I will add this:
So many of our players today do not have what I call a "high I.Q.' for the game. That includes knowing when it's a good idea for the second baseman to field that ball going left, spin and throw to second; or to field that ball going left and just flip it to the first baseman for the sure out.
If you're tied, down one run, ahead one run--- in other words, involved in a close game where a run can beat you-- then the smart player is going to try her best to get the lead runner to keep her out of scoring position.
If you've got a two-run lead in the last inning, then that runner is of little significance-- far less important than the sure out at first. Likewise, if you've got a big early lead and there's any doubt, then taking the out at first is the right play. It's never good to set up your opponent for a big inning by throwing a ball into left field when you could have gotten a sure out.
Advanced thinking:
The second baseman comes into the bench following the third out. The coach wants to know why she didn't throw to second for the force with no outs and a runner on first. She tells him that the girl going to second was a slower runner than the hitter, who likely would have stolen second anyway on the very next pitch, leaving the faster runner in scoring position with one out. The way she did it, the slower runner was left in scoring position and likely couldn't have scored on most base hits. Now that's a high I.Q!
More advanced thinking:
The second baseman comes into the bench following the third out. The coach again wants to know why she didn't throw to second for the force with no outs and a runner on first. She tells him that the hitter she threw out at first was the seventh hitter in the lineup. Their pitcher had easily struck out the weak-hitting 8th and 9th hitters in their previous plate appearances, so she figured she'd do it again and end the inning with no damage--- which she did. If she had thrown wildly to second trying to get the lead runner, she would have assured that the lead-off batter, who is a dangerous hitter, would have gotten a chance to drive in the run regardless of what happened with hitters 8 & 9. Now that's a high I.Q!
I spent half an hour with a 12U pitcher (not my daughter) the other day just talking about how important it is to know which part of the lineup is coming up, and to remember what each hitter did at the plate the previous time up. More time was spent talking about umpires and how some of them call games like they've got a plane to catch. "Why would you ever throw a ball over the plate when the ump will give you a strike when it's 6 to 8 inches outside or inside?" I asked.
"I guess I wouldn't," she said.
"Good answer."
I talk to hitters about the same thing in reverse. Since most umpires in school ball and travel ball call games like they've got a plane to catch or, in tournaments, like they've got a schedule to keep, why would you go up to the plate and take the first pitch right down the middle? If it's down the middle, then you'd better be swinging. Reason? The next one might be 6 inches outside and called "strike two"; and the next one might be neck high and inside and called "strike three." Never put your fate in the hands of an umpire if you can help it. Taking the first pitch down the middle is only a good idea if you're behind in the late innings and the pitcher has been wild. Other than that, it's just a recipe for failure. Need baserunners? I don't see how being behind in the count with an umpire who has a wide strikezone --and a pitcher who knows it -- could be helpful in that regard. Do you? If you get one down the middle-- hit it! That's a high I. Q.
Obviously, all of these things can be used by good coaches to help the girls raise their I.Q.'s and to help their teams win games. The more they know and the more they can think on their own, the fewer little robots looking for their next instruction you create. Instead, you'll have real ballplayers to be proud of.
