Rangers, Red-Handed: When Good Base-Stealers Go Bad
Elvis Andrus unsuccessfully attempts to steal second base on Sunday, March 14th.When it comes to base-stealing strategy, I love aggressive. I'm not so fond of stupid.
The key to this sentiment, of course, is defining what's meant by "aggressive" and "stupid." In search of enlightenment, let's turn once again to the pages of the baseball stat-geek's Buddhavacana. In The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, and Andrew Dolphin ran the base-running numbers from 1999-2002. Here are three key points from their conclusions:
(1) If there were fewer than two outs, having a runner on first base who didn't try to steal led to an average gain of 14 points of wOBA for the man at the plate. The effect was even greater for veteran hitters and for left-handed batters.
(2) If there were fewer than two outs, having a runner on first base who did try to steal led not only to the loss of the 14-point advantage, but also eight additional points of wOBA on average -- a 22-point wOBA penalty overall.
(3) This third point is so key I'm just going to quote it: "The break-even point for the stolen base is highly dependent on the inning and score. The most desirable situations are tied games in the later innings or ones in which the batting team is ahead. The least desirable situations are down by at least two runs in the later innings."
The Book also gives a few examples of break-even points, for reference. Though the study uses a relatively high run environment as a basis -- five runs per game (RPG) -- the break-evens are also worth citing here, for reference:
Overall, regardless of inning and score: The break-even point as about 69 percent.
Down one run: The break-even point as about 70 percent, throughout the game.
Tied: The break-even point as about 69 percent early in the game, approximately 66 percent in the seventh inning, 63 percent in the eighth inning, and 60 percent in the ninth inning (and any extra innings beyond it).
These numbers are now generally accepted by sabermetricians. There's also a standard objection to these numbers, however: sure, that's the break-even based on (5 RPG) run expectancy, but what about the havoc that stolen-base attempts wreak on pitchers and defense?
The answer: the numbers from The Book are the best accounting we have on those phenomena, and they're pretty clear: stolen-base attempts actually disrupt the batter more than they do the pitcher or fielders. In fact, the evidence shows that holding the runner on first causes more disruption than the actual stolen-base attempt.
Now, obviously, if a team never steals, there'd be no reason to hold the runner. But nobody's ever said that teams should never steal. Quite the opposite: most analysts have concluded that teams should aim to employ the stolen base down to the score-and-out-dictated break-even point, with occasional attempts (or at least bluffs) in less-than-optimal situations just to keep opposing teams honest. The central point is that teams shouldn't steal bases just for the sake of stealing, or fall so in love with the stolen base that they throw the percentages out the window.
OK. So there's our baseline. Let's turn to Texas.
Last season, the Rangers stole 149 bases on 185 attempts. That's 80.5 percent success. Aggressive? Yes: the Rangers logged the third-most stolen-base attempts in the American League, trailing only the Rays and Angels. But also smart: Texas' 80.5 percent success rate was not only well above the average break-even point, but also far and away the best in the American League. Aggressive and smart: that's a great combination.
But 2009's history. How's Texas doing in 2010?
On the surface, things don't look too terrible, thought they're certainly not as shiny and happy as last year. So far, in 50 games, the Rangers have 49 stolen bases in 71 attempts. (That includes Kinsler's theft of third and Andrus being snuffed out at second against the Twins on Friday night.) The 71 attempts are again third in the AL, so far -- but the 69 percent success rate is only 9th out of the 14 AL teams. Not great, but given the AL run environment this season, 69 percent is right about (or even a couple points better than) the break-even overall. Based on those numbers, assuming the Rangers are running at more or less the right times, they haven't been stupidly giving runs away with stolen base attempts, and the stolen base might have even slightly increased their offensive output.
Yeah, yeah: I saw Elvis Andrus get thrown out on a pitchout Friday, just like you did. That looked pretty stupid, didn't it? But anecdotal evidence doesn't really do it for me. I want systematic evidence of stupidity, or at least the closest I can get to it.
So let's break down the numbers a little further. In particular: let's revisit the Rangers' series against the Red Sox, way back on April 20th, 21st, and 22nd. Here's what we find:
On April 20th, the Rangers stole nine bases -- three each for Andrus and Nelson Cruz, two for Vladimir Guerrero (!), and one for Julio Borbon. Not a single Rangers runner was caught trying to steal. On April 21st, Texas logged three more thefts (two for Borbon, one for Andrus); again, nobody was thrown out trying. And on April 22, Nelson Cruz stole two bases in the Rangers' two attempts. That's 14 SB and 0 CS in three games.
Running the numbers again: in the 47 games the Rangers haven't played against Boston this season, they've stolen 35 bases in 60 attempts. That's 58 percent success. Definitely not break-even.
But wait: every team's going to be worse if you take away their performance against one of the weakest performers in baseball, right? Sure. But that misses the point. The goal of base-stealing is not to be bad just as long as you're better than other teams, or to be good enough in five percent of your games to be bad in the other 95 percent. The goal's to gain as many runs as possible while giving as few away as you can. And right now, the Rangers are giving away runs, plain and simple.
(But for what it's worth: the team leading the AL in steal attempts -- the Rays, again -- have stolen 12 bases in 12 attempts against the Red Sox in seven games. Throw those out, and the Rays are still at 72 percent success. In 10 total games against the Red Sox, Tampa and Texas have racked up a full 46 percent of the stolen bases that Boston has surrendered in 50 games this season.)
As great a 2010 as he's having, Elvis Andrus has been a particular culprit. Outside of the Boston series, he's 14-for-22 (63 percent) on stolen-base attempts -- especially disappointing considering the batters following Andrus in the Rangers order. But isn't Michael Young prone to hit into double plays? Isn't trying to get Andrus to second worth it, even given the cost?
Well, yes and no. Young's hit into six double plays this season, which leads the team -- but given his chances, his rate of hitting into double plays is not quite as bad as some have made it out to be. He's hit into three double plays with a runner on first this season, out of 37 PA; one with runners on first and second out of 12 PA; and one with runners on first and third out of 5 PA. (The last of his six double plays came with the bases loaded, which doesn't seem like an especially good time for the runner on first to try to steal.)
That's five double plays in 54 PA, or about 1 in every 10 chances. So let's say 10 percent of the time Young hits into a double play (which seems just slightly high given his career splits). Does that really justify a 40 percent caught-stealing clip from Andrus? When answering, keep in mind that Young's currently sporting a .368/.429/.658 line with a runner on first and less than two out. Yes, small sample size applies to those numbers (it's only 42 PA) -- but for his career, Young is a .314/.351/.499 hitter with a man on first and less than two out (1,110 PA). Those numbers simply don't come close to justifying the sort of base-stealing strategy the Rangers have been employing.
In some precincts, the Rangers' hijinks on the basepaths (which, of course, haven't been limited to stolen-base attempts) have been justified via comparison to the aggressiveness of their division rivals from southern California. But: in the last five years, the Angels haven't once logged an SB success rate lower than 70 percent, and have generally been in the 72-73 percent range. (This year, so far, Los Angeles is at 64 percent success, which is, of course, not good at all, and certainly not a mark Texas should be striving to equal.)
Again, aggressiveness is good. But aggressiveness on the base-stealing front has to be accompanied by a certain degree of unpredictability. As The Book notes, managing decisions in base-stealing (and in sacrifice bunt and many if not most other in-game) situations basically boils down to a matter of game theory. Preventing your opponent from successfully anticipating your strategy is quite literally a crucial component of those equations.
In robbing opposing teams blind on the base paths last year, the Rangers consistently kept opposing batteries off guard. But opponents' scouts, managers, and players sure seem to have caught on to Texas' tactics this season. It's no longer enough to go with the gut (if it ever really was). The Rangers need to make the necessary adjustments, and play the prevailing percentages. To do otherwise would be -- well, stupid.
And I'm really not so fond of stupid.
39 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (39)
To play winning baseball, much like winning at poker, requires a mix of using the "numbers" and using your instincts. Washington's excuse for his bad decisions this season always ends with him using this quote..."I went with my gut and it didn't work". Is there any belief that he understands any of the "numbers" in baseball or does he purely just play it by ear everynight?
I guess baseball's goin do what baseball do.
Add in the fact that early in the year the Rangers were giving up runs by passed balls every day (or so it seemed) and stranding runners galore at third base with no outs (I don't know how many times they did this in April but it's probably close to the MLB record) plus the DUMB sac bunts everywhere you look - so many "single runs" have kept the Rangers from winning a lot of ballgames this year.
The Rangers could easily have won 10 more games than their record indicates.
Too much is made of "gut". People that harp on it are, in my view, showing their own ignorance and likely inexperience as to what goes on between the lines at the highest levels. "Gut" is simply instinct. Washington has been in professional baseball 40 years or so, long enough to have developed pretty good instincts as to what's likely to take place in a given scenario. Fact is, once he makes the call, it's on the players to execute -and that is where this team is weak, execution, consistently.
Now, the failure for that consistency and execution as a group falls on their leader, the manager. That's the way it is. Wash has now had enough time to stamp this team in his image and the result is clear. While it is a team that shows fight, that doesn't lay down and doesn't panic, it is a team that doesn't play particularly smart and fails at the most inopportune times to execute fundamentals consistently. It's his 4th year, he has a talented young team, and yet the same characteristics that surfaced that very first April continue to surface. Maddening.
To the point of running at will. Washington has given his players the green light to go on their own unless specifically told otherwise. So it goes with the "players manager". Young players should not have that option. We're seeing the results. It's yet another head scratching call that should have been rectified the moment his 9 hitter gets caught in the 2nd inning, 2 runs down, with 2 outs, and your best hitter with RISP at bat. Maddening.
This is just one of many indications that Wash has got to go. The idea that "they play hard for him" just doesn't justify the many strategic blunders these players are regularly asked to overcome. This team is much more talented than its record.
What about the results after the SB? How many times did the runner score after a SB vs the number of times a runner was on 1B and didn't steal?
@A Stephens: You are right about the green light. Ron has it backwards. He needs to call the SB and not give the "do not steal sign".
The stolen base should be less about game situations and more about opportunity.
Some games, opportunity will not present itself, and therefore should likely not be part of the game plan. For example, last year, opposing teams would not have been smart to run on a Holland/Pudge battery. Any manager who would have green lighted players in that situation would be killing their team.
For the Rangers, Washington routinely allows players to run at their own discretion...and unfortunately those plays are choosing situations where they are less likely to succeed. Sure, green light against Boston...but you'd have to decide game to game if the SB should be part of the gameplan.
Josh: I'd be more interested in breaking down stealing 2B as opposed to 3B, and the percentages involved there. Just because the Rangers have succeeded a lot on double steals and straight steals of 3B this year seems to have given this team a false sense of confidence. I just don't think that there are very many situations at all where I would want to see us stealing 3B. That's pretty high risk with not much more reward.
Nice work, Josh. Separating out that Boston series is vital in analyzing the Rangers' stealing this year since they cannot duplicate that advantageous situation with any other team.
Washington just tries too hard, plain and simple. Too many steals, bunts, matchups, and other managerial gimmicks. He shows zero restraint. If the game in any way is a traditional situation for a bunt, steal, etc. he'll call it, and the opposition can (near enough) just assume that's what the Rangers will do.
I have no hope that Wash will ever give up the small ball mantra. He'll always be inclined to bunt too much. But if someone in the front office could show him how important unpredictability is to the success of his favorite stratagems, I think he might buy into less is more. I can hope, I guess.
Seems like most (or at 3 or 4) of Elvis's 8 CSs were actually him getting picked off rather than a true caught stealing. To me that paints a picture of him being a bit lax when taking a lead rather than going at the wrong times
@tball: As Ed alluded to in one of the LSB threads. Wash was a UIF that manages his team as if it were a UIF.
Rob, I agree with that and almost included that point. Many managers fall into that category of underwhelming playing career. They appreciate underdogs with grit too much partly because they see a resemblance or identify with them.
@ tball: "Washington just tries too hard, plain and simple. Too many steals, bunts, matchups, and other managerial gimmicks."
I agree completely and have been posting for some time that I suspect he is doing this because his team is not solid and he is under contract non-renewal pressure.
What concerns me is that this team needs to focus on player development and specifically winning baseball. The Twins would be a good example of a team that incorporates and teaches winning baseball throughout all levels of the organization. The Rangers would do well to model their player development after the Twins. So far, as evidenced by rookies not named Elvis, positional player development has been rushed and ineffective. To much up and down. Although Borbon and Smaok have not been sent down like Davis and all the catchers, one can not say that they were ready either.
@ A. Stephens - I COMPLETELY agree with you! I've been harping on this for the last month... this team is young (and talented), and very inexperienced.
I believe Wash is desperate for W's and when the pressuire is on, he does not manage the team properly. This is MY opinion, admitting whole heartedly that I'm no baseball expert.
@ Josh - I would be curious to see these same stats for winning clubs that have experienced, tenured managers; i.e. Cards>La Russa, Dodgers>Torre, and Twins>Gardenhire (I would be especially interested to see the Twins SB/CS stats).
I'm a little disgusted with this recent losing streak. I'm VERY concerned the starting pitching and bullpen is already taxed and wearing down. The Ranger's pitching depth is 2nd to none, and it's about to be tested... big time!
Rest assured though that the Ranger's upcoming schedule pales in comparison to the A's and Angels. Take a look at how many teams with a winning record each AL West contender will face over the next 35-38 games:
Rangers = 2
Angels = 5
A's = 6
The Rangers have only 6 of their next 38 games are against teams with a winning record. And 1 of those teams (the Marlins) is exactly at .500 (26-26).
Angels = 16 games
A's = 18 games
If the Rangers get their act together and beat the teams they should be beating, they could put a significant distance between themselves and the rest of the pack and would NOT NEED to make a significant move at the trade deadline.
I don't know the home/road splits in the Ranger's schedule but if in the next 38 games they go 25-13, which given the teams they play, is certainly possible and realistic (assuming everyone stays healthy, etc...), they would be sitting on top of the AL West at 51-37... or 14 games above .500.
Let's even say they get swept in the 2 series against currently winning ballclubs, and then win the other 10 series (2 out of 3... or 3 out of 4) against losing ball clubs, they would be 48-40 and in a good position to take over the AL West.
Josh,
How many wOBA points have the Rangers lost on the season? To how many runs lost does that translate?
The Rangers could easily have won 10 more games than their record indicates.
Still throwing out crazy numbers with zero math to support it. Talk about stupid.
I know that the SF Giants are still in the thick of things and are a power/offense hungry club. They are obviously heavy on pitching, light on offense. So maybe this makes NO sense to them but I was looking at Aubrey Huff's stats. He's hitting .292 with 17 extra base hits and a .380 OBP.468 SLG/.848 OPS. He could most definitely help the situation at 1B.
What would it take to pry him from the Giants; Johnny Whittleman or Brandon Boggs and Pedro Strop or Doug Mathis? Would that get it done or would they want more/take less?
I have no hope that Wash will ever give up the small ball mantra. He'll always be inclined to bunt too much. But if someone in the front office could show him how important unpredictability is to the success of his favorite stratagems, I think he might buy into less is more. I can hope, I guess.
How many runs have Washington's "small ball" moves cost the Rangers this season? 0? 5? 20? 100?
Thanks to everyone for the comments and questions. I'm out of pocket right now, so I'll try to cover some things quickly:
@A Stephens: I don't think I mentioned Washington in my piece. That said, while my reference to the "gut" may have been flippant, I'm quite serious in saying that I don't believe anyone's baseball experience ~ however long and rich ~ justifies his dismissing or ignoring statistics. And it seems contradictory to argue that (on the one hand) a given individual's experience has provided him with an unassailable grasp of the likely outcomes in a given scenario, while (on the other hand) claiming that he isn't properly assessing certain players' abilities in a given scenario. Are that person's instincts dependable, or not? Could they be improved by playing the percentages, or not?
@Rob M.: Comparing run expectancies of only successful base-stealing attempts against non-attempts would give you a biased result, since a runner at second obviously trumps a runner at first in terms of scoring runs. The run expectancies and values in The Book account for the results from all base-stealing attempts. The win value of a successful stolen base is about +0.018; the win value of a caught-stealing is about -0.043. (This is 1/10th of the run value.)
@Rangers100: Using the values above with the data at the time this piece was written (i.e., excluding the games on Saturday and Sunday), outside of the Red Sox series, the Rangers' base-stealing results had cost them about a win to this point in the season. (That's based on RE, not on wOBA, but the system underlying it all is the same.)
@JRB: That would be an interesting way to break down the numbers ~ I'll look into it.
@Rangers100 - I have documented 6 or 7 losses just in April alone (go back and check April's comments.)
I'm beginning to suspect you don't like me. ;)
@Josh,
My initial post wasn't directed at your use of gut, didn't even notice it. Went back and read your post and your last paragraph appears to imply this years Rangers are basing running decisions on gut over stats. Maybe.
But I would suggest that it's neither. In my view they seem to be running because their manager has entrusted them to make that call for themselves. A call which they (particularly the most inexperienced players) are not as qualified to make as he is. He is the one whose instincts are likely to be more reliable than theirs. He is also the one who hopefully keeps a book on teams, pitchers, and catchers, that gives him an idea of success probability.
What I'm seeing is a philosophical approach that says were going to be aggressive. That's good.
What I'm not seeing is the manager controlling that aggression, both by feel for specific situations in a given game and through statistical evaluation of the characters at hand in said situation. That's bad.
@Rangers100: Using the values above with the data at the time this piece was written (i.e., excluding the games on Saturday and Sunday), outside of the Red Sox series, the Rangers' base-stealing results had cost them about a win to this point in the season. (That's based on RE, not on wOBA, but the system underlying it all is the same.)
Thanks. Can you provide your calculations for this? Just curious as to how one gets to that number (here and for future reference).
I have documented 6 or 7 losses just in April alone
Sure you have.
Sorry, but stupid opinions and claims based on unprovable anecdotes aren't my thing. When you are ready to give specific, logical calculations of Washington having around a -10 WAR like you claim, let me know. Thanks.
Too much is made of "gut". People that harp on it are, in my view, showing their own ignorance and likely inexperience as to what goes on between the lines at the highest levels. "Gut" is simply instinct.
Well put. In what was generally a well-written and interesting article (though it unfortunately stopped short of showing the specific calculations of run totals lost to the decisions, a critical part of making a rational judgement as to how "stupid" (if at all) the decisions have been), the concluding "gut" and "stupid" shots (clearly aimed at Washington, given the "gut" comment) were unnecessary.
@A Stephens: Fair enough.
@Rangers 100: The break-even points discussed throughout the piece are based on the specific calculations you've requested. You can do the math yourself by multiplying the Rangers' successful base-stealing attempts by 0.018; subtract from the result the unsuccessful attempts multiplied by 0.043 (and if I've made any mistakes in any of my work here, I hope someone will point them out). Those numbers, again, come from The Book. A more thorough analysis would take into account the run environment, as well as the inning and score at the time of each attempt. I made a decision not to include more stats in the piece, and in any event, I don't have time at the moment to look up the context of every Rangers base-stealing attempt this season. You're free to take exception to that, of course. As for the rest of it: when I criticize Ron Washington, I do it by name.
@ Josh G. - I think that no matter the stats, calculations, etc... you use, they will be picked apart by Rangers 100. He evidently wants to argue with everyone about everything.
I hate all the stats but I found your article interesting because you hit on something that's becoming an issue; SB vs. CS.
Bottom line is Wash will not make it out of June unless he gets this team going in the right direction ASAP. He has to figure out a way to stop killing innings by letting 21 yr old kids make veteran decisions.
The Angels will suffer without Morales and the A's can't hit their way out of a paper bag... so the AL West is up for grabs. And even though Wash isn't the one who takes the field and plays day in/day out, he accepted this job as manager, knowing that he would be the 1st to go when/if the wheels fly off. He needs to win, or else!
@ t ball
You argue against yourself...
"Too many steals, bunts, matchups, and other managerial gimmicks."
VS.
"But if someone in the front office could show him how important unpredictability is...."
You argue against his unorthodoxed method in the first phrase, ie. he's unpredictable(goes against the norm), and then say he needs to be unpredictable in the second phrase.
Which is it?
But don't worry. He's paid a lot of money to confuse better men than you.
[Josh]: The break-even points discussed throughout the piece are based on the specific calculations you've requested.
I was referring specifically to your calculations behind your statement that the base-stealing attempts had cost the Rangers "about a win" (outside of the Boston series). I was curious as to how you calculated that number.
[Josh]: I don't have time at the moment to look up the context of every Rangers base-stealing attempt this season.Here is a spreadsheet of the data. (Note: I gave the RE/WP credit to the lead runner on double steals.)
On the season, the Rangers' base stealing has cost the team .124 wins. Even removing the Boston series (which is not really fair, of course) the attempts have only cost the team less than one-third of a win. If one removes Andrus (-.160 WP) from the equation, the team's attempts have a positive WPA this season. Sure, Washington could do a better job of reining him in... but he's still a 21-year-old who will make base running mistakes.
Anyway, a -.124 WP on the season is hardly some indictment of the manager's intelligence as you suggested ("gut", "stupid").
[Josh]: As for the rest of it: when I criticize Ron Washington, I do it by name.
You know exactly to whom you were referring with "go[ing] with the gut" and labeling it "stupid."
[Pablo]I think that no matter the stats, calculations, etc... you use, they will be picked apart by Rangers 100. He evidently wants to argue with everyone about everything.
Or, I will do the work Josh "didn't have time to do", and point out that it shows nothing close to the "about a game" loss he said he had calculated.
Looks like a gut dislike of Washington just got the better of you two.
Personally, I prefer statistics over emotion when making strong claims about the manager's intelligence.
Oops. Not sure how it got cut out but here is the link to the spreadsheet of the Rangers SB attempts this season.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvSHdOKflK-qdFZhXzNlTXdHR0V1d2laTTBOM2hnVVE&hl=en
@Rangers100: I've just checked out your spreadsheet, and it appears it has some issues. On April 22, for example, you seem to have the Rangers playing both the Red Sox and the Tigers. (That'd be some trick.) I have other questions about your methods, but until your basic issues are resolved, they can wait. If it turns out my calculations were off, though, I'll be perfectly happy to admit any mistakes.
For now, then, let me be perfectly clear: I don't have a "gut dislike of Washington," and the piece above doesn't make any claims (strong or otherwise) about his intelligence. I have to say, I'm tired of your putting words in my mouth. If you keep it up, I'll have no choice but to ignore you entirely.
@ Rangers 100
Thanks for digging that one out of the dirt.
Late Scores:
Rangers 100 - 40 Josh - 30 now serving - Josh
Rangers 100 - 40 Pabloesque - love *update - Game, Set, Match Rangers 100 wins
[Josh]: @Rangers100: I've just checked out your spreadsheet, and it appears it has some issues. On April 22, for example, you seem to have the Rangers playing both the Red Sox and the Tigers. (That'd be some trick.) I have other questions about your methods, but until your basic issues are resolved, they can wait. If it turns out my calculations were off, though, I'll be perfectly happy to admit any mistakes.
My bad. Should have been "BOS", not "DET." Fixed now.
I personally believe that Washington did a good job managing the game tonight. I think he used the pitchers in the right spots and we edged out a win.
I know I'm not part of upper management, and should leave my opinion of the current manager to them, but I feel like credit is due. I know this goes against everything you believe, Rangers100, but since its a POSITIVE thought about Washington, maybe you can let it slide through.
Philly,
No idea what you are talking about.
@Rangers100: I'm still hammered, but based on another quick glance at your spreadsheet, it still seems to have basic data issues. (For example, your latest change didn't correctly fix the earlier problem.) In terms of data source and methods ~ it looks as if you pulled these data from Fangraphs' play logs, which would raise a couple questions. Even if the effect were only a third of a loss thus far, though, that doesn't really change my argument about base-stealing strategy.
According to Rangers100's data - Guerrero should have FIVE SB not 4 - this is something I have been saying all along - the first steal of year went to Guerrero and for some reason, it wasn't counted. It wasn't an "indifference" play or anything like that, it was a legit steal - but the official MLB stats have not reflected it since the Rangers were in Cleveland.
How to rectify this?
In previous posts you have put down others for their opinion that Washington is not a good manager.
I simply wanted to make sure that it was o.k. to say positive things about him.
In previous posts you have put down others for their opinion that Washington is not a good manager.
No, I haven't.
Funny how 95% of the comments about Washington completely bash him, but one person sticks up for him regularly and you (and others) get that sensitive about it. Really bizarre.
For example, your latest change didn't correctly fix the earlier problem.)
Not sure what to tell you because it's fixed. But even if it wasn't we're talking about the mislabeling of one opponent.
In terms of data source and methods ~ it looks as if you pulled these data from Fangraphs' play logs, which would raise a couple questions.
Such as?
Even if the effect were only a third of a loss thus far, though, that doesn't really change my argument about base-stealing strategy.
The effect was actually barely more than one-tenth of one game. Only by manipulating the data to remove the most successful game do you even get close to (but still less than) 1/3rd of a game.
That's fine if you want to stick to your disapproval of the strategy off one-tenth of a game so far this year. But using it to call the manager stupid is pretty weak.
@Rangers100: Your "fix" was incorrect. You've mislabeled the two CS versus Boston; the Rangers (as I mentioned in my piece) didn't have any unsuccessful base-stealing attempts in the Red Sox series. The questions about the Fangraphs data would include (among others) how to handle compound events on plays involving base-stealing attempts, as well as the conversion from RE24 to WPA. I haven't "manipulated" anything, and I didn't use the data in my piece to call the manager "stupid" (or anything else).
We could keep going back and forth on all of this. But here's the thing: I've given you multiple opportunities (both here and at LSB) to stop misrepresenting my arguments. You haven't taken them, and it's become clear that your aim isn't to have a constructive exchange ~ so this isn't worth my while. I'm done with you here.
I haven't "manipulated" anything
Yes, you did. You removed the Boston games to make the situation look worse than it is.
I didn't use the data in my piece to call the manager "stupid"
Of course you did.
The questions about the Fangraphs data would include (among others) how to handle compound events on plays involving base-stealing attempts, as well as the conversion from RE24 to WPA.
Great. So what are the answers? What do the answers change?
Very interesting how you just threw out some initial numbers but then suddenly stopped and didn't complete the math (and now, after being given several opportunities to do so, still do not want to actually complete the math).
Your gut got the best of you. And it's now too proud to admit it got schooled in this argument.
But hey, at least you aren't "fond of stupid." (So noble of you.)