thaklanksta wrote:The reason is loss of concentration because he is worried about the speed of Pierre.
How do you know this? This is a logical fallacy, Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Essentially, you're saying that because Pierre was about to steal a base, and the next pitch was bad, that Pierre caused the bad pitch.
Just because A happened before B doesn't mean A caused B. For example, the fuel light went on in my car, then my car ran out of gas. Thus, the fuel light caused my car to run out of gas.
There is no way to prove the effect of the possibility of an SB on a pitcher. That's what us stats people say when this is brought up.
SBs don't help you score runs, though, that's clear.
I agree with all of this post except the last comment. If the SB% is over (I'm pretty sure it's) 73%, it has a beneficial effect on the runs scored by a team. But that's a very high number.
DK, you're right. Yeah, my point was that for the vast number of base stealers, it isn't worth it. If you're pulling a 10-10 like Abreu or something like that, then it's worth it. But Alex Sanchez? No.
Anyone who doesnt think intangibles exist in baseball just because you cant quantify its is not in touch with the game. Im sure if Bill James and Joe Morgan got in an argument james would murder Morgan cause he would have all this evidence. But if the topic is if intangibles affect the game and James said no and Morgan said yes i would believe Morgan simply cause he played the game. And please no one say that i dont believe in stats cause thats bull, but i cant believe someone here would say there are no situation in a baseball game when the athmosphere changes(1º inning vs 9º inning etc..) just because there´s no data. If you want data about that ask the same question to a hundred major leaguers and see why they answer
"Nothing is this world worth remembering was ever accomplished without Pasion"-Hegel
DK wrote:I actually met Joe Morgan. He spoke at Larry (Doby)'s funeral, and he was actually quite a charming man.
Moving on to his views on statistics: He's a total idiot when it comes to that. Maybe if he realized that Bill James actually has him as the #1 2B of all time, he'd change his mind...
The sad thing about Joe Morgan is that he's the exact kind of player that Billy Beane would want. He always drew a TON of walks (career 1883/1046 BB/K) and he had a VERY strong SB% (689/162). He is the coveted player of the man he despises. He believes in all that old stuff- bunting the hitter ahead, hitting the cutoff, having strong fielding, etc. Meanwhile, he was doing exactly what Bill James & Beane want him to do: Take walks.
Anyone else find that strange?
This is called irony. Morgan is the type of player that saber-types absolutely love! Though Morgan had a low career BA he generated a ton of runs because he drew many walks AND hit for power AND was a great percentage base stealer plus he played great defense. Morgan is very biased but at least he admits it!! He recently wrote an atricle about Johnny Bench vs Pudge and he flat out said that he was biased and no one could ever convince him that any catcher can be better than Bench. And the reason he gave was because he played with Bench and since he didn't play with Pudge, then Bench is better. Some logic there...
Amazinz wrote:I understand what he is saying but there is no evidence to suggest that this is true. You can prove that a pitcher becomes more hittable with a man on base. Neyer did a little study about this awile back, taking into account the difference when the man on base was a base-stealing threat. There was no difference. Does that prove that these intangibles don't exist? No but I think it's enough evidence for me to believe that they don't.
Neyer is fun to read, and his aggressive attitude about data and baseball is refreshing, but he is just not that good of a statistician. I haven't read the article you're talking about, but here're my problems against the usual sort of analyses he comes up with. First, he tend to lump players together. If you believe players are all iid, yeah sure, but they're not. Some pitchers, e.g., Jose Contreras, are more prone to being affected than others. Pooling them is going to blow up the variance of your sample, so as to not being able to draw any firm conclusions.
Anyway, maybe I should put my money where my mouth is. Then again it might be a lot of work, and I don't get paid for it.
athxu wrote:This is a similar argument to the one made by people who believe in clutch hitters. I can't disprove your opinion but in my opinion MLB players are the creme of the crop. I do not believe a base-stealing threat in the late innings of a playoff game would have any more effect than in any other game.
I'm skeptical about the clutch hitting idea, but this is based on a much more plausible story. The idea is that the pitcher has to divert some of his attention away from the batter and to the runner, if the runner is a known base stealer. One would think pitching requires focus...
I just had an idea for a simple study to run. I'll post it to another thread, since this one's getting kind of long. I don't know where I would be able to get data for this sort of thing, but others might.
The Moneyball thing doesn't go for SB or SAC though, they go for hitting or walking and getting pushed around the bases by more hits/ walks. The whole OBP thing also entails a philosophy that outs are bad and that you are better w/ a 1 in 4 chance of a hit or 4 in 10 chance of a hit/ walk than to waste a valuable out a runner risking getting caught or the batter throwing away a PA on bunting a runner over. Neither the As nor the Red Sox, as examples of statbased teams, steal too much.
I agree w/ Joe that an 'active' runner on base can distract the pitcher enough to cause the pitcher to screw up a pitch, give up a hit and really go to pieces. I read moneyball and have watched what happens and I don't totally buy it. Outs and hitting are very important concepts but I think that the most important stat is 'Wins'. I like Morgan OK, even though he does often come across with a sort of know it all kind of demeanor because I think that intangibles can make a critical difference in situations in games.
DK wrote:The sad thing about Joe Morgan is that he's the exact kind of player that Billy Beane would want. He always drew a TON of walks (career 1883/1046 BB/K) and he had a VERY strong SB% (689/162). He is the coveted player of the man he despises. He believes in all that old stuff- bunting the hitter ahead, hitting the cutoff, having strong fielding, etc. Meanwhile, he was doing exactly what Bill James & Beane want him to do: Take walks.