Infield In

[TooLiveBrew]

I posted this on The Book's blog, but got totally ignored, so I thought I'd try it here:

 

I want to ask about playing the IF in. Last night's Game 5 provided an intersting result on a play in the 6th inning where the Rays had drawn in their infield, only to see Werth bloop one into shallow CF (Iwamura nearly made the catch), scoring Jenkins.

Now, Werth is only a career 38% GB batter (39% in '08), which appears to be at least 'below-league-average' if not a tad lower. Furthermore, TB's Balfour has just a 34% career GB rate (29% in '08). Is the chance at turning a grounder into an out at the plate really worth taking away the chances at other batted balls? A blooper is just one way in which a drawn-in IF can be beaten on a play it could otherwise make.

Is this just another 'old baseball' tactic that will never die, or is there more merit to having the IF drawn in there? Geoff Jenkins is about as slow a runner as you could have at 3B, to boot.

[TooLiveBrew]

*Bump*

 

Has this gone un-answered because I'm missing something incredibly simple? I could totally see that being the case...

[rluzinski]

I think you are getting ignored because it's a hard question to answer. I think it's generally a bad idea to play your infield in but I have little evidence to support that opinion. Until we keep track of pre-pitch defensive positioning, it's a tough thing to study.

[TooLiveBrew]

Ok, appreciate the feedback rluz. To me it seems like playing the IF in is akin to issuing an IBB so you don't get beat by a HR. Kinda playing for slim outcomes.

 

And it's not that I think playing the IF in is inherently a bad/good idea, but I'm pretty damn sure Maddon didn't check any GB/FB splits on the pitcher or batter in that situation... he didn't have to... you 'have' to play the IF in there! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif I doubt managers put much thought into playing the IF in, which bugs me. As with most matchups in basebally, there certainly appears to be times to play it & times to not.

[JJHardy7]

Now, Werth is only a career 38% GB batter (39% in '08), which appears to be at least 'below-league-average' if not a tad lower. Furthermore, TB's Balfour has just a 34% career GB rate (29% in '08).

 

I think the stats with baseball are great, but at the same time you can't always rely on stats in every situation. Balfour may have a low career GB rate, but let's face it he's not a GB pitcher. He's a strikeout pitcher. Maybe they thought he'd 'make the pitch' to get a grounder, but that's an entire different discussion I guess. Maybe it was a matchup thing? It's a good question TLB don't get me wrong. I do wonder though what stats managers look at in each situation.

[logan82]

I think the infield in thing seems to fall under one of those MLB managery things much like having a designated closer. Just seems to be something managers do without regard to stats.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think the stats with baseball are great, but at the same time you can't always rely on stats in every situation.

 

Oh definitely. And in my example from the WS, I'm definitely 'micro-managing' when it comes to analyzing the situation -- it just got me wondering about this, and the specific example happens to raise (imo) an interesting question since both Balfour & Werth trend towards putting the ball in the air.

 

By no means do I mean it as a concrete/'I told you so!' example. Werth could have grounded to 2B & the IF being in might have saved a run. But I agree with Logan that it's a MLB Managery thing. No thought put into it more than, 'Ok... gotta play the IF in now...'

[logan82]

Well Macha seems to be in support of the infield in thing as well so it seems more like a managery thing than it did last year,

[rluzinski]

It sounds like we are only a couple years away from knowing where all the fielders are at all times (not sure if it's going to be available publicly). Someone will be able to answer your question soon.