Friday, July 4, 2008

Bottom of the ninth. You're down 3.

Here's the situation. You're on the losing end of a 6-3 game. You're up in the bottom of the ninth. The first three batters reach base loading the bases. The tying run is now at 1B with 0 outs.

If this were a 6-5 game and the tying run reached 1B to leadoff the inning there is a great chance that the bunt would be executed. So, why not now? Of course, there are some extenuating circumstances here but let's investigate.

a) There is a force at home plate which makes recording a force out a whole lot easier on bunts just in front of the plate.
b) The tying run is at 1B late in the game. The defense will more than likely be in a no doubles defense guarding the lines. This is advantage for the bunt as most defenses put the corner infielders deeper and on the lines.
c)The lead runner at 3B will be able to get as much as the 3B gives him with his primary lead. If the 3B is in a no doubles defense his position to the line might not allow the runner to get too much.
d) The 1B will more than likely be behind the runner at 1B guarding against the double.
e) This is the biggest and most important issue. All runners must run on the bunted ball. If all don't advance, the play is not successful.

I do not like the traditional sacrifice. There is simply to much to go right. The force out at the plate is the big stickler for me. If you even make an average bunt the 3B (charging at the first sign), P and 1B (charging) have a force out option.

The bunt for a hit intrigues me here. As long as the batter holds his bunt long enough it should hold the corner infielders enough to allow all runners to advance. However, the bunt back to the pitcher here would be catastrophic. Bunting for a hit is harder to set the angle making bunts back to the pitcher more likely.

How about the "suicide squeeze." It wouldn't necessarily be the squeeze but it would be a "bunt and run" that looks like the squeeze. Start the runners and bunt the ball and let all runners advance one base. It gets the job done but oh, so risky.

How about a hit and run? Here is the one that I like. This could easily be communicated and I think it has a lot of merit. Here's how it would work. All runners take off with the exception of the runner at 3B. The runner at 3B shuffles down the line in case the ball is hit and then he breaks for home. The batter hits the ball on the ground to advance all runners. Mission accomplished. One of the big reasons that I think this play could work is the fact that you're not asking the runner at 3B to break. You're asking him to "gain ground" in the direction of the plate.

Now, if the batter swings and misses, it obviously fails. More than likely, the lead runner will be out and you'd have runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out.

I have not seen this play. I don't know if I ever will. I don't know if I'd ever do this. But, when the tying run gets to 1B with 0 outs so late in the game, coaches should at least think creatively to advance the tying run into scoring position.

It's better to dismiss an idea than to never have considered an idea.

No comments: