

Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have?

 

well, since on the whole, stealing is unnecessary and more often than not destructive, there'd be no need.

[David]

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

 

That's not the case at all. It's not that "steals could hurt you 30%."

 

A basestealer has to be able to steal successfuly at over 70% for basestealing to be at all beneficial to an offense. If you have guys who can steal at 80-90% (like, as sully mentioned, Carlos Beltran), you steal. If you don't, you don't. There's no lack of belief in stealing. It's a belief in stealing only if it's to the benefit of the offense.

 

Otherwise, why bother stealing?

[CuseCubFan69]

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

 

That's not the case at all. It's not that "steals could hurt you 30%."

 

A basestealer has to be able to steal successfuly at over 70% for basestealing to be at all beneficial to an offense. If you have guys who can steal at 80-90% (like, as sully mentioned, Carlos Beltran), you steal. If you don't, you don't. There's no lack of belief in stealing. It's a belief in stealing only if it's to the benefit of the offense.

 

Otherwise, why bother stealing?

 

Ok Take away the 30% statement. How do you know that a player could steal at 70% or higher?

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument.

 

Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have?

 

well, since on the whole, stealing is unnecessary and more often than not destructive, there'd be no need.

 

So now you're abandoning it all together. Fine. Have you also got rid of bunting too?

[David]

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

 

That's not the case at all. It's not that "steals could hurt you 30%."

 

A basestealer has to be able to steal successfuly at over 70% for basestealing to be at all beneficial to an offense. If you have guys who can steal at 80-90% (like, as sully mentioned, Carlos Beltran), you steal. If you don't, you don't. There's no lack of belief in stealing. It's a belief in stealing only if it's to the benefit of the offense.

 

Otherwise, why bother stealing?

 

Ok Take away the 30% statement. How do you know that a player could steal at 70% or higher?

 

Past performance.

[CuseCubFan69]

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

 

That's not the case at all. It's not that "steals could hurt you 30%."

 

A basestealer has to be able to steal successfuly at over 70% for basestealing to be at all beneficial to an offense. If you have guys who can steal at 80-90% (like, as sully mentioned, Carlos Beltran), you steal. If you don't, you don't. There's no lack of belief in stealing. It's a belief in stealing only if it's to the benefit of the offense.

 

Otherwise, why bother stealing?

 

Ok Take away the 30% statement. How do you know that a player could steal at 70% or higher?

 

Past performance.

 

There is none so what are you going by? His college or HS?

[UK1679666180]

It's all situational as well, if you have a pitcher with a slow release to home or is easy to read combined with an avg. arm behind the plate, you become more aggressive.

 

Stating an absolute 70% as the deciding factor doesn't factor the abilities of the C and P.

[David]

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

 

That's not the case at all. It's not that "steals could hurt you 30%."

 

A basestealer has to be able to steal successfuly at over 70% for basestealing to be at all beneficial to an offense. If you have guys who can steal at 80-90% (like, as sully mentioned, Carlos Beltran), you steal. If you don't, you don't. There's no lack of belief in stealing. It's a belief in stealing only if it's to the benefit of the offense.

 

Otherwise, why bother stealing?

 

Ok Take away the 30% statement. How do you know that a player could steal at 70% or higher?

 

Past performance.

 

There is none so what are you going by? His college or HS?

 

I'm starting to see the whole chicken/egg aspect to this too... :lol:

 

Since you're talking about players coming up through the system...

 

If we're really going to get into this extreme hypothetical, I'll go ahead and contend that at the major league level, on the baseball field, the #1 priority is to win. The minor league system is meant not so much to win as it is meant to develop and evaluate potential major leaguers. Therefore, you can allow guys who have the potential to be good base stealers (i.e. faster guys/good baserunners) to steal in the minors and you'd be able to get a fairly good read on how good they would be at stealing bases.

[CuseCubFan69]

It's all situational as well, if you have a pitcher with a slow release to home or is easy to read combined with an avg. arm behind the plate, you become more aggressive.

 

Stating an absolute 70% as the deciding factor doesn't factor the abilities of the C and P.

 

Exactly. If you have a catcher that gets it down to second in 1.7 it changes. If you have a catcher at 2.3 it changes. Who pitches makes it change.

 

It just isn't a flat out number to go by in every instance.

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't understand why this question is difficult to understand? You claim that stealing may only be a good move if you have a steal rate at 70% or above, you do not steal so how do you even know what the steal right is or is going to be?

 

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well.

 

But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it.

 

But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know?

 

Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal?

 

this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument.

 

Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have?

 

well, since on the whole, stealing is unnecessary and more often than not destructive, there'd be no need.

 

So now you're abandoning it all together. Fine. Have you also got rid of bunting too?

 

with everyone who isn't the pitcher or neifi perez. yes.

[CuseCubFan69]

But we don't believe in stealing and that's the organizations theory. Team sully wants to go station to station and not take the bats away from the hitters. They stress patience at the plate. This is the mandate from the MLB team because steals could hurt you 30% so they disregard it.

 

That's not the case at all. It's not that "steals could hurt you 30%."

 

A basestealer has to be able to steal successfuly at over 70% for basestealing to be at all beneficial to an offense. If you have guys who can steal at 80-90% (like, as sully mentioned, Carlos Beltran), you steal. If you don't, you don't. There's no lack of belief in stealing. It's a belief in stealing only if it's to the benefit of the offense.

 

Otherwise, why bother stealing?

 

Ok Take away the 30% statement. How do you know that a player could steal at 70% or higher?

 

Past performance.

 

There is none so what are you going by? His college or HS?

 

I'm starting to see the whole chicken/egg aspect to this too... :lol:

 

Since you're talking about players coming up through the system...

 

If we're really going to get into this extreme hypothetical, I'll go ahead and contend that at the major league level, on the baseball field, the #1 priority is to win. The minor league system is meant not so much to win as it is meant to develop and evaluate potential major leaguers. Therefore, you can allow guys who have the potential to be good base stealers (i.e. faster guys/good baserunners) to steal in the minors and you'd be able to get a fairly good read on how good they would be at stealing bases.

 

You already said that. Team sully does not want the stolen base to be used in their system. You see, you need the attempts to be able to figure out the information. If you totaly disregard it you do not have the 70% to be able to use to do your stealing.

 

It's not a chicken or egg. It's like you are an omnivore and now want to be a vegetarian. You want to say that it's a better lifestyle but all you have are vegetarians to compare with, how do you prove that being a omnivore is less healthy?

[David]

I'm starting to see the whole chicken/egg aspect to this too... :lol:

 

Since you're talking about players coming up through the system...

 

If we're really going to get into this extreme hypothetical, I'll go ahead and contend that at the major league level, on the baseball field, the #1 priority is to win. The minor league system is meant not so much to win as it is meant to develop and evaluate potential major leaguers. Therefore, you can allow guys who have the potential to be good base stealers (i.e. faster guys/good baserunners) to steal in the minors and you'd be able to get a fairly good read on how good they would be at stealing bases.

 

You already said that. Team sully does not want the stolen base to be used in their system. You see, you need the attempts to be able to figure out the information. If you totaly disregard it you do not have the 70% to be able to use to do your stealing.

 

 

 

I give up.

 

I can make up crazy scenarios to prove my points too...but I'm not gonna bother.

[goonys evil twin]

I wouldn't want to completely eliminate the SB. But I'd definitely want to be on the lower end in terms of attempts, the same way I'd be with sacrifices.