extra infielder

[Memphis]

There is a high school coach in our area who employs a rather unique strategy in runners-at-1st-and-2nd bunt situations with a weak hitter at the plate. There are no outs.

We have all seen these situations where everybody in the park knows the batter is going to bunt with runners at 1st and 2nd in a close game. The fact that the batter is not a particularly strong hitter makes the likelihood even greater.

They bring their left fielder in to play a deep 3rd base position and his responsibility is to cover the bag on a force play. The actual 3rd baseman plays up close to the hitter. The 1st baseman is also in the batter's face. The shortstop keeps the runner fairly close at 2nd.

There is really no good place to bunt. And when the batter does, they frequently get the force out at 3rd.

When the weak batter attempts to swing away, he frequently grounds into a double play.

Only two outfielders are covering the outfield.

This tactic works with tremendous frequency. And the fielders know exactly what to do. It's obvious they have been well trained in this unique defensive tactic.

When the weak hitter attempts to swing away, he frequently strikes out or hits into a double play. When he attempts to bunt, he fails to advance the runners about 50% of the time - which is a stark difference since most bunts in this situation are successful in advancing the runners - especially if it's placed down the 3rd baseline.

Basically, they are CHALLENGING the other team to have the weak hitter swing away and try to take advantage of the 2-outfielder setup.

It's uncanny. They almost NEVER get burned in this situation.

Very interesting to watch.

Having said all this, I was wondering: After all the years baseball has been in existence, it's curious how there seems to be a HUGE consensus as to how the defenders are to be generally positioned even though the rules permit the fielders to position themselves just about anywhere. (Except the pitcher and catcher) Who says there have to be 3 outfielders? Why not 4? Why not 2?

I wonder why we don't see more creativity like this at the MLB level? Maybe not this, specifically, but something more creative than the vanilla style baseball we always see. The most creative thing we see is some kind of a shift for a pull hitter. That's about it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Utility07]

Because in highschool your 8 or 9 hitter commonly cannot catch up to a good fastball, or hit a decent breakingball. In MLB, EVERYONE can hit a fastball. Same reason why in his tactic, the leftfielder is in. Only way that kid if gonna pull that ball is if he closes his eyes and swings, and gets completely lucky.

[brett]

Just to be clear about the first and third baseman, they can not be closer to the hitter than the bag, at the time the pitch is thrown-correct?

Second, I have seen estimates that an average batter would hit about 50 points higher and slugg about 100 points higher against a 2 outfielder arrangement.

Third, if the hitter were really a great bunter, and the runners were going on the pitch, its still a very tough play.

[Memphis]

Just to be clear about the first and third baseman, they can not be closer to the hitter than the bag, at the time the pitch is thrown-correct?

Second, I have seen estimates that an average batter would hit about 50 points higher and slugg about 100 points higher against a 2 outfielder arrangement.

Third, if the hitter were really a great bunter, and the runners were going on the pitch, its still a very tough play.

The rules permit the fielders to play anywhere in fair territory at the time of the pitch as long as they are not distracting the batter - with the obvious exception of the catcher who must be in the catcher's box and the pitcher who must be in contact with the pitcher's plate.

It's tough to lay down an effective bunt when you have *both* the 3rd and 1st baseman camped out in your face.

Also, to keep the runner at 2nd close, they effectively are faking a pickoff play on every pitcher. The shortstop breaks for the bag just prior to the pitcher lifting his leg and the runner has to respect that the pitcher is executing an "inside move" - consequently, he stays close or is actually breaking BACK to the bag during the pitch. And, just to keep the runner honest, the pitcher makes liberal usage of the "inside move" to insure the runner doesn't take a large lead in anticipation of the bunt.

If he attempts to steal, the 3rd baseman has no need to worry since the left fielder is covering the bag.

All I can say is that this defensive setup has prevented about half of the sacrifice bunt attempts and has forced a lot of ground ball double plays. I can count on one hand how many shots have been sent into the outfield that would have been caught by a conventionally configured outfield. Even the base hits are routine enough that the lack of the third outfielder wasn't even a factor.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Tango Tiger]

Who says there have to be 3 outfielders? Why not 4? Why not 2?

I wonder why we don't see more creativity like this at the MLB level? Maybe not this, specifically, but something more creative than the vanilla style baseball we always see. The most creative thing we see is some kind of a shift for a pull hitter. That's about it.


There are a few times every year that you will see 5 infielders, if it's the bottom of the 9th, and a fast runner is on 3B, and the manager wants to try it.

"Some kind" of shift... they are pretty enormous shifts, when an infielder is playing "rover" and you have no infielder between 2B and 3B.

The difference is that even a pitcher is a "good" hitter in MLB. Randy Johnson for example is an ugly looking hitter:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=60&position=hitter

551 PA (excluding SH, HBP), 249 K, 13 BB. But, when he makes contact (which is around 50% of the time), it will be hit in the OF one-third of the time. So, 17% of the time, he hits it to the OF. This is not the same as someone hitting it to OF 1% of the time.