Jose Reyes - Most SBs in 20 years possible this season (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Jose Reyes is on pace for just under 90 SBs. The last time anyone stole over 80 was 1988 - nearly 20 years ago. That year Vince Coleman stole 81 and Rickey stole 93.

It is possible Reyes gets over 93, but more likely he will end up at or around 85 SBs. Regardless, that is the best mark in nearly two decades.

Anyone know if SBs in general are up (perhaps now that roider HRs are down?)

Edit to add: As he is on pace for nearly 90 SBs in a good but not great season otherwise, do you think Reyes hits the 100 mark ever? For a long time that was not even a possibility entering a season. Now we have to at least consider the thought.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

There less of a willingness to run yourself out of an inning, hence most SB numbers are down.

However, Reyes is just a very special player, and he could have stolen in any time.

 

[the moops]

Over-Rated

 

[Koya]

Over-Rated

Explain. He is not having as good a season as some of us thought, but even so I don't believe there is a player in baseball that is as disruptive a force from the leadoff spot as is Reyes.He has a very good chance to continue to grow as a hitter as well, so it is certainly conceivable for him to be a .390+ OBP or even .400 guy as he matures. If he remains healthy, that could mean, as I propose, a 100 SB season. Or 90+ with more doubles than he has this year (his power numbers are what are disappointing this year).But again, his skill set changes the entire nature of games. He takes good pitchers having good games and literally throws such a wrench into their rythym that they lose their groove and the game (ive seen this more than once this season).I am not saying he is Rickey Henderson... but he is the closest thing to Rickey since Rickey. I bet even Rickey would agree.

 

[SofaKings]

Here's hoping he beats Rickey's record.

 

[SofaKings]

Over-Rated

Explain. He is not having as good a season as some of us thought, but even so I don't believe there is a player in baseball that is as disruptive a force from the leadoff spot as is Reyes.He has a very good chance to continue to grow as a hitter as well, so it is certainly conceivable for him to be a .390+ OBP or even .400 guy as he matures. If he remains healthy, that could mean, as I propose, a 100 SB season. Or 90+ with more doubles than he has this year (his power numbers are what are disappointing this year).

But again, his skill set changes the entire nature of games. He takes good pitchers having good games and literally throws such a wrench into their rythym that they lose their groove and the game (ive seen this more than once this season).

I am not saying he is Rickey Henderson... but he is the closest thing to Rickey since Rickey. I bet even Rickey would agree.

Rickey said, "Rickey doesn't agree".

 

[Koya]

Over-Rated

Explain. He is not having as good a season as some of us thought, but even so I don't believe there is a player in baseball that is as disruptive a force from the leadoff spot as is Reyes.He has a very good chance to continue to grow as a hitter as well, so it is certainly conceivable for him to be a .390+ OBP or even .400 guy as he matures. If he remains healthy, that could mean, as I propose, a 100 SB season. Or 90+ with more doubles than he has this year (his power numbers are what are disappointing this year).

But again, his skill set changes the entire nature of games. He takes good pitchers having good games and literally throws such a wrench into their rythym that they lose their groove and the game (ive seen this more than once this season).

I am not saying he is Rickey Henderson... but he is the closest thing to Rickey since Rickey. I bet even Rickey would agree.

Rickey said, "Rickey doesn't agree".

Rickey asks you then, who you think Rickey would think was closest to Rickey? Cant be Rickey, cause take it from Rickey, no one but Rickey is Rickey.

 

[King Biggie Cube]

rickey wuz amazing, ah loved watching dat guy play ball

 

[bialczabub]

1) The idea that a guy "terroizes pitchers on the basepaths" in vastly overblown. In general, anyone on base has a pretty good effect on the pitcher piutching to the guy in the batter's box, but it doesn't matter so much how quick hte guy on first is.

2) Reyes has 69 SBs on 84 attempts, a rate of 82%. Using this chart, and ignoring when Reyes gets on with a man already on third, we get the following

If no one is out, an effective steal is worth 1.17373 - 0.91677, or 0.257 runs, and, similarly, being caught stealing costs 0.634 runs, the "break-even rate" is therefore 71.2%.

If there is one out, the numbers become 0.192 and 0.423 for a break-even rate of 68.8%

If there are two outs, the numbers become 0.124 and 0.234 for a break-even rate of 65.4%.

At an 82% clip, his expected contribution is 0.097 runs per attempt with no outs, 0.081 runs per attempt with one out, and 0.060 runs per attempt with two outs.

Say he steals bases 2/3 of the time with no outs, 1/4 of the time with one out, and 1/12 of the time with two outs.

100 stolen bases over the season, therefore, equates to 100*(0.66666*0.097+0.25*0.081+0.08333*0.06) = 9 runs, or approximately one win to the Mets over the entire season for his troubles.

If he steals bases with an equal probability of each number of outs, he is contributing only 8 runs.

Now you know why base stealing is down.

 

[Koya]

1) The idea that a guy "terroizes pitchers on the basepaths" in vastly overblown. In general, anyone on base has a pretty good effect on the pitcher piutching to the guy in the batter's box, but it doesn't matter so much how quick hte guy on first is.

2) Reyes has 69 SBs on 84 attempts, a rate of 82%. Using this chart, and ignoring when Reyes gets on with a man already on third, we get the following

If no one is out, an effective steal is worth 1.17373 - 0.91677, or 0.257 runs, and, similarly, being caught stealing costs 0.634 runs, the "break-even rate" is therefore 71.2%.

If there is one out, the numbers become 0.192 and 0.423 for a break-even rate of 68.8%

If there are two outs, the numbers become 0.124 and 0.234 for a break-even rate of 65.4%.

At an 82% clip, his expected contribution is 0.097 runs per attempt with no outs, 0.081 runs per attempt with one out, and 0.060 runs per attempt with two outs.

Say he steals bases 2/3 of the time with no outs, 1/4 of the time with one out, and 1/12 of the time with two outs.

100 stolen bases over the season, therefore, equates to 100*(0.66666*0.097+0.25*0.081+0.08333*0.06) = 9 runs, or approximately one win to the Mets over the entire season for his troubles.

If he steals bases with an equal probability of each number of outs, he is contributing only 8 runs.

Now you know why base stealing is down.

Simple question: Have you WATCHED many games with Reyes this year?I understand your math, but I have literally seen very good pitchers get at least off track, and sometimes unravelled completely, because of Reyes. That is something you may not be able to quantify, but you can't ignore it.

 

[bialczabub]

Simple question: Have you WATCHED many games with Reyes this year?

I understand your math, but I have literally seen very good pitchers get at least off track, and sometimes unravelled completely, because of Reyes. That is something you may not be able to quantify, but you can't ignore it.

You actually CAN quantify it. You look at the performance of players batting after Reyes when he is on base vs. when he isn't. It's unintuitive, but true that it's wildly overblown to think runners significantly help the batters behind them.From Baseball Between the Numbers (paraphrased a bit)

Over the past 5 years, batters who came to the plate with the top 20% of base-stealers on first saw their OPS increase by 24 points over expected performance. On the other hand, batters coming to the plate with the slowest runners on first saw an increase of just 13 points. The quintiles in between saw OPS increases of 27%, 17%, and 20%.

So it's true that runners on first who are more likely to steal improved the performance of the batter at the plate, but the difference between the most and least aggressive baserunners is marginal: 11 points of OPS.

 

[Koya]

Simple question: Have you WATCHED many games with Reyes this year?

I understand your math, but I have literally seen very good pitchers get at least off track, and sometimes unravelled completely, because of Reyes. That is something you may not be able to quantify, but you can't ignore it.

You actually CAN quantify it. You look at the performance of players batting after Reyes when he is on base vs. when he isn't. It's unintuitive, but true that it's wildly overblown to think runners significantly help the batters behind them.From Baseball Between the Numbers (paraphrased a bit)

Over the past 5 years, batters who came to the plate with the top 20% of base-stealers on first saw their OPS increase by 24 points over expected performance. On the other hand, batters coming to the plate with the slowest runners on first saw an increase of just 13 points. The quintiles in between saw OPS increases of 27%, 17%, and 20%.

So it's true that runners on first who are more likely to steal improved the performance of the batter at the plate, but the difference between the most and least aggressive baserunners is marginal: 11 points of OPS.

Once again, have you watched REYES play? I can't speak about other basestealers. But have with my own mind watched a pitcher who was in one of those pitching grooves, mowing guys down, get their concentration off track to such a degree that it NEVER came back over the course of that game. Just happened last week against SD in the middle game of the series (I think thats the one - I think it was Peavy but not sure).You are talking about better basestealers in general. I contend that Reyes' effect is significantly more than what your figures demonstrate. Sometimes, even in baseball, there is room for non-quantified analysis.

 

[bialczabub]

Simple question: Have you WATCHED many games with Reyes this year?

I understand your math, but I have literally seen very good pitchers get at least off track, and sometimes unravelled completely, because of Reyes. That is something you may not be able to quantify, but you can't ignore it.

You actually CAN quantify it. You look at the performance of players batting after Reyes when he is on base vs. when he isn't. It's unintuitive, but true that it's wildly overblown to think runners significantly help the batters behind them.From Baseball Between the Numbers (paraphrased a bit)

Over the past 5 years, batters who came to the plate with the top 20% of base-stealers on first saw their OPS increase by 24 points over expected performance. On the other hand, batters coming to the plate with the slowest runners on first saw an increase of just 13 points. The quintiles in between saw OPS increases of 27%, 17%, and 20%.

So it's true that runners on first who are more likely to steal improved the performance of the batter at the plate, but the difference between the most and least aggressive baserunners is marginal: 11 points of OPS.

Once again, have you watched REYES play? I can't speak about other basestealers. But have with my own mind watched a pitcher who was in one of those pitching grooves, mowing guys down, get their concentration off track to such a degree that it NEVER came back over the course of that game. Just happened last week against SD in the middle game of the series (I think thats the one - I think it was Peavy but not sure).You are talking about better basestealers in general. I contend that Reyes' effect is significantly more than what your figures demonstrate. Sometimes, even in baseball, there is room for non-quantified analysis.

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you here. The numbers show that the effect is limited. Watching the game and seeing what happens leaves one incredibly prone to certain biases. For starters, you're attributing what very well might have been Peavy (or whoever) tiring or just playing his normal game and the Mets starting to get breaks. You simply cannot tell from first hand experience whether certain effects exist with all the randomness involved in the game. The stats don't lie and look over large data sets. Overcoming that kind of mentality you're promoting is what the sabermetric revolution in baseball was all about.

 

[dparker713]

Simple question: Have you WATCHED many games with Reyes this year?

I understand your math, but I have literally seen very good pitchers get at least off track, and sometimes unravelled completely, because of Reyes. That is something you may not be able to quantify, but you can't ignore it.

You actually CAN quantify it. You look at the performance of players batting after Reyes when he is on base vs. when he isn't. It's unintuitive, but true that it's wildly overblown to think runners significantly help the batters behind them.From Baseball Between the Numbers (paraphrased a bit)

Over the past 5 years, batters who came to the plate with the top 20% of base-stealers on first saw their OPS increase by 24 points over expected performance. On the other hand, batters coming to the plate with the slowest runners on first saw an increase of just 13 points. The quintiles in between saw OPS increases of 27%, 17%, and 20%.

So it's true that runners on first who are more likely to steal improved the performance of the batter at the plate, but the difference between the most and least aggressive baserunners is marginal: 11 points of OPS.

Once again, have you watched REYES play? I can't speak about other basestealers. But have with my own mind watched a pitcher who was in one of those pitching grooves, mowing guys down, get their concentration off track to such a degree that it NEVER came back over the course of that game. Just happened last week against SD in the middle game of the series (I think thats the one - I think it was Peavy but not sure).You are talking about better basestealers in general. I contend that Reyes' effect is significantly more than what your figures demonstrate. Sometimes, even in baseball, there is room for non-quantified analysis.

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you here. The numbers show that the effect is limited. Watching the game and seeing what happens leaves one incredibly prone to certain biases. For starters, you're attributing what very well might have been Peavy (or whoever) tiring or just playing his normal game and the Mets starting to get breaks. You simply cannot tell from first hand experience whether certain effects exist with all the randomness involved in the game. The stats don't lie and look over large data sets. Overcoming that kind of mentality you're promoting is what the sabermetric revolution in baseball was all about.

And its just that type of reasoning that has led to the sabermetric backlash. You try to discount the ability of certain players to do the improbable. Fact is, this is the highest level of baseball anywhere in the world, and even against that competition certain guys shine as special. They know it, and their opponents know it. Guys like Reyes, ARod, Bonds and Pujols all have the ability to effect the mindset of the opposition (just take a look at Brad Lidge). Yes, you can quantify a wide range of things in baseball, but it is still a game played by people. In this thread that is especially important, since you're using statisics for the top 20% of basestealers to make a point about a player that currently has no peer in that department. Now, if you came back with statistics about Reyes only, that might be more useful. However, that would be a somewhat small set of values, so you'd need to be careful about hte conclusions reached. Frankly, I don't understand why some statheads can't see that there is a place for both quantiative and qualitative analysis of baseball.

 

[Koya]

Simple question: Have you WATCHED many games with Reyes this year?

I understand your math, but I have literally seen very good pitchers get at least off track, and sometimes unravelled completely, because of Reyes. That is something you may not be able to quantify, but you can't ignore it.

You actually CAN quantify it. You look at the performance of players batting after Reyes when he is on base vs. when he isn't. It's unintuitive, but true that it's wildly overblown to think runners significantly help the batters behind them.From Baseball Between the Numbers (paraphrased a bit)

Over the past 5 years, batters who came to the plate with the top 20% of base-stealers on first saw their OPS increase by 24 points over expected performance. On the other hand, batters coming to the plate with the slowest runners on first saw an increase of just 13 points. The quintiles in between saw OPS increases of 27%, 17%, and 20%.

So it's true that runners on first who are more likely to steal improved the performance of the batter at the plate, but the difference between the most and least aggressive baserunners is marginal: 11 points of OPS.

Once again, have you watched REYES play? I can't speak about other basestealers. But have with my own mind watched a pitcher who was in one of those pitching grooves, mowing guys down, get their concentration off track to such a degree that it NEVER came back over the course of that game. Just happened last week against SD in the middle game of the series (I think thats the one - I think it was Peavy but not sure).You are talking about better basestealers in general. I contend that Reyes' effect is significantly more than what your figures demonstrate. Sometimes, even in baseball, there is room for non-quantified analysis.

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you here. The numbers show that the effect is limited. Watching the game and seeing what happens leaves one incredibly prone to certain biases. For starters, you're attributing what very well might have been Peavy (or whoever) tiring or just playing his normal game and the Mets starting to get breaks. You simply cannot tell from first hand experience whether certain effects exist with all the randomness involved in the game. The stats don't lie and look over large data sets. Overcoming that kind of mentality you're promoting is what the sabermetric revolution in baseball was all about.

One of us is willing to consider both sabermatric large sample size general rules of baseball AND also consider unique cases where you need to actually watch the game. The flow. The pace. The concentration levels.The other is only willing to consider one, utterly discounting the other.

You can hold onto your pure, metrics only approach. I prefer to take into account various forms of data AND observation.

And if you did watch the game, you would see it was not Peavy "tiring" - you can see when a games pace changes. When a pitchers groove is lost.

At least many who have watched baseball for a century can see it. If you are blinded by a numbers only approach, you are missing out on some great aspects of the game.

 

[Koya]

To the original question, have you watched Reyes much this year? Especially during the seasons first month, or the last couple of months. If not, then how can you comment here with any weight, even if your theory is correct?

 

[Tough As Nails]

Here's hoping he beats Rickey's record.

Not happening, GB.

 

[ooofffaaa]

The hiring of Ricky Henderson to be the 1B coach has helped Reyes a lot.

He's been a running fool the month of August - I believe he has 20 SB's so far in Aug. Henderson has also encouraged him to steal 3B more often and Reyes has responded.

Reyes has come a LONG way from just 3 years ago. It's an absolute joy watching him play for my Mets. One of the most exciting payers in the sport IMO.

 

[bialczabub]

One of us is willing to consider both sabermatric large sample size general rules of baseball AND also consider unique cases where you need to actually watch the game. The flow. The pace. The concentration levels.The other is only willing to consider one, utterly discounting the other.You can hold onto your pure, metrics only approach. I prefer to take into account various forms of data AND observation.

You have presented absolutely no stats at all. While Reyes is a special player, I'd be shocked if you weren't vastly overstating his effect. The stats guys have gone through the numbers on Rickey freakin Henderson, and say his speed is vastly overrated. Are you telling me that Reyes has some skill that Henderson didn't?

 

[wilked]

beezelbub is right here.

btw, anyone want to comment on this?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

 

[varybarry]

Even if you take the MoneyBall angle out of it, and you have to remember Beane was trying to win using less talented players because he couldn't often afford better, I don't know if a guy with a boatload of steals is a good indicator of a strong offense across the lineup. I think people also forget that Henderson had tremendous power, created a tiny strike zone and knew how to draw a walk. He was deadly for more reasons that his ability to disrupt the pitcher.

Exactly Rickey was great at drawing the walk. He owns the record for the most leadoff homeruns. He was a complete leadoff hitter.

 

[Koya]

One of us is willing to consider both sabermatric large sample size general rules of baseball AND also consider unique cases where you need to actually watch the game. The flow. The pace. The concentration levels.The other is only willing to consider one, utterly discounting the other.You can hold onto your pure, metrics only approach. I prefer to take into account various forms of data AND observation.

You have presented absolutely no stats at all. While Reyes is a special player, I'd be shocked if you weren't vastly overstating his effect. The stats guys have gone through the numbers on Rickey freakin Henderson, and say his speed is vastly overrated. Are you telling me that Reyes has some skill that Henderson didn't?

Im not using stats because I AM MAKING THE CONTENTION THAT RAW STATS DON'T ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING. But since you refuse to acknowledge that fact at all, I am talking to a wall. I've witnessed pitchers fall apart because of speed. If you wish to discount that out of hand, so be it. I am not saying Reyes is Ted Williams beause he steals bases, but I am saying his effect on a game, the pace, the pitchers rythym are very real and have a place in baseball.FWIW, there are some pretty amazing stats that I saw on TV in regard to how much higher the guys behind Reyes average was when he was on base compared to when he was not on base.

 

[Koya]

Even if you take the MoneyBall angle out of it, and you have to remember Beane was trying to win using less talented players because he couldn't often afford better, I don't know if a guy with a boatload of steals is a good indicator of a strong offense across the lineup. I think people also forget that Henderson had tremendous power, created a tiny strike zone and knew how to draw a walk. He was deadly for more reasons that his ability to disrupt the pitcher.

Exactly Rickey was great at drawing the walk. He owns the record for the most leadoff homeruns. He was a complete leadoff hitter.

No one is saying Reyes is Rickey. Rickey is the greatest leadoff hitter of all time (unless you want to put Cobb at leadoff. Im taking Cobb over Rickey everyday) with speed, power and an amazing eye. To date Reyes has one of those three and even that is not as good as Rickey's back in the day.

 

[Ayok]

Makes a triple out of a double creating another run.

 

[Big Dumb Ape]

nerd level high in here