Rosenthal says the Angels may run wild. A review of the season series.

by Drugs Delaney on Oct 5, 2009 7:51 PM EDT Comment 37 comments

Randy posted a link to a Ken Rosenthal article predicting an LA victory in the ALDS. The two teams played 9 times this year, with the Angels winning 5 games. During the season, Angels base-runners stole 15 bases and were only caught twice. However, looking at the game-by-game results, I'm not sure LA's running game had much impact in the regular season. Here's a recap of the season series:

April 10th - Angels 6, Red Sox 3

LA steals 4 bases off catcher George Kottaras, 3 withWakefield on the mound. The Angels score 3 runs on 4 hits in the 2nd. Kendrick steals a base in the inning, but is stranded on 3rd. While Wakefield allows 11 base-runners (6 hits, 5 walks) in 6 innings, he only allows the three 2nd inning runs.

Masterson came on in the 7th. Abreu led off with a single andstole second. Guerrero singled him to third, and he scored on a sac fly. While it would seem the SB led directly to a run, the Angels tacked on two more runs in the inning on two more hits (a Morales double and a Mathis single) and an IBB.

Incidentally, the Sox were 2 for 2 in steals in the game, and one runner (Ellsbury) came around to score.

LA: 4 for 4 in SB. 1 base-stealer scored.

April 11th - Red Sox 5, Angels 4

Brad Penny out-pitched Joe Saunders. The Sox were 1 for 2 in SB attempts. LA was 1 for 1. None of the base-stealers figured in the scoring.

LA: 1 for 1 in SB. No runs resulted from the stolen base.

April 12 - Angels 5, Red Sox 4

LA was 1 for 2 in SB attempts, but didn't score a run as a result of the SB. The Sox were 2 for 3. Dustin Pedroia stole third and scored on Napoli's throwing error. In this first series, the Sox stole 5 bases and LA 6 bases. Two of Boston's base-stealers scored, compared to only 1 for LA.

LA: 1 for 2 in SB. No runs resulted from the stolen base.

May 12 - Red Sox 4, Angels 3

The Angels were 1 for 2 in stolen base attempts. The Sox were 1 for 1. Abreu stole off Paps in the 9th, but was stranded.

LA: 1 for 2 in SB. No runs as a result of the steal.

May 13 - Angels 8, Red Sox 4

The Angels were 2 for 2 in SBs in the game against Kottaras. Wake wasn't sharp. He allowed 7 ER in 4.2 IP. LA scored 5 runs on 4 hits in the 3rd. Willets led off with a single and stole second. Wake walked the next hitter (Abreu), before allowing back-to-back singles to Hunter and Morales, scoring two runs. The next hitter, Napoli, hit a 3-run HR. Wake walked two more hitters in the inning, but they didn't score.

While we'll credit Willets' steal with a run scored, based on the results of the inning, LA probably would have scored even without the steal.

LA: 2 for 2 in SB. 1 run scored.

May 14th - Angels 5, Red Sox 4 (12 innings)

LA was 2 for 2--both off Paps. But neither runner scored. The Sox were 1 for 1. MDC lost it in the 12th.

LA: 2 for 2 in SB. Neither runner scored.

September 15 - Red Sox 4, Angels 1

LA was 2 for 2 off Dice-K and Tek. But the SBs didn't have an effect on the scoring.

LA: 2 for 2 in SB. Zero runs as a result of steals.

September 16 - Red Sox 9, Angels 8

Both teams were 1 for 1 in SB attempts. Neither team's base-stealer scored.

LA: 1 for 1 in SB. No runs scored as a result.

September 17 - Angels 4, Red Sox 3

The Angels had 1 SB in their only attempt. But that runner failed to score.

LA: 1 for 1 in SB. The base-runner did not score.

******************************************************************************************************************

LA scored a whopping 3 runs from their 15 steals against the Sox in the regular season. Of those 3 runs, 2 probably would have scored anyway. If Rosenthal's prediction of LA's running game leading them to victory is to come true, it will have to have a far more decisive impact in the ALDS than it did in the regular season.

In my opinion, this series will be one by the team that pitches and hits better. I also believe the Sox' problems throwing out base-runners had less impact on the regular season than many suggest. After all, Boston had the 3rd best record in baseball, and couldn't throw anyone out. As the example of these nine games shows, stolen bases don't always lead to runs.

3 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As I just posted elsewhere:

You might be correct that it is not the most important pivitol aspect of the series, but why overlook or justify this important weakness? It is easy to identify the cause and may be something that can be treated via practice now and maybe better personnel later. There is no rule that the Sox can’t have catchers that can throw out baserunners, or at least I am not aware of such a rule.

by NG on Oct 5, 2009 8:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's being way overblown.

People are talking about it lie it’s more important than pitching/hitting matchups. The point is that it’s of minor consequence.

And while no, obviously there’s no rule saying the Sox can’t, there’s also no rule saying they an’t have 5 starters with ERAs under 1. It doesn’t make it easy or even necessarily possible.

by USG on Oct 5, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice stuff DD

Rec’d

tRA is the real stat.

by bloodysock04 on Oct 6, 2009 6:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Steals off Paps in the 9th shouldn't count

In most cases, it’s an extremely generous official scorer who calls those “steals.” The reality is that they’re defensive indifference.

by RSNexile on Oct 6, 2009 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

IMO, defensive indifference IS

an excuse for incompetence. Unless there is a man on thrid, there should be no steals that go unchallenged. That is not a good trend for a team wanting to win to get in the habit of allowing. It basically puts a runner in scoring position without them getting there by routine offensive methods. Other than laziness, incompetence in throwing is the only other answer.

by NG on Oct 7, 2009 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It means the pitcher and defense are focused on getting the batter out.

And usually only happens in non-save situations or with 2 outs – they don’t want to risk errors or split the concentration if they don’t have to.

@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 7, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bullshit

On any throw-down you risk giving up an error and scoring the run yourself. It also splits, as BS said, pitcher and catcher concentration. When the run at 1st, 2nd, whatever doesn’t matter the risk of error is usually much worse than the chance you’re gonna get the guy out.

by USG on Oct 8, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NG overvalues steals

LA’s 15 steals netted them 3 runs, 2 of which might have scored without the SB. That falls in line with Tom Tango’s research. Tango values a stolen base at 0.19 runs and CS at ~~0.46 runs. Using Tango’s formula, 15 steals equals 2.85 runs~~-very close to the 3 runs LA scored. However, the 2 CS probably cost the Angels at least 1 run (-0.92 runs, according to Tango).

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Oct 8, 2009 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you have to trust your professional skills,

and if your skills are not up to snuff, make them so. Do not make fatal errors, but automatically advertising that you cannot or will not contest an automatic second base giveaway is bad professional baseball AND IS SUCH A FATAL ERROR! I saw Varitek many times this year in close games not contest the winning run going to second. It embarrassed me as most little league teams would not have just rolled over like that.

As I said above, it is a sign of incompetence and lack of faith in one’s important skills unless there is a runner on third!

by NG on Oct 8, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, the only incompetence on display here is in your analysis

Most of the time when Tek doesn’t throw down to second on an uncontested steal, it’s because the runner is already almost at the bag. I don’t care if he literally had a cannon for an arm, he’s not going to throw out anyone when they’re 20 feet from second base by the time the ball gets to him. If it were incompetence on anyone’s part that opposing players get so many uncontested steals late in the game, it would be the pitchers for failing to hold the runners on and for taking long windups when everyone knows the runner is going.

But as has been recounted several times already, they do that because they don’t care about the runner because they’re more interested in getting the batter out. As they should be. Because if they get the batter out, they win regardless of what the runner does.

by RSNexile on Oct 8, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is just too easy and convenient to blame others or

situations. The situations that I got the most riled over were important late game steals that never should have gone uncontested. The team needs to become up to professional standards in this area no matter whose major fault this giveaway base plan is. Remember the original thread was that a writer claimed the Sox would suffer because of how easy they are to steal on and that the Angels like to use speed. I think the writer has a powerful point, and we may well be discussion this later in a way that will make you very defensive. So call me names and make ad hominem attacks, but I stand behind my logic!

by NG on Oct 8, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually agree with, NG

I don’t think that the fact that the Angels are a fast team and we give up a lot of stolen bases means we’ll lose, but I think that if the opposition runners have a relatively easy time getting into scoring position, then there is cause for concern there.

Eventually, the Angels will have to be competent enough to get those runners in scoring position across the plate. But I think we’d all rather have a runner standing on first rather than on second.

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 8, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure we would.

We all realize it’s not a good thing that the Angels are going to have a relatively easy time stealing 2nd. But we also realize that even if we only catch them, say, 4 times out of 20, it’s just NOT WORTH THAT MANY RUNS! It’s a relatively unimportant stat which is being overrated by any and everyone.

You can say there’s cause for concern, but really there isn’t. It’s an accepted weakness of our team just as, say, PITCHING is one of their weaknesses. There is no perfect team out there, but NG seems to A) think that we are the only playoff team with any issues, B) That it’s an easy fix that’s being left to fester due to some lack of effort, and C) That our issue is a big deal. It isn’t. It’s been worth 3 runs in 9 games, and while that could be the difference, so could the fact that their bullpen is bad, their SP mediocre, and their offense riding on the backs of 3 career/breakout years.

Get some fucking perspective.

by USG on Oct 8, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course.

Get some fucking perspective.

And I’m going to assume that comment is directed at him and not me.

I like the way our team stacks up against theirs just fine, and chose us to win in 4 in the poll. It’s frustrating to see folks run on ‘Tek and VMart, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to break our back. It’s a cause for concern for which there is no solution at the moment. It could lead to our downfall, but I like our positives much more than I fear our negatives.

The point itself, however, is a valid one.

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 8, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're not using logic, you're using false truisms.

Your argument is “Anyone can throw out runners if they just try harder! Not throwing through in key situations is a product of incompetence and laziness. This deficiency is a major problem.”

The facts are “Not everyone can throw out runners consistently, it is an accepted weakness of our team. Other teams also have weaknesses. Our weakness is fairly insignificant given how few runs it is likely to be worth over the entire series.” and “Not throwing down in key situations is an accepted strategy known to any manager worth his salt, the logic being that the risk of an error far outweighs the chance of an out. This strategy is employed even with good-throwing catchers.”

by USG on Oct 8, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"the logic being that the risk of an error far outweighs the chance of an out. "

You have just described relative incompetence and the worry it causes the manager and team. This is major league baseball, the top of the talent heap in the baseball world. Fear of errors for routine throwing down to second base should not exist.

Listen to yourself and your fear here. It shows a real perceived weakness, and a big one at that! It needs to be corrected so this team can be at the level we think it should be at! Let me put it this way. If we lose this series with a Buckner like moment due to base running prevention weakness, it will be a big deal. If we have tried our hardest to work on this, then maybe it will be acceptable. However, if we just accept this, as our defensive indifference seems to indicate, we are going to feel real bad with lots of angry fans!

by NG on Oct 8, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defensive indifference is different than not throwing because a runner gets too good a jump

Defensive indifference happens in the 9th inning, when the defensive team is up by more than a run. The runner on base can’t tie the game, so the defensive team concentrates on the hitter rather than the baserunner. Every team does this.

The Sox’ catchers don’t throw well. But, often times, a base is stolen on the pitcher. Boston rarely pitches out and Sox pitchers also don’t slide step much. This philosophical decision has served the Sox well. SBs, as a stat, are overrated. And the Sox, for all their problems cutting down potential basestealers, won 95 games this year.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Oct 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Prodromal feelings on this!

Drugs, This Rosenthal article hit a prodromal nerve with me because even though what you say sounds good, I fear we will be in for a tough time due to this very weakness. BTW, I have been watching baseball a long time, and just when did this defensive indifference (or to me defensive incompetence) start to be systematized as a noble strategy (NOT).

by NG on Oct 8, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defensive indifference has been around for a while

It’s an old rule. Here’s a NY Times article on the rule. For those who don’t have an NY Times account:

Defensive indifference is a sleepy but established rule that has been in Major League Baseball for 89 years. Bob Waterman, a senior baseball staffer at Elias, said the addendum, "No stolen base shall be credited to a runner who is allowed to advance without an effort being made to stop him," was placed in the 1920 rule book. The rule is typically enforced in the ninth inning of a lopsided game when the defense yawns as a runner grabs a meaningless base.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Oct 8, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The biggest reason to use Defensive Indifference:

Is to allow the infielders to stay in position. When a SS or 2B has to cover on a SB attempt it pulls them out of position and makes them less likely to field a groundball that would be fielded otherwise. Avoiding this is good. So, when the team is up by more than 1 and it really does not matter too much whether the runner moves from 1B to 2B (because the player at bat would have to score just to tie the game), it is smart to not pay the runner too much attention. If you are only up one, on the other hand, you should always do everything to prevent that runner from advancing.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Oct 8, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another good point.

There is a reason that the hit-and-run is a strategy.

by USG on Oct 8, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Prodomal?

You sick?

@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 8, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, I am so Antidomal

Seriously.

(i have no idea what that means)

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 8, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"You have just described relative incompetence and the worry it causes the manager and team."

No. Wrong. Everyone makes errors. I’m sick and tired of your “everyone can and should be perfect” routine. Throw-downs are rushed, unplanned events and as a result very risky for a chance at a reward that is only worthwhile in specific situations.

It’s not a big weakness, it is a small one. It’s the equivalent of having a mediocre punter. Sure, you’re going to lose some field position, and that’s a bad thing, but I’d much rather have a defensive unit that can get stops even if the other team has a relatively short field. It’s a small flaw in an otherwise well-rounded team that doesn’t begin to compare to the flaws in other teams. Besides which, you keep saying it needs to be corrected without seeming to realize that it can’t be. It’s too late for this season, and even next season the FA catcher market is weak as all get out, as it will be almost every year. Start living in reality instead of your own little world where everything can easily be fixed but isn’t out of incompetence and inertia.

by USG on Oct 8, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neat analogy.

Not sure I agree with it 100%, but it’s a good one nonetheless.

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 8, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A Buckner-like moment on a throw from a catcher...

Would be f’ing up the throw back to the pitcher, not trying to get the ball ~110 feet faster than the runner can get ~40 feet.

@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 8, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is just too easy and convenient to blame the catchers

Look, we all know they’re not very good at throwing out runners. But there isn’t a catcher who ever played the game who is going to throw out a runner when the time elapsed from the pitcher’s windup to when the ball hits the catcher’s glove approaches three seconds, as sometimes happens when Paps is on the mound. And even the starters aren’t particularly good at the slide step.

I recall very well that the original thread referred to a writer claiming the Sox would suffer because of how easy it is to steal against them. I also recall the evidence very clearly showing that the detrimental effect of that over the course nine games was at most three runs, two of which almost certainly would have scored anyway. So one run in nine games? Pardon me if I don’t wet myself worrying over an effect of such magnitude.

by RSNexile on Oct 8, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Adress this point, NG.

Do it. 15 steals has been worth 1 run and 2 outs for the Angels. Even if you account for luck and say that 2 runs that would’ve scored anyways wouldn’t always have, that’s 3 runs in 81 innings, which lines up with mathematical analysis.

Address the point. How is 1-3 runs in 81 innings a big deal? How is it bigger than their pitching deficiencies? How is it bigger than their offense riding career years and luck?

by USG on Oct 8, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs