Defensive Indifference

[UeckerAddict]

Before I ask my question, let me state, yes-I know what defensive indifference is, how to score it, etc. No need to explain that to me.

 

However, I have never received a satisfactory answer for why you do not try to throw the runner out. People say "because that run doesn't matter." Yeah, but they're giving you a free chance at an out.

 

Remember the Texas game? The one where we were up 3-0 with 2 out in the ninth? The first runner who got on went to second without a throw "because that run didn't matter." But it was a chance to get out number three, which we never got and ended up losing. If the run doesn't matter, why not try to get an out, which would matter. I don't see why you don't try.

[nullbyte]

One reason not to attempt a throw -- and this doesn't even apply in a blowout -- is when there's a runner on 3rd, and throwing to 2nd would risk allowing the runner on 3rd to score.

[Brian the Automator]

With the first baseman not holding the runner on and the pitcher not pitching from the stretch, a throw wouldn't matter.

[UeckerAddict]

That's not the instance I'm talking about. I understand that one (and I think that one is actually credited with a stolen base). I'm talking about one man on, going to second.

[UeckerAddict]

With the first baseman not holding the runner on and the pitcher not pitching from the stretch, a throw wouldn't matter.

 

That makes sense, although I've seen some pretty slow guys going to second. Besides, some (most?) of our relievers who give up the defensive indifference always pitch from the stretch.

[jazzytrav]

I understand Brian's point, but it doesn't make sense to me why they don't bother to keep the runner on. Does the pitcher lose that much if he's throwing from the stretch? And normally if the 1st basemen is holding the runner he at least is able to get into some kind of position before the ball has a chance of being hit. One more question regarding this: Even if the pitcher doesn't throw from the stretch and the 1st basemen is off the bag, what kind of jump is the runner really getting? I haven't payed close enough attention to that part, but I sometimes wonder if the runner isn't lollygaggin it to 2nd assuming there won't be a throw.

 

I tend to agree that it would be nice to see someone try to throw them out and end the game rather than dink around with defensive indifference.

[Brian the Automator]

Holding the runner on puts the 1st baseman in a bad position to field the ball.

[dadofandrew]

It's like trying to throw out a runner tagging from 3B on a fly ball to the warning track...you don't have much of a chance.

 

The 1B plays deep to cut off a base hit, so he's not holding the runner. The 2B/SS have to play closer to 2B so they can get there in time, so they do not cover nearly as much ground either.

 

It simply makes no sense to concern yourself with a meaningless runner...if you held the runner on, they would not run.

[jason21nl]

It simply makes no sense to concern yourself with a meaningless runner

 

that runner is not always meaningless though. In the texas game a player stole second to get into scoring positon. The next batter singled and scored the guy from second to tie the game. Thats not meaningless because the runner never would have scored from first on that hit. I personally don't like that rule, it should be a stolen base to me. He was on first, now he is on second, he took that base. It shouldn't matter if one team cared or not. Either way, he still took that base. and sometimes, taking that base can lead to a win, like the texas game.

[TCSM]

I agree with the original poster. Every runner should matter at every time. We're a team on a rise, not a dynasty. I know that that runner might only hurt us a few times but those few in the end could really hurt us.

[Brian the Automator]

[ that runner is not always meaningless though. In the texas game a player stole second to get into scoring positon. The next batter singled and scored the guy from second to tie the game. Thats not meaningless because the runner never would have scored from first on that hit. ]

 

Yes, in that case it's not really "meaningless". However, in cases where the team us up by 2-3 runs in the bottom of the ninth, it is meaningless because if he scores from 2nd and it matters, he scores from first and it matters.

[Fatter than Joey]

I think at some point you probably want your pitcher to focus on the batter and not worry about the baserunner. Not having your 1b hold a runner on, and not having your middle IFers running around to cover 2b makes it easier to retire the batter.

 

Regardless if the run is meaningless -- I think that they should count as SBs. I am not sure I understand why a distinction should be made.

[sauveb]

It is a matter of playing percentages. Like Al said, you want to keep your 1st baseman and the middle infielders in prime defensive positions. If the 1b holds the runner on and someone moves to take the throw it opens up more hitting lanes for the batter. The defenders are in there spots for a reason, those are the most likely places for the ball to be hit. You don't want to give your opponents a better chance for a hit.

[jason21nl]

maybe during the time it might not mean anything to let a player advance one base but if that run comes into score and it effects the outcome of the game. maybe the offical scorer should change the ruling at the end of the game from defensive indifference to a SB. just throwing it out there

[rluzinski]

maybe during the time it might not mean anything to let a player advance one base but if that run comes into score and it effects the outcome of the game.

 

But the runner is not given the free base unless his run IS meaningless. If a team has a 2 run lead and the opposition gets a runner on, it doesn't matter much if he's at first or third. The team is willing to trade the force out possibility to decrease the chance of a hit getting through the infield and letting the tying run on. Batters have a higher BA with a runner at 2B, especially LH batters, who can really take advantage of the hole left from holding a runner on.

[Bucky Rules]

Quote:

---

Batters have a higher BA with a runner at 2B, especially LH batters, who can really take advantage of the hole left from holding a runner on.

---

 

I think this was intended to read "with a runner at 1B".

[BillScottCanRake]

maybe during the time it might not mean anything to let a player advance one base but if that run comes into score and it effects the outcome of the game.

 

As Brian said, if that runner scoring eventually matters, him moving to second doesn't matter, as he'd have scored from first had he remained there.

 

Remember the Texas game? The one where we were up 3-0 with 2 out in the ninth? The first runner who got on went to second without a throw "because that run didn't matter." But it was a chance to get out number three, which we never got and ended up losing. If the run doesn't matter, why not try to get an out, which would matter. I don't see why you don't try.

 

When a team is ahead 3-0 with two outs and a runner on first, they really don't care about that runner. Does he have to score for the other team to come back? Sure, but they don't specifically care about preventing that runner from scoring. They will trade that runner scoring for one more out 100 times out of 100.

 

In the case of the Brewers-Rangers, to keep the runner close enough to first to give the catcher a realistic shot at throwing out the runner, Fielder (or Graffy?) would have had to hold the runner at first. The Brewers clearly felt they had a better chance retiring the hitter by aligning as if no one was on base than they did retiring the base runner going to second.

 

It's that willingness of teams to trade a player moving up one base for better defensive alignment (not holding the runner) combined with the lack of importance of that run that makes it defensive indifference and not a steal. And that's why it is defensive indifference even if that run eventually scores and the offensive team ties or wins the game in that inning. That run was important, but the defensive team was indifferent about it.

[stoutdude04]

I have to agree with most here. I would assume its because the first baseman will be in a more defensive position as well as the pitcher concentrating more on the hitter in order to not give up a big fly. Thats what I have always felt anyways.

[jazzytrav]

This is just a curiousity thing, but has anyone ever tried a pitch-out on the first pitch in this situation? This is assuming that it's a slow runner, maybe someone like Adam Dunn or something, and he's putting much less effort into the "steal" than normal.