if anyone wants a good laugh, I suggest you read Nick Cafardo's piece in today's Boston Globe where he says Jacoby Ellsbury should not be included in any Adrian Gonzalez deal (ZOMG 70 STEALS!!1)

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/12/17/turning_around_and_trading_ellsbury_would_result_in_a_steal_for_padres/

[1] I hope they are listening. Sadly, there is a team out there that will overpay for Ellsbury.

Geeeeez. Re: Damon, I wish Matsui had been a little more patient, or the Yankees had just gone ahead and signed him. But then again, maybe there isn't really a market for ol' Johnny for three years or more. We'll see.

I wouldn't give him two, personally.

Re: that Boston Globe article: Would the Red Sox off-season really be"eye-popping"? I'd say the Yankees last year was a good standard for eye-popping, and Boston won't come close to that.

Nick Johnson update
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/yankees-continue-talks-with-nick-johnson.html

[5] I think the Nick J thing is a negotiating ploy vs. Boras (for one of JD and Holliday).

I still think Holliday is going to happen in the 5/90 range, with a 6th year option.

I like Nick Johnson and on some level it would be cool to have him back in the fold. I don't really know what to make of his injury history.

But regardless, I'd rather see some real power at DH if that's the route they're going to go. Vlad or Thome or Delgado. I guess in a pinch you could put Guerrero in the OF too, and he's my favorite of the three, with Thome a close second. But any of them would do, just pick the one who has the best price/won't break down ratio.

I'm starting to realize that my main problem with Matt Holliday joining the team is I'm afraid for Melky's job. Or would they still play him quite a bit and have Swisher DH? Hmm.

[7] I don't know about Vlad in the OF - he looked pretty broken down late last year. I think he's more like Matsui in that regard than not.

[8] When we sign Holliday I strongly believe Melky or Gardner will be dealt. I still think Melky is better and has more upside than Gardner, and I think therefore has more trade value. So I think he's likely gone....

In more somber sports news ....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/sports/football/18henry.html

[1] i honestly think that that many steals at that high a rate (85%) from a leadoff hitter with a good obp (.355) is really underrated nowadays. rickey only stole 70+ bases at 85+% 3 times in his career, though he came close a few other times. that said, i'd be much happier if the sox kept ellsbury than traded for gonzalez.

[2] thanks for the info on the young pitchers.

[11] Isn't 70% considered net neutral though (b/c a CS is more detrimental than a steal is helpful). If so, then he's only somewhat better than net neutral at stealing. Combined with his below average D and overall he's simply only an okay player when looked at objectively. I agree - I hope the Sawx keep him.

[12] 85% is not just somewhat better than 70%. it means he was caught half as much as would be neutral. to have stolen bases at a 70% rate in the 82 attempts he made, ellsbury would have had to have been caught stealing 12 bases in addition to the 12 he actually had. or, he could have unsuccessfully attempted 18 more steals and still have ended up at 70%.

[14] Right, and even at those large (absolute) numbers, especially when combined with his poor D, that makes him no better than 'okay' by any measure I can discern. SBs are simply not *that* valuable at least not when looked at through most sabermetric lenses.

[12] [13] Yes, 70% is generally believed to be the break even point. Those 12.6 net positive steals is exactly why SBs are overrated. When you consider that many speedsters who steal a high numbers of bases do so to pad their stats, it further mitigates against the value.

[14] that they are undervalued by sabermetrically is why i say they are underrated now. i think mostly because they don't fit into ops+.

[15] you can say something about padding stats for any stat. i don't see why it's any more true for stolen bases than for anything else. you can't just choose to pad your stats, knowing that the catcher won't throw you out. you still take a chance. and if you can maintain an 85% rate, what difference does it make whether you're padding your stats or trying to score important runs?

[15] It makes a huge difference. Stealing in the 8th inning down 10 - 2 looks the same in the stats as stealing down 2-1. But the impact is obviously grossly different. While the same can be said of HRs, etc., for the most part players don't "choose" to hit a HR. SBs are entirely discretionary, either on the part of the runner or the manager. So yeah, the padding is tremendous.

Look, we could analyze the scenarios for each of his steal attempts, successes, and failures, and apply some multiplier to each. But lets take a simply view. Let's just agree that of the 12 (above neutral) SBs he had, "some" were low leverage. I'll be conservative and say...2. My guess is I'm being generous.

So he was 10 SBs better than neutral when it was high leverage. How many incremental runs does that lead to? 2? Maybe 3?

And if you add those 10 (or even 12) SBs to his OPS, as if he'd hit a double every time he walked/singled and stole a base, over 600 PAs you'd get . . . what - maybe 15-20 points additional incremental slugging?

Are 2-3 runs (TOTAL) and .018 sluggling nice at the margin? Of course - they are undeniably positive. Simply not "that positive."

Oops meant to [] [16] not [15]

From the CG press conference: Hal says we're not done. Girardi says we're looking at LF. Happy Hollidays everyone.

[17] first of all, it doesn't matter which is more discretionary. we're talking about the percentage. so unless you are arguing that catchers just don't care enough to hold runners on in some situations (less obviously than defensive indifference), then it doesn't matter. we're talking about the ability to steal bases without getting caught, and i don't think that changes dramatically whether a runner is padding his stats or not. remember that it also behooves a catcher to "pad" his caught stealing percentage, even when the steal wouldn't be that big a deal in the game. also, a home run is always the best thing a hitter can do, and is never inappropriate. steals, on the other hand, are sometimes inappropriate. so as much as a speedy runner can pad his stats, he is also sometimes restrained.
also, i don't think you can only count the 12 supposedly net positive steals when analyzing ellsbury's stats. if you add steals to his ops by subtracting each cs from obp and slugging and adding each steal to slugging, which would mean that his ops would keep constant at around a 2/3 pace, his ops would jump from .770 to .845. that doesn't mean he had the equivalent of an .845 ops since stealing extra bases doesn't drive in runs, but since he's a leadoff hitter i think that's a closer approximation than yours.

[16] You can't really bad other stats like you can SBs. As for maintaining the 85%, it could be that the runner actually has a lower rate in more important spots (when the defense is paying more attention). Or, if the success rate is the same regardless of leverage, it would just mean fewer net positive steals.

[21] i don't understand your last sentence. if his success rate is 85%, the more chances he takes the more "net positive steals."

[20] It's probably safe to say that most SBs are stolen off the pitcher, so if they aren't motivated enough to hold runners on, the catcher will be helpless.

As for adding the Net steals to SLG, that doesn't make sense for the reason you stated: SBs don't advance other runners. The SB is all about increasing run expectancy. That's why CS are much more damaging than SBs are helpful.

I'm skeptical of this idea that stolen base stat padding is a meaningful phenomenon.

I've spent the last 20 minutes reading comments on boston.com re: Ellsbury for Gonzalez.

Some highlights:

- Trading Ellsbury would be as smart today as trading Babe Ruth was then!

Don't be stupid!

-Ridiculous. No GM in their right mind would trade Ellsbury. How often in baseball history does a guy like him come along? Here's just one. Hall of Famer Lou Brock.

[22] Right, but my argument is that all 82 of Ellsbury's attempts weren't within a reasonable range of leverage. If we assume he attempted 20 "meaningless bases" (chosen for easy math) and maintained the same 85% rate, that would make his reasonable leverage success rate 54 of 62. Because 70% of 62 is 43.4, that would mean his net positive SBs would be 9.6, which is down from the 12.6 when looking at his entire body of work.

[20] Totally disagree. We're not "talking about the percentage" - we're talking about the *value* of a player's total SB activity (i.e. successes and failures) and they are simply not that valuable by any measure.

As far as factoring it into OPS I was trying to be nice and play my own devil's advocate, not somehow state that it was a particularly valid POV.

It comes down to: how many incremental runs is the guy producing at the margin from the sum total of *all* his SB attempts, both successful and unsuccessful. Here, it definitely only makes sense to look at the SBs above neutral (sort of the definition of neutral...) and it's tough to imagine those 10-12 SBs producing more than 2-3 runs. Maybe 4 if the team is read hot, but come on.

Again, are those runs nice? Sure. Are they "that great" especially when looked at as peeling back the layers of an onion beneath "ZOMG 70 steals!!" the answer is clearly no.

[23] some pitchers hold runners on better than others, no matter the situation. i really don't think that the game situation has a meaningful impact on steals, since, as i said in [20] there are factors that can go either way.
and while your second point is true, keep in mind that steals can only occur when at least one of the bases is empty, so at most we're talking about 1 rbi per at bat/time on base. and i assume that the vast majority of his steals came with no other runners on base ahead of him. and, as i said, that is mitigated even further by the fact that he's a leadoff hitter.
anyway, the point is that i don't think we fully understand the value of a leadoff hitter with a good obp and an ability to steal that many bases at that high a rate if we try to compare him to other hitters who have different functions.

[28] I'm not sure that the latter comparison is the one we're looking at (at least, not the one that's of particular interest to me). I'm not looking to compare Ellsbury to say, a slugger. I'm simply trying to examine the net value of his SB activity. I don't think it's high by any measure. So for me, when combined with his poor D, he's simply not a great player. 'Okay' sure. Maybe even 'nice' if you like grit and hustle.

[26] ok i understand now, but i still disagree because i don't think it's fair to only count "net positive steals" in high leverage situations. you wouldn't do that with other stats, and for the reasons i've provided, i don't think you can do it with steals.

[27] when we're talking about whether the game situation impacts his steals, we are talking about the percentage. even if it's more discretionary whether or not to attempt to steal a base, the runner still has to make it. if 70% is neutral (and i don't know if i agree with that since i haven't seen the reasoning behind it), then doesn't that take into account all the variables, including whether or not it's easier to steal a base in certain situations?

[29] i'm not arguing that ellsbury is a great player, only that his ability to steal that many bases at that high a rate is underrated.

[31] that is, underrated by those who don't overrate it.

[30] The 70% rate is based on a macro netting all the changes to run expectancy from successful and unsuccessful attempts. The reason the break even is so high is because CS subtract more than SBs add (Man on 1st CS subtracts .656 RE, while Man on 1st steals 2B adds .236). Even in this specific situation, it's almost a 70% break even proposition.

The analysis does not take into account leverage, but I think that is more relevant here because the SB is alot more discretionary than other stats.

[32] :D I think it's clear by prowling the Sawx boards that RSN drastically overrates it! :)

[33] Thinking further, is the SB the only truly discretionary stat? I mean, you could decide to strike out on purpose, but let's leave 'choices" like that aside for now. What else? IBB's I suppose. Sac bunt? Does it matter? :D

I WANT HOLLIDAY.