Not Your Father's Red Sox

Amazing note in the Boston Globe this morning:

With five stolen bases, and just one home run (Kevin Youkilis), the Red Sox now have as many stolen bases as a team (26) as they have home runs.

Even more unbelievable: The Red Sox are tied with the league lead with a +22 stolen base differential and lead in stolen base percentage. Meanwhile, the Sox already lead the league in batting, on-base percentage and total bases. So the Sox are not only reaching base more than anyone else, they're taking extra bases better than anyone else, as well.

I wonder if that's ever happened before.

Comments

[IronHorse (yf)]

"And you're still showing yourself to misunderstand basic probability theory, IH."

Now that's on-point and baseball-related. Oops.

[krueg]

A YF- I just happen to agree with what you are saying in this thread and don't see the reason for the venom that is spewed here over some of your posts.

IH- I don't think you were the one that called him a "troll", you get it.

[A YF]

Sorry, but you're choosing ignorance by supporting that analogy. And I've already pointed out how.

[SF]

YF:

In my first response earlier in this thread I asked A YF to give us examples of times that Ellsbury should have or might have run but didn't, I asked him to give us context to his blanket claim that the Sox were not running enough, in itself perhaps a debatable topic. He didn't do this - there are gamelogs that we could look at. That was my original question - what are the examples?

Another thing: the debate here relies on a fallacy that A YF himself admitted exists earlier in the thread.

Where did I say this?:

"you can't steal everytime you get on base"

That's the issue with your original assertion. The statistical construct relies on something you yourself admit is not a tenable scenario. Which therefore leads us to a critique of the numbers, something that statisticians (and scientists) probably and understandably detest, since you can't critique numbers. But you can understand the numbers in a greater context, something that you seemed highly intent on not acknowledging.

You can charge the Sox with holding Ellsbury back, whether on the basepaths or in general, (and to me this is a bit loopy - he's continuing to perform at high levels despite playing AT higher levels; if anything one should praise the Sox for grooming this kid perfectly and enabling him to perform consistently, and even this might be premature considering the sample is still limited) but the statistics you cite rely on a vacuum. So while you put numbers together (no arguing with numbers, that's their single greatest strength but also, sometimes, a trap) the reality intrudes. In baseball, there are so many variables contextually that those numbers take on different meanings. I am no luddite, by any means, I just want my numbers in context, to an extent, especially when charges are made that seem heavily dependent on that context, as with Ellsbury's running game.

So A: I have tremendous respect for facts. I think that if you wanted to make this discussion about statistics and the conceptualism of Ellsbury's running patterns then I would have had no problems. But you asserted that you had no responsibility to prove anything, commented with a tone that implied that your position was irrefutable. This makes debate, to an extent, useless. I apologize for the troll comment, but I think you need to reassess the way you pursue your positions, rhetorically speaking.

[A YF]

And by SF's definition, that analogy is trollish behavior.

[DUFF - SF]

"I think we're all being a little overreactive today."

Cripe...you can say that again. This type of discussion about statistics/probabilities reminds me about why I don't read SOSH that often. Of course I do sometimes enjoy a good sarcastic dig or stereotypical comment about someone's name like we've seen here today. (weak, btw.)

Atheose, I agree with your "if it ain't broke don't fix it" idea.

[krueg]

SF- seems to me you have a problem with A YF and find reasons to "jump" him. Is everyone that makes an assertion on this site asked for "concrete statistical" evidence to support it? No.

[IronHorse (yf)]

Ahhh, A YF, you have inspired me to settle on my epitaph. My tombstone shall read:

"He chose ignorance"

I like it. Thanks.

Now if the Yanks would just pitch Mo every day.

[SF]

Just looking at your numbers there A YF, I see 60 possible bases, but 30 of those are 3rd base. Now, we all know stealing 3rd with 2 outs isn't smart, so that cuts—my guess—10 right off the top

The irony in this iron-clad reliance on the "numbers" is that you guys are both arbitrarily assigning some sort of adjuster to these numbers -- "let's say three", or "my guess - 10 right off the top". Isn't this exactly what SHOULDN'T BE DONE, if you are looking at things in purely statistical fashion? I think this also articulates the problem with making a blanket charge without understanding all the scenarios in which those numbers were/weren't accomplished.

[A YF]

After all that, SF finally adds something on topic! And then he reverts to ad hominem. Talk about loopy!

Let's carefully examine SF's attempt: He criticizes me for not providing examples. Then for making a clear statement. Then for not providing numbers.

By now, I've provided all of those things, so I still fail to see his point except to try to ding me. He's refuted absolutely nothing I've said nor my basic point all along:

Ellsbury should be stealing many more bases.

I'm still waiting for something on-topic, or related to the post. Instead, SF continues to bait me with trollish behavior.

Meanwhile, you may not be able to steal every time on-base, but Paul brought that assumption into play. And I was happy to show how much he gamed the numbers in trying to prove a point.

[IronHorse (yf)]

Me can't follow directions home

Bumble, bumble, drool....

Me choosey ignorpants...bumble, drool...

[SF]

Is everyone that makes an assertion on this site asked for "concrete statistical" evidence to support it? No.

Of course not. But in the context of this discussion and this thread it seems totally warranted, and I stand by that request.

[A YF]

By the way, I love how SF criticized my rhetorical style right after he's apologized for calling me a troll. Nice.

[Brad]

Hug it out, biyatches.

[A YF]

"Isn't this exactly what SHOULDN'T BE DONE, if you are looking at things in purely statistical fashion?"

Paul started us down that path. I merely did a much better job of documenting that evidence.

Meanwhile, my assumption was based on the entirety of baseball history. That's why I felt so certain. Ellsbury is projected to steal 60 bases this year. For him, it's obvious his natural talents are being held back. I still can't believe I'm arguing that same point.

Actually, I'm not. Good job. I'm done now.

[Brad]

IH: I actually laughed out loud at my desk there. Good stuff.

[SF]

First game of the season in Japan, Ellsbury singles. Doesn't steal. Why? Because Julio Lugo hit into a double play on the first pitch of his following at-bat. So those two "possible steals" were never possible steals in the first place, they were not in Ellsbury's control.

This is why the numbers need the context.

[Lar]

The Show is such an addictive game. It's partially the reason I haven't posted as much as I used to.. haha..

[krueg]

SF- what evidence have you provided to contrast A YF's opinion? Paul put some numbers together and A YF's put together better numbers to support his opinion...not sure why you came into the discussion other than to blast YF???

[IronHorse (yf)]

Dear Brad:

This is IronHorse's assistant. IronHorse was found dead at his computer, drowning in his own saliva with his fist in his mouth. Apparently he didn't realize that if he took his fist out of his mouth, he'd have a 100% chance of breathing. I can't help but think, if only he had studied statistics.

I thank you for your kind words to him though and will pass them on to his wife and children.

The last thing we heard him say was "I choose ignorance!" We're all very sad.

[SF]

krueg:

See my comment two above yours, I am guessing you cross-posted. I wanted context, that was my original request way back when. In the first game of the season we get instant context that helps us understand a little more about Ellsbury's running. I don't/didn't understand the resistance to providing this context.

[Devine]

"We're all very sad."

Ain't that the truth.

[krueg]

SF: I don't know that one AB really gives context to a month+ of the season but it certainly shows there are variables to consider and that would be a great place to start a counter-argument with...Much better than labelling someone a troll or flamer. I'm just not sure why you took such offense to the original debate SF...only seems like one explanation to me.

[SF]

In the second game of the season, Ellsbury singled, but Julio Lugo was on in front of him. There were two outs, Pedroia coming up. Double steal advisable there? Not sure. Pedroia walked, bringing Ortiz up. There's another example of a "potential stolen base" not really a potential stolen base.

On April ninth, Ellsbury walked twice in four plate appearances. The first time he loaded the bases, the second time he followed a Varitek double but was erased on a DP ball by, yep, Lugo. In the ninth he reached on a FC leaving second base open, but Alex Cora singled on the first pitch, so that shows up in the stats as a potential steal but in fact, no steal was ever possible.

[krueg]

SF- OK, why not come up with these examples while the debate was raging rather than after???

[SF]

On April 10th, Ellsbury entered as a pinch runner for Manny Ramirez at second base with one out, the Sox up 6-3, and Kevin Youkilis at the plate. He didn't steal, was eventually moved to third on a walk to JD Drew and scored on a single by Sean Casey. He walked in the bottom of the eight to load the bases.

On April 12th against the Yankees he walked to open the game, stole second, then Pedroia got an infield hit to put runners at 1/2 with none out and Ortiz/Manny coming up. Stealing advisable? Not necessarily, though Papi hit into a double play and Manny popped out. In the sixth inning he singled with the bases empty (two more "potential steals") but then Pedroia doubled on the first pitch sending JE to third and negating those potential steals.

I don't want to do this for the entire season to date, frankly, but I think it should be evident from this (limited) investigation that it's not a black and white issue.

[SF]

One more, on April 13th against the Yankees Ellsbury leads off with a walk (two more potential steals), steals second and then advances to third on a throwing error, so take away another one of those "potential steals". In the third he singles but Lugo is on in front of him with two down and Pedroia up. Possible double steal chance, but you can't double steal every time and Posada wasn't playing but rather Molina, an excellent defender.

So as we can see from just these few examples all of those "potential steals" are dropping like flies, and we're only two weeks into the season.

[Devine]

Oh snap, are all the comments on one page again? If a permanent state, YAY!

[Devine]

Awwwwww, damn...right after I posted too.

[John - YF]

"But if anything, he's not running them enough. Ellsbury, Crisp, and even Pedroia are all perfect with 4 SB or more (20 for 20). That tells me they aren't trying enough if they're not failing."

I will agree that his success rate is very impressive and if Ellsbury was on another team your theory would be completely correct. Problem is who Ellsbury plays for has to come in to consideration when making the above statement.

Ellsbury has 86 AB's
------
25 Hits
-3 HR's (Can't steal bases on a HR)
+17 BB's (17 More Chances)
-1 Triple (Can Steal Home, but not reasonable)
-2 Doubles (Stealing third? Not in this lineup)
------------

11 SB's = He stole a base 31% of the time he was given the chance. That also does not account for times the score/situation did not allow a stolen base (Down by 2, up by 5 or more, etc...)

*The Red Sox have had 9 games (W & L's) decided by more than 5 runs.

*The Red Sox have had 5 Wins decided by 2 runs or less.

In comparison Rickey Henderson during his best SB seasons (1982, 1983 and 1988) stole bases (using the same criteria as above) at a 58%, 50%, and 43% clip. During those 3 seasons Henderson was not surrounded by the offense that Ellsbury is in 2008. Also the SB was a more utilized weapon in the era of baseball. Baseball is a changed game where teams wait for HR’s and big innings rather than playing small ball when they are trailing. 31% of the time is pretty aggressive for a team that has the offensive prowess that the Sox have. Baseball and especially baseball in the AL is so much different than it was when Henderson played, etc… Ellsbury is followed by Pedroia, Papi, Ramirez, Lowell, Youkilis and Drew in the lineup, SB’s are not necessary when you have that kind of lineup behind him. Now I will agree with A YF that he is stealing bases pretty easily right now, but Francona still needs to manage based on the team he has. Crawford needs to steal bases for the Rays to go, Ellsbury doesn’t need to steal bases for the Sox to win. He simply needs to get OB, that’s where his true value comes in to play on this team.

In a vacuum what A YF is saying is correct. But unfortunately baseball isn’t played in a vacuum. I respectfully disagree with his statement. That being said I didn’t mean to turn this thread into what it has become by simply disagreeing with A YF.

*My above math is slightly flawed. It’s impossible to analyze every detail of Ellsbury’s season. But I put together the best analysis I could with the data I could retrieve.

[John - YF]

Brad and Ath...Brad has my email. Simply email me if an issue like that comes up again. Although I will tell you I was in the middle of my game when you 2 were looking for me. I know FOX is flawed, I apologize.

[John - YF]

Brad and Ath, looks like the problem is resolved. I am sorry it took so long to get it done. Be patient with FOX, I know they are doing a poor job.