Interesting Debate

by slickwdb on Apr 8, 2006 9:27 AM EDT

This may be of no interest to anyone or it may stir great debate.

My friends and I were looking at the 2005 stolen base leaders - for this debate -

Figgins, Podsednik, Pierre, Crawford, Reyes and guys like that.

My feeling was that these guys could and would steal 40+ bases regardless of what team they played for.

My other friend said that most of these guys would struggle to 30 if they played for the Oakland A's or any other non-running team.

While I think that coaching philosophy can affect a players production - what are the thoughts of the group?

And for anyone thinking this is fantasy slanted - it is not - we were going through statistical leaders from the last 20 years while watching the NCAA Final Four last weekend.

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Its true

Here in Boston I wish I had a nickel everytime a speed guy came here and his stolen base production would PLUMMET, Johnny Damon was about the best we had speed wise and from the time he got here to the time he left, he ran much less (granted there is a little age factor involved) but its the team philosphy, play for the 3 run homer and not run into outs.

I think the guys you mentioned would get their 30 sbs but it wouldnt be a cake walk.

by goalieguy on Apr 8, 2006 9:57 AM EDT reply actions

Team Philosophy Paramount

Your friend is correct. For example, Mike Scioscia encourages Figgins to run. But if Figgins played for the A's, a team that doesn't believe in the stolen base, he'd be hard pressed to steal 15 bags.

by Crows Landing on Apr 8, 2006 10:08 AM EDT reply actions

I never draft/auction

players who have any "speed" value if they play for Tornto, Boston or Oakland. They don't steal like they could.

The A's have a guy in the minors who looks pretty good who stole around 22 bases last year (I forgot his name) but I would never draft him because part of his value will never be realized.

Having Carl Crawford or Chone Figgins on one of the teams above would be a waste of talent.

by stjp5 on Apr 8, 2006 10:43 AM EDT reply actions

Let's get one thing straight

It's not that the A's don't believe in the stolen base, it's that they don't believe in giving away outs. If you steal bases at a successful enough clip, they'll let you do what you want. I'm under the impression that number is about 77% or so. if you can steal bases at a clip higher than 77%, then you are actually directly adding to your team's run scoring. Anything less and you're giving away too many outs.

But it's not that they don't believe in it, that's just false and more "Joe Morgan-ism"

by Jgaztambide on Apr 8, 2006 10:51 AM EDT reply actions

77%

How many basestealers have ever consistently stolen >= 77%? That's right, almost nobody. If you set the bar that high, you are essentially saying you don't want your players stealing, period. More reasonable people put the over/under at more like 67%.

There's more than one right way to build a team. You can go pitching + OBP/Power or pitching + speed/power. You could also probably do pitching + OBP/speed. Notice any common denominators here?

by DrBGiantsfan on Apr 8, 2006 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

common denominator

the plus sign?

by gogotabata on Apr 8, 2006 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions

no

No, I think he meant the /.

by Brian38 @ Minor League Ball on Apr 8, 2006 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

well

"How many basestealers have ever consistently stolen >= 77%? "
Carl Crawford can.

And at the minor league level, it appears that Marcus Sanders can.

Some guys can do it. More importantly, I think, is that teams like Oakland only allow their runners to run in certain situations; when the costs of a CS are relatively low and the benefits of the extra base are high. I don't think any managers actually rely on the 77% (or whatever it is these days) success rate threshold. It's just about limiting the SB attempts to situations in which it's most likely to help the team.

by FI @ Minor League Ball on Apr 8, 2006 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

beltran & jeter

are among the most accurate basestealers in history. i believe beltran was even #1 until last year (maybe he still is).

by jpahk on Apr 8, 2006 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

concur on that

and watching some of the first couple of games vs the yankees, we saw them give away outs a few times with sac bunts

by SoCalSoxFan on Apr 8, 2006 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

The 77% figure...

Is a bit high. I believe the "break-even" number is 70%.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Apr 8, 2006 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Player Selection

Those players would not steal bases on Oakland, Boston or Toronto.

But neither would those teams try to acquire those players.

The A's oved to a defense-focused offense over the last couple seasons and the Red Sox are in the midst of doing the same. Toronto is not close yet, but the management is the least capable amongst the three teams.

Do not be surprised to see the A's move towards speed in a year or two after the rest of the league thoroughly devalues it.

The oakland philosophy is to take advantage of whatever market inefficiences exist, and at this point, they are the leaders so they can now set the pace and make others copy them. Once the other teams do that, Oakland can shift to a different philosophy that exploits the new inefficiencies.

by ephinz on Apr 8, 2006 11:08 AM EDT reply actions

See my comment below

But - Oakland is a winner, yes, but leader, no!

Making the playoffs does not equal leader, it means contender - the Yankees, White Sox, Boston and even the rebuilding Marlins are leaders because they have won it all - St. Louis and Oakland will continue to be Brides Maids until they putting the leading philosophy together. They spend so much time trying to outsmart everybody else, that they end up outsmarting themselves. (IMHO of course)

by slickwdb on Apr 8, 2006 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Boston and Johnny Damon

Damon stole 30 and 31 bases in his first two years in Boston. He then dropped off for his final two years to 18 and 19 per season. I don't think Johnny was discouraged from running by any meas, I think he stopped being as succesful at it. If someone like Figgins were brought to Boston he's absolutely be allowed to run at will.
Pitching and Defense are generally the keys to winning a title. Small ball v. OBP v. Whatever are secondary in my mind to Pitching, Pitching, Pitching and Defense.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 8, 2006 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Hard to say

That Boston is labeled a leader when Theo's management philosophy can best be summed up by "what would Billy Beane do with $130 million?" A leader in thought is not necessarily a leader in the standings.

That being said, the single biggest reason why Boston keeps winning is the Manny/Ortiz combo in the middle of the lineup, a duo that in terms of pure combined production rivals if not eclipses any other in baseball history. Give me (or anybody else for that matter) Manny, Ortiz and seven scrubs of your choosing and I'll give you a lineup that can produce enough to be very competitive. The Boston philosophy for the moment is tailored towards the idea of maximizing what they can get out of Manny and Ortiz. I imagine they'll try to do the same in the future (most likely involving Miguel Cabrera + "other high priced slugger"), but based on history it's hard to imagine the strategy being as successful as it currently is.

by mrkupe on Apr 8, 2006 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

manny and Ortiz

Ortiz was signed for peanuts off the scrap heap. He was just as available to Beane as he was to Epstein. Epstein made the better decision, off the top of my head I believe Beane was using HATTEBERG as his 1b/DH at the time.

"the single biggest reason why Boston keeps winning is the Manny/Ortiz combo in the middle of the lineup"
Funny, I thought they won the WS largely because of great pitching.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 8, 2006 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Ouch

You'd think a Boston fan would be happy that I spoke so well of the Manny/Ortiz combo. Can't make everybody happy all the time, I guess.

I don't think it would've surprised anybody if Ortiz had ended up a lot like Hatteberg in terms of production. I don't believe for a second that Theo or anybody else was expecting 45 HR a year.

"The single biggest reason why Boston keeps winning is . . ." and "they won the World Series because of . . ." sounds like two different subjects to me. If you'd like to make the argument that they got to the playoffs and have maintained their success since because of great pitching, you've lost me. Boston's pitching is very, very average, as it was last year.

by mrkupe on Apr 8, 2006 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Huh

Average?? who would you rank higher? They have a VASTLY underrated staff.

How many teams can boast Schilling & Beckett at the top and Wakefield, CLement, Wells, maybe Paelbon soon. thats a dam fine rotation I dont see how it isnt top 5

Last year due to Schills injury I think it is tough to call cause they were pretty patchwork last year I'll give you that.

When they won the world series I believe they were tops in era, granted era isnt the deciding facot when it comes to pitching, I like to point to a almost in consequential number of missed starts by that rotation I think the consitancy was more important than the numbers.

by goalieguy on Apr 8, 2006 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitching

Their pitching last year was worse than average, it was some of the worst in baseball, which is why they stank it up in the playoffs (ditto NY). I'm not saying a great offense can't get you to the playoffs, but it won't get you through the playoffs. Not without very good pitching. As far as I'm concerned, you're not 'winning' if you don't at least do SOMETHING in the playoffs. A team may be making progress by getting over .500 or getting to the playoffs, but they're not winning.
Why did the Sox stink it up last year? No schilling and no Foulke. Why did they win before that? Good pitching. Why did they have success in 03? Good pitching (namely pedro).
Theo almost certainly didn't expect 45hr/yr, but he certainly expected more than what Hatteberg could do.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 8, 2006 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

true

No one can say Theo knew what he was gonna get from Ortiz, if he was told he would get a consistant 20 hrs I bet we would have been THRILLED with that, never mind what he has wound up getting which has been a steal.

But you do have to credit him for signing Ortiz to that way below market value deal a few years ago that was a steal, seldom do I feel contracts should be renegotiated but that one would have been justified. Think it was 3 yrs 18 mill

by goalieguy on Apr 8, 2006 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Here is what I find amusing

Minus Boston (who by the way were advanced by the stolen base efforts of Dave Roberts), the teams winning World Series have a run oriented philosophy - Anaheim, Chicago, Marlins and even New York to a lesser degree.

On the other hand - teams like Oakland, Toronto and other non-running teams are always on the outside looking in.

The next question is - which philosophy is better?

by slickwdb on Apr 8, 2006 11:56 AM EDT reply actions

sure they were

Chicago was "run oriented"?

That's funny. They had more HR than the Red Sox in 2005 and the only guy on the team with more than 16 SB was Podesnik.

by FI @ Minor League Ball on Apr 8, 2006 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

I think the most important lesson to be learned from the 2005 White Sox is the value of a flexible approach to individual games rather than a static "system", rather than any sort of validation of speed as a foundation for a winning team.

If the White Sox needed a run, Ozzie wasn't afraid to call for a steal attempt by a runner representing the tying run in the 9th inning. He also wasn't afraid to "give away" an out to get the runner into scoring position. Some may call it fundamental baseball (which is misleading) and some may call it a waste of an out (equally misleading). I simply call it an intelligent response to a unique game situation.

by mrkupe on Apr 8, 2006 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions

W.S.

I agree.

They didn't win most of their games because of speed; they simply mashed the ball on most days. However, they many players were also capable of contributing via stolen bases or hit and run when that was appropriate. Many fans are tempted to generalize the White Sox' approach as "small ball" or not, but that misses the point.
Ozzie had a number of tools at his disposal, which I believe is especially important during short series in October.

by FI @ Minor League Ball on Apr 8, 2006 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions

an individual does not make a team

The White Sox were 4th in all of baseball last year in sb's so that makes them a pretty good running team and although Podsednik had 59 - every team in the top 10 had a guy like him - Figgins, Reyes, Crawford, Rollins, Taveras and so on.

by slickwdb on Apr 8, 2006 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Philosophy

Oakland doesn't run less simply because of a philosophy, nor Boston. They run less because of who their personnel is. Look at Boston's championship team. Manny, Ortiz, Nixon, Varitek, Millar, Mueller, Bellhorn, Damon and Cabrera. The only two guys in there I'd trust stealing a bag (other than Damon) are Cabrera and Varitek (who isn't speedy but makes great decisions on the bases) and Damon was a pretty unsuccessful basestealer that season (18 for 27).
I don't think stealing a lot of bases is nearly as important to success as being able to steal a base when it's needed, something Boston was able to do.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 8, 2006 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

But here is where our debate got interesting

How much really is the players?

Jermaine Dye had never tried more than 10 attempts in a season yet last year at 31 - he had 15 attempts and 11 sb's.

I don't remember all the names but my friend pulled a bunch of guys out that were like Dye.

My argument to the contrary was Vlad Guerrero who only stole 13 and 15 the last 2 years but has 40 and 37 in his last 2 full seasons at Montreal. My friends answer to that was that Guerrero was only succeeding at a 67% rate (where did I hear that number before...hmmmm.) In addition - Guerrero was playing for bad Montreal teams so he could basically do whatever he wanted to.

I just think the stolen base and who gets them is a pretty neat debate - we spent (or wasted, depending on your point of view) about an hour having this discussion.

by slickwdb on Apr 8, 2006 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not positive ....

.... but I think Vlad was also having back problems around the time he left Montreal. Maybe Anaheim wanted to be a little more careful with him? Or he was a little slower or more hesitant on the bases?

Go Tribe

by matt k on Apr 8, 2006 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

yes

Your correct on that one, I believe he mssed a month with it before returning, and he didnt steal any after returning

by goalieguy on Apr 8, 2006 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Oakland Philosphy Prevents Steals

Crimson - Boston and Oakland do run less because of their philospohy. In "Moneyball" a player is thrown out trying to steal and Howe asks the player, "you did it on your own right?" (or something like that). Howe asked this because he did not want the blame. There is obviously a chilling element in Oakland. A player BETTER be successful 67% or ELSE.

Oakland does not have the personnel to steal because they do not want the personnel. When was the last time Oakland developed anyone who could steal a base regularly?

I am not arguing against Beane's philosophy regarding "productive outs," just making the point thats his philosphy shapes personnel and stolen bases is one those factors.

by stjp5 on Apr 8, 2006 3:25 PM EDT reply actions

Personnel

I'm not saying philosophy isn't an issue, but the personnel laregely isn't there as I indicated with the Sox WS roster. Oakland brought in Damon from KC and he stole 27 bases there, which wasn't that far off his career numbers, what WAS off is that he was getting caught a lot more than the year before when he stole 40+. When you're not being as successful as a basestealer, you're not going to get the grenlight as often.
And Boston isn't Oakland. Boston traded for Roberts in part because of his ability to steal a base. Boston drafted Jacoby Ellsbury, a guy with good speed. Moneyball is about Oakland, not the RedSox. Nor does it mean that Oakland does not or cannot make adjustments to their philosophy

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 8, 2006 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Someone stole Rickey's cleats.....

Oakland does not have the personnel to steal because they do not want the personnel. When was the last time Oakland developed anyone who could steal a base regularly?

Rickey Henderson????

by Terry Ryan Jr on Apr 9, 2006 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Oakland A's News Flash

A 4th Oakland A's players has been given the green light - Milton Bradley.

He is now with Kendall, Kotsay and Chavez as players with the green light. See - they are developing a speed game - pretty soon Bobby Crosby and Dan Johnson will have a green light too!

by slickwdb on Apr 9, 2006 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Not before

they give Frank Thomas the go-ahead. ;)

by drjayphd on Apr 12, 2006 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions

From what I heard....

Coco Crisp has been given the green light to steal when he feels he can.

Although some teams steal less, I think it has more to do with the personnel than the philosophy. But the philosophy does dictate what personnel is brought in.

Oakland and Boston place less significance on the stolen base, thus they do not pursue those types of players. But I am sure, if someone in their systems was an excellent base thief, they would be allowed to use it.

Its pretty much a cycle. Upper management values the stolen bases less, so they dont have those players. Because they dont have those players, they are pretty much stuck with not trying to attempt a lot of bases. If not stealing bases on a regular bases works (like it has in Boston and Oakland (like it or not, Oakland has a successful franchise)) why start trying to bring in a good base stealers?

Boston got Crisp because he was pretty much the best available CF, his base stealing ability is just an added bonus. I dont see them trying to change the player he is.

by Boxkutter on Apr 8, 2006 5:28 PM EDT reply actions