Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Who's the ******* retard here?

You seem to be ignoring the 50 CS versus the 1 CS.

Or, when you see a stolen base, do you get all glassy-eyed, with your mouth hanging open with a little drool dripping out the side, as if somebody was dangling a shiny object in front of you.

******* retard.

No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. 

The rate isn't all that matters. A hitter that goes 1-3 isn't equally as valuable as one that goes 100-300. 

For a stolen base attempt to be worth the risk, you need to be able to be successful at least 67ish percent of the time (the rate depends on the league run scoring environment. In the late 90's-early 2000s, the rate was closer to 75%). But there's still a raw value for each stolen base, even if you're below (or at) that rate.

I think you're both off here. If you're thrown out trying to steal 33% of the time, your stolen bases only make up for the times you're successful stealing bases; you're basically just as well off doing nothing. Don't eliminate yourself from the base paths.

That said, if you're successful 82% of the time, it's 15% more than the breakeven point. The more often you steal with an 82% rate, the better off. So while getting caught 50 times in 150 attempts is a wash, if you're successful 123 times in 150 attempts, that's fantastic. If you only attempt 20 stolen bases at the 82% rate, it's not as valuable.

Hence the numbers I used for Trout and Cabrera.

Trout has stolen 6 bases above the break-even sucess rate.  Cabrera has stolen 1 base above the break-even success rate.

6 - 1 = 5

Trout's base stealing abilities have provided 5 stolen bases of marginal value more than Cabrera.

Whoopty ****.  I think Cabrera's offense, particularly slugging, more than account for that.

Still wrong. 32 SB at 82% is significantly more valuable than 3 SB at 100%.

And there is more to base running than SB.

Direct question- do you think the difference in base running value between Trout and Cabrera is small?

Again, you are completely ignoring the negative value of a CS, with no apparent understanding of marginal value.

Who provides more offensive value: the guy who goes 32/16, or the guy who goes 2/1?

You didn't answer.

Do you think the difference between them in terms of base running value is small?

Don't change the subject.  We're talking stolen bases.

Who provides more offensive value: the guy who goes 32/16, or the guy who goes 2/1?

We're talking Trout and Cabrera. Answer.

They're the same, tec.  But you're marginalizing the stolen bases differences between Trout and Cabrera.  It's kinda like saying the guy who batted 10 for 30 isn't much less valuable than the guy who went 170 for 600.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):

We're talking stolen bases and caught stealing.  You don't seem to understand how they work with respect to value.

Who provides more offensive value: the guy who goes 32/16, or the guy who goes 2/1?

**** it. Lets say they are the same.

Now, do you think the difference in base running value between Trout and Cabrera is small?

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
They're the same, tec.  But you're marginalizing the stolen bases differences between Trout and Cabrera.  It's kinda like saying the guy who batted 10 for 30 isn't much less valuable than the guy who went 170 for 600.

I am marginalizing the differences between Trout and Cabrera, because they should be marginalized to be put in appropriate perspective.

Trout is stealing at 15% above the break-even point of 67%.  In 39 attempts, that's a marginal value of 6 stolen bases above and beyond the break even point.

Six stolen bases is not significant.

Do you disagree?

You still didnt answer.

Do you think the difference in base running value between Trout and Cabrera is small? You've already implied it ("whoopty ****"). Is that what you think?

I said the base-stealing value between Trout and Cabrera is small.  You're the one who made a big deal about stolen bases in the Rickey Henderson vs. Don Mattingly discussion.

I assume that Trout is the better base runner.  I haven't seen any Angels games this year or last.  I'm not sure how to objectively quantify base running independently of base stealing.

I'm sure you have an advanced stat for that.

There is, actually. Base runs above average. Ellsbury leads the baseball with over 11. Trout is fifth with over 7. Cabrera rolls in at 118th with negative 2.7.

Trout is significantly more valuable on the bases.

He's also signigicantly more valuable in the field.

He almost as valuable at bat. Trout is the best player in baseball.

Fair, the difference in stolen bases isn't necessarily a huge deal.  But someone who steals for a great percentage likely is a great baserunner.  Use your own judgement how much you value that.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):
There is, actually. Base runs above average. Ellsbury leads the baseball with over 11. Trout is fifth with over 7. Cabrera rolls in at 118th with negative 2.7.

Trout is significantly more valuable on the bases.

He's also signigicantly more valuable in the field.

He almost as valuable at bat. Trout is the best player in baseball.

Should I ask how that's calculated?  Or will it lead to the UZR discussion we had?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/11/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
An attempted steal can't only be a net positive.  You still need to subtract the decrease in expected runs for every CS.  Don't just quote GAINS from stolen bases unless you're willing to also count MINUSES from caught stealing.

That being said, I would guess Trout's baserunning and fielding plusses outweigh Miggy's OPS advantages.  However, how truly valuable can a player on a third-place team be?  "Oh, Trout is really valuable, the Angels would have finished ONE PLACE LOWER if they didn't have him."

Best hitter - Cabrera
Best player - Trout
Most valuable player - Cabrera

I believe we shouldn't penalize Trout because his team is ******. Two wallets contain money. Wallet A has a $50 bill and several $1 bills. Wallet B has a $20 bill surrounded by $5s. The $50 is still the most valuable bill in either wallet.

This is an idiotic (and faulty) line of reasoning.  If you're valuable, you improve the team.

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/11/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/11/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
An attempted steal can't only be a net positive.  You still need to subtract the decrease in expected runs for every CS.  Don't just quote GAINS from stolen bases unless you're willing to also count MINUSES from caught stealing.

That being said, I would guess Trout's baserunning and fielding plusses outweigh Miggy's OPS advantages.  However, how truly valuable can a player on a third-place team be?  "Oh, Trout is really valuable, the Angels would have finished ONE PLACE LOWER if they didn't have him."

Best hitter - Cabrera
Best player - Trout
Most valuable player - Cabrera

I believe we shouldn't penalize Trout because his team is ******. Two wallets contain money. Wallet A has a $50 bill and several $1 bills. Wallet B has a $20 bill surrounded by $5s. The $50 is still the most valuable bill in either wallet.

This is an idiotic (and faulty) line of reasoning.  If you're valuable, you improve the team.

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

If by improve you mean add wins, I agree. If by improve you mean make other players better, I disagree. Cabrera is valuable because of his production alone. He isn't more valuable if Scherzer also has a great year.