% of scoring/stealing-2 questions

Question 1:

does anyone have a chart that shows the % of soring in every situation. EX: 1st base with no out, 1 out, 2 outs. 2nd base with 1 out, 2 out ect ect.

Even the advanced stuff would help, Like chances of multiple runs with 1st/2nd with 1 out ect



Question 2:

The approx sb% a base stealer needs for it to actually have a positive impact. I know its about 70ish%, I'm just looing for an exact answer


I don't know if this is "thread worthy", I was just curious..Writting a paper titled "the game within the game". THANKS!

This might help you

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html


And you have to steal base over 75% of the time to make it worth it, but 70% is passable.

Over 80% and you should keep on running.

League average is about 67% of the time, which really just means that most of baseball steals more than they should, only a few teams actually steal like they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

This might help you

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html


And you have to steal base over 75% of the time to make it worth it, but 70% is passable.

Over 80% and you should keep on running.

League average is about 67% of the time, which really just means that most of baseball steals more than they should, only a few teams actually steal like they should.

---

Thanks man!! Big help!

Any chart showing the chances of just scoring a singular run in those situations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bos_Sports4Life

Thanks man!! Big help!

Any chart showing the chances of just scoring a singular run in those situations?

---

I'm not entirely certain, but I would check Fangraphs, or even write them.

Their WPA chart is pretty fantastic and could answer it. I have only played a little with the chart myself. There is a right answer, but I don't know that I can give you that right answer necessarily.

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Here you go



I feel like these need updating. Much different hitting environment post-steroid era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jetsfan28

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Here you go



I feel like these need updating. Much different hitting environment post-steroid era.

---

Thanks guys!

I think the numbers are relatively interesting for casual fans. The #'s paint a pretty clear picture imo

* Stealing is over used/overrated
* Sacrificing an out for runner advancement is over used/overrated

Bunting successflly isn't 100% and even when it is, on average..You lessen the chances of multiple runs AND 1 run.

Kind of interested to see the success rate for players attempting to bunt..no idea if they keep such a stat though :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bos_Sports4Life

Thanks guys!

I think the numbers are relatively interesting for casual fans. The #'s paint a pretty clear picture imo

* Stealing is over used/overrated
* Sacrificing an out for runner advancement is over used/overrated

Bunting successflly isn't 100% and even when it is, on average..You lessen the chances of multiple runs AND 1 run.

Kind of interested to see the success rate for players attempting to bunt..no idea if they keep such a stat though :confused:

---

yup. Every bit of that is correct :)


Fun fact:
runner on first, nobody out - 0.953 runs score
runner on second, one out - 0.725 runs score

Keep bunting idiots

runners on first and second, nobody out - 1.573 runs score
runners on second and third, one out - 1.467 runs score

So you bunting.....costs you runs.

Unless you have a ground ball happy hitter against a ground ball happy pitcher and he is a slow runner, bunting is really counter-productive.

Small-ball is very misleading, and people think it works, when it doesn't work out as much as people think.

To quote Earl Weaver

'when you play for one run, one run is all you will get'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bos_Sports4Life

Thanks guys!

I think the numbers are relatively interesting for casual fans. The #'s paint a pretty clear picture imo

* Stealing is over used/overrated
* Sacrificing an out for runner advancement is over used/overrated

Bunting successflly isn't 100% and even when it is, on average..You lessen the chances of multiple runs AND 1 run.

Kind of interested to see the success rate for players attempting to bunt..no idea if they keep such a stat though :confused:

---

Yup. Obviously this greatly depends on who is at the plate (bunting is more acceptable with an awful hitter) and who is pitching, but if you have an average hitter at the plate, followed by another average hitter, against an average pitcher, it only makes sense with a runner on 2nd (or 1st and 2nd) and 0 outs when you're playing for 1 run.

Although keep in mind, matrices such as this are not perfect. I would think that they're somewhat flawed in the fact that pitchers who let more runners on base tend to be worse pitchers, so they'd obviously give up more runs, it's not as if there's always a neutral pitcher pitching. Facing King Felix with 1st and 2nd and 0 outs is different than facing Jonathan Sanchez, different pitchers would yield different results as would different hitters.

That being said, I feel like it may be more beneficial in the current offensive environment. With less hitting in general, it may be worth it more often now to get a runner to 3rd with less than 2 outs (just like a lower success % might be necessary to make attempting to steal a positive thing), it will be fine seeing these stats evolve in the next few years as we get more of an idea of where we lie post-steroid era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jetsfan28

Yup. Obviously this greatly depends on who is at the plate (bunting is more acceptable with an awful hitter) and who is pitching, but if you have an average hitter at the plate, followed by another average hitter, against an average pitcher, it only makes sense with a runner on 2nd (or 1st and 2nd) and 0 outs when you're playing for 1 run.

Although keep in mind, matrices such as this are not perfect. I would think that they're somewhat flawed in the fact that pitchers who let more runners on base tend to be worse pitchers, so they'd obviously give up more runs, it's not as if there's always a neutral pitcher pitching. Facing King Felix with 1st and 2nd and 0 outs is different than facing Jonathan Sanchez, different pitchers would yield different results as would different hitters.

That being said, I feel like it may be more beneficial in the current offensive environment. With less hitting in general, it may be worth it more often now to get a runner to 3rd with less than 2 outs (just like a lower success % might be necessary to make attempting to steal a positive thing), it will be fine seeing these stats evolve in the next few years as we get more of an idea of where we lie post-steroid era.

---

I deff agree all situations are not equal which is why small ball will always have a place..

However, bunting on average hurts your chances at getting 1 run, and thats IF the bunt was executed. I'm sure those who follow the NL see small ball executed more, But it seems like a lot of players in the AL can't execute a simple bunt a lot of the times. My eyes could be playing tricks though..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bos_Sports4Life

I deff agree all situations are not equal which is why small ball will always have a place..

However, bunting on average hurts your chances at getting 1 run, and thats IF the bunt was executed. I'm sure those who follow the NL see small ball executed more, But it seems like a lot of players in the AL can't execute a simple bunt a lot of the times. My eyes could be playing tricks though..

---

Oh, my favorite.

The corner infielders are about 40 feet from the plate when the bunt is executed and they throw the lead runner out by 15 feet. You see that, don't ****ing bunt!

Or when the hitter can't execute the bunt and strikes out.


There is that 6% chance that an error will happen, or that 4% chance that the hitter actually beats out the bunt for a hit :)

That 10% is actually less frequent than the 17% of the times the bunt isn't even executed as planned (strike out, lead runner thrown out etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Oh, my favorite.

The corner infielders are about 40 feet from the plate when the bunt is executed and they throw the lead runner out by 15 feet. You see that, don't ****ing bunt!

Or when the hitter can't execute the bunt and strikes out.


There is that 6% chance that an error will happen, or that 4% chance that the hitter actually beats out the bunt for a hit :)

That 10% is actually less frequent than the 17% of the times the bunt isn't even executed as planned (strike out, lead runner thrown out etc).

---

im actually extremely shocked bunting is executed 83% of the time..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bos_Sports4Life

im actually extremely shocked bunting is executed 83% of the time..

---

Well to be fair, that doesn't account for some situations, more so just 17% of the time at least it isn't executed correctly.

There are other factors, like the guy eventually draws a walk, or a fielders choice that wasn't the lead runner (i.e. throws the guy out at second).

And I don't know if it accounts for the pop outs.

Maybe. I'd have to look into it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

yup. Every bit of that is correct :)


Fun fact:
runner on first, nobody out - 0.953 runs score
runner on second, one out - 0.725 runs score

Keep bunting idiots

runners on first and second, nobody out - 1.573 runs score
runners on second and third, one out - 1.467 runs score

So you bunting.....costs you runs.

Unless you have a ground ball happy hitter against a ground ball happy pitcher and he is a slow runner, bunting is really counter-productive.

Small-ball is very misleading, and people think it works, when it doesn't work out as much as people think.

To quote Earl Weaver

'when you play for one run, one run is all you will get'

---

I'm just curious if I'm reading this right. I understand bunting takes away the big inning but does it not guarantee the one run more?
If a team was in extra innings say the bottom of the tenth wouldn't it be better to have men on second and third with 1 out then to have men on first and second with no outs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

I'm just curious if I'm reading this right. I understand bunting takes away the big inning but does it not guarantee the one run more?

---

yup. Even the one run is harder to get.

You only get 3 outs in an inning, giving away one third of your chances to score a run to move up one of 4 necessary bases is actually counter-productive.

abort 33% to net 25%....sort of sums it up. Most people just think in the sense that you are putting a guy into scoring position, a single will score him. But you need to remember that the chances of netting a single are actually rather low with only two opportunities, and an extra base hit would score the runner most likely any way.

Most people think in the sense of....if I bunt him over, I avoid the double play (A double play only happens about 7% of the time when a runner is on first and there is nobody out) and I put him into scoring position.

But you still have a decent probability of your runner scoring on an extra base hit, and a single would still advance him to third with nobody out (or at least to second).

You don't want to give up one of your three outs. That's the only thing you have offensively in baseball. There is no clock, so as long as you don't use your 3 outs, you keep scoring. So why give one away for free?

I can go into all the probabilities of each situation in detail if anyone would like. Runner on first, nobody out, league average probabilities are about (different with every hitter and every pitcher on the mound, but there are exact answers with each match-up) 7% chance of a double play, 19% chance of a single, 7% chance of an extra base hit, 8% chance of a walk, 17% chance of a productive out (does the same thing as a bunt) or fielders choice and another 24% chance that you strike out, and about another 19% chance that you just make a standard out (fly out that doesn't advance the runner basically).

I rounded all of those numbers, and they vary based on the hitter and the pitcher. If you have Justin Verlander on the mound, you have a higher chance of striking out, different chance of that double play etc, and if you have Albert Pujols at the plate vs Cliff Pennington.

You have at least a 32% chance that your hitter does something productive without making an out (assuming a league average hitter) and another 17% chance that they do the same thing a bunt does without just handing them the out. You also have the probability of an error and other things can happen, and those percentages are in there. I was just sort of rounding above.


So why would you just give away one of your 3 outs to increase your odds of scoring in a 20% opportunity base? Unless you have Ryan Theriot or Starlin Castro coming up and your are bunting with Ryan Vogelsong (a bad hitter) or a heavy duty ground ball hitter like Derek Jeter you aren't really helping your team out by bunting. The situation has to be almost perfect to actually warrant laying down a bunt. And this includes when pitchers come up to the plate.


It's funny, the same thing fits in football. Teams give up their possessions way too easily. They punt far too often in professional football and worry too much about field position, and are willing to sacrifice the possession of the ball in order to save a few percentage points in field range but give up the ball. The one thing you can control.

When you put it in that perspective, it sort of changes your goals.

The problem is that so many of us were brought up that this is what you are supposed to do in these situations/scenarios by people that had a short term goal in mind when they started doing them, and they never had any numbers in front of them to analyze the data. The real shame is that now we actually have the information, and people are still choosing to ignore the information (or are still unaware of it).

Quote:

---

If a team was in extra innings say the bottom of the tenth wouldn't it be better to have men on second and third with 1 out then to have men on first and second with no outs?

---

Not necessarily.

More often you are going to score a guy that is sitting on second with nobody out than to have him at third with one out. You have three chances to score that guy, and even a productive out has a fair probability of happening that gives you the same benefit as that bunt.

If you are playing for one run, it can be a better scenario. But you should be playing the percentages based on the hitter and the pitcher (i.e. are you facing Carlos Marmol or Craig Kimbrel? and at the plate do you have Jose Bautista or Raul Ibanez?).

Assuming it's three neutral level hitters due up, and a neutral level pitcher on the mound. You are better off taking three attempts to swing and get a base hit rather than bunting (hoping that even works out) and then taking two swings, only one of which can net a positive on a productive out.

You limit yourself too quickly by giving away one of your only three outs to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

I'm just curious if I'm reading this right. I understand bunting takes away the big inning but does it not guarantee the one run more?
If a team was in extra innings say the bottom of the tenth wouldn't it be better to have men on second and third with 1 out then to have men on first and second with no outs?

---

It IS better to have 2nd and 3rd with 1 out than 1st and 2nd with 0 out. Also better to have runner on 3rd with 1 out than runner on 2nd with 0 out.

1st and 2nd, 0 out - .643 chance at a run
2nd and 3rd, 1 out - .698 chance

2nd, 0 out - .637 chance
3rd, 1 out - .674



Those are the ONLY times it makes sense to bunt given an average hitter/pitcher/runners/defense, if you need 1 run in those two situations