Post by Rog on Nov 6, 2015 6:12:09 GMT -5
Should the batter try to move the runner over with a runner on second base and no outs? It's pretty much universally agreed that he should, but should he?
The answer isn't yes or not, but -- it depends. So what does it depend on?
More than anything else, it depends on the hitter, much as is the case in deciding whether to bunt the runner over or not. How likely he is to hit a ground ball to the right side? How likely is he to still get a hit if he is trying to move the runner over? How likely is he to swing and miss or hit the ball in a way (such as a pop up or short fly ball) that the runner isn't able to advance? How likely is he to get a hit and drive the runner in if he is swinging away?
Then it depends on the next hitter (and the hitter in the hole). How likely is the next hitter to drive home the runner from third base if the previous batter does move the runner over? How likely is he to get a hit to drive the runner home if he is swinging away naturally?
And on the runner himself. How likely is it that he will score from second base on a hit?
And the pitcher. How likely is he to take advantage of the batter who is trying to move the runner over? How likely is he to allow the runner to score from third base with one out? How likely is he to give up a hit?
And, obviously, the score. Not all games are one-run games. It makes a big difference if a team wins 3-2 or if it goes into extra innings, particularly if the other team is better and/or the home team. It is a big difference if the game goes into extra innings or our team loses by one. But it makes no real difference if a team loses by 3-2 or 4-2. The closer the game, the greater the importance of one run is.
And the inning. The later in the game, the more likely a close game is to end in one run. If we move the runner over in the third inning but wind up losing by one or more runs anyway, clearly it wasn't a good strategy to lose an out, regardless of whether it moved the runner over or not.
Finally, it depends on the team. Is it a team that is likely to get involved in a one-run game, or are its hitting and pitching so up and down that it is almost always involved in a two-run or bigger game? How likely is the team to get motivated if the runner is moved over, and how likely is it to be deflated if the runner isn't?
Most would say it is good baseball to try to move the runner over. Others would point out that a runner on second base and no outs is just about as likely to score as a runner on third with one out, so even if the play is successful in creating a productive out, little if anything has been gained.
But the real answer, just as is the case on whether to bunt a runner over or not, is -- it depends.
One many factors.
The answer isn't yes or not, but -- it depends. So what does it depend on?
More than anything else, it depends on the hitter, much as is the case in deciding whether to bunt the runner over or not. How likely he is to hit a ground ball to the right side? How likely is he to still get a hit if he is trying to move the runner over? How likely is he to swing and miss or hit the ball in a way (such as a pop up or short fly ball) that the runner isn't able to advance? How likely is he to get a hit and drive the runner in if he is swinging away?
Then it depends on the next hitter (and the hitter in the hole). How likely is the next hitter to drive home the runner from third base if the previous batter does move the runner over? How likely is he to get a hit to drive the runner home if he is swinging away naturally?
And on the runner himself. How likely is it that he will score from second base on a hit?
And the pitcher. How likely is he to take advantage of the batter who is trying to move the runner over? How likely is he to allow the runner to score from third base with one out? How likely is he to give up a hit?
And, obviously, the score. Not all games are one-run games. It makes a big difference if a team wins 3-2 or if it goes into extra innings, particularly if the other team is better and/or the home team. It is a big difference if the game goes into extra innings or our team loses by one. But it makes no real difference if a team loses by 3-2 or 4-2. The closer the game, the greater the importance of one run is.
And the inning. The later in the game, the more likely a close game is to end in one run. If we move the runner over in the third inning but wind up losing by one or more runs anyway, clearly it wasn't a good strategy to lose an out, regardless of whether it moved the runner over or not.
Finally, it depends on the team. Is it a team that is likely to get involved in a one-run game, or are its hitting and pitching so up and down that it is almost always involved in a two-run or bigger game? How likely is the team to get motivated if the runner is moved over, and how likely is it to be deflated if the runner isn't?
Most would say it is good baseball to try to move the runner over. Others would point out that a runner on second base and no outs is just about as likely to score as a runner on third with one out, so even if the play is successful in creating a productive out, little if anything has been gained.
But the real answer, just as is the case on whether to bunt a runner over or not, is -- it depends.
One many factors.