Valentine's Big Mouth

[User Name]

700' date=' those comments just go over the heads of some of the people here, but the real knowledgeable fans understand that. [/quote']

 

This makes you sound like an elitist ******* and takes away any value the rest of your post may have. No offense meant.

[Palodios]

Farrell is interchangeable with about 10 to 15 other pitching coaches. It's not like he got such great performance out of the very expensive staffs he was given. He never taught his pitchers how to hold runners. They never used a slide step. The fielding of our pitching has also been atrocious. I don't know if the pitching coach is responsible for that' date=' but the pitchers have been awful at fielding their position.[/quote']

 

Just to be clear (since you quoted me there) I'm defending Tito, but I still think Farrell was completely worthless at pitching coach.

[a700hitter]

Just because they didn't hold runners well does that mean that it wasn't a priority of Farrell or Tito? Not that I don't believe you guys, but is there documentation somewhere that says it was actually their philosophy? Please elaborate.

E1, when a scout follows a team for a week maybe two and he puts together a scouting report that says you can run on these guys, their pitchers are slow to the plate don't use a slide step etc., do you think that scout's management asks if he has any documentation of that philosophy? I don't think so. That manager comes to Fenway and runs on the Sox like crazy based on the scouting report. I watch almost every game and I attend about 6 to 10 games every year. In Farrell's entire tenure, I cannot remember even one time a Sox pitcher using a slide step. That shows me that not only wasn't it taught or encouraged, but it was probably discouraged. In 4 years you think someone would have used it just out of pure frustration of our inability to keep runners out of scoring position. In addition to my own observations regarding this issue, I have heard the announcers discuss several times that the Sox did not use the slide step because it changed the pitchers delivery and they would tend to leave their pitches up in the zone out of the slide step delivery. Beyond my observation of more 500 games and my recollection of what the announcers said on several occasions, I have no documentary proof of this philosophy. However, if I were a scout, I would be quite comfortable in telling my team that they wouldn't have to worry about the slide step. I'd also be very comfortable as a scout telling my team that Dice K likes to nibble at the corners and he doesn't attack the zone. I have no documentation of that. I'd also have no problem telling my team that Beckett is completely gassed after 100 pitches and he hangs his curve ball. I don't need documentation for any of this.

[a700hitter]

I have no desire at this point to see Farrell as a future Red Sox manager. I thought he was over rated as a pitching coach. As a manager, he manages his own team's running game in a reckless, borderline irrational manner. I didn't view his approach to his team's running game as merely aggressive or even innovative. It just made no sense at times.

[Elktonnick]

I have no desire at this point to see Farrell as a future Red Sox manager. I thought he was over rated as a pitching coach. As a manager' date=' he manages his own team's running game in a reckless, borderline irrational manner. I didn't view his approach to his team's running game as merely aggressive or even innovative. It just made no sense at times.[/quote']

 

I agree that Farrell was probably over rated as a pitching coach from a technical standpoint. I do thing though his stronger personality kept thebeer and chicken boys somewhat in line. Once he was gone, coupled with Curt Young's type B personality allowed Beckett and Lackey to get clearly out of control.

[a700hitter]

I agree that Farrell was probably over rated as a pitching coach from a technical standpoint. I do thing though his stronger personality kept thebeer and chicken boys somewhat in line. Once he was gone' date=' coupled with Curt Young's type B personality allowed Beckett and Lackey to get clearly out of control.[/quote']Yes, I could see that being a factor. We should get john Cumberland back as the pitching coach. He would eat all the chicken and drink all the beer.

[SoxSport]

I have no desire at this point to see Farrell as a future Red Sox manager. I thought he was over rated as a pitching coach. As a manager' date=' he manages his own team's running game in a reckless, borderline irrational manner. I didn't view his approach to his team's running game as merely aggressive or even innovative. It just made no sense at times.[/quote']

 

I don't know what the big deal is about Farrell. If you read the Globe/Herald, you would think he was responsible for the slide step. One thing is for sure: the Sox had way too many runs scored against them on SBs during his tenure--and also that last coach, Young. Was this deliberate policy originating in the FO? If you read only the papers and the internet, you don't know, because they don't go there. You have to read books to find out that power struggles between the field management and the FO are common. I do think this is an issue in Boston.

Tito was basically a FO guy--he was joined at the hip with Epstein. Both are gone--surprise.Valentine was probably hired to create some distance--or balance maybe. I made the point previously (from Cafardo) that V. hired only one of his coaches, Royster. The rest are holdovers, including Bogart, who will oversee ST this year as bench coach. That should be interesting.

 

correction: The pitching coach, McClure, is not a holdover, but Cafardo says V. hired only Royster.

[Elktonnick]

I don't know what the big deal is about Farrell. If you read the Globe/Herald, you would think he was responsible for the slide step. One thing is for sure: the Sox had way too many runs scored against them on SBs during his tenure--and also that last coach, Young. Was this deliberate policy originating in the FO? If you read only the papers and the internet, you don't know, because they don't go there. You have to read books to find out that power struggles between the field management and the FO are common. I do think this is an issue in Boston.

Tito was basically a FO guy--he was joined at the hip with Epstein. Both are gone--surprise.Valentine was probably hired to create some distance--or balance maybe. I made the point previously (from Cafardo) that V. hired only one of his coaches, Royster. The rest are holdovers, including Bogart, who will oversee ST this year as bench coach. That should be interesting.

 

That last point is why several of us doubt the FO's committment towards real change. It almst like the was some sort of compromise made so LL could get his man BV as manager.

[SoxSport]

That last point is why several of us doubt the FO's committment towards real change. It almst like the was some sort of compromise made so LL could get his man BV as manager.

 

 

It's a balancing act. There's always internal politics. LL/Henry threw Ben under the bus, then dragged him back out by having a Tito holdover, Bogart, as bench coach. Ben has made a couple of good deals, so I guess they are pleased. He could be famous if he could extract King Felix from the Mariners--or even Garza. There is still some question as to whether he can pull off a big Epstein-like deal. Theo clearly has the bigger ego--saw the video last night of him swaggering around outside Cubs Stadium after he was hired--in his preppy garb.

[Elktonnick]

It's a balancing act. There's always internal politics. LL/Henry threw Ben under the bus' date=' then dragged him back out by having a Tito holdover, Bogart, as bench coach. Ben has made a couple of good deals, so I guess they are pleased. He could be famous if he could extract King Felix from the Mariners--or even Garza. There is still some question as to whether he can pull off a big Epstein-like deal. Theo clearly has the bigger ego--saw the video last night of him swaggering around outside Cubs Stadium after he was hired--in his preppy garb. [/quote']

 

Fair assessment. BTW Right on about Theo. In fairness to Ben he doesn't come across nearly as full of himself as Theo.

[SoxSport]

Yes' date=' I could see that being a factor. We should get john Cumberland back as the pitching coach. He would eat all the chicken and drink all the beer.[/quote']

 

I'll bet KFC and a few beer companies can't wait to do Red Sox commercials next year.

[User Name]

You guys read way too much into some of this stuff. It's like "loose change" but about a baseball team.

[example1]

E1' date=' when a scout follows a team for a week maybe two and he puts together a scouting report that says you can run on these guys, their pitchers are slow to the plate don't use a slide step etc., do you think that scout's management asks if he has any documentation of that philosophy? I don't think so. That manager comes to Fenway and runs on the Sox like crazy based on the scouting report. I watch almost every game and I attend about 6 to 10 games every year. In Farrell's entire tenure, I cannot remember even one time a Sox pitcher using a slide step. That shows me that not only wasn't it taught or encouraged, but it was probably discouraged. In 4 years you think someone would have used it just out of pure frustration of our inability to keep runners out of scoring position. In addition to my own observations regarding this issue, I have heard the announcers discuss several times that the Sox did not use the slide step because it changed the pitchers delivery and they would tend to leave their pitches up in the zone out of the slide step delivery. Beyond my observation of more 500 games and my recollection of what the announcers said on several occasions, I have no documentary proof of this philosophy. However, if I were a scout, I would be quite comfortable in telling my team that they wouldn't have to worry about the slide step. I'd also be very comfortable as a scout telling my team that Dice K likes to nibble at the corners and he doesn't attack the zone. I have no documentation of that. I'd also have no problem telling my team that Beckett is completely gassed after 100 pitches and he hangs his curve ball. I don't need documentation for any of this.[/quote']

 

I'm not contesting that they were factually easy to run on. I'm contesting SBFs claim that this is because of Francona and Farrell not caring, or having a philosophy that being run-against doesn't matter.

 

I don't need you to document that Josh Beckett is easier to hit off of after 100 pitches. But you couldn't argue that it was his philosophy to be less effective after 100 pitches, or that the management just didn't care. That's a different argument. That's the problem with jumping into a discussion that isn't about something you said... let SBF back up his own claims and you won't trip over your words or have misguided or irrelevent points--no matter how factually true they are.

 

Also, as far as no slide steps, I just went and watched clips of both Buchholz, Beckett, Lackey and Matsuzaka and saw them all use a slide step with runners on. Not every time, but certainly frequently.

 

Here's the first video I clicked on for Beckett:

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=6705297&c_id=mlb

 

The first pitch from the stretch to Abreu is a slidestep, compared to the non-slidestep near the end of the clip when there are guys on 2nd and 3rd.

 

Matsuzaka:

 

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=6662415&c_id=mlb

 

46 seconds: non slide step

48 seconds: non slide step

52 seconds: slide step (or, greatly increased speed, minimal leg lift delivery)

 

Lackey:

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7857207&c_id=mlb

 

at 25 seconds he clearly uses a slidestep, because the very next clip shows him NOT using a slide step and it is much slower.

 

I know you watch lots of games, but to say that out of the thousands of pitches over the past few years they never used a slidestep seems to be contradicted in every short clip video I watched, and I only watched 3-4.

 

What am I missing here? :dunno:

[jacksonianmarch]

A minimal leg lift delivery is not a slidestep. A slide step is a no leg lift delivery. Regardless, the sox have always been known as a team that focuses on the hitter and the running game be damned. That philosophy is usually productive since losing the hitter but keeping the runner from stealing puts 2 guys on instead of 1

[User Name]

Slide-step pitching usually makes the pitcher lose some velocity, bite and location on his pitches too. You can control the running game without having to slide-step.

[example1]

A minimal leg lift delivery is not a slidestep. A slide step is a no leg lift delivery. Regardless' date=' the sox have always been known as a team that focuses on the hitter and the running game be damned. That philosophy is usually productive since losing the hitter but keeping the runner from stealing puts 2 guys on instead of 1[/quote']

 

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12874621&c_id=mlb

 

Here's a clip of CC's slidestep. He still lifts his leg, he just does it while moving toward the plate. Beckett and Buchholz's moves may be slightly slower, but not by much.

 

If the Sox truly have a philosophy about not caring about the running game, their pitchers wouldn't speed up their deliveries from the stretch. There are clearly examples of them changing their deliveries from the stretch, therefore, it appears they care about the running game at least a little bit.

 

This is all based on SBFs claim that their philopshy is stolen bases "weren't a big thing to worry about". It's not that they disregarded them. They just prioritized focusing on the batter.

[example1]

A minimal leg lift delivery is not a slidestep. A slide step is a no leg lift delivery. Regardless' date=' the sox have always been known as a team that focuses on the hitter and the running game be damned. That philosophy is usually productive since losing the hitter but keeping the runner from stealing puts 2 guys on instead of 1[/quote']

 

Also, what's a non-slide-step, non-full-leg kick delivery called? Just for my knowledge...

[jacksonianmarch]

a shortened delivery. A slide step is no leg kick at all by definition

[example1]

a shortened delivery. A slide step is no leg kick at all by definition

 

I saw it called "knee to knee" or "abbreviated slide-step" on a pitching mechanics website.

 

I would say that's what the Sox do when they want a faster delivery with guys on base. THey don't do it every time, however, which tells me they see situations where delivering more quickly is important and others where it isn't... hence there isn't an overall philsophy to never care about baserunners.

 

Interestingly, the site recommends "never" doing a slidestep, due to loss of velocity and taxing the arm.

 

Probably not something CC has to worry about as much as a guy like Buchholz. He's a big dude.

[a700hitter]

E1, I don't know what point you are trying to make. Let's assume that the Red Sox coaches and management flat out deny any philosophy to ignore the running game, how do you explain the fact that they are at or near the bottom of the league every year in controlling the running game? Is you your explanation to throw it off all on Wakefield, because I think we are still below average or near the bottom if Wakefield is taken out of the equation? Where does the blame lie? Are Sox pitchers and catchers just incapable of controlling the running game? Do we face faster runners than other teams face? You are arguing whether or not they have a formal philosophy to disregard the running game or whether a modified leg kick is a slidestep, but assume you are right about those things (and I am making no admission in this regard), what is your explanation of the consistently putrid results in controlling the running game? IMO it still comes back to the coaching.

[example1]

E1' date=' I don't know what point you are trying to make. Let's assume that the Red Sox coaches and management flat out deny any philosophy to ignore the running game, how do you explain the fact that they are at or near the bottom of the league every year in controlling the running game? Is you your explanation to throw it off all on Wakefield, because I think we are still below average or near the bottom if Wakefield is taken out of the equation? Where does the blame lie? Are Sox pitchers and catchers just incapable of controlling the running game? Do we face faster runners than other teams face? You are arguing whether or not they have a formal philosophy to disregard the running game or whether a modified leg kick is a slidestep, but assume you are right about those things (and I am making no admission in this regard), what is your explanation of the consistently putrid results in controlling the running game? IMO it still comes back to the coaching.[/quote']

 

It might come back to coaching. My point--in this argument that wasn't with you--is that it wasn't that they didn't care about stolen bases. If they didn't care about SBs they wouldn't even have their catchers throw down to 2B (they did). They wouldn't change their delivery from the stretch (they do), etc., It was a response to SBFs absolutist claim about some grand "philosophy" to disregard SBs, rather than phrasing it as them prioritizing pitchers focusing on the batter.

 

Also, they have also had catchers who are much more focused on offensive production than defensive skill, and for most of that time they have had the same catcher in Jason Varitek, who has averaged 127 games since 2002.

 

If you don't like the nitpicky nature of the discussion, don't enter it. I wasn't responding to you in the first place.

[a700hitter]

It might come back to coaching. My point--in this argument that wasn't with you--is that it wasn't that they didn't care about stolen bases. If they didn't care about SBs they wouldn't even have their catchers throw down to 2B (they did). They wouldn't change their delivery from the stretch (they do), etc., It was a response to SBFs absolutist claim about some grand "philosophy" to disregard SBs, rather than phrasing it as them prioritizing pitchers focusing on the batter.

 

Also, they have also had catchers who are much more focused on offensive production than defensive skill, and for most of that time they have had the same catcher in Jason Varitek, who has averaged 127 games since 2002.

 

If you don't like the nitpicky nature of the discussion, don't enter it. I wasn't responding to you in the first place.

I think it comes down to coaching in large part and after so many seasons of futility I am convinced that it was not a big priority for the coaching staff. The true slide step does compromise the quality of the pitch, but what it does is that it puts it in the head of the baserunner that he might have a lot less time in his attempt the steal. Opposing runners just need their 1st base coach to put the stop watch on our pitchers for a couple of pitches and he knows exactly how much time he has.

 

I can't view those videos at work, but I would be surprised to see any slide step by any Sox pitcher. My recollection is that Remy has mentioned several times over the years that the Sox don't like using it.

 

BTW: I was the one who brought up the issue of the coaches neglecting opposing runners. I didn't enter the discussion. I started it. I don't mind nit picky. However, even if you prove there is no formal philosophy of base runner neglect, you still come back to coaching inadequacy as the most likely explanation for consistent horrible performance in this aspect of the game. So, what are you winning in your argument... are you proving sloppiness and laziness over poor strategy as the reason? Either way, I want nothing to do with farrell as a future manager. He manages his current team's running game in reckless manner, and he has done nothing to impress me as being managerial timbre.

[a700hitter]

Here's a portion of a poorly transcribed transcript of an interview with Merloni and McAdam. They mention that Farrell and Tito had a philosophy of discouraging the slide step.

 

http://www.csnne.com/sportsnetNewEngland/search/v/38788028/sports-sunday-sox-angels-preview.htm

 

Shot to think that the Red Sox pitchers are doing things differently don't -- I don't I don't they're gonna continue that same philosophy. They may try to hold the ball a little bit they may try to give different looks they may try to make it difficult to get a good jump I don't believe. There all the sudden going to be pulled the slide step. The philosophy that quote John Farrell's Terry Francona have is. Don't sacrifice the quality of the pitches. To give -- to give the catcher a better shot at throwing guys out and it all starts with his -- keep them off base in the first place -- also. I also wonder if the Angels don't ease up a little bit on there sometimes over aggressiveness they ran into outs the last few times these teams met in October may be Mike Scioscia pulls in the rings a little --

 

Another negative remark about the slide step indicating Red Sox philosophy:

 

Why not hold him closer?

 

"There were three different reasons -- who's running, who's pitching, giving up a hole (in the infield defense)," said Boston manager Terry Francona.

 

Francona said the only chance to throw out Gomez would have been for Papelbon to use the slide-step, and he didn't want Papelbon doing that for fear it would hinder his stuff and location.

 

http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/2008/05/twins-7-red-sox-1.html#.TwdZIFaWmdE

 

Pitching coach John Farrell remarked that part of Jon Lester's problem (8.44 ERA) has been hurrying his delivery with the slide step, resulting in a flattening-out of his pitches.

There’s multiple reasons for the adjustment in the rotation," Farrell said. "An additional side with Josh to reinforce, particularly out of the stretch, him getting back to a proper balance point and not getting his delivery too spread out to where he loses a downhill plane to his fastball. When he gets into a proper position, his curveball is less readable by an opposing hitter. Part of this is a constant use of the slide step that can cause some of the habits that we’re trying to recorrect here."

 

They hated the slide step. If pitchers used it, they tried to get them to stop.

[Palodios]

Here's a portion of a poorly transcribed transcript of an interview with Merloni and McAdam. They mention that Farrell and Tito had a philosophy of discouraging the slide step.

 

http://www.csnne.com/sportsnetNewEngland/search/v/38788028/sports-sunday-sox-angels-preview.htm

 

Another negative remark about the slide step indicating Red Sox philosophy:

 

http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/2008/05/twins-7-red-sox-1.html#.TwdZIFaWmdE

 

They hated the slide step. If pitchers used it, they tried to get them to stop.

 

Why didn't you bring this up all those times I've spoken about how incredibly incompetent Farrell was?

[SCM33]

The whole issue of not using a slide step began WAY before Tito and Farrell.

 

Joe Kerrigan was strongly against it.

 

Maybe the Red Sox will do something different tonight against the White Sox at Fenway Park. Maybe they'll try the slide step to try to curtail teams from getting bigger leads and good jumps to steal bases.

 

The Red Sox were last in the majors in throwing out runners (28 of 164, 17.1 percent) through Wednesday. They also led the majors in stolen bases allowed (136).

 

But pitching coach Joe Kerrigan is not an advocate of the slide step. He doesn't want it to interfere with his pitchers' normal motions and fears injuries may occur.

 

The ``Go Go'' White Sox were 7-for-7 in stolen base tries Sunday against the Red Sox. Catcher Scott Hatteberg has a tough enough time trying to get an accurate throw to second (he's throwing out 7.7 percent, 6 of 78). Having his pitchers disdain the slide step helps make running on the Red Sox as easy as, ready, set, go.

 

http://articles.courant.com/2001-07-27/features/0107271414_1_lester-erwin-black-betsy-bat/2

 

(from 2001)

[seabeachfred]

Hey guys, my opinion was NOT based on any absolutist beliefs. I've read over the years that the Red Sox stressed pitching to the batter and not worrying so much about the runners. The problem comes in when you have pitchers whose delivery to home plate is slower than normal. A slide step could throw a pitcher off but if he practices it there shouldn't be much of a dropoff in effectiveness. In my coaching days I always taught both the slide step and the modified short kick delivery. The key is to keep runners out of scoring position, and, yes, you don't have to put the on in the first place but that is better said than done. If amateur pitchers can pick up those variations so should well paid and more athletic and talented Major Leaguers. Besides, as 700 pointed out, for years we have been near the bottom in the league at throwing out runners. Those deficiencies can show up over a long season and could cost us games that me might otherwise win. I hope Valentine decides to work better at keeping those damn opposing runners from having a track meet at our expense. Didn't someone steal seven or eight bases on us in one game a couple of years ago? No excuse for that, but none whatever.

[SoxSport]

Hey guys' date=' my opinion was NOT based on any absolutist beliefs. I've read over the years that the Red Sox stressed pitching to the batter and not worrying so much about the runners. The problem comes in when you have pitchers whose delivery to home plate is slower than normal. A slide step could throw a pitcher off but if he practices it there shouldn't be much of a dropoff in effectiveness. In my coaching days I always taught both the slide step and the modified short kick delivery. The key is to keep runners out of scoring position, and, yes, you don't have to put the on in the first place but that is better said than done. If amateur pitchers can pick up those variations so should well paid and more athletic and talented Major Leaguers. Besides, as 700 pointed out, for years we have been near the bottom in the league at throwing out runners. Those deficiencies can show up over a long season and could cost us games that me might otherwise win. I hope Valentine decides to work better at keeping those damn opposing runners from having a track meet at our expense. Didn't someone steal seven or eight bases on us in one game a couple of years ago? No excuse for that, but none whatever.[/quote']

 

Last year, opposing teams stole 312 bases against the Red Sox on 412 attempts. That's a 76% success rate. The Red Sox, with three major basestealers (Pedey, CC, Ells), stole only 102 bases on 144 attempts, for a 71% success rate. According to sabermetrics, that amounts to a net 28 runs allowed by the Sox due to SBs, which is about 20% of the total net run difference (+138) between the Red Sox and the opposition. Significant numbers.

 

The acquisition of Shoppach, who is good at throwing out runners, is a signal the FO is aware of the problem. Last year, CC stole 18 bases. This year, look for him to steal at least 3 times that number, batting 1 or 2, with Valentine as manager. That was another part of the problem. Tito/Epstein ran a team poor on fundamentals. You can bet V. was brought in here to change that.

[a700hitter]

Hey guys' date=' my opinion was NOT based on any absolutist beliefs. I've read over the years that the Red Sox stressed pitching to the batter and not worrying so much about the runners. The problem comes in when you have pitchers whose delivery to home plate is slower than normal. A slide step could throw a pitcher off but if he practices it there shouldn't be much of a dropoff in effectiveness. In my coaching days I always taught both the slide step and the modified short kick delivery. The key is to keep runners out of scoring position, and, yes, you don't have to put the on in the first place but that is better said than done. If amateur pitchers can pick up those variations so should well paid and more athletic and talented Major Leaguers. Besides, as 700 pointed out, for years we have been near the bottom in the league at throwing out runners. Those deficiencies can show up over a long season and could cost us games that me might otherwise win. I hope Valentine decides to work better at keeping those damn opposing runners from having a track meet at our expense. Didn't someone steal seven or eight bases on us in one game a couple of years ago? No excuse for that, but none whatever.[/quote']The philosophy was not only obvious to observers of the game, but it was stated repeatedly on the airwaves and in print by the media and coaching staff alike.

[Elktonnick]

The philosophy was not only obvious to observers of the game' date=' but it was stated repeatedly on the airwaves and in print by the media and coaching staff alike.[/quote']

 

It is an outgrowth of the sabermetric approach to the game. They use the 66% figure as the break even point. Here is just one article on the subject. This article uses a 75% figure but analysis of the data for the last few years suggsts a 66% figure.

 

The Value of the Stolen Base: A Comparison of MLB and NCAA Division I Baseball

By Mike Current and Chad McEvoy

 

Over the years there has been a great deal of debate amongst baseball insiders and fans over the value of the stolen base. Some, such as longtime Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver, have argued that the stolen base is rarely worth the risk. Others, however, view the stolen base as a valuable means of applying pressure to the opposing team's defense. The question is: Which side is right?

 

Most past research on the stolen base seems to side with Weaver. Using data from Major League Baseball, researchers have found that stealing at less than a 75% success rate is detrimental to success. Joe Sheehan explains in Baseball Prospectus Basics: Stolen Bases and How to Use Them that when considering stolen bases, one must consider both the cost and the benefit. Therefore, the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high because outs are more valuable than bases in nearly every instance. For example, the Run Expectancy Matrix created by Baseball Prospectus reveals that a runner on first base with no one out is worth approximately 0.864 runs. A successful steal of second base would raise that figure to 1.173. However, a failed stolen base attempt drops that number to 0.270. In this example, the loss is nearly two times the gain.

 

In the same article, Sheehan also suggests that the secondary effects of base-stealing, such as putting pressure on the opposing pitcher and defense, do not exist. In fact, he goes as far as to suggest that a runner at first base is more disruptive to the defense than a runner at second base, simply because the first baseman must hold the runner on and the middle infielders are forced to cheat toward second base to have a chance at a double play.

 

I believe that Bill James himself has written that the value of stolen bases is over rated.

[a700hitter]

It is an outgrowth of the sabermetric approach to the game. They use the 66% figure as the break even point. Here is just one article on the subject. This article uses a 75% figure but analysis of the data for the last few years suggsts a 66% figure.

 

The Value of the Stolen Base: A Comparison of MLB and NCAA Division I Baseball

By Mike Current and Chad McEvoy

 

Over the years there has been a great deal of debate amongst baseball insiders and fans over the value of the stolen base. Some, such as longtime Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver, have argued that the stolen base is rarely worth the risk. Others, however, view the stolen base as a valuable means of applying pressure to the opposing team's defense. The question is: Which side is right?

 

Most past research on the stolen base seems to side with Weaver. Using data from Major League Baseball, researchers have found that stealing at less than a 75% success rate is detrimental to success. Joe Sheehan explains in Baseball Prospectus Basics: Stolen Bases and How to Use Them that when considering stolen bases, one must consider both the cost and the benefit. Therefore, the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high because outs are more valuable than bases in nearly every instance. For example, the Run Expectancy Matrix created by Baseball Prospectus reveals that a runner on first base with no one out is worth approximately 0.864 runs. A successful steal of second base would raise that figure to 1.173. However, a failed stolen base attempt drops that number to 0.270. In this example, the loss is nearly two times the gain.

 

In the same article, Sheehan also suggests that the secondary effects of base-stealing, such as putting pressure on the opposing pitcher and defense, do not exist. In fact, he goes as far as to suggest that a runner at first base is more disruptive to the defense than a runner at second base, simply because the first baseman must hold the runner on and the middle infielders are forced to cheat toward second base to have a chance at a double play.

 

I believe that Bill James himself has written that the value of stolen bases is over rated.

And Bill James works for the Sox.

 

The mistake that the Sox have made is that the point of the statistical studies was that stolen bases are not a very valuable offensive weapon. Part of the reason why was because of the risk of getting thrown out and losing a base runner. Those results of those studies would be quite different if you virtually eliminated the risk of being thrown out. The Red Sox perverted the results of those studies by applying it to the defensive strategy de-emphasizing the importance of controlling the running game. By lowering the risk of throwing out opposing runners, stealing ases became a very viable and valuable strategy for beating the Red Sox. One of the dangers of arming baseball coaches and managers with advanced statistics is that they are not a very intelligent group, and they are likely to misuse them. It's kind of like letting a chimp fly a fighter jet.