When the Giants Come to Town, It's Bye-Bye Baby

04.18.2008
See Eugenio Run

It’s a well-worn axiom, at least among statheads, that getting caught stealing more than one-third of the time is counter-productive. In other words, 67% is break-even.

Chris Haft discusses the Giants’ emphasis on baserunning this year, and he notes that their current 68% rate — 17 for 25 — is “less than optimal.” What he should say is that it’s not doing them any good. At least not yet. And even if they get a little better, the advantage they gain will be incremental. But hey, when that’s all you got, go for it. Besides, it gives everyone a thrill to know Eugenio is about to turn on the jets.   

It’ll be interesting to watch the season progress. Teams will spend more time defending against the Giants’ running game knowing that they have few no other offensive weapons. And the Giants will continue to run in hopes that their youngsters will hone their skills on the job. It’ll be like the famous Dave Roberts steal in the 2004 World Series, writ across an entire season and with far less pressure. Everyone knows the Giants will run and will do everything possible to slow them down. Every successful steal will have the added pleasure of a Nyah Nyah Nyah, You Can’t Stop Me.

Unless someone proves to me that the stolen-base rule cited above — often attributed to Bill James, though I don’t have time to double-check —is faulty, I’ll stick with it as a measurement of the usefulness of the Giants’ running game.

Beyond stolen bases, I’m thrilled to see the team go from first to third on singles and turn doubles into triples. Those little extra bases are key and hard to quantify through statistics, at least in my limited knowledge. (Has anyone come up with a solid system for measuring how well players or teams take extra bases?)

The piece of the running game not discussed in Haft’s article is the hit-and-run. Again, I don’t know of statistics that measure hit-and-run success, but my gut feeling tells me it’s one of the dumber plays in baseball. First, it’s easily foiled: a pitchout, or any pitch well out of the strike zone thrown intentionally or not, is extremely difficult to hit. If it’s not hit, the runner is most likely a dead duck at second.

Even if the batter swings and fouls the ball, what’s the point? You’ve forced him to swing at a bad pitch and put him farther behind in the count for the rest of the sequence.

What’s more: if he puts it in play, what’s the chance it will go through a hole vacated by a moving fielder? Isn’t there just as much chance it’ll be hit to where the fielder has moved? A ground ball right up the middle is normally a base hit; with the runner on first moving, the fielder covering second base has a much better shot at the ball.

Unless the manager is nearly sure of several things — the ball will be in the strike zone, the batter will make hard contact, the runner will get a good jump; and conversely, if the runner doesn’t go, the chance of a double play is high — it just doesn’t make sense.

The hit-and-run: it’s like recreational drugs or speeding or weird sex! When you get away with it and no one gets hurt, it’s a lot of fun. But that doesn’t mean it’s good for you.







[April 18, 2008 4:19 PM]  |  link  |  reply
#99 said

Lefty,

The Bill James handbook includes stats on players going from 1st to 3rd and 2nd to home on a single along with some other categories about taking the 'extra' base. I believe it's something a kin to times that player was on first and % times they were able to advance to third on a single to the outfield etc.. Not perfect as far as stats go but gives a pretty good indicator who is and is not a good baserunner.

I think the hit and run's relative dumbness is in direct correlation to the players involved. I'm probably not sending Bengie Molina on a hit and run but what about sending Ortmeier? Also what do you mean by 'succesful' hit and run? Is a succesful hit and run only when the batter singles and advances the runner to third or does it include a fielder's choice and advancing the runner to second and staying out of the doubleplay or swinging through the pitch but the runner steals second anyway.?

[April 18, 2008 4:35 PM]  |  link  |  reply
ELM said

>Also what do you mean by 'succesful' hit and run?

Good question. Staying out of the double play and advancing the runner is only successful if the chance of the double play was high in the first place. Otherwise, why not just sacrifice bunt?

>>...or swinging through the pitch but the runner steals second anyway.?

how often does this happen? Only with the best basestealers, is my guess. And if you have an excellent base stealer on first base, why not just do a straight steal?

[April 19, 2008 8:40 AM]  |  link  |  reply
natteringnabob replied to ELM

Isn't the chance of double play always high with this crew? Swinging at the first pitch seems to lead to a lot of ground balls.

[April 18, 2008 4:48 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Elbo said

The current BP annual has a piece entitled The Tortoise, The Hare and Juan Pierre about this too.

[April 18, 2008 4:48 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Chris said

Lefty,

I think Dan Fox of BP, well former BP...he just got a job in the Pirates front office, did a few articles on measuring the value added to a players worth by "taking the extra bag".

I'm not 100% certain but I think I recall read it at sometime. I'll see if I can dig up the link later, if the article does indeed exist.

[April 18, 2008 5:38 PM]  |  link  |  reply
#99 said

Lefty,

'how often does this happen? Only with the best basestealers, is my guess.'

I'm guessing too but I would say 'no' it isn't just the best basestealers who are able to steal on a missed pitch. I think those guys who are right around 67% succesful (break even value)on straight steals benefit the most from the hit and run. The guys with mediocre speed get a little more 'help' on the missed pitch.

Totally non-scientific, but I can remember quite a lot of non-blazers who made it to second on the missed hit and run (assuming the annoncer was right and it wasn't a straight steal). I keep thinking of guys like David Justice?

[April 18, 2008 5:45 PM]  |  link  |  reply
ELM replied to #99

I'll bet if we could find stats for it, the SB rate on busted hit-and-runs would be far worse. After all, we're taught from little league onward that when you break for second on the hit-and-run, you sneak a look back. You don't run all out the way you do on a straight steal.

Plus, if a lot of the swing-throughs are on fastball up or out of the zone, it puts the catcher in perfect position to throw to second.

[April 18, 2008 5:42 PM]  |  link  |  reply
#99 said

Uh, just looked up Justice and he had a whopping 53% success rate, so maybe not so much him.

Why without the hit and run his rate would have been 25%. HA!

[April 18, 2008 6:04 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Mark O'Connor said

I'm a huge fan of speed but not of the stolen base. Fast guys put pressure on the defense and take extra bases. In close contests, those can be deciders. We all know that "plays" like the bunt or SB can increase your chance to score ONE RUN. If one is what you need (04 Sox w/ Roberts), great. Otherwise, play for the wiggly numbers. I read a stat once, can't find it now, that winning teams, on average, score more runs in one inning than their opponents do in the entire game. Re the "hit-and-run" I prefer to think of it as "send the runner" and it is useful for staying out of DPs. We've all seen those gorgeous plays where the 2B vacates the spot, the batter bounces it past him, the runner streaks to third. We remember those, and tend to forget the broken ones (CS, K-CS DP, etc.). Thus a statistically marginal strategy gets overused. (If your team can hit, you don't have to "manufacture" runs.)

[April 19, 2008 12:34 PM]  |  link  |  reply
JC Parsons said

As a counterpoint to Mr. O'Connor above, I am a big fan of the stolen base. I really love this topic and I think ELM does a great job of presenting the complexities involved.
In general, I feel that most anti-SB arguments boil down to "its better to hit"(which is almost exactly MOC's sentiment). My response to that is "DUH". Of course, you are better if you have good hitters, just fill out the lineup card and turn them loose. If you can beat their pitchers then you win. In other words, your GM gave you all that was needed. Sit back and enjoy. (That doesn't describe our '08 Giants well, does it?)
After all baseball is weird, when you are on offense you do not control the ball or tempo of the game. The only way to change that is with the running game. So you can see why the it is so tempting to managers of weak teams. With this squad we must exploit and even over use this weapon, the only one in our arsenal. Case in point, Fred Lewis. Right now he is a Jamesian nightmare, but he might get much better (he has the tools) and that could elevate him into the elite. Running games have to develop and we must risk breaking those dogmatic stats that scare off so many of you.

[April 20, 2008 12:32 AM]  |  link  |  reply
Hello Idiots said

The "67% Rule" only applies to teams with league-average OBPs (and to a lesser degree DP and OOB rates). When a club's OBP is greatly below average the success rate must be 75% or above.

The reason for this is simple: if you put fewer men on base, each baserunner is correspondingly more precious if you want to score enough runs to have a reasonable chance of winning games.