Tim McCarver said what?!?!

[DaddyTorgo]

no no...i agree with the batting-average thing. And that's a correlation that's obvious.

But the connection between say...him stealing a base in the first inning and the mets winning 12-2 isn't.

there's less correlation in the "he steals a base and the mets win" thing. Because a single steal is such an isolated event in the context of a ballgame.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

no no...i agree with the batting-average thing. And that's a correlation that's obvious.

But the connection between say...him stealing a base in the first inning and the mets winning 12-2 isn't.

there's less correlation in the "he steals a base and the mets win" thing. Because a single steal is such an isolated event in the context of a ballgame.

I completely disagree with this.

You could just as easily turn it around and say Ramirez went 3-4 tonight but the Marlins won 7-1 so they didn't need his 3 hits.

[Lathum]

dola=
this argument just illustrates the beauty of baseball

[DaddyTorgo]

lol true that.

although I suppose you could run a r-squared thing on it to get a coefficient of correlation if you gathered a ton of data points.

but I frankly don't care enough to do that

[DaddyTorgo]

I care enough to google though

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/spor...NOT_STEAL.html
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1333246.html

quick point though: The reality is that over baseball history there is a negative correlation between stolen bases and run scoring . Stolen bases may be exciting, but only about 25 players in history have added at least 5 wins to their teams with stolen bases over their careers. Stolen bases have fallen in popularity because they don't win baseball games

You can see the correlations of stolen bases and other stats to runs at http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/200...-ballpark.html

The values of stolen bases during players careers comes from the 2007 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Lathum

For once I agree with McCarver

OK, I can live with the Reyes worship. He's a terrific player and is having a fantastic year. He's a sensational young baseball player. I can even live with the MVP candidate thing. He's been that good.

But. . .

1) I'd imagine anytime a good leadoff hitter gets on base and is able to steal a base, his team has a pretty damned good chance to win the game. The Rockies have a winning percentage of 67% when Kaz Matsui gets on and steals a base. When he doesn't, they win about 48% of their games.

2) Reyes has a long, long way to go before we need to start comparing him to one of the ten best players of the last 50 years. That's a hell of a lot of hall of famers to go through. I won't put ANY 24 year old in that category. Let's see how he ages and watch him rack up numbers before we start comparing him with the all time greats. (and there's where I think you're nuts Latham, Tim is NOT right in that regard. He wants to PREDICT he'll be one of the top ten when we look back on his career? Fine. To say it as fact now? Ridiculous)

3) It's great to have so many talented young SS again. After the Jeter, A-Rod, Nomar grouping it seemed to die down for a few years with just the occasional star popping up. Now we have Reyes, Ramirez, Tulowitzki and Hardy all 25 or under. All have different skillsets and are a blast to watch play. I'm not putting any of em in the top 10 of the last 50 years though.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by TroyF

(and there's where I think you're nuts Latham, Tim is NOT right in that regard. He wants to PREDICT he'll be one of the top ten when we look back on his career? Fine. To say it as fact now? Ridiculous)

I was being sarcastic

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You could just as easily turn it around and say Ramirez went 3-4 tonight but the Marlins won 7-1 so they didn't need his 3 hits.

:shrug: They may not have. On the other hand, one base is qualitatively much different than three fewer outs, three hits, and five bases.

Could a team that won their game 7-1 still win that game with their shortstop going 0-4 rather than 3-4? Sure. Could those three hits have been the difference makers? Sure.

Could a team that wins 12-2 still wn their game without a stolen base in the first? Sure. Could that stolen base have been the difference maker? Maaaaaybe...once in fifty years.

So, yeah, you could turn it around if you wanted to. I wouldn't.

[Shkspr]

Speaking of running stat checks, I'd bet that the David Wright tidbit, if it still held up through the current point of the season, would be about 2.5 standard deviations above the norm. I don't know if having Reyes on base is worth more than about 5-8 runs a season to Wright's numbers, but it does look like there might be a small benefit. I'd still want more data to be sure.

[rkmsuf]

Tim McCarver is only rivaled by David Beckham and Chuck Norris.

And there is a big gap to #4.

[JS19]

I have to agree with Logan and Lathum here. It's already been said, but it's something you have to see on a regular basis. It's not only his stats, but when this guy is on base you see pitchers rush their deliveries to the plate, the guys the plate seem to get more fastballs, pitchers seem to worry more about Reyes on base they don't pitch Beltran or Wright how they probably should. Also, when he's batting, fielders rush there throws more often which result in errors that shuldn't have been made. There are many things he brings to the table that change the game that don't show up in the stats.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JS19

I have to agree with Logan and Lathum here. It's already been said, but it's something you have to see on a regular basis. It's not only his stats, but when this guy is on base you see pitchers rush their deliveries to the plate, the guys the plate seem to get more fastballs, pitchers seem to worry more about Reyes on base they don't pitch Beltran or Wright how they probably should. Also, when he's batting, fielders rush there throws more often which result in errors that shuldn't have been made. There are many things he brings to the table that change the game that don't show up in the stats.

And that makes all 3 of you wrong. The "you have to see it on a basis" crowd doesn't recognize the bias of anecdotal evidence over unbiased data - by your own accounts, none of you see Hanley Ramirez play all that often. Reyes is a very good player - all that these cliches do is unfairly diminish the case for him. Study after study has shown the effect of SB on a runner is limited, at best.

In fact, here's a good summary about SB's in general - Sheehan makes the point that the vaunted effects don't really seem to exist.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2607



Do I think Reyes has an impact? Absolutely. But what will make him a great player is an increase of that OBP to the .400/.420 levels, not stealing a 100 bases at a 70% clip.

[Crapshoot]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...gibles-part-2/

A wonderful look at the SB "intangibles" effect overall.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola=
this argument just illustrates the beauty of baseball

It makes me want to argue about how the 3B with the most errors in the NL(last I checked but mlb.com is loading very slowly for me right now) is one of the greatest defensive 3B to come up in many years.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Tim McCarver is only rivaled by David Beckham and Chuck Norris.

And there is a big gap to #4.

You must research Terry Tate and Alexyss Tylor. I'd take either over Beckham (even with a run-in by his wife).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JS19

I have to agree with Logan and Lathum here. It's already been said, but it's something you have to see on a regular basis. It's not only his stats, but when this guy is on base you see pitchers rush their deliveries to the plate, the guys the plate seem to get more fastballs, pitchers seem to worry more about Reyes on base they don't pitch Beltran or Wright how they probably should. Also, when he's batting, fielders rush there throws more often which result in errors that shuldn't have been made. There are many things he brings to the table that change the game that don't show up in the stats.

I really don't understand arguments like this. What good is this supposed "effect" if it doesn't translate to significantly more hits/runs than in normal situations? It seems to me that these pitchers who you see pissing their pants because Reyes is hopping around the bases like the Road Runner somehow manage to recover and get a similar outcome.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I really don't understand arguments like this. What good is this supposed "effect" if it doesn't translate to significantly more hits/runs than in normal situations? It seems to me that these pitchers who you see pissing their pants because Reyes is hopping around the bases like the Road Runner somehow manage to recover and get a similar outcome.

that's wrong and that is what we've been saying. As Reyes goes so go the Mets

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Lathum

that's wrong and that is what we've been saying. As Reyes goes so go the Mets

Dude, look at the studies above. You can argue that this effect exists till the sky is blue - it won't change reality. Reyes is a very good player, and the Mets are very dependent on him. Offensively though, Reyes is probably the 2nd best player on the team these days behind David Wright, and probably generates runs at Beltran's pace.

[JS19]

Don't get me wrong, I think Ramirez is a great player and has lots to offer. I'm just not a "numbers" guy. I've been in many discussions on this board that go nowhere bc i dont care so much about stats and other guys swear by them. For example, I remember there was a "clutch" discussion and I argued in '99, if game 7 of the World Series was on the line, I would want Olerud batting. If you look at the numbers, sure Olerud had a good line, however, it wasn't an ARod type line, but I would want Olerud batting nontheless bc he always came through when it mattered that yr, and I can say the same for Alfonzo. Reyes is similar this yr. There have been many games, between this yr and last, where I would say to myself "if Reyes didn't do this or that", things that don't always show up in the boxscore, the Mets probably wouldn't have won.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

that's wrong and that is what we've been saying. As Reyes goes so go the Mets

Except the post I was responding to said that stats shouldn't matter, so whatever "we" was saying was certainly not the same as what he was saying.

[John Galt]

Crapshoot has won this argument hands down.

And to show the futility of the "you have to watch him everyday" crap, I have watched Reyes a ton living in NYC (live and on TV). I don't think he completely changes the game (anymore than any other really good player). And since I watch him all the time, I can't possibly be wrong.

I probably think the gap between Ramirez and Reyes is less than Crapshoot (I think the defensive gap is larger and more important), but arguing that Reyes is this revolutionary, MVP-caliber player who is one of the top players of the last 50 years is crazy-talk. Reyes may yet be worthy of an MVP (as he has developed so much in the last two years), but right now he still has to improve (or at least regain his power stroke).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Crapshoot has won this argument hands down.

And to show the futility of the "you have to watch him everyday" crap, I have watched Reyes a ton living in NYC (live and on TV). I don't think he completely changes the game (anymore than any other really good player). And since I watch him all the time, I can't possibly be wrong.

I probably think the gap between Ramirez and Reyes is less than Crapshoot (I think the defensive gap is larger and more important), but arguing that Reyes is this revolutionary, MVP-caliber player who is one of the top players of the last 50 years is crazy-talk. Reyes may yet be worthy of an MVP (as he has developed so much in the last two years), but right now he still has to improve (or at least regain his power stroke).

There isn't one person besides Tim McCarver saying this (outside of the MVP-caliber part), so please get that right.

Crapshoot, those studies you cite won't be able to convince me that Jose Reyes does not do things to aid his team in ways that other guys don't. Yes, the statistics that you show might say exactly that...but these are statistics based on X number of years, analyzing Y number of players. As a result, you're going to have some base-stealers that create more runs than the average guy, some base-stealers that create fewer runs than the average guy, and a whole boatload of guys who are somewhere in the middle. We're not arguing whether stealing bases is historically beneficial or not; rather, we're arguing that Jose Reyes stealing bases, and his other patterns on the basepaths, are beneficial. My point is, just because 500 players that are studied average out to adding 0.23 (or whatever) more wins than the typical guy doesn't mean that Jose Reyes doesn't add more than that.

I don't know how to calculate these things. But I know that when Jose Reyes is dancing off of 3rd base, faking breaks to the plate and the pitcher balks him in as the tying and winning runs, that's a stat I can't find anywhere.

[lordscarlet]

I need to find a crazy quote for someone to take my bait.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

quick point though: The reality is that over baseball history there is a negative correlation between stolen bases and run scoring . Stolen bases may be exciting, but only about 25 players in history have added at least 5 wins to their teams with stolen bases over their careers. Stolen bases have fallen in popularity because they don't win baseball games

I think you're getting cause and effect backwards. Stolen bases have historically been popular in eras where offense (particularly HR totals) are low, and unpopular when HR totals are high. If there is a big drop in HR totals, the popularity of the stolen base will return because that changes the risk/reward equation.

As for the sabremetric analysis of the stolen base - aside from the above problem in which I believe the sabremetrists have the independent and dependent variables backwards in their analysis - the value of a stolen base is highly situational. I'm not particularly impressed with analyses that don't recognize this fact. The Boston Red Sox, for example, probably don't make it to the 2004 World Series without a key Dave Roberts stolen base at the right time. How valuable was it on that night? To say that there are only 25 players who added 5 wins to their teams with the stolen base over their careers - I just don't believe that. I think the math is misleading.

As for Reyes, he's on his way to being a great player. But right now, he's not one of the 10 best active players, let alone one of the 10 best players of the last 50 years.

[SFL Cat]

Except on defense, I'd put Ramirez up against Reyes any day of the week.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Except on defense, I'd put Ramirez up against Reyes any day of the week.

Well it's a good thing defense isn't important for a shortstop

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Logan

Crapshoot, those studies you cite won't be able to convince me that Jose Reyes does not do things to aid his team in ways that other guys don't. Yes, the statistics that you show might say exactly that...but these are statistics based on X number of years, analyzing Y number of players. As a result, you're going to have some base-stealers that create more runs than the average guy, some base-stealers that create fewer runs than the average guy, and a whole boatload of guys who are somewhere in the middle. We're not arguing whether stealing bases is historically beneficial or not; rather, we're arguing that Jose Reyes stealing bases, and his other patterns on the basepaths, are beneficial. My point is, just because 500 players that are studied average out to adding 0.23 (or whatever) more wins than the typical guy doesn't mean that Jose Reyes doesn't add more than that.

This sounds an awful lot like "There's a lot of statistics about a lot of players but they don't apply to my player"

SI

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This sounds an awful lot like "There's a lot of statistics about a lot of players but they don't apply to my player"

SI

Or you could try to refute what I said. Again, Crapshoot is citing historical studies that are attempting to judge whether it is historically beneficial to steal bases. Whatever the conclusion of said study is has absolutely no bearing on whether Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, John Olerud, Manny Ramirez, etc have individually benefitted or hurt their teams due to their baserunning. If such a study were done, that would be fantastic.

When you have a statistical study, there are guys around the mean and there are others who are standard deviations away from it. That's a fact. These players who are above the mean are obviously aiding their teams in ways that the guys below the mean aren't. That is exactly what this study is saying. Why couldn't Reyes be one of those guys?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Logan

Or you could try to refute what I said. Again, Crapshoot is citing historical studies that are attempting to judge whether it is historically beneficial to steal bases. Whatever the conclusion of said study is has absolutely no bearing on whether Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, John Olerud, Manny Ramirez, etc have individually benefitted or hurt their teams due to their baserunning. If such a study were done, that would be fantastic.

When you have a statistical study, there are guys around the mean and there are others who are standard deviations away from it. That's a fact. These players who are above the mean are obviously aiding their teams in ways that the guys below the mean aren't. That is exactly what this study is saying. Why couldn't Reyes be one of those guys?

but the point that you are missing is that in this study, even the relatively small # of guys at the far end of the curve positively have a hard time contributing more than say...5 runs over the course of their career like i cited.

the studies do cite the outliers on the positive side. and sure reyes may be one of those...crapshoot + my's point is that even those outliers are not successful in a statistically significant way (figure 5 wins out of an average-length career for a non-scrub/solid ML player which is how many games?)