The Red Sox and Stolen Bases
Teams that rely heavily on sabermetrics are usually cast aside as teams that dislike the stolen bases. The perception is that the two are lip locked in an inverse relationship. Something like this:

Of course, most of this perception comes from Moneyball, in which Ray Durham is treated like a prisoner upon his arrival. Bemoaned not to steal, otherwise something bad would happen. Obviously this isn't true, instead sabermetric teams simply pick and choose their steals in situations more prone to success. Something I found interesting is the Boston Red Sox and their steal attempts since Theo Epstein became General Manager.

Epstein took over after the 2002 season, Mike Port was the GM during that year, and I'm including him only to show where the Sox were when Epstein took over. The Red Sox stole 80 bases in 108 tries that season, good for 74%. In 2003 the steal attempts increased by 15, but the success rate dropped to 72%. In every year until 2007 the attempts dropped, and with the exception of 2005, so did the success rate. That doesn't make a ton of sense. A smart team steals less, therefore they should be successful more often, right? Well, apparently not.

For whatever reason, things changed in 2007, and the Sox not only ran more, but were successful more often -- the most in Epstein's tenure actually. In 2008 the steals increased again, and the success rate stayed high. So, what in the world was going on here? I had two common sense theories:
A. The Sox had lower OBPs in the years they stole less -- which seemed unlikely, but who knows.
B. The Sox were built as slugging/homerun hitting teams during the years they stole less.
Neither of those had much of a correlation with attempts, which lead me to the other theory: change in philosophy. Epstein could only make so many changes to the 2003 team, and they ended up stealing more. 2004 was more of his team, and then he left in 2005 before returning after a few moves were made. 2006 and since were, again, his teams.
I suppose this post isn't as much about Epstein, stolen bases, or the Red Sox, and more about the perception that statistical teams never adapt to new philosophies. I guess some don't, and those usually aren't successful for much longer. The best ran teams are the ones who are willing to change, and those who are finding the change.
Comments
treating ray durham like a prisoner was a good idea considering he wasn't a good basestealer.
"The panda is a national treasure, and I love and respect [him], so I didn't fight back," Zhang said. "The panda didn't let go until it chewed up my leg and its mouth was dripping with my blood."
by larry on
Jan 12, 2009 1:04 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice post, RJ.
You know what boggles my mind? The fact that Dustin Pedroia — a player with average speed at best — stole 20 bases last year against 1 caught stealing.
by xanthan on
Jan 12, 2009 1:14 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
because he's legitimately grindy.
"The panda is a national treasure, and I love and respect [him], so I didn't fight back," Zhang said. "The panda didn't let go until it chewed up my leg and its mouth was dripping with my blood."
by larry on
Jan 12, 2009 1:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Small quibble
I have a small quibble with your first graph. It basically says “The more a team likes stolen bases, the less it knows about stats”. I am guessing that you meant it to say “The more stats a team knows, the less it likes stolen bases”. In that case, the labels need to be flipped.
Yep, every Hall of Famer did something unique. Mike Schmidt played with his hat sideways. Roberto Clemente chewed other people's fingernails. Tris Speaker was Japanese. Lou Boudreau rode a dolphin into the batter's box. Nap Lajoie would only use John Wilkes Booth's dismembered leg as a bat. And he corked it. Johnny Mize was from the future. - FJM
by Choix003 on
Jan 12, 2009 1:51 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Pedroia & Ellsbury
Know thy personnel. If I remember right, the break even point for stolen bases is 77. Those two can break 77, so they let them run. Case closed.
by Danno11 on
Jan 12, 2009 1:56 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
77 percent....
Sorry, the percentage symbol didn’t show after the 77’s.
by Danno11 on
Jan 12, 2009 1:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Like Danno said
Its probably mostly just because of the personnel. If they have more good basestealers (Pedroia and Ellsbury) they’ll run more. Before all they had was Damon, and he wasn’t a huge basestealer. And when he left after ’05, there was no one good, hence the few steals.
by Brendan Scolari on
Jan 12, 2009 2:37 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
2008 success with steals had one name
Jacoby Ellsbury. He was having a very good season until he started his ‘slump’, which lasted most of the season so that’s why I’m calling it a ‘slump’ like this. Catchers could not throw him out no matter what.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on
Jan 12, 2009 5:48 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't forget Coco
2006 – 2008 SB/CS and success rate (via Baseball-Reference):
2006: 22 SB, 4 CS for an 84% success rate
2007: 28, 6, 82%
2008: 20, 7, 74%
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
by baetown415 on
Jan 12, 2009 5:52 PM EST
reply
actions
1 recs
Phillies
SB kings. they play like a saber team but the FO gives off the aura that it doesn’t even know what saber stats are.
by jamiethekiller on
Jan 13, 2009 12:16 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah personal
SB was generally overrated so they stayed away from getting guys who’s skills were stealing bases. so they ended up with a team that can’t steal, but when they got their hands on players that COULD steal on top of doing other things well, they’ll still use it to their advantage.
we should however, examin the success of the Angels in general. it’s a team that’s highly flawed in terms of utilization, but has been successful. why? luck? money? a divison where the only smart team have no money and the two other that have some money are retards?
by RollingWave on
Jan 14, 2009 1:19 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs











BtB on Facebook
BtB_Sky on Twitter




