PDA

View Full Version : SB or HR?


soxfan123
06-03-2005, 09:11 PM
During the game on Friday, Hawk mentioned an email asking whether a 70 SB season was more impactful than a 50 HR season...He said it depends on the context of the team and what their strengths are. In my opinion, it is the stolen base category because of how mentally impactful it is compared to a solo home run in a three run ballgame. Considering our current record and the stolen bases of the mayor, it seems to me that the stolen base is overall more important.

Any thoughts?

MRKARNO
06-03-2005, 09:14 PM
50 Homers, without a doubt.

I'd rather have 200 bases than 70 bases.

A.T. Money
06-03-2005, 09:27 PM
Depends when the bags are swaped and it depends on when the homers are hit.

If it's tied, bottom of the 9th, give me the homer.

If it's a blow out, the homers are just nice to see, but it's not that important.

The SB keeps the defense in disarray, and it can lead to big innings, like tonight's game. Of course, if you're SP can't throw strikes, that won't matter.

fquaye149
06-03-2005, 09:41 PM
50 homers. no question. SB's have meaningless context too. And even when they're meaningful they're not guaranteed runs.

I'll still take 70 SB, if you're offering.

batmanZoSo
06-03-2005, 10:21 PM
Well, duh, 50 is close to 70 and of course a homer is better than a stolen base. But compare 70 steals to 30 homers, then what do you pick? 30 homers is easy to come by today, 70 steals is very rare. Even 50 is almost unheard of outside of maybe three guys in the entire game. I'll take 70 steals over 30-35 homers if we're talking a corner position player, not a CF or a SS. In other words, I'll take Pods over Lee.

nedlug
06-03-2005, 11:25 PM
First of all, 70 SBs is not 70 bases; it's at least 140 bases because you have to get on first (at least) to steal a base. Second of all, 70 SBs is definitely better than 50 HRs for the Sox's offense. When you have 3-4 guys who can consistently drive in runs with singles and a lineup that can rally, a horribly disruptive runner like Pods can wreak havoc on opposing pitchers. Also, when a pitcher gets in a groove of pitching out of the windup, putting Pods or someone like him on base messes him up.

MRKARNO
06-03-2005, 11:27 PM
First of all, 70 SBs is not 70 bases; it's at least 140 bases because you have to get on first (at least) to steal a base. Second of all, 70 SBs is definitely better than 50 HRs for the Sox's offense. When you have 3-4 guys who can consistently drive in runs with singles and a lineup that can rally, a horribly disruptive runner like Pods can wreak havoc on opposing pitchers. Also, when a pitcher gets in a groove of pitching out of the windup, putting Pods or someone like him on base messes him up.

Well if you're asking would you rather have a guy who hits .300 with 50 HRs and 0 SB or .300 with 0 HR and 70 SB, I think it's obvious that the 50 HR guy will help you out a lot more. The HR guy doesnt rely on others to produce runs, he does it himself. The leadoff man needs someone to drive him in in order to score a run.

soxfan123
06-03-2005, 11:38 PM
The HR guy doesnt rely on others to produce runs, he does it himself. The leadoff man needs someone to drive him in in order to score a run.

True, but my argument is that the feeling that any young pitcher, or a veteran pitcher gets in an intensified game is fear of the speed more than the 50 HR guy because out of 550 ABs, he hits it out 50 times when out of 80 tries, the speedster gets 70 bags. It affects their pitch selection, the mentality of the infielders and the psyche of the pitcher. A home run just affects the pitcher and the catcher (this is not to say that these aren't vital components to success). Think of when a veteran pitcher lets Podsednik on; it is not whether he is going to steal, it is when is he going to steal. The surrendering of a fast man on base that often is a walk(four bad pitches) is more harmful to his confidence than a ball over the middle of the plate (one bad pitch).

MRKARNO
06-03-2005, 11:43 PM
True, but my argument is that the feeling that any young pitcher, or a veteran pitcher gets in an intensified game is fear of the speed more than the 50 HR guy because out of 550 ABs, he hits it out 50 times when out of 80 tries, the speedster gets 70 bags. It affects their pitch selection, the mentality of the infielders and the psyche of the pitcher. A home run just affects the pitcher and the catcher (this is not to say that these aren't vital components to success). Think of when a veteran pitcher lets Podsednik on; it is not whether he is going to steal, it is when is he going to steal. The surrendering of a fast man on base that often is a walk(four bad pitches) is more harmful to his confidence than a ball over the middle of the plate (one bad pitch).

What is going on now that a walk is suddenly considered to be better than the long ball? What matters most is how the play affects the score. If a team gets rattled and allows only one run, then it's not a big deal. A walk, a bloop followed by a 2 out blast, that's not only 3 runs, but kills a team's confidence.