Stolen Bases over the years

[Angelsjunky]

Per @Chuckster70's request, I'm turning this post from the minor league thread into its own thread. 

@Inside Pitch's comment about stolen bases got me curious, which led to this chart:

NOTE: The above chart is player Games Played per SB - not overall team games. Meaning, the average player steals a based every 33 games this year. Back in the Dead Ball era it was as high as once every 7 games.

A couple things to note. Obviously you have different eras, with a clear v-shaped trajectory (don't say it).

The height of it was, obviously, the dead-ball era. This drastically dropped once Babe Ruth led the way to more home runs, bottoming out in the 1950s when players with lead the league with as few as 15 (Dom DiMaggio in the 1950 AL). But then it started rising again - not sure why. But the second peak in the 70s - 90s is probably due to the usage of AstroTurf, which first appeared at the Astrodome in 1966. But the trend was rising before then. That era saw several players surpass 100 SB: Lou Brock in 1974; Rickey Henderson in 1980; '82 and '83; and Vince Coleman in 1985-87; plus guys like Omar Moreno, Ron LeFlore, Willie Wilson, and Tim Raines regularly surpass 70.

Starting in the late 80s, SB started going down again, especially so in the 21st century, and this is presumably because of the rise of Three True Outcomes baseball (Damn you, Bill James, Billy Beane, and statnerds). While the season is early, we're on pace for the lowest rate since the early 1960s. Jacoby Ellsbury is the last player to steal 70 bases in 2009, and Dee Strange-Gordon the last steal 50+ (60 in 2017). SB reached a new low last year, with Whit Merrifield leading the majors with 40 SB. 2022 seems more of the same, with Luis Robert leading the majors with just 5 SB through the first couple weeks.

About 20 years ago, in his last edition of the Bill James Historical Abstract, James remarked that the baseball of the 1980s was, in some ways, the most perfectly balanced era: you had home runs and stolen bases, high peak performances but not over the top. Of course that all went to shit in the 90s, and we've been out of whack since. 

Anyhow, here's hoping IP is right. 

 

[Blarg]

The Angels have the speed to steal. No single player is Maury Wills or Ricky Henderson but combined they can produce.

The last few games have been fun to watch. No long ball but aggressive base running and lots of hits out of infielders range and between the outfielders. And also some stolen bases. 

It felt like baseball had returned after a long absence.  

[floplag]

Note the beginning of the moneyball era effect on that chart, lol 

[ettin]

Can't speak to the front- or mid-end of the chart, but in recent years, advanced analytics began to show how stolen bases were not as value-added to run scoring as previously thought.

Basically, if any individual player, whether they are stealing 1 or 40 bases per year, is not converting their stolen bases at a 75% SB% or higher (i.e., success rate), they are not adding run value to the team. It then became pretty clear that stealing a base for the sake of stealing, was, in most cases, taking runs off a team's total over the course of a season. Thus the decline.

I do like the aggressive base running this season and I do think if they implement a pitch clock and limit to two throw-overs per player that could create some type of incremental, additional opportunity for stolen bases, but I do not think it is to large of a change, probably mild, if at all.

[T.G.]

When Trout first came up, I thought he was going to be more like Rickey Henderson... who is one of the most dynamic and entertaining players of all time.  Such a tremendous threat at the top of a lineup.  Well, Trout is so much more than that (of course), but I think MLB is missing the kind of talent Henderson represented.

I'd love to see that kind of player emerge again. 

 

 

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, ettin said:

Can't speak to the front- or mid-end of the chart, but in recent years, advanced analytics began to show how stolen bases were not as value-added to run scoring as previously thought.

Basically, if any individual player, whether they are stealing 1 or 40 bases per year, is not converting their stolen bases at a 75% SB% or higher (i.e., success rate), they are not adding run value to the team. It then became pretty clear that stealing a base for the sake of stealing, was, in most cases, taking runs off a team's total over the course of a season. Thus the decline.

I do like the aggressive base running this season and I do think if they implement a pitch clock and limit to two throw-overs per player that could create some type of incremental, additional opportunity for stolen bases, but I do not think it is to large of a change, probably mild, if at all.

I would be curious how more walks and such have also affected that.
You get a hit and steal second a walk doesnt score you, a hit maybe does... with much more emphasis on walks it might be artificially devaluing the stone base even more than it maybe should be resulting in stats like this.
The same is probably also true of bunting.

[Blarg]

15 minutes ago, ettin said:

Can't speak to the front- or mid-end of the chart, but in recent years, advanced analytics began to show how stolen bases were not as value-added to run scoring as previously thought.

Basically, if any individual player, whether they are stealing 1 or 40 bases per year, is not converting their stolen bases at a 75% SB% or higher (i.e., success rate), they are not adding run value to the team. It then became pretty clear that stealing a base for the sake of stealing, was, in most cases, taking runs off a team's total over the course of a season. Thus the decline.

I do like the aggressive base running this season and I do think if they implement a pitch clock and limit to two throw-overs per player that could create some type of incremental, additional opportunity for stolen bases, but I do not think it is to large of a change, probably mild, if at all.

Yeah. Well, that lead to 3 outcome baseball that is the worst baseball we have watched in decades. Station to station, wait for a home run. The kind of baseball decisions that only a stats analyst would like, take no actions that could reflect a negative outcome when calculated through aggregated league play and not the play in place. Completely lifeless.

Had the Angels followed the 3 outcome rule, station to station, no stolen bases and no bunts they would have lost the Astros series playing a game they can't win at. 

I beieve the Angels will win more games this year pushing the other teams defense to make plays. It's because that's their team make up and to play otherwise hobbles an otherwise fast horse to make it plow mule. 

 

[TheLordofOuts]

Bennie Molina stole a base every 454 games 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/molinbe01.shtml

 

[Lazorko Saves]

I think I can see Vince Coleman on your chart.

[Angelsjunky]

Alright, so I created another chart, using the first one as a basis and adding home runs - the same stat (player games per HR). 

I also cleaned up a couple errors.

Anyhow, this really accentuates the dead ball era, but from the other angle: home runs.

Once you get to the 1920s, home runs are much less volatile, which makes sense: they're harder to intentionally generate than a stolen base, and thus less changeable in frequency. But there are fluctuations, but they're a little less extreme than I would have thought.

For instance, you can see the two home run peak in the mid-90s to early 00s, then a small dip, than an increase in recent years (but a drop this year). But it isn't hugely different than the 1950s on.

What I find most interesting is how HR and SB meet in the mid-70s to early 90s...this backs up Bill James' assertion about that era being particularly balanced and dynamic.

Note also the dark blue squares - the five seasons in which the games played per HR and SB were the same (rounded to the nearest whole number): 1929, 1931, 1978, 1983, and 1989. But the HR and SB totals were never exactly the same:

1929: 1349 HR, 1329 SB

1931: 1069 HR, 1088 SB

1978: 2956 HR, 3004 SB

1983: 3301 HR, 3325 SB

1989: 3083 HR, 3115 SB

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[ettin]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Alright, so I created another chart, using the first one as a basis and adding home runs - the same stat (player games per HR). 

 

I also cleaned up a couple errors.

Anyhow, this really accentuates the dead ball era, but from the other angle: home runs.

Once you get to the 1920s, home runs are much less volatile, which makes sense: they're harder to intentionally generate than a stolen base, and thus less changeable in frequency. But there are fluctuations, but they're a little less extreme than I would have thought.

For instance, you can see the two home run peak in the mid-90s to early 00s, then a small dip, than an increase in recent years (but a drop this year). But it isn't hugely different than the 1950s on.

What I find most interesting is how HR and SB meet in the mid-70s to early 90s...this backs up Bill James' assertion about that era being particularly balanced and dynamic.

Note also the dark blue squares - the five seasons in which the games played per HR and SB were the same (rounded to the nearest whole number): 1929, 1931, 1978, 1983, and 1989. But the HR and SB totals were never exactly the same:

1929: 1349 HR, 1329 SB

1931: 1069 HR, 1088 SB

1978: 2956 HR, 3004 SB

1983: 3301 HR, 3325 SB

1989: 3083 HR, 3115 SB

 

The increase in home run's is reflective of improved health and conditioning in MLB (and earlier on it was partially steroids). Also players bulking up strength-wise, which also has a slight incremental impact on base stealing as you "don't want to take the bat" out of a power hitter's hands. It is a confluence of issues.

EDIT: And to be clear I am speaking to the last 20-25 years of baseball on the chart.

Edited April 23, 2022 by ettin

[arch stanton]

What I took from the chart was that stolen bases started rising again once there was an infusion of non-white players then continued to rise through expansion and astroturf then died with the end of astroturf and the beginning of the analytics era

[AngelsLakersFan]

19 hours ago, floplag said:

I would be curious how more walks and such have also affected that.
You get a hit and steal second a walk doesnt score you, a hit maybe does... with much more emphasis on walks it might be artificially devaluing the stone base even more than it maybe should be resulting in stats like this.
The same is probably also true of bunting.

The higher the run scoring environment the lower the marginal value of a stolen base and the higher the marginal cost of an out. Also the higher the run scoring environment the lower the value of slugging and the higher the value of on base percentage. Essentially when runs are hard to come by stolen bases, base hits, triples, taking the extra base, all that becomes more valuable. When teams score a lot of runs the emphasis turns to simply getting on first base.

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 hours ago, arch stanton said:

What I took from the chart was that stolen bases started rising again once there was an infusion of non-white players then continued to rise through expansion and astroturf then died with the end of astroturf and the beginning of the analytics era

I really don't want to see them bring back astro turf, but what would be nice would be an effort to promote fast infields and outfields. Cut the grass short, let the ball keep rolling. 

I've said it before but MLB's goal of reducing the travel distance of balls is misguided. In many ways modern players have become too big and strong for fields that have gotten smaller and smaller over the years. I'd like to see balls going further and faster, but with larger fields to contain them.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I really don't want to see them bring back astro turf, but what would be nice would be an effort to promote fast infields and outfields. Cut the grass short, let the ball keep rolling. 

I've said it before but MLB's goal of reducing the travel distance of balls is misguided. In many ways modern players have become too big and strong for fields that have gotten smaller and smaller over the years. I'd like to see balls going further and faster, but with larger fields to contain them.

It is the problem the PGA has with stronger players and better clubs and golf balls, finesse is no longer needed when you can bomb it 300+ plus yards past the designers intended landing zones and have wedge distances on all par fours and every par 5 is reachable in 2 with an iron. They run out of real estate to make the courses longer and for most ballparks it takes out a lot of seats to reconstruct the walls to be another 10 feet further away and would have no significant change. You almost have to go Polo Field distances to change the game. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

It is the problem the PGA has with stronger players and better clubs and golf balls, finesse is no longer needed when you can bomb it 300+ plus yards past the designers intended landing zones and have wedge distances on all par fours and every par 5 is reachable in 2 with an iron. They run out of real estate to make the courses longer and for most ballparks it takes out a lot of seats to reconstruct the walls to be another 10 feet further away and would have no significant change. You almost have to go Polo Field distances to change the game. 

I don't think the changes would have to be that extreme, but it's a good point to mention the Polo Grounds when talking about how the game has changed. I believe the dimensions were less than 300 feet down the lines but angling straight back to over 500 feet in the deepest parts of center. A ball could roll forever there, and a combination of power and speed is truly rewarded. 

Today's stadiums have all been getting smaller, and I don't just mean that they've all been constructed that way. At this point it feels like everyone has moved the fences in. Obviously in Anaheim we painted the yellow line, but virtually all of the 'large' ball parks have made changes that brought the fences closer: Detroit, New York, Houston, Seattle, San Diego, I'm sure there are more. Reverting those changes, establishing rules regarding outfield size for newly constructed parks, and evaluating existing stadiums for ways they could extend their outfields without bulldozing seats seems do-able. I think it would also make for a lot of new, fun quirks to a lot of boring existing stadiums.

[Blarg]

That stupid line should never have been moved from the top of the wall. Pushing back the center field wall so you end up with those weird angles like at the Astros stadium would one way to add length but my fear is the outfielders navigating the corners on a run. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

36 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Pushing back the center field wall so you end up with those weird angles like at the Astros stadium would one way to add length but my fear is the outfielders navigating the corners on a run. 

It would certainly be entertaining to watch. Probably would get an inside the park homerun from time to time. Plus quirky outfield dimensions tend to favor the home team.

[arch stanton]

19 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I really don't want to see them bring back astro turf, but what would be nice would be an effort to promote fast infields and outfields. Cut the grass short, let the ball keep rolling. 

I've said it before but MLB's goal of reducing the travel distance of balls is misguided. In many ways modern players have become too big and strong for fields that have gotten smaller and smaller over the years. I'd like to see balls going further and faster, but with larger fields to contain them.

I’d actually like to see turf infields and deeper power alleys. Maybe go back to ash bats and soften the balls a bit. Make home runs harder to hit 

[Stradling]

@Blarg and @AngelsLakersFan really good back and forth.  I like reading things that I hadn’t thought of that causes me to give the topic more thought and you both did that.  I knew the golf course construction issues, but didn’t consider having them grow the grass a little longer to slow the roll of tee shots. Also, I really enjoyed how fast the game was in the early 80’s.  It would be cool if some teams cut the outfield grass very short to allow the ball to skip rather than “lay up”. Good stuff guys. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 hours ago, arch stanton said:

I’d actually like to see turf infields and deeper power alleys. Maybe go back to ash bats and soften the balls a bit. Make home runs harder to hit 

Ya I would definitely support this if they were to try it. I think they are using a turf infield in Texas now, which will be interesting to see play out. Im not sure if the modern type of turf has the same effects as the old carpet though.

[floplag]

On 4/23/2022 at 10:12 AM, AngelsLakersFan said:

The higher the run scoring environment the lower the marginal value of a stolen base and the higher the marginal cost of an out. Also the higher the run scoring environment the lower the value of slugging and the higher the value of on base percentage. Essentially when runs are hard to come by stolen bases, base hits, triples, taking the extra base, all that becomes more valuable. When teams score a lot of runs the emphasis turns to simply getting on first base.

I get what you ae trying to say, but... how do you create that environment?
A guy walks, plays station to station running, its going to take at least another walk and a hit to score him, barring a bomb. 
In the just get on base mentality, you are basically playing for bombs to score those runs.  Youre not even trying to manufacture anything or string hits or pressure defenses, youre literally standing around waiting for someone to hit a home run to score you.  
Now, that has worked a lot in recent years, but lets be honest, its boring baseball.
To me its one of the biggest issues facing the game today.. not pace of play, but the game just isnt exciting.   walk walk three run bomb.. ok i cheer once.  hot, steal, another hit, maybe then a bomb... thats more going on, more to watch, more to enjoy.
Yes it goes against some of the analytics, but this isnt supposed to be live action strat-o-matic is it?  Would you pay to watchthat?  Thats what weve been doing in recent years. 
Its just my opinion and as such i dont expect many to agree, but moneyball baseball is boring baseball, thats the real problem the game faces today. 

[T.G.]

Have any of these bases ever been recovered?

 

Seriously, any game that requires the defense to actually make a play is much more entertaining.

[HaloBronco]

On 4/23/2022 at 1:41 PM, Blarg said:

That stupid line should never have been moved from the top of the wall. Pushing back the center field wall so you end up with those weird angles like at the Astros stadium would one way to add length but my fear is the outfielders navigating the corners on a run. 

Couldn’t agree more, how about they put that stupid line back to the top where it was.

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 hours ago, floplag said:

I get what you ae trying to say, but... how do you create that environment?
A guy walks, plays station to station running, its going to take at least another walk and a hit to score him, barring a bomb. 
In the just get on base mentality, you are basically playing for bombs to score those runs.  Youre not even trying to manufacture anything or string hits or pressure defenses, youre literally standing around waiting for someone to hit a home run to score you.  
Now, that has worked a lot in recent years, but lets be honest, its boring baseball.
To me its one of the biggest issues facing the game today.. not pace of play, but the game just isnt exciting.   walk walk three run bomb.. ok i cheer once.  hot, steal, another hit, maybe then a bomb... thats more going on, more to watch, more to enjoy.
Yes it goes against some of the analytics, but this isnt supposed to be live action strat-o-matic is it?  Would you pay to watchthat?  Thats what weve been doing in recent years. 
Its just my opinion and as such i dont expect many to agree, but moneyball baseball is boring baseball, thats the real problem the game faces today. 

I tend to agree. I think it stems from the love of the homerun. Fans love homeruns and players who hit more homeruns are more valuable. Fans loving homeruns brought the fences in, and teams in turn have optimized around that.

More homeruns, walks and strike outs make for less opportunities for defenses, which skews the balance in favor of hitting skills over defensive skills when filling out the lineup card. At the same time larger rosters and deeper bullpens gave pitchers more rest and have allowed them to throw harder, increasing strikeouts.

The solution? I’m not sure if there is one, but there are things they need to try. They need to move the fences back for starters, particularly in power allies. Reduce the number of pitchers allowed on the roster at once. Increase the amount of time players need to spend in the minors before being called up. Possibly increase the minimum IL time. The DH hasn’t helped here either as it creates another bat-only everyday position in the lineup and eliminates much of the need for defensive flexibility on the bench. They should make changes to the rule.

If that doesn’t work they should consider reducing the distance between bases, lowering or moving back the mound.