OK, then "The SB is back!", I'll accept "The SB Is a Useful Strategy in Certain Situations". Can you get MLB.com to change it?

Secondly, the Rock should be in the Hall - maybe because I was so impressed by him watching all those Phils-Expos games in the '80's but he is, in my opinion, the most underrated "star" of m,m,my generation.

I'd agree. It's particularly galling given how overrated Maury Wills has become over time.

In fact, he was a key part of my favorite game that year. If I remember correctly, the Orioles had a sizable lead, but gave it all back. It was capped off when Williams homered, which prompted Armando Benitez to drill Tino Martinez in the upper back. All heck breaks loose. After everything settles down and Darryl is hauled off to the Bronx House of Detention (well, maybe just the home clubhouse), Tim Raines homered in the next at bat. It was hilarious.

Hey Mike, I know this has nothing to do with the topic but what's the status of Cole Hamels? My fantasy draft is less than a week away and I need expert advice.

Secondly, in MLB.com's defense, I think they were simply stating that several teams seem to be transitioning toward speed (i.e. White Sox). Your numbers certainly indicate that generally that strategy is less effective in scoring runs, but it doesn't say anything about whether teams are doing it. Wouldn't a better analysis have just looked at raw stolen base numbers, seeing if attempts have gone up overall, or at least for an increasing number of teams? That seemed to be what the article was saying, not that "stolen bases are effective again." I don't think MLB.com ever makes anything but quantitative statements.

"Wouldn't a better analysis have..."--Now, who's beating up on whom?

OK, you asked for it, you got it. Here are the average team numbers for SB, CS, and SB attempts since 1990, with the annual percent increase. I wouldn't say that era of Vince Coleman is returning any time soon:

Yr Lg SB CS Attempts % Increase
1990 NL 148.92 60.58 209.50 12%
1991 AL 104.93 54.14 159.07 -3%
1991 NL 137.58 67.42 205.00 -2%
1992 AL 121.71 61.43 183.14 15%
1992 NL 130.00 61.75 191.75 -6%
1993 AL 110.64 62.29 172.93 -6%
1993 NL 122.43 56.29 178.71 -7%
1994 AL 79.79 35.93 115.71 -33%
1994 NL 81.50 37.79 119.29 -33%
1995 AL 95.07 41.86 136.93 18%
1995 NL 114.43 47.93 162.36 36%
1996 AL 103.86 45.29 149.14 9%
1996 NL 127.50 50.64 178.14 10%
1997 AL 106.50 51.64 158.14 6%
1997 NL 129.79 60.07 189.86 7%
1998 AL 119.64 53.86 173.50 10%
1998 NL 100.56 46.94 147.50 -22%
1999 AL 104.43 49.21 153.64 -11%
1999 NL 122.44 51.88 174.31 18%
2000 AL 92.64 41.93 134.57 -12%
2000 NL 101.63 46.00 147.63 -15%
2001 AL 117.64 48.07 165.71 23%
2001 NL 91.00 45.94 136.94 -7%
2002 AL 88.29 41.36 129.64 -22%
2002 NL 94.63 43.94 138.56 1%
2003 AL 91.36 39.07 130.43 1%
2003 NL 80.88 36.56 117.44 -15%
2004 AL 89.50 40.93 130.43 0%
2004 NL 83.50 32.94 116.44 -1%

Cole Hamels won't make the team until mid-season unless they again pick up Paul Abbott--then it'll be later like Floyd this year so that the can forestall the inevitable arbitration even longer. They are already 6 deep in the rotation and it looks like Myers will again be given a spot, incredibly. Floyd is ahead of Hamels. And if the Phils' brass had half a brain among them, adson would be given a shot, but they don't so he won't.

Sorry, it was just an idea -- the MLB article didn't seem to claim stolen bases correlated to runs scored or anything, just that more teams were running again.

The numbers you posted are interesting. Attempts have declined, but SB% appears to be fairly constant, hovering around the "break-even" mark at 70%, meaning, as a whole, these stolen base attempts probably aren't costing any runs (regardless of whether the raw totals correlate to runs). An average or above-average stealer should be just as valuable now as 15 years ago, correct? There just aren't as many of them.

And thumping their offense is with an overall SLG of .458 (second in the NL in 2004). As BP shows, the had the third most homers in the majors last year when with 235 they hit a franchise record number of offerings out of the park. Yet BP criticizes them for only scoring so much runs on their balls hit out of the park - because 141 of those homers were solo.

Their logic is that by having a better team OBP there would be more multiple run homers hit. Statistically that is true.

However, your research here states that the Cubs were doing everything right when they focused on SLG - because SLG correlates better with R/G than OBP (but OPS is even better).

The reason is probably that the number of solo homers and multiple run homers hit correlates with OBP, but only so much. The rest is fluke. That of course could be an interesting study. Or not?

On another topic, Mike: Its that time of the year where my heart feels baseball in it. I think there could be something coming up of ... you know what. Something we had done before. Together. At your blog. Still interested?