Roenicke's obsession with playing infield in

[JohnBriggs12]

Last night's game illustrated the absurd strategy of playing the infield in with a runner on third and less than two outs.

 

What manager other than Roenicke plays the infield in with no score in the second inning? At that point in the game don't you worry more about a game getting away from you early with a big inning? As it was the Cubs scored on what would have been a routine grounder to short. But had they had the infield back there would then be two outs and nobody on instead of one out and a runner of first. That means barring a double play it adds to pitch count of the starter and to the likelihood of more runs scoring that inning. Ridiculous. It would have made more sense to walk a guy to set up a double play possibility with a ground ball pitcher like Peralta on the mound. He did it again in the 4th, but that's at least defensible in that it was obvious the Brewers were having issues with Hendricks and they were already down by one.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I didn't agree with the strategy either. The argument for it could be with the bottom of the lineup coming up, they could probably get out of the inning anyway even with the runner at first so why not try it. I can see that side. Walking a guy risks an even bigger inning so I probably don't do that either. At the end of the day they got shut out and the runner at first didn't score so it really didn't hurt them, but that really isn't the point.

 

What troubled me was RR's answer to Adam McCalvy's question after the game. RR mentioned he felt it was a good play and the odds were in his favor. McCalvy asked him if he got that from his stat guys (great question). He said no it's based on what he sees. That is a horrible answer. If he can't back that play up with some tangible evidence that what he is doing is putting the odds in his favor, it's just dumb. While I didn't like the call, it was RR's answer and his way of determining that call that is the root of the problem.

[JohnBriggs12]

Ruggiano, the hitter in this instance, strikes out a lot so there were ways to prevent that run without playing in too. While I don't have the numbers to back it up, the old saying was you make a .200 hitter into a .300 hitter and a .300 hitter into a .400 hitter by playing the infield in. I have more of a problem with when it was done. In the 2nd inning the objective needs to be preventing big innings at all costs. A single run in the 2nd normally won't beat you. Multiple runs and added pitches and stress for your starter will.

[danzig6767]

I'd almost always play the infield in with a runner on third and one out early in a tie game or if losing. The chance to prevent a run on a ground ball to me would trump the chance playing in allows for a grounder to sneak through for a single.

 

To many games are decided by a single run for me to worry more about a single getting through vs potentially keeping a run off the board by playing the infield in.

 

Now if there are no outs in that situation, then i'd keep the infield back unless the 8th hitter is up with the pitcher to follow.