When to play the Infield in

[FVBrewerFan]

So we've talked at length about the bullpen fiasco last night. Frankly, I don't care anymore. Epic fail, nothing more to say really.

 

What bothers me most if RR comment in his press conf last night.

 

Q: "Ron, your decision to play the IF in, in the 7th?"

A: (RR almost amazed it's even questionable) "Yea, you always try to prevent the tying run from scroing when you're on the road."

 

This worried me much more, because unlike the bullpen brain fart, this tells me he will continue to play the IF in whenever he's in this situation. Why would you care more about the tying run than the winning run? Everything is risk/reward right?

 

You play the IF back, worse case game is tied and you have 2 outs. Best case you get a hard grounder, and you can still gun the runner at the plate. Play the IF in, worst case is you not only give up the tying run, but the winning run. Plus, you open the door for an even bigger inning. Not to mention this was the 7th inning, not the 9th. The game is tied, you still have 2 innings to take the lead back. So would the strategy by the same in the 6th? In the 4th? While I'm not a fan of this, even intential walk would have been better to set-up DP.

 

Really makes me wonder if he read the manager handbook carefully. Just a runner on 3rd only, IF in in that situation makes sense. Runners on 2nd and 3rd, makes no sense. I don't know the success/failure rate on brining the IF in, but it seems to fail more often than not. Which would add even more evidence it is a horrible strategy.

 

Finally, I find this interesting. If playing for a tie at that point in the game on the orad is unacceptable, then why does he do it on offense? If they were down by a run, he would have everyone bunting like crazy to get that one run to tie right? Instead of playing to win. Think about that. He's not even consistent with his own strategy of "you never want to play for a tie on the road."

 

Maybe it's just that I'm still fired up after the loss, it was a tough one. But would love to hear other thoughts.

[jerichoholicninja]

The only situation you play in the infield in every time is with less than two outs in the 9th or later with the winning run on third base on the road. Any other situation requires the context of inning, score, batter, pitcher, runner on third. I think infield in is one of those gut/take a chance and see what happens kind of things.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I was simply baffled at that point myself. I don't even know what to say. Someone in the game thread said that may have been the worst managed inning he's ever seen. I still think the Yost/Shouse/Burrel/Howard thing is the single worst managerial DECISION I've ever seen, but yeah.....as far as an entire inning.......Ron just .......wow. That was an epic disaster last night in the 7th.

 

 

http://gifstumblr.com/images/titanic-sinking_756.gif

[JohnBriggs12]

Unless you are in a situation where one run is critical, you should always take the approach to try and cut off big innings. Big innings take you out of games. Play back and don't make a .250 hitter into a .350 hitter especially with a runner at 2nd too.

 

Roenicke has a hard time with this concept as he's always content to play for one run at the expense of potential for big innings. Bunting early in games against a pitcher who's being knocked around pretty good just keeps the opponent in the game when you should be trying to knock them out of it. Oh if you execute (a big if sometimes) you get a run here and there and might build a 2-3 run lead, but that's not enough as we saw in the last 24 hours.

[3and2Fastball]

It was especially troubling because if the Infield had been playing back it was a tailor made double play right there for the taking

[DuWayne Steurer]

It was especially troubling because if the Infield had been playing back it was a tailor made double play right there for the taking

 

 

Nobody on first at the time, iirc.

[TURBO]

Did you see his face when he made that comment and the ones about the bull pen fiasco? He just looked lost. I actually felt a bit sad for the guy during that interview. He was a beaten man, and I think for the first time he actually questioned his stupidity. I also believe that after he made the comments about playing the IF in, even though he was acting confident in his answer, he didn't believe it. He looked bewildered.

 

It was just an awkward interview, and I felt a little sickened by the situation...

[LouisEly]

If Thornburg is going to step in for Gallardo for a game, that creates a situation where the bullpen is short and thus they cannot afford to have an extra inning game. They said that Thornburg wasn't available, even though it was the second day after going 3.2 innings. If that's the case, then I'm fine with pulling the infield in and going for the win.

[markedman5]

TT isn't stepping in for Gallardo though.....Nelson is.....

[joepepsi]

The only situation you play in the infield in every time is with less than two outs in the 9th or later with the winning run on third base on the road.

This is the only time the strategy is justifiable. Even then, I have never seen that it works. Whenever a team does this in the 9th, I turn off the TV because it's game over.

[RightFieldCoder]

I wouldn't have minded if there was only a runner on third. Then it becomes a match-up problem. You should only do it with two runners on if you don't care about the 2nd run. Up by one is not one of those instances.