Base running

[Schultzy]

Since this subject came up last night I have a question for the newer generation baseball guys here.

In Sunday's game versus Vandy we had a man on third, less than two outs and the corners in. A one hopper was hit directly to the first baseman and the guy on 3rd runs home on contact. Of course the throw beats him home so bad that he gets caught in a rundown.

Is this how they teach it now? To run on contact in that situation? They used to tell us to see the ball through the infield before you commit.

[RougeDawg]

Well that's not how a good coach teaches the game. Cohen may be a great game manager but coaching the basics he is not. You have to read down angle, know the position players positions pre pitch, and know if he will have to go to either side to make the play. Any ball you read down angle and know the fielder will have to go to either side, you go home if you got a good secondary lead and have decent speed. No player should go home in that spot period, if a hot shot goes directly to an infielder, especially a corner infielder.

ETA: A real good base runner may take off and bluff in that situation, just to draw a throw home and try to help batter get on base.

ETA2: our players are some of the worst I've seen at the collegiate level at looking around at every position player and knowing where they are pre pitch. This is the reason we have base runners not tagging up when they should, running when they should, and taking extra bases. Knowing the position of the players, most times you don't even have to look where the ball goes if you read the angle off the bat. For instance, the outfield is playing a guy pull with LF and CF but straight up in RF. Ball is lined over the 2B head. All runners should be expecting to advance 2 bases minimum. I see our players taking one base and then looking either at a coach or for the ball before they make a decision on the next base. Both slowing them down and a holding them to 1 base almost every time. It's not that hard to do if you are taught it. But maybe our coaches are teaching this, and the players don't listen. Just like the hitting mechanics. Has to be one or the other because our hitters mechanics aren't very good.

The difference in winning the championship and runner up is doing all the little things right, like base running and hitting/bat control. Like UCLA.

[RAYn_Man]

Sounds like we need to hire RougeDawg**

[chainedup_Dawg]

had a coach that before every pitch you could hear him telling his baserunners "see the groundball through, freeze on the line drive, tag on the fly" He must've said it a 100 times a game at least. Then again, we had guys that you had to practically beat things into their heads and ended up with minimal running errors.

[Jacksondevildog]

They now teach to run on down angle with corners in on 1st and 3rd if the down angle pulls the infielder to either side. Worst case scenario is you are out at the plate and you still have runners at 1st and 2nd with 2 outs (maybe even 1st and 3rd with a run down). The fielder will have to make a play that moves him and make a good throw at the plate. Unfortunately, we took off and the ball was right at him. It's a tough read, but they do work on that. It's easy to sit back and see something happen and bitch because we don't execute it right and claim that they don't work on it as a staff and don't teach fundamentals. They work on these situations. I can assure you of that.

[chainedup_Dawg]

They now teach to run on down angle with corners in on 1st and 3rd if the down angle pulls the infielder to either side. Worst case scenario is you are out at the plate and you still have runners at 1st and 2nd with 2 outs (maybe even 1st and 3rd with a run down). The fielder will have to make a play that moves him and make a good throw at the plate. Unfortunately, we took off and the ball was right at him. It's a tough read, but they do work on that. It's easy to sit back and see something happen and bitch because we don't execute it right and claim that they don't work on it as a staff and don't teach fundamentals. They work on these situations. I can assure you of that.

I don't mean this toward you but if that's how they're teaching it nowadays I hate it. I prefer the old way. Seems less risky and more proven

[Jacksondevildog]

Understood. It's a gamble to put pressure on the infielder to make a good throw after moving to catch the ball. Basically, teams that are aggressive on the bases teach this. If you are old school station to station baseball, then you probably don't like it. Our team at MSU almost has to hit 4 singles to score a run. If we don't put pressure on the defense, we struggle. It also puts more pressure on the defender the next time that situation comes up. They may try to hurry their throw or rush to the ball, causing an error. It's a mental philosophy. It's not an exact written rule on how to do it. Some guys like to bunt a lot and some don't. It's baseball and everyone has a different opinion on it.

[ButcherShop]

Sounds like we need to hire RougeDawg**

I was gonna say the exact same thing. No wonder we were only a national finalist last year. Had RougeDawg been at the helm we would've won that series easily.

[engie]

Since this subject came up last night I have a question for the newer generation baseball guys here.

In Sunday's game versus Vandy we had a man on third, less than two outs and the corners in. A one hopper was hit directly to the first baseman and the guy on 3rd runs home on contact. Of course the throw beats him home so bad that he gets caught in a rundown.

Is this how they teach it now? To run on contact in that situation? They used to tell us to see the ball through the infield before you commit.

State still teaches 3 different things now which are basically universal across baseball -- and that call is given from the 3rd base coach depending on situation. That's down angle contact, down angle up the middle past the pitcher, and make it go through. Can be any one of the 3 depending on situation.

I'm pretty sure in that situation, we were in down angle up the middle past the pitcher -- and got a bad read/baserunning blunder on 3rd. If we were straight down angle with that potentially being a huge run against a team we were unlikely to score many against, we need our damn heads examined....

[shoeless joe]

Understood. It's a gamble to put pressure on the infielder to make a good throw after moving to catch the ball. Basically, teams that are aggressive on the bases teach this. If you are old school station to station baseball, then you probably don't like it. Our team at MSU almost has to hit 4 singles to score a run. If we don't put pressure on the defense, we struggle. It also puts more pressure on the defender the next time that situation comes up. They may try to hurry their throw or rush to the ball, causing an error. It's a mental philosophy. It's not an exact written rule on how to do it. Some guys like to bunt a lot and some don't. It's baseball and everyone has a different opinion on it.

Exactly. Different philosophy in different situations.

[smootness]

They now teach to run on down angle with corners in on 1st and 3rd if the down angle pulls the infielder to either side. Worst case scenario is you are out at the plate and you still have runners at 1st and 2nd with 2 outs (maybe even 1st and 3rd with a run down). The fielder will have to make a play that moves him and make a good throw at the plate. Unfortunately, we took off and the ball was right at him. It's a tough read, but they do work on that. It's easy to sit back and see something happen and bitch because we don't execute it right and claim that they don't work on it as a staff and don't teach fundamentals. They work on these situations. I can assure you of that.

I do not like this strategy. I like being aggressive, but I hate 'making a player make a play'. If it's an easy play to make, many more times than not you're just going to be screwed by 'making him make the play'. It it's going to be very close, then maybe you gamble.

But to me, if you're at 3rd and the ball is hit right back to the 1B, there is no upside to running home. Sure, there's a chance the 1B skies the throw into the stands, but that chance is pretty slim. Much more likely is that you're dead at home.

And there is no downside to waiting a split second longer - if the 1B fields it cleanly, you're still at 3B. If he doesn't or the ball gets through, no one is going to throw you out at home from the OF on it.

[Jacksondevildog]

The only argument with running with a ball hit to 1B is the first baseman will be holding the runner on and won't be able to get as far in once he shuffles off. Once again, he is sort of moving once the pitch is thrown and barely has time to get set. Once again, not a single person on this board knows the absolute right way to play that situation because there isn't one. A lot of that is based on your personnel and personality as a coach and what you are trying to teach your team.

[smootness]

The only argument with running with a ball hit to 1B is the first baseman will be holding the runner on and won't be able to get as far in once he shuffles off. Once again, he is sort of moving once the pitch is thrown and barely has time to get set. Once again, not a single person on this board knows the absolute right way to play that situation because there isn't one. A lot of that is based on your personnel and personality as a coach and what you are trying to teach your team.

But if you wait and see the ball through, there's not a reason to gamble. If you go on contact and the 1B isn't able to get there, great, you score. If you go on contact and the 1B is able to get there, you're dead at home.

If you see the ball through and the 1B isn't able to get there, you still score. If you see the ball through and the 1B is able to get there, then you're still at 3B. There is no downside in that situation to seeing the ball through.

[Jacksondevildog]

What about eliminating the double play if there is 1 out? They throw home, runner is out, and you have first and second (maybe 3rd with a run down) with 2 outs. The rule that I am talking about is doing it with less than 2 outs.

[engie]

But if you wait and see the ball through, there's not a reason to gamble. If you go on contact and the 1B isn't able to get there, great, you score. If you go on contact and the 1B is able to get there, you're dead at home.

If you see the ball through and the 1B isn't able to get there, you still score. If you see the ball through and the 1B is able to get there, then you're still at 3B. There is no downside in that situation to seeing the ball through.

You are taking a situational snapshot and assuming it's always that simple when it isn't...

I would have been in "up the middle past the pitcher" there -- but you are definitely not in "make it go through" there. "Make it go through" is generally reserved for big leads or big deficits -- and situations like a lead off triple where you have a runner on 3rd with no outs where you are likely to get multiple opportunities to score him(and even that one is generally up the middle past the pitcher)...

You generally gamble more as you have more outs. No outs "make it go through"(sometimes -- certainly not all the time), 1 out "up the middle past the pitcher", 2 outs "down angle/contact".

I'm almost positive that we were in "up the middle past the pitcher" there and had one of several terrible baserunning blunders... I don't "think" that was a called play. And if it was, and we were in true down angle, we need our damn heads examined....

[BLC]

Bottom line in that particular situation, you likely need a sac fly or a hit to score that run - 1 out, 1st & 3rd. If you have contact go or any variation of down angle go, then you've also been coached to be sure batter-runner gets to second or score. Generally, two outcomes. 1) runner at 3rd scores, 2) runner at 3rd is toast, runner gets to second while in rundown (which occurred). You are a little worse off (about 4-5% worse), but still have a runner in scoring position with 2 outs. Guarantee you, if there were no outs, runner at third goes nowhere until ball clears.

[BLC]

FYI - we were in down angle there, if that helps to frame the discussion at all.

[Jacksondevildog]

There y'all go>>>
FYI - we were in down angle there, if that helps to frame the discussion at all.

[Bullmutt]

Interesting discussion, but could someone, for the sake of us old farts whose knowledge of current baseball terminology is long past, please define "down angle"?

[Jacksondevildog]

Ball that goes down off of the bat.

[smootness]

You are taking a situational snapshot and assuming it's always that simple when it isn't...

I would have been in "up the middle past the pitcher" there -- but you are definitely not in "make it go through" there. "Make it go through" is generally reserved for big leads or big deficits -- and situations like a lead off triple where you have a runner on 3rd with no outs where you are likely to get multiple opportunities to score him(and even that one is generally up the middle past the pitcher)...

You generally gamble more as you have more outs. No outs "make it go through"(sometimes -- certainly not all the time), 1 out "up the middle past the pitcher", 2 outs "down angle/contact".

I'm almost positive that we were in "up the middle past the pitcher" there and had one of several terrible baserunning blunders... I don't "think" that was a called play. And if it was, and we were in true down angle, we need our damn heads examined....

This is all true, I was speaking specifically of a 'go on contact on the ground' rule, meaning that even if it's hit to 1B specifically, the runner would run home. So I was speaking of hits to the 1B area; if it's up the middle, sure, go. That's just smart baserunning.

And you're right that we may not have called it that way. You definitely need to be a smart baserunner; a coach can't tell you absolutely any possible scenario and then make you do what he's telling you. Smart baserunning tells me that if a ball is hit right back to 1B, you don't go home. Smart baserunning also tells me that if a ball is hit toward 2B and is past the pitcher, you do go home. I don't ever even remember being taught that, it just seemed to be common sense.

Jacksondevildog does bring up a good point, though, about eliminating a double play to end the inning by going home, and that's a legitimate argument that I hadn't thought about. I didn't realize the specific situation here had one out and a runner at 1st. In that case, I'm ok with sending the guy home on any contact down.

[Bullmutt]

Thanks!

[tcdog70]

Ball that goes down off of the bat.

so" Down Angle" in the New -"Ball on the ground"?

[fevans]

I too was confused. It sounds like "down angle" is new-fangled technical jargon for what my generation called a grounder. Nice!

[Todd4State]

The thing about base running in general is this: You have to allow a certain margin for error because players are going to screw up from time to time. I've seen veteran All-Star, HOF baseball players screw up. A bunch of college kids are definitely going to screw it up from time to time. I think baseball fans- not just State fans- think that base running mistakes just shouldn't happen ever.

The other thing about base running is sometimes we're going to do something and it's just not going to work out. It's sort of like calling a play in football and the play not working out. On the flip side- it's also going to work out sometimes as well. But when it works out well, most people don't take note but if it doesn't work, people are more likely going to notice and it's going to get pointed out.

[engie]

That's exactly right Todd.

The same crap we're upset about in the SEMO game got in Beede and Vandy's heads a few days earlier...

I love aggression. It just sucks when you have 4-5 things in a game that string together that are boneheaded plays or aggression plays that don't work out. It happens with us 3-4 times a year and people get pissed(myself included). Just hate the contagion of that stuff with this particular team. We've seen it with errors -- and pitchers getting hit hard too this year.

We're getting better, but we've got to find a way to stop the bleeding on some of this stuff quicker/inside the course of a game...

[shoeless joe]

I too was confused. It sounds like "down angle" is new-fangled technical jargon for what my generation called a grounder. Nice!

If the runner reads "grounder" then they will wait to see the ball on the ground to run. If the runner reads "down angle" they will take of when they see the ball go down off the bat. Much difference? No...but on a bang bang play at the plate it may be the difference.

[RougeDawg]

I was gonna say the exact same thing. No wonder we were only a national finalist last year. Had RougeDawg been at the helm we would've won that series easily.

You two clowns (Rayn_Man included) obviously know as much about baseball as I do piloting the Space Shuttle Endeavour or Mars Rover. Come back after you have more advanced baseball knowledge that the Tee-Ball level. As others have stated and confirmed, I know what the **** I am talking about.

[fevans]

If the runner reads "grounder" then they will wait to see the ball on the ground to run. If the runner reads "down angle" they will take of when they see the ball go down off the bat. Much difference? No...but on a bang bang play at the plate it may be the difference.

Not really. The runner should be able to read a "grounder" by the "downward angle" the projectile takes as it leaves the hand-held trajectory-altering device before it actually hits the ground. :)

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

You two clowns (Rayn_Man included) obviously know as much about baseball as I do piloting the Space Shuttle Endeavour or Mars Rover. Come back after you have more advanced baseball knowledge that the Tee-Ball level. As others have stated and confirmed, I know what the **** I am talking about.
Lol, ignorance is bliss....

[fevans]

Not really. The runner should be able to read a "grounder" by the "downward angle" the projectile takes as it leaves the hand-held trajectory-altering device before it actually hits the ground. :)

Ok, I must confess. I obviously have never heard the term "down angle", but I did a quick search in the Ron Polk Baseball Playbook...yes that Ron Polk, and he does reference "down angle" quite a few times:

It is a good base running philosophy to attempt to score from third base with one out when the runner reads the down angle on the ball off the bat.
….
By going on the down angle with one out, the runner at third base will force the infielder or pitcher to make a clean play on the ground ball.

So, I hope that I can the baseball god(s) can forgive my ignorance. I promise to read the good book more. :)

[shoeless joe]

Not really. The runner should be able to read a "grounder" by the "downward angle" the projectile takes as it leaves the hand-held trajectory-altering device before it actually hits the ground. :)

If, when coaching the game of baseball, one makes assumptions about what players "should" be able to do based on the information given to them then one would not be around very long. If a coach wants kids to read the downward angle of the ball of the bat then they better tell the players "read down angle". Good coaches don't assume anything.

[smootness]

Not really. The runner should be able to read a "grounder" by the "downward angle" the projectile takes as it leaves the hand-held trajectory-altering device before it actually hits the ground. :)

Pretty much this - you're reading the same thing. A ball with a downward angle off the bat is going to be read by everyone as 'grounder' immediately.

[tcdog70]

Pretty much this - you're reading the same thing. A ball with a downward angle off the bat is going to be read by everyone as 'grounder' immediately.

Dang Smoot, I'm with you on this

[fevans]

If, when coaching the game of baseball, one makes assumptions about what players "should" be able to do based on the information given to them then one would not be around very long. If a coach wants kids to read the downward angle of the ball of the bat then they better tell the players "read down angle". Good coaches don't assume anything.

That's an excellent point. I've obviously never had a good coach. Again, I humbly submit myself for punishment by the baseball god(s). :)

[smootness]

Dang Smoot, I'm with you on this

Haha, it does exist!