Is this how Eric Byrnes became the Brady Anderson of stolen bases in 2007?

109 for 133 last year, they're obviously doing something right. Probably a little game theory that'll be obsolete by 2009, but it's working for now.

Bah-the Red Sox are 29/4 in steals this year (DBacks 17/4).

Probably a little game theory that'll be obsolete by 2009, but it's working for now.

I'm not so sure about that. In the post-post-Moneyball era, teams are getting smarter and appreciating the value of things like OBP and SB%. And when a great majority of teams are a lot more reluctant to stock players with low OBP, there are less inefficiencies for the more innovative teams to exploit. We all know that stolen bases by themselves are overrated but if a guy (or team) can steal at an 85% clip, go wild. Especially when factor in the things that Kirk Gibson and co. are factoring.

Wasn't there another thread about how stolen base percentages have gone up in the last couple years? It wouldn't surprise me if stolen bases come back into vogue almost as quickly as it left.

We all know that stolen bases by themselves are overrated but if a guy (or team) can steal at an 85% clip, go wild. Especially when factor in the things that Kirk Gibson and co. are factoring.

Some of those factors are situational, and once teams realize those situations, the advantage will be lost.

Some of those factors are situational, and once teams realize those situations, the advantage will be lost.

I don't know if that is true. If the situations exist because of pitchers with slow deliveries and catchers with slow releases and bad arms, then the solution would be to replace those pitchers or catchers, or somehow to get them to improve on the factors. That may not happen with a good-to-great pitcher, when the pitcher replacement would be faster to the plate but a worse pitcher overall, or when the catcher provides offense at the expense of defense such that you don't want to replace him.

A team could continue to exploit the available situations that allow for an 85% success rate. It doesn't hold that just because a team has an 85% success rate now that they could simply continue run wild and maintain the 85% success rate no matter how often they run. But the 85% success rate could certainly hold if the team continues to run in those situations favorable to maintain the 85% success rate, and opposing teams aren't simply going to drop pitcher and catcher combinations that allow that rate if their replacements are going to cost the team too dearly in other aspects of the game.

Progression of strategy isn't so much a pendulum swinging between steals being in and steals being out. It isn't strictly a linear progression, either, as it has many possible ways to diverge, and the ones with a higher success rate will be naturally selected. Bill James' book on managers talk a lot about how highly successful managers employ new and interesting strategies to great success early in their careers, but rarely sustain that success as the rest of the league adapts to their ideas by using them or by countering them effectively.

In that regard, finding ways to improve base stealing success is likely one component of a larger paradigm shift. As #4 noted, fewer teams will abide an extremely low OBP these days. Some GMs adopted the idea because they needed to do so to survive, some were part of the movement that popularized the concept, and others are descendant from that movement. Other changes have cascaded from that one, as teams test different ways to balance the advantage of high-OBP offenses with their pitching and defense. Base stealing will likely progress the same way, with catchers and pitchers needing to adjust, teams acquiring a different sort of catcher or pitcher if the effect becomes profound enough, and adjusting the rest of their strategy to fit the skills of these other players (in the same way that the first wave of OBP valuation corresponded with some teams valuing some aspects of fielding less).

109 for 133 last year, they're obviously doing something right. Probably a little game theory that'll be obsolete by 2009, but it's working for now.

I'd guess that it's more mundane than that: it's probably just the combination of the team properly valuing the stolen base and this:

Players always seem to be raving about Gibson's ability to discern pitchers' tendencies, such as whether they might do something to telegraph a throw to first.

Factor in a couple of fast guys and you have an ideal mix. FWIW, my observation is that they tend to be pretty good about going on the first move. In particular, Chris Young was getting comical jumps for much of last season.

What Expatriate Giants Fan wrote. The Dbacks are really looking to capitalize on the situations that would allow them to steal at > 75%. As long as you have pitchers who are slow to the plate and catchers who can't throw well, the Dbacks will keep running--i.e., as long as they continue to face the Padres.

What Expatriate Giants Fan wrote. The Dbacks are really looking to capitalize on the situations that would allow them to steal at > 75%. As long as you have pitchers who are slow running--i.e., as long as they continue to face the Padres.

Yeah, it isn't really a revolutionary new technique and strategy for stealing bases AFAICT; rather, it seems basically to be "don't steal at stupid times with the wrong players against the wrong players."

Edit: I don't say that to disparage what the Dbacks are doing - it is smart strategy.

The Dbacks are just taking a much more systematic approach to stealing, which really involves collecting hard data (time to the plate for pitchers, time to 2b for catchers, etc.); they are really trying to make it more science than anecdote.

The D backs just have really smart coaches, and really smart, fast players able to put the plan into action. You will almost never see a guy steal on a fastball, it's almost always a breaking pitch. And they are just doing an excellent job of scouting, getting the times down, and reading moves. They are very good at their jobs, and being good at your job, and being smart, will never be "out of vogue",or cease to be a competitive advantage. But the current D backs coaching staff won't be here forever, just like the players won't, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I'd like to see a study of the breakeven point for a stolen base attempt with 2 outs and 0-2 or 1-2 count on the batter. Worst case scenario, he gets thrown out and your hitter gets a fresh count to lead off the next inning. Sure, the odds of scoring even if the attempt is successful aren't that great, but they should be in the 10-12% range. With a runner on 1st, 2 out and a 1-2 count, the odds are probably more like 5-7% Derrek Lee, for instance, has a .500 OPS (171/207/293) after an 0-2 count.

I don't know if that is true. If the situations exist because of pitchers with slow deliveries and catchers with slow releases and bad arms, then the solution would be to replace those pitchers or catchers, or somehow to get them to improve on the factors.

They talk in the article about timings and stuff, sure, but they also talked about concentrating on doing it when it is important; that's the situational aspect where for now they have the true upper hand. Those other stolen bases are mostly just for show; yeah, it's nice to have 'em, but they don't amount to more than 20 runs in a season.

They talk in the article about timings and stuff, sure, but they also talked about concentrating on doing it when it is important; that's the situational aspect where for now they have the true upper hand. Those other stolen bases are mostly just for show; yeah, it's nice to have 'em, but they don't amount to more than 20 runs in a season.

Plus, perhaps, more runs for not being stupid on the basepaths and unnecessarily giving up outs.

If your 20-run figure is correct, though, and that 20 runs equals about 2 wins, then the 2007 Padres, Mets, and Brewers really would have liked those runs.