Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: Coverage of the 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing'

Royals Running in Place

So much that we do in life ends up being for naught. Despite our efforts, be they focused or distracted, dedicated or done lazily, there's an overriding pointlessness to so much of our actions. This isn't necessarily bad, as having every single action or decision we take be incredibly meaningful would be an awful way to live. Nevertheless, it is depressing to think of all the actions, all the work, that really added up to nothing, changed nothing, improved nothing.

And saying so to some means nothing...

Sorta like the Royals on the basepaths this season. All that work, all that energy, all that hustle has generated nothing. According to Fangraphs baserunning numbers, the Royals are essentially at dead zero (0.1) in terms of value added. In this case, the issue isn't so much futility as it is the real downsides to aggression.

As you likely hear every time you watch the Royals play, they lead the American League in stolen bases. (Although actually, this isn't entirely the case, as they are currently tied with the Yankees.) The Royals have 124 steals this season, well above the AL average of 90.

Our Royals have a success rate of 72% on the bases, which isn't fantastic, but is good enough that the overall impact is positive. [Sound of record scratching]

Only, that isn't quite the entire story, as Royal baserunners have also been picked off 29 times. It's interesting that Mike Aviles was remembered as a horrible baserunner for being picked off 5 times, but that beloved speed merchant Chris Getz found the same fate five times as well. While in some cases a pickoff may be just a random event that is unrelated to the runner attempting to initiate the stolen base process, I think that it's insane that they aren't included in CS totals.

When you toss in those 29 pickoffs, the team's stolen base success rate drops down to 62%. Not really helpful. The general rule of thumb is that you need to be successful 66% of the time to gain a positive impact, and there is some argument that in a lower run environment, baserunners are actually more valuable (because they are more scarce) so that break-even point is closer to 70%. The Royals simply aren't helping themselves. (More data after the jump)

Star-divide

 

Steals Steals %
April 33 89%
May 18 67%
June 29 73%
July 25 66%
August 18 64%

 

The monthly totals give a nice satellite view of what happened once the rest of the American League found out the Royals were running all the time. When you factor in the pickoffs, you can also see the Royals dipping into counter-productive territory.

Of course, there's more to baserunning than steals, which is also reflected in the Royals 0.1 baserunning total at FG. The lesson, as always, is that outs matter. Of course, this is the organization's long standing blindspot, a lack of appreciation for the impact of outs on offense.

Aggression is good, steals are fun, advancing on random events is cool, but in the end, the outs matter. Make too many outs and the payoff isn't large. Or, in this case, effectual.

Comment 97 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Not terribly surprising information

but it may come to a shock to those who worship the Royals aggressive style. The only argument left out is that the aggressive style has led to more doubles/triples, making the slugging higher. I expect this value is smaller than many people would assume as well.

by Connor Moylan on Aug 25, 2011 10:32 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

The only argument left out is that the aggressive style has led to more doubles/triples, making the slugging higher.

And then of course there is the effect of losing a base runner and adding an out when that attempt to take an extra base fails.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I assume that is reflected in baserunning

while taking an extra base would be reflected in slugging.

by Connor Moylan on Aug 25, 2011 11:52 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

A note on the base running of "he who should not be mentioned so much"

His 19 SB this year is sometimes mentioned as part of his 2011 resurgence. But when you factor in his 8 CS, that’s a 70% success rate. He’s just breaking even. And then there are all those singles that he tries to stretch into doubles. Ugh. That contributes to his -3.3 Bsr th is year. He really isn’t that fast; he shouldn’t be so aggressive on the basepaths.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 10:32 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

We need more selective aggression, as we had with...

…Carlos Beltran, who really picked his spots. Isn’t his success rate in the 90s, still?

"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.

by timlacy on Aug 25, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

All true

But, when he’s a $3 player in your AL only league picked as an afterthought and he all of a sudden has 20+ SB’s out of nowhere? Priceless.

I loathe David Glass

by RoyalJHWKR on Aug 25, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agree with the data, don't like the outcome...

Teams (generally) get that steals are of nominal value in terms of winning. And Yet! They look cool. They’re fun. They’re exciting. They add athleticism to the game. The NFL does rule changes all the time to preserve exciting aspects of the game. I wish there was a modest incentive that would make stealing a more attractive strategy (I believe Bill James actually wrote a piece to that effect a few years back…).

The greatest moment of my childhood was when [insert name] did [insert insane thing].

by 2motley4thetitle on Aug 25, 2011 10:37 AM EDT reply actions  

They are actually more and more important as the run scoring environment decreases

No more get on and the #8 hitter blasts one out.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Aug 25, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

I hope so...

The era of structurally engineering bandboxes and chemically engineering players created some remarkably uncreative baseball…

The greatest moment of my childhood was when [insert name] did [insert insane thing].

by 2motley4thetitle on Aug 25, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

I remember reading that a 75%+ success rate

Is needed to be a positive when the Royals’ aggressiveness was discussed at the start of the season, but admittedly I don’t have a cite for that. Basically I took away that if you’re Beltran at his peak go for it, but otherwise staying put is smarter than risking an out on the basepaths.

I’m not an expert on WAR, and I’m curious how much Francoeur’s aberrantly high SB total affects his overall value, if at all. Personally I ’d rather see him bit 5 more HRs than steal 15-20 more bases than expected.expected

by thelaundry on Aug 25, 2011 10:42 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Doubles plus Triples divided by Hits

equaled .305 for Frenchy, as of the other day, .291 for Gordon, .233 for Melky, .225 for Hosmer, and .222 for Billy.

by Jim Fetterolf on Aug 25, 2011 10:46 AM EDT reply actions  

I award you no points

2011 Royals Review NCAA Bracket Challenge Winner, by process of attrition

by sfeldkamp on Aug 25, 2011 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

as the run environment gets stingier

The “break even” point actually lowers. The quick

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 25, 2011 10:47 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

as the run environment gets stingier

The “break even” point actually lowers. The quick way of seeing this is through the lower runs per out.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 25, 2011 10:49 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Signed in to make the same comment

In a lower scoring environment, extra bases become more valuable relative to outs because the likelihood of stringing together the multiple hits/walks it takes to score a runner on first is reduced.

The value of slugging and speed increase relative to OBP in lower scoring environments.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think I read earlier in the season that the usual (recent) 70% break even point was more like 67% this season, due to the run environment.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

No clue, but Scott's 67% sounds reasonable

I’d imagine if you include pickoffs in the SB%, the number changes.

If we’re really heading toward an extended low-scoring environment, I think the slugging aspect might be more relevant to the Royals. If the Royals offense turns out as we’re hoping, the offense will be built around batting average and walks without a whole lot of HR power. With the exception of Moustakas, the projected offensive core (Gordon, Butler, Hosmer, Giavotella, Myers) consists of OBP guys with 10-20 HR power.

That’s great for a high scoring environment where the hits frequently bunch together producing big innings, but in a lower scoring environment, it’s going to produce a bunch of 2-3 run games with 10 stranded baserunners and then a 10 run outburst where the hits happened to come in the same innings. Meanwhile, the HR-hitting teams will consistently put up 4-5 runs and have a shot to win every game.

How your runs are distributed matters. The Royals may be finally learning to walk 5 years too late.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

i feel like hosmer projects to much more than 10-20 home run power

i mean, he’s at 19 HR pace if he played 160 games as a 21 year old

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Aug 25, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hope so, but we said the same thing about Butler

My sense of Hosmer as a prospect was that he was an average hitter who will hit for some power rather than a power hitter who will hit for some average. I’m hoping Hosmer will break 25 HR’s at some point, but when was the last time a Royal managed that?

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Do people project Hosmer's power much differently?

I think I’ve heard people throw out 30 HR’s, but that seems like the superstar projection. 15-25 sounds more plausible to me.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

.300/.400/.500 from Hosmer sounds like 20-25 HR’s with a bunch of doubles and triples, no?

Don’t get me wrong, I think Hosmer is awesome. It just seems to me that to break 25 HR’s while playing half your games at the K, you need to be a pull-oriented hitter. Hosmer crushes balls to all fields, which is awesome, but I don’t expect it to translate into gaudy home run numbers given his home park. Maybe Hosmer will develop an ability to pull pitches that he wants to pull as he matures. I hope so.

But if you asked me to pick the next Royal to break 25 HR’s, I’d take Moustakas since he seems like he’ll be a pull hitter when things are going right.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

not that i want to stick up for getz...

but he’s been on first base something like 117 times (crude math…not correct, but close)…aviles was on 1st base like 30 times…getting picked off 4% of the time is way way different than 16% of the time

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Aug 25, 2011 12:02 PM EDT reply actions  

The Kansas City Royals

Where fans debate the merits of TOTAL pickoffs vs. pickoff RATE for their favorite team’s players.

Major League Moments, baby.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Aug 25, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

And I imagine that if we were under the league average this article

would be about how the Royals need to be more aggressive on the base paths and help themselves out more?

The pickoffs are horrible. The random stolen base attempts are questionable.

But we are who we thought we were.

What?

That’s my point.

by 306008 on Aug 25, 2011 12:02 PM EDT reply actions  

What is it about the management/lead writers of this blog that leads you to conclude that they'd favor aggressiveness on the basepaths?

I think they’ve been pretty consistent over the years that such a strategy is counterproductive. If you’re arguing that Wil just looks for intellectually dishonest ways to criticize this organization, then that is an unfair criticism and you are wrong.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

is it counterproduce though?

there’s about a 13 run difference b/w this year and last year….whats the cause of that if its not the aggressiveness?

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Aug 25, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t know if it has been the aggressveness. Clearly they have been more successful/efficient this year than last. Clearly they are running the bases better. But of course the end result has been neutral base running (providing a minimal net positive effect). This could be done by just running the bases and attempting SB’s in a way not as stupid and incompetent as last year.

This year it appears that Be Aggressive! worked well early in the year and not since. SB% are down and I certainly don’t think the Royals have been handling the bases well otherwise either.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

This team is a lot more athletic than Royals teams past

Notably, the starters at 1B/DH, 2B, SS and RF have been more able to take extra bases on hits. Butler, Callaspo, Betancourt and Guillen were all remarkably slow for their positions. Butler is still slow as a DH, but Hosmer is faster than the 1B/DH’s we’ve played in recent history.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

should we take into account how bad the royals were last year?

they were 12.5 runs below average last year…so, even though they’re only breaking even, thats still a huge improvement. where did that improvement come from?

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Aug 25, 2011 12:06 PM EDT reply actions  

Where did the improvement come from?

A nice chunk of it came from getting rid of Jose Guillen and Wilson Betemit.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

You can see the 2010 vs. 2011 comparison for yourself

Does it really look like a bunch of 2010 players improving because they are more aggressive? Do you think Butler’s number has improved because he’s more aggressive? Do you think Maier’s number has improved because he’s been more aggressive in a handful of times on base?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

i have no idea and im not going to act like i do....

its much easier to see the failures on the bases than it is to see the guys going from 1st to 3rd or 1st to home on a double…

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Aug 25, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Question: ....

…Has our steal percentage, or out rate, been affected by any particularly bad games or bad stretches? For instance, did we have a bad 5-10 game caught-stealing/picked off period, where we went 2-3 or 3-7 as a team? In sum, is our average hiding a spike or two of early season inexperience? Are we getting better at picking our spots? – TL

"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.

by timlacy on Aug 25, 2011 12:36 PM EDT reply actions  

Then another question: ...

…Were we better earlier in the season when, I assume, the coaches were calling steals? And have we gotten worse because of more freedom given to players? Finally, perhaps Dyson skewed our early season percentage positive, and now we are what we were without him? In other words, perhaps there has been no worsening?

"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.

by timlacy on Aug 25, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

You have to steal bases to get the pitchers on edge

It’s the intangables that win ball games. I like the aggressiveness, but that might just be b/c that was my style when I played. I couldn’t hit a ball over the fence, but I could stretch singles into doubles, doubles into triples, and triples into hrs. We played on a ball field with the same dimensions as the Royals.

by royal_in_cincinnati on Aug 25, 2011 1:17 PM EDT reply actions  

"It's the intangibles that win ball games."

Really? What do you base that on?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

One problem:

You can’t really compare the “adjusted” figure at 62% when factoring in pickoffs against an estimated figure of 66% that is based on the statistic as presently defined (i.e. pickoffs don’t count).

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Aug 25, 2011 1:22 PM EDT reply actions  

It depends how the 66% figure is calculated

If it’s just calculated from the expected runs in the different base-out states (runner at first with no outs, runner at second with no outs, bases empty with no outs, etc), then the adjusted % including pickoffs makes sense if you think that most of the pickoffs are the result of trying to steal bases.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Will just mentioned a "general rule of thumb" at 66%,

so I presumed it was a pure calculation of SB/(SB+CS), as general, long-held maxims are unlikely to be based on anything deeper.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Aug 25, 2011 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dunno. The cutoff based on base-out states seems like it’d be pretty easy to calculate with the right database. Comparing the Royals 62% including pickoffs to a 66% break-even point might be reasonable. One would have to do a little research to figure it out.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

it is based off of WPA studies

based on the value of the extra base versus risk…

purely speaking, you’d have to factor in # of outs, who is at the plate, etc

by Freneau on Aug 25, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't mind aggressiveness, but stupid aggressiveness bothers me

Jeff Francoeur has no business attempting as many steals as he does. He caught teams off-guard early this season for some cheap steals, but lately, I’ve been routinely calling his outs on the basepaths to impress friends who don’t watch Royals games. It’s shooting fish in a barrel.

They’ve also attempted stolen bases where the reward simply doesn’t justify the risk. Hosmer had a memorable caught-stealing at 3B to end the 8th or 9th when he was the tying/go-ahead run (forget the exact situation). A solid single would have scored the critical run from second. Even an 80% success rate wouldn’t have justified the difference between 2B and 3B in that situation.

I’m all for being aggressive in the right situations. If you’ve got Hosmer on first with two outs and the singles-hitting Escobar at the plate, roll the dice. The odds of Hosmer scoring from first in that situation are so low that a 60% SB success rate is probably a good risk. But stop throwing away outs early in the inning with good hitters coming up.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Doesn't that "Baserunning" stat from Fangraphs not include SB or CS?

So if the Royals went from -12 runs in 2010 to 0 runs in 2011, it was their non-stolen-base running that was improved.

Maybe there’s a way to look at team SB/CS runs on Fangraphs, but if so I don’t know what it is.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Aug 25, 2011 3:07 PM EDT reply actions  

Good question - I think keeping SB/CS in wOBA was a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure it still is.

Go to a player page and hover over “Bsr”, you’ll get

Bsr – Base running runs above average, not including SB or CS

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Aug 25, 2011 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

“Bsr” is base running without SB and CS. SB and CS are accounted for in wOBA.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

you should look into how many times we've stolen third

which gives us less of an added advantage than stealing second. it seems like we’ve stolen third more times this year than any other i can remember.

by 9il on Aug 25, 2011 3:19 PM EDT reply actions  

Getting a runner to third base is always useful

The issue is risk vs. reward.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

1 out is the best time to try it. The goal is to be at third with less than 2 outs so that a groundball or fly drives you in. On second with no outs, a groundball to the right side or fly to right advances you to third with less than 2 outs anyway, so you might as well wait an out to see if you get there for free. And with 2 outs, being on third isn’t much better than being on second.

1 out and a high % stealing situation is really the only time to try stealing third.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

just noticed Hosmer/Cabrera are getting tore up in UZR/150

-14.5 combined. Billy was -3 last year. so i guess defensive stats are a bit questionable?

by Bart41 on Aug 25, 2011 4:09 PM EDT reply actions  

Small sample sizes of data are questionable

A full season of defensive data is the equivalen tof two months of hitting data. And for this season, we have less than 5 months of defensive data for Cabrera and less than 4 months of Hosmer. In small samples of data the results are not particularly reliable. Hosmer has no UZR track record beyond this small sample of data, of course, but this is not true of Melky. These numbers are not out of line with the rest of his career. His career UZR/150 in CF is -7.0. This year it is -9.5.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Melky’s not very good in CF, but I completely ignore Hosmer’s UZR. I watch almost every game, and he’s pretty clearly at least mediocre defensively. I have no idea what plays UZR is expecting him to make that he hasn’t. When you watch a true talent -14 UZR/150, their crappy defense is visible on TV.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe

He also has a 15 +/.

He might be that bad, but every defensive stat out there doesn’t like him at all so far.

Edgar knows best.

by kcbottom9th on Aug 25, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

ugh

Minus 15 +/-

Edgar knows best.

by kcbottom9th on Aug 25, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fail again

Might NOT be that bad…

Edgar knows best.

by kcbottom9th on Aug 25, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Weird

I’d be curious to see the plays they think he should have made. Hosmer is clearly more athletic than the average MLB 1B, so you’d think his range would be solid. His height also allows him to snag some balls that others wouldn’t get to. The Star also reported that he’s near the league-lead in scoops.

Is he missing that many balls hit near him? Maybe his positioning has been poor? Is he having to hold more runners on first due to our crappy pitching which puts him in a bad fielding position?

I have no clue what’s dragging his numbers down, but those numbers don’t worry me at all about Hosmer’s defense. I’ve seen Billy Butler field. Hosmer is much much better.

by kcdc1 on Aug 25, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Scoops aren't included in UZR, at least

If it’s just leading the lead in “absolute” scoops it doesn’t really mean anything — we want to know his scoops vs. “expected” scoops. MGL is a WOWY study that showed that “scoop skill” doesn’t vary much between first baseman compared to their range.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 26, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Actually his Dewan's +/- is -18

The -15 doesn’t include bunting, where he’s -3. -18 is a pretty horrific number. Hope this is all just small sample statistical noise.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Aug 25, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah...

I don’t get it. Butler’s worst seasons were nowhere close to this bad. But Hosmer looks fantastic. We’ve got scout/stat disparity just among people in their basements.

by Bart41 on Aug 25, 2011 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan