Top Moments '09: No 1. - The Steal

by 0157H7 on Dec 27, 2009 10:08 PM EST in Top 10 Moments Comment 35 comments

Andy Pettitte holds the ball. Poised, professional, the archetypal veteran pitcher, he's thinking about what to throw to the batter, J.D. Drew. He's concentrating intensely on the tough hitter, not even thinking about the runner on third, certainly not worrying about him.

Suddenly, a roar bursts out from the crowd. Pettitte rushes the throw to home plate, but it's too late. Jacoby Ellsbury has stolen home. [Click Continue Reading for more.]

Steals of home plate are exceedingly rare. Most of the time, they occur as part of a larger play, such as the delayed double steal (runner on 1st breaks, followed by the runner at 3rd). A straight steal of home, like Ellsbury's, is even rarer. As Ted Keith points out, Hall of Fame base-stealer Ricky Henderson had only 4 in his entire career, out of 1,406; Lou Brock never succeeded in a straight steal of home in his 938 thefts.

While Ellsbury has blazing speed, he is also very observant, reading pitchers' movements and keeping track of position players. The mark of a superb basestealer is not pure speed (although he has that), but not getting caught. Ellsbury's career success rate at stealing is 84.8%. In 2009, he stole 70 bases, more than anyone else in MLB (next highest were Michael Bourne with 61 and Carl Crawford with 60); he was only caught 12 times. Ellsbury had the skill to recognize the factors that allowed him to steal third base.

As a lefthanded pitcher, Andy Pettitte would not be facing third base during his delivery. Ellsbury was effectively sitting in his blindspot. Compounding this, Pettitte was pitching out of the windup rather than out of the stretch, meaning his delivery was slower and it would take longer for the ball to reach home. Finally, Yankees third baseman Angel Berroa was not covering his base closely, allowing Ellsbury to develop a large lead without incident.

Ellsbury knew everything was aligned perfectly. After the game he described the steal to reporters:

"You have to know you're going to make it... I knew. It was something I'll never forget." (Source)

The Yankees went on to lose the game, 4-1, as Masterson pitched 5.1 innings of 1-run ball, and the bullpen (Hunter Jones, Michael Bowden and Takahasi Saito) slammed the door on New York.

In the end, the steal was not a game-changing play. It did not provide the pivotal run, or have much tactical significance. It didn't change the course of the Sox postseason, or inflame the Sox-Yankees rivalry. But it was a glorious display of skill, athleticism, and awareness, one that will be remembered for generations to come by Red Sox fans.

Links:
Ted Keith on Stealing Home
George Vass on Stealing Home
OTM Gamethread (steal reaction starts here, and the overflow thread is here)
OTM Postgame by the Inimitable Allen Chace
4/26/09 on Baseball-Reference
And for irony, see bs.uf's comment here on the game thread (before The Steal happened).

Poll

How many more times in his MLB career will Jacoby Ellsbury steal home?

No more. Like many first-time novelists, he'll never recapture his initial success.

83 votes

1. The stars will align again just once, and he'll do it.

143 votes

2 or 3. His talent is immense, but the circumstances are rare.

233 votes

4 or more. Ellsbury will pwn Pettitte and find plenty of other victims.

82 votes

541 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 35 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How many posts until someone says

“trade him anyway”?

I was at work that night and had just loaded up gameday audio on my phone in time to hear the steal. Truly couldn’t believe it. A totally worthy best moment of the year, if it can’t involve a victory parade.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Dec 27, 2009 10:26 PM EST reply actions

What a moment

We had just flew in from Paris Island SC Marine base with our daughter fresh out of graduation and got the biggest thrill of all for our decision to take our daughter to her first Fenway game! Quite a thrill for a Montana girl.

What a great night that was!

by Gweg on Dec 27, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions

trade him anyway

by beantownboy171 on Dec 27, 2009 11:24 PM EST reply actions

yep

Miguel Cabrera IS the solution to our problems.
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!

by gizmosandy on Dec 28, 2009 7:37 AM EST up reply actions

I wouldn't just give him away

But if there’s one player the Sox could afford to trade, it’s Ellsbury. There are a couple of reasons why Ells is expendable: Mike Cameron is a better CF. The Sox have a lot of OF depth in their system. There are a few players who could replace Ells in a year or two.

If Ellsbury could improve to be an average defensive CF, he’d be very valuable. But, as he is now, he is just an OK player. Right now, Ells is better suited to LF than CF. If it came down to a choice between Ells or Buchholz, I’d rather see the Sox hold onto Buchholz.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 28, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

I think he probably is an average CF

while UZR has some merit, I don’t trust it over a year and my eyes tell me he was OK, not good, but not that bad.

But I agree on all other fronts. There is no way I’d want to see him traded though unless it brought us Agonz- sending something like Ells and Kelly and a lower prospect or two would be nice. I don’t think payroll-wise it’ll happen, but it’d be nice.

by wolf9309 on Dec 28, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

From what I've seen

UZR has Ellsbury just about right. He does not get good reads. He was at fault for quite a few “hits” last year. Hopefully, he’ll improve. But I’m not sure he has the instincts to play CF.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 28, 2009 11:05 AM EST up reply actions

Lets see how UZR treats him

Now that he doesn’t have to position himself to account for Bay’s poor range. A lot of people say that half of UZR is positioning, so now that he doesn’t have to shade towards left I expect him to be a lot better.

by Gnick on Dec 28, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions

I don't buy that argument

Manny’s poor range didn’t affect Coco. Also, the Sox didn’t shade Ells to LF to compensate for Bay. LF is small at Fenway. There’s a lot of ground to cover in right-center. Also, if the Sox shaded Ells toward LF to cover Bay, why wasn’t Drew’s UZR affected?

Anyone who watched Ellsbury could see that his problem was with balls hit right at him. He got slow jumps. Maybe he’ll improve. But since the Sox now have a legit CF in Cameron, they’d be wise to move Ells to LF. In LF, Ells should get better reads because the angle is different.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 28, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions

I agree the Sox should have Cameron get most starts in CF

with Ells in LF. That said, I don’t think we have enough data to conclude Ellsbury is bad defensively in center. So far, he’s had one good year there (08) and one bad one (09). We have no way of knowing how he’ll perform over the course of his career in CF.

"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.

by 0157H7 on Dec 29, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

very true

Fenway’s outfield configuration actually almost demands that the CF play it straight up. Its not often you see the CF shaded either way – its too dangerous because of the deep center corner.

Because of this, a Fenway centerfielder is always going to get an on-center look at the ball – which means he isn’t going to get as good a read as he would if he could cheat to left or right. The ability to read the ball on-center is very difficult to get better at. Ellsbury may never be a great CF because of that.

by mmmmm on Dec 29, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

They need him more offensively than defensively

Ellsbury is their entire baserunning game. (They’re essentially last in MLB without him.) Without someone that is an actual threat to steal (and no, Pedroia doesn’t count), the lineup becomes entirely one-dimensional.

Packaging Ellsbury for Gonzalez or Beltre is not a smart move for the Sox.

by lone1c on Dec 28, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions

"entirely one-dimensional" ?

just because they don’t steal bases?

Hey – if we had a team of nothing but high-OBP plodders with reasonable amounts of power – I’d take that ‘one dimension’ any day.

’Love Ells, but the stolen base is over-rated as an offensive tool.

by mmmmm on Dec 28, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

It's not just the stolen bases, though.

The issue is that once on base he changes the way pitchers pitch and defenders are positioned. This creates opportunities for the hitters after him that they wouldn’t necessarily have.

Not only that, when he puts a ball in play in the infield, everybody goes haywire trying to get him out, which creates opportunities for other runners on at the time.

I believe it’s not the stolen bases themselves, it’s the entire change in approach and strategy that comes from having someone like Ellsbury on the team. Get him on base in front of a doubles hitter and you have a good shot at manufacturing some runs because of his speed. Or equivalently, he can steal his way from second to third and give you a chance to get a run off of a sac fly.

by lone1c on Dec 28, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions

believe it or not, sometimes having a base-stealer is a detriment

to the hitter. There are well-documented cases of hitters who did NOT like to hit behind a base-stealer because it would disrupt their own concentration. Also, stealing 2nd can often lead to an IBB for your stronger hitter at the plate who you just maybe would rather get pitched to. I’m not dismissing the intangibles that you reference, but I’m pointing out that there are negative peripherals as well.

In the end, statistics say the benefit of the stolen base is a wash EXCEPT in high-leverage situations, which are typically late-innings when you get a reliever who is statistically less likely to have pitched from the stretch as often or effectively as a starter. For those situations, you are going to get better value by having a pinch runner who can steal because you are spending fewer $$ for that stolen base than if you spend it on a starter who can steal. Plus the pinch runner from the bench can be inserted for anyone in the lineup who gets on in the late inning situations (ignoring positional restrictions like if you only have one catcher available or something like that). So spending money for a speedster who sits on your bench costs less and is more flexible strategically.

For your starters, you are better off spending the money on OBP. As I indicate, you can always pinch run for them in the 9th – but at least they’ll have gotten on base for you.

by mmmmm on Dec 29, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions

totally agree.

Also, aside from speculations about what the SB does to the pitcher, wOBA includes the stolen bases in Jacoby’s offensive value. He is a great base stealer, and it helps. He would be more valuable if he got on base a fair bit more.

by Buzzy on Dec 29, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

+2

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 29, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions

Of stolen bases:

stealing 2nd can often lead to an IBB for your stronger hitter at the plate who you just maybe would rather get pitched to.

But, indeed, these would be situations when you would either not put a steal on, and/or have the stronger hitter protected in the line-up. And that would speak more to game and line-up management than the the benefits and detriments of stealing bases.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

oh certainly

but the argument goes to value. The above scenario takes away the SB value for that baserunner player out of the picture – yet you paid $$ for it. And possibly because you paid for his SB ability, you got less OBP ability and he isn’t even ON base.

It is better value to pay for OBP (or more completely, wOBA) for starters and if you are going to spend $$ on base-stealing at all, it is more cost effective and flexible to buy it via your bench players.

by mmmmm on Dec 29, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

Actually defense in CF is very important

If Ellsbury’s defense continues to be subpar, it will limit his overall value to the team.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 28, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

I didn't say that CF defense isn't important

In the short term, though, it sounds like the Sox’s plan is to make him a more potent offensive weapon. The idea of platooning Cameron and Ellsbury in LF/CF seems to bear that out.

In the long run, though, it’s not clear to me where Ellsbury would end up long term. Given that Drew’s contract is up in 2011, if they have another CF prospect in the minors (Reddick?), does it make sense to put Ellsbury in RF instead?

by lone1c on Dec 28, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

We don't know what the Sox plan to do

If they’re smart, they’ll put Cameron in CF and Ellsbury in LF. Cameron is better defensively and has a much better arm. It makes no sense to sign Cameron and keep Ellsbury in CF, since a lot of Cameron’s value is tied to his defense. It’s always better to have the better glove in the premium defensive position. Ells is much better than Bay defensively, and Cameron is better than Ells. Ellsbury in LF, Cameron in CF, and Drew in RF would be one of the better defensive OFs. The Sox would lose a lot of that edge if Ells is in center.

Ellsbury’s arm is too weak to be an everyday RF. If he can’t improve in CF, his only real option is LF. The problem is he may not be good enough defensively to be a CF and may not be good enough offensively to be a LF. Also, since Boras is Ellsbury’s agent, I’m not sure if he will be with the Sox long-term. The Sox are deep with OF prospects, making Ellsbury good trade bait.

Unless Ellsbury improves his on-base skills, he isn’t really an ideal lead-off hitter. Last year, he was better when he hit lower in the order. Ells had a .347 OBP as a lead-off hitter. He had a .325 OBP leading-off a game and a .316 OBP leading-off an inning. Those aren’t very good numbers.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 28, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

I'd be all for rotating CF and LF between Cameron and Ells.

Allows Ellsbury to continue to develop as a CF while not entirely limit Cameron’s defensive value.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2009 9:01 AM EST up reply actions

I thought...

Beltre was a free agent? Why would we need to offer a package for him?

by Red Sox Raider on Dec 28, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

I believe it was Angel Berroa "covering" 3B that night

A-Fraud was still on the DL at that point. By the way, I use “covering” because he was more or less where you’d expect the shortstop to be, allowing Ellsbury to take an absolutely enormous lead at 3B in advance of the steal.

But yeah, everything about that play was an absolutely brilliant and gutsy move. It would have been even better if the ESPN ding-a-lings had been able to capture it (they had cut away to the bullpen just before the play unfolded).

by lone1c on Dec 28, 2009 9:29 AM EST reply actions

Fixed.

Thanks for pointing that out. It would’ve been better if A-Rod or Jeter were at fault.

"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.

by 0157H7 on Dec 28, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

by lone1c on Dec 28, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions

Ells taking home was a great moment and the most exciting single play of the year no doubt.
But it was no “The Steal.”
Last time I checked The Steal was in 2004. And Dave Roberts taking second to put himself in scoring position was by the superior play.

by adubson on Dec 28, 2009 1:03 PM EST reply actions

+1

But to be fair to the OP – the ranking is simply about 2009.

by mmmmm on Dec 28, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

Calling it "Straight Steal of Home"

Would probably be better.

by lone1c on Dec 28, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the great description 0157H7

Living in Ohio and watching this on a computer “game channel” all I got was “Ellsbury Steals Home.” Yeah I was excited, and later I looked up the pictures and video, but at the time I had no idea what the circumstances were that lead to the steal.

{I’ve actually sat for about 20 minutes refreshing a game channel like a doof because there were no updates (both for baseball and college football) and come to find out there was a weather delay or some kind of altercation which stopped play.}

by AJBlue7 on Dec 28, 2009 3:58 PM EST reply actions

I was watching EPSN at home.

It was completely unexpected, for me, for the announcers, certainly for the Yankees. When he broke for home, the cameras didn’t initially catch it, so all the warning you got was the noise from the crowd and then the ESPN crew. They managed to swing a camera on to home plate around the time Ellsbury crossed it. Posada didn’t have full control of the ball, but to the naked eye the play looked close.

"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.

by 0157H7 on Dec 28, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions