Sure. That's still a great rate.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):This year it's 82%, which is what we're discussing.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):

BTW, Rickey Henderson's career SB success rate is 81%. Trout is at 88% for his (much, much shorter) career.

Do you understand the concept of "marginal value"?Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):You see why that's stupid, right? 5 stolen bases wouldn't be significant but the difference isn't 5. It's 29. You don't calculate the net by only counting the bases stolen above 67%. That's retarded as hell.Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 11:11:00 AM (view original):It's smaller than you give credit for.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 10:25:00 AM (view original):Not as great as last year, but still great. And much, much better than Cabrera. Tec's trying to say that the difference between them is small.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 10:14:00 AM (view original):OK. That's tec's overall point. Trout is not as good a basestealer as last year.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 10:10:00 AM (view original):No, his rate is ****. But he's still net 50.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):

If a guy steals 100 bases and gets caught 50 times, he gets a net 50, according to BL.

Is that better than the guy who doesn't attempt a stolen base?

If the purpose of a stolen base is to give your team a better chance of scoring, then you have to steal at better than a 67% (or thereabout) success rate.

Trout is only 6 steals above that rate. Cabrera is 1 steal above that rate.

6 - 1 = 5

5 stolen bases is hardly significant.

Net stolen bases is calculated by simply subtracting the caught stealing total from the stolen base total. Trout is net 25, Cabrera is net 3.

Or you say Trout has stolen 32 with a 82% success rate and Cabrera has 3 stolen bases with a 100% success rate. This way gives a more complete picture.

Let's try this example:

Player A steals 100 bases and is caught 50 times. Or, in your preferred terms, he's stolen 100 with a 67% success rate.

Player B steals 2 bases and is caught 1 time. Or, in your preferred terms, he's stolen 2 with a 67% success rate.

Over the course of the season, with all else being equal, whose base stealing skills have provided more value to his team?

Are you ******* stupid?Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):Do you understand the concept of "marginal value"?Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):You see why that's stupid, right? 5 stolen bases wouldn't be significant but the difference isn't 5. It's 29. You don't calculate the net by only counting the bases stolen above 67%. That's retarded as hell.Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 11:11:00 AM (view original):It's smaller than you give credit for.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 10:25:00 AM (view original):Not as great as last year, but still great. And much, much better than Cabrera. Tec's trying to say that the difference between them is small.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 10:14:00 AM (view original):OK. That's tec's overall point. Trout is not as good a basestealer as last year.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 10:10:00 AM (view original):No, his rate is ****. But he's still net 50.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):

If a guy steals 100 bases and gets caught 50 times, he gets a net 50, according to BL.

Is that better than the guy who doesn't attempt a stolen base?

If the purpose of a stolen base is to give your team a better chance of scoring, then you have to steal at better than a 67% (or thereabout) success rate.

Trout is only 6 steals above that rate. Cabrera is 1 steal above that rate.

6 - 1 = 5

5 stolen bases is hardly significant.

Net stolen bases is calculated by simply subtracting the caught stealing total from the stolen base total. Trout is net 25, Cabrera is net 3.

Or you say Trout has stolen 32 with a 82% success rate and Cabrera has 3 stolen bases with a 100% success rate. This way gives a more complete picture.

Let's try this example:

Player A steals 100 bases and is caught 50 times. Or, in your preferred terms, he's stolen 100 with a 67% success rate.

Player B steals 2 bases and is caught 1 time. Or, in your preferred terms, he's stolen 2 with a 67% success rate.

Over the course of the season, with all else being equal, whose base stealing skills have provided more value to his team?

The guy who stole 100 bases at the same rate as the guy who stole 2 is WAAAAY more valuable on the base paths.

Retard. Jesus Christ.

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.

Now, in sabermetrics, there is a calculation for runs created by stolen bases:

RC = [ (hits + walks - stolen bases) * (Total Bases + {.55 * Stolen Bases}) / At Bats + Walks

Assuming I didn't muck up the equation of the math, Cabrera's RC with the stolen base effect is 146, and Trout's is 161.

We can also express this per game or as RC/27; for Cabrera this is 5.41 and Trout, 5.96. OF course, since a player averages

about 4.2 at bats, the real effect on average is (RC/27)/4.2, which for Cabrera is 1.29 and for Trout 1.42.

The difference in the stolen base effect can then be determined by comparing Cabrera's and Trout's no-stolen base-adjust RC to their basic RC metric.

For Cabrera, this is 145.6, so the difference in stolen bases for Cabrera is 0.4 RC. For Trout, the effect is 30. That means that at this point in the year, Cabrera has produced 0.4 more runs through steals, while Trout has produced 30 more runs through steals.

As you can see from the stolen base runs created formula, the average base stealing effect is used (.55). This, of course, may vary across players, so that the average may not represent the actual performance of the player.

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

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.

yep.Posted by radlynch on 9/11/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Perhaps another way to look at this is who gives you a greater chance for a runner in scoring position (RISP). In the example, above, Trout (32/39) puts a RISP 32 times -- Cabrera does this 3 times. So in terms of giving your team additional chances to score, Trout is + 29; relative to Cabrera, Trout is 9.67 times more likely to put a RISP. Now, of course, putting a RISP and the probability of the RISP scoring is dependent on the rest of the lineup behind the player. Say, for example, Trout and Cabrera are followed by a .300 hitter in the lineup; the probability of Trout or Cabrera producing a run is a function of stolen bases and the average of the guy behind them. So for Trout, we can say the probability of his stolen base turning into a run scored is 29 * .3 = 8.7; Cabrera's probability would be 3 * .3 = 0.9. SO, while Trout produces a much greater likelihood of scoring, the difference between Trout and Cabrera is 8.7 - 0.9 or 7.8 runs spread out over the course of a year.

Now, in sabermetrics, there is a calculation for runs created by stolen bases:

RC = [ (hits + walks - stolen bases) * (Total Bases + {.55 * Stolen Bases}) / At Bats + Walks

Assuming I didn't muck up the equation of the math, Cabrera's RC with the stolen base effect is 146, and Trout's is 161.

We can also express this per game or as RC/27; for Cabrera this is 5.41 and Trout, 5.96. OF course, since a player averages

about 4.2 at bats, the real effect on average is (RC/27)/4.2, which for Cabrera is 1.29 and for Trout 1.42.

The difference in the stolen base effect can then be determined by comparing Cabrera's and Trout's no-stolen base-adjust RC to their basic RC metric.

For Cabrera, this is 145.6, so the difference in stolen bases for Cabrera is 0.4 RC. For Trout, the effect is 30. That means that at this point in the year, Cabrera has produced 0.4 more runs through steals, while Trout has produced 30 more runs through steals.

As you can see from the stolen base runs created formula, the average base stealing effect is used (.55). This, of course, may vary across players, so that the average may not represent the actual performance of the player.

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 unsuccessful stealing bases; you're basically just as well off doing nothing. Don't eliminate yourself from the base paths.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.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.

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.

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.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):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.Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Still wrong. 32 SB at 82% is significantly more valuable than 3 SB at 100%.Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):Hence the numbers I used for Trout and Cabrera.Posted by burnsy483 on 9/11/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.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

Mostplayer - Cabreravaluable