100 stolen bases?

[VincentVanGo]

I'm new here,not sure if this is right place to post this question.
Will there ever be a player who steals 100 bases in a season again?
Jose Reyes might have the best chance,but he said himself he would never do it because he is an infielder and his body takes too much punishment at his position.

[The Dude]

I think it's very possible that someone will steal 100 bases in a season again. Right now, it's not really the environment to do it in, what with the home run focused offense. To me, it's like Bobby Thigpen's record of 57 saves in a season. The environment for closers now, you'd think it would have been broken already, but it hasn't. I'm sure somewhere down the line someone will swipe 100 again.

[TigerNation]

The pl with the best chance would probably be Carlos Gomez if he can get his OBP% up. He plays outfield which givesw him an advantage over an infielder and he is also faster than Jose Reyes.

[Chickazoola]

Both Gomez and Michael Bourne are incredibly fast, and like you said an improvement in OBP could mean a shot at 100 steals. I think having minimal power would help too, as it's much easier to steal 2nd, than 3rd.

A Vince Coleman type is the best bet, some who is a very good base stealer(not just fast) who will run any time.

[digglahhh]

Ever is a long time...

Somebody will do it, whether or not that player is active today is another question.

Reyes wasn't so far off the pace last year before he slumped so badly down the stretch and didn't get on enough. Until then, it looked like he was headed for mid-to-high eighties.

[redban]

Probably not.

Stealing bases is a spectacle, one of the most iconic acts in this sport. However, modern-mathematics is showing that it's not worth it. As always, you cannot argue against mathematics:

http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2011/12/20/will-mlb-ever-see-another-100-stolen-base-season/

“A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation–now with one out and no one on base–drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.”


The last sentence explains everything.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Probably not.

Stealing bases is a spectacle, one of the most iconic acts in this sport. However, modern-mathematics is showing that it's not worth it. As always, you cannot argue against mathematics:

http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2011/12/20/will-mlb-ever-see-another-100-stolen-base-season/

“A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation–now with one out and no one on base–drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.”


The last sentence explains everything.

It's only not worth it if the base stealer has a poor SB%. What if a guy can steal 100 bases with an over 90% success rate? I think that brings a lot of value to an offense. For example in 1962 Maury Wills stole 104 bases with just 13 CS (88.9%).

[Bigfoot 88]

Dee Gordon and Billy Hamilton have the best shots. With scoring being depressed I could see an emphasis on the run game. But I think both would need to improve their OBP to a decent rate in order to do so.

[redban]

It's only not worth it if the base stealer has a poor SB%. What if a guy can steal 100 bases with an over 90% success rate? I think that brings a lot of value to an offense. For example in 1962 Maury Wills stole 104 bases with just 13 CS (88.9%).

How often do players get 90% success rate with over 100 stolen-base attempts though? Since 1990, has it appeared at all? 1962 is a different era.

To calculate the value is difficult. I don't know the exact mathematics involved, but this excerpt on Rickey Henderson's 130 SB 1982 season may help:

http://econtricks.blogspot.com/2010/01/value-of-stolen-base-two-economic.html

The run-expectation tables from 1982 show that Henderson added an extra 22.2 runs to the A's offense with his 130 steals. But the 42 times he was caught cost the team 20.6 runs, meaning that for all that running, the A's gained a total of 1.6 runs for the season. In his first season, Incaviglia stole three bases and was caught twice. He cost his team about half a run. Because Henderson got caught so often, the difference between his base-stealing performance in 1982 and Incaviglia's in 1986 added up to about 2 runs.


Henderson's SB % that year was 76% (130 / 172). That only added a net total of 1.6 runs.

If a player goes 100 / 110 (90%), it will add more than 1.6 net-total, but how much? Is all that running and stealing worth an extra 7-8 net total of runs?

[Death to Crawling Things]

Dee Gordon and Billy Hamilton have the best shots. With scoring being depressed I could see an emphasis on the run game. But I think both would need to improve their OBP to a decent rate in order to do so.

Yeah, I think with more experience IF Hamilton can OBP about .340 one year he could make a run of it.

The not worth it argument notwithstanding. The enviroment really isnt good for it. Despite the offense going down there still isnt a whole lot of stealing. Managers tend to want to wait for their 200-K slugger to get lucky. Waiting for the 3 run homer that never comes. (ok they still do, but not as often)

[redban]

Yeah, I think with more experience IF Hamilton can OBP about .340 one year he could make a run of it.

Think again.

Jose Reyes in 2007 had a .354 OBP, well over .340, yet he maxed out at 78 SB - the highest mark since the '80s. He was caught 21 times, so he made 99 attempts. Thus, even if Reyes pulled a 100% success rate (an impossibility), he still would have fell short.

Reyes that year also played 160 games, with 763 plate appearances (5th all-time, just 13 off the single-season record).

If he couldn't come close to 100, then how can anyone else? A player might need a big .400 OBP and an aggressive 90% success rate to squeak 100 SB.

[Death to Crawling Things]

I was talking about Hamilton not Reyes. Besides I think in one of Coleman's years of triple figures he had a .320 OBP. So, Coleman shoots that theory way out of the water. What is needed is a Hamilton/Reyes/Coleman speedster who has a manager without a phobia of baserunning.

[Death to Crawling Things]

I looked up the non-Rickey triple-digiters and their OBPs. So here is Yr-Games-PLayed-SB-OBP

Maury Willis 1962-165-104-.347
Lou Brock 1974-153-118-.368
Vince Coleman 1985-151-110-.320
Vince Coleman 1986-154-107-.301
Vince Coleman 1987-151-109-.363

So, not only did Coleman do it with a sub-.340 twice, he got 100+ and barely OBPed .300 in 1986. This doesnt include their CS, so they all went at a much higher rate than Reyes. Plus their a few more seasons that register between 78 and 100 in steals, that we could take a look at. So, unless your argument was Jose Reyes is the greatest basethief of all-time or that managers from now until eternity will be wet their pants scared to let a guy attempt 100 steals, I have no idea where you are going with this. (the latter is the better argument)

[Herr28]

Sure, a decent OBP really helps a guy to increase his stolen base chances, but it isn't necessary. Look at Vince Coleman, the guy who gave the OP (back in 2008) his screen name (Vincent Van Go). That kid came up to the major leagues and posted OBPs of .320, .301, and .363 (from 1985-1987), and stole 100+ bases each year. Here are the numbers:

Year -- OBP -- SB/CS -- SB%
1985 - .320 -- 110/25 - 81%
1986 - .301 -- 107/14 - 88%
1987 - .363 -- 109/22 - 83%

That guy was insane on the paths! He lit the joint up when he found his way on base, which was a frustrating adventure during many plate appearances to be sure. However, his remarkable success I think is even greater, given that he was doing it during the height of the stolen base era. Maury Wills was mentioned above, with his 89% success rate or whatever, but that was way back when running was just coming back to the game. Pitchers and catchers had to learn to adapt to the style of Wills, Luis Aparicio (in the AL), and Willie Mays. The top ten lists in stolen bases for both leagues combined still ended with cats in the teens! It had been a generation or two of ballplayers since regular base stealing had been a weapon in the game.

By the time Vince rolled around, there were speedsters like himself and Omar Moreno, guys who could outrun the wind but unfortunately couldn't steal first base. Pitchers, catchers, managers, coaches, infielders, everyone in the game at that point had been working on slowing down the running game. Pitchers started using the slide step, and quicker moves to the plate, as well. There are some fun articles out there that have interviews with the old time rabbits of the 1980s talking about all the stuff pitchers and catchers tried to do to keep them tethered to the base they were on. But, like Maury Wills had said, you had to have that base stealing confidence (I think either Lou Brock or Vince Coleman called it a desire) and couldn't be concerned with the possibilities of being thrown out. It was a necessary swagger on the paths to keep a man running against the odds, to spark his team, to fire up that crowd, and to steal that bag.

Some guys were capable of stealing tons of bases back in the running heyday of the cookie cutter ballparks, turf, and unfortunate uniform choices. I posted an article from The Sporting News back in 1985 where some of the fastest men in MLB gave their opinions about running. A few of them talked about the work they could do on an opposing team without stealing a bag. Dave Collins and Rickey Henderson are two of them that I remember from that article. In fact, Rickey talked about stealing 100 bags, like he had back in Oakland before then. He said, in 1985 for that interview, that while playing for the Yankees and batting in front of guys like Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, and Don Baylor, he didn't see the need to steal every time he reached base. Instead, he would fake out the defense and attempt to open holes for those fine hitters -- because he knew they could knock him around to score. He said earlier in his career, when he came up with the A's, he felt the only way he could score was to steal one or two bases to be driven in. Basically, in the front of a fine hitting lineup with pop, Rickey said he could steal his bases when he wanted to, not because he had to.

Damn, I get nostalgic for that period every time something like this pops up. What a fun and exciting time to be a baseball fan, if you liked the running game that is. Sure, guys with a .301 OBP in the leadoff role can be extremely disappointing, but when that same cat is out there (whenever he can get on first) lighting up 50,000 people in a stadium (freaking out an infield, wearing on a battery, causing old men in the opposing dugout to reach for antacids) and then in a flash of spikes and a spurt of dust he is hugging second, all to the roar of those 50k beer and sweat soaked spectators, that was my kind of baseball!

[Toledo Inquisition]

Herr, I thought I just point out that while not a huge stealing enthusiast like yourself, people can overlook some other factors besides the straight SB/CS percentages and net runs stats.

- More pickoff attempts/more chances for the pitcher to throw the ball away.
- Stolen base attempts and the reduction of ground ball double plays (but increase of lining into double plays)
- Extra bases when the ball is hit
- Disrupting the pitcher's attention to the hitter along
- Many catchers/managers calling for more fastballs so that the catcher can throw out the runner, so a good fastball hitter would love it.
- On the other hand, hitters can be disrupted by people stealing.

I acknowledge that many of these factors are hard to quantify, but they do exist and bring excitement to the game.