To steal or stop the steal (numbers)

[cheekimonk]

That's not the question, I just couldn't think of a funkier title...

I know we've had discussions in the league over the years (it ebbs and flows) about how high of a stolen bases attempted should be encouraged in settings. Ron, and I think most of the GMs, settled at 66.7% (I had 62.4%). At that level of successful steals vs CS, any team that is successful in 2/3rd of their attempts has reached the point where there are only diminishing returns in more SB attempts. As I track my team stats I get everyone's stats, of course, and thought I'd share. Here is a list of successful offense SB%.

Successful Offense SB%

Montreal Blazers 88.0%
Charlotte Flyers 87.0%
Charm City Jimmies 81.0%
Rocky Mountain Oysters 79.5%
Boise Spuds 76.5%
Atlantic City Gamblers 75.9%
San Antonio Outlaws 75.0%
New Orleans Crawdads 74.0%
Edmonton Jackrabbits 73.6%
Las Vegas Hustlers 72.9%
Phoenix Talons 72.7%
Jacksonville Hurricanes 72.2%
Mexico City Aztecs 71.4%
Brooklyn Robins 68.5%
Rockville Pikemen 65.3%
Calgary Pioneers 48.5%

What does that all mean?

1) The entire league is leaving runs on the field by not stealing enough...except for Calgary who should cut WAY back...or get more runners who can, successfully, steal bases. Only 33 attempts (Phoenix is lowest SBA at 22) but successful just 48.5% of the time says, "Ease up on the trigger." Again, you want to be around 66.7% and if you're more successful than that, run more...and we should all address our catchers.

2) Almost every catcher in the league sucks at gunning down runners. Only Mexico City, Boise, Rocky Mountain, San Antonio, and Vegas are near the 33.3% - which is where you want to hit, generally, to where the odds of more CS%...well, teams shouldn't be running against your catchers:

Team CS% on defense

Rocky Mountain Oysters 58.7%
Mexico City Aztecs 41.7%
San Antonio Outlaws 38.9%
Las Vegas Hustlers 33.3%
Boise Spuds 31.5%
Rockville Pikemen 27.1%
Charm City Jimmies 25.5%
Jacksonville Hurricanes 24.4%
Brooklyn Robins 20.9%
Montreal Blazers 20.4%
Atlantic City Gamblers 18.7%
Phoenix Talons 17.7%
New Orleans Crawdads 17.1%
Edmonton Jackrabbits 16.7%
Charlotte Flyers 14.1%
Calgary Pioneers 7.2%

(First, check you catcher, Calgary, because...damn...)
So, like offense SB%, this is saying the majority of the league, outside of the top 5, are leaving runs on the table.

So, everyone needs to up their SBA until catchers prove they can stop anyone. Theoretically, keep running until you are only successful 66.7% of the time and get your defense CS% up to 33.3%

[BaseClogger]

Interesting analysis of the junior league, errr… Johnson League.

[trmmilwwi]

Nice writeup!

[RonCo]

The question of when to steal and how often to steal is always an intriguing piece of Game Theory. For example, my view of stealing at over roughly 66% is gaining runs (a % that changes based on the run environment around a team), is almost certainly true. But I'm not sure that means you should run massively often as long as you're above that cutoff. Running more often may result in your success rate dropping. If running 10 times gets you 70% success rate but running 100 times gets you 60% success rate, then the 10 attempts is a net gain and 100 attempts is a net loss. If the success rate can be maintained, though, and you're gaining runs, then of course more is better.

The StatsPlus wSB value is a different way to look at the stolen base, too. To Ben's point, the value of stealing is also relative to the league. If I'm not stealing at all, and the league is averaging five runs a piece by stealing, then I'm losing value. Likewise, if I'm not stealing at all and everyone is getting caught a lot, then I'm gaining runs.

What to make of it all, right?

Then there is the simple facts and methods of how one can go about increasing or decreasing stealing. We have strategy levers and we have defense in the form of catchers arms (there are 13 catchers with 9, 10, or 11 arms right now) and pitcher Hold ratings that depress attempts and success rates. There is a league totals thing that seems to have been adjusted way down in 2051 -- the league saw a SB cliff event at that point. When one looks at the historical stats comparison, we see 2051 saw the league's K-rate and SB/1B rate fall off the table. Is it a coincidence that the SB success rate has gently risen since that time (from 69% to 74%?)? I don't know. It's possible that this adjustment made it more likely that better runners are a greater percentage of the attempts, hence the league-wide success rate is improving. Makes sense, anyway. Or not.

[recte44]

The baseball fan of me LOVES smallball. I love everything about it and think it's a far more entertaining brand of baseball. The numbers side of me shifted away from it for a while after Moneyball just as most did. I've come back around to smallball over the past few years.

[Jwalk100]

Small ball is very anti-Earl Weaver.

[trmmilwwi]

I'm more of a high heat guy. Although honestly I love smallball.

[cheekimonk]

The baseball fan of me LOVES smallball. I love everything about it and think it's a far more entertaining brand of baseball. The numbers side of me shifted away from it for a while after Moneyball just as most did. I've come back around to smallball over the past few years.

Pretty much exact thing here.

[RonCo]

I think one of the more interesting aspect of modern-day viewpoints on the SB is that, in situations where the game is close at the end, which is a lot of games, small-ball becomes more valuable. So basically, a sac bunt in the first 5-7 innings is probably always been a bad play, but in 7-9 it can still be winning baseball. Depending on who is bunting, I suppose. I mean, you don't want to take the bat out of Henry Aaron's hands pretty much anytime.

[cheekimonk]

I think one of the more interesting aspect of modern-day viewpoints on the SB is that, in situations where the game is close at the end, which is a lot of games, small-ball becomes more valuable. So basically, a sac bunt in the first 5-7 innings is probably always been a bad play, but in 7-9 it can still be winning baseball. Depending on who is bunting, I suppose. I mean, you don't want to take the bat out of Henry Aaron's hands pretty much anytime.

True. But I also think I've seen maybe one attempted sacrifice work this entire season and the misses were whiffs or couldn't bunt the ball in play. "Couldn't bunt the ball in play..." probably will change, but right now even speedy, slap-hitting guys can't reliably bunt.

[RonCo]

I'll see what my script says about that.