Questionable decision - what would you do?

[default]

I see teams all the time so worried about that runner on second base scoring that they allow one or even two batters to reach base, all to keep that runner on second from scoring. That leads to multiple-run innings for the visitor in the ITB. I have seen this so many times that I can't figure out why teams keep doing it.

I know what you mean! Same thing applies to runners on third with no outs. I see teams let runners get on base in order to stop the runner at third from scoring -- which often makes for a big inning. But chances are very good she would have scored anyway. Take the outs the other team gives you and you can avoid a lot of big innings.

Also, why don't more teams take that out at second when a runner steals with a runner on third? In most games, in the early innings, especially with no outs, I'll let you have your runner score from third if you give me that out at second. Because most of the time that runner will score anyway.

To me, outs are precious. I do my best to make you pay for your runs by giving up outs, and I try to be as stingy with my outs as I can. Bunting, therefore, is a necessary evil. Not a way of life.

I know of a HS coach who *always* has the batter bunt when there's a runner at first with no outs. To me, he's just giving up on the idea that his team may have a big inning.

Don't get me wrong -- in one-run games, especially against tough pitching, especially in the late innings -- you may want to bunt. But again, like I said, it's a necessary evil

 

[default]

may be that one of the players had not made it to the field on time, or was busy taking care of some business. Put them in the back of the line-up and buy some time

 

[default]

Many coaches -- including some who've posted here -- believe you should always pick home.

I respectfully disagree.

I say the correct choice depends on your team, the length of the game, and the level of competition you expect.

If your team's strength is offense -- and this is especially true when games are short -- then I say it's smarter to bat first.

Why? Because when you score first it puts pressure on your opponents. And teams that are playing scared will not perform to their potential.

When they find themselves behind a few runs, especially with shortened games, even good teams can have a tendency to choke.

But if hitting is not your team's strong suit, I say *always* take the home spot.

Agree... especially if your scouting report on the other teams is they get down on themselves when behind in the score. What better way to get into a team's head than going up by a couple in the first and then another couple in the top of the second.

 

[default]

Personally, I would pick the home team, but I've seen teams that play with more confidence when they bat first & put a couple runs on the board right away.

 

[default]

Also, why don't more teams take that out at second when a runner steals with a runner on third? In most games, in the early innings, especially with no outs, I'll let you have your runner score from third if you give me that out at second. Because most of the time that runner will score anyway.

Exactly. I watch this occur over and over and over, and 90% of the time, it costs the defense an additional one or more runs. Most defenses don't even consider taking the free out on this play, for fear that the runner on third will score. And as you said, with no outs, she will likely score anyway. So instead of one out and nobody on base, the defense ends up with no outs and a runner on second.

I even watched a team at 14-U ASA Nationals give away second base on a first-third steal in the 7th inning with an 8-1 lead. And this was a good So Cal team. Plenty of talent, but zero understanding of basic strategy.