Bigger bases mean more SBs?

[Brad K]

There's been some speculation the larger bases might result in more SBs. One analysis I saw said three inches might make a difference. Well, the analysis is already in trouble. First base grew three inches toward 2nd base and 2nd base grew three inches toward first base so that's six inches.

Ah, but applying the Pythagorean Theorem we find second base grew over 4 inches toward home plate. And while it's not a direct diagonal from first base to the pitching mound first base is almost that much closer to the pitcher.

Anyway, let's call it 6 inch gain for the runners on the run and 8 inch gain for the fielders on the throw. One more thing. A thrown ball moves faster.

[pilight]

How do you figure an 8 inch gain for the fielders? Home plate didn't grow and the catcher is still behind it any event. Whoever is covering second isn't likely to be on the front edge of the base. There's little to no gain for the fielders.

OTOH, second base didn't grow three inches towards first. It's still centered, so half the growth is in the other direction. That's different from the corner bases that remain flush with the line so that all their increase goes in towards second.

As for a thrown ball moving faster, that's always been true. It was true when Vince Coleman was stealing 100 bases per year and it was true when Bill Bruton led the league with 25. It's just not terribly relevant to whether steals will increase this season or in the future.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by pilight

OTOH, second base didn't grow three inches towards first. It's still centered, so half the growth is in the other direction. That's different from the corner bases that remain flush with the line so that all their increase goes in towards second.

Ah, revise from 6 inches to 4.5 inches.

So runners gain 4.5 inches, fielders gain 8.5 inches. Its the time that matters and due to the ball being fast than the runner the fielder's advantage is multiplied.

A fielders holiday coming up!

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Brad K

There's been some speculation the larger bases might result in more SBs. One analysis I saw said three inches might make a difference. Well, the analysis is already in trouble. First base grew three inches toward 2nd base and 2nd base grew three inches toward first base so that's six inches.

Ah, but applying the Pythagorean Theorem we find second base grew over 4 inches toward home plate. And while it's not a direct diagonal from first base to the pitching mound first pas is almost that much closer to the pitcher.

Anyway, let's call it 6 inch gain for the runners on the run and 8 inch gain for the fielders on the throw. One more thing. A thrown ball moves faster.

I was thinking about this same topic myself earlier today. One thing that I will point out, however, is that by decreasing the distances covered by the runner and the throw but very similar amounts, the absolute advantage of the faster-moving entity (the ball) actually DECREASES (for the same reason Usain Bolt would beat me by a smaller amount of time over 50 meters than he would over 100 meters)- at least within a range where we assume runner fatigue and air drag on the ball would be negligible. In any case, I expect the pickoff attempt limit to have a greater impact than the base size change. There are enough bang-bang plays, however, that fractions of a second differences are easy to underestimate in importance. Either way, it will be interesting to see.

[pilight]

I still don't see the size of the base decreasing the distance of the throw. You're not throwing to the base, you're throwing to the fielder covering the base. Larger bases wouldn't decrease the distance between the catcher and the fielder. If anything, a larger second base would justify them playing further off the center of the base, resulting in a longer throw.

[Brad K]

In a force play the shorter distance could become involved depending on the direction of the throw.

On a tag play if the fielder is using the base to position himself relative to the runner he could be in a position to get the ball earlier.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Brad K

In a force play the shorter distance could become involved depending on the direction of the throw.

That's not going to affect stolen bases

On a tag play if the fielder is using the base to position himself relative to the runner he could be in a position to get the ball earlier.

Fielders are generally positioned to defend against the batter more than a base runner. The fielder might be aligned closer to the bag but the runner will be equally closer on that end, which brings us back to the runner getting a three inch advantage on steals.

I doubt any of today's managers are going to turn in to Whitey Herzog because of the enlarged bases. We might see a slight increase in steals.

[Brad K]

I don't know what will happen. But no one was considering shorter throwing distances.

[GeoWar]

My youth team will be trying to draw the throw over early or go .... once the pitcher has used his throw overs ----- we run have not had a runner thrown out yet .... faster runners are easily to 3rd base...... 14 for 14 so far , one runner out on a throw over.

[rudel.dietrich]

My understanding is that it was done more for player safety than an attempt to increase base stealing.

[Jason Moyer]

I wouldn't have made the bases bigger. I think just charging pitchers for a ball every time they threw to first would have had a bigger impact on steals.

[mytreds]

I think the fact pitchers can no longer attempt as many pickoffs anymore is a greater factor in having more steals.

[Brad K]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we learned throw overs did nothing to prevent stolen base attempts?

[zappa1]

Wouldn't there be more steals if all the teams stopped playing Earl Weaver baseball and just ran more?

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by zappa1

Wouldn't there be more steals if all the teams stopped playing Earl Weaver baseball and just ran more?

Pitching, defense, walks, and three run homers.

When Earl Weaver-style baseball stops being effective, then sure. You have a point.

Earl Weaver isn't Dusty Baker, who once bitterly complained that a player was talking too MANY walks, and "clogging up the bases." Dusty Baker is an idiot.

[Syd Thrift]

Also, while steals are low compared to the 80s, they’re a lot higher than they were at other times in history. Once the “3 throws” rule makes the break-even point easier to hit, I do think we’ll start to see a lot more of them. The thing is, if you succeed about 70% of the time, you cost your team about as much as you get back from the value of those extra bases. The league is successful ever so slightly ahead of the threshold, about 75% last year, but if you can steal with a 75% success rate 20% more often because of the 3 throws rule, I expect you’ll see teams steal about 20% more often, at least over time.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Pitching, defense, walks, and three run homers.

Weaver didn't mention walks and anyway his idea is obsolete. How often is anyone on base when a HR is hit? Now its "pitching, defense, and five solo HRs."

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Also, while steals are low compared to the 80s, they’re a lot higher than they were at other times in history. Once the “3 throws” rule makes the break-even point easier to hit, I do think we’ll start to see a lot more of them. The thing is, if you succeed about 70% of the time, you cost your team about as much as you get back from the value of those extra bases. The league is successful ever so slightly ahead of the threshold, about 75% last year, but if you can steal with a 75% success rate 20% more often because of the 3 throws rule, I expect you’ll see teams steal about 20% more often, at least over time.

You don't expect the success rate to go up?