Would the new running rules eventually obviate the zombie runner? I'd imagine that more extra innings SB would result in games ending quicker.

That's 3773 attempts to 5300 at AAA, a 40% increase. If we see the same rate at MLB, that would be a jump from 3297 to 4632 attempts -- still less than one per team game. Successful steals might be up to 3800, an increase around 1300. Arguably they might decide a 75% success rate is about right and run even more until the success rate comes down. In the year Rickey set the record, there were 1.14 attempts per team-game.

#1: I doubt it. The problem wasn't so much guys scoring once they got on, it was more guys getting on or at least getting on before there were already 1-2 outs. Still, we could take a guess by looking at extra-inning games in the Rickey era and, if that looks OK, maybe an experiment in the minors would eventually be run. But my guess is the Rickey era wasn't that different -- lots of sac bunts if it was the leadofff guy and, if it wasn't, then it had to be Rickey or Matt Alexander if he was still on the bench.

So a moral quandary for our baseball philosophers -- which would be less morally inferior, the Manfred Man or a 27th roster spot reserved for a player who can only be used as a PR and only from, say, the 9th inning onward?

So this author really doesn't know the NL didn't keep caught stealing stats back then?

I thought Project Spreadsheet was working on that and had made inroads well into the 1920s.

SB success rate for the 1940s from Retrosheet:
1940 56.1%
1941 56.3%
1942 56.6%
1943 56.2%
1944 58.1%
1945 58.1%
1946 55.3%
1947 53.2%
1948 56.1%
1949 54.3%

I wonder how scientific this is - was the sample apples to apples on number of attempts/stolen bases? My experience has been that I haven't seen that many more attempts in the games I've watched. And I've seen very few throws to first either.

Again, how many would it take for you to notice? Look at my numbers in #2. In 2022, MLB had 1.36 attempts per game (or 0.67 per team game). If we see the same percentage jump as was seen at AAA, that will go up to 1.91. So an extra 0.55 attempts per game watched. It's not "running wild" and would you notice 4 attempts per 2 games you watched compared with 3 in 2 that you used to see? Or, especially during spring, if you even noticed it, would you think "they wanted to see if that AA kid is any good at stealing bases" rather than "boy, those bases are having an effect?"

"hit-and-run attempts - no matter how dumb they were" - enters the chat

"hit-and-run attempts

I absolutely love the hit and run because it so often leads to the strike 'em out throw 'em out doubly play.

"hit-and-run attempts - no matter how dumb they were" - enters the chat

I absolutely love the hit and run because it so often leads to the strike 'em out throw 'em out doubly play.

While, sadly, I don't think the hit and run ever was a smart play (though it was a lot more defensible in the 70s/80s than it would be now), there's a little bit of a set-up man save percentage thing at work with those numbers. The hit and run that works is not going to be recorded as a successful stolen base attempt, but the one that fails will lead to quite a few CS.

The hit-and-run was probably a smart play, or at least not a dumb play, in the deadball era--when no one struck out and no one hit home runs. In modern baseball with all the strikeouts, and bat control actively selected against in favor of power, no way in hell.

Also the hit and run was just beautiful when it worked. I'm not sure that happened more than 5 times a year for the 70s Cubs.

#13 Glenn Beckert was the best hit and run guy in the game. I get the impression the Cubs fixated on this for quite some time after Beckert's time.

Is it possible to derive blown hit and runs from caught stealing numbers? Historically sb rate has never been at break even pt until very recently. Would it make sense to assume a sb rate of say 72% ie break even. Because why woold teams be irratonal? And then say in the 1960s the actual rate was 67% or 5% discrepancy that represents blows h/r. If a team made 1 attempt per game thatsuggests a blown hit run of 8 for the season of 162 games.

The danny murtaugh pirates were known for his. I was too young to be aware of that

#15 The break even point for base stealing wasn't accepted to be as high as it is for quite some time. In a sense, the strategies for baseball were formed in deadball and went largely unchallenged for a long, long time.

So a moral quandary for our baseball philosophers -- which would be less morally inferior, the Manfred Man or a 27th roster spot reserved for a player who can only be used as a PR and only from, say, the 9th inning onward?

I vote for Herb Washington.

Maybe a Herb W. clone? The original has probably slowed a bit, at age 71.

It's not "running wild" and would you notice 4 attempts per 2 games you watched compared with 3 in 2 that you used to see?

I would certainly notice. That's a lot.

I would certainly notice. That's a lot.

In Walt's defense, he doesn't think we notice any kind of changes.

True dat. But in this case, we are talking about Duke having watched (I assume) a small handful of spring training games and reporting that he hasn't noticed any increase.

Glenn Beckert was the best hit and run guy in the game.

Best as in could reliably make contact. He was also a solid BA guy but I don't know how many times he snuck one through the vacated hole (quiet you!) A hit and run that results in the runner on 2nd and the batter out is just a riskier sac bunt ... a "successful" hit and run is 1st and 3rd. But fair enough, surely more successful with Beckert than, say, Vic Harris or Mick Kelleher.

A career 283 hitter, at age 30 in 570 PA, Beckert hit 342. Baseball is a funny game.

The break even point for base stealing wasn't accepted to be as high as it is for quite some time.

Could you provide a reference for that? You state it so authoritatively and yet I have no recollection of anyone ever saying this.

Could you provide a reference for that? You state it so authoritatively and yet I have no recollection of anyone ever saying this.

Knowing the break-even point for base stealing is dependent upon also knowing the run expectancy values, and in terms of being widely understood/accepted, those are on the more recent side of baseball history.

I dont think you necessarily need the run expectancy values. Do you think John McGraw would have been OK with 60% base stealing? I somehow doubt it.

Pete Palmer was one of the earliest to work on the run expectancy. I think he came in at 0.23 runs which would probably suggest a break even rate of 67%. I think its well known the run expectancy has come down by follow up studies. Im guessing its around 0.2 which suggests a break even rate of 70% or maybe a bit more.

It seems reasonable to suggest that over a hundred seasons the SB rate would have to be quite close to the break even pt. I know managers dont always do things logically but that's a long time to adjust the rate if you think you're stealing too much or too little.

Any individual game will probably feel similar to games under the previous rules. But as you watch more and more games, you almost certainly will start to feel the difference. That's generally true with all of Walt's 'but it's a relatively minor change on a per game basis' comments. A change can be fairly imperceptible in a single game but extremely obvious over ten or fifty games.

Especially in this particular case. We don't exist in an information vacuum. Anyone who is even remotely clued in knows that there were some big changes this year. They're going to be talked about during games, and a LOT of attention will be paid to any underlying shift in the numbers (steals, batting average, game length, etc.). Which means people will be primed to notice the difference. In fact, it's likely that most of us will overestimate the change.

Specifically McGraw is very interesting. We don't have reliable CS numbers before 1920 but in 1920-1921 you'll see things like George Burns (41 SB/ 42 CS) and Ross Youngs (39/35). Those are not just blown hit and run numbers. That's an attempt to steal bases with fast guys who weren't that good at stealing bases. So yeah, before 1922 McGraw appeared to be fine with low percentage base stealing.

By 1922 Burns was gone and Frisch (who was good at stealing bases) represented a bigger part of the running game. McGraw -- who had been a big popularizer of the running game -- reacted to the changes in the game by running much less frequently.

Still, what you'll hear for decades after McGraw is a general overestimation of the value of the base gained and underestimation of the cost of an out.

While at the same time generally not valuing speed on offense for about 3 decades. (Between the start of lively ball and Aparicio/Wills) It's very strange.

Nobody in baseball talked in terms of break even.

Instead of a designated runner for the extra innings, I'd rather they make the Manfred Man a choice by the home team at the top of each inning. Then it adds some strategy at least.

Given the changes taking place in the upcoming season this seems a great time to have an extended discussion on base stealing...

Still, what you'll hear for decades after McGraw is a general overestimation of the value of the base gained and underestimation of the cost of an out.

Generally speaking I think this maybe correct but still I'd like to seem some concrete evidence you always speak in terms of authority and yet you dont cite anything. I know when I started reading about weighted runs probably in the early 90s I was thinking 0.25 runs per base and then Palmer came up with .23 and I thought is that all? So I think anecdotally you may be right but I have no idea what John McGraw or Danny Murtaugh or Branch Rickey might have thought about this.

Its not like fractions or cost/benefit analysis were invented in 1975 you know.

anyhow: Tangotiger gives us the weighted value for a whole bunch of baseball events at this link (he has totals for SB and outs at the bottom of the chart):

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html

He comes up with -0.3 runs for an out and almost (.195) .2 runs for a SB. That makes the math easy. The break even rate for a SB is 60% using those numbers. Im not really sure how he got to those numbers exactly but I guess this is a good starting pt. My only comment at this pt. is do you have to make an adjustment to these numbers if you're stealing with the best part of the batting order coming up to bat? Ie. if more SB occur at the top of the order then perhaps the value of getting to 2b is higher because you have a better chance to score with the best part of the line up coming. I dunno. But for now it seems a break even pt of 60% is a good starting pt.


now this:

in 1920-1921 you'll see things like George Burns (41 SB/ 42 CS) and Ross Youngs (39/35). Those are not just blown hit and run numbers. That's an attempt to steal bases with fast guys who weren't that good at stealing bases. So yeah, before 1922 McGraw appeared to be fine with low percentage base stealing.

WTF Ron??? This is an outrageous statement on so many levels. lets count them shall we?

1. You cant anecdotally take two runners and then presume everyone is stealing at the same rate as them. I havent bothered to look up team stealing numbers for the 1921 NYG but Im guessing its somewhat better than this.

2. You are counting blown hit and runs in there and we just got done saying or at least suggesting that obviously blown hit and runs are reducing the actual/real CS rate. Hell you yourself said this a day or two go. Hell you even mentioned blown hit/runs in the quote. Yeah you're right its NOT JUST blown hit and runs, its CS + blown hit and runs...

3. Correct me if Im wrong but before 1970 a pickoff was counted as a CS. Yes? So you've got both blown hit and runs as well as pickoffs diminishing the actual CS rates. So its not just blown hit and runs its: CS + blown hit and runs + pickoffs. No wonder the numbers are so low.

4. In a dead ball era such as pre 1920 one would expect more stealing and even lower break even pt. simply because you're very unlikely to score on a HR. So if the break even pt. in modern baseball is 60%, it might be 55% in dead ball.

5. One would expect more hit and runs in an era with less strike outs. Which I think even in 1922 teams were still thinking in dead ball terms.

So if Ross Youngs CS number reflect a 50% rate, 5% might be blown hit and runs , some x% might be pickoffs. The break even pt in that environment might be 55% and Young and Burns actual/real CS rate might still be better than break even.

But go ahead, you tell me. What do YOU think the break even point is supposed to be? You keep speaking with authority what's your number?

There's a lot of discussion out there about the break even pt. and such I'm going to do a little bit more research and see what else I can find.

here's tangotiger again with linear weights based on the offensive environment, this isnt quite what Im saying about the dead ball era but similar:

http://www.tangotiger.net/customlwts.html

if you use the out and sb weighted values for an environment of 4 runs/game the break even pt for SB is 57%. I would go even further and say in an era where HRs are few the break even pt. has to be even lower. I dare say 55%.


Burns and Young might effectively be 60% given the number of pickoffs and hit and runs that are hidden in the cs statistic. They might be fairly decent runners. A bit above average.

Furthermore there's no frickin way John McGraw hadn't thought this through thoroughly. Having read a little about him and some of his strategies it seems clear that he could do the math on this on the fly in between at bats. Im sure Earl Weaver could that. No idea if other managers could maybe not.

Finally we have every reason to believe that if managers are rational beings, the SB rate should be very nearly close to break even. It has to be, if teams were not running enough someone would have started running more and won more games. If teams were running too much someone would have stopped running and won more games. Its just a natural market force at work here.

So what are the league SB rate for this era? it has to be close to break even.

The 1920 NYG were stealing at a rate of 55%. MLB as a whole (not including NeL) was about at 51%. Given that this includes pickoffs and blown/hit runs, the real rate is probably close to 55% or basically what I would think is very close to break even. The NYG are probably a bit better than break even.

EDIT: Actually Im not sure if you can use -0.3 runs as the value of a CS. Hmm

#28 WTF is with the tone. I'm done talking.

Yeah you can't use -.3 for he caught stealing value cause you lost a base runner as well. If the man at first is worth .3 what are we valuing the out as -.23?

That leads to break even rate of 72.5% seems high.

I know BBs are valued at .3 but that includes the value of moving a possible runner at first up. If we go with .27 value of man at first, .2 value of sb and .23 value of out that leads us back to 70% break even for modern day, and post wwii rates were just under that but that includes pickoff and hit.runs so I'm pretty sure the post wwii rates ae very close to break even

Your argument that certainly managers wouldn’t do irrational things is undercut by pretty much the entirety of baseball history.

Because why woold teams be irratonal?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Especially in this particular case. We don't exist in an information vacuum. Anyone who is even remotely clued in knows that there were some big changes this year. They're going to be talked about during games, and a LOT of attention will be paid to any underlying shift in the numbers (steals, batting average, game length, etc.). Which means people will be primed to notice the difference. In fact, it's likely that most of us will overestimate the change.

Which is basically the point I make. We follow baseball. We know the changes. Websites count up the stats for us, announcers tell us, the press goes nuts for a while, etc. Which "primes us to notice the difference", gives us the numbers to establish the difference (sometimes), over/under-hypes the difference, etc. Of course we notice the differences that are pointed out to us ... just like it's easy to see the differences when you turn the Highlights puzzle upside down and read the answers. :-)

But what would we notice in an information vacuum? Sure eventually you notice "geez that Boggs guy is always on the bases" ... but not nearly as quickly as you notice the McGwire 450-foot HR or the Blyleven curve or the Ryan fastball or, yes, that Rickey stole 4 bases this game. I don't even want to hazard a guess at what point you would notice league batting average has increased by .007.

Also my point is about complaints about the aesthetics of the game. Fine, there's one more SB attempt every two games. You've noticed it on your own. And that has increased your enjoyment level by ... 25%?? It's made you forget about those 3 extra boring strikeouts? You love that teams are "running wild" now? It's nostalgiac idolatry for baseball as played when we were 10, 15, 20 no different than pining for the America of the 50s or the classic rock of the 60s and early 70s or the jazz of the 50s and early 60s or when movie stars were movie stars or ...

In this particular case though, again I was responding to Duke who, watching X games of spring training, reported noticing no difference. Now we have a few possibilities: in the handful of games he's seen there was little/no difference while in games he hasn't seen there's been a noticeable difference (small sample problem); or he has in a sense noticed there were more SB attempts than usual but his brain wrote it off to pre-existing baseball behavior (i.e. the time was right for the steal or they were testing somebody's speed cuz it's spring training); or there was a change and he didn't notice. Seems perfectly reasonable to wonder if he would notice a change of a half-attempt per game over the space of 5 games (or whatever he has seen).

If you think it's noticeable then take it up with Duke who didn't notice.

It's made you forget about those 3 extra boring strikeouts?

Wait, you already told us we didn't notice those either.

Makes sense to run a lot in spring training this year even if it costs you outs. You need to re-calibrate your decision making on the base paths before the games count.

The 1982 Cardinals stole 200 bases and won the WS. They went 200-91 so just over 2/3. Rbaser in bWAR includes that and their running on the bases.

According to b-r all that great Cards speed on the bases added ... 4 runs. They got more runs (5) out of beating out DPs.

By 1985 they really were running wild at 314-96, adding 18 runs. That's a single team successfully stealing nearly 2 bases a game, with about 2.5 attempts. One team. Now we might be in a world where both teams combined attempt 2 steals a game instead of 1.5.

Baby steps and journeys of 10,000 miles start with a single step ... but does anybody really notice? :-)

To be clear, it's all fine with me. I'm surprised slightly bigger bases might have this big an effect but I certainly have nothing against increasing steal attempts. Still strikeouts are the McGwire 450-foot HR of aesthetic problems in baseball.

#38 Bill James got a similarly surprising result when he tried to quantify how much Rickey Henderson's base stealing added in 1982. He came up with 4.5 runs. To be clear, other methods came out with different results (WAR says 11 for baserunning) and runs created (James got the result by using the version of runs created with stolen bases and without and then considering the cost of the added outs. As good as you could do in 1983) has problems with extreme players. Still, not a lot for 130 SB.

He also noted that those Cardinal teams won when they got on base and when they didn't have good team OBP they didn't win (despite stealing loads of bases)

And let me second #37. Makes sense to try and get some kind of handle on the in game impact of the rule changes.

Your argument that certainly managers wouldn’t do irrational things is undercut by pretty much the entirety of baseball history.

OK that's a fair pt. since that idea comes up pretty regular. I would respond this way:

1. Other than bunting, what other baseball tactics have been shown to have been wrong for years on end? We had a discussion like this some time ago and one guy brought up free agency. But Im talking about strictly on the field tactics. Sure RonWash issued too many IBB but that's one guy. Is there a tactic that the entire league was wrong about and wrong for years and years?

2. Even if people bunted too much, they finally did see the light right? I dunno how many years it took. But if you look at deadball era baseball Im not sure they were bunting too much. It was a different environment so maybe more bunting was fine for that era and they didnt adapt soon enuf. So exactly what years were they bunting too much and by how many bunts? I mean can you quantify this? Maybe that mistake only happened for a few years and the league quickly figured it out. But you dont know until you put a number on it.

3. OK so you're argument comes down to: teams are stealing at irrational rates. Right? I mean I say the rate is rational you say its not. OK so are they not stealing enuf or they are stealing too much? What do you think the actual break even rate is?

I mean for say the last 20 years. I dont really understand the last three seasons why the SB success rate has reached such a high level.

Here's an interesting study by Turkenkopf who comes up with a break even rate of 70% for circa 2000, and a break even rate of 60% for dead ball season of 1968. He uses WinExpectancy values for much of this and the writing is confusing in some places and he comes up with "adjusted net steals" and for example Campaneris had 64 adjusted net steals even though he only stole 61 bases in 1969. He's just accounting for the fact that those steals were on average in higher leverage/higher WExp situations. Its confusing.

https://tht.fangraphs.com/adjusting-steals-for-win-value/

Its also interesting because in 1982 Ricky! was picked off 17 times, but 11 of them show up as CS and 6 of them are just TOOTBLANs or whatever. Its interesting because I thought after 1970 pickoffs were not counted as CS but I guess it depends. At end of the article author also seems to think that CS are twice as worse as pickoffs which I dont get.

but 11 of them show up as CS and 6 of them are just TOOTBLANs or whatever.

They could be errors, though six seems like a lot of Es. But I found one like that in Game 3 of the 1982 season.

oh wow that's really interesting.

UPDATE: OK it looks like the current rule is that a pickoff is a caught stealing if the runner tries to advance, and its not a CS if he's returning to the bag. I guess that's whats going on with Ricky. I am surprised at the number of pickoffs.

ALso do we have any career stats on say Brock or Ricky! getting picked off?

some additional googling suggests years: 2013-2018 pickoffs run about 283/season. So that's 0.06 per game.

If say 2/3 of those the runner heads for second, then approx 20% of the CS total are pickoffs. Not sure that makes sense. But whatever the number the effective real stealing rate is higher than the actual SB probability of success.

some additional googling suggests years: 2013-2018 pickoffs run about 283/season. So that's 0.06 per game.

If say 2/3 of those the runner heads for second, then approx 20% of the CS total are pickoffs. Not sure that makes sense. But whatever the number the effective real stealing rate is higher than the actual SB probability of success.

This is actually available on B-R. 2021 and 2022 had freakishly similar totals in this regard; in 2022, 125/276 pickoffs were POCS, 2021 had 124/275.

But what would we notice in an information vacuum?

Not every game is an average game. What I think would stand out to regular watchers in a non-recorded environment is the change in how often extreme events happen, like a game with 6 HR or 8 SB attempts or 30-plus total strikeouts.

Also, I suspect without evidence that we can perceive interactions between events more quickly than we can discrete events. In 2019, 45.2% of all runs in MLB scored via home run. In 1998 (not exactly the deadball era), that was 34.6%. (If you go back before the explosion of the '90s, 1989 was at 28.1%). You would see significantly more games where one or both teams scored on HR only in '19 than you would have 20-30 years earlier.

OK so if we split them in half and designate half of pickoffs as CS then pickoffs may comprise 15% of CS. Or 22% of all steal attempts.

So if the 1920 NYG steal statistic is 55% it might be about 70% in reality once we remove pickoffs. Possibly in an environment where 60% is break even.

In 2019, 45.2% of all runs in MLB scored via home run.

where did you find that stat? I been looking for it.

where did you find that stat? I been looking for it.

Calculated via the batting splits page for the league - you can get HR in each of the possible baserunner states.

2019 had 3965 HR with bases empty, 1317 with 1--, 455 -2-, 163 --3, 430 12-, 174 1-3, 118 -23, and 154 grand slams. Total of 10617 runs via HR out of 23467 for the majors overall.

thanks Eric.